Pilot killed without being hit.

[JG1_Wittmann]

so 75% ?   and every single one died from 50 cal hits ?  Not a single crash,  etc  due to less skill later war.  I  don't have the #'s  from  in-game.  I get shot down all the time  so it really  doesn't matter to me if I get killed  or  parachute out  etc.   The people that are much more skilled  and maybe it does matter to them  can definitely see a very big difference  in the pilot kill rate.     I dont think anyone would disagree that any 50 call from the side, front or top  is  a  killer,  90 % of the time.   That is certainly not the case  from where the majority are delivered,  dead 6,  and that  over performance  seems to strike many as a problem,  and wildly inaccurate

[MeoW.Scharfi]

36 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I read a similar thing somewhere, but haven't seen any exact numbers. Do you possibly have more info on that?

 

 

 

 

Günther Rall lost a thumb to a 50cal and was lucky.

Lucky he survived and lucky his badly healing stump kept him from flying for a long time, which most probably made him survive the war.

 

Oh since you bring Rall into that topic, let's just quote him, timestamp at 19:12

 

 

Timestamp

 

17 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

so 75% ?   and every single one died from 50 cal hits ?  Not a single crash,  etc  due to less skill later war.  I  don't have the #'s  from  in-game.  I get shot down all the time  so it really  doesn't matter to me if I get killed  or  parachute out  etc.   The people that are much more skilled  and maybe it does matter to them  can definitely see a very big difference  in the pilot kill rate.     I dont think anyone would disagree that any 50 call from the side, front or top  is  a  killer,  90 % of the time.   That is certainly not the case  from where the majority are delivered,  dead 6,  and that  over performance  seems to strike many as a problem,  and wildly inaccurate

 

Pilots in ww2 had super shitty aim, much worse than the players ingame that have thousands of hours shooting at other planes.

I mean what you expect?

 

15 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Of top 20 WWII aces 13 survived, some of them got shot down more than once and survived the war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

 

Erich Hartmann: eastern front
Gerhard Barkhorn: eastern front
Günther Rall: western front, injured
Otto Kittel: dead
Walter Nowotny: dead
Wilhelm Batz: eastern front
Erich Rudorffer: western front 262
heinz bär: western front 262
hermann graf: eastern front
Heinrich Ehrler: dead
theodor weissenberger: western front 262
hans phillipp: dead
walter schuck: western front 262
anton hafner: dead
helmut lipfert: eastern front
walter krupinski: western front 262
anton hack: western front and survived
joachim brendel: eastern front
max stolz: dead
joachim kirscher: dead
kurt brändle: dead

Edited January 25, 2022 by MeoW.Scharfi

[SCG_motoadve]

2 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

I don’t think you realize the casualty rate of pilots In the war. The odds were not in your favor. 

Of top 20 WWII aces 13 survived, some of them got shot down more than once and survived the war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

 

 

[purK]

15 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

No fun because it does not feel realistic.

I am all for realism.

There were many pilots shot down more than a dozen times and flew again, this cannot happen in game, if you get shot down 12 times probably 8 will be pilot kills, so yes its too often.

 

6 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Of top 20 WWII aces 13 survived, some of them got shot down more than once and survived the war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces

 

 

Of 20,000 Luftwaffe pilots, only 2,000 survived. 90% of them didn't return, the words of Gunther Rall himself. If you get shot down 12 times and die 8 times, that's a 33% chance of of survival, still greater than reality.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Krupnski

[Bremspropeller]

25 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

Of 20,000 Luftwaffe pilots, only 2,000 survived. 90% of them were killed, the words of Gunther Rall himself. If you get shot down 12 times and die 8 times, that's a 33% chance of of survival, still greater than reality.

 

Plus amongst those top 20 aces, there are significant selection bias/ filters in place:

 

- most pilots died during their first couple of missions, without any experience, tumbleweed and could hardly stay on their flight lead's wing

- those aces knew what was going on, had over time developed a kind of 6th sense and generally were on top with good SA

- in the end, it's all a game of odds and luck and you're bound to run out of luck sooner or later

 

Fate is the hunter.

