AP Fix

June 23, 2021

2 hours ago, Q_Walker said:

At this point nothing you say helps the conversation. Your constant babbling does nothing for the conversation. Take a hike.

He is not the only one. At this point I'm convinced that some people on here just want to spend their time trolling the developers, and have set up one account to post in the forum with and another account that they fly with. Any serious posts are just lost in the general cacophony of inane babble.

June 23, 2021

12 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

So long as these are the expectations there will be little happiness

Indeed. I posted this a while ago, but it bears worth repeating again. It's from the account of a III./JG 54 190 D-9 pilot from October 15, 1944:

At the same instant my machine was hit. Holes appeared in both wings and the canopy flew away. I hauled my machine around to the right. Why, I can no longer say. Instinct? Perhaps! But one has not time to think about it, for it all took only fractions of a second. And so I broke away in a tight turn to the right. While in the turn I saw a P-47 about 100 meters above me in a left turn. As we passed, the enemy pilot looked down and I looked up. I don't know why he didn't keep pursuing me. Perhaps he couldn't turn as tight as I. I also recall that the P-47 had a checkerboard design in front.I subsequently flew very low and and purely by chance came straight to Hesepe airfield.

After landing I surveyed the damage. I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

June 23, 2021

It would be dreadfully boring if even poor shots resulted in kills (*coughlikeflyinggermannow*)

What we are trying to eliminate is the flying bullet sponge moments and when you boom and zoom someone, strike them well and have to fight a aircraft that flies like it has no damage.

If you haven't taken the time to try the mod, please do. Input from everyone is greatly appreciated because it's not just our game.

It didn't reward poorly aimed shots in my experience. A sloppy gas and pass rarely provided a kill even against the AI.

If I had two wishes in the current DM it would be the addition of this mod and a reduction of the drag effect from HE hits. Or at very least locking the MGs to AP only.

EDIT

I forgot about the UBs.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum

June 23, 2021

32 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Indeed. I posted this a while ago, but it bears worth repeating again. It's from the account of a III./JG 54 190 D-9 pilot from October 15, 1944:

At the same instant my machine was hit. Holes appeared in both wings and the canopy flew away. I hauled my machine around to the right. Why, I can no longer say. Instinct? Perhaps! But one has not time to think about it, for it all took only fractions of a second. And so I broke away in a tight turn to the right. While in the turn I saw a P-47 about 100 meters above me in a left turn. As we passed, the enemy pilot looked down and I looked up. I don't know why he didn't keep pursuing me. Perhaps he couldn't turn as tight as I. I also recall that the P-47 had a checkerboard design in front.I subsequently flew very low and and purely by chance came straight to Hesepe airfield.

After landing I surveyed the damage. I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

When people were complaining about P-47 fragility, there was a constant refrain that we had to ignore extraordinary accounts from pilots such as Johnson or Gabreski about how durable the plane was. I'd like to see similar standards apply.

He was lucky to get to his airfield quickly, because a missing canopy and shot up propeller would seriously impact his performance. As it is, a 109 pilot in game right now can just tank 25 hits scattered across the airframe with no change to how the plane responds, reverse, and spray his enemy with HE MG rounds to win the fight.

Hell you can't even damage the 109 in this way in the game right now, there is no way to hit propellers directly and as far as I know there is no way to shoot the canopy away. If there was that kind of granular DM then AP rounds could cause more drag than just a through-and-through clean hit as currently modeled.

June 23, 2021

30 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

When people were complaining about P-47 fragility, there was a constant refrain that we had to ignore extraordinary accounts from pilots such as Johnson or Gabreski about how durable the plane was. I'd like to see similar standards apply.

Excellent point!

I completely agree!

Edited June 23, 2021 by Denum

June 23, 2021

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

After landing I surveyed the damage. I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

Yep, outliers gonna be outliers.
No one is suggesting that 25 hits from AP HMG should cripple the plane (or make it explode) the way a single round of HE HMG can today. What we are asking for is ballistics that make sense - you know, two bullets of similar size and velocity doing similar damage. There is no way you can convince me that 1.4g of PETN can cause a hole the size of a basketball on the surface of a wing.

June 23, 2021

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Indeed. I posted this a while ago, but it bears worth repeating again. It's from the account of a III./JG 54 190 D-9 pilot from October 15, 1944:

At the same instant my machine was hit. Holes appeared in both wings and the canopy flew away. I hauled my machine around to the right. Why, I can no longer say. Instinct? Perhaps! But one has not time to think about it, for it all took only fractions of a second. And so I broke away in a tight turn to the right. While in the turn I saw a P-47 about 100 meters above me in a left turn. As we passed, the enemy pilot looked down and I looked up. I don't know why he didn't keep pursuing me. Perhaps he couldn't turn as tight as I. I also recall that the P-47 had a checkerboard design in front.I subsequently flew very low and and purely by chance came straight to Hesepe airfield.

After landing I surveyed the damage. I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

Given that the entire rest of the staffel was shot down in that engagement, and jagdwaffe casualty rates were around 90% for the late war period, this is the very definition of survivorship bias.

On top of that, no one is complaining about an enemy fighter surviving 25 hits. We’re complaining about them surviving 50, 100 or even more.

June 23, 2021

2 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

Given that the entire rest of the staffel was shot down in that engagement, and jagdwaffe casualty rates were around 90% for the late war period, this is the very definition of survivorship bias.

On top of that, no one is complaining about an enemy fighter surviving 25 hits. We’re complaining about them surviving 50, 100 or even more.

If anything it supports our issue at the foundation, 25 hits was enough to make him combat ineffective. It ruined his engine and blew his canopy off. In IL2 if you don't hit the pilot or cause a fire 25 hits is meaningless.

Edit: @pocketshaver Also using the B25 as your "standard" for how good weapons are is intentionally misleading and an indication you have an agenda. It's made of papermache and poor benchmark for testing.

It's obvious you only have a rudimentary understanding of ammunition ballistics and are dramatically underestimating the .50BMG.

Edited June 24, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC

June 24, 2021

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

Interesting that the seat armor wasn't penetrated even at what must've been pretty close range. Assuming the P-47 he saw was the same that shot him.

4 hours ago, Denum said:

If I had two wishes in the current DM it would be the addition of this mod and a reduction of the drag effect from HE hits. Or at very least locking the the 109/190 MGs to AP only.

It's exactly this kind of argument that makes the .50 complaints sound like wanting MMO classes rebalanced.

