PDA

View Full Version : .50 cals a bit underwhelming?



Freiwillige
09-04-2009, 09:27 AM
You know after all these years I have come to the conclusion that anything with wing mounted .50's is just....well.....anti climatic!

I do understand that they work well when hitting in your convergence its just that they are darn near imposable to aim well. The tracers are small, not bright enough and blend into the background easily And the sounds are similar and less flattering than sitting on a whoopie cushion.

When I am bearing down in my F4U\F6F\P-38\47\51
I want all hell to break loose when I squeeze the trigger! I want a realistic dispersion! I want a sound that is the equivalent to somebody banging a pot and kicking my seat at the same time!

I truly believe that the lack of visual\sound cue's is what kills flying American birds for me.

(((((NOTE: THIS IS NOT A 50 CALS ARE PORKED THREAD)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

AndyJWest
09-04-2009, 09:37 AM
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A 50 CALS ARE PORKED THREAD
It will be soon - just watch...

I agree though, regarding M/G tracers. They do seem less dramatic in the sim than in real-life gun-camera shots. Perhaps Oleg & co. will get this right in BoB:SoW.

BillSwagger
09-04-2009, 09:40 AM
Luckily there are mods that let you switch out sounds. I've manage to add a few of my own sounds to my game including some cool 50 cal sounds.
I designed it to sound more like what you might here from the cockpit of the plane, and not some canned machine gun sound. Its not too over bearing, and definitely more defining than the teeth chattering sound of the default 50s.

There are also tracer mods that allow for more visible tracers.
I wont go into effectiveness as that's a very polarizing issue that seems to go on and on with little resolve.


Bill

sound bites

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 09:46 AM
I'l add to the Fire...


I hate the .50s on IL2.

They sound tereable and need to be brighter.

The only thing I like about them is there High rate of fire and the non-smoke bullets.


I also hate the Mk-108s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

WholeHawg
09-04-2009, 10:05 AM
If they took the green russian tracers (laser Blobs) and made them red and applied them to the 50cal it would help.

Red is a hard color to see on a monitor to begin with.

I also find one of the hit mods to be helpful as it shows better when you found your target.

HetzerII
09-04-2009, 10:08 AM
Like i said before... there was a time the .50 realy rocked. This was the time before the dispersion off the .50 got reduced almos to nill. Why the dispersion got reduced? Ask the .50-whiners from about 3 years ago. They wanted it this way. Oleg told them they will not be able to handle sniper .50 mounted in wings. We now have what was demanded. Now dont cry....

It was a realy great time with greater dispersion.. you did not hit that hard but you hitted a lot easier and on a whider range.

megalopsuche
09-04-2009, 10:21 AM
To me, the only thing difficult about aiming the .50s is the lack of visual feedback on the target. With cannon rounds, you get immediate visual feedback when you get hits. If you saw oversized hit sparks with the .50s, it would dramatically shorten the time it takes to learn them.

Ba5tard5word
09-04-2009, 10:25 AM
Get to 200m or closer to an enemy fighter and they work A LOT better than if you are further out. And they generally have so much more ammo than cannons that they make up for being a bit weaker.

BillSwagger
09-04-2009, 10:33 AM
A tracer mod fixed my aim, but i must say its also something that comes with experience. Whats screws me up more is switching around convergence settings. I've found what works for me and with the mods, i'm actually quite happy with the 50s.

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 10:38 AM
For the P-47 just set the cannons to 500 and the machine guns to 100.

That is what I do.

Aviar
09-04-2009, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
To me, the only thing difficult about aiming the .50s is the lack of visual feedback on the target. With cannon rounds, you get immediate visual feedback when you get hits. If you saw oversized hit sparks with the .50s, it would dramatically shorten the time it takes to learn them.

This must have something to do with your setup. I can easily see .50cal hits on aircraft, even from far away. Yes, in unmodded 4.08m.

Aviar

TooCooL34
09-04-2009, 10:45 AM
IBTL.

I love IL-2 but I hate .50s in IL-2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
I hate the sound. I hate the color. I hate the hit effect. I hate its ammo belt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
It's just not mind-blowing like any other guns in game. I think I can go on all night long.
Online population would grow 50% up if .50s are gamey right. Oh, I fly 109 and 190 exclusively and wanna see more of Mustangs.
Overall, machinegun shooting in IL-2 is no fun and it makes whole game less exciting.

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 10:53 AM
We shouldnt complain.

Oleg is a very nice man to make us the best game in teh world and we are beggers.


Beggers can't be choosers.

I you realy don't like this game then thats to bad.

We are very lucky to have a game in the first place.

And I don't think this thread will be locked if you people that like to argue don't come in and say ".50s are weak, oleg better make us some new ones".

Those are my wise words today.

They realy go against this post though:


Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
I'l add to the Fire...


I hate the .50s on IL2.

They sound tereable and need to be brighter.

The only thing I like about them is there High rate of fire and the non-smoke bullets.


I also hate the Mk-108s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AndyJWest
09-04-2009, 11:02 AM
...I don't think this thread will be locked

I don't think the thread will be locked either, until someone starts getting personal, or so many people get fed up with rehashing the same old arguments that the forum becomes a desolate wasteland...

Perhaps we need a 'Topic Debate Reenactment' forum, so people who enjoy reliving the flame wars of past years can enjoy again their glorious victories in the Obscure Graph skirmishes, and in the 'you said - I said - you said - I said' dogfights.

Owlet, it is not necessary to crawl before the mighty Oleg, he doesn't visit us here anymore.

If you want to see tracer better, try flying at night. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 11:09 AM
My new name is "Adolf Owlet". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gammelpreusse
09-04-2009, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
My new name is "Adolf Owlet". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well Adolf, you may want to take that swastika out of your sig

That aside I agree to the general notion bout the 50cals. They certainly put up a weak show in the atmosphere department. Only cool effect is that christmas tree impression when hiting.

What about the real 50ies, btw..had those smoke tracers?

BillSwagger
09-04-2009, 11:22 AM
i used to whine about the 50s and i still have my gripes, but i think that there are mods that fix what many people are describing here. tracer mods, and sound mods.
Just my take on it, but i don't see a lot of room to complain if there are mods that offer the option to fix these issues.
I think a lot of the reasons the arguments get rehashed so often is because many people still play the stock unmodded 4.08 il2. You must understand that it is an older game so the sound is still from a time when we would've been crapping in our pants just to have a plane to fly in a 3d combat setting. Either people are unaware of the benefits of the mods, or they are stubborn to try them as i was. I must admit they are very useful at correcting these types of issues.

horseback
09-04-2009, 11:25 AM
I don't notice tracers all that much in any aircraft; my focus is on the target. Gimme hit flashes, and obvious chunks of 'broken oreos' flying off the target when I hit it, and everything else will work itself out.

As for the rumor:
Like i said before... there was a time the .50 realy rocked. This was the time before the dispersion off the .50 got reduced almos to nill. Why the dispersion got reduced? Ask the .50-whiners from about 3 years ago. They wanted it this way. Oleg told them they will not be able to handle sniper .50 mounted in wings. We now have what was demanded. Now dont cry....

It was a realy great time with greater dispersion.. you did not hit that hard but you hitted a lot easier and on a whider range. ...the real issue was that the individual guns had a ludicrous dispersion, and it was proven that it was worse BY FAR than any other LMG or HMG in the game, and absolutely unrealistic for standard M2s in factory fresh condition (which every other aircraft gun modelled enjoyed). There was much heated and eventually very personal debate before the documentation eventually overwhelmed the opinion.

As usual, when the smoke cleared, the fix Oleg and his team provided was a classic 'see-what-you-made-me-do' case of overkill which included 'point' rather than the standard 'box' convergence, and each gun firing each bullet at the precise moment as every other gun on that wing (with a predictable yaw problem in several cases), which also had to be fixed (multiple times in a couple of cases). As I recall, even the Spitfire cannon were affected by that particular 'fix'.

And the debate about it began more than 3 years ago, not long after the release of the Aces Expansion Pack...

cheers

horseback

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 11:25 AM
OK, swasticas out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
09-04-2009, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
My new name is "Adolf Owlet". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I really wouldn't change your name to that. You will annoy lots of people. (Or should that read 'you will annoy even more people than you already do with your off-topic postings') http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anybody got some nice 50-cal gun camera pics, so we can see what they should look like?

BillSwagger
09-04-2009, 11:27 AM
i think the next progression in your name should be Silver Owl, or Stealthy Fish.

Owl Fish just makes no sense.

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 11:35 AM
I am thinking about changin my username again but hen everyone would yell at me.

I'd have to think of a great name, like "HankGoslinga" even though thats not my real name.

I wont tell my real name for Identification reasons.

There are sick people in the world. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Anyways....

Sillius_Sodus
09-04-2009, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I don't notice tracers all that much in any aircraft; my focus is on the target. Gimme hit flashes, and obvious chunks of 'broken oreos' flying off the target when I hit it, and everything else will work itself out.

As for the rumor: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Like i said before... there was a time the .50 realy rocked. This was the time before the dispersion off the .50 got reduced almos to nill. Why the dispersion got reduced? Ask the .50-whiners from about 3 years ago. They wanted it this way. Oleg told them they will not be able to handle sniper .50 mounted in wings. We now have what was demanded. Now dont cry....

It was a realy great time with greater dispersion.. you did not hit that hard but you hitted a lot easier and on a whider range. ...the real issue was that the individual guns had a ludicrous dispersion, and it was proven that it was worse BY FAR than any other LMG or HMG in the game, and absolutely unrealistic for standard M2s in factory fresh condition (which every other aircraft gun modelled enjoyed). There was much heated and eventually very personal debate before the documentation eventually overwhelmed the opinion.

As usual, when the smoke cleared, the fix Oleg and his team provided was a classic 'see-what-you-made-me-do' case of overkill which included 'point' rather than the standard 'box' convergence, and each gun firing each bullet at the precise moment as every other gun on that wing (with a predictable yaw problem in several cases), which also had to be fixed (multiple times in a couple of cases). As I recall, even the Spitfire cannon were affected by that particular 'fix'.

And the debate about it began more than 3 years ago, not long after the release of the Aces Expansion Pack...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh, I remember those days well Horseback http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Lots of shrapnel flying about for sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

For those of you who weren't around then, one of the things that annoyed players the most was the yaw induced in the Corsair when the guns were fired. I believe this was because the guns fired out of sequence to each other. Strangely, not all players experienced the yaw but tracks were posted...In the end all the .50's got 'fixed', which entailed more flame wars.

Ah, the good old days... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

megalopsuche
09-04-2009, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Aviar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by megalopsuche:
To me, the only thing difficult about aiming the .50s is the lack of visual feedback on the target. With cannon rounds, you get immediate visual feedback when you get hits. If you saw oversized hit sparks with the .50s, it would dramatically shorten the time it takes to learn them.

This must have something to do with your setup. I can easily see .50cal hits on aircraft, even from far away. Yes, in unmodded 4.08m.

Aviar </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's all relative. I can see them, but compared to cannon strikes they are small.

With what FoV are you easily seeing the strikes?
What resolution do you use?

I'm usually in 90 deg FoV and use 1280x1024 res. I can see .50 cal hit strikes, but they are very small. I fly with max detail, perfect mode, 16x aa and af.

Ba5tard5word
09-04-2009, 12:44 PM
I don't even think convergence matters as much as getting in 200m or closer to your target. Your bullets have more power and are closer together when closer to the target. I've tried different convergence settings and it does help keep your bullets together some, but it's not as big a difference as getting shots on target at 150m or 200m compared to at 250 or 300m.

Ba5tard5word
09-04-2009, 12:47 PM
Oh, and going from 1154 x 768 resolution on my old computer to 1680 x 1050 really helped my aim too. It makes everything a lot clearer up close or at distance and makes aiming a ton easier and really helped my accuracy.

Treetop64
09-04-2009, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
For the P-47 just set the cannons to 500 and the machine guns to 100.

That is what I do.

Rearry?

Cannons?

On your P-47?

And dood, no one really cares what you change your username to, so it really isn't necessary to keep making posts about it.

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 01:04 PM
The cannons on a P-47 are the 4 .50s and the machine guns are teh other 4 .50s.

The are both the same weapon though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
09-04-2009, 01:23 PM
On the 8 gun P-47, I believe that the inner .50s are treated as the 'cannon' and the outer .50s are the MGs for the purposes of setting convergences. Or vice-versa.

It's not all that different from the nose mounted MGs and the MG 151/20s in the wingroots of the FW 190A being treated as the 'MGs' and the outer wing cannon being treated as the cannon for the same purpose, and I bet most folks understand that.

cheers

horseback

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-04-2009, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:

(((((NOTE: THIS IS NOT A 50 CALS ARE PORKED THREAD)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

That is exactly what it appears to be.

S!

The_Stealth_Owl
09-04-2009, 01:29 PM
Only if you make it that way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Not all threads that have something to do with .50s or P-38s are bad.

Treetop64
09-04-2009, 01:34 PM
"Only if you make it that way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif"

Owl, you clearly haven't spent enough time in these forums, otherwise you wouldn't make such naive assumptions...

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
Only if you make it that way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Not all threads that have something to do with .50s or P-38s are bad.

Make it what way? You have no idea how many threads such as this we have read since FB shipped. Nobody said it was bad either. Everyone has the right to complain about anything they wish. Im stating the obvious. I fly US planes all the time and have no issues.

X32Wright
09-04-2009, 01:49 PM
I got no issues either with 50 cals. I found it to actually be quite deadly specially vs german planes and quick pilot kills.

I do however use the 274 meters (300 yards) recomendation by USAAF. Yes it is not easy to see but you do need to do 'SUSTAINED' shots.

BillSwagger
09-04-2009, 01:52 PM
i used to whine about the 50s and i still have my gripes, but i think that there are mods that fix what many people are describing here. tracer mods, and sound mods.
Just my take on it, but i don't see a lot of room to complain if there are mods that offer the option to fix these issues.
I think a lot of the reasons the arguments get rehashed so often is because many people still play the stock unmodded 4.08 il2. You must understand that it is an older game so the sound is still from a time when we would've been crapping in our pants just to have a plane to fly in a 3d combat setting. Either people are unaware of the benefits of the mods, or they are stubborn to try them as i was. I must admit they are very useful at correcting these types of issues.

horseback
09-04-2009, 01:55 PM
I'd prefer to view it as a ".50s aren't as much fun/satisfying" thread...

Even the La-5 series' 20mms, which are a bit light in the hitting dept compared to say, the 190D-9's wingroot cannon, are more fun to shoot than the .50s--you get more visible hits, plus occasional explosions, puffs of smoke and pieces flying off.

Between the ersatz sound effects and the minimalist visual strike effects, I think that the OP has a valid point.

cheers

horseback

Freiwillige
09-04-2009, 02:19 PM
The 50 is not porked...lol (Yea we all know it is)

But that's not the point of this topic. Using the USAF rule of 274 I can get plenty of kills but even the kill itself is lacking (Another de-winged zero anybody?)

There is little satisfaction for me as it is more difficult to lead (See tracers disappearing into background above) And the sounds just suck!

I can use the two 7.9's on my 109 as effectivly as the 8 50's on my P-47 cause at least I can see where my rounds are going!

But Horseback said it best

"I'd prefer to view it as a ".50s aren't as much fun/satisfying" thread...

Even the La-5 series' 20mms, which are a bit light in the hitting dept compared to say, the 190D-9's wingroot cannon, are more fun to shoot than the .50s--you get more visible hits, plus occasional explosions, puffs of smoke and pieces flying off.

Between the ersatz sound effects and the minimalist visual strike effects, I think that the OP has a valid point.

cheers

horseback"

Ba5tard5word
09-04-2009, 02:24 PM
Like Swagger said, it's an old game. The bullets should produce smoke and other effects but it wasn't modeled in like a lot of stuff.

And I don't mind the tracers in American 50-cals, if you want to talk about almost nonexistent tracers, look at the 20mm cannons in the La-5, those things are almost totally invisible.

Ghostleopard
09-04-2009, 04:46 PM
I think the .50s are fine.

I'm usually flying Kittyhawks using them though.
Convergence 180 and I have no problems downing aircraft.

They just don't explode like when hit by cannon.


..... and if any weapon needs to be un-porked, it's the .303s of the Hurricanes and Spitfires.

They go through telephone poles at 100 yards for godsake, and yet hitting a 109 with 12 machine guns worth of burst of them has minimal effect.

na85
09-04-2009, 05:33 PM
Hey Bill, could you PM me a link to some of those sound mods for the .50's?

I want something that sounds big and powerful, like the browning really was, not the pewpewpewpewpewpew we've got with the stock game and with AAA's new sounds.

R_Target
09-04-2009, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
...the real issue was that the individual guns had a ludicrous dispersion, and it was proven that it was worse BY FAR than any other LMG or HMG in the game, and absolutely unrealistic for standard M2s in factory fresh condition (which every other aircraft gun modelled enjoyed). There was much heated and eventually very personal debate before the documentation eventually overwhelmed the opinion.

Be sure.


As usual, when the smoke cleared, the fix Oleg and his team provided was a classic 'see-what-you-made-me-do' case of overkill which included 'point' rather than the standard 'box' convergence, and each gun firing each bullet at the precise moment as every other gun on that wing (with a predictable yaw problem in several cases), which also had to be fixed (multiple times in a couple of cases).