 

 

...which is also the title of a very good book, btw.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central]

The fact that so many pilot kills are happening in MP from 50s should not be a surprise. People who have been flying 50 cal armed planes in GB have developed greater marksmanship out of necessity, due to the previously incorrect terminal ballistics. Aiming for the pilot was, back then, the only sure way to secure the kill. Ammo is working better now, but the target hasn't changed. I for one still aim for the cockpit when using 50s.

Edited January 26, 2022 by =[TIA]=I-Fly-Central

[SCG_motoadve]

10 minutes ago, Krupnski said:

 

Of 20,000 Luftwaffe pilots, only 2,000 survived. 90% of them didn't return, the words of Gunther Rall himself. If you get shot down 12 times and die 8 times, that's a 33% chance of of survival, still greater than reality.

Agreed , died 8 times ,and greater than reality, but we need to take into account, I am referring as pilot kills only, first shot pilot hits , not all the other ways of being shot down, engine killed, flight control surfaces damaged, fires, which at the end killed pilots etc, in game it will be pilot kills only, 8 times out of 12, juts feels happens too often, same as explosions now which most of us agree, is happening too often.

 

You probably already know this, most pilots losses were in accidents during WWII.

Just in the USA 15,000 pilots died in training during WWII, not even overseas.

We all read about the accident rate of accidents in 109s on take offs and landings, of those 18,000 German losses it is possible that more than half were lost in accidents.

17 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

which is also the title of a very good book, btw.

Yes read it, along with the Killing Zone, another good book.

[MeoW.Scharfi]

Just now, SCG_motoadve said:

We all read about the accident rate of accidents in 109s on take offs and landings, of those 18,000 German losses it is possible that more than half were lost in accidents.

 

One of the worst myths.

[ACG_Cass]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[354thFG_Rails]

19 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Agreed , died 8 times ,and greater than reality, but we need to take into account, I am referring as pilot kills only, first shot pilot hits , not all the other ways of being shot down,

Why is it that you can not accept first shot pilot kills? It can happen. Also have you checked logs or anything to actually see when you were killed. I’m just don’t think this first bullet pilot kill crap is happening as often as you think

[JG1_Wittmann]

I don't  think that the argument or discussion is whether or not the 50 cal  could and frequently did kill  pilots.   Using  survival rates of german pilots in ww2  is a red herring as they were vastly outnumbered  in later years in the war, and  may were shot down by 50's from bomber gunners, that were to the front or side   We don't have #'s differences like those in game.   IF the 50 cal  could penetrate the rear of an AC,  dead 6 and  go through everything, then the plate and then the pilot,   why does it seem in game that that  is op.   When you compare it to other ammo in the game,  it seems to many that it most definitely is.  If the 50 cal  can do all of that, from a dead 6,  would then not a more powerful round, such as a mg151 AP round, or a 23 or 20mm russian AP round, or say a 20mm allied AP round do so at a higher rate ?   It does not appear to be that way in game to many.  The 50 from the rear,  kills the pilot from the rear, like no other, even though a 20mm AP round ,  given the same shot would do so more easily.  That,  is what no1 has been able to explain.  The  mg151  was a mixed load,   some say 2/3 AP 1/3 Mine,   the pilot kills from a nose gun don't get that  rate of pilot kill and yet it could penetrate more,   how does that happen ?    So basically,  using ammo performance #'s on penetration,  if the 50 cal kills pilot X times from dead 6  would then a 20mm ap round  not do the same,  more easily ?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

57 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Some of us just don't feel is realistic, and makes the game less fun, whatever the argument is, just not fun to get kills so easily, and many of those with the first round fired.

 

55 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Any  bullet that hits  enough objects will tumble,  that is not  exclusive to 50 cal rounds.  So if a guy gets hit from 6  and that 50 cal hits some fuselage items  ( it will to get to the armor )   then is it tumbling ?  What is  the velocity ?