Don't make this argument, if you want change. It undermines the entire push to investigate/modify .50 performance. If you genuinely want to see certain aspects of the sim made more historically accurate, great. If you hate Luftwaffe planes in multiplayer and just want to nerf them, that's a different matter entirely. That's a gamer complaint, not a simulation complaint.

Just because Americans/British didn't use HE and only API in sub-cannon calibers doesn't mean the nations that did use them should be punished.

API would only increase flammability rates. It'll do nothing to affect aerodynamics. Any plane firing many HE rounds (both 13mm and 20mm+) will have a greater probability of adversely affecting the aerodynamic stability of its target. That's a fact that will never change, no matter how much .50s are tweaked in this sim.

3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

He was lucky to get to his airfield quickly, because a missing canopy and shot up propeller would seriously impact his performance. As it is, a 109 pilot in game right now can just tank 25 hits scattered across the airframe with no change to how the plane responds, reverse, and spray his enemy with HE MG rounds to win the fight.

If the prop didn't outright break, I'm not sure a few holes in it would make a significant performance difference. Only the canopy hit actually mattered. And it still wouldn't affect plane handling at all, other than lowering the top speed from turbulence and pilot discomfort.

What the 25 hit anecdote shows is that it was possible to get unlucky; where about 20 hits evidently did nothing at all, and only a handful of bullets were responsible for knocking the canopy off.

3 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

There is no way you can convince me that 1.4g of PETN can cause a hole the size of a basketball on the surface of a wing.

Russian 37mm could supposedly blow a 10 square foot hole in a target. So figure out how much explosive was in one of those shells, and then interpolate the hole a 13mm HE should make.

Seriously. Without breaking into the hard science like YakPanther, most of these arguments just come off as whining. Shoot the messenger if you want, but clearly these arguments thus far have gotten people nowhere.

June 24, 2021

9 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

If you want to get some realistic outlook on what the 50 BMG does IN GAME start up a quick mission, put yourself against two Veteran level B 25 and simply follow them at 300 yards distance. You get in the convergence zone for ALL of their guns, your dead..

So, you think American WW II pilots had the luxury of "getting in the convergence zone for ALL of their guns" before they took a shot? Please! You take the shots you can get. If getting to exact convergence was a requirement to make the AP rounds (or any gun for that matter) effective the pilots would have been screaming for new weapons from day one. This is laughable. The .50s were usually not set for a single point of convergence and worked fine like that. Of course, for HE rounds, it matters not, you can just spray at any range and if you land one round you're golden.

Edited June 24, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

June 24, 2021

13 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

So figure out how much explosive was in one of those shells, and then interpolate the hole a 13mm HE should make.

Check out this video - more than four times as much PETN makes a dent about the size of a golf ball in a piece of metal that is twice the thickness of an aircraft fuselage. Now I know nothing about ballistics, physics, and the like... but to me it doesn't add up that we can get literally basketball-sized holes in terms of aerodynamic drag from 1.4g of PETN.

June 24, 2021

23 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

It's exactly this kind of argument that makes the .50 complaints sound like wanting MMO classes rebalanced.

Don't make this argument, if you want change. It undermines the entire push to investigate/modify .50 performance. If you genuinely want to see certain aspects of the sim made more historically accurate, great. If you hate Luftwaffe planes in multiplayer and just want to nerf them, that's a different matter entirely. That's a gamer complaint, not a simulation complaint.

Swing and a miss.

I enjoy flying all the aircraft in game.

I have no meta to protect. If the axis weapons were under performing I'd be in the same position.

I'd sooner see an accurate representation of how the weapons actually worked vs a simulation that indirectly created a damage model that heavily favors one nation's aircraft.

The only sure evidence that I've seen so far is that certain people are very desperate to ensure that advantage remains in place.

June 24, 2021

The 37mm M4 cannon shell had 70 grams of explosive filler.

June 24, 2021

47 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Russian 37mm could supposedly blow a 10 square foot hole in a target. So figure out how much explosive was in one of those shells, and then interpolate the hole a 13mm HE should make.

It's either 49g or 37g of HE filler for the Soviet 37mm. I'll assume 49 grams. So, the radius of a 10 square foot hole is about 1.8 feet. If we reduce the charge to 1.4 grams for 13mm round that's about 3% of what a 37mm carries. So, 3% of 10 sq. ft. is roughly 1/3 of a square foot. That's about a hole 8 inches (200 mm) in diameter. I might buy that with a perfect hit and explosion pattern, but it's HIGHLY unlikely that you'd get that with such a small round. The ratio of filler to casing starts to have big effects on the explosion when the casing is so thick compared to the filler.

Edited June 24, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

June 24, 2021

It should also be noted that the Luftwaffe found the 13mm HEI to be so poor that, when available, those rounds were switched to API/T.

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

Just because something is designated as "high explosive" doesn't mean it was some magical round that deals massive damage. AP and API dealt more structural and component damage than HE of the same calibre, something that is fundamentally missing from the damage model.

Also you're getting off track. While this mod is aimed specifically at the .50BMG, a fix to AP rounds affects ALL planes in the sim.

This is literally a win/win fix, I don't know why people are resisting other than to ensure the .50BMG remains as feeble as is.

Edited June 24, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC

June 24, 2021

Anyone else get a giggle,

That not only is there plenty of footage and some nice charts, but that someone has taken the time to show the actual math for calculating a rounds effectiveness.

And yet

People still argue that the AP rounds are fine.

?

I'll take mine in extra dark please..

June 24, 2021

@oc2209

I've been watching this thread a bit, and you've been missing the point every time back to back to back. I am going to bring this discussion to square one, just so we can get the basics out of the way.

(I'll bullet it for your convenience)

No one serious about a DM revision is looking for an 'MMO rebalance'. We are looking for an accurate portrayal of how weapons perform in a combat flight sim. It's not exactly good at it's job if it can't properly simulate the combat aspect.
As far as I can tell, no one has done an in depth test on the FW 190's armor plating. Anecdotal experiences will not suffice if you want to confirm that they pierce the armor plate 100% of the time.
The reason people are in favor of removing HE rounds from the MG131 (and UB machine guns to an extent) to AP only, is because low yield HE rounds are wildly overmodeled. In the simulation, The MG131 HE round contains 8.3% of the amount of HE you'd find in a 20mm round, yet in IL2 produces a hole thats 85% the size of a 20mm HE round. No one who knows anything about how objects go boom boom would agree with that model. Not only that, but HE rounds for the MG131 are unhistorical as by the BoBp timeline, they've been replaced with API. If everyone is getting treated evenly, they should get their API substituted with AP, just like the American birds.
AP ammunition have no provisions made for tumbling, or oblique entry wounds resulting in any level of gashing. @Yak_Panther has provided a very slick looking method of simulating this, but as of right now, all AP ammo makes perfect little holes. This makes AP ammunition far less useful than HE, which leaves me a little confused. If AP ammo did so little, why wouldn't every nation just run full HE belts (hint: because AP was still damn useful, particularly API).
Big point here: There is no API modeled, and it's not a development priority. Imagine if the devs added the 109K-4 with it's wonderful MK108, but because they didn't want to develop how a higher yield HE shell works, they just gave it AP slugs and left it that way for almost 2(?) years. Again, this is a combat flight sim, not really doin a great job of simulating the combat part.