I'm cool with point convergence, but the spinning USN planes was the pinnacle of absurdity. I'm sure I'm not the only one that sent in .trks of three machine guns spinning a 12,000lb. plane around like a break dancer. But hey, it only took 18 months to fix, right? Thumbs up, beta testers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tully__
09-04-2009, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Anybody got some nice 50-cal gun camera pics, so we can see what they should look like?
You have to be careful using gun-cam as a reference, cameras see tracer differently to human eyes. This is to do with different sensitivity of the film or eyes to infrared light and different methods of coping with varying exposure / light levels.

If you want the game to look like a film of gun fire, gun cams are a good reference. If you want the game to look to us how it did to those who flew and fought these things for real gun cams can sometimes give us a very incorrect idea what it should look like.

Tully__
09-04-2009, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i used to whine about the 50s and i still have my gripes, but i think that there are mods that fix... </snip>

That makes 4 times in this one thread with essentially the same post, which would be....hmmm... I think "Spam" is the word I'm looking for..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

CUJO_1970
09-04-2009, 10:19 PM
This is great!

I was just thinking how much we really need another .50 cal thread.

Fehler
09-05-2009, 01:03 AM
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

BillSwagger
09-05-2009, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i used to whine about the 50s and i still have my gripes, but i think that there are mods that fix... </snip>

That makes 4 times in this one thread with essentially the same post, which would be....hmmm... I think "Spam" is the word I'm looking for..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
All due respect, sir
It is borderline, and if it sounds repetitious its only because i think many of the issues described with out repeating them again, also have resolve, but people choose to carry on and complain. No matter how many times these issues pop up, the fact remains that they aren't going to change or fix themselves, unless you look toward third party development.
So i'm sorry for the repeat posts, it is fitting for a repeat thread. I'm really just trying to make people aware that there are solutions for the issues with the 50 cal if they are willing to use them.

that is all.


It sort of like ordering a sandwich, and when its delivered, its on stale bread. so you complain, and the chef immediately gets you a new sandwich just the way you like it. Are you still gonna sit and complain about the stale bread, or are you gonna enjoy the new fresh sandwich?

Bill

Daniel39363
09-07-2009, 11:26 PM
well, sorry if I'm bursting your hate bubble, but fifty cals rock if you practice with them. They are especially good against Japanese fighters because they are lightly armored and it only takes a couple good hits to light them on fire. I was in the Skies of Valor server today and I downed 4 Japanese fighters in one sortie using an F4U (two of them were downed with somebody on my tail). They are very good, I also found that if you turn your sound up really loud they sound a lot better. The fifties are really good, and to me, the pros outweigh the cons. When I first got the game, I flew La-7's on the Delta Bravo server, once I got good with the deflection shots and leading, I decided to start using fifty cals. They are very good, don't underestimate them.

I took an me200 bomber's wing off with a hellcat with about a two second burst on one of the engines today also, just practice with them and try them out, you will like them.

na85
09-07-2009, 11:30 PM
People love to whine about the .50 cals because they can't get one-hitter quitters like they can flying the FW190 or the Tempest.

But let's face it. The .50 cal is not a weapon for shooting down bombers like the Mk108. It's for disabling fighters and forcing them down. Allied pilots didn't give a **** about their stats or the number of kills they got per sortie so much as they cared about getting home. Whether you wreck the guy's plane and force him to dive out or blow him to smithereens, it doesn't matter, you still survived the mission and put him out of the fight.

WTE_Galway
09-07-2009, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

The P51 won the war you know ....

Mysticpuma2003
09-08-2009, 03:43 AM
The 50-cals are porked! Can't say anymore...wish I could.

MP.

Tully__
09-08-2009, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Daniel39363:
well, sorry if I'm bursting your hate bubble, but fifty cals rock if you practice with them...
I don't believe the original poster was disputing that, simply that the visual and sound effects associated with them leave something to be desired... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

DKoor
09-08-2009, 05:02 AM
It's not .50's it just that those damn FW-190D's are too tough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .
.50's work for other planes well.

R_Target
09-08-2009, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
I don't believe the original poster was disputing that, simply that the visual and sound effects associated with them leave something to be desired... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Lol, why bother reading the thread when they can just drop in and make some "clever" comments.

TS_Sancho
09-08-2009, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

Your doing it wrong, you need to bounce the bullets off the ground into the underside of the Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

squareusr
09-08-2009, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I truly believe that the lack of visual\sound cue's is what kills flying American birds for me.

I enjoy the gun sound on the all 50cal equipped late P40s a lot.

Blutarski2004
09-08-2009, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

Your doing it wrong, you need to bounce the bullets off the ground into the underside of the Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Also, Oleg never modelled the late war 50cal RARAPDS (rocket assisted rebounding armor piercing discarding sabot) round, which was issued to 9th Air Force sometime around 1 Apr 44 in preparation for the Normandy landings.

Flight_boy1990
09-08-2009, 01:09 PM
Anyone want me to prove him that the ingame .50 cals are not porked at all?

Jesus,where Kling is where you need him...

MD_Titus
09-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
You know after all these years I have come to the conclusion that anything with wing mounted .50's is just....well.....anti climatic!

I do understand that they work well when hitting in your convergence its just that they are darn near imposable to aim well. The tracers are small, not bright enough and blend into the background easily And the sounds are similar and less flattering than sitting on a whoopie cushion.

When I am bearing down in my F4U\F6F\P-38\47\51
I want all hell to break loose when I squeeze the trigger! I want a realistic dispersion! I want a sound that is the equivalent to somebody banging a pot and kicking my seat at the same time!

I truly believe that the lack of visual\sound cue's is what kills flying American birds for me.

(((((NOTE: THIS IS NOT A 50 CALS ARE PORKED THREAD)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

the freakish thing is that they are visible to others from so far away, yet when firing they disappear from view far far sooner.

MD_Titus
09-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

Your doing it wrong, you need to bounce the bullets off the ground into the underside of the Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Also, Oleg never modelled the late war 50cal RARAPDS (rocket assisted rebounding armor piercing discarding sabot) round, which was issued to 9th Air Force sometime around 1 Apr 44 in preparation for the Normandy landings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif sir, well played.

MD_Titus
09-08-2009, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

The P51 won the war you know .... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it wasn't cyanide, it wasn't the pistol shot to the head - it was the p-51 that was in the bunker with him...

MD_Titus
09-08-2009, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
The 50-cals are porked! Can't say anymore...wish I could.

MP.
the p-51's have, if i am remembering a certain post correctly, belted for mid-late war russian loadouts, not late war american apit loadouts. so ball, armour piercing, and tracer (possibly incendary in there as well, not sure), but no armour piercing incendary tracer rounds. which for the majority of planes that are using the .50's is about right. late war loadout cannot be carried across to early/mid-war airframes.

Blutarski2004
09-08-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by MD_Titus:
- it was the p-51 that was in the bunker with him...



..... Actually I think Hitler was killed AND immolated by strafing P51s using 50cal BBI's (bunker buster, incendiary), also known as "The Mother of all 50cal Bullets" - a special ammunition type coincidentally issued on 1 April 1945.

;-]

Daiichidoku
09-08-2009, 01:55 PM
i had to dig up an oldie but goodie for this one:


Originally posted by Jaws2002:

Teh mighty Mustang won the war single handed be sure!!!101!!

The proof is everywhere:



While still in prototype stage it ended the ww1 with a PK on the Red Baron:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony1.jpg


It won the Battle of Britain:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony2.jpg


Won the African campainn!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony4.jpg



Beat the nazis back at Stalingrad!!!111!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony6.jpg


At Iwo Jima it shot all the japanese inside the Mount Suribachi using the mighty API-API-API-API formula !101!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony5.jpg




Ended the war in Europe !!!101!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony3.jpg

And are still doing Homeland Security today:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/pony7.jpg

Ba5tard5word
09-08-2009, 02:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Wildnoob
09-08-2009, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

+ 1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gammelpreusse
09-08-2009, 02:57 PM
http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/geno/rofl.gif

Don't forget, the problem is a purely libido one anways. 50ies simply dont BÄM! enough http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Bearcat99
09-08-2009, 04:58 PM
While I have issues with the 50s in terms of API rounds.. even as they are they are not bad.. I have videos of 1 second bursts from a P-51C setting a 109 on fire... My problem comes with some of the DMs.. and the stability of some of the AC.. particularly the Mustang.. which is a whole 'nother issue.. but the 8 50s in the P-47s & the 6 in the P-40s do some damage..


Originally posted by X32Wright:
I got no issues either with 50 cals. I found it to actually be quite deadly specially vs german planes and quick pilot kills.

I do however use the 274 meters (300 yards) recomendation by USAAF. Yes it is not easy to see but you do need to do 'SUSTAINED' shots.

I have found that for me convergence between 175-250 works best for A2A.. When ground pounding I stretch it out a bit more...

WTE_Galway
09-08-2009, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

Your doing it wrong, you need to bounce the bullets off the ground into the underside of the Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


another flaw in the game ... the original P51 had the guns pointing slightly downwards for the sole purpose of killing tiger tanks by bouncing bullets off ploughed fields ... sort of a reverse Schräge Musik ... Oleg has failed to model this though there are rumors of a mod

na85
09-08-2009, 06:44 PM
Because escort fighters don't need to shoot at enemy aircraft.

Waldo.Pepper
09-08-2009, 07:35 PM
I have videos of 1 second bursts from a P-51C setting a 109 on fire


Lets see them, please.

WTE_Galway
09-08-2009, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by na85:
Because escort fighters don't need to shoot at enemy aircraft.

well duh ... enemy pilots bail out at the mere sight of a P51 no need to waste ammo on them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

pupo162
09-09-2009, 01:38 AM
fun to notice that not only the p51 won at every theatre of war, nut it was always the same plane and the same pilot. the all.mighty p51.

the .50 calls are not my thing but i dont think they are overpowered. they were just not made to clip wings such as big cannons do. fire at the border of the wing or at the engine and there you go a nice little barbecue.

Toten_Waffe
09-09-2009, 03:00 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pupo162:
it was always the same plane and the same pilot. the all.mighty p51.
QUOTE]

The one in the pictures is being flown by Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris in a P-51 won all wars.

Treetop64
09-09-2009, 03:09 AM
That P-51 sequence is friggin' hilarious! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bearcat99
09-09-2009, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have videos of 1 second bursts from a P-51C setting a 109 on fire


Lets see them, please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately... after looking and finding the files.. they are corrupted and will not open.

M_Gunz
09-10-2009, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by HetzerII:
Like i said before... there was a time the .50 realy rocked. This was the time before the dispersion off the .50 got reduced almos to nill. Why the dispersion got reduced? Ask the .50-whiners from about 3 years ago. They wanted it this way. Oleg told them they will not be able to handle sniper .50 mounted in wings. We now have what was demanded. Now dont cry....

It was a realy great time with greater dispersion.. you did not hit that hard but you hitted a lot easier and on a whider range.

Tests before and after showed 20+ mils before and 8 to 10 mils after. Not almost nil. Just close to historic.
Set up on the ground at convergence away from a big smokestack with arcade=1 and check it yourself!
You want sniper fire, most every nose gun has about 2 mils dispersion and makes wing mounted 50's look like shotguns.

If you like 50 cal planes that can't get a tighter pattern than 10m width at 200m range then I guess that's why you loved the
way it was. Back then the bullets also fired in synchronous groups too, hit in waves.

I don't need to cry, 2 kinds of arcade were removed in the changes to the 50 cals. Really.

doraemil
09-11-2009, 04:46 AM
LOL .. .. too funny at Daiichidoku recall.

Oh wonderful.



What I found out for myself about machine guns.

-They tend to hit more often and easier (when close to convergence) than cannons, especially if you're doing snap shots. And also if you're going fast.

With the 30 mm cannons (20's have this too) sometimes they'll spread and a small plane, like a FW 190 or a Zero will slip through.

Same set up / situation with .50's and you'll get more hits.

- machine guns are more sensitive to convergence than cannons.

I can set the KI 84c or FW 190 or F4U hispano to 1000 m deflection and open up around 300 m I can dewing stuff still. I can't do that with machine guns.

But if I set 150 or 200 conv, and I open up at my convergence setting, I can one burst (esp with the lovely P-47) a plane (ok well maybe not a heavy armored one).

- machine guns are happy at closer ranges.
It takes forever to kill something if you leave it at default (500) convergence.

But put it at 100-200m and open up at your convergence, and watch the pieces fly.

- machine shells handle differently than cannon even if conv is set the same.

Ask any P-38 driver, they'll tell you shooting the 20mm is different than shooting the 4 50 cals.



This has degenerates into a .50 cal whine thread, then someone opens up with convegence doesn't matter, only get in close.


Only a half truth . . . really go to bearcat's nuggets thread and there's a pic shows the track lines.

Convergence does count if you want to do more damage. You get more hits and concentrated fire

RPMcMurphy
09-11-2009, 07:36 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bearcat99:
While I have issues with the 50s in terms of API rounds.. even as they are they are not bad.. I have videos of 1 second bursts from a P-51C setting a 109 on fire... My problem comes with some of the DMs.. and the stability of some of the AC.. particularly the Mustang.. which is a whole 'nother issue.. but the 8 50s in the P-47s & the 6 in the P-40s do some damage..

[QUOTE]
I was just going to say almost the same thing because I have been setting offline missions against 109s using a P40B and also the P-47. I have been learning how to set the 109s on fire or take them out with the P40 but it is alot easier with the 47. Mustang is alot harder for me.

(But switch my plane to an F4U1C and I slaughter them.)

DKoor
09-11-2009, 11:48 AM
Set conv to 120m and hit them from those ranges, it will rip apart any axis.
I EASILY destroy four FW-190A5/6's in P-51C with that conv, ace Ai realistic diff settings, and that speaks volumes.
FW-190D is another matter, nothing late war western front is more resistant to .50cal fire than that machine, I've been dewinging Tempests, setting P-47's on fire while at the same time FW-190D wasn't so badly damaged.
QMB is perfect for that test.
So... go figure.
.50cal as it is is doing just fine just some aircraft DM's are fishy to say the least.

M_Gunz
09-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
You must understand that it is an older game so the sound is still from a time when we would've been crapping in our pants just to have a plane to fly in a 3d combat setting.

I had Sid Meier's F/A-18 running on an Amiga back in 1987 that "flew" in a 3D combat setting. That was really decent.
Then there was Jetfighter and F-19 Stealth and then things started getting better and better as the 386-486-586 progression
with more and more RAM on mobos and then video cards --- but 1998 was my first non-table driven sim and that was a big step
beyond mere 3D graphics.

Too bad we didn't hang out back then Bill, I woulda made sure you knew and then gotcha to drink beer and watch Repo Man
with the rest of the gang!

BillSwagger
09-12-2009, 04:19 AM
Ha,

come to think of it i was playing MSF back in 83 as a child but i stuck to console gaming from then on.

I think my point was that the game is so old that many things such as the sound haven't been updated which comes as a surprise considering how many patches have come and gone since then.

I was messing with some video and here is some sound I added, with another mod to improve the tracer effects.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl7ti4Sil7o

Gibbage1
09-12-2009, 04:52 PM
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/burn.jpg

Quite simply put, US .50 cal dont light fuel fires very easy (if at all). Thats the biggest issue. Sure they cause critical damage, but not being able to light a Betty or Zero on fire is simply inaccurate and un-historical, nuff said.

zxwings
09-16-2009, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
To me, the only thing difficult about aiming the .50s is the lack of visual feedback on the target. With cannon rounds, you get immediate visual feedback when you get hits. If you saw oversized hit sparks with the .50s, it would dramatically shorten the time it takes to learn them.
I can't agree more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

zxwings
09-16-2009, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by The_Stealth_Owl:
For the P-47 just set the cannons to 500 and the machine guns to 100.

That is what I do.
Why are the cannons involved here? Some of P47's machine guns are treated as cannons in IL2?

R_Target
09-16-2009, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by zxwings:
Why are the cannons involved here? Some of P47's machine guns are treated as cannons in IL2?

I believe the outer two on each wing are.

irR4tiOn4L
09-17-2009, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
I just noticed that I cant seem to kill a Tiger Tank with mine... Hmmm

Your doing it wrong, you need to bounce the bullets off the ground into the underside of the Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This brings back a lot of funny memories!

WTE_Galway
09-18-2009, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zxwings:
Why are the cannons involved here? Some of P47's machine guns are treated as cannons in IL2?

I believe the outer two on each wing are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In reality they all fired on the one trigger ...

http://books.google.com.au/boo...v=onepage&q=&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=D0WqogN_jawC&lpg=PA41&ots=7JJZ7Jmi2C&dq=p47%20gun%20triggers&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

irR4tiOn4L
09-18-2009, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zxwings:
Why are the cannons involved here? Some of P47's machine guns are treated as cannons in IL2?

I believe the outer two on each wing are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In reality they all fired on the one trigger ...

http://books.google.com.au/boo...v=onepage&q=&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=D0WqogN_jawC&lpg=PA41&ots=7JJZ7Jmi2C&dq=p47%20gun%20triggers&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=&f=false) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does it mean when they say "Only six guns and ammunition are included in the design useful load" - does that mean the standard gun loadout should be 6, not 8 guns?