 

Any larger caliber round to the human body would be devastating unless you were very lucky. However,  It seems as though ammunition just cuts through everything in a straight line, like a laser beam. As pointed out by these posts and others. The loss of velocity and the tumbling effects may well not be able to be modeled with the current technology but the amount of pilot kills and exploding aircraft has gone through the roof. Added to this is the defensive capabilities of bomber crews has gone from superhuman to completely useless.

 

I can certainly expect elite fight jocks to approach from angles and in attack patterns that will lessen the chance for gunner to be effective but now we a situation whereby fighters can sit on the six of a bomber whilst the gunner is asleep or senseless.    

[ACG_Cass]

4 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

IF the 50 cal  could penetrate the rear of an AC,  dead 6 and  go through everything, then the plate and then the pilot,   why does it seem in game that that  is op.  

What is there to stop it? You've got the fuel tank, a battery and maybe some radios. Pretty sure the radios are a place where the fuel tank will get hit first.

 

If there isn't the fuel tank between the pilot and the round, it's more than likely making it to him.

[=RS=Haart]

So let's do a rough estimate of what's behind the pilot of a 109.

4mm of fuel tank/roughly 4mm of compressed air tank to clear the MK108 if it jams, and 12mm(?) of duralum, at engagement ranges the M2 AP can pen 22-26mm (if I remember correctly in-game it's around the 22mm point) 

So in conclusion, 109 pilots need to BFM better I guess ?‍♂️, maybe less flop so they don't waste their E?

 

 

 

[purK]

7 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I don't  think that the argument or discussion is whether or not the 50 cal  could and frequently did kill  pilots.   Using  survival rates of german pilots in ww2  is a red herring as they were vastly outnumbered  in later years in the war, and  may were shot down by 50's from bomber gunners, that were to the front or side   We don't have #'s differences like those in game.   IF the 50 cal  could penetrate the rear of an AC,  dead 6 and  go through everything, then the plate and then the pilot,   why does it seem in game that that  is op.   When you compare it to other ammo in the game,  it seems to many that it most definitely is.  If the 50 cal  can do all of that, from a dead 6,  would then not a more powerful round, such as a mg151 AP round, or a 23 or 20mm russian AP round, or say a 20mm allied AP round do so at a higher rate ?   It does not appear to be that way in game to many.  The 50 from the rear,  kills the pilot from the rear, like no other, even though a 20mm AP round ,  given the same shot would do so more easily.  That,  is what no1 has been able to explain.  The  mg151  was a mixed load,   some say 2/3 AP 1/3 Mine,   the pilot kills from a nose gun don't get that  rate of pilot kill and yet it could penetrate more,   how does that happen ?    So basically,  using ammo performance #'s on penetration,  if the 50 cal kills pilot X times from dead 6  would then a 20mm ap round  not do the same,  more easily ?

Because .50 cals have more velocity and higher rate of fire than than Russian or German 20mm, so they can penetrate extremely well at close range, while still being effective at longer range. Either way you can still pilot kill with lower velocity ammo if you get close enough, you can test this with an La5 which allows you chose AP ammo only.

It's not a question of IF the rear of an aircraft can be penetrated, we already know it's possible from real world data.

[354thFG_Rails]

Also have to remember 6-8 guns vs. 1-2. The shear volume of fire is what is helping in the pilot kills along with the corrected penetration values for the M2. Which at 200-300 meters can penetrate 20-22mm of armor. 

[=RS=Haart]

34 minutes ago, QB.Rails said:

Also have to remember 6-8 guns vs. 1-2. The shear volume of fire is what is helping in the pilot kills along with the corrected penetration values for the M2. Which at 200-300 meters can penetrate 20-22mm of armor. 

Also the near 2 years of "aim better" had a resounding impact on gunnery I would imagine

[SCG_motoadve]

Everyone is focusing on .50s as the subject.

Does anyone fly Russian planes anymore?

Just did 6 quick combat missions, was just my plane against 4 109s and 4 190 on ace.

First mission P39 one shot pilot kill (from almost dead six, which surprised me)

Second mission , Yak engine fire, crash landed, pilot alive.

Third to sixth missions all pilot kills. (all on Yaks, not the very first bullet though)

.50s are fine, I have no problem with them,  its not the .50s, we actually need APIs for them.

