PDA

View Full Version : I'd occasionally like to see tracer ricochet off a plane or the ground



Mysticpuma2003
01-11-2005, 01:12 PM
It's just that after watching some guncam footage recently, the tracer hit roads and bounced off (the way P-47's used to kill tanks), and also it happened on planes too. I'm talking about the occasional re-direction of a tracer to give it a more authentic look, at least I'd know they had struck the object, not just passed over the wing.

Mysticpuma2003
01-11-2005, 01:12 PM
It's just that after watching some guncam footage recently, the tracer hit roads and bounced off (the way P-47's used to kill tanks), and also it happened on planes too. I'm talking about the occasional re-direction of a tracer to give it a more authentic look, at least I'd know they had struck the object, not just passed over the wing.

AlmightyTallest
01-11-2005, 03:07 PM
That would be very cool. 1942 The Pacific Air War had that feature. When tracers hit the armor of a plane at such and angle, occasionally it would ricochet. Neat effect that sort of added immersion to the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiglr
01-11-2005, 03:10 PM
You see that effect in Targetware (http://www.targetware.net) all the time.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jurinko
01-11-2005, 04:17 PM
bullets should also ricochet from trains or tanks

anarchy52
01-11-2005, 04:24 PM
Quick quiz:
1) Which one is the harder surface: asphalt/dirt road/macadam or underside of a tank?
2) What is the armor penetration value vs rolled homogenous steel of .50 cal AP at let's say 100m at 90deg angle of impact?
3) What happens to the penetration value if the projectile strikes an obstacle and bounces?
4) Do You believe in Santa Claus too?

Anyway, we do have the riccochet effect in FB: you'll see it if you shoot an Il-2. Glass canopy bounce has a very nice visual effect.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
01-11-2005, 04:34 PM
It is in there, but I think I'd like to see it more often. You will only see the richocet if it hits certain parts of the aircrafts DM. You never see it on trains, I think I've seen it on one tank before. Would be some nice eye candy. BoB for sure if it can be implemented.

WOLFMondo
01-11-2005, 05:09 PM
Isn't there some form of ricochet effect you can get when you fire at an IL2 and hit its armour? Im sure I've seem some form of ricochet effect from this or its a shell or bullet breaking up on its armour.

_Neveraine_
01-11-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Isn't there some form of ricochet effect you can get when you fire at an IL2 and hit its armour? Im sure I've seem some form of ricochet effect from this or its a shell or bullet breaking up on its armour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep theres ricochet on the IL2, i've seen it on the P47 and a couple of other planes as well (BF109 for one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Supr
01-11-2005, 07:43 PM
Bullets used to bounce off the IL2's all the time, especially the small stuff from behind. It looked great. I havn;t seen that in awhile, but i dont play many iil2 missions anymore./

OlegMaddox
01-12-2005, 04:40 AM
There will be ricochets in BoB, but not here, we won't develop this game so much and there are lots of effects that could be done in this game but we don't want to. Some more add ons and there will be no sense to make BoB as all the new effects are in PF

anarchy52
01-12-2005, 04:43 AM
I believe original poster asked about the VISUAL effect not a ricochet in terms of DM. Visual effect is currently present in FB (best visible on IL-2 armoured glass)

Mysticpuma2003
01-12-2005, 06:14 AM
You're right Anarchy, it was more the visual effect rather than the FM. However, thanks for the feedback Oleg, I hope this means that tanks will be able to be destroyed by shooting the ground and ricocheting the bullets underneath and up into the tank, like they did in WW2.

Really looking forward to BoB. Cheers, Neil.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-12-2005, 06:34 AM
.50 Can ALREADY kill tanks in the game...

Japanese tanks... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

But if you want to kill Tigers or IS2 or Panters with .50 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif you should better ask it to Santa claus instead of Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

anarchy52
01-12-2005, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
However, thanks for the feedback Oleg, I hope this means that tanks will be able to be destroyed by shooting the ground and ricocheting the bullets underneath and up into the tank, like they did in WW2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since puma seems convinced that road-bouncing-fifties attack is not a popular myth, I guess I'll have to answer my own quiz:

1) Which one is the harder surface: asphalt/dirt road/macadam or underside of a tank?