I'm not here to get .50's buffed, or 20's nerfed. I'm here to advocate for them to get simulated accurately, along with all the other weapons in this game. It's folks like you that don't get a breather and look at all of the research put forward by the community that muddy the waters.

I'll link a little library of important shit that might give you a peek into that world.

Links:

(Initial bug report)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=1060757

(dev response)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=1061006

(response to devs, note no further discourse was had after this point)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=1061303

(post made on proper firing pattern not being used)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/70804-usaaf-convergence-settings-and-tracer-use/

(This is just an aside regarding .50's penetrating pilot armor)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/66396-50-cal-duralumin-penetration/

(regarding free firing weapons being perfectly synced instead of achieving a 'talking guns' effect)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/62267-anm2-50-cal-synchronization-issue-and-proposed-solution/

(another post regarding dispersion of wing mounted weapons)

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/68761-dispersion/

As you can see from the diversity of these points, this isn't about 'balancing the meta', its about making sure it's realistic.

June 24, 2021

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Indeed. I posted this a while ago, but it bears worth repeating again. It's from the account of a III./JG 54 190 D-9 pilot from October 15, 1944:

At the same instant my machine was hit. Holes appeared in both wings and the canopy flew away. I hauled my machine around to the right. Why, I can no longer say. Instinct? Perhaps! But one has not time to think about it, for it all took only fractions of a second. And so I broke away in a tight turn to the right. While in the turn I saw a P-47 about 100 meters above me in a left turn. As we passed, the enemy pilot looked down and I looked up. I don't know why he didn't keep pursuing me. Perhaps he couldn't turn as tight as I. I also recall that the P-47 had a checkerboard design in front.I subsequently flew very low and and purely by chance came straight to Hesepe airfield.

After landing I surveyed the damage. I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

I like how posting anecdotes of single instances is supposed to be evidence of anything.

Clearly the famous story about a P-47 that made it back despite a 190 unloading on it means that this was typical of P-47s. Or the report I read once where a Mustang took 2 20mm to the wings and proceeded to out turn its pursuer and shoot it down.

"

Senator Daniel Inouye served in WWII and was seriously injured while attacking a German position along a ridge in Tuscany. He stood to throw a grenade into a machine gun nest, when one of the gunners shot him in the stomach. Inouye ignored the wound and killed the machine gunners with his Thompson SMG.

Instead of getting out of combat, Inouye continued the attack and destroyed a second machine gun nest before collapsing from blood loss. After collapsing, Inouye crawled toward a third machine gun nest to continue the assault. As he prepared to throw another grenade, a German RPG severed his right arm. He used his left hand to remove the live grenade from his dead right arm and tossed it into the machine gun nest.

After destroying three German positions, being shot in the stomach, having an arm severed by an RPG, and nearly being blown up with his own grenade, Inouye got up and ran around the ridge, shooting at the remaining Germans with his left hand. He continued to do so until he was shot in the leg, fell off the cliff, and was knocked unconscious at the bottom.

When he awoke in a hospital, his friends told him what he had done. He replied, “No. That’s impossible. Only a crazy person would do that.”"

A P-38 after it flew into a Handley Page bomber and kept going, the bomber didnt survive. Clearly we can reliably count on P-38s doing this.

June 24, 2021

2 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@oc2209

I've been watching this thread a bit, and you've been missing the point every time back to back to back. I am going to bring this discussion to square one, just so we can get the basics out of the way.

(I'll bullet it for your convenience)

No one serious about a DM revision is looking for an 'MMO rebalance'. We are looking for an accurate portrayal of how weapons perform in a combat flight sim. It's not exactly good at it's job if it can't properly simulate the combat aspect.

This is absolutely a multiplayer issue.

Pretend for a moment this sim had no competitive component, and just had single or co-op. People would see (as I have seen myself, many times) their target crash after getting 1-2 13mm HE hits to the wing. They'd scratch their heads and think, 'well, that's odd. Probably not very realistic, but whatever.'

No one would be complaining as frequently, urgently, desperately, and vociferously as they presently do, were there not a multiplayer, competitive aspect to the problem. They would see it as an evident disparity with the probable reality of combat, but along with plenty of other small problems that leave you scratching your head, like this 37mm HE screenshot I just took today:

Or this one:

You see these things, and you think, 'well, it's not perfect. The pilot should be dead, or the fuel tank should have exploded. Better luck next time.'

And then you go about your day. But not so with this .50 cal complaint.

"It's not exactly good at it's job if it can't properly simulate the combat aspect."

The thing is, the sim can simulate the combat. Just fine. I have a British single player career, an American, and a Russian, and a German career. I enjoy flying all plane types in quick missions. I can tell you, the combat is fine.

That, I suspect, is why the devs aren't rushing to fix the problem. I'm not saying it makes good business sense for them to do so; I'm not saying they're 100% correct in their handling of the issue.

I'm just saying how I see it, as a single player, from the outside looking in.

I'm not one bit bothered by inconsistencies and head-scratching moments I have with all ammo types, in all planes. The sim is playable, and it's enjoyable. I can enjoy it for what it is, because I haven't had my perception warped by having bad multiplayer experiences.

Yes, .50s are probably flawed in certain instances. Yes, low-caliber HE rounds almost certainly do too much aerodynamic damage. But ultimately, none of that would take away from your enjoyment of the sim in a single-player setting.

It only matters in multiplayer.

Edited June 24, 2021 by oc2209

June 24, 2021

Quote

The thing is, the sim can simulate the combat. Just fine. I have a British single player career, an American, and a Russian, and a German career.

I to think that having 8 P-51's set to ace skill level getting shot down by 3 109K4's also on ace is an accurate portrayal of air combat, that has absolutely nothing to do with the weapon disparity that's caused by the poor modeling of AP ammunition.

You acknowledge the issue, yet it simply isn't worthy of your grace. It's my fault for thinking you might have more reason to post in this thread than to just assert your superiority for being satisfied with the single player experience.

