Angry_Kitten Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 15 minutes ago, Yak_Panther said: 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 ballistic coefficient is = Mass / Cd * Cross sectional area. 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? .50 Caliber Browning (12.7 x 99 mm) Ammunition (inetres.com) this is the weights given in these, taken from nato standards manuals. Not exactly sure what standard was in use for the API in world war two, however from the data it doesnt actually matter. M20 API-T 1,718 gr (111.32 g) 5.45 in (138.4 mm) IMR 5010 619 gr (40.11 g) 55,000 psi (3,867 kg/cm²) 2,910 fps (887 mps) M33 Ball 1,762 gr (114.17 g) 5.45 in (138.4 mm) WC 860 706.7 gr (45.8 g) 55,000 psi (3,867 kg/cm²) 2,910 fps (887 mps) MK211 Mod 0 API 1,765 gr (114.37 g) 5.45 in (138.4 mm) WC 860, MR 5010 or RA-NC-167 671 gr (43.48 g) 55,000 psi (3,867 kg/cm²) 2,910 ± 30 fps (886 ± 9.1 mps) 19 minutes ago, LukeFF said: 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. that what some of us have been trying to make them understand.... they see a gun cam video that shows 12 hits on the WING of a 109 that then goes spiralling down into the ground, and then they want EVERY 14 round burp to do that, and completely disregard things such as was the gun cam footage recorded AFTER a pass that dumped 200 rounds into the cockpit or engine block 14 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said: 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. oh what great babble decrying ANYONE who disagrees as some sort of forum troll.
6./ZG26_Custard Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 14 minutes ago, pocketshaver said: oh what great babble decrying ANYONE who disagrees as some sort of forum troll. People are free to disagree all they want. However, I'm certainly seeing much more inane babble dotting the forum posts these days and all they achieve is to significantly dilute relevant posts which raise valid problems and criticisms. 3
ACG_Cass Posted June 24, 2021 Author Posted June 24, 2021 30 minutes ago, LukeFF said: 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. Thanks for clarifying the point. I'd really recommend adding some clarification when you post something like that as it's in the eye of the beholder to determine what you're trying to say by it. If this was at the bottom of your original post, then we'd probably have had a reasoned discussion around it rather than everyone trying to understand why you mean using that quote. 14 hits as a mean doesn't seem too far off for API. You're right in that it's very dependant where they would hit, but don't forget we have no idea what the standard deviation is from statistics like this and 14 hits is a lot in IRL WW2 combat. In IL2 a mean of 44 for pure AP ammunition doesn't seem utterly ludicrous, but the standard deviation is monstrous, which is the problem we are pointing to (AP ammunition is completely redundant outside of hitting anything vital rather than just being not that effective). I'd really recommend trying the mod and letting us know your thoughts. As a tester it would be good to get your viewpoint. @pocketshaver You are consistently misunderstanding the points people are trying to make. Quoting random sources from a glorified Yahoo Answers page and constantly escalating everything with each reaction. Please actually try the mod, compare it to what we have at the moment and then come back with your thoughts. People aren't DECRYING ANYONE, they are refuting what you are saying. 3
Barnacles Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 12 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. What if I used medieval science? 3
Creep Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 3 hours ago, LukeFF said: ...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. And yet, small-caliber HE rounds are "mini Molotov Cocktails that are going to light a plane ablaze regardless of where and in what concentration they hit". The issue is not simply AP or HE, it's the egregious disparity between the two that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 4
Tempus Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 8 hours ago, pocketshaver said: 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 a simple google research " gun harmonization" and... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation My gun #1 with a horizontal convergence of X doen't have to match with gun #2, 5, 8 with a vertical convergence point at Y yards,....#8, also it doesn't need to start shooting at the same time as #2....#8. With this technique they generate a CONTINUOUS cone of fire from guns to the convergence zone: ZONE NOT POINT of convergence. And that continuos cone of fire helps to "all non the best in class of accuracy" pilots to get any target, as simple as that. There's a lot of non TOP SECRET documentation about this, but ingame we can only modify what is called convergence distance.... and we need to assume that the distance you choose is in the horizontal axis also in the vertical axis and all guns start and stop shooting at the same time, but one step at a time. I only put this as an example of accuracy or lack of it, take it as you want. 6 hours ago, LukeFF said: 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. As it has been discussed for all this last year, to get an "accurate" representation of any bullet AP, API or even HE you need to have an accurate DM where A/C internal systems were represented and give any kind of failure once they've been impacted by any kind of bullet, also quantity of impacts. HE have a great advantage with the current DM cause they inflinge damage to the A/C external surfaces mostly well represented in the actual DM, but the problem arises when your only WW2 highly standarized weapon got its strongest damaging point based in dissabling internal A/C system by impact and as a firestarter then.... as Ockham says the simpliest answer is.... in the DM itself. How many times you 've seen in all this 4.5 DM implementation any A/C on fire? and how many of those times flames come from the back of ANY plane? My own answer is ZERO. When I put on flames any german A/C with 50's flames always come from the engine, never from the most logical part of the A/C... the tail that contains +/- 300 kgs. of fuel ( 109's specifically). And that was an standard before 4.5. Don't get me wrong.... 4.5 was an step forward but it needs to be constantly revised and improved due its own complexity nature and nowadays it is far away of a near point from perfection. Is it asking too much to a team that decided by their own implement such a monster-complex system time ago to introduce any kind of solution, partial, almost definitive, whatever....but anything different from what we have now? Is it asking too much? Is it having too much great expectations from something that 100% comunity applaused in its day but during all this time has demonstrated it improperly work in some huge points?