I doubt that you could find any road with 300HB (something You would expect from WWII era steel - today &gt;500HB steel is used) surface hardness. So if a bullet bounced of the road instead of penetrating it (because of shallow angle) what makes You think it would penetrate the much harder steel underside of a tank? Typically ~25mm (1 inch) steel.

2) What is the armor penetration value vs rolled homogenous steel of .50 cal AP at let's say 100m at 90deg angle of impact?
25,4mm at 200m at 90deg impact angle with MODERN AP rounds.

3) What happens to the penetration value if the projectile strikes an obstacle and bounces?

Projectile looses speed, shape and stability reducing it's armor penetrating capability signifficantly.

4) Do You believe in Santa Claus too?

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about. .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized Lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion -
If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

P.S. Details on Tiger I armor:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

Hetzer_II
01-12-2005, 07:40 AM
Im still amused about how many people believe in such silly things like 0.50 killing mbt´s...
I believe they are the same which can sink Battleships with 20 or 30mm....

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-12-2005, 07:49 AM
Anarchy ...

You've killed a part of the child in me ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Since now i've believed in S Claus ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

But now ...


I doubt... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Mysticpuma2003
01-12-2005, 08:39 AM
ok lets just go back to the original post of " could we just see tracer bouncing off occasionally please". Just to add a bit more immersion. It happens in guncam footage, so I was just asking to see it in the game. I'll just stick to hittng tanks with bombs and rockets in my p-47, but I'd like to see the ricochet of tracer on more surfaces than just the IL-2, thanks.
BTW i'll avoid wasting bullets on asphalt and shoot at that mysterious red object with what looks like reindeer in front of it! Wonder if he could be damage modelled so I could bounce fifties up his......

nearmiss
01-12-2005, 08:58 AM
Right!

The introduction of some type of random ricochet rounds programming. The programmer would have to specifically identify targets and map areas for richochets, and then probably have to use some type of random ricochet tracer rounds logic package.

You can't have ricochets off the water or ground. The mountains in the sim are just hills for the most part (not much rock). So you wouldn't want ricochets there.

So, realistically how to do define it with some type of logic understandable by the computer.

Tracers richochet in:

1 in 1000 rounds on aircraft
1 in 1000 rounds on armor
1 in 200 round on heavy armor
1 in 10 rounds on bunkers
1 in 50 rounds on the ground
1 in 100 rounds on roads

This type programming could be a bugger-bear, because if this is not done right you'll rounds bouncing off the water, dirt and sky. LOL

How can you live with this inconsistency and unrealistic lack of tracer round ricochets? You just imagine the tracers don't bounce and the rounds you don't see (the majority) have a few in every thousand rounds that richochet.

This isn't much of an issue...IMO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

We definitely need the patch, these kind of threads start showing up when boredom becomes an issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

-------------------

PE_Sushi
01-12-2005, 09:21 AM
Best way to see plenty of ricochets is attacking IL-2 with Hurri MkI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
01-12-2005, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OlegMaddox:
There will be ricochets in BoB, but not here, we won't develop this game so much and there are lots of effects that could be done in this game but we don't want to. Some more add ons and there will be no sense to make BoB as all the new effects are in PF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/ban_him2828.jpg

AlmightyTallest
01-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Will the real Oleg Maddox please stand up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Was this really Oleg posting or an imposter I saw?

I would have thought that by improving Pacific Fighters with some of the suggestions from the community, Oleg would have many new improvements that he could have implemented to PF, and have perfected for BoB.

LEXX_Luthor
01-12-2005, 04:59 PM
nearmiss:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We need Patch, these threads show up when boredom becomes an issue. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yes

prop-head
01-12-2005, 08:31 PM
Ricochets. Hmmm... I remember watching color film footage, from the pilot's perspective, of a P-38 test shooting its .50s over water. It was a rather telephoto kind of lens which was used, and the small field of view didn't show the horizon, but my impression was of a fairly shallow line of approach. While the guns burped the view shook, then a swarm of red tracers arced out into the distance. At impact, out of the cloud of spray emerged a goodly number of redirected tracers, somewhat randomized in the direction of flight, i.e., not purely in the original direction of travel as regards the left-right plane.

Microprose's PAW1942 modeled this effect, too, when the firing angle was sufficiently shallow.

AlmightyTallest
01-12-2005, 08:39 PM
Your right prop-head, 1942 did show the rochochet when you fired at water from a really shallow angle.