 

Edited January 26, 2022 by SCG_motoadve

[Denum]

3 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

 It would seem that  softer round in A2A loadouts  would be preferred

 

Absolutely not. 

The goal is to kill the pilot or damage the engine. Allied aircraft weren't focused on skin damage (which they still did some unlike the game here). 

 

At 200 yards you can penetrate the seat with ease. Han went into this also 

 

 

Post below

 

___________

 

Some notes on recent .50 update (reposted from 4.604 discussion).

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Some people says, that while .50 damage at 100..200 m is ok, it should be significantly lower at greater ranges (400 m for instance).

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 But still - what is the real difference?

 

 

 

 200m hit - 775m/s impact velocity, 22mm armour penetration

 

 

 

 400m hit - 700 m/s impact velocity, 19mm armour penetration

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Yep there is difference, but do you realy think that this difference is enough to say:

 

 

 

 "It's ok to have explosion by hit at 200m and unacceptable to have explosion at 400m"

 

 

 

 ?

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Some people says, that .50 bullet capability to kill the pilot have super-increased.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Just FYI:

 

 

 

 109K backseat armour is 8mm,

 

 

 

 armoured headrest 10mm,

 

 

 

 armoured glass headrest is 60mm (means 8mm armour steel analog),

 

 

 

 dural plate behing fuel tank is 20mm (means 5mm armour steel analog).

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 So as you see at 400m .50 is double-capable to penetrate any armour of 109K if hit strict from behind.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Using knowing nomogramm of .50 we see that even with 30° angleled hit we can penetrate 10mm at ~660m.

 

 

 

 Only in case of hit angle 45° - 10mm can be penetrated only on 200m. But is it "only"? I suppose it's damn far for 45°.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 For 0° hit angle .50 can penetrate 10mm at impressive 1100m range

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 All these aspects are taken in count in the game engine because bullets are physically in-time modelled objects with drag and mass, not "table-counted trajectory".

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 PS

 

 

 

 All these numbers are for ground tests offcourse. When you firing from one plane to another - everything will change. Even if the shoter and the target have the same speed - bullet-target relative speed will fall faster than equal absolute bullet speed in ground test (because bullet absolute speed in air test is higher and drag is higher even in case if bullet-to-target speed is the same).

 

 

 

 From other hand, if altitude is great enough - drag is falling due to air density fall.

 

 

 

 From third hand, if you fire with hight incline at high target - speed will fall much faster.

 

 

 

 From fourth hand, if you firing at lower target (significantly lower one) - speed will fall much longer.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 PPS

 

 

 

 And offcourse, even after penetrating not too thick armour (if it is capable to) bullet loosing it's energy and capability to damage something behing the armour.

 

 

 

 In case if bullet have penetrated the armour on the limit of it's capability - energy and damage behind the armour will reduce up to 4 times. So even pilot will have a chance to survive.

 

 

 

 But when penetration capability is 2 times more tham armour thickness - energy loss and damage loss will be much less dramatic. It still will be , but much less.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 PPPS

 

 

 

 Fuel tanks are the best bullet-stoppers (if bullets are not too large).

 

 

 

 For instance: if tank hit by .50 from 200m, than 1..1.5m of fuel will stop bullet at all.Amount of fuel affects the probability of explosion.

 

 

 

  

 PPPPS

 

 

 

 And once again - there is no realy DRAMATIC change on .50 bullet mass or muzzle speed in 4.604.

 

 

 

 Mass increased from 42g to correct 46g.

 

 

 

 Muzzle speed - from 840m/s to correct 864m/s.

 

 

 

 So muzzle energy have increased ONLY for 16%.

 

 

 

 Bullet armour penetration at 500m increased from 15mm to 17.5mm.

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Conclusion:

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 Guys, any feelings about .50 become Death-Star pilot killer or something - is a kind of placeebo. Yes, it's capability have increased, but just a little.

 

 

 

 But MAY be doubling of dispercion (due to new reading of the source data based on additional data providing) on M2.50 have increased the possibility of enemy pilot's back appear on one of the bullet's trajectory.