WTE_Galway
09-18-2009, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zxwings:
Why are the cannons involved here? Some of P47's machine guns are treated as cannons in IL2?

I believe the outer two on each wing are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In reality they all fired on the one trigger ...

http://books.google.com.au/boo...v=onepage&q=&f=false (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=D0WqogN_jawC&lpg=PA41&ots=7JJZ7Jmi2C&dq=p47%20gun%20triggers&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q=&f=false) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does it mean when they say "Only six guns and ammunition are included in the design useful load" - does that mean the standard gun loadout should be 6, not 8 guns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am not sure.

I initially read that as meaning the standard loadout for full fuel (and maybe ordinance) is to only load up six guns of the 8 guns and that the alternate load-out of all 8 guns loaded with ammo must limit other stores and or fuel carried.

Certainly if you loaded all 8 guns you were not allowed to use the max capacity of 475 rounds per gun.

However possibly they mean the default is only 6 x 0.50 cal fitted to the airframe and the relatively commonplace 8 guns was officially an "alternate" build option ???? Someone else with more knowledge than me of the P47 might be able to answer that.

M_Gunz
09-18-2009, 04:07 AM
You had switches to arm only certain guns in at least one US fighter IRL so the trigger only fires selected guns.
Accounts from pilots tell of saving ammo in some guns this way and I've watched a P-38 pilot tell of having the
guns switched off and needing to get them back on in an emergency. You switch them off to prevent accidental
firing and switch them on coming into combat, it's one of the things to do changing from cruise to fight.

R_Target
09-18-2009, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
In reality they all fired on the one trigger ...

Rgr that. I was referring strictly to convergence settings in IL2.

R_Target
09-18-2009, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What does it mean when they say "Only six guns and ammunition are included in the design useful load" - does that mean the standard gun loadout should be 6, not 8 guns?

Pilots could use either six or eight guns. Ammunition capacity was limited not by weight, but by space in the wing.

Bearcat99
09-18-2009, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/burn.jpg

Quite simply put, US .50 cal dont light fuel fires very easy (if at all). Thats the biggest issue. Sure they cause critical damage, but not being able to light a Betty or Zero on fire is simply inaccurate and un-historical, nuff said.

This screenshot says a zllion words.. More than my opinion on the 50s or anyone else's.. Now I count more than 75 hits on that one wing surface.. That isn't counting the ricochets. I don't know what kind of 50s anyone else has seen.. but I know of no aircraft in existence even today that could survive that many 50 calibre rounds all in one wing, all at one time,from less than 100m out.. (note that the majority of the arrows are moving forward.. which tells me that they are coming from the P-38 doing the shooting..) so.. yeah.. I guess I would say that the 50s are porked.. something is porked...

R_Target
09-18-2009, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You had switches to arm only certain guns in at least one US fighter IRL so the trigger only fires selected guns.
Accounts from pilots tell of saving ammo in some guns this way and I've watched a P-38 pilot tell of having the
guns switched off and needing to get them back on in an emergency. You switch them off to prevent accidental
firing and switch them on coming into combat, it's one of the things to do changing from cruise to fight.

F6F had switches for each pair of guns as well. Several pilots recalled switching off the outboard MGs and fighting with four, saving two for the ride back.

Flight_boy1990
09-18-2009, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I don't know what kind of 50s anyone else has seen.. but I know of no aircraft in existence even today that could survive that many 50 calibre rounds all in one wing, all at one time,from less than 100m out.. (note that the majority of the arrows are moving forward.. which tells me that they are coming from the P-38 doing the shooting..) so.. yeah.. I guess I would say that the 50s are porked.. something is porked...

Well Bearcat,if we have to speak for coincidences...

Once on a full real server,I fought a P-51.We entered rolling scossors,he passed infront of me,and I filled him with 2 salvos lead from all my guns starting from him nose,'till the tail,he didn't lost anything only started leaking fuel slightly,but kept flying.Then because of lag I went infront of him,and he got a lucky single hit on me.Yes only 1 single hit from only 1 .50 cal,what happaned???
Well I've magically lost my elevator of my FW-190 A-9.

Yes something smells fishy,doesn't it?

EDIT:I forgot to say that the server was mod protected,and neither him or me,used any type of mods.Everything was "vanilla".

Erkki_M
09-18-2009, 09:24 AM
I have, too, on many occasions downed FWs with less than 10 hits, and from all angles. On two best occasions I 1) with 3 hits made his fuel tank leak and ripped his wing from the root(FW190D9) and 2) killed pilot, destroyed controls, hit fuel tank and ripped wing from middle with 5 hits(another D9).

You do get kills like that in the P-51, but they, naturally, happen much less often than with, say, an FW190. Stucking to single and often exceptional situations and occasions will not get us anywhere.

As for that G4M with 70+ hits in its wing... I thought everyone here knew it has a rather odd damage model anyways? You might want to do a similar test with a He-111 or Ju-88, too.

BillSwagger
09-18-2009, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I am not sure.

I initially read that as meaning the standard loadout for full fuel (and maybe ordinance) is to only load up six guns of the 8 guns and that the alternate load-out of all 8 guns loaded with ammo must limit other stores and or fuel carried.

Certainly if you loaded all 8 guns you were not allowed to use the max capacity of 475 rounds per gun.

However possibly they mean the default is only 6 x 0.50 cal fitted to the airframe and the relatively commonplace 8 guns was officially an "alternate" build option ???? Someone else with more knowledge than me of the P47 might be able to answer that.

From what i know and read, the P-47 was originally designed with 6 guns in mind, but the army requested 8.
8 became standard, and maybe they used six when they were carrying heavier loads of rockets, 1000lb bombs, and/or external fuel stores.
It was not uncommon for wanting extra ammo and guns because even the early 50 cal guns would jam. Pilots would often lose a gun or two during a dogfight so having the extra capacity and guns was favorable.
As for ammunition loads outs, the history is a bit convoluted on this matter. The articles that go into structure of the wing mention the capacity to hold large amounts of ammunition, over 350 rounds per gun (8 guns). 425 rounds per gun seems to also be a common figure, so maybe the 475 in game is a bit high.
There are reports on improvements of the linkage used on the 50 cal both improving capacity and causing less jams, so this might be where we see a lot of disparity on how much ammo could be carried.
The capacity to carry large amounts of ammo did not change with respect to external loads, however, my guess is that the added weight must've made it more beneficial to carry less ammo, being that it was also stored from the gun ports to just inside the wing tips, making the wing heavier than what was necessary for a particular mission. For example, earlier variants might've been assigned for ground attack rolls, while newer variants provided top cover. The need to carry extra ammo in a bird that was dropping 2000lbs of bombs or rockets, was less likely to need its 50 cals, where the planes covering might've been more likely to attack air to air targets.
When dive bombing a target, the ability to roll to make corrections and pull up in time would be key considerations for weight and ammo load outs.
We are also talking about a plane that was extremely heavy to begin with. Pilots mention the need for a long runway, and WEP just to lift off with 1000lb bombs on the wings. Anywhere they could've cut weight would've been done, and i see them only carrying 6 guns and/or less ammo for that particular attack roll. Its the same principal for carrying less fuel if you know you won't need it.

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 10:11 AM
Carrying fewer rounds per gun means a shorter and lighter belt, which is therefore going to be easier for the gun's mechanism to pull through. I would therefore expect that carrying fewer rounds would reduce the incidence of jams.

Carrying fewer guns will reduce gun heating requirements because you can tape over the un-used holes in the wing.

Additionally, you're free to choose to remove whichever guns are the least reliable, so the overall reliability of the installation would go up, perhaps considerably.

Losing a gun is a real pain because in addition to reduced firepower you'll also suffer yaw when firing due to asymmetric recoil.

DKoor
09-18-2009, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
I have, too, on many occasions downed FWs with less than 10 hits, and from all angles. On two best occasions I 1) with 3 hits made his fuel tank leak and ripped his wing from the root(FW190D9) and 2) killed pilot, destroyed controls, hit fuel tank and ripped wing from middle with 5 hits(another D9).

You do get kills like that in the P-51, but they, naturally, happen much less often than with, say, an FW190. Stucking to single and often exceptional situations and occasions will not get us anywhere.

As for that G4M with 70+ hits in its wing... I thought everyone here knew it has a rather odd damage model anyways? You might want to do a similar test with a He-111 or Ju-88, too. +1

BTW;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/ju88-damage.jpg

Damage on pic inflicted by P-38.

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 11:46 AM
Shoot the smoke and that Ju-88 will burn.

Some aircraft seem to have extremely "deterministic" DMs which will behave extremely consistently.

Others can be capricious. For example, it is possible to set 190s alight with .50 rounds, but I can't predict when this will happen...

BillSwagger
09-18-2009, 12:06 PM
true, it just depends on the planes you are hitting. Gernally, 50s aren't supposed to be as effective against bombers but i still get much better results than whats displayed here so long as i hit the right spot. I'm talking 5 arrows and the engine is burning.

Flight_boy1990
09-18-2009, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:For example, it is possible to set 190s alight with .50 rounds, but I can't predict when this will happen...

Of course you cannot predict,this is why this game is called "Simulation",which means that everything is made as close as possible to it's RL equivalent.
This also means that the .50 cal is not the same MG-151/20.With the MG-151/20 you can always blow up each plane that you're shooting at,but with .50 cal it depends on what you hit.
This is why the .50 cal is "Machine gun" and the Machinegewehr 151/20 is called a "Cannon".

And the mistake that people do,is thinking that the .50 caliber should do the same damage as 20 mm cannon.They also tend to believe that the API .50 cal round will make any big difference ingame,if added.That's a myth.

It all depends on your convergence and your aim.If you cannot aim right,even if you had a self propelled gun on your plane,you still wouldn't have been able to shootdown your enemy.

DKoor
09-18-2009, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:For example, it is possible to set 190s alight with .50 rounds, but I can't predict when this will happen...

Of course you cannot predict,this is why this game is called "Simulation",which means that everything is made as close as possible to it's RL equivalent.
This also means that the .50 cal is not the same MG-151/20.With the MG-151/20 you can always blow up each plane that you're shooting at,but with .50 cal it depends on what you hit.
This is why the .50 cal is "Machine gun" and the Machinegewehr 151/20 is called a "Cannon".

And the mistake that people do,is thinking that the .50 caliber should do the same damage as 20 mm cannon.They also tend to believe that the API .50 cal round will make any big difference ingame,if added.That's a myth.

It all depends on your convergence and your aim.If you cannot aim right,even if you had a self propelled gun on your plane,you still wouldn't have been able to shootdown your enemy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with many of the points that were made...

API wont make a big difference, but it will make a difference.
I'd say if I manage to kill (more precisely - burn) one more out of 10, it could be welcomed addition...

I just made a training mission, P-51C vs 4xFW-190A6's, real sett., no time acceleration/decel., ace Ai... just had enough ammo to bag all of them.
It is interesting that I managed to set two of them on fire, one from dead six.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/6dce...b/dkoor51c_4a6_409b1 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/6dceb65e-884d-41f9-8a91-62de52778c8b/dkoor51c_4a6_409b1)

Bremspropeller
09-18-2009, 02:50 PM
FB_190 ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif )

Are there any 190s in the pipe by Team Daidalos?

Just curious, you know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:For example, it is possible to set 190s alight with .50 rounds, but I can't predict when this will happen...

Of course you cannot predict,this is why this game is called "Simulation",which means that everything is made as close as possible to it's RL equivalent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I know what a simulation is. I stand by my statement.

Some DMs give far more predictable results than others. The Ju-88 is an excellent example. Shoot the wing with the M2 and you'll get some dark smoke. Shoot the smoke and you'll get fire. This works like the proverbial clockwork across a large portion of the wingspan. Whether or not this is accurate is not the point at issue. The point is that this is very consistent, repeatable behaviour.

Shoot the 190 with the M2 and there doesn't appear to be an equivalent "procedure" for setting the aeroplane on fire. Granted it's a smaller target, and so accuracy is more of an issue.

Personally I'm all in favour of "non deterministic" DM behaviour BTW.


This also means that the .50 cal is not the same MG-151/20. Stop the presses!


With the MG-151/20 you can always blow up each plane that you're shooting at, An interesting statement given your previous assertions about what a simulator is supposed to be. IME the MG151/20 delivers a variety of effects; actually blowing enemy aircraft to atoms is one of the possibilities, but it is (reassuringly) quite rare.


but with .50 cal it depends on what you hit.
This is why the .50 cal is "Machine gun" and the Machinegewehr 151/20 is called a "Cannon".

And the mistake that people do,is thinking that the .50 caliber should do the same damage as 20 mm cannon.They also tend to believe that the API .50 cal round will make any big difference ingame,if added.That's a myth.

It all depends on your convergence and your aim.If you cannot aim right,even if you had a self propelled gun on your plane,you still wouldn't have been able to shootdown your enemy.

Actually you'll find it's often harder to score kills against fighter sized targets with really big guns. Feel free to experiment with the Me-262A1a U4... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the effectiveness or otherwise of the .50, IMO the main inherent problems are:

1) Simplistic systems modelling. This places undue emphasis upon killing aeroplanes by blasting them to atoms, which favours cannon.

2) Excessively strong aeroplanes. IIRC everything can handle a 15 g ultimate load. This is not degraded by damage AFAIK. IRL ultimate loads were generally much lower, and would of course be degraded by structural damage. As would VNE, since degraded stiffness = lower critical flutter speed. IL2 therefore underestimates the incidence of damaged induced failures, which again transfers emphasis to the extreme case of actually directly blasting aeroplanes to bits. At present, there is no relationship between aerodynamics and the structure, so it takes the same amount of damage to chop the wing off an aeroplane when it is parked as when it is diving at VNE.

3)I have a strong suspicion that cannon have a generally overestimated blasting power, probably in an attempt to match the German data on the average number of rounds required for MG151/20 and MK108s to kill B-17s. The numbers match, but the mechanism in the game is almost invariably that the target has been "blasted to bits", rather than "bled to death".

For example, look at this (at times rather harrowing) gun camera footage:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/...ot_down_old_footage/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/400798/b17_bomber_being_shot_down_old_footage/)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/...ack_runs_gun_camera/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-klXwCJTO3CM/luftwaffe_attack_runs_gun_camera/)

There's quite a lot of footage, with lots of rounds hitting a variety of targets. I counted 3 fires, but no catastrophic structural failures.

If you replicated the attacks in IL2 then I contend that you would see lots of dramatic structural failures.

Now, if we flip the whole .50 debate on its head, it could be that the .50s are about as effective as they should be, and the cannon with which everybody compares them are in fact too effective. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it does seem relatively difficult to find footage of cannon doing the sort of damage that they routinely inflict in IL2...

DKoor
09-18-2009, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
There's quite a lot of footage, with lots of rounds hitting a variety of targets. I counted 3 fires, but no catastrophic structural failures.

If you replicated the attacks in IL2 then I contend that you would see lots of dramatic structural failures. I think that IL-2 over blowing cannon effect is not a moot point...

In game user will get mostly structural damage kills with cannons; i.e. blowing enemy aircraft to bits, dewinging, sawing off tails etc.

It certainly didn't happened that way in WW2, tons of guncam vids and accounts tells us so...

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 03:28 PM
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Flight_boy1990
09-18-2009, 04:04 PM
Oh Viper...I hate long posts *yawn*.

I'll just give you an example of what only one Machinegewehr 151/20 can do in the hands of an ace,click (http://vbox7.com/play:f44fe7e0).
The pilot of this Bf-109 is Johannes "Hannes" Trautloft,commander of Jagageschwader 54.

Look at 1:20,this saves me the typing of an essey...

Oh and BTW don't fly the Me-262 A1a/U4...It's useless against airborne targets.

BillSwagger
09-18-2009, 04:21 PM
=)
Should we model every plane and their guns based on the star aces that flew them? What a game that would be.

I happen to agree with viper but i think it has more to do with the lack of depth in the damage model, rather than scrutinizing the guns, the planes, or the players that use them.

For every video that gets posted, there is a counter claim and/or video. The game still doesn't come close to either. When i watch an il2 movie that features a 109 beating the crap out of a bunch of air to air targets, there is something profoundly fake looking about it. It looks more like an arcade game than a sim, in part because every target "gets blown into atoms".

It isn't something that i really need to ponder too much, nor enter into debate over. It is just my opinion, and its nice to see that other people are on the same page.


Bill

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Oh and BTW don't fly the Me-262 A1a/U4...It's useless against airborne targets.

Quite. So would be a self-propelled artillery piece.

Flight_boy1990
09-18-2009, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
self-propelled artillery piece.

This was metafora... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
Oh Viper...I hate long posts *yawn*.

I'll just give you an example of what only one Machinegewehr 151/20 can do in the hands of an ace,click (http://vbox7.com/play:f44fe7e0).
The pilot of this Bf-109 is Johannes "Hannes" Trautloft,commander of Jagageschwader 54.


So we've got an extremely good shot, and footage picked to impress the newsreel audience. Yet the target is not blasted to bits.

There is smoke, the tail is heavily damaged, the pilot may well be killed or wounded and at the end there is fire. But the aeroplane is substantially structurally intact as it drops out of the frame.

Compare and contrast with IL2, in which cannon usually kill by de-winging the victim...

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
self-propelled artillery piece.