June 24, 2021

If it only effects multiplayer, and you "didn't mind the inconsistencies", there's nearly 100% chance wouldn't have noticed the AP changes.

So, please. Feel free to explain why you're here, doing your damned best to derail an otherwise productive discussion that apparently doesn't matter to you, or effect anyway

Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum

June 24, 2021

24 minutes ago, Denum said:

If it only effects multiplayer, and you "didn't mind the inconsistencies", there's nearly 100% chance wouldn't have noticed the AP changes.

So, please. Feel free to explain why you're here, doing your damned best to derail an otherwise productive discussion that apparently doesn't matter to you, or effect anyway

ANY change to the game code IMPACTS EVERYONE..... Remember all the griping about the change to the damage model making world war 1 planes suddenly have the same damage model as world war 2 planes?

AND THANK YOU for putting out that it is a MULTI PLAYER ONLY PROBLEM.

Even when you look at some of the gun cam footage, and then compare it with a rough overlay of what was considered to be the impact zone of each gun in you mustang, you would still see that only one or two barrels were actually ON TARGET at the moment the bullets hit, meaning every other round fired was hitting dead air not german plane.

June 24, 2021

3 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

It's either 49g or 37g of HE filler for the Soviet 37mm. I'll assume 49 grams. So, the radius of a 10 square foot hole is about 1.8 feet. If we reduce the charge to 1.4 grams for 13mm round that's about 3% of what a 37mm carries. So, 3% of 10 sq. ft. is roughly 1/3 of a square foot. That's about a hole 8 inches (200 mm) in diameter. I might buy that with a perfect hit and explosion pattern, but it's HIGHLY unlikely that you'd get that with such a small round. The ratio of filler to casing starts to have big effects on the explosion when the casing is so thick compared to the filler.

I just want to point out that I'm not giving you the 'thanks' out of sarcasm. You took the time to figure this out, and I appreciate it.

As I've said elsewhere, I do think 13mm HE is overdone. I've shown my own tests where I can down a plane if I hit it in a turn, and hit it in the wing, with only 1-2 13mm or 20mm HE shots. The AI pilot seems to lose all control. A human pilot would probably be able to coax the plane down to a forced landing, but that's beside the point.

All that aside, I think there are a lot of discrepancies and oddities with the damage model in general. I'm not saying that to demean the quality of the sim; rather, I acknowledge that nothing is ever going to be as perfect as I want it, but only the discrepancies that are most often encountered in multiplayer get the most attention.

39 minutes ago, Denum said:

If it only effects multiplayer, and you "didn't mind the inconsistencies", there's nearly 100% chance wouldn't have noticed the AP changes.

So, please. Feel free to explain why you're here, doing your damned best to derail an otherwise productive discussion that apparently doesn't matter to you, or effect anyway

That's funny, I didn't think I had the power to derail anything.

Did I go back in time and also make all those other discussions on AP .50 ammo unproductive as well? This is the first one I've stepped into, because I'm getting a little tired of seeing the same complaints. I'm sure the devs are too.

It's not that the complaints are wholly unjustified; but the undisguised animosity that's always around the corner of any discussion of the matter... that's what stinks of gamer mentality to me.

People take this way too seriously.

June 24, 2021

12 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

Even when you look at some of the gun cam footage, and then compare it with a rough overlay of what was considered to be the impact zone of each gun in you mustang, you would still see that only one or two barrels were actually ON TARGET at the moment the bullets hit, meaning every other round fired was hitting dead air not german plane.

It's well understood that even the "good shooters" of real-life WW2 fighter pilots would have poor accuracy compared to most experienced "sim pilots" here. But that's besides the point.

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ROUNDS THAT DON'T HIT.

We're talking about historical ammo. Historical convergence. And a DM that doesn't quite add up (with evidence to show). Please see Shallot's links.

June 24, 2021

How was the machine gun convergence set on a WW2 era aircraft? - The World History of War (quora.com)

the first article by Mr James Volo is the one EVERYONE needs to read because it explains the REALISM that seems to be modeled into the game concerning all projectiles designated as "AP"

1. AP makes a hole, nothing more, nothing less

1.A standard AP was not considered to be that effective, not even by the pilots using it in their planes

2. Aiming is key.

The author of this helpful article puts forth with a diagram showing the bullet dispersal pattern and conversion diagram for a P47.

It shows that at certain ranges YOU CANNOT MISS. BUT it also shows at some ranges YOU CANNOT HIT UNLESS YOU APPLY SOME RUDDER AND SWEEP THE TARGET, ie at some ranges you WILL shoot around the cockpit of a 109, 190, even a HS 129 and just hit wing if lucky.

"Most pilots liked the 50 caliber gun, but it lacked the power to do sufficient structural damage to enemy aircraft. Postwar research demonstrated that only armor-piercing incendiary rounds were really effective, by setting fire to on-board ammunition or fuel."

THAT is exactly what EVERYONE is complaining about here in these never ending "fix the 50 BMG" demand threads. APPARENTLY the AP, ie ARMOUR PIERCING is doing 100% historical accuracy.

Some American aircraft converged their guns in a rectangle — for the P-51 Mustang one of 10 by 6 feet at 450 feet. The outermost guns on the P-51 were more than 15 feet apart.

Even though you are in theory keeping your bullets fired inside that rectangle, that is the only assumption that you can make. You do not know the exact spots they are landing in, and that was one source of contention on the Rise of Flight forums last year during Covid Lock down. Everyone felt, thought, assumed the damage model was a dirty jock strap because "magic planes" could fly through your gun fire at your idealized convergence setting and take almost no damage..

June 24, 2021

20 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

That's funny, I didn't think I had the power to derail anything.

Did I go back in time and also make all those other discussions on AP .50 ammo unproductive as well? This is the first one I've stepped into, because I'm getting a little tired of seeing the same complaints. I'm sure the devs are too.

It's not that the complaints are wholly unjustified; but the undisguised animosity that's always around the corner of any discussion of the matter... that's what stinks of gamer mentality to me.

People take this way too seriously.

Bizarre that you excuse yourself from "taking it easy too seriously"

Was it not you that spent hours recording tracks, arguing against accurate data presented by several people because you "took it too seriously"?

If going to to bat for a quick, easy fix that has been presented with sound mathematics that would satisfy 80% of the players now, vs waiting potentially years for a damage model fix and API addition is "gamer mentality" then so be it.

Using the fact it's most commonly noticed in multiplayer (turns out there's a pretty substantial player skill difference) because the AI is like shooting fish in barrel is pure ignorance. On several occasions they have made changes for multiplayer that effected single player before, that is not a good argument.