Denum Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) @LukeFF I feel that trying to temper unrealistic expectations is a lost cause. There certainly are people that expect the M2s to behave like cannons, but why waste the time. The 14 hit average, personally is going to be to low for fun gameplay IMO. I don't want the BMGs to reward pray and spray like the MG131 does. I also fly Axis from time to time. I don't want to get instant deleted either. Nights where I've been blessed by the golden BOOLET (hallowed be thy name) and I'm getting PKs and engine fires; I average about 35-40 hits per kill. That's a comfortable average and doesn't require tons of time behind a target. But it requires alot of luck and some extremely accurate shooting. The issue we find is that global average. It's about 55 rounds per kill with big swings to either side. I wouldn't be upset if I put 100 .50s into an aircraft. Failed to hit anything critical but still managed to remove an aileron, or the landing gear had partially deployed or something broke. Because that's realistic, it happened. On rare occasions lady luck was on the pilots side and the aircraft absorbed ludicrous amounts of punishment and she let you go home. I think those moments are crucial to fun game play also. What causes 99% of the frustration is to land a bunch of rounds and have your target get away or worse yet. You've compromised your energy state, the 109 turns around and blows your P47 up with 2 20mms in a sloppy head on. Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum 1 4
Beazil Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 5 hours ago, Barnacles said: What if I used medieval science? "Let's get you covered with leeches!" -Dr. Nick Rivierra 1
Angry_Kitten Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Denum said: @LukeFF I feel that trying to temper unrealistic expectations is a lost cause. There certainly are people that expect the M2s to behave like cannons, but why waste the time. The 14 hit average, personally is going to be to low for fun gameplay IMO. I don't want the BMGs to reward pray and spray like the MG131 does. I also fly Axis from time to time. I don't want to get instant deleted either. Nights where I've been blessed by the golden BOOLET (hallowed be thy name) and I'm getting PKs and engine fires; I average about 35-40 hits per kill. That's a comfortable average and doesn't require tons of time behind a target. But it requires alot of luck and some extremely accurate shooting. The issue we find is that global average. It's about 55 rounds per kill with big swings to either side. I wouldn't be upset if I put 100 .50s into an aircraft. Failed to hit anything critical but still managed to remove an aileron, or the landing gear had partially deployed or something broke. Because that's realistic, it happened. On rare occasions lady luck was on the pilots side and the aircraft absorbed ludicrous amounts of punishment and she let you go home. I think those moments are crucial to fun game play also. What causes 99% of the frustration is to land a bunch of rounds and have your target get away or worse yet. You've compromised your energy state, the 109 turns around and blows your P47 up with 2 20mms in a sloppy head on. Those are the same problems REAL pilot dealt with in the day. WE should expect the same. Thats realism. Try flying in Blitz for a bit, its fun, its cranky, you also have to be able to HIT the target to do damage. EVEN with the magic 20mm HE you still need accuracy. The problem is multi player people want bullet effects instantly. They dont want to spend time dumping 300 rounds into say a 110, and have it keep flying despite the fact that 70 hits to each engine have caused the radiators, engine coolant, oil, and fuel are making a 200 yard vapor trail behind it, because the kill system in the game will let the 110 GLIDE to the ground in a 5 minute death spiral, and they will only get an assist in the kill log if someone comes by and does a 20 round burst into that 110 3 seconds before impact with ground. That is why i dont use the two plane flight option in quick match. I dont like making an engine on a 110 turn into a roman candle and have the wingman who had been 2 miles away the whole time do a 3 second fly by, and put a 20 round burst into said 110 at the moment of impact with the ground and get the kill credit.
Denum Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) You don't need to be accurate with the MG131 HE or 20mm HE. Out of 100 rounds fired you only need 2% accuracy to get a kill. Sorry. That's not "accurate". You can do well with garbage shooting and pure luck with odds like that. Again you are completely missing the point. 300 rounds into a single plane is ridiculous. That's a 3.5 second burst with 100% accuracy in a P51. That means 100% of the rounds hitting on target. At even an incredible 30% accuracy hitting the target thats over 10 seconds of trigger time. You'd expend over half your ammo on a single kill. You'd be foolish even remotely suggest that's accurate at all for a simulation. You give me 2 full seconds of easy shooting with the 109 or god forbid the Anton's and you'll be picking pieces of your plane up all over the country side. Edit- Also if you had spent any appreciable time playing this game you'd also know that the 110s are capable of burning for a very long time. Edited June 24, 2021 by Denum
LColony_Kong Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, LukeFF said: 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 10 hours ago by LukeFF My bad then, I interpreted your post in response to Dakpilots remarks as attempting to indicate the everything was fine with .50 as it stands. I agree entirely that 14 hits randomly scattered across a plane is unlikely to bring it down unless one of those hits something particularly critical. SEPARATE AND UNRELATED TO ABOVE Personally I think they should do 3 things to fix .50. -Implement the angle multiplier to all non-explosive ammo in the game. -Implement APIT -Implement harmonization patterns, especially for the planes sporting many .50 gun setups. This should either be done as a single pattern the simple scales all the guns to a range selected by the convergence slider, or by simply letting the player adjust the convergence of each pair of guns separately. The latter would probably be the easiest to do since it would work for all planes in the game and bypass having to research the numerous gun harmonization patterns for every country and planes. Edited June 24, 2021 by LColony_Red_Comet 1