 

 

 

  

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/68018-jasons-briefing-room-and-officers-club/?do=findComment&comment=1125569

 

 

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

1 hour ago, Krupnski said:

Because .50 cals have more velocity and higher rate of fire than than Russian or German 20mm, so they can penetrate extremely well at close range, while still being effective at longer range. Either way you can still pilot kill with lower velocity ammo if you get close enough, you can test this with an La5 which allows you chose AP ammo only.

It's not a question of IF the rear of an aircraft can be penetrated, we already know it's possible from real world data.

So is it your claim that at combat ranges,  from a dead 6 or close, that the 50 cal penetrates more  than a 20mm AP round, russian, german or british ?     I don't have a penetration chart comparing the 2,    But I believe the 20mm  penetrates more  at 500m  or less,  and I think as the angle to the tgt increases,  the difference in that penetration goes up as the mass of the 20mm round  is much larger.   At a 90 deg angle,  in the combat ranges we most often see, the 20 wins easily,   at angles more than 90 the 20 wins by a larger %.   Rate of fire has zero effect on penetration.   You get close enough and don't miss rate of fire has no play in penetrating a plane fuselage, armor plate etc.  I don't have in game data, because the developers will not release this type of thing.   But from in game,  I have heard many pilots talking about the pilot kill capability of the 50 as of the last couple of updates.   Velocity is important,   but mass is also important  and the velocity difference between the 50 and a mg151 20 mm ap round,or russian cannon, or british,  is nowhere near enough to overcome the larger mass.  If there is data saying otherwise and someone has that,  plz  do share

[354thFG_Rails]

21 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Everyone is focusing on .50s as the subject.

Does anyone fly Russian planes anymore?

Just did 6 quick combat missions, was just my plane against 4 109s and 4 190 on ace.

First mission P39 one shot pilot kill (from almost dead six, which surprised me)

Second mission , Yak engine fire, crash landed, pilot alive.

Third to sixth missions all pilot kills. (all on Yaks, not the very first bullet though)

.50s are fine, I have no problem with them,  its not the .50s, we actually need APIs for them.

 

It’s only been brought up because of the video you posted. What is your complaint? That pilot kills are happening to frequently, too quickly. If that’s the case then I just disagree. Guys who have basically exclusively or mostly flown American birds have been repeatedly told to aim better 50’s are fine. Like most have pointed out, I think these people just got better and the corrected ballistics is paying off. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by QB.Rails

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Well, we all agree that the .50 cal is doing what it's supposed to now

 

 

But what about those gunners?

 

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

Was that online?

[-SF-Disarray]

Yeah, when did the deathstar patch drop? I missed that one.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Just now, QB.Rails said:

Was that online?

Yes, but it's not my video but you can check it out in  this thread.

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

Imma gonna say netcode and just move on.. seems fitting. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, QB.Rails said:

Imma gonna say netcode and just move on.. seems fitting. 

It's happening across the board and I'm sure not everyone has internet powered by hamster wheel.

[-SF-Disarray]

I'm regularly hit by gunners when attacking bombers. Online and off. When making good attack runs, when making bad attack runs. I'm even hit when making the shot that hit me would be improbable at best. Come back with some data and maybe you can have an argument.

[354thFG_Rails]

Probably not. But do the same thing quick mission and see. If it’s the same then you’ve made your point. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

The perception of instant kills is most probably linked to the adjustment of ammunition factors but combined with gunners that can't hit anything is going to be a big factor too.   

[=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central]

My ISP uses turbo-supercharged hamsters. Work well enough until they blow a gasket. ? 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Come back with some data and maybe you can have an argument.

I can only assume all the other posters regarding nerfed gunners are having monetary lapse of reason too?

[-SF-Disarray]

1 minute ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I can only assume all the other posters regarding nerfed gunners are having monetary lapse of reason too?

Your standard of "data" on this issue is far worse than the kinds of post you yourself dismissed out of hand when I and others were bringing up issues with AP ammo 2 years ago. Has something changed? Or is it now just convenient to go off of anecdotes and feelings now that you see something wrong? I'm only holding you to your own standards. Go get some data. I'll wait.