If the complaints are not unjustified, again, Why are you here.

June 24, 2021

It's kinda amusing you think it matters whether or not it's a problem in singleplayer or multiplayer. Inaccurate ballistics simulation remains inaccurate no matter what mode you primarily play.

And you are derailing the discussion, this isn't just a 50BMG discussion, it's an AP discussion. Every plane in the game has AP ammo in some capacity. It affects the Breda's in the MC.202, the UB/UBS machinguns and Shvak cannons in the Yaks and Peshkas, the MG17 and AP shells in the MG151 belts in a variety of German aircraft, the Browning 303s in the Hurricane.

You continually ignore our reasonable stances for these changes and are stubbornly sticking to the idea we want magic BMG bullets, which is a conclusion no reasonable logical person could conclude.

You are steadfastly ignoring Yak Panthers brilliant posts that mathematically support the thesis of the mod in question relying in favour of nothing for than a "feeling" and it "looks right" despite it being proven incorrect in extreme detail, and are becoming more an more belligerent the more evidence we bring to the table.

Either discuss in good faith or leave it alone.

June 24, 2021

20 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

It's well understood that even the "good shooters" of real-life WW2 fighter pilots would have poor accuracy compared to most experienced "sim pilots" here. But that's besides the point.

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ROUNDS THAT DON'T HIT.

We're talking about historical ammo. Historical convergence. And a DM that doesn't quite add up (with evidence to show). Please see Shallot's links.

Once again you are CHERRY PICKING the data to suit your own agenda. Yes the good shooters had poor accuracy compared to you professional sim pilots because

THEY WERE ACTUALLY DOING IT and since the only way they could practice was to get into a cluster fuck with say 4 or 5 109s They did not want to get much practice in as in real life, they did not have a chance to make any mistakes over. IE they died when the cockpit caught that flak round, unlike US who simply hit escape key...

BUT you and many others keep forgetting that convergence patterns with machine guns do not mean anything more then "at this range setting we have found that 90% of the bullets will stay inside a 10 foot diameter circle". Look at the linked P47 convergence and dispersal pattern diagram. At MOST distances you have a problem that ABOUT 50% of the impact zones would over lap. MEANING half the rounds fired were outside of what can be considered the "magical yeet effect zone of instant death and destruction",

What would actually be useful would be to give us a rectangle or circle of correct dimensions to appear at the convergence distance we have decided upon at the start up page, to actually let people see how little coverage they have of a target

June 24, 2021

What does your link have to do with anything?

In game the guns are set to point convergence.

So if anything, the M2s would be more devastating then in real life because most players are able to shoot more accurately, which means the players would be putting more rounds on target.

Do you even know what point you're trying to get across?

Because right now you're just helping us prove our point. We are consistently getting more rounds on target with tighter grouping and having a more difficult time getting kills.

Which would lead us to the original problem. The AP doesn't do enough damage to the aircraft.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum

June 24, 2021

12 minutes ago, Denum said:

Bizarre that you excuse yourself from "taking it easy too seriously"

Was it not you that spent hours recording tracks, arguing against accurate data presented by several people because you "took it too seriously"?

I've tested many aspects of this sim, purely for my own amusement. I've tested the DVD system, every caliber of HE round, the efficacy of point-blank fire from 12 Hurricane .303s, etc.

This is but one issue I decided to test. I made the recordings anyway, so I thought I might as well share them.

17 minutes ago, Denum said:

If the complaints are not unjustified, again, Why are you here.

Because I'm wherever I choose to be?

Like I said, the argument's getting stale to watch. I thought I'd try to balance things out.

At no point have I said the complainers were totally wrong. At no point have I said they should shut up. All I tried to do was put the problem in perspective.

Clearly I failed.

20 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

It's kinda amusing you think it matters whether or not it's a problem in singleplayer or multiplayer. Inaccurate ballistics simulation remains inaccurate no matter what mode you primarily play.

And you are derailing the discussion, this isn't just a 50BMG discussion, it's an AP discussion. Every plane in the game has AP ammo in some capacity. It affects the Breda's in the MC.202, the UB/UBS machinguns and Shvak cannons in the Yaks and Peshkas, the MG17 and AP shells in the MG151 belts in a variety of German aircraft, the Browning 303s in the Hurricane.

You continually ignore our reasonable stances for these changes and are stubbornly sticking to the idea we want magic BMG bullets, which is a conclusion no reasonable logical person could conclude.

You are steadfastly ignoring Yak Panthers brilliant posts that mathematically support the thesis of the mod in question relying in favour of nothing for than a "feeling" and it "looks right" despite it being proven incorrect in extreme detail, and are becoming more an more belligerent the more evidence we bring to the table.

Either discuss in good faith or leave it alone.

I'm assuming this is directed at me?

Yeah, you keep saying the AP aspect affects all other planes, yet everyone seems to only howl about the US disparity with Germans. Excuse me for noticing that.

I'm not ignoring Yak_Panther's posts. I said he was right, his logic seemed sound.

What seems to be the issue, however, is that some people want more than the bullet making a larger hole. Others here, I can't be bothered to quote them several pages back, talked about AP like it was totally worthless, and lacked the ability to start fires or penetrate the fuselage.

I showed clips of breaking wings and blowing things up with only AP ammo.

Is that wrong of me to do so? To try to counter excessive claims of AP's worthlessness; is it wrong for me to say AP isn't quite as broken as some people assume it is?

June 24, 2021

17 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

It's kinda amusing you think it matters whether or not it's a problem in singleplayer or multiplayer. Inaccurate ballistics simulation remains inaccurate no matter what mode you primarily play.

And you are derailing the discussion, this isn't just a 50BMG discussion, it's an AP discussion. Every plane in the game has AP ammo in some capacity. It affects the Breda's in the MC.202, the UB/UBS machinguns and Shvak cannons in the Yaks and Peshkas, the MG17 and AP shells in the MG151 belts in a variety of German aircraft, the Browning 303s in the Hurricane.

You continually ignore our reasonable stances for these changes and are stubbornly sticking to the idea we want magic BMG bullets, which is a conclusion no reasonable logical person could conclude.

You are steadfastly ignoring Yak Panthers brilliant posts that mathematically support the thesis of the mod in question relying in favour of nothing for than a "feeling" and it "looks right" despite it being proven incorrect in extreme detail, and are becoming more an more belligerent the more evidence we bring to the table.

Either discuss in good faith or leave it alone.