Would be a cool effect coupled with Pacific Fighters Water effects. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Athosd
01-12-2005, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OlegMaddox:
There will be ricochets in BoB, but not here, we won't develop this game so much and there are lots of effects that could be done in this game but we don't want to. Some more add ons and there will be no sense to make BoB as all the new effects are in PF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just in case anyone has doubts - the above was not posted by Oleg. The imposter has already been nailed by CrazyIvan.

Dragon66
01-13-2005, 03:28 AM
To those who still doubt that tanks were killed in WWII by American fliers using 50 Cal. rounds(bounced under tanks):

A pop quiz:

Which substance is more flamible?

A)white phosphorus exposed to oxigen-(you know; the stuff they make tracer rounds out of and that stuff in air which your brain seems to be lacking?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

B)Deisel fuel and/or engine oil-(you know; that stuff that WWII tanks were notorious for leaking?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Now, lets try to excercise that narrow mind of yours...

Try to guess what would happen if you sprayed a white hot burning stream of molten metal onto a surface coated with flamible liquid?

Anyone? Beuller?

Not to mention that it is a historical fact related by actual participants of the air war in europ durring WWII, showing up in HISTORICAL TEXTS and DOCUMENTARIES.

As I have stated before, who are we to belive?
People who were actually there and witnessed (and participated in) the events, or a couple of internet no-bodies? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

My truth is stranger than your fiction.

Dragon66 out.

anarchy52
01-13-2005, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragon66:
Which substance is more flamible?

A)white phosphorus exposed to oxigen-(you know; the stuff they make tracer rounds out of and that stuff in air which your brain seems to be lacking?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
White phosphorous is not commonly used in tracer rounds more common are metal/salts combinations of magnesium, boron and copper) since phosphorous is nasty stuff difficult to handle and tends to ignite when you least want it.
Furthermore APT rounds have smaller amount and/or different chemical content compared to API/APIT incidentary rounds and large part of the chemical content burns on the way to the target although they do have a secondary incidentary effect on inflammable targets.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
B)Deisel fuel and/or engine oil-(you know; that stuff that WWII tanks were notorious for leaking?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Diesel is far less flamable then gasoline which most of the WWII tanks used (russians used dieseld though). Yes Virginia - WWII tanks mostly run on gasoline, not diesel.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now, lets try to excercise that narrow mind of yours...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some countries definitely spend far too little on the education of their kids. I can guess where You are from after reading those few pathetic lines that you wrote filled with spelling mistakes, ignorance related to history and science but filled with intolerance and agression. You shouldn't learn science or history from movies and comic books.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Try to guess what would happen if you sprayed a white hot burning stream of molten metal onto a surface coated with flamible liquid?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you think .50 tracer rounds turn white hot and melt? Don't You think that it would screw up balistics and armor penetration a bit?

We're not talking about today's DU/tungsten KE penetrators, hollow charge HEAT or EFP (Explosive Formed Projectiles) projectiles. We're talking WWII .50 cal heavy MG.

Tanks used (today's russian tanks still use) external unprotected fuel tanks to extend the range which are removed before getting into contact with enemy. If those tanks were to be caught on the road with their add-on fuel tanks still attached it's a whole different story. Any MG could set them on fire.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Anyone? Beuller?

Not to mention that it is a historical fact related by actual participants of the air war in europ durring WWII, showing up in HISTORICAL TEXTS and DOCUMENTARIES.

As I have stated before, who are we to belive?
People who were actually there and witnessed (and participated in) the events, or a couple of internet no-bodies? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

My truth is stranger than your fiction.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
War stories, huh? Documentaries? I guess if they say it on TV then it must be true. In "pearl Harbour" they said "Zeros are faster but our P-40s can out-turn them. So P-40 was obviously more manueverable then Zero. Johnnie Johnson & his group were convinced that FW-190 is far more manuverable then Spit V that they were flying. Kozhedub stated that La-7 could do 700+km/h at seal level. Pilot stories are nice but they represent what they remember/think what happened. Doesn't have to be the truth.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Dragon66 out.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Out of his mind I guess

Athosd
01-13-2005, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragon66:
...a load of nonsense.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about. Begone troll.