This was metafora... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hence the http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in my post.

fiftyoneofsixty
09-18-2009, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have videos of 1 second bursts from a P-51C setting a 109 on fire


Lets see them, please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, not a C and maybe not a second but a nice one nonetheless


http://rapidshare.de/files/483...15-43-31-01.avi.html (http://rapidshare.de/files/48373380/il2fb_2007-08-08_15-43-31-01.avi.html) ~15MB

http://rapidshare.com/files/28...15-43-31-01.avi.html (http://rapidshare.com/files/281967609/il2fb_2007-08-08_15-43-31-01.avi.html)

Maybe some explanatory words are in order. I played Il-2 on and off for about five years, got pretty good online too (Zekes vs Wildcats mainly) but haven't played the game lately for lack of time and motivation. Maybe I'll have a go at simming again when (if) Maddox pulls off a good one. Still read forums every now and then.

I found this vid in an old Fraps folder on a backup disk I was going to wipe. After reading this thread and laughing for a bit I thought why not post it :P Don't have the track or anything anymore though just this file (originally +1GB lol). It's a shame really because the best part IMO was dot-tracking the guy over the water which doesn't really show in the clip because of the reduced resolution and compression artifacts. Apart from that it's a good, clean kill. Lots of speed, altitude advantage and a clean six.
Note: according to the Fraps file this is from August 2007, so pre-mods etc. Server was probably Spits vs. 109s but I could be wrong.

Hmm, OK what I'm trying to say is the 50s rock, even more so on the 47; too bad I don't have any other tracks or vids from back then to prove it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

edit: added a second link (rapidshare.com) because not everyone reads German haha http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flight_boy1990
09-18-2009, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
self-propelled artillery piece.

This was metafora... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hence the http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in my post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Wink" means "metafora"?!

Gosh,so I'm metaforing the chicks when I'm winking to them...

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 05:16 PM
wink verb
/w??k/ v [I]

to close one eye for a short time as a way of greeting someone or showing friendliness, sexual interest, etc., <span class="ev_code_red">or of showing that you are not serious about something you have said</span>
She winked at me as he turned his back.
<span class="ev_code_red">For a moment I thought he was being serious, but then he winked at me.</span>

http://dictionary.cambridge.or...?key=90822&dict=CALD (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=90822&dict=CALD)

Emphasis added. Clear?

Flight_boy1990
09-18-2009, 05:32 PM
Strange,wiki doesn't complitely agree with this:


A wink is a facial expression made by briefly closing one eye.[1] A wink is an informal mode of communication usually signaling, depending on context, sexual attraction or shared hidden knowledge or intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wink

Nice arguement,will help me to sober faster. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 05:54 PM
The article you link to is a stub, and therefore incomplete.

Wikipedia is nice, but its quality is extremely variable, even when the articles are finished.

However, the "shared hidden knowledge or intent" part fits the bill if you think about it; it just hasn't been expanded upon in the rest of the article.

Romanator21
09-18-2009, 09:14 PM
A "wet-wing" refers to a wing that carries fuel without there being a separate tank. However it does not mean that the entire wing is full of fuel. Otherwise if the Betty rolled so much gas would slosh to one side it would be massively unstable and unsuitable for flight. Those 75 shots spread across the entire wing don't mean as much as 15 right in the tank. And although the Japanese aluminum was as thin as paper, the components of the wing work together as a whole, making a surprisingly sturdy structure. Not the same story for aircraft from Brewster works. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think this has been discussed too many times. We all want our favorite plane to blow up the enemy in 3 shots and without effort, so let's whine about it until something gets done! America's highest scoring ace, Richard Bong, flew 200 sorties, and 500 hours of combat flight time, and won 40 confirmed kills. At that rate, his P-38 must surely be porked!

Viper2005_
09-18-2009, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
A "wet-wing" refers to a wing that carries fuel without there being a separate tank. However it does not mean that the entire wing is full of fuel. Otherwise if the Betty rolled so much gas would slosh to one side it would be massively unstable and unsuitable for flight.

That's what slosh baffles are for. Fuel tank design is a complex business, and a fuel tank isn't just a sealed void full of fuel.

Waldo.Pepper
09-19-2009, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
I'll just give you an example of what only one Machinegewehr 151/20 can do in the hands of an ace,click (http://vbox7.com/play:f44fe7e0).
The pilot of this Bf-109 is Johannes "Hannes" Trautloft,commander of Jagageschwader 54.


I don't mean to be a buzz kill, and it certainly has no bearing on the topic that is the main focus of the thread, but this film clip in no way can be verified that it was Trautloft behind the trigger no matter what the narration may say. It is from a propaganda newsreel which were not created with accuracy in mind. The propaganda ministry can and would splice any old footage together to fit the narrative that they were pushing at the time. Works that way for all nations, Brits, Yanks - Soviet.

Romanator21
09-19-2009, 12:38 AM
That's what slosh baffles are for. Fuel tank design is a complex business, and a fuel tank isn't just a sealed void full of fuel.

So did the engineers at Mitsubishi put these baffles throughout the entire wing? If the entire wing was full, like say Rutan's Voyager, the wings would be scraping the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yak9Micha
09-19-2009, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Very nice and interesting video, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My question to you and other experten:

Are there actually smoke puffs when .50 cal rounds impact? Because unlike in game, it really looks so in your video (at 0:44, 1:49, 3:18, 3:33, 4:03, 4:36, 7:56, 8:44). The sparks look bigger and brighter than what we have.

Viper2005_
09-19-2009, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's what slosh baffles are for. Fuel tank design is a complex business, and a fuel tank isn't just a sealed void full of fuel.

So did the engineers at Mitsubishi put these baffles throughout the entire wing? If the entire wing was full, like say Rutan's Voyager, the wings would be scraping the ground. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually that's a function of aspect ratio and stiffness. Voyager had a wing of extremely high aspect ratio and marginal stiffness (and strength) in order to reduce structural mass fraction.

I doubt that the Betty's wing is entirely wet because it wasn't intended to break world records for range; had it been then its wing would have had a higher aspect ratio to cut down induced drag...

M_Gunz
09-19-2009, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by RegRag2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Very nice and interesting video, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My question to you and other experten:

Are there actually smoke puffs when .50 cal rounds impact? Because unlike in game, it really looks so in your video (at 0:44, 1:49, 3:18, 3:33, 4:03, 4:36, 7:56, 8:44). The sparks look bigger and brighter than what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some cases you're seeing tracer material at the back of the bullet spread and flash on impact.
There's 1 in 5 tracer out of 13 shots per second per gun.
It could also be incendiary material (magnesium core IIRC) but there don't seem to be enough flashes.

One thing I note is the general lack of visible tracers even on shots where the image wasn't washed out bright.
One one shot though they were clear and bright, that might have been someone else's seen from the side.

Yak9Micha
09-19-2009, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Very nice and interesting video, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My question to you and other experten:

Are there actually smoke puffs when .50 cal rounds impact? Because unlike in game, it really looks so in your video (at 0:44, 1:49, 3:18, 3:33, 4:03, 4:36, 7:56, 8:44). The sparks look bigger and brighter than what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some cases you're seeing tracer material at the back of the bullet spread and flash on impact.
There's 1 in 5 tracer out of 13 shots per second per gun.
It could also be incendiary material (magnesium core IIRC) but there don't seem to be enough flashes.

One thing I note is the general lack of visible tracers even on shots where the image wasn't washed out bright.
One one shot though they were clear and bright, that might have been someone else's seen from the side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, didn't know about tracer material/magnesium core, it's very interesting (I wonder if it would be possible to implement the smoke puffs for cal 50 in game, by using/modifying the canon shells effects.).

After reading your post and watching the video again, I too am surprised by the "general lack of visible tracers".

Monguse
09-19-2009, 07:08 AM
.50 cals a bit underwhelming?


Actually, they are, but just by a small margin.

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 07:21 AM
Rather than conjecture about what might or might not be happening in a very small handpicked selection of film, there are plenty of scientifically controlled testing that was conducted during the war.

The RAE in particular conducted extensive testing.

Here is the result of an FW-190 vulnerability study fired from direct astern:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7364/190vunerability1.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/i/190vunerability1.jpg/)


http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3648/190vunerability2.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/i/190vunerability2.jpg/)

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3540/190vunerability.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/i/190vunerability.jpg/)

Interesting reports on the Bf-109G and F series as well but those are too many pages to easily post. The main take away is that airplanes’ bursting into flames just because they took a hit of Incendiary rounds is fantasy not reality.

The farther off direct astern and the more rounds you hit with, the more chance of serious damage. It is very difficult to set an aircraft on fire with a .50 cal or smaller round.


Here is a report on the MGFF ammunition:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5977/mgff20mmhe.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/i/mgff20mmhe.jpg/)


http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6577/mgff20mmhe2.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/i/mgff20mmhe2.jpg/)

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1968/mgff20mmhe3.jpg (http://img185.imageshack.us/i/mgff20mmhe3.jpg/)

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
09-19-2009, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Monguse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">.50 cals a bit underwhelming?


Actually, they are, but just by a small margin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1, if you agree I would add - small, but not negligible.

DKoor
09-19-2009, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The farther off direct astern and the more rounds you hit with, the more chance of serious damage. It is very difficult to set an aircraft on fire with a .50 cal or smaller round. This is what I wholeheartedly agree with...

My point is... tested distance in the allied ammo test was 200 yards which roughly translate to 183m (for easier distances comparing game convergence - tests).

On that I would add that one might expect almost absolutely lethal damage inflicted on FW from 120m (converged hits) when receiving multiple hits in the same area. It didn't worked well in game tho.

I'll post pics.

edit
didn't wanna post pics here, I posted them in another topic;
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/9931068097 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9931068097)

horseback
09-19-2009, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by RegRag2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Very nice and interesting video, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My question to you and other experten:

Are there actually smoke puffs when .50 cal rounds impact? Because unlike in game, it really looks so in your video (at 0:44, 1:49, 3:18, 3:33, 4:03, 4:36, 7:56, 8:44). The sparks look bigger and brighter than what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Think of each round as a hammer or better yet, a pickaxe hitting the aircraft surface with all the force you can apply many, many times. If you hit anything with great force, dust and 'stuff' starts flying off, even on relatively clean surfaces.

Bullet jacketing may disintegrate, the aluminum sheet tears, fractures and breaks, paint chips, dust that had been stuck to the surface by oil or coolant, rivets popping off, all of those things and more may be seen as 'smoke puffs' on grainy, not very well focused black and white film from a camera shaking and bouncing about in a wingroot or external pod.

The original post was about the visual and audio 'cues' the game gives the player about the fifty cals; the lack of visual evidence of this sort that you are actually scoring hits with nonexplosive cannon and HMG rounds is a big factor in the perceived underwhelmingness (as opposed to ineffectiveness) of the fifty in the game.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 10:11 AM
My point is... tested distance in the allied ammo test was 200 yards

From direct astern....

That is the gun target line is direct astern not the position of the attacking airplane.


183m - 120m = 63m

If the gun target line is direct astern, 63 meters matters very little. The distance in the report is not in relation to a specific aircraft and its weapon convergence.

Just pointing that out.

All the best,

Crumpp

Yak9Micha
09-19-2009, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Very nice and interesting video, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My question to you and other experten:

Are there actually smoke puffs when .50 cal rounds impact? Because unlike in game, it really looks so in your video (at 0:44, 1:49, 3:18, 3:33, 4:03, 4:36, 7:56, 8:44). The sparks look bigger and brighter than what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Think of each round as a hammer or better yet, a pickaxe hitting the aircraft surface with all the force you can apply many, many times. If you hit anything with great force, dust and 'stuff' starts flying off, even on relatively clean surfaces.

Bullet jacketing may disintegrate, the aluminum sheet tears, fractures and breaks, paint chips, dust that had been stuck to the surface by oil or coolant, rivets popping off, all of those things and more may be seen as 'smoke puffs' on grainy, not very well focused black and white film from a camera shaking and bouncing about in a wingroot or external pod.

The original post was about the visual and audio 'cues' the game gives the player about the fifty cals; the lack of visual evidence of this sort that you are actually scoring hits with nonexplosive cannon and HMG rounds is a big factor in the perceived underwhelmingness (as opposed to ineffectiveness) of the fifty in the game.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Horseback:

"The original post was about the visual and audio 'cues' the game gives the player about the fifty cals; the lack of visual evidence of this sort that you are actually scoring hits with nonexplosive cannon and HMG rounds is a big factor in the perceived underwhelmingness (as opposed to ineffectiveness) of the fifty in the game."

Yes, actually, this is exactly what i wanted to say! To me there should be some visual effects when 50 cal rounds hit, that would only be fair.

Flight_boy1990
09-19-2009, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Flight_boy1990:
I'll just give you an example of what only one Machinegewehr 151/20 can do in the hands of an ace,click (http://vbox7.com/play:f44fe7e0).
The pilot of this Bf-109 is Johannes "Hannes" Trautloft,commander of Jagageschwader 54.


I don't mean to be a buzz kill, and it certainly has no bearing on the topic that is the main focus of the thread, but this film clip in no way can be verified that it was Trautloft behind the trigger no matter what the narration may say. It is from a propaganda newsreel which were not created with accuracy in mind. The propaganda ministry can and would splice any old footage together to fit the narrative that they were pushing at the time. Works that way for all nations, Brits, Yanks - Soviet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well whoever he was,he was from Jagdgeschwader 54,the guncamera footage comes from there.
And also the pilot used his 20mm cannon very well,and guess what would 've happened if this was not a Me-109,but FW-190.
The poor LaGG was indeed to be blasted to pieces.

JtD
09-19-2009, 12:03 PM
It should be noted that, in the FW firing test, the incendiary ammo broke up upon contact with the skin of the fuselage while the AP ammo penetrated, but would not cause a fire in the fuel tank. So the API ammo would be a considerable improvement in this regard.

BillSwagger
09-19-2009, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The farther off direct astern and the more rounds you hit with, the more chance of serious damage. It is very difficult to set an aircraft on fire with a .50 cal or smaller round.

Crumpp

These are interesting tests. You can read encounter reports from 43,44 after this test was conducted that tell quite a different story about the 50 cal effectiveness, and its ability to set planes ablaze.
The great thing about those encounter reports is they usually show how much ammo was used and the pilot can give a decent description of his attack.
The truth is, pilots rarely shot from direct astern, and in a controlled enviornment you are taking out factors like the fact that an attacking plane is more likely to moving at its target with greater velocity, and shooting from multiple angles as the pilot closes in. The plane might be only direct astern for a portion of the attack.

There are many examples, but i encourage anyone to read them all rather than cherry pick, so you can get a better idea of combat performance of the 50 cal. You might recognize the calibers ability to set planes on fire, and recognize how many rounds it took to down a plane, as well as the range that was used during an attack.

I randomly selected 5 reports from this list http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...ounter-reports.html: (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html:)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...56-clark-23dec44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-clark-23dec44.jpg)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...comstock-26nov43.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-comstock-26nov43.jpg)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...6-johnson-3nov43.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-johnson-3nov43.jpg)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...-mcmahan-4july44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-mcmahan-4july44.jpg)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperform...rankin-29march44.jpg (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-rankin-29march44.jpg)


Maybe i'm just lucky, but 4/5 of the reports mention the planes being set ablaze and burning with the 50 cal.

I welcome you to pick your own and read them.


Bill

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 02:14 PM
the incendiary ammo broke up upon contact with the skin of the fuselage while the AP ammo penetrat

The way API works in the US .50 cal is a copper jacket encasing a tungsten core penetrator. In between the jacket and penetrator is the Incendiary material which is just flashpowder.

The flashes you see on .50 cal strikes are the incendiary material igniting. The copper jacket is stripped away when the round strikes a solid object and the heat from the friction ignites it to burn on the surface.

API does not penetrate anything with any incendiary ability. It will ignite such things as a drop tanks that have a source of fuel on the thier surface rather nicely.


The great thing about those encounter reports

The bad thing is they are totally uncontrolled and we have no idea of the conditions. Is that enemy aircraft on fire or leaking radiator fluid or oil smoke?

Maybe the enemy pilot just engaged his boost system or fired his weapons and is not even damaged?

Great stories though and exciting reading!

All the best,

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 02:29 PM
Maybe i'm just lucky, but 4/5 of the reports mention the planes being set ablaze and burning with the 50 cal.

Lots of things on airplanes catch fire and burn without the aid of a .50 cal round when broken.

There is nothing to prove it was the incendiary action of the round that started any fires.

The scientifically control reports point to the damage caused by the AP portion as being much more likely to cause a fire than flashpowder going off on the skin of the aircraft. Hole the engine block and the leaking oil on the exhaust will cause a fire.

An oil leak on a hot exhaust can easily cause a fire and fuel on a electrical connection are some of the most common reasons aircraft burn.

The fact you are putting holes in the airplane and breaking things is the major cause of fire not some flash powder going off on the skin of the airplane.


Fuel and oil fires can erupt from broken hoses or lines, but they still need some kind of ignition source. There have been many incidents in which a broken oil or fuel conduit has flooded the engine compartment and yet no fire broke out; these are the fortunate ones. A bit of flashover from the ignition system or contact with a hot exhaust system often is enough to commence the inferno.