The documentation always referred two has several flaws

1. The development team have said repeated in other similar demand they fix something threads that they want to see actual documentation CREATED during the war, in the period we want to have fixed that actually refers to the probably being complained about.

EXAMPLE the P40 engine performance, the game doesnt let us use the soviet "trick" of over powering the engine that would burn it out in several hours of flight. Development team kept repeating "we are using the actual technical manuals created by the companies that made the engine and plane. Give us similar paperwork showing the over powered russian engine trick and it shall be an option in the future". No paperwork has been sent to the development team, hence no change to the P 40. BUT with the p40 simply fly at 3500 meters and well you can get the engine to actually go to 100% and get an extra 50-54 MPH out of it

2. The link to a youtube link showing the explosive detonated on top of a piece of metal and merely denting it, although twice the metal thickness.... is NOT usable.. ANY static test is not usable. The static test overlooks the performance boost generated by an HE round that is moving in the air.

3, what is overlooked in static tests

1. projectile moving at impact... weakens the target panel as it stretches it to fatigue point

2. then you have to deal with the fact that the panel being at its fatigue point, that the explosive charge detonates when it has no resistance. makes the hole BIGGER

VPC - Voting From the Rooftops - Section One I hate these people but the raufoss diagram helps illustrate the point..

3. The AIRSTREAM on the plane helps make the hole bigger to a point

June 24, 2021

39 minutes ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

and are becoming more an more belligerent the more evidence we bring to the table.

Actually, I only got 'belligerent' when I saw how LukeFF's post was jumped on.

I think the belligerence was already here.

June 24, 2021

7 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I've tested many aspects of this sim, purely for my own amusement. I've tested the DVD system, every caliber of HE round, the efficacy of point-blank fire from 12 Hurricane .303s, etc.

This is but one issue I decided to test. I made the recordings anyway, so I thought I might as well share them.

Because I'm wherever I choose to be?

Like I said, the argument's getting stale to watch. I thought I'd try to balance things out.

At no point have I said the complainers were totally wrong. At no point have I said they should shut up. All I tried to do was put the problem in perspective.

Clearly I failed.

I'm assuming this is directed at me?

Yeah, you keep saying the AP aspect affects all other planes, yet everyone seems to only howl about the US disparity with Germans. Excuse me for noticing that.

I'm not ignoring Yak_Panther's posts. I said he was right, his logic seemed sound.

What seems to be the issue, however, is that some people want more than the bullet making a larger hole. Others here, I can't be bothered to quote them several pages back, talked about AP like it was totally worthless, and lacked the ability to start fires or penetrate the fuselage.

I showed clips of breaking wings and blowing things up with only AP ammo.

Is that wrong of me to do so? To try to counter excessive claims of AP's worthlessness; is it wrong for me to say AP isn't quite as broken as some people assume it is?

You and myself are only in the "wrong" in their eyes because we are not marching in solidarity with them in demanding that the 50 BMG AP round be changed to the later war API round for better damage effects.

2 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Actually, I only got 'belligerent' when I saw how LukeFF's post was jumped on.

I think the belligerence was already here.

Exactly, when someone in the know brings out excerpts of first hand accounts.... that disprove or put doubt on their demands its "trolling their conversation with handpicked material solely chosen to discredit their demands".

June 24, 2021

26 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Yeah, you keep saying the AP aspect affects all other planes, yet everyone seems to only howl about the US disparity with Germans. Excuse me for noticing that.

I'm not ignoring Yak_Panther's posts. I said he was right, his logic seemed sound.

What seems to be the issue, however, is that some people want more than the bullet making a larger hole. Others here, I can't be bothered to quote them several pages back, talked about AP like it was totally worthless, and lacked the ability to start fires or penetrate the fuselage.

I showed clips of breaking wings and blowing things up with only AP ammo.

Is that wrong of me to do so? To try to counter excessive claims of AP's worthlessness; is it wrong for me to say AP isn't quite as broken as some people assume it is?

So you didn't read what the proposed changes were, nor did you look at the math presented by Yak Panther.

Because if you did. You'd know why what you said there is silly.

The only thing the mod in this thread changes is the AP round size, which was confirmed by Yak Panther as an appropriate solution based on the angle of impact.

Yes. It puts a bigger hole in the plane. Which it would based on the firing angle in real life.

So if you agree with him, and therefore the proposed suggestion. What exactly are you trying to prove here?

With enough time I can down 109s in WW1 planes. That doesn't mean it's practical or realistic or indicative of anything worth noting outside of me having some free time and the patience to do it.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum

June 24, 2021

4 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

Once again you are CHERRY PICKING the data to suit your own agenda. Yes the good shooters had poor accuracy compared to you professional sim pilots because

THEY WERE ACTUALLY DOING IT and since the only way they could practice was to get into a cluster fuck with say 4 or 5 109s They did not want to get much practice in as in real life, they did not have a chance to make any mistakes over. IE they died when the cockpit caught that flak round, unlike US who simply hit escape key...

BUT you and many others keep forgetting that convergence patterns with machine guns do not mean anything more then "at this range setting we have found that 90% of the bullets will stay inside a 10 foot diameter circle". Look at the linked P47 convergence and dispersal pattern diagram. At MOST distances you have a problem that ABOUT 50% of the impact zones would over lap. MEANING half the rounds fired were outside of what can be considered the "magical yeet effect zone of instant death and destruction",

What would actually be useful would be to give us a rectangle or circle of correct dimensions to appear at the convergence distance we have decided upon at the start up page, to actually let people see how little coverage they have of a target

Yes, real life pilots were in real life combat, and suffered real stress, and fear, and death. They didn't have our luxury of "fly again" and hundreds of hours of "gunnery practice". If they died, they were dead. I get that now, thanks for explaining.

Everybody here understands box convergence. The P-47 convergence chart has been shared by myself and 20 other people over the past year. (BTW, did you know the devs didn't know about box convergence, and asked if we could share that chart with them?)

You keep explaining things that don't need explaining. And then show us charts of box convergence like it's something new when my forum post that you're replying to is simply asking for box convergence. And then (I think) try to explain that bullets can still miss, even with box convergence (yes, they can). Again: NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ROUNDS THAT DON'T HIT.

You bring up how API is better than AP. We want API. (Side note, API being more effective than AP does not make AP ineffective. Please see Yak Panther's post regarding bullet holes). You bring up box convergence. We want Box convergence.

It seems like you understand that the things people keep asking for should be in the game.

June 24, 2021

6 minutes ago, QB.Buzzi said:

Yes, real life pilots were in real life combat, and suffered real stress, and fear, and death. They didn't have our luxury of "fly again" and hundreds of hours of "gunnery practice". If they died, they were dead. I get that now, thanks for explaining.