AlmightyTallest
01-13-2005, 03:17 PM
To be honest, I have seen color P-47 Gun cam footage of them bouncing tracers into the undersides of tanks. Here's a link I found regarding this issue:

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm

From above site:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Besides their bomb and rocket payloads, the P-47 and the Typhoon both boasted powerful gun armaments. The Typhoon had four 20mm Hispano cannon. The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I guess this was possible with .50 caliber ammunition against German Tanks. History Channel has a show called WW2 in Color, and one of the episodes showed extensive guncam footage of Tanks being straffed by P-47's.

anarchy52
01-13-2005, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, if the crew wasn't buttoned up, or if they were in "marching" configuration with the unprotected external fueltanks. Light armored vehicles like troop carriers are of course easy prey for .50 especialy from above.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If You read it more carefully You'll notice that it says vehicles not tanks. 1940's .50 AP could not go through inch thick steel plate (I think I read somewhere the penetration value of .50 AP used in the 40's was around 19mm at 90 deg angle, 100 or so meters distance) Modern saboted .50 penetrators can do about 35mm.

WWII .50 AP impacting the underside of the tank at a shallow angle AFTER ricocheting doesn't have a chance of penetrating the armor.

I assure You it's an urban myth. .50 could kill APCs, light tanks or even heavy tanks it they had external tanks or if the crew wasn't buttoned up. But tank kills sure as hell weren't done by bouncing rounds of the road.

Athosd
01-13-2005, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The statement is that rounds ricocheting of roads penetrated the underside of "vehicles" - that covers a lot of ground. The belly armour of medium and heavy tanks would not be susceptible to this - even if it were only 15 - 20mm thick (Tiger I, II and Panther had thicker belly plates). There were plenty of other vehicles in the theatre that would have been handily torn apart by such an attack.

There is an ongoing food fight in these forums over claims that .50s could destroy Tigers with such ricochets.

The latter parts about destruction via entry into engine spaces etc are certainly possible - though likely somewhat atypical.
I'd go with the author's primary comment on the matter "The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews."

All that aside - getting caught, in column, on a road has been a recipe for disaster since wars began.

Ps - S~ Anarchy52, exact same time of posting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Have to be quick around here.

anarchy52
01-13-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
Ps - S~ Anarchy52, exact same time of posting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Have to be quick around here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Speed is good, but accuracy is what really counts"
__
Wyatt Earp

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AlmightyTallest
01-13-2005, 05:49 PM
Well, I've heard this for years, and I thought I'd post about it. From what I can tell it caused casualties to tanks and tank crews, whether they were buttoned up or not is a good point. As well, I figure 8 .50's all firing at at tank would increase the likelyhood of some kind of damage either from rochochets going into the underside of the tank, or the engine or exhaust, but I'm not saying it would happen every time a P-47 fired at a tank. It would also be dependent on the angle of attack and the aspect the tank was presenting to the P-47.

But apparantly, it was practice for P-47's to strafe Tanks with .50 cal ammo, and in some instances kills were made by igniting the ammo, or actually penetrating into the engine, or even the underside of the tank.

I don't know if they could penetrate a Tiger tank though lol, but it would be interesting if proof could be found of what tanks were destroyed by .50 caliber strafing during WW2. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

An intersting discussion guys, with some good points being given on both sides.

Dragon66
01-13-2005, 11:06 PM
So no tracer rounds were ever made with willy pete?

And no WWII tank or armored vehicle ever ran off diesil fuel?

Even if that were true, the pricipal remains the same, metal salt or gasoline... whatever.

How about we try it out on whatever POS you happen to drive now, (if youre old enough to drive)? Park your heap on a couple of road flares and give it a minute or two.

The result is the same-BE SURE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nobody ever mentioned rounds penetrating armor or any of the other things you can discount with your stat-geek responses.

You should have more respect for the brave pilots who put thier lives on the line back in the day, instead of trying to look smart on the internet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

But then again, that takes a bit of humillity, so I guess we'll never see that come to pass.

Perhaps we'll read of it one day in a historical account; and promptly dissmiss it, siteing some probability statistics that show how rare it would be, for an internet lamer of your lack of callibre, to ever admit that he/she might be wrong.

For now it would be nice if you traded some of the physics texts for a history book or two and stop dorking up the forumns with your know-it-all posts that site irrelevant stats, ya fn dweeb.

Oh, and don't quote me either. You don't rate it.