BCI-Nazgul Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) I thought I'd repost this because it's the closest thing I have to back up my "14" number. I can't remember or find the original source for that. Hopefully, you'll forgive me as it's been about 40 years since I read that. If you extrapolate those numbers down to a plane that's 1/4 or less the size I think you can see that 14 is not a crazy number. The B-17 weight 65,000 pounds while a single engine fighter weighs around 5,000 (109) to 9,000 pounds (p-47), so you it's not hard to see that 50-100 x .09 - .13 could yield a range of 4 - 13 hits for something about 1/10 the size. It's probably more for a fighter as they were generally sturdier for their size due to the speed and G requirements engineered into the frame. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a179871.pdf This article (that I have posted before) does seem to point to sources in the German military somewhere as evidenced by the the following quote on page 4. "German experience showed that it took 50-100 hits with 12.7mm (.50 in.) projectiles to down a B-17. By way of comparison, they obtained similar results from only 18-20 hits with 20mm high explosive (HE) projectiles, or four hits with 30mm HE projectiles. (15:44)" The references (15:44) seem to point back to this magazine article: 15. Marsh, Roger. "Mauser MG-213 Cannon." Aviation Ae, Vol. 18 (August 1952), pp. 44-45. Edited June 25, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul
Dakpilot Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) Just admit your "14" was a thumbsuck... Don't try to justify it.. Just quietly let it sliiide away. There, it's gone now, let it go ? Cheers, Dakpilot Edited June 24, 2021 by Dakpilot Emoji
BCI-Nazgul Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Dakpilot said: Just admit your "14" was a thumbsuck... Don't try to justify it.. Just quietly let it sliiide away. There it's gone now, let it go Cheers, Dakpilot vs. all the documents and math you've posted in this thread (zero)? My number was also in-line with what other people posted months ago from historical studies (Unreasonable for one.) 12 hours ago, pocketshaver said: "they see a gun cam video that shows 12 hits on the WING of a 109 that then goes spiralling down into the ground, and then they want EVERY 14 round burp to do that..." Totally NOT what I believe or want. I mentioned that there was no info about whether or not these planes crashed on landing, were abandoned in flight, or crashed much later after being hit. I don't expect 14 hits to immediately destroy a plane everytime. It could happen, but it could also take 40 hits for that to happen. What I don't expect to happen is that an AC takes many AP hits and continues to fight like nothing happened. Edited June 24, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul
RedKestrel Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 12 hours ago, LukeFF said: 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. I don't disagree with you here RE: API effectiveness. Pardon the pun, I don't expect them to be a magic bullet. The problem is that the sheer crazy effectiveness of the HEMG rounds kind of sets the expectation a bit. I mean, 14 rounds of API to set a plane on fire, from ammo specially designed to ignite fuel, would be about the same or even less effective than the way HE-MG currently sets you on fire or just straight up blows you up, so in that context it doesn't look so crazy.
BCI-Nazgul Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, LukeFF said: 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? If you were to randomly spread 14 hits across a fighter I think you can see that the odds of the engine, fuel tanks, cockpit or something else important being hit are pretty high. Just look at a cut away of any WW II fighter, there's not a lot of space wasted on nothingness. So, really "aimed at what" probably doesn't matter much. Again, I will state that the 14 hit number doesn't say the plane went down immediately. This "14" number is also pretty much inline with the 3-4 hits of 20mm that usually downs a plane in game (that's my experience anyway.) The US Navy estimated that it took 3x .50s to equal 1x 20mm. If you do the math this lines up pretty well with 14 hits of .50s being equal to 3 20mm hits. Edited June 25, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul 1
oc2209 Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 15 hours ago, Denum said: 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? I was trying to take a neutral position on the issue. To see the dev's position (or my assumption thereof) and the people posting complaints. I absolutely agree that the size of the bullet hole should be determined by the impact angle. However, from my understanding, the mod proposed by the OP simply increases the default size of the .50 AP bullet before it makes an impact. So that the end result is the bullet is always calculated as striking from a higher impact angle than it really is. I understand the mod was intended as more of a 'proof of concept' and not meant to be taken as a solution in itself. The mod will therefore be more effective than the actual mathematical implementation of the impact angle variations. Am I incorrect in the above conclusions? If Yak_Panther's math can be successfully integrated into the sim to make it so that the impact angle matters more than it presumably does now, then I'd call that a win-win for sim accuracy. What I was 'trying to prove': That AP ammo is not worthless. Which several people in the thread obviously believed. At close range (which, as some might remember from another post, I quoted an authority no less than Hub Zemke as stating the extreme importance of firing under 250m), against a target that isn't wildly, unrealistically maneuvering as often occurs in multiplayer--with those factors, AP ammo does perform adequately in this sim. That was my point. However, that point does not preclude my support of any endeavor to improve the sim's accuracy. At various times, I have tested and demonstrated the following oddities: 1) It can take as many as 3-5 30mm to 37mm HE hits to destroy a single-engine fighter. There are certain parts of planes that seemingly 'absorb' the damage from a large HE shell. I have many screenshots of these instances. 2) The P-47 and Spitfire can't get close to their historically documented diving speed limits without structural failure. I showed screenshots of my tests here (elsewhere on the forum). 3) The Typhoon can make sustained ~15 second turns, far better than its listed 23 second turn time. I showed a video of this. Beyond that, I also object to certain arguments, such as the thread claiming the 109K should be more agile. I argued that the K is deservedly the least agile 109, as it's also the heaviest. My point in bringing all the above up, is that I try to ascertain the truth of any matter in this sim. However, my questions regarding other aspects (that mostly would go unnoticed in multiplayer, such as Russian 37mm performance, and top dive speeds) go largely ignored. Mainly because there isn't the intensely competitive nature of multiplayer gaming generating equally intense scrutiny and interest, in the issues I raise. That has always been a corollary point of mine. I'm saying that people are much more bothered by the discrepancies displayed by AP .50 performance than they are by inconsistencies in 37mm HE performance, because the former is an integral part of multiplayer, while the latter is not. Anyway, I've explained myself beyond what's necessary. I'll take my leave of this thread for everyone's mutual benefit.