Everybody here understands box convergence. The P-47 convergence chart has been shared by myself and 20 other people over the past year. (BTW, did you know the devs didn't know about box convergence, and asked if we could share that chart with them?)

You keep explaining things that don't need explaining. And then show us charts of box convergence like it's something new when my forum post that you're replying to is simply asking for box convergence. And then (I think) try to explain that bullets can still miss, even with box convergence (yes, they can). Again: NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT ROUNDS THAT DON'T HIT.

You bring up how API is better than AP. We want API. (Side note, API being more effective than AP does not make AP ineffective. Please see Yak Panther's post regarding bullet holes). You bring up box convergence. We want Box convergence.

It seems like you understand that the things people keep asking for should be in the game.

Reading these demanding threads to have something fixed, like the ammunition and the P40 engine power, merely give the impression of small children clamoring at their mommas apron strings whining that their sister "got the bigger cookie/popsicle/piece of pie". They keep putting out the same CHERRY PICKED statements that support them, but keep screaming bloody murder when anyone says or posts ANYTHING that puts their data into doubt.

But what keeps coming across is that the people demanding the changes have the LEAST amount of any sort of practical knowledge on the subject at hand. Its sort of like a comedy routine about a person who doesnt know the difference between body parts an a hole in the ground.

Heres the problems that have popped up,

1. in the "magic sherman thread" over in tank central, it seems that its possible that SOMETHING with the online multi player is altering the ammunition stats and allowing sherman tanks to survive a half dozen hits from a german 76mm tank gun...

2. in THIS thread that online only issue has popped up twice now i think in various means, both as an excuse and as a reason why non multi player people need to keep out of the debate.

3. The ammunition stats in the log files actually ARE those as stated in ww2 documents for standard AP ammunition, thus if the standard ammunition isnt to satisfaction.... then choose a different plane to fly.

4. What is it going to actually cost me the person who doesnt do multi player? Oh sure my AP will be more powerful, slight benefit on certain planes using .303 but the problem is is a single hit from a b25 to the wing root of my 190 going to send me into a fireball like a single hit to the engine can kill the engine?

June 24, 2021

Interesting that you make qips about knowledge, but you have so far shown

You didn't know how to operate the range settings in British planes

Mis ID'd the Tempest guns as M2s

Didn't know the game uses point convergence.

Something something about rocks in glass houses...

Your credibility is already quite low but sure why not..

Next point

1. Ammo type, range and shot placement are all critical against the Sherman. All the tanks are capable of bouncing ridiculous amounts of hits in TC. This isn't just a Sherman issue. If you played TC you'd know this.

2. not worth addressing

3. If realism is the goal. The 13mm HE would have to get removed also. Which would affect just about half the axis aircraft. They didn't shoot HE, they generally shot API. No API means AP only. Sound good to me. Let's do it.

4. A single round would have the same effect as now. Round size being increased 150% isn't going to nuke planes with a single shot. If you're parking behind the bombers and doing the old pray and spray you're going to die anyway.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum

June 24, 2021

@pocketshaver

@oc2209

Although it does affect it considerably, this is not exclusively a Multiplayer issue.

The BoBp career is currently unplayable as a P51 or P47 unit. Although a good chunk of the issue is the AIs apparent inability to aim wing guns effectively, another massive issue is that when they do connect, they have to hit one of the magic points for anything to happen. Zombie 109 and D9s flying around endlessly streaming everything having been shot to pieces happens all the time in Singleplayer. Combine that with how ludicrous HE weapons are its almost comical.

I've tried numerous settings and every encounter with the luftwaffe in a P47 is a wholesale slaughter.

48 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

actual documentation CREATED during the war,

Also, if we have documentation that was after the war and uses the same material and rounds and is clearly completed in a much more effective and scientifically modern way AND is also accompanied by an implementable mathematical model that can be entered into their ballistics system.... I don't think it should should dismissed.

June 24, 2021

On 6/22/2021 at 10:51 PM, pocketshaver said:

the current AP round is actually performing CORRECTLY given the listed velocity and bullet weight matches period government data points

Does it though?

This is the in game ballistics table from the Us 50 cal Ap round.

Armor=1,840, 22,153, 18,383, 0,613

Armor=100,789, 20,135, 16,338, 0,541

Armor=500,612, 14,81, 11,204, 0,326

Armor=2000,268, 4,16, 3,39, 0,62

Lets look at the first line and see what it's saying about the 50 cal ap rounds performance.

Armor=1,840, 22,153, 18,383, 0,613

What this is saying is, At range 1 this round will be moving 840 mps, It will penetrate 22 mm of armor and do 153 damage. The first pair represents the maximum amount of armor penetration at that range. The amount of damage increases as the armor thickness decreases. EG in the second pair, If the round impacts 18 mm or less of armor it will do 383 damage. The damage increases up to 613 when there is no armor.

So does this ballistics table match reality? Let's look at some source material and compare.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA953652.pdf

First is a chart From Watertown Arsenal circa 1942. It gives us test data on penetration capabilities of the round against RHA of varying thickness and various Brinell Hardness. Based on two penetration criteria, The Army and Navy limits.

The difference in the definition of Complete Penetration, accounts for difference in velocities in the table.

Back to Il 2 table table

Armor=1,840, 22,153,

Armor=100,789, 20,135,

Armor=500,612, 14,81, // calculated based on the reference point for armor penetration for a given bullet 375m-16mm

Armor=2000,268, 4,16,

375m = 1230.3 ft

16mm = 0.629921 inches ~ 10/16’ths inches

Comparing the game to the hardest plate tested at the Navy limit . At ~2700 fps the game’s penetration values is 3mm less than Watertown test. Pretty close match.

However there is a discrepancy between the penetration capability as the velocity decreases. The games requires more velocity to penetrate than the Watertown tests seem to indicate. The game has a velocity limit for 14 mm of armor (~.5 inches) at 612 mps. Watertown has the required velocity to penetrate .5 inches of armor as 1660 fps or 505 mps. The game requires 20% more velocity to penetrate the same amount of armor as the Watertown tests.

Let’s look at some other primary source data.

This is from Terminal Ballistics Data Part 2.

https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p4013coll8/id/2374

I’ve Plotted the velocity and ranges from against this ballistic table for the 50 cal AP m2 round. The Il 2’s round is substantially slower and does less penetration than the real round. The Il2 round is probably too slow.

The Velocity Problem:

There also appears to be discrepancy with the velocity.