Dragon66 out (Hunting nerds).

{Insert finger icon here}

Hetzer_II
01-14-2005, 12:17 AM
If you realy want to hit the underside of a tank with ricochets you have to think about how to hit the underside. The angle you hit the road will be the angle the projectile bounces of... Even when the projectile survives the massiv impact on the ground (deformation, massiv loose of speed...) Every tanker knows that you dont have 2 Meters of space under a tank, but if you would think about how shallow the angle have to be that you can shoot under the tank.... all footages i know where taken during attacks from very steep angles lets say 40 degrees. And now take the real amount of space you have under a tank..... But shure 0.50 won the war...

Btw, it would be much better to speak of armoured vehicles here than of tanks, because lighter vehicles like Panzer II or SKFZ251 they would be much better targets for 0.50.

And what about mg131? Did it also destroyed M4´s? Or should it be able to??

s!

ImpStarDuece
01-14-2005, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragon66:
So no tracer rounds were ever made with willy pete? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US, despite not being a signatory to the treaty outlawing the use of White Phosphorous, did not use WP as a tracer componentb in airborn ammunition to the best of my knowledge. I have just sent an email an expert on airborne guns to double check though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And no WWII tank or armored vehicle ever ran off diesil fuel? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That isn't what he said. Nice misquote. Besides he specifically mentioned Soviet tanks which ran primarily on deisel as well as noting that gasoline was MORE flamable than deisel based fuels.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Even if that were true, the pricipal remains the same, metal salt or gasoline... whatever. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a HUGE difference between WP and non atmospherically volatile metal salts. So the principle (note spelling) isn't the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How about we try it out on whatever POS you happen to drive now, (if youre old enough to drive)? Park your heap on a couple of road flares and give it a minute or two.

The result is the same-BE SURE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comparing apples and oranges. An armoured vehicle designed to defeat mines, bullets, schrapnel and withstand the rigours of combat is a little different from a sheet metal automobile. Even a civillian Hummer is nothing in the survivability stakes compared to its military big brother.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Nobody ever mentioned rounds penetrating armor or any of the other things you can discount with your stat-geek responses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a round doesn't penetrate armour, how in the world can it do damage? As far as i know for a solid bullet to damage a tank it has to get through the armour. After all armour is the primary reason that a tank exists. Even chemical rounds need to penetrate. The only thing i know of that would damage a tank without penetrating is overpressure from bomb strikes or a HESH type round.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You should have more respect for the brave pilots who put thier lives on the line back in the day, instead of trying to look smart on the internet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No-one ever questioned the bravery of pilots from any side. Why did you even bring it up? Prehaps you believe questioning you makes us have less respect for real pilots? We were not discounting their actions, just your interpretation of the information you presented us. Writing a reasonable response to an unreasonable assertion is not trying to look smart, merely a struggle to educate some perspectives and stop some myths from spreading.
But then again, that takes a bit of humillity, so I guess we'll never see that come to pass.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Perhaps we'll read of it one day in a historical account; and promptly dissmiss it, siteing some probability statistics that show how rare it would be, for an internet lamer of your lack of callibre, to ever admit that he/she might be wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you dont have directly observable evidence probability and statistic evidence is the next best thing. Besides first hand accounts can be wrong. I know, i did part of my economic history thesis based on personal diaries of British sailors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For now it would be nice if you traded some of the physics texts for a history book or two and stop dorking up the forumns with your know-it-all posts that site irrelevant stats, ya fn dweeb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Insults show a man at the end of his chain of logic. A WW2 .50cal would have trouble penetrating a half inch of hardened steel at a 90 degree angle. Add to this loss of velocity from distance travelled, loss of velocity from the ground strike, deformation from the ground strike, and unfavourable angle of entry (given a shallow ricochette angle, sat 15-30 degrees) and the likelyhood of the round having enough energy left to do damage after penetration and i'll go with the stats geeks any time! Besides, one mans geek is anothers Eienstein.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oh, and don't quote me either. You don't rate it.

Dragon66 out (Hunting nerds).

{Insert finger icon here} <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I smell fear and ignorance, and something brown and sticky besides.

And this is a public forum, you can quote anyone you want, why can he?