[purK]

29 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

So is it your claim that at combat ranges,  from a dead 6 or close, that the 50 cal penetrates more  than a 20mm AP round, russian, german or british ?     I don't have a penetration chart comparing the 2,    But I believe the 20mm  penetrates more  at 500m  or less,  and I think as the angle to the tgt increases,  the difference in that penetration goes up as the mass of the 20mm round  is much larger.   At a 90 deg angle,  in the combat ranges we most often see, the 20 wins easily,   at angles more than 90 the 20 wins by a larger %.   Rate of fire has zero effect on penetration.   You get close enough and don't miss rate of fire has no play in penetrating a plane fuselage, armor plate etc.  I don't have in game data, because the developers will not release this type of thing.   But from in game,  I have heard many pilots talking about the pilot kill capability of the 50 as of the last couple of updates.   Velocity is important,   but mass is also important  and the velocity difference between the 50 and a mg151 20 mm ap round,or russian cannon, or british,  is nowhere near enough to overcome the larger mass.  If there is data saying otherwise and someone has that,  plz  do share

I don't understand what you're trying to say. At close range all of these rounds will penetrate easily, 50s and hispanos will continue to do so at even further range than German or Russian 20mm due to their higher velocity.

The difference is that .50s are pure AP, while the rest are mixed with HE ammo. This obviously gives the 50s an advantage for pilot kills when every single round is AP.

[=RS=EnvyC]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Well, we all agree that the .50 cal is doing what it's supposed to now

 

 

This amuses me, because if you actually had correct .50s this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

 

But who needs box harmonisation and APIT anyway.

Edited January 26, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[6./ZG26_Custard]

39 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

Your standard of "data" on this issue is far worse than the kinds of post you yourself dismissed out of hand when I and others were bringing up issues with AP ammo 2 years ago.

I provided no "data" I provided a video posted by another player who is illustrating a problem with the gunners. And with regards to posts about the .50 cals from 2 years ago we had individuals who were posting hysterical, rude  and downright outrageous posts using the most foul language. Entire threads where being deleted because of it. I'm more than happy with my own standards, perhaps you need to look at yours?       

Edited January 26, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[354thFG_Rails]

38 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

So is it your claim that at combat ranges,  from a dead 6 or close, that the 50 cal penetrates more  than a 20mm AP round, russian, german or british ?     I don't have a penetration chart comparing the 2,    But I believe the 20mm  penetrates more  at 500m  or less,  and I think as the angle to the tgt increases,  the difference in that penetration goes up as the mass of the 20mm round  is much larger.   At a 90 deg angle,  in the combat ranges we most often see, the 20 wins easily,   at angles more than 90 the 20 wins by a larger %.   Rate of fire has zero effect on penetration.   You get close enough and don't miss rate of fire has no play in penetrating a plane fuselage, armor plate etc.  I don't have in game data, because the developers will not release this type of thing.   But from in game,  I have heard many pilots talking about the pilot kill capability of the 50 as of the last couple of updates.   Velocity is important,   but mass is also important  and the velocity difference between the 50 and a mg151 20 mm ap round,or russian cannon, or british,  is nowhere near enough to overcome the larger mass.  If there is data saying otherwise and someone has that,  plz  do share

Penetration  values are all highlighted. AN/M2 only pens the german 20mm and russian at 500 meters. all other weapons pen better than it aside from the 131. but that's to be expected with a lighter and not as fast round. I think the only reason I can guess would be the drag profile is not as good as the 50 cal round. But I can't remember what the number is in the files. Even then the Penetration is not drastically off at 500 meters. Both the russian 20 and the german 20 doing 17mm of pen to the 50's 19mm. not a crazy difference.