Denum Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 Performing adequately and performing realistically aren't on the same page. You can just about make anything perform adequately with enough time and the right conditions. I have no issues in single player because it's substantially easier to put large amounts of rounds into a target. That doesn't mean the system is correct. That simply means the conditions allow a margin of error in your favor. I'd suspect my singleplayer hit averages are much higher then my 8% online. If the cannons are performing within historical expectations, including time on target, and damage caused. Then why shouldn't the .50s get the same benefit? Why is requiring 2 to 3 times for time on target and rounds hit acceptable? In no fighter manual did they encourage MG planes to park on a target and load them with rounds. It's Lead, Shoot and Away! Every second you sit there is an opportunity to get killed. Almost every leader discouraged multiple passes on a target and yet it's the norm in game for AP MG aircraft. From every possible view point this is incorrect. Yes it increases the round size slightly for .50 We are talking 12.7mm to 19.05mm A 6mm increase, just over half a cm or in freedom units a 1/4 inch. This not a game breaking, death laser change. It makes the guns slightly more effective. You still need to hit the target. The reason that .50 aircraft are on everyone's mind is because there is several of them, they are popular and for the most part pretty fun to fly. If something was fundamentally broken on all the 109s do think there would be any less noise? The only difference that I think there would be, is there would be significantly less resistance to getting it fixed! 1
=RS=EnvyC Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) I'm curious as to why 14 hits from a M2 is somehow a problem when you can down planes with less with MG131, which as is stands is overperforming to an insane degree. To give an indication of the utter ludicrous disparity; Per the anecdote 14 hits was enough to put a 190 into a combat ineffective state. In game planes can sustain 100s of M2 BMG and still remain in the fight. Meanwhile MG131 puts planes out with a single hit. Quite simply unless the MG131 is changed I don't see the point in handwringing over 14 BMG hits taking down a plane when the majority of players, including the best pilots in the online game, average 60 hits to take down a single aircraft http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/pilot_aircraft/1424/NO_FILTER/289/Krupnski/?tour=41 Edit: As an aside, I've asked Cass to play for a bit to be able to find an average number of hits per kill WITH the mod. I believe it won't be as insane (i.e 14 hit average) as you guys seem to fear. Edited June 25, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC 3 1
Angry_Kitten Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 4 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said: I'm curious as to why 14 hits from a M2 is somehow a problem when you can down planes with less with MG131, which as is stands is overperforming to an insane degree. To give an indication of the utter ludicrous disparity; Per the anecdote 14 hits was enough to put a 190 into a combat ineffective state. In game planes can sustain 100s of M2 BMG and still remain in the fight. Meanwhile MG131 puts planes out with a single hit. Quite simply unless the MG131 is changed I don't see the point in handwringing over 14 BMG hits taking down a plane when the majority of players, including the best pilots in the online game, average 60 hits to take down a single aircraft http://stats.virtualpilots.fi:8000/en/pilot_aircraft/1424/NO_FILTER/289/Krupnski/?tour=41 Edit: As an aside, I've asked Cass to play for a bit to be able to find an average number of hits per kill WITH the mod. I believe it won't be as insane (i.e 14 hit average) as you guys seem to fear. But what part of the plane was actually HIT to make the mustang go down? I have flown planes with the wings shot to swiss cheese and managed to stay in the air. I have had russian rear gunners put basketball size holes in a wing and i keep flying. But i have had single hits from any rear gunner in the game hit the yellow engine cowling on my 190 and i can end up with engine damage that i can survive for 5 or 6 minutes of flying time in game before the engine siezes up, or a hit to the fuel injection system that kills me inside 5 minutes, or a radiator leak/oil leak that takes me out in 3 minutes, or end up with a fuel tank hit that lets me break off if i choose and land the plane, or gives me enough time to make a 3km circle and take the plane out. Every hit on a plane is an oblique hit. only a few surfaces are actually flat and youd have to be perpendicular to them....
86th_Buzzi Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, pocketshaver said: But what part of the plane was actually HIT to make the mustang go down? These happen all the time, and most isntances like that are tail/wing hits. Literally 1-3 hits from a 13mm HE round (with 1.5g of HE filler) and your plane is done, out of the fight, wing has virtually no lift and you need near full aileron deflection to stay in flight. There's almost zero chance of limping home becuase your aircraft has a 100kph drag penalty and your opponent simply saddles up and ends you. Meanwhile they guy you just bounced, putting 15-30 .50 AP rounds into, flies merrily without any aerodynamic issues whatsoever. Realistic. Edited June 25, 2021 by QB.Buzzi 5
Creep Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 14 hours ago, oc2209 said: That AP ammo is not worthless. Which several people in the thread obviously believed. At close range (which, as some might remember from another post, I quoted an authority no less than Hub Zemke as stating the extreme importance of firing under 250m), against a target that isn't wildly, unrealistically maneuvering as often occurs in multiplayer--with those factors, AP ammo does perform adequately in this sim. Being at close range doesn't have an appreciable effect on the damage done with AP ammunition. Please refer to the test methodology used here: A series of tests were conducted in a controlled environment: the Combat Box training server. All tests were recorded using the recording feature and matched with the sortie logs (extracted from the server using IL2Stats). The raw server logs have been preserved as well and will be supplied upon request. Testing in this way eliminates any possibility of netcode or lag issues since the number of rounds hitting the aircraft comes from the server and not the client recording. Each test was done at the same altitude with the same atmospheric conditions. All firing was done from zero degrees angle off tail and zero closure from a range of 100-200m. After each shot, we carefully observed the effect before deciding whether or not more shots were required to reach the desired outcome for the test - this can be verified by the time between shots in the sortie logs (i.e. we were not firing any more rounds than necessary to reach the desired effect). All tests were conducted using one of three ammo types: the German MG131 (which was recently changed to have a 50/50 mix of AP/HE ammo), the Russian UBS 7.62mm (which also has a 50/50 AP HE MIX), and the M2 .50 (which has no HE component). All tests were done shooting at the center of the left wing of each target airframe.