Athosd
01-14-2005, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragon66:
more impotent nonsense
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As noxious as you are ignorant - nice work fella http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Oh - and tanks did not leak fuel all over the place, that would have created an unacceptable fire hazard in any conditions - let alone combat.

anarchy52
01-14-2005, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragon66:
So no tracer rounds were ever made with willy pete?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say that (difference between "none at all" and "not common" should be clear). There is a good reason WP has given way to more stable substances.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And no WWII tank or armored vehicle ever ran off diesil fuel?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, didn't say that either. Russians used diesel (note the spelling) and it was a very good decision.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Even if that were true, the pricipal remains the same, metal salt or gasoline... whatever.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Another guy told you the difference.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
How about we try it out on whatever POS you happen to drive now, (if youre old enough to drive)? Park your heap on a couple of road flares and give it a minute or two.
The result is the same-BE SURE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is so ridiculous I'm not even going to try to explain to you the difference between an armored vehicle and car, also the difference between road flare and a .50 tracer/APT.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Nobody ever mentioned rounds penetrating armor or any of the other things you can discount with your stat-geek responses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So let me see how it works in your opinion: APT would strike the ground bounce and hit the underside of the tank then burn there until it burns through the armor?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))))

Looks like your head is thick anough to break through the tank armor.

I'm old anough to drive and have a degree in engineering. I also served in the military.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You should have more respect for the brave pilots who put thier lives on the line back in the day, instead of trying to look smart on the internet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What did I do to make you think I disrespect the pilots?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Perhaps we'll read of it one day in a historical account; and promptly dissmiss it, siteing some probability statistics that show how rare it would be, for an internet lamer of your lack of callibre, to ever admit that he/she might be wrong.

For now it would be nice if you traded some of the physics texts for a history book or two and stop dorking up the forumns with your know-it-all posts that site irrelevant stats, ya fn dweeb.

Oh, and don't quote me either. You don't rate it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dragon66
01-14-2005, 03:28 AM
All who posted to my reply misunderstood me.

The point I was trying to make was that the armor of a given tank would probably not have to even be penetrated for said tank to be damaged.

I.E. The heat from the tracers and sparks put off by the rounds bouncing off the armor may have been enough to start a fuel/oil fire on the underside of the vehicle.

If I came off as insulting or condescending... well I kind of meant to. People refuting first hand accounts so off-handedly kind of irk me. Sorry if that is offensive, but you€re right this is a public forum and I am entitled to my opinion.

So allow me to digress, I don't mean to insult your intelligence... but how the heck would any of you know for sure what is possible back in 1943/1945? You can't just make a blanket statement and try to back it up with "facts" implying "That's not possible.€ unless you've tried it and actually found it impossible. That is after all the entire basis of the scientific method. Form a hypothesis, do some experiments and then come to a conclusion based on the outcome. Has any experimentation or resulting data been included in the arguments against this possibility?

No. People just say "impossible" and commence spouting "facts" and figures that, while for the most part may be correct, fail to encompass the true scope of what was possible under the circumstances.

Again, if I offended any close-minded people€¦ Oh well. Sorry. You kind of deserved it. Ignoring history doesn't undo the past. It just makes you ignorant.

Reply as you wish to my statement, but rest assured you will be completely ignored.

It is widely accepted that many armored vehicles of the WWII era were destroyed in a manner that suggests bouncing .50 caliber rounds under them may have been the cause.

The strongest argument against this is that penetration could not have been attained.

Well I have to say, so what? That proves nothing. The vehicles in question could easily been set afire as anyone could imagine. Give proof, not conjecture.

People want to pit their opinions against the word of an actual WWII combat pilot (more than one). Well go ahead. Guess whom I€m going to believe.

Post all the ballistic tables and metallurgy info you want, it doesn't make you correct in your assumptions.

Trying to belittle people for their opinions is what started this whole thing. Now you want to turn around and say I'm the jerk for sticking up for myself? Get bent! You just can€t take it as well as you can dish it out can you?

I don€t have to imply that your wrong in an oblique manner, I€ll come right out and tell you to your face what I think of you and your arguments. I.E. Weak.

Pfft! Wannabe thinks he knows better than the people who were there... That's lame.

Your attitude disgusts me. That's the main reason I don't post on these forums, no respect, few truly affable personalities to converse with. Just "Me me me! I'm right your wrong!". Then kiddies get all bent out of shape when you refute them. Yuk, I wasted all this time on you, what a loss.