Although the bulk of the accidents in our search pinpoint electrical or fuel-system maladies as the prime culprits, there were other causes of in-flight fires. A Piper Apache crashed after one of the left engine?s cylinders separated in flight. An engine fire spread to the adjacent fuel tank, eventually causing the wing to fail.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/inflight9909.html

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
09-19-2009, 02:43 PM
What it says in the FW test notes, all the things from direct 6 that defeat attacks but with 5 degrees deflection you get
past most all of those though 6 degrees isn't enough for the 303's to get through the skin and be effective.

5 o'clock is 30 degrees deflection. Aim and fly to a point far ahead of the target, trigger time covers estimation error
as long as you don't fire so much too soon the enemy has time to maneuver out of the line of fire.

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 03:09 PM
What it says in the FW test notes, all the things from direct 6 that defeat attacks but with 5 degrees deflection you get
past most all of those though 6 degrees isn't enough for the 303's to get through the skin and be effective.


It says the 20mm AP will penetrate but none of the other rounds under consideration will have a chance of hitting the pilot.

JtD
09-19-2009, 03:35 PM
The way API works in the US .50 cal is a copper jacket encasing a tungsten core penetrator. In between the jacket and penetrator is the Incendiary material which is just flashpowder.

And back in WW2 they'd use the M8 cartridge. Which had a steel core.


The flashes you see on .50 cal strikes are the incendiary material igniting. The copper jacket is stripped away when the round strikes a solid object and the heat from the friction ignites it to burn on the surface.

API does not penetrate anything with any incendiary ability. It will ignite such things as a drop tanks that have a source of fuel on the thier surface rather nicely.

The effect will very much depend on what they hit. Aircraft skin is no armor plate. It is absolutely possibly that they explode inside.

"When shooting vehicles, the projectile generally penetrates the skin and detonates inside on another sheet metal surface. High speed photos show the tip breaking off with the first penetration, exposing the incendiary mix which then detonates on the second impact."
http://www.rvow.com/m8_api.htm

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 04:13 PM
Which had a steel core.


And the flash powder still ignites upon striking a solid object.

M2 had a little better performance but as your link points out is far from perfect. The intent was certainly to have the round flash after penetration.


Aircraft skin

.....Is a solid object. That is why you see the flashes in the films!

If you see the flash, the incendiary has gone off.

It does not change the fact:


The scientifically control reports point to the damage caused by the AP portion as being much more likely to cause a fire than flashpowder going off on the skin of the aircraft.

DKoor
09-19-2009, 04:25 PM
Why do they bothered to create API in the first place then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
From amateur point of view it is easier and cheaper to have solid round without fill. I think.

BillSwagger
09-19-2009, 04:27 PM
i was thinking there was another type of round that was designed to emit a flash on impact, not necessarily an incendiary effect, but more like a spotter round to let the shooter know where the bullets are impacting.

I guess the incendiary rounds also serve this purpose, maybe the same thing.

The crux of the matter is that enough bullet impacts alone will bring a plane down. I think it was discovered that having an incendiary effect coupled with AP rounds was more likely to ignite a fuel source instead of using AP alone.
Aircraft aren't generally considered light armored, although they do have protective plates for the pilot, much of the plane is still very susceptible to non armor piercing projectiles, however, to get better penetration and do more damage at longer ranges they would've preferred the use of AP rounds anyway.

The 50 caliber and the ammo were originally designed for hitting bunkers and ground targets. The fact that they were strapped on airplanes has more to do with the fact they were better suited at the time for air to air gunnery than what was a usable and reliable 20mm cannon for the US.

A lot of tailoring and innovation of the rounds used, was done to maximize its use from an air to air or air to ground platform.

JtD
09-19-2009, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Aircraft skin

.....Is a solid object. That is why you see the flashes in the films!

If you see the flash, the incendiary has gone off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be M1 I, not M8 API. How do you tell? And if some go off, others don't. No way you could know it doesn't happen - from guncam.


It does not change the fact:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The scientifically control reports point to the damage caused by the AP portion as being much more likely to cause a fire than flashpowder going off on the skin of the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to bold the part "on the skin of the aircraft". Your partial partial quote was not meant the way your are trying to interpret it.

Kettenhunde
09-19-2009, 05:52 PM
Your partial partial quote was not meant the way your are trying to interpret it.

I am quoting myself. Do you mind if I highlight what I want from what I said?


Could be M1 I, not M8 API.

There is no way of telling but it is hard to find a gun cam that does not have the flashes. I used M8 for the 24 years I served in the US Army and never noticed any "flashes" on anywhere but the first solid object the round hit.

I never went, "Hey check it out....it went off inside!"

So find some film that does not have the flashes...

Now the report is what it is, JtD. That includes the films too. All of those films were recorded long after M8 was adopted.



If you see the flash, the incendiary has gone off.


There is no conspiracy to diminish the effects of your game. In fact, those effects do not even exist in real life as it just a computer game. I don't think it is one that is being developed anymore.

The real .50 cal was effective for its purpose and shot down almost all of the aircraft destroyed by the United States and many of her allies.

Whether you choose to believe the fire is caused by the conclusions of the scientific reports or flash powder is totally irrelevant.

Aircraft have lots of things that burn and you do not need an incendiary device to set them off. Aircraft ARE an incendiary device in many cases!

M_Gunz
09-19-2009, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i was thinking there was another type of round that was designed to emit a flash on impact,

Unspent tracer if the bullet hits hard enough to deform. It's spinning at very high revs and suddenly... wham!

On another forum, Tony Williams had answered about the incendiary rounds. Somebody out there has one and wants to
remove the incendiary material. Whatever for? It's safe where it is.


There was also a .50 M1 incendiary, which was a scaled-up and simplified version of the British Dixon ("De Wilde") .303. This consisted of four elements: the bullet jacket which enclosed the whole bullet except for the base; a hollow steel sleeve fitting inside the jacket for the central helf of its length; the incendiary mixture which filled all of the nose, plus the inside of the steel sleeve; and a base plug, usually of lead. To get at the incendiary material while preserving the appearance of the bullet, it would be necessary to drill through the base plug. This would be risky as you might ignite the material. I also don't know how you'd get it out.

Incidentally, they didn't use WP but a mix of 50% barium nitrate and 50% powdered aluminium/magnesium alloy (known as IM#11).

M_Gunz
09-19-2009, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What it says in the FW test notes, all the things from direct 6 that defeat attacks but with 5 degrees deflection you get
past most all of those though 6 degrees isn't enough for the 303's to get through the skin and be effective.


It says the 20mm AP will penetrate but none of the other rounds under consideration will have a chance of hitting the pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And some parts listed that the 20mm won't cut and still be pilot-lethal like the tail wheel assembly.

M_Gunz
09-19-2009, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
it just a computer game. I don't think it is one that is being developed anymore.

Nope, it was picked up a while back by an approved group that is taking it to 4.09 and beyond. Adding things like action
triggers for missions is definitely development.


Whether you choose to believe the fire is caused by the conclusions of the scientific reports or flash powder is totally irrelevant.

Aircraft have lots of things that burn and you do not need an incendiary device to set them off. Aircraft ARE an incendiary device in many cases!

When earlier bullets have penetrated the fuel tank(s) or any fuel leaked into the airframe there is a very high chance of
the incendiary setting the gas & air mix off. IIRC that was also part of the interesting RAE report you posted.

BillSwagger
09-19-2009, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The great thing about those encounter reports

The bad thing is they are totally uncontrolled and we have no idea of the conditions. Is that enemy aircraft on fire or leaking radiator fluid or oil smoke?

Maybe the enemy pilot just engaged his boost system or fired his weapons and is not even damaged?

Great stories though and exciting reading!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are uncontrolled, yet based on actual incidents. A controlled test doesn't mean that it is not with out its own flaws or limitations. Those encounter reports give detailed accounts as well as statistical data leading to each kill. If it lead to a damaged plane it would also be indicated.
In this regard, combat reports will be valid. Its easy for the pilot as well as his wingmen to observe what occurs, and its even easier to count how many bullets he has left.
There is no way to tell if the cause of fire was from an incendiary effect or not, but it is certain that the fires were the root cause of impacts from the 50 cal.

For me, i've never really attested the strength of the guns in game, other than their ability to be as effective beyond 300m. Most encounter reports that i've read, so far, usually describe the pilot firing bursts from 300m and closing to with in 100m, and will usually require 100-400 rounds to down a plane. Deflection shots seem to double that figure. This seems to be inline with the game, and really just depends on how well you aim.

These reports also contain a vast spectrum, and has a lot to do with pilot skill. Where we see one report where the pilot downs a 109, and damaged another with only 94 spent rounds, we will also read another report where a pilot spent 900 rounds downing a plane. Whats obvious from reading those reports, is that when the shots land ".....i observed strikes....", there are immediate results and unless those strikes were observed on wing tips or the tail, the plane is usually done for.

As for this issue with the range, i've read reports that show no difference or exaggerated tendencies when shooting from beyond 500 yards, so long as the shots land. Simply put, a well placed shot will still succeed at bringing hurt to the aircraft, yet pilots are probably more likely to miss from those distances. It is a point of fact, however, that pilots who start shooting at 700 yards and close to 300 yards expend similar amounts of ammo as those that fire from 300 yards and close to 100, and the types of damage are very similar leading to burning aircraft and spinning planes.

damn that was long...

Bill

Ghostleopard
09-19-2009, 11:23 PM
<i>" The real .50 cal was effective for its purpose and shot down almost all of the aircraft destroyed by the United States and many of her allies. " </i>


You had me until "many of her allies".

.303 and 20 mil Hispano does not equate to many of her allies.

That is all.

JtD
09-20-2009, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

I am quoting myself.

Always good to quote with naming the source.


So find some film that does not have the flashes...

Even if I did, it would prove nothing, it could all be AP hits. Like I said, there's no way to tell from guncam.


Now the report is what it is, JtD.

Which report?

M_Gunz
09-20-2009, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Most encounter reports that i've read, so far, usually describe the pilot firing bursts from 300m and closing to with in 100m, and will usually require 100-400 rounds to down a plane. Deflection shots seem to double that figure. This seems to be inline with the game, and really just depends on how well you aim.

100 to 400 rounds fired when on average 2% or so hits was good and 10% was phenomenal? 2 to 12 hits?

In game I find that some deflection really ups the damage per hit to where a short burst can kill or cripple the target.
Is gunnery easier in IL2? Practice is certainly a lot quicker and far easier. That alone throws the comparison.

irR4tiOn4L
09-20-2009, 07:33 AM
M_Gunz, that logic is probably flawed. 2-10% hitrate is an assumption (a pretty big one) to be making in such a general way about how many shots it took to down an aircraft.

Its also probably taken from an average of all pilots, whereas those who shot down aircraft may be expected to have a higher hit percentage.

In short, best to substantiate that 2-10% figure and point out why its relevant to use here than to simply assume it

Kettenhunde
09-20-2009, 08:57 AM
100 to 400 rounds fired when on average 2% or so hits was good and 10% was phenomenal? 2 to 12 hits?


A binomial distribution works well at determining hit probabilities. We can use the area of the beaten zone and the area of the aircraft as listed in the report for example.

That would give you a good ballpark.

Here is the burst limits:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5404/1095830975bauc.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/i/1095830975bauc.jpg/)


The 75% beaten zone dispersion for the M2 is 4 mils.




JtD says:

Argue....blah...argue....don't read the points....argue....blah..blah...blah

Which report?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Obviously you are here for other reasons besides discussing the topic as you have not even bothered to browse the thread.

I don't have time for you. You are ignored.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-20-2009, 09:04 AM
50% barium nitrate and 50% powdered aluminium/magnesium alloy

IM11 is Flashpowder....

The additional magnesium causes it to ignite on impact with a solid object.


Barium nitrate mixed with aluminium powder, a formula for flash powder, is highly explosive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_nitrate

Yak9Micha
09-20-2009, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag2009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I just found some more footage of potential interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...35rQ&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A36P1pc35rQ&feature=channel)

Very nice and interesting video, thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My question to you and other experten:

Are there actually smoke puffs when .50 cal rounds impact? Because unlike in game, it really looks so in your video (at 0:44, 1:49, 3:18, 3:33, 4:03, 4:36, 7:56, 8:44). The sparks look bigger and brighter than what we have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Think of each round as a hammer or better yet, a pickaxe hitting the aircraft surface with all the force you can apply many, many times. If you hit anything with great force, dust and 'stuff' starts flying off, even on relatively clean surfaces.

Bullet jacketing may disintegrate, the aluminum sheet tears, fractures and breaks, paint chips, dust that had been stuck to the surface by oil or coolant, rivets popping off, all of those things and more may be seen as 'smoke puffs' on grainy, not very well focused black and white film from a camera shaking and bouncing about in a wingroot or external pod.

The original post was about the visual and audio 'cues' the game gives the player about the fifty cals; the lack of visual evidence of this sort that you are actually scoring hits with nonexplosive cannon and HMG rounds is a big factor in the perceived underwhelmingness (as opposed to ineffectiveness) of the fifty in the game.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi again Horseback, i found this on YouTube, seems like some modders already corrected some lack of visual effects:

Please look at 0:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkTRbvq32l4&feature=player_embedded)

This seems to be a excellent mod!

S!

M_Gunz
09-20-2009, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
M_Gunz, that logic is probably flawed. 2-10% hitrate is an assumption (a pretty big one) to be making in such a general way about how many shots it took to down an aircraft.

Its also probably taken from an average of all pilots, whereas those who shot down aircraft may be expected to have a higher hit percentage.

In short, best to substantiate that 2-10% figure and point out why its relevant to use here than to simply assume it

It's not about how many shots to down a plane, it's about what kind of percentage of hits that a decent veteran (survived
long enough to become effective) was able to get. I didn't say 100 to 400 shots to down a plane. I only gave that a
-ballpark- guess on how many hits he may have gotten in. Maybe this guy was an amazing sharpshooter and got 5 to 10% hits!
I'd have to look it up but IIRC Marseilles averaged a lot fewer shots per kill.

Just going from the guys with all the books that 2% is pretty good. That's what people say when someone gets 2% HITS online,
that based on HISTORY it is doing quite well.

RegRag1977
09-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Actually when firing only few rounds are needed to down a plane, but the major part of the burst is fired to check the aiming.
I mean that a lot of ammo is wasted because it is used as a visual/timing reference, as a way to get info on what you are doing. The purpose of this ammo wasted is actually not to hit the target, but to get info, hence the use of tracers.

2 to 5% seems pretty decent to me.

TS_Sancho
09-20-2009, 02:01 PM
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

BillSwagger
09-20-2009, 02:32 PM
These encounter reports making it difficult to draw any conclusions about shots on target.
I dont think hit counts can be generalized with out making a gross speculation. Il2 has a way to track this, but that doesn't automatically translate to real life.

It might only take ten bullets to down a plane if they all hit the right spot. The guy who fires 400, and lands 100, but only ten do the damage, compared to the guy who fires 100, lands 20, and ten of those hit vitals. Even so, this doesn't appear to be the case. The reports seem to indicate that it might've been more difficult to land shots, but when they hit, the results were more immediate.
Pilots might fire a 300 shot burst, lining up their shot, and for the brief moment the stream is passing through the plane the damage was immediate and incapacitating, if the strikes were observed on the fuselage.

To make the comparison to Il2 might be somewhat flawed if we are considering hit counts, but firing times look to be similar with in the proper Il2 range. In reality, i think they were much more effective from beyond 300 meters, where firing times go way up in Il2.

I welcome everyone to read the reports, and draw your own conclusions. I think it would be easier to recognize the tendencies that i'm pointing out.

Bill

TS_Sancho
09-20-2009, 05:55 PM
Certainly encounter reports are grossly subjective and cant be taken as gospel.

IIRC there is an official USAAF study floating around this forum somewhere concerning the actual bullet strike count the 50's required to down an aircraft that reinforces the trend we see in the game.

I am by no means saying what we see in IL2 is a perfect representation (untill computing power can manage a damage model representing 1000's of individual pieces and the secondary effects they have on one another there wont be either)but it does seem to agree with a lot of what we read in technical reports.

horseback
09-20-2009, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Ghostleopard:
" The real .50 cal was effective for its purpose and shot down almost all of the aircraft destroyed by the United States and many of her allies. "


You had me until "many of her allies".

.303 and 20 mil Hispano does not equate to many of her allies.

That is all. Ignoring for the moment the numbers of US built fighters and bombers sent to the Soviet Union via Lend lease, you might remember that the RAF, the FAA and other Commonwealth air forces flew a lot of Kittyhawks, Mustangs, and Wildcats, Hellcats & Corsairs, not to mention thae fact that once the M2 became available for the Spitfire's 'e' wing, the RAF leaped upon it.

I think that "many of her Allies" ought to be replaced with "all her Allies".

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
09-20-2009, 06:44 PM
I don't think that there were so many 50 cals used in the BoB and to counter the Blitz clear into 1941.
How many 100 German planes were shot down in 1940 alone?

Trying to compare the number of Lend-Lease aircraft to the numbers produced by receiving nations like Russia...
while the aid was material and appreciated it didn't amount to a great percent in Russia for sure! Over 50,000
trucks received wasn't even a large fraction of their truck inventory as well though again that's a lot of trucks.

Picking through claims and over-claims to come up with whose guns got how many after counting total German losses
to aerial combat (as opposed to destroyed on ground and destroyed as other non-combat (training, landing, etc)
losses --- good luck, I think that guessing at hit percentages is bad enough! 30 pages at least on who used whose
guns to shoot who-all down!