From Fighter Fun Harmonization AAF Manual 200-1

As a Table and converted to metric.

Range Ft	TOF	V/t (FPS)	Range M	V mps
200	0.07	2857.142857	60.9570253	870.8146471
400	0.15	2500	121.9140506	761.9628162
600	0.23	2500	182.8710759	761.9628162
800	0.31	2500	243.8281012	761.9628162
1000	0.4	2222.222222	304.7851265	677.3002811
1200	0.49	2222.222222	365.7421518	677.3002811
1400	0.58	2222.222222	426.6991771	677.3002811
1600	0.67	2222.222222	487.6562024	677.3002811
1800	0.77	2000	548.6132277	609.570253
2000	0.87	2000	609.570253	609.570253
2200	0.98	1818.181818	670.5272783	554.1547754
2400	1.09	1818.181818	731.4843036	554.1547754
2600	1.2	1818.181818	792.4413289	554.1547754
2800	1.32	1666.666667	853.3983542	507.9752108
3000	1.44	1666.666667	914.3553795	507.9752108

The Game puts the velocity at 500m as 612 mps. The table it’s closer to 677mps. Which wouldn’t matter that much if the Penetration to velocity was more closely match to the data.

So what could be wrong. Well the drag coefficient is wrong, so is the mass.

The bullet mass is low in game

In game its .0419 Kg

Fighter Fun Harmonization AAF Manual 200-1 lists it as

To .1015 lb or .046 Kg

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0800469.pdf

Gives the weight as 710 grains = 0.0460072 Kg

So 6 grams less. Therefore less kinetic energy for a given velocity. As Ke = .5 mv^2

The Drag coefficient appears to be off as well. Here’s it’s presented in the older Kd format. It can be converted to more prevalent coefficient of drag as Cd = 8pi*Kd

This report list ~.160 and .115 as the Kd. Converting to CD

Cd =8pi*.160

Cd = 25.13 * .160

Cd =.4

A Cd of .4 tracks well with ballistically similar rounds. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a219106.pdf

The Game has the base Cd as .45 so it’s close. However the reset of implementation results in it being to draggy. Per the 50 cal AP game data.

Mkr = 0.97 // the value of the Mach number, after which the increase in Cx begins until the moment M = 1, depends on the shape of the body but not on the size

Mmax = 2.0 // the value of the Mach number, to which the decrease in Cx, which began at M = 1, is completed, depends on the shape of the body but not on the size

Cx_0 = 0.16 // the value of the resistance value at (M <= Mkr), depends on the shape of the body but not on the size

Cx_max = 0.45 // value of the set of resistance at (M = 1), depends on the shape of the body but not on the size

Cx_1 = 0.32 // value of the resistance at (M> = Mmax), depends on the shape of the body but not on the size

And the the Drag Chart

Mkr = 0.97 // the value of the Mach number, after which the increase in Cx begins until the moment M = 1, The critical Mach number, Looks about right

Mmax = 2.0 is to high, this should be 1.2. Mach

Cx_0 = 0.16 // the value of the resistance value at (M <= Mkr), The CD below the critical Mach., Seems a little high compared to the other rounds, they are close to .12

Cx_max = 0.45 // value of the set of resistance at (M = 1), depends on the shape of the body but not on the size, Very close to the chart.

Cx_1 = 0.32 // value of the resistance at (M> = Mmax), Drag above Mach 2.

The result is that the bullet spends to much time in high drag area. This is probably why the velocity seems low compared to primary source data.

So the guns are not necessarily historically accurate to government data.

Why does it matter? Well because if you dig around the damage models you’ll see some of the aircraft have armored flight controls.

110 E’s model looks like:

// wiring section inside the convex, wiring channel number, thickness in millimeters,

//rupture probability in percent, wedge probability in percent

110 E’s model looks like.

[ELEVATOR=0]

Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_4", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "Fuse_Ctl_11", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "Stab_L_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "Stab_R_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "Stab_L_1", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "Stab_R_1", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // ELEVATOR_DM_SETTINGS

[END]

[AILERON=1]

Link = 0, 0, "WingL_In_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Mid_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "WingL_Out_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS

[END]

[AILERON=2]

Link = 0, 0, "WingR_In_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Mid_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS

Link = 0, 0, "WingR_Out_0", 20.0, 2.0, 0.2 // AILERON_DM_SETTINGS

[END]

6 of the elevator sections have 20 mm of armor. Aileron 1,2 and are the aileron and the flaps. If the round strikes from the rear the flaps will act as wing armor, Until enough hits cause it to detach.

Going back to our damage table.

Armor=1,840, 22,153, 18,383, 0,613

Armor=100,789, 20,135, 16,338, 0,541

You can’t penetrate the flaps of Bf 110e with a 50 cal ap unless you are closer than 100 meters from it. Seem realistic?

Edited June 24, 2021 by Yak_Panther

June 24, 2021

5 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

I like how posting anecdotes of single instances is supposed to be evidence of anything.

My point about posting that anecdote is that it took a concentrated amount of hits in a certain area to down a plane - spraying 20-odd hits across the wing wasn't going to do it, unless it hit something critical, which in this case it did not. My guess is that those other planes that were shot down that day were either the result of the pilot being hit by gunfire, the engine catching fire, or the ammo belts in the wings detonating (a known weakness of the Fw 190 that Allied pilots were instructed to try to exploit). But yet, we have people right here in this very topic saying it should take an average of 14 .50 cal hits to down a German plane. Fourteen hits aimed at what, exactly?

Don't get me wrong here - in saying all of this, I'm not saying that I think everything is fine with .50 cal AP ammo as it currently stands. My point of reposting this anecdote and the first time I posted it last year was to temper expectations about what people should expect from API ammo - they aren't mini Molotov Cocktails that are going to light a plane ablaze regardless of where and in what concentration they hit.

Edited June 24, 2021 by LukeFF

AP Fix

Recommended Posts

6./ZG26_Custard

LukeFF

Denum

RedKestrel

Denum

Creep

357th_KW

=RS=EnvyC

oc2209

BCI-Nazgul

Creep

Denum

357th_KW

BCI-Nazgul

=RS=EnvyC

Denum

QB.Shallot

LColony_Kong

oc2209

QB.Shallot

Denum

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

86th_Buzzi

Angry_Kitten

Denum

=RS=EnvyC

Angry_Kitten

Denum

oc2209

Angry_Kitten

oc2209

Angry_Kitten

Denum

86th_Buzzi

Angry_Kitten

Denum

ACG_Cass

Yak_Panther

LukeFF

Browse All

Activity