=RS=EnvyC Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 (edited) @pocketshaver Unless you're ok with suggesting 1.5g of PETN out of a 13mm shell should do as much catastrophic damage to an aircraft as a 30mm Mk108 shell, then you should clearly see this is ludicrous. edit: Food for though, CloD Blitz' DM which I think is widely accepted to be far superior to BoX, where the P40 gets API/T Edited June 25, 2021 by =RS=EnvyC 1
CountZero Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 (edited) To me this problem of AP and HE HMG damage is reminding me of debates about is 10km visability bubble good for game or not, it was obvious that its not and after they changed it its clear as day that visability we have now is mutch better and no one complains about it. Same was with ammo before 4.005 fix, it was mutch better then what we have now where you realy only have one type of ammo that is good and its HE. Before HE was better but not so mutch , now its just crazy good that its comical. We had .50 guns since P-40 come out with BoM and all worked fine up untill 4.005 changes to AP ammo. Reason why ppl noticed change imidiatly on .50 cal guns is they have only AP belt. Edited June 25, 2021 by CountZero 3
354thFG_Drewm3i-VR Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 5 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said: @pocketshaver Unless you're ok with suggesting 1.5g of PETN out of a 13mm shell should do as much catastrophic damage to an aircraft as a 30mm Mk108 shell, then you should clearly see this is ludicrous. edit: Food for though, CloD Blitz' DM which I think is widely accepted to be far superior to BoX, where the P40 gets API/T CLOD's hit effects, lighting, water, color palette, and dm look so much better. 1
oc2209 Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 8 hours ago, QB.Creep said: Being at close range doesn't have an appreciable effect on the damage done with AP ammunition. Please refer to the test methodology used here: No offense, but I really don't care about other people's tests. Just like most people here don't give a damn about my tests. I showed my recordings where wings came apart and pilots died and engines caught on fire and ammo exploded. Nobody cares. If you really want to figure it out, why don't you do your own single-player tests, record them, and watch the location and frequency of the strikes in slow motion. Set the AI target to Ace (not strictly necessary, but that's what I test with), impair the 109K's agility with wing gondolas, and then watch the recordings in chase view (of the target). And before you say, 'why add the gondolas?', there are two reasons: first, a P-47 won't be able to keep up with a clean 109K, assuming you want to test the effects of 8 guns or 4 guns, which only the 47 can do presently; and secondly, the less agile evasion will more closely resemble real-life gun cam footage. I mean, look at the example shown in the OP's gun cam GIF. The target isn't evading at all. I think doing your own testing will lead you to the conclusion that this is a very nuanced problem, related to both the .50's performance (less of the problem) and issues with the damage model (the lion's share of the problem, in my opinion). As I've also shown, even large caliber HE strikes can be totally shrugged off, depending on where you hit the plane. But as I said earlier, I'm done talking about this. It's about as constructive as talking about religion or politics. People will believe whatever they choose to believe. Myself included. All I can recommend, is to do your own testing.
Denum Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 (edited) Did you atleast use tac-view or anything that could track how many rounds or was this all purely seat of the pants testing and "oh it feels fine" I mean if that's the metric we are using, I can start posting clips of me one shotting allied birds with MG151/20 and push for a nerf?? Edited June 25, 2021 by Denum
LColony_Kong Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 Speaking of hit affects, why dont we have a realistic APIT impact effect? This is one of the most iconic things impacting tracer rounds. You hit people with the .50 right now and all you get is the occasional spark and some debris falling off unless something really catastrophic happens.