Athosd
01-14-2005, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragon66:
more stuff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You appear to be confused. You started the flaming. Half-arsed apologies followed by insults won't win anyone over - not that it matters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your attitude disgusts me. That's the main reason I don't post on these forums, no respect, few truly affable personalities to converse with. Just "Me me me! I'm right your wrong!". Then kiddies get all bent out of shape when you refute them. Yuk, I wasted all this time on you, what a loss. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This says a great deal more about you than it does about anyone else here - pick the log from your own eye matey.

Dragon66
01-14-2005, 04:19 AM
Ok, so I'm not as much ignoring you as totally disregarding you.

I€m not confused and I€m definitely not trying to apologize. Not even half way.

One thing I thought I had made clear is that I don€t care what some nobody thinks. I trust the word straight from the horse€s mouth so to speak. Not some horse€s @ss on the net.

P.S. I din't start the flame, my tracers did! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mysticpuma2003
01-14-2005, 04:50 AM
So would it be nice to see tracer bouncing off objects occasionally as a more realistic feature of the way projectiles did, or shall we continue this flame war that is moving away from the original post? Oh well I'll let you decide. Thanks for all those who took time to answer the original post though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Athosd
01-14-2005, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
So would it be nice to see tracer bouncing off objects occasionally as a more realistic feature of the way projectiles did... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey man - you drew the crabs in with that side shot at the 'reflecto anti-tank' crowd http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ricocheting tracers would be a nice addition - though I don't expect to see more features of that type until the next sim (and the Oleg impersonator said so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Dragon66
01-14-2005, 11:34 AM
Mysticpuma:

In answer to your original post, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the bouncing tracer effect and it€s lack in IL2. Many of us enjoyed this effect in European Air War and other WWII flight sims.

In fact, I stated the same exact thing in a post on these forums nearly two years ago. Browse the archives and you might be able to find the original thread.

Then I had to go and make the mistake of saying that one could go one step further and turn the €œeffect€ into a way to make .50 caliber more effective against tanks and other armor in the sim ala the €œbounce technique€. Unfortunately I guess it was a little too much for some less imaginative folks out there and they began to €œflame€ me with attempts to mock my intelligence. They spewed ballistics and physics €œfacts€ aplenty and continued to mock anyone that might agree with me on this issue.

Others and I stated that this situation had been mentioned in first hand accounts laid down by actual WWII combat pilots, which can be found in many historical texts and documentaries. But this had little effect on some of the more hardheaded posters and in the end was met only with more childish outbursts and insults to €œthe believers€ intelligences.

This ricocheting tracer effect would have been a great addition to the game, but I doubt that you€ll ever see it. Perhaps if more people had been open to the idea (instead of being childish, insulting and condescending to others) it might have had a snowballs chance€¦ we€ll never know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

As you can tell I€m still a bit miffed about the whole episode, but I€ll let it go (again).
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

S! To all IL2 players! Happy hunting! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Dragon66 out.

VW-IceFire
01-14-2005, 03:49 PM
I think this will have to wait for BoB.

I really hope they work a little more on some of these finer details. We're all going round and round on how FM issues go but there's other things like dealing with markings, like dealing with the gun convergence patterns, like dealing with unsycronized tracer fire, tracer smoke that is more subtle in some instances, ricocheting bullets in some instances, all those sorts of things. Those are all features worth having too.

nearmiss
01-15-2005, 05:45 PM
I've watched the Wings Discover channel, now Military channel, for quite awhile.

When you see the aircraft gun camera footage the tracers are all over the place. Who could tell whether they ricochet or not.

Again, who cares, if programming ricochet tracers is beyond an hours work...I say spend it on somthing else. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

LeadSpitter_
01-17-2005, 12:37 PM
Oleg Maddox:

Some more add ons and there will be no sense to make BoB.

--------------------------------

I rather see these models be put into a new game engine to be honest with you rather then slightly higher poly cockpits and aircraft just bob. Its going to get boring quick for many going from such a great choice of aircraft to a small limited planeset even if they do look slightly better. So many polys seem to be wasted on all the wingspars in BOB that can be used for the external models and caps done as breakpoints.

I orginally thought all the fuselage and wing spars were for fuselage overstress limits, individual hit boxes and modeling that suppost wing flexing but found out they are just for looks and nothing else.