AndyJWest
09-20-2009, 07:07 PM
+1 to that M_Gunz.

And what about the large numbers of P-39s supplied to the USSR? It'd be a pretty clever man who could figure out how many of their kills were done with .50 cals.

I've a vague recollection of seeing the figure of 5% as the percentage of lend-lease aircraft in the wartime VVS, but I'd have to check to be sure. Can anybody confirm this or give a better figure?

horseback
09-20-2009, 07:38 PM
I understood the original comment to mean that almost all US claims and a significant portion of many Allies' claims were due to the use of the .50 cal HMG, particularly those in the Commonwealth. It was poorly constructed, but I think the meaning was clear. The fellow I quoted apparently took issue with the idea that the M2 was more important to the Allied cause than the Hispano 20mm or the venerable .303.

ALL of the Allied air forces used the .50, and would eagerly have used as many as the US could give them; as I pointed out, the microsecond that the RAF was able to replace the .303 with it, they did so without quibbling about its weight, lesser ROF or muzzle velocity compared to the Soviet UBS 12.7mm.

I didn't bring up trucks, but I

1) would question ANY official Soviet production figures, particularly during the WWII period. Propaganda was considered an important weapon of war, and the Soviets never considered themselves at peace with the West

2) wonder why there were still so many Studebaker and GMC trucks in the Red Army's frontline inventory well into the 1950s, if reconn photos are to be believed

3) can't imagine why the Soviet Union never exported any of the excess trucks they must have produced postwar; they would have made an excellent (probably) low-cost alternative to the American near monopoly in the post war years and been a good source of hard currency...

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
09-20-2009, 08:35 PM
There is no way to tell if the cause of fire was from an incendiary effect or not,

There is no way to tell if the aircraft was even ON FIRE, Billswagger.

Lots of things can smoke or leave a trail like glycol that makes it seem to an observer the aircraft is on fire. Jamming the throttle or engaging boost will also cause smoke to appear which could be mistaken for the aircraft catching fire.

We really don't even know if half of those reports even hit the enemy aircraft.

That is why we have the term "overclaiming". It is not that the men who submitted those reports did not genuinely believe they had destroyed an enemy airplane; it is that it is easy to mistake evasive action combined with slight damage for a shoot down.

Those reports make for great stories. They represent what the author believed happened as he observed one side of an event. That is all those reports tell us. The reports do not represent what actually happened.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
09-20-2009, 08:50 PM
M_Gunz,

Every airplane I have ever flow has reeked of fuel. Most of them literally pour it out of the vents when taxiing. Fuel leaks are very common and most maintenance manuals will have tolerances. Mooney for example allows a drip rate, LOL. My old one left puddles sloshing out as I taxied if it was topped off to high and my new one will choke you out on climb out with full tanks. It has a header tank that sits behind the instrument panel like the Hurricane.

WWII fighters were no different. The Smithsonian even gave us a pint or two of original C3 fuel to slosh around the cockpit to give White 1 an authentic smell, lol. The German synthetics have a very unique texture and smell.

If the incendiary going off on the first solid object it strikes does not set off the fumes in the fuselage on the initial strikes, I don’t think it will on subsequent strikes. If it came in contact with fuel then maybe but I still see the rounds incendiary effect as secondary to starting fires to the actual penetration/damage.

All the best,

Crumpp

BillSwagger
09-21-2009, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is no way to tell if the cause of fire was from an incendiary effect or not,

There is no way to tell if the aircraft was even ON FIRE, Billswagger.

Lots of things can smoke or leave a trail like glycol that makes it seem to an observer the aircraft is on fire. Jamming the throttle or engaging boost will also cause smoke to appear which could be mistaken for the aircraft catching fire.

We really don't even know if half of those reports even hit the enemy aircraft.

That is why we have the term "overclaiming". It is not that the men who submitted those reports did not genuinely believe they had destroyed an enemy airplane; it is that it is easy to mistake evasive action combined with slight damage for a shoot down.

Those reports make for great stories. They represent what the author believed happened as he observed one side of an event. That is all those reports tell us. The reports do not represent what actually happened.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I see your point Crump, but if you wanted to drill the point home then find me an encounter report where "overclaiming" possibly happened. The majority of those reports also include a witness verifying the claim. I know the reports have a tendency to be subjective which is why you can't compare aircraft performance, but if a pilot gets two kills, and the report also shows 700 rounds of ammo used, then you can draw a statistical conclusion.
I don't doubt that pilot error could account for a marginal amount of shoot downs, but with detailed descriptions that differentiate between 'smoking', 'fire', 'burning', 'leaking glycol', and the big one...'observing strikes' on the plane there isn't much doubt that getting shot by bullets is the reason the plane is falling out of the sky.
I have to ask if you even read half of those reports. I think i've only read about half myself starting from the top of the page, and its easy to recognize the commonalities.

Being a pilot of that caliber was not for everyone. The men were sharp, and had to meet the institutional requirements and possess a similar acuity that would meet the equivalent of what might be required of flying a modern day fighter jet.

As for incendiary rounds (API), they were tested and were considered to have a 100 percent kill accuracy when hitting a fuel tank. IIRC This is because they were tested on a fuel tank (barrel), and one incendiary round ignited the barrel every time, while dozens of AP rounds would simply pass through the barrel. It was recommended that beltings be adjusted to carry higher ratios or entire load outs of API rounds. (July 1943)

M_Gunz
09-21-2009, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
M_Gunz,

Every airplane I have ever flow has reeked of fuel. Most of them literally pour it out of the vents when taxiing. Fuel leaks are very common and most maintenance manuals will have tolerances. Mooney for example allows a drip rate, LOL. My old one left puddles sloshing out as I taxied if it was topped off to high and my new one will choke you out on climb out with full tanks. It has a header tank that sits behind the instrument panel like the Hurricane.

WWII fighters were no different. The Smithsonian even gave us a pint or two of original C3 fuel to slosh around the cockpit to give White 1 an authentic smell, lol. The German synthetics have a very unique texture and smell.

If the incendiary going off on the first solid object it strikes does not set off the fumes in the fuselage on the initial strikes, I don’t think it will on subsequent strikes. If it came in contact with fuel then maybe but I still see the rounds incendiary effect as secondary to starting fires to the actual penetration/damage.

All the best,

Crumpp

1) Not every round was incendiary at least all through the war in every theater.
2) If the fumes are present in quantity to catch or even better to explode when the first strike hits then they should.
IIRC (I haven't re-read it) that document you posted said as much, giving examples where positive results were certain,
didn't it?
3) If not then a few perforations through even self-sealing tanks should cause more/some spillage, it still takes some
time to mix vapor with air and from screwing around in the distant past it takes longer than the desired two seconds.

Personally I'd think that some degree of venting would be done just to clear the mixture below the explosive level and
I'm not entirely sure that it wasn't on all planes. The Russians vented cooled down exhaust fumes into their tanks but
then that may have been the source of exhaust fumes in the cockpits as well -- keep the oxygen mask on!

The 1968 MGM BoB movie with very impressive names in the technical advisers list has planes catching fire and some blowing
a wing off or just blowing up right and left. Most seemed to happen a bit after the hits were made, I would guess started
by electrical sparks or the hot engine/exhaust. If the inside was strongly fumed then it would happen without the hits, no?
Or maybe the hits are what caused the sparking wires in the first place but that seems to have happened too often for chance.

Kettenhunde
09-21-2009, 05:39 AM
Personally I'd think that some degree of venting

Aircraft fuel tanks must be vented or pressurized.


If the inside was strongly fumed then it would happen without the hits, no?


Not without a source of ignition.....

That is why all your lines and wires have to be secured and the routing is inspected to ensure no damage from vibration or maneuvering can occur. The aircraft is thoroughly inspected every ~100 hours or annually. This inspection is comprehensive over the entire aircrafts systems and takes a minimum of 2-4 days but can take much longer depending on the findings.


Or maybe the hits are what caused the sparking wires in the first place

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

Or cracked the case to pour oil on the exhaust.....


pilot error could account for a marginal amount of shoot downs

Start lining up accounts from both sides with actual losses. I think your feeling will change when you see the facts.


All the best,

Crumpp

WTE_Galway
09-21-2009, 05:43 AM
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/VMF-121/
USMC Medal of Honor winner Joe Foss on 0.50 cal loadouts against zeroes:


Q. In shooting at aircraft, what was the ammunition combination?

A. One-one-one. When we were in there the first time, we had one-one-one. When I came back, all the pilots said it won't be so easy shooting down Zeros now because they've got armorplating in them and they have self-sealing tanks. They told us that they weren't blowing up like they used to. So we took a short check on the ammunition. The ordnance chief or someone had decided that maybe they should get rid of some AP ammunition they had over there. About 50% of it had been loaded - with five AP's, an incendiary, and a couple of tracers. As a result they weren't blowing the planes up so readily. We got that changed right then and now and started out the same way again, blowing them up.

Q. Do you think the AP was necessary? We had an idea that tracer and incendiary were enough.

A. Well, the AP comes in handy with headon (SIC) passes at Zeros. In fact, about 25% of the Zeros shot down are direct headon (SIC) passes; just staying right in until the last second, hoping you get him or hoping he pulls up. That's where your AP comes in handy because you just keep drilling him right head on with the AP. He usually goes down or up.

DKoor
09-21-2009, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
As for incendiary rounds (API), they were tested and were considered to have a 100 percent kill accuracy when hitting a fuel tank. IIRC This is because they were tested on a fuel tank (barrel), and one incendiary round ignited the barrel every time, while dozens of AP rounds would simply pass through the barrel. It was recommended that beltings be adjusted to carry higher ratios or entire load outs of API rounds. (July 1943) Good enough for me as I'd easily down majority of those targets that under current conditions in game simply get away with their damage (in spite of receiving multiple hits in fuel tanks).

Kettenhunde
09-21-2009, 06:15 AM
Some of the best UFO witnesses are pilots, trained observers in the air and on the ground. Plane and UFO encounters are some of the most compelling cases we have. Let's take a look at some of these reports, and check out the evidence.


http://ufos.about.com/

Pilots claim UFO's exist therefore UFO's must exist. Run to your shelters, aliens are about to land!

Manu-6S
09-21-2009, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
about 25% of the Zeros shot down are direct headon (SIC) passes; just staying right in until the last second, hoping you get him or hoping he pulls up.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW!!! Great tactic... I hope...

Kettenhunde
09-21-2009, 06:26 AM
they were tested on a fuel tank (barrel)

A barrel is not a self sealing fuel tank buried inside an aircraft structure.

I have no doubts that an incendiary round will set off gasoline in a barrel every time if the round impacts above the fuel level.

Do you have a copy of this report or is your information about it second, third, or possibly even farther away from the source?

All the best,

Crumpp

Flight_boy1990
09-21-2009, 06:40 AM
Some of you may find this interesting.
But before we proceed,note that the car's fuel tank is not self-sealing.

Part 1 (http://vbox7.com/play:d84f191f)
Part 2 (http://vbox7.com/play:42ba979a)

Good old Mythbusters always help. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Conclusion: It's pretty hard to start a fire into self-sealing fuel tank (when shooting with MG,and not Cannon of course),with normal hit ratio.As someone pointed out,in 90% of the fires started aboard aircrafts under such conditions,is because of oil/fuel leak over the exhaust or electrical systems.

EDIT:I also missed to say that a fire may be started because of heavy internal engine damage.Like piercing the combustion chambers inside the engine block and oil is injected into the fuel mixture inside those chambers...So when the spark tact comes...Well...You remember what happened to Marseille?

DKoor
09-21-2009, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
about 25% of the Zeros shot down are direct headon (SIC) passes; just staying right in until the last second, hoping you get him or hoping he pulls up.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW!!! Great tactic... I hope... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Blutarski2004
09-21-2009, 07:27 AM
Some insights into the issues surrounding ammunition 50cal belting issues during WW2.

Taken from "OPERATIONS ANALYSIS IN THE U. S. ARMY EIGHTH AIR FORCE IN WORLD WAR 2", page 93 (You can find it at Books.Google.com)":



Quote -

... All of the American planes - both fighters and bombers - were heavily armed with .50-caliber machine guns. It had become standard practice to use mixed ammunition consisting of armor-piercing (AP), incendiary (I), or a combination of armor-piercing and incendiary (API) projectiles. Taylor said "there was a great deal of voodoo about the selection of these."

The British had collected and analyzed a great deal of German aerial equipment. They calculated, for instance, the relative vulnerability of different portions of a plane to different kinds of ammunition. For example, in a given type of German bomber, 20 percent of the target might be vulnerable to incendiary ammunition (I), 30 percent to armor-piercing (AP), and 50 percent to armor-piercing, incendiary (API) ammunition. Accordingly guns would be belted with ammunition in the ratio of 2-I to 3-AP to 5-API cartridges. Besides this, there were arguments as to whether you should put all five API together or distribute them in some other way.

What should have been obvious, but clearly was not, was the fact that if any plane was more vulnerable to any one kind of ammunition than the other it was a pure dilution of ammunition to put in any except the most effective. Ralph Johnson, who was the first one of us to notice this fact, was so dumbfounded that he was almost afraid to mention it. When it was brought up at the top echelons they were skeptical at first. Then when they saw the truth of it, even the 'high command' had a terrible time in convincing the squadrons at the fighting level that they should stop this silly dilution of ammunition.

The section's first report was written by Ralph Johnson on "Mixed Beltimg of Ammunition for the P-47" and was dated 21 July 1943.

The analysts visited a number of fighter and bomber bases to convince the appropriate people that the analysis was valid. The effort paid off; two groups agreed to participate in an experiment. One group loaded ammunition the way the analysts recommended, all API, and another group loaded ammunition in the mixed-belt manner. Both groups went out on fighter escort for the same mission of B-17s.

As luck, or statistics, would have it, the group with API ammunition clobbered the German fighters whereas the group with mixed ammunition had poor hunting. None of them stopped to think about the luck or what it would be like tomorrow with the group positions reversed or a variety of other things. The result was that there was not enough API ammunition in all the UK to supply the overnight demands of the VIII FC [Fighter Command]. Nevertheless, knowledge and acceptance of these results came about slowly in come commands, and not at all in others.

The validity of the section's work on ammunition belting was established both theoretically and experimentally back in the States. Dr William L Duren Jr, a mathematician and outstanding gunnery operations analyst with the Second Air Force in the United States, specialized in gunnery problems of the B-29. In his memoir, however, he told how he also tried to act as liaison between mathematicians in civilian research centers writing papers that "would never be read" and the military men for whom they were intended. Duren gave an example.

"Jacob Wolfowitz had written an elegant statistical analysis of the question, what was the best mixture of the several available types of ammunition to load on the belts of the .50-caliber machine gun against enemy fighters. His answer was clear cut, >>based on his assumptions<<. The conclusion was that the belts should be loaded 100 percent with the one API (armor-piercing incendiary) type. The assumptions, based on actual experiments at Wright Field, were that serial correlation in several successive hits was small or zero and thus that the probability of a kill in any shot was independent. Under these conditions the belts should be loaded entirely with bullets that had the highest probability of downing the fighter with one hit. This, the Wright Field tests showed, was the API. Not only did the ordnance sergeants not read Wolfowitz's report, but, in defiance of orders from the top, they considered it their right to load those guns as they deemed best. Each one had his own mixture formula including tracers and incendiaries as well as armor-piercing bullets. On each base, I undertook to "sell" Wolfowitz's result. The argument could be put on a common sense basis, free of the technical statistical qualification. But I do not know how successful I was."

I will add a personal note on the ammunition belting procedures. Because I was the bombardier, I was also the gunnery officer of the crew. However, the crew had nothing to do with selecting the ammunition for the belts of our machine guns. We shot, as the occasion arose, whatever ammunition was provided for us. Our most memorable gunnery episode occurred on 2 November 1944 while bombing the synthetic oil refineries at Merseburg-Leuna near Leipzig, Germany. Of 1,100 heavy bombers in five seperate forces sent to Germany that day, 683 B-17s were sent to the notorious Merseburg oil refineries. A major air battle lasting forty minutes took place between the escorting fighters of the Eighth Fight Command and the Luftwaffe in the Merseburg area. Hundreds of fighters on both sides were involved. The largest formation of German fighters encountered during the Merseburg battle was a force, mostly Me-109s, estimated at 150, 200, or 250 planes. The largest group of German jet fighters yet to be encountered, about fifteen Me-163s, rose to attack the bombers that day. At least nine broke through our fighters and made individual passes at the B-17s. Two attacked our group, the 493rd Bomb Group, and one made two passes, from behind and overhead, at our squadron. I vividly recall the Me-163 - a flying wing - going over us twice with trajectories of tracer bullets from our guns, especially the top turret guns, apparently going through the plane. Yet the fighter flew away without disintegrating. As late as 2 November1944 and probably for the rest of the war, the ordnance sergeants of the Eightth Bomber Command were still mixing or diluting the ammunition in the ammunition belts. Although the glowing, visible tracers made us feel that we had come close to our target, if all our bullets had been API's we might have destroyed our adversary.


- unquote.

M_Gunz
09-21-2009, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Personally I'd think that some degree of venting

Aircraft fuel tanks must be vented or pressurized. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that you are following what I wrote, my writing must be poor.
I was writing about fumes in the airframe outside the tanks. You can smell the spillage, it's not because your nose is
inside the tank. With venting the gas-air mix would never be strong enough to light up.

Inside the fuel tanks there was in a number of planes inert gas replacing the normally 23% oxygen air making it impossible
to set off without first opening the tank to air -- it's fuel outside the tanks, inside the airframe mixed with air that
becomes the next hazard isn't it?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If the inside was strongly fumed then it would happen without the hits, no?


Not without a source of ignition.....

That is why all your lines and wires have to be secured and the routing is inspected to ensure no damage from vibration or maneuvering can occur. The aircraft is thoroughly inspected every ~100 hours or annually. This inspection is comprehensive over the entire aircrafts systems and takes a minimum of 2-4 days but can take much longer depending on the findings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So either hits damage the wiring or vapor/fuel finds the hot exhaust parts or a tracer or incendiary provides the spark.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Or maybe the hits are what caused the sparking wires in the first place

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

Or cracked the case to pour oil on the exhaust..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watch the movie, a lot of wing hits and seconds later... boom! My lesson is that if you're hit, don't wait to bail.
At least not in those planes!

R_Target
09-21-2009, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
WOW!!! Great tactic... I hope...

Head-on pass was one of the few options Wildcat pilots had against the A6M.

Erkki_M
09-21-2009, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

How about 15%? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/....php?name=Stats_Page (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules.php?name=Stats_Page)

irR4tiOn4L
09-21-2009, 08:46 AM
Great article Blutarski

Having said that, if the actual planes werent using API exclusively, it probably shouldnt happen ingame either

DKoor
09-21-2009, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Great article Blutarski

Having said that, if the actual planes werent using API exclusively, it probably shouldnt happen ingame either My money is on that especially in this game... it is a known fact that in this game AP rounds (whether cannon or bullet - regardless) have a hard time matching results of other round types namely HE or API(?).
IRL you had much better chance to crack something important with AP round because there was more stuff to hit vs damage boxes in IL-2.
Limitation of the game - whatever, but we are stuck on it.

That is why I personally feel that something that would improve a chance to set E/A on fire is much welcomed in this regard.

Also in game as it is I would load all HE rounds in MG151/20. And all other cannons too.
AP cannon shells are only good vs ground targets (and that is of limited usefulness).

Manu-6S
09-21-2009, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

How about 15%? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/....php?name=Stats_Page (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules.php?name=Stats_Page) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to know the % of guys like Hartmann and Graf.

Blutarski2004
09-21-2009, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Great article Blutarski

Having said that, if the actual planes werent using API exclusively, it probably shouldnt happen ingame either


..... Thanks.

I agree that a full-boogie adoption of 100 pct API or APIT in the game would be patently unhistorical. But I do think that some increase in 50cal incendiary effect from late 1943 would be both reasonable and defensible. Having waded through and broken down about 200 ETO pilot combat reports, it is clear that 50cal fire could and did ignite fires - usually as a result of engine hits from what I discerned. I posted this analysis in GD about two years ago, but unfortunately can no longer find it in archives

M_Gunz
09-21-2009, 10:48 AM
The IL2 3D damage components are actually quite detailed --as we have been shown many times before--. There isn't one
box for mid-wing and another for outer wing kind of thing but rather spars, control lines and many other pieces.

The thing is that to get to one piece you may have to completely destroy another instead of just hole through it.
Might have to destroy 1+ parts just to get at the spar and destroy that as well to break the wing.
Now consider how often de-winging happens in IL2!

Kettenhunde
09-21-2009, 11:39 AM
I was writing about fumes in the airframe outside the tanks.

Fumes are almost always present in any aircraft flying just by normal operation. You don't need to pierce the tanks. That was my point.


it is clear that 50cal fire could and did ignite fires

Absolutely and the USAAF choice is logical.

If you had to choose between Armor Piercing (AP), Incendiary (I), or a round that can do both...Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) there is only one choice.


Crumpp says:

The real .50 cal was effective for its purpose and shot down almost all of the aircraft destroyed by the United States and many of her allies.

Whether you choose to believe the fire is caused by the conclusions of the scientific reports or flash powder is totally irrelevant.

Aircraft have lots of things that burn and you do not need an incendiary device to set them off. Aircraft ARE an incendiary device in many cases!

As for the API causing an increase in downed aircraft and fires, I don't think there is any real evidence to show that.


As luck, or statistics, would have it, the group with API ammunition clobbered the German fighters whereas the group with mixed ammunition had poor hunting. None of them stopped to think about the luck or what it would be like tomorrow with the group positions reversed or a variety of other things.

If the testing was shooting a barrel then we have some very flimsy evidence.

IMHO the RAE did a much better job of investigating the effects whereas the USAAF leaned more towards perceptions instead of facts.

All the best,

Crumpp

TS_Sancho
09-21-2009, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

How about 15%? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/....php?name=Stats_Page (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules.php?name=Stats_Page) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah yeah yeah

unrealistic for us lowly mortals http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GH_Klingstroem
09-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

funny you would say that... my average on warclouds server after a few hundred of sorties is above 8%...
I very often sit at 12-15% hits after 1h sortie... I just never sprey and pray. Only fire when I will hit..

AndyJWest
09-21-2009, 12:12 PM
How about 15%?
And as it says on the Warbird's site "Stats can and are known to be inaccurate".

I only looked at the top guy on their pilots list, it said gun and cannon hits 21.6 %, but only 1.6% for Air. Is anyone claiming 15% air hits?

Edit:
Sorry Klingstroem, that wasn't intended as a comment about you. Are those air hits?

DKoor
09-21-2009, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about 15%?
And as it says on the Warbird's site "Stats can and are known to be inaccurate".

I only looked at the top guy on their pilots list, it said gun and cannon hits 21.6 %, but only 1.6% for Air. Is anyone claiming 15% air hits?

Edit:
Sorry Klingstroem, that wasn't intended as a comment about you. Are those air hits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are guys with awesome stats, and they probably are true...

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/...details.php?id=13381 (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules/Stats_Page/zekestats/playerdetails.php?id=13381)

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/...rdetails.php?id=2616 (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules/Stats_Page/zekestats/playerdetails.php?id=2616)

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/...rdetails.php?id=2695 (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules/Stats_Page/zekestats/playerdetails.php?id=2695)

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/...rdetails.php?id=5502 (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules/Stats_Page/zekestats/playerdetails.php?id=5502)

...

But they are luckily exception to the rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

TS_Sancho
09-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

funny you would say that... my average on warclouds server after a few hundred of sorties is above 8%...
I very often sit at 12-15% hits after 1h sortie... I just never sprey and pray. Only fire when I will hit.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kling, your a hot stick and an exceptionaly good shot and at that your averaging 8% hits.

Is there a way to check the Warclouds average hit rate across the board?

The Warclouds regulars are as talented as your going to get in IL2. I dont think Im far off in an average veteran hit rate of 2-3%?

Falcke
09-21-2009, 12:34 PM
Not really following the thread, but my last sortie on Spits V 109s may be relevant.

Airplane: P47 D27
Load out: Extra munition

4 Kills
- 2 FW190
- 2 JU87

Rounds expended: 2184
Rounds hit: 184
Hit percentage: 8.4%

The first 190 I shot down was by flaming it in a 90 degree snapshot. Second one went down due to getting several rounds in the engine.

1 Ju87 killed by shooting out the controls, 1 by pilot kill.

All 4 kills within 10 minutes.

I really have no clue how the ingame .50 would compare to the real thing, but used correctly 8 of them tear every plane in this game to pieces.

AndyJWest
09-21-2009, 01:09 PM
I think at this point I'd better keep quiet about my stats (I'm a noob online) 2.5% hits doesn't sound too bad, until you realise my only kill was a friendly - I could have sworn it was a Ju 88, rather than an IL-4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif. I've not used that server much though.

On furball servers if I get 3% I'm probably doing well for me. Of course it depends on what you are using - the cannon on a La-5 will take the wing off an IL-4 with one quick burst, as I discovered to my embarrassment. If I'd been using .50 cals I'd probably have realised my error before I did the damage.

GH_Klingstroem
09-21-2009, 01:13 PM
http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...tre=WF&op=planestats (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=planestats)

This is the stats for the P51D20 only on warclouds...

as for the other p51s or p47 you have to look for yourself.
These are air hits only...


hm seems the link isnt working... click on it and click on "select aircraft" on the left side. and then choose P51D20....

TS_Sancho
09-21-2009, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...tre=WF&op=planestats (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=planestats)

This is the stats for the P51D20 only on warclouds...

as for the other p51s or p47 you have to look for yourself.
These are air hits only...


hm seems the link isnt working... click on it and click on "select aircraft" on the left side. and then choose P51D20....

The warclouds stat page for the P51D20 ranks the top 14 pilots in order of sortie completion (which is a good way to judge pilot skill imho)

When I average the hit percentage I get 5.1% but thats the average of the TOP 14 PILOTS.

If you averaged the air to air hit percentage of every pilot whose flown the P51D20 on the server, 2 or 3 percent would be generous.

GH_Klingstroem
09-21-2009, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...tre=WF&op=planestats (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=planestats)

This is the stats for the P51D20 only on warclouds...

as for the other p51s or p47 you have to look for yourself.
These are air hits only...


hm seems the link isnt working... click on it and click on "select aircraft" on the left side. and then choose P51D20....

The warclouds stat page for the P51D20 ranks the top 14 pilots in order of sortie completion (which is a good way to judge pilot skill imho)

When I average the hit percentage I get 5.1% but thats the average of the TOP 14 PILOTS.

If you averaged the air to air hit percentage of every pilot whose flown the P51D20 on the server, 2 or 3 percent would be generous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which sounds close to real numbers I think...

DKoor
09-21-2009, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...tre=WF&op=planestats (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=planestats)

This is the stats for the P51D20 only on warclouds...

as for the other p51s or p47 you have to look for yourself.
These are air hits only...


hm seems the link isnt working... click on it and click on "select aircraft" on the left side. and then choose P51D20....

The warclouds stat page for the P51D20 ranks the top 14 pilots in order of sortie completion (which is a good way to judge pilot skill imho)

When I average the hit percentage I get 5.1% but thats the average of the TOP 14 PILOTS.

If you averaged the air to air hit percentage of every pilot whose flown the P51D20 on the server, 2 or 3 percent would be generous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which sounds close to real numbers I think... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Gotta say - disagree 100% in TAGERT style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

I on the other hand think that those 2-3% was average for WW2 aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but if WW2 lasted over 8 years with practically unlimited training/combat times I guess we would seen some really scary experten... just like online now... there are people with well over 20% on certain types and they have that consistent hit rate in dozens of sorties.
That is scary, just how much these guys spent on this game trying to improve.
It implies a lot of things... good aim is not enough for that kind of hitrate, one must also fly close to Godlike to always enable best possible chance to hit.

WTE_Galway
09-21-2009, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
WOW!!! Great tactic... I hope...

Head-on pass was one of the few options Wildcat pilots had against the A6M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed ... the man was a Squadron leader at Guadalcanal and if he says 25% of zero kills at the time were head on passes I tend to believe him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You need to take the quote in context though. He was basically explaining why the "one one one" AP/Icend/ tracer mix used at the time was preferrable to the proposed 50/50 incend/tracer mix with no AP at all ... because occasionally you did head on passes.

Note also he is talking about the preferred loadout against a ZERO not a LW fighter.

Erkki_M
09-22-2009, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about 15%?
And as it says on the Warbird's site "Stats can and are known to be inaccurate".

I only looked at the top guy on their pilots list, it said gun and cannon hits 21.6 %, but only 1.6% for Air. Is anyone claiming 15% air hits?

Edit:
Sorry Klingstroem, that wasn't intended as a comment about you. Are those air hits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All air hits.

Stats are can be and are known to ben inaccurate. However that goes only, as we(all?) know, to wether pilot status is MIA/OK after mission and wether he gets kill or not... Sometimes server doesnt register rounds shot, but in that case it wont register rounds hit either.

15% is a rather typical hitrate to me too in planes with wing guns(see, F6F), and 15-25% in planes like Bf109, Yaks and P38.

However I think also the tactics used and style of flight, not just the gunnery skills itself and plane used, affect the hitratio a lot. I use a tactic similar to Hartmanns. I replayed the kills of my few past weekends in my mind and 80% of them must have been complete surprises and at least half of the last must have been "too late" with no time to react or reaction was too late, giving me only more area to hit. Even most of the last 10% were in situations were the E/A had seen me and tried guns defense but hit badly from high deflection. I turnfight only when I have 0 consecutive kills... KIA streaks can sometimes be real fun after taking the game perhaps a bit too seriously for some time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AndyJWest
09-22-2009, 11:04 AM
Humm, looks like I was being a bit premature, and that 15-20% hit rates are achievable in the sim. This must indicate astonishing skill, not to mention years of practice: If I could regularly get 5% I'd probably be happy with that - though it will depend on the server settings etc too. Apologies if I looked as if I was trying to suggest these statistics were falsified, that wasn't my intention.

I suppose we should bear in mind that a 'hit' need not imply any real damage, so direct comparisons with real-world statistics might be misleading...

TS_Sancho
09-22-2009, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
As time goes on I never cease to be amazed at how closely IL2 as a simulation parallels reality.

2 or 3 percent is about where most veterans of the game can keep consistently, 5 percent and you feel like everytime you pull the trigger you get a kill.

Anything much higher than that is unrealistic.

How about 15%? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/....php?name=Stats_Page (http://www.warbirdsofprey.org/modules.php?name=Stats_Page) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to know the % of guys like Hartmann and Graf. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question?

Anybody want to take a stab at it?

GH_Klingstroem
09-22-2009, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about 15%?
And as it says on the Warbird's site "Stats can and are known to be inaccurate".

I only looked at the top guy on their pilots list, it said gun and cannon hits 21.6 %, but only 1.6% for Air. Is anyone claiming 15% air hits?

Edit:
Sorry Klingstroem, that wasn't intended as a comment about you. Are those air hits? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All air hits.

Stats are can be and are known to ben inaccurate. However that goes only, as we(all?) know, to wether pilot status is MIA/OK after mission and wether he gets kill or not... Sometimes server doesnt register rounds shot, but in that case it wont register rounds hit either.

15% is a rather typical hitrate to me too in planes with wing guns(see, F6F), and 15-25% in planes like Bf109, Yaks and P38.

However I think also the tactics used and style of flight, not just the gunnery skills itself and plane used, affect the hitratio a lot. I use a tactic similar to Hartmanns. I replayed the kills of my few past weekends in my mind and 80% of them must have been complete surprises and at least half of the last must have been "too late" with no time to react or reaction was too late, giving me only more area to hit. Even most of the last 10% were in situations were the E/A had seen me and tried guns defense but hit badly from high deflection. I turnfight only when I have 0 consecutive kills... KIA streaks can sometimes be real fun after taking the game perhaps a bit too seriously for some time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We seem to use extremely similar tactics Erkki...

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

I feel sorry for the poor bastard who ends up in our gunsights if we dive on him together...

Manu-6S
09-22-2009, 12:57 PM
Flying in serious coops with and against another virtual squadrons it's really difficult for me to have a great % hit ratio.. usually I place an 6-7%... this because enemies are always on comms and during a furball I make slashing attacks, searching only snap shots... I really don't know what's a kill from 6 o'clock: the pilots who I'm used to fight against are not so noobs to not cover blind spots.

Viper2005_
09-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Gotta say - disagree 100% in TAGERT style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

I on the other hand think that those 2-3% was average for WW2 aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but if WW2 lasted over 8 years with practically unlimited training/combat times I guess we would seen some really scary experten... just like online now... there are people with well over 20% on certain types and they have that consistent hit rate in dozens of sorties.
That is scary, just how much these guys spent on this game trying to improve.
It implies a lot of things... good aim is not enough for that kind of hitrate, one must also fly close to Godlike to always enable best possible chance to hit.

I once managed a 100% gunstat a2a with my 190A.

The Spitfire unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end had lost a wing before all of the my guns had fired twice (11 rounds total). It was quite surreal. I doubt I'll ever do it again.

I actually got a screenshot of the gunstat at the time, though it seems to have been lost in intervening years.

Short bursts naturally tend to be quantised; each round can only attain 0% or 100% and nothing in between.

A few years ago, I used to try to maximise my gunstat. Then I realised that the price of this was that I was landing with lots of ammunition unused, and not really scoring many kills. Now I try to roughly match my ammunition supply to my fuel supply, and push myself to take more chances.

The result of this is that my gunstat has fallen somewhat.

The WarClouds stats tell me that overall I've achieved 1.72% a2a. However, this is not an especially meaningful figure, as it has been calculated by simply dividing the number of a2a hits I've scored by the total of number of rounds I've fired. This means that every time I attack a ground target, because I obviously don't score a2a hits, I reduce my a2a gunstat. Obviously, the same logic applies in reverse when I shoot at enemy aircraft; unless my stray rounds happen to find a ground target then my a2a gunstat suffers, irrespective of the fate of the target I was actually shooting at.

It's more reasonable to add up my a2a hits and a2g hits and say that about 13.56% of the rounds I've fired hit something. The chances are that I'm doing somewhat better than that average against ground targets, and somewhat worse against aerial targets. Looking at it by type, it seems that the real figure is probably 20-22% a2g (or perhaps a bit better), and perhaps 7-10% a2a, which is by no means exceptional.

I think that gunstat is only meaningful under semi-controlled conditions; a 5% stat for a difficult shot is far more impressive than a 5% stat for an easy shot.

IME, if you only consider the "high percentage" shots, rather than speculative deflection shots, or firing for effect at long range etc., it seems that you need to be somewhere in the 5-10% range to score reasonably consistently.

I suspect that the WWII aces were mostly scoring in at least the 10-20% regime for those "high percentage" shots, simply because otherwise they would have had difficulty in consistently killing the target quickly enough to remain safe enough to survive long enough to rack up a large score.

The only other interesting thing to emerge from looking a my stats is that I can't shoot the Mustang III's .50s to save my life (~1%), which is strange given that the Tempest's ballistically similar 20 mm doesn't seem to cause me anything like as much trouble (~8%), and indeed given that I can hit ground targets with the P-38's guns quite accurately (~20%). Of course, as I only really fly the Mustang III for anti-shipping tasks, I've only ever been firing the guns from an unfortunate position at low level. Nevertheless, the figure stands out.

Unfortunately, the stats don't tell me if there is some systematic error in the way I'm shooting the Mustang III's guns, or whether instead I'm missing in a genuinely random fashion.

DKoor
09-22-2009, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Flying in serious coops with and against another virtual squadrons it's really difficult for me to have a great % hit ratio.. usually I place an 6-7%... this because enemies are always on comms and during a furball I make slashing attacks, searching only snap shots... I really don't know what's a kill from 6 o'clock: the pilots who I'm used to fight against are not so noobs to not cover blind spots. Your gun hitrate is fantastic if you are dogfighting... 6-7% for dofight is outstanding.

Above 15% for drive-by's is excellent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
09-22-2009, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Gotta say - disagree 100% in TAGERT style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

I on the other hand think that those 2-3% was average for WW2 aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but if WW2 lasted over 8 years with practically unlimited training/combat times I guess we would seen some really scary experten... just like online now... there are people with well over 20% on certain types and they have that consistent hit rate in dozens of sorties.
That is scary, just how much these guys spent on this game trying to improve.
It implies a lot of things... good aim is not enough for that kind of hitrate, one must also fly close to Godlike to always enable best possible chance to hit.

I once managed a 100% gunstat a2a with my 190A.

The Spitfire unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end had lost a wing before all of the my guns had fired twice (11 rounds total). It was quite surreal. I doubt I'll ever do it again.

I actually got a screenshot of the gunstat at the time, though it seems to have been lost in intervening years.

Short bursts naturally tend to be quantised; each round can only attain 0% or 100% and nothing in between.

A few years ago, I used to try to maximise my gunstat. Then I realised that the price of this was that I was landing with lots of ammunition unused, and not really scoring many kills. Now I try to roughly match my ammunition supply to my fuel supply, and push myself to take more chances.

The result of this is that my gunstat has fallen somewhat.

The WarClouds stats tell me that overall I've achieved 1.72% a2a. However, this is not an especially meaningful figure, as it has been calculated by simply dividing the number of a2a hits I've scored by the total of number of rounds I've fired. This means that every time I attack a ground target, because I obviously don't score a2a hits, I reduce my a2a gunstat. Obviously, the same logic applies in reverse when I shoot at enemy aircraft; unless my stray rounds happen to find a ground target then my a2a gunstat suffers, irrespective of the fate of the target I was actually shooting at.

It's more reasonable to add up my a2a hits and a2g hits and say that about 13.56% of the rounds I've fired hit something. The chances are that I'm doing somewhat better than that average against ground targets, and somewhat worse against aerial targets. Looking at it by type, it seems that the real figure is probably 20-22% a2g (or perhaps a bit better), and perhaps 7-10% a2a, which is by no means exceptional.

I think that gunstat is only meaningful under semi-controlled conditions; a 5% stat for a difficult shot is far more impressive than a 5% stat for an easy shot.

IME, if you only consider the "high percentage" shots, rather than speculative deflection shots, or firing for effect at long range etc., it seems that you need to be somewhere in the 5-10% range to score reasonably consistently.

I suspect that the WWII aces were mostly scoring in at least the 10-20% regime for those "high percentage" shots, simply because otherwise they would have had difficulty in consistently killing the target quickly enough to remain safe enough to survive long enough to rack up a large score.

The only other interesting thing to emerge from looking a my stats is that I can't shoot the Mustang III's .50s to save my life (~1%), which is strange given that the Tempest's ballistically similar 20 mm doesn't seem to cause me anything like as much trouble (~8%), and indeed given that I can hit ground targets with the P-38's guns quite accurately (~20%). Of course, as I only really fly the Mustang III for anti-shipping tasks, I've only ever been firing the guns from an unfortunate position at low level. Nevertheless, the figure stands out.

Unfortunately, the stats don't tell me if there is some systematic error in the way I'm shooting the Mustang III's guns, or whether instead I'm missing in a genuinely random fashion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with you completely.

If we put this into perspective then we are getting somewhere.

I'll just say that is not quite fair to compare this game to WW2. We have much more luxuries compared to real pilots (most important being we don't risk anything apart from being yelled at by our angry girlfriends/wives) not to mention practically constant training on the real thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif .

M_Gunz
09-22-2009, 06:16 PM
From the Hunters of the Sky video they were saying that only 1 out of 10 pilots was really effective in WWII.
Is that number a bit on the high side?

Manu-6S
09-23-2009, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Flying in serious coops with and against another virtual squadrons it's really difficult for me to have a great % hit ratio.. usually I place an 6-7%... this because enemies are always on comms and during a furball I make slashing attacks, searching only snap shots... I really don't know what's a kill from 6 o'clock: the pilots who I'm used to fight against are not so noobs to not cover blind spots. Your gun hitrate is fantastic if you are dogfighting... 6-7% for dofight is outstanding.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank DKoor... it's bacause i usually shot from 20m/30m. Think that yesterday during a training dogfight I killed 2 hurricanes using only my MGs: one PK from 3 o'clock, 30m... the other braking his controls... I really don't know how could I break his controls with the fire of 2 light MGs... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
09-23-2009, 02:25 AM
How did you manage to not ram from so close? Hartmann style?

DKoor
09-23-2009, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From the Hunters of the Sky video they were saying that only 1 out of 10 pilots was really effective in WWII.
Is that number a bit on the high side? Maybe they referred to those that destroyed something? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Maybe even that is a bit over-optimistic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif .

Manu-6S
09-23-2009, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How did you manage to not ram from so close? Hartmann style?

Hartmann style http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The last time I've exaggerated hitting a P47 who was not going down I went so close that the explosion of my enemy cutted all my controls (in a Dora... I don't like it... I prefer Antons...). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

At that distance you need only 2 hit to dewing a plane (above all turning Spitfire).

So I've learned that 30m is better. Of course my idea is to hit at that distance, but often I need to shot from 100m/150m too, when I know that it's my only chance to fire at the guy before I've to extend.

In any case shooting at more than 150m it's useless for my style.. this is what I teach to my cadets. The more distance the less damage you do... the more you fire to do "some damage" more time have the enemies to evade, being alerted by their comrade or by their increased SA (something I've learned with the Oleg's LoD... I can see Spitfire, Hurricane and usually russian planes below by quote only when they fire at something)

Anyway the % in coops and server are usually faked by the needing to save your wingman life. You usually need to spray from an unfavourable position to scare the enemies and make them to evade.

EDIT: Xiola knows me: the only time I fled with him I returned from my single hunt with 7 kills using only half of the ammunition (in a 109F4)... I RTB because of fuel... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Here there is one of mine snap shots against AI posted in another thread.. stupid AI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.diavolirossi.net/manu/Desktop.zip

GH_Klingstroem
09-23-2009, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Gotta say - disagree 100% in TAGERT style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

I on the other hand think that those 2-3% was average for WW2 aces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but if WW2 lasted over 8 years with practically unlimited training/combat times I guess we would seen some really scary experten... just like online now... there are people with well over 20% on certain types and they have that consistent hit rate in dozens of sorties.
That is scary, just how much these guys spent on this game trying to improve.
It implies a lot of things... good aim is not enough for that kind of hitrate, one must also fly close to Godlike to always enable best possible chance to hit.

I once managed a 100% gunstat a2a with my 190A.

The Spitfire unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end had lost a wing before all of the my guns had fired twice (11 rounds total). It was quite surreal. I doubt I'll ever do it again.

I actually got a screenshot of the gunstat at the time, though it seems to have been lost in intervening years.

Short bursts naturally tend to be quantised; each round can only attain 0% or 100% and nothing in between.

A few years ago, I used to try to maximise my gunstat. Then I realised that the price of this was that I was landing with lots of ammunition unused, and not really scoring many kills. Now I try to roughly match my ammunition supply to my fuel supply, and push myself to take more chances.

The result of this is that my gunstat has fallen somewhat.

The WarClouds stats tell me that overall I've achieved 1.72% a2a. However, this is not an especially meaningful figure, as it has been calculated by simply dividing the number of a2a hits I've scored by the total of number of rounds I've fired. This means that every time I attack a ground target, because I obviously don't score a2a hits, I reduce my a2a gunstat. Obviously, the same logic applies in reverse when I shoot at enemy aircraft; unless my stray rounds happen to find a ground target then my a2a gunstat suffers, irrespective of the fate of the target I was actually shooting at.

It's more reasonable to add up my a2a hits and a2g hits and say that about 13.56% of the rounds I've fired hit something. The chances are that I'm doing somewhat better than that average against ground targets, and somewhat worse against aerial targets. Looking at it by type, it seems that the real figure is probably 20-22% a2g (or perhaps a bit better), and perhaps 7-10% a2a, which is by no means exceptional.

I think that gunstat is only meaningful under semi-controlled conditions; a 5% stat for a difficult shot is far more impressive than a 5% stat for an easy shot.

IME, if you only consider the "high percentage" shots, rather than speculative deflection shots, or firing for effect at long range etc., it seems that you need to be somewhere in the 5-10% range to score reasonably consistently.

I suspect that the WWII aces were mostly scoring in at least the 10-20% regime for those "high percentage" shots, simply because otherwise they would have had difficulty in consistently killing the target quickly enough to remain safe enough to survive long enough to rack up a large score.

The only other interesting thing to emerge from looking a my stats is that I can't shoot the Mustang III's .50s to save my life (~1%), which is strange given that the Tempest's ballistically similar 20 mm doesn't seem to cause me anything like as much trouble (~8%), and indeed given that I can hit ground targets with the P-38's guns quite accurately (~20%). Of course, as I only really fly the Mustang III for anti-shipping tasks, I've only ever been firing the guns from an unfortunate position at low level. Nevertheless, the figure stands out.

Unfortunately, the stats don't tell me if there is some systematic error in the way I'm shooting the Mustang III's guns, or whether instead I'm missing in a genuinely random fashion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Viper!
This is VA_Kling

The reason the p51/mustangIII is so hard to hit with is the point convergence thing. The 20mms of the tempest or any plane actually has more spread. Each round doesnt go to exactly the same place. However with the 50cals I usually compare it to a paper sheet seen from the side. Extremely thin right... If ur target is just just the smallest bit above or below you pipper, no matter what the distance, ALL i repeat ALL you bullets will miss! Not very realistic at all but that is the kind of spread we have for the 50cals.

However if the we had just slightly more spread, not much, but just at bit more, alot of people would find the 50 cals deadly!! U would hit when u just had the pipper close to your target. Just like it is now for the 20mms of the 190 or the tempest!

horseback
09-23-2009, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From the Hunters of the Sky video they were saying that only 1 out of 10 pilots was really effective in WWII.
Is that number a bit on the high side? Probably not. The selection process was pretty rigorous when you think about it. A large percentage of male volunteers for aviation would be eliminated for physical or mental limitations (lack of education, dumb, corrective lenses, sinus problems, too tall or short) that still leave them eligible for infantry or other tasks, so 20-40% of the candidates are gone right there. Others will simply wash out of training for one reason or another, so depending on the system standards, there’s another 25%+ out of the remaining group.

At that point every one of the surviving pilot candidates is either a highly qualified natural talent or a very motivated and competitive s.o.b., or some combination of both. The more aggressive personalities were then most often assigned to fighters.

So it is safe to generalize that most fighter squadrons were composed of men who were of above average intelligence, physically gifted, and more than normally aggressive and competitive. With decent leadership and training, at least 10% of the survivors of the first few combats would become the tigers out of a pride of lesser hunting cats.

Certainly it looks like most squadrons of 20 or so pilots had at least a couple of hot sticks/top guns at any given time.

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
09-23-2009, 02:21 PM
Flying Finn (An online Ace who flies on UKdedicated servers) often gets hit rates of up to 30% IIRC.

Obviously only when he really tries to get his hit average up tho. Often when the stats are reset he will try and get as higher % as possible until he gets bored or messes it up.

There is a technique, only fire your cannons, use nose mounted weapons.

Only fire when really close.

DONT fire machine guns as that makes your average go right down. (so many bullets, more to miss)

.30 cal weapons are obviously the worst as they have such a high rate of fire, meaning large amounts miss.

Xiolablu3
09-23-2009, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Flying in serious coops with and against another virtual squadrons it's really difficult for me to have a great % hit ratio.. usually I place an 6-7%... this because enemies are always on comms and during a furball I make slashing attacks, searching only snap shots... I really don't know what's a kill from 6 o'clock: the pilots who I'm used to fight against are not so noobs to not cover blind spots. Your gun hitrate is fantastic if you are dogfighting... 6-7% for dofight is outstanding.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank DKoor... it's bacause i usually shot from 20m/30m. Think that yesterday during a training dogfight I killed 2 hurricanes using only my MGs: one PK from 3 o'clock, 30m... the other braking his controls... I really don't know how could I break his controls with the fire of 2 light MGs... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine is around 5% I think.

You could easily push up your hitrate if you didnt fire your machine guns, Manu.

Xiolablu3
09-23-2009, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
http://www.war-clouds.com/modu...tre=WF&op=planestats (http://www.war-clouds.com/modules.php?name=TARGET&theatre=WF&op=planestats)

This is the stats for the P51D20 only on warclouds...

as for the other p51s or p47 you have to look for yourself.
These are air hits only...


hm seems the link isnt working... click on it and click on "select aircraft" on the left side. and then choose P51D20....

The warclouds stat page for the P51D20 ranks the top 14 pilots in order of sortie completion (which is a good way to judge pilot skill imho)

When I average the hit percentage I get 5.1% but thats the average of the TOP 14 PILOTS.

If you averaged the air to air hit percentage of every pilot whose flown the P51D20 on the server, 2 or 3 percent would be generous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US planes are at a disadvantage in hit rate becasue of their high numbers of fast firing machine guns.

Manu-6S
09-23-2009, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Flying in serious coops with and against another virtual squadrons it's really difficult for me to have a great % hit ratio.. usually I place an 6-7%... this because enemies are always on comms and during a furball I make slashing attacks, searching only snap shots... I really don't know what's a kill from 6 o'clock: the pilots who I'm used to fight against are not so noobs to not cover blind spots. Your gun hitrate is fantastic if you are dogfighting... 6-7% for dofight is outstanding.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank DKoor... it's bacause i usually shot from 20m/30m. Think that yesterday during a training dogfight I killed 2 hurricanes using only my MGs: one PK from 3 o'clock, 30m... the other braking his controls... I really don't know how could I break his controls with the fire of 2 light MGs... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mine is around 5% I think.

You could easily push up your hitrate if you didnt fire your machine guns, Manu. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger Xiola, but I really don't look at the hitrate, I look only to my K/D ratio. Anyway I don't know the % of making damage with MGs, but even if it's a +1% of probability to do damage, I take it.

Like I said before, if I could score a PK and cut control to a pair of hurricanes using only the MGs, this mean that MGs do some damage, then I shot also with them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
09-23-2009, 03:22 PM
Exactly mate - what's the point, unless its a personal challenge to see how high you can get your hit-rate.

You need to be sure you bring the enemy down, not worrying about using 5 extra rounds.

WTE_Galway
09-23-2009, 04:54 PM
Just make sure you fire half your ammo at bombers from 100m and the other half at boats.

That should give you a hit rate close to 50% air/ 50% ground .

BigKahuna_GS
09-24-2009, 12:43 AM
S!

From Anthony Williams web site "Flying Guns of WWII"

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanu...in/fgun/fgun-in.html (http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-in.html)

"Six .50 guns was the armament of most US fighters. Most pilots liked the .50 gun, but it lacked the power to do structural damage to enemy aircraft. <span class="ev_code_RED">Postwar research demonstrated that only armour-piercing incendiary rounds were really effective, by setting fire to ammunition or fuel.</span> This armament was sufficient for the Mustang, because it was an escort fighter, that had to fight mostly against enemy fighters. The guns were usually set to converge at 300 yards, and 2 degrees above the normal flight attitude. The ammunition supply was relatively large, and that was also beneficial for an escort fighter. Last but not least, the Browning was very reliable and had good ballistics. "


"Because of its twin-engined configuration, the P-38 carried all its armament in the nose, and no synchronisation or harmonisation were necessary. Later models of the P-38 were the best twin-engined fighters of the war, the equals in combat of any single-engined fighter