oc2209 Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, Denum said: Did you atleast use tac-view or anything that could track how many rounds or was this all purely seat of the pants testing and "oh it feels fine" I mean if that's the metric we are using, I can start posting clips of me one shotting allied birds with MG151/20 and push for a nerf?? Against my better judgment, I'm going to change tactics and try to explain what I mean with a comparison study. Here's the 'worthless' .50 AP versus a Sturmovik. 260 rounds fired to get the mythical, impossible-to-achieve fuel tank fire. Spoiler And here's the 'easy mode' German 13mm versus a Sturmovik; 319 rounds spent in the first (failed) pass alone: Spoiler It is my theory that AP rounds start fires only with a sufficient concentration of strikes in a short time period. This is why peppering a target is wholly ineffective for starting fires. Obviously, if there were incendiary rounds in the sim, it would be less problematic. But the discussion here is purely about the lethality of AP rounds. In the P-38 example, I deliver a solid burst that has immediate results. In the 109 example, I deliver several similar bursts, but their destructive potential is clearly limited by the rounds alternating between HE and AP. The HE has, evidently, zero effect on the Sturmovik, including knocking tail surfaces off. The AP-only guns in this comparison were more effective at starting a fire. I also recreated the P-38's results by lining up one wing of a P-47 behind a Sturmovik and starting a fire that way; in the fuel tank behind the pilot. Edited June 26, 2021 by oc2209
Angry_Kitten Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 1 hour ago, oc2209 said: Against my better judgment, I'm going to change tactics and try to explain what I mean with a comparison study. Here's the 'worthless' .50 AP versus a Sturmovik. 260 rounds fired to get the mythical, impossible-to-achieve fuel tank fire. Hide contents And here's the 'easy mode' German 13mm versus a Sturmovik; 319 rounds spent in the first (failed) pass alone: Reveal hidden contents It is my theory that AP rounds start fires only with a sufficient concentration of strikes in a short time period. This is why peppering a target is wholly ineffective for starting fires. Obviously, if there were incendiary rounds in the sim, it would be less problematic. But the discussion here is purely about the lethality of AP rounds. In the P-38 example, I deliver a solid burst that has immediate results. In the 109 example, I deliver several similar bursts, but their destructive potential is clearly limited by the rounds alternating between HE and AP. The HE has, evidently, zero effect on the Sturmovik, including knocking tail surfaces off. The AP-only guns in this comparison were more effective at starting a fire. I also recreated the P-38's results by lining up one wing of a P-47 behind a Sturmovik and starting a fire that way; in the fuel tank behind the pilot. IN the P38 footage, the moment the smoke trail started is TYPICALLY in my own experience using the magic 20 mm HE ammunition is a sign the IL2 is going to be gliding to the ground shortly. Could have saved alot of ammo for the debate here if youd veered off and just trailed for a while.
oc2209 Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 (edited) 54 minutes ago, pocketshaver said: IN the P38 footage, the moment the smoke trail started is TYPICALLY in my own experience using the magic 20 mm HE ammunition is a sign the IL2 is going to be gliding to the ground shortly. Could have saved alot of ammo for the debate here if youd veered off and just trailed for a while. Oh yeah, that first trail I made was indicative of a heavy oil leak. The thicker the smoke, the worse the leak. I think there's at least two different levels of leak. But I was trying to start a fire for the purposes of the test, not just get an eventual crash out of him. In another P-38 test, I managed to cut my ammo expenditure a lot: It's only a six second clip, so it's not even worth uploading. Both the P-38 and the P-47 generally make this Sturm test easier than all other planes I try, because they're so stable as gun platforms. I tried to start a fire with the P-39's guns (no wing, no cannon, just the two .50s in the nose) and failed. I killed the pilot once, started severe oil and fuel leaks, but no fire. Which sort of confirms my theory that a high volume of AP lead in a small area = fire. It appears as though you need at least 3 .50s on target, preferably 4, to start a fire easily. Also did some quick tests with an La-5, AP only versus the Sturm, and started a fire with 32 rounds and 26 rounds in two tests. The rounds went all the way through to start the engine on fire as well. Pilot kill and fire in the second test. Beyond that, the fact that the 109's tank doesn't start on fire this easily, with none of the Sturm's armor, is yet another indication of a damage model issue; specific to the 109 perhaps. Edited June 26, 2021 by oc2209
Angry_Kitten Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 Had some fun time in CLOD blitz tonight,,, god talk about hard to score hits.... hard to SEE if i was hitting. Even with the mighty fifties, and with the game allowed APIT, API, and general AP and BALL ammunition, the HE 111 was still soaking up hits like a fat toddler soaking up skittles.
Denum Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 (edited) On 6/24/2021 at 3:56 PM, Denum said: You can just about make anything perform adequately with enough time and the right conditions. *Looks at the minute long video of shooting* Ok, so again. How is this accurate historically? It took you over a minute to take that aircraft down. We have plenty of gun camera footage that showed this occuring in less then a few seconds and using 10% of the ammo. But according to you, Because you can "make them work" by hitting heavily laden aircraft while parked behind them for a minute to land hundreds of rounds that means everything's ok? Like for real?? You don't see how silly that is? Personally the icing on the cake is that there's thousands upon thousands of hours of stats that you comparing 3 videos to. Like the P51 alone, there's 184,000 rounds hit between two servers worth of data. Revolves is attempting to see if we can sort .50 kills by hits taken. Personally I can't wait to see those. Especially when sorties like this are being put up. Super realistic. Big thumbs up! Edited June 26, 2021 by Denum 2
ACG_Cass Posted June 26, 2021 Author Posted June 26, 2021 @oc2209 You can't do 1 test each and say, there it's fine. This has been happening for a year, we aren't short on data or experience. People have spent an enormous amount of time on testing and putting together posts showing what the issue is. For you to come in and do a couple of singleplayer tests and completely disregard what we're trying to say is what is frustrating people here. .50 work, sure. But they aren't working how they should. Certainly not to the degree that would be acceptable to a pilot. If you want to contribute. Shoot down 30 109s with the mod and then 30 109s without it, then let us know the numbers for each kill. 1 3 2
Creep Posted June 26, 2021 Posted June 26, 2021 16 hours ago, oc2209 said: No offense, but I really don't care about other people's tests. Why are we even talking if you aren't willing to listen? 16 hours ago, oc2209 said: All I can recommend, is to do your own testing. @QB.Shallot and I did do quite a bit of testing, and it was far more rigorous than yours. We identified as many variables as we could and kept them constant (range, firing position, etc), and performed tests multiple times until we were confident that we were getting consistent results. Some of the tests we completely threw out because there was too much variance to draw conclusions (e.g. engine fires). We recorded everything (in-game track files and tacview recordings) and we obtained the raw server logs from the server admins (Combat Box) to verify the exact hit counts. I suggest you read our findings carefully - all of the information is here in one post - it will only take you five minutes to read it. Our conclusions have yet to be challenged by anyone because they are an accurate representation of what you will find when you compare HE HMG to AP HMG. 1 8
oc2209 Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 (edited) On 6/26/2021 at 1:16 AM, Denum said: *Looks at the minute long video of shooting* It took you over a minute to take that aircraft down. But according to you, Because you can "make them work" by hitting heavily laden aircraft while parked behind them for a minute to land hundreds of rounds that means everything's ok? How does the length of the clip matter? Was I firing for a solid minute? Here, I'll simplify matters: La-5, AP-only, 20 rounds fired: Spoiler P-38, 80 rounds fired, .50s only. Screenshot from above was taken from this clip: Spoiler P-47. Note how I line up my right wing so that it hits the Sturm's underside: Spoiler The point of these tests is to show that AP rounds can penetrate armor; that's what it's designed to do. Many people (I've read all over the forums, not just in this thread) claim AP is worthless and ineffectual. In other tests today, I broke off a 109G-6's wingtip with 1 AP 20mm from an La-5; and I broke the wing at the mid point with 2 hits on another occasion. When people focus excessively on the AP's performance, it distracts from exploring other explanations. It's rather akin to a murder investigation where the detectives decide the husband did it on day 1, and don't bother to pursue other leads. Likewise, when people say HE are overpowered because they see stats in multiplayer where they're downed by 1-2 13mm HE hits, they totally ignore all the disparities I've seen in HE performance, which become especially obvious in the 30-37mm range. Both AP and HE rounds can be totally ineffectual at various times. What do both ammo types share? A common damage model. The damage model is what's making the ammo performance inconsistent and somewhat unpredictable. In my opinion. It's down to the cold laws of probability that make AP ammo apparently suffer the most. On 6/26/2021 at 1:29 AM, ACG_Cass said: @oc2209 You can't do 1 test each and say, there it's fine. This has been happening for a year, we aren't short on data or experience. People have spent an enormous amount of time on testing and putting together posts showing what the issue is. For you to come in and do a couple of singleplayer tests and completely disregard what we're trying to say is what is frustrating people here. I'm not completely disregarding, as much as I'm trying to add a different testing approach to determine if there are other contributing factors in the apparent situational weaknesses of .50 AP performance. By focusing entirely on the AP round, it blinds you to other possibilities. Many people are under the broad assumption that HE is overpowered, and AP is worthless. That kind of black and white thinking is what I'm trying to dispel. Edited June 27, 2021 by oc2209 1
Denum Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 (edited) HE is over powered, and by comparison AP is worthless. No one is saying that AP is completely ineffective. They're saying it doesn't do enough damage. This mod corrects that. MK108 works fine. The M4 seems to struggle on occasion. But seems to be only against Axis aircraft. But that's not related to current thread. In all of your videos you are parked on top of the aircraft at less then 100 yards, which will allow maximum penetration. These aren't ranges you'd manage to maintain in a dogfight against another competent fighter for any extended period of time. This is again, providing ideal conditions to provide the desired outcome. Most P51s during wartime were set to 300 yards with some pilots using 200-250 yards. Safe to assume if the guns were ineffective at 300 that wouldn't be the standard convergence. HE is effective at even the maximum range. Whereas AP is only effect at the minimum. Huh... Seems like the argument still tracks... Edited June 27, 2021 by Denum 1
oc2209 Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Denum said: HE is over powered, and by comparison AP is worthless. This here is exactly why I said some people made this into an MMO balance issue. No one cares if X is bad compared to Y. That's a fundamentally flawed argument. The question is whether X is bad, underperforming, period. Relative performance scale means nothing in a sim; a sim doesn't have to be balanced. I'm saying that .50 cals do penetrate armor. That's all they're supposed to do. Whether Allied pilots are screwed because incendiary rounds aren't in the game (it's extremely unfortunate they're not in the game--I'm not arguing that point); whether Allied pilots are screwed because convergence doesn't work like it should--none of that is pertinent to the question of whether AP ammo works as AP ammo is supposed to work. That is the only consideration in this discussion. 4 hours ago, Denum said: MK108 works fine. Debatable. The Typhoon below took the first 2 shots without detaching anything. Only the second two did serious damage. This is what I mean by parts of the plane 'absorbing' damage to no discernible effect. In reality, 2x30mm shots to the fuselage of any single-engine plane would very likely blow the plane apart at that point. 4 hours ago, Denum said: In all of your videos you are parked on top of the aircraft at less then 100 yards, which will allow maximum penetration. You're moving the goalposts here. Claims made in this thread were that fuel tanks were rarely/never started on fire, AP didn't do structural damage, etc. Now I show multiple examples where it's possible to do any of the above under optimal conditions, and now you say those conditions are too optimal. I refer back to Hub Zemke saying that the P-51's guns were 'sufficient' on the condition they were used under 250 yards. I'm penetrating a Sturmovik's armor at approximately 100 yards. Zemke wasn't talking about shooting down Sturmoviks. I think the distance I have to be to reliably start a Sturm on fire makes total sense. 4 hours ago, Denum said: HE is effective at even the maximum range. Whereas AP is only effect at the minimum. And? That's a fundamental design issue. HE will always be effective at any range you can score a hit. That's an inherent advantage of HE ammunition. Is the sim somehow supposed to compensate for this historical advantage? AP isn't only effective at minimum range. It is statistically more likely to be effective at minimum range. Big difference. This is a numbers game, and inherent shortcomings to the complexity of the damage model work most against AP, used as it is in multiplayer scenarios, than HE. That still doesn't mean HE is always overpowered. HE is only truly effective against wings or control surfaces. Fuselages absorb HE hits exceedingly well. Edited June 28, 2021 by oc2209
Denum Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) No. They are two seperate issues. It's you that's intermixing the two. 151/20 damage radius is 5.7m. In freedom units that's 18.5 feet for a overall diameter of 39 feet. One shell to the center of the P47 is capable of damaging the entire aircraft. HE is over powered. At 150 yards an accurate 1 second burst should absolutely damage a 109 heavily and yet, 50% of the time it will escape leaking fuel like nothing happened. 190 will escape even more often. Outside of a pilot kill or fire they will have little to no speed reduction. No performance reduction. No lift reduction. Sure seems like AP is under powered. DVD system is not a reliable indication of damage as per Jason. You can circle damage on aircraft all you want. It doesn't prove anything. Because it is a DECAL system intermixed with the old damage system. Also. Due to how the game is designed. I can clearly see the elevator and rudder took the brunt of that. Sorry your favorite 109 didn't delete the aircraft but that's clearly going to be crashing very soon. Seems like a ridiculous complaint. Yes. It can be too optimal for test conditions. If the only way you're making it work reliably is by shooting from half the range of even the closest convergence examples listed. That still proves what we've been discussing. AP is under powered! Suggesting that it is ok reeks of simply protecting a certain meta. People would fill their diapers if HE only worked at 100m. HE is absolutely not effective at "any range" Early Hispanos were plagued with failing to penetrate deeply enough to do significant damage. At 300m 151/20 AP is only penetrating 10-12mm of armor and yet HE is still capable of completely disabling your aircraft from any range, regardless of penetration. HE in game require so little ability to use that it's closer to arcade then a simulation. The skill gap between late war allied players vs axis is like the grand Canyon because one needs to consistently shoot extremely accurately to be effective. On a merge I need to land one HE shell and I have complete control of that fight. Even if it's a single 13mm HE round immediately have the advantage. https://youtu.be/IxxEua1RiIc Seems pretty cheesed to me! Yes. It is a numbers game. iL2 is losing players over it. That's the only numbers game that matters. Guess it's time to lean harder on getting HE nerfed and getting the 13mm HE removed because it isn't historically accurate. Seems like we will have a better chance of that. The bottom line is AP is not performing within even a sniff of any historical references. Edited June 28, 2021 by Denum
Angry_Kitten Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 Some of the tests we completely threw out because there was too much variance to draw conclusions (e.g. engine fires). Yes what a way to cherry pick information that makes HE look like the magic yeet juice of destruction and make 50 bmg AP look like crap. Just had A20-B that could shrug off wing hits iwth the magic mk 108. That was impressive as can be as i was thinking, based on these destructions, that the HE round should knock a plane out with a single wing hit. I managed to fly a 190 that had a hole as big as the A20 B landing gear wheel in the middle of the wing, and it didnt rip off until i HIT the a20 in question. But that linked thread brings it all back to the same stupid as can be arguments 1. 50 AP doesnt perform as well as 50 API would 2. 50 AP doesnt do the same amount of damage to an airplane as HE ammunition does... NO FUCKING SHIT it wont. It wont in REAL LIFE and it doesnt in the game. Its why the english and soviets and germans invented HE rounds. MORE FUN... 3. If we cant get the AP fixed, lets get rid of HE for machine guns. Claim in same breath you want the AP to perform like the HE or API would, and then say lets get rid of historically accurate ammunition... 4. Some of the tests we completely threw out because there was too much variance to draw conclusions (e.g. engine fires). Thats from the fellow who over saw and compiled data from those "scientific tests". If you start a test and then throw out things that dont conform to, or confirm your observational bias, your tests are nothing more then what some are calling oc2209's videos that show 50 AP works.... as pure internet bullshit. All firing was done from zero degrees angle off tail and zero closure from a range of 100-200m. After each shot, we carefully observed the effect before deciding whether or not more shots were required to reach the desired outcome for the test - this can be verified by the time between shots in the sortie logs (i.e. we were not firing any more rounds than necessary to reach the desired effect). All tests were conducted using one of three ammo types: the German MG131 (which was recently changed to have a 50/50 mix of AP/HE ammo), the Russian UBS 7.62mm (which also has a 50/50 AP HE MIX), and the M2 .50 (which has no HE component). All tests were done shooting at the center of the left wing of each target airframe. All test data is available for download here. oh my oc2209 used the same range and was bitch slapped for using a cherry picked range UNDER the standard reccomendation of 300 yards.... but was actually the SAME as used in those tests. Oddly enough YOUR tests were recreated and were found to DISPUTE your cherry picked results. Weapon type Average rounds Minimum rounds Maximum rounds Russian UBS 12.7mm 24 16 35 German MG131 24.6 20 32 US M2 .50 30 23 36 Strangely the ammo loadout for the soviet and german belts is disregarded in the result listings... no one accounted for the 50% mix of HE and AP for them..... and there have been comments on the soviet AP being worthless in game,, yet no one wants to fix it by name. 50 round burst into an engine pod only make it trail smoke, or 50 rounds into a elevator and the plane steers funny, every one screams its unfair. But comment 10 rounds of 20 mm HE doesnt always make an engine turn into a fire ball and its a lynch mob in here.
Recommended Posts