[86th_Buzzi]

1 hour ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

So is it your claim that at combat ranges,  from a dead 6 or close, that the 50 cal penetrates more  than a 20mm AP round, russian, german or british ?     I don't have a penetration chart comparing the 2,    But I believe the 20mm  penetrates more  at 500m  or less,  and I think as the angle to the tgt increases,  the difference in that penetration goes up as the mass of the 20mm round  is much larger.   At a 90 deg angle,  in the combat ranges we most often see, the 20 wins easily,   at angles more than 90 the 20 wins by a larger %.   Rate of fire has zero effect on penetration.   You get close enough and don't miss rate of fire has no play in penetrating a plane fuselage, armor plate etc.  I don't have in game data, because the developers will not release this type of thing.   But from in game,  I have heard many pilots talking about the pilot kill capability of the 50 as of the last couple of updates.   Velocity is important,   but mass is also important  and the velocity difference between the 50 and a mg151 20 mm ap round,or russian cannon, or british,  is nowhere near enough to overcome the larger mass.  If there is data saying otherwise and someone has that,  plz  do share

 

No, ROF doesn't have anything to do with penetration. But it has a lot to do with PK's when we're discussing a bunch of AP rounds that will all easily pen the armor of a 109 within 500 yds.

So yeah, within 500 yards 8 .50cals are going to give you more PKs than 1-2 20mm. More bullets = more chances for one or more to hit the pilot.

[JG1_Wittmann]

4 hours ago, Krupnski said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say. At close range all of these rounds will penetrate easily, 50s and hispanos will continue to do so at even further range than German or Russian 20mm due to their higher velocity.

The difference is that .50s are pure AP, while the rest are mixed with HE ammo. This obviously gives the 50s an advantage for pilot kills when every single round is AP.

It seems  we are talking apples and oranges here.  I realize all could.  There seems to be a perception, by many, that with the latest few patches that the 50 cals  score pilot kills at a much higher rate than any of the other mentioned guns.  The point I am trying to make is that the other guns also have AP rounds,  and many listed have much higher penetration capabilities than the 50,   and yet from a dead 6, the 20mm , Russian 23mm,  etc  when firing and scoring AP hits  do not seem to have the same % of pilot kills as the 50.   That is all I am saying.  I don't have in game figures or stats to specifically point to.  Anecdotally, it seems to many that the 50 scores pilot kills much more easily than any other gun in game.  Now why that happens  is the question on some peoples minds.

[-SF-Disarray]

It is simple. With cannons there is a significantly higher chance that the plane will fail in some other way. An HE round will blow enough of the plane apart, even low caliber HE rounds, so the fight is over and the player getting shot bails. An HE round strikes the wing of a plane causing it to immediately stall, even smaller rounds will do this, and either the spin is unrecoverable so the player taking the hit bails or the plane runs into something and the fight is over. An HE round strikes the plane causing a catastrophic detonation of either the fuel tank or ammo magazine; the fight is over. Or an HE round hits the plane nowhere near the pilot but the blast range and effect of the HE round kills the pilot and, you guessed it, the fight is over. With cannons you have many more ways of ending the fight.

 

With AP only HMG's you have only a few ways. You either kill the pilot, set the engine on fire, or by some small chance do enough damage to the wing spars that the other guy pulls the wing off for you. That is it really. There is virtually no chance to cause fight ending damage outside of those three scenarios. Control systems seem impervious to AP fire so you can't cut them or jam them. Aerodynamic failure is unachievable with only AP rounds, the structure will fail first. And in the first two cases if you are shooting from behind the target plane any round that will hit the engine stands a fairly good chance of hitting the pilot first. Due to the flatly infective nature of AP rounds against wings there is no reason for a player with .50's to ever aim at them. So you get a high preference for shooting center mass. If you look at a plane, be it a 109, 190, or really any single engine plane, from behind you will find that the pilot sits in that target area; right between the tail and the engine. When you leave only two options to end a fight quickly and decisively with AP HMG's and the target areas for both these ways overlap it is no wonder you are going to see a lot of them.

 

The TLDR of it is: they told us to aim harder, with two years to practice we have done just that. Add more ways that AP rounds will break a plane and you'll see more people bailing out and less people dying at the stick. Or maybe we'll just keep aiming center mass, who knows.

Edited January 26, 2022 by -SF-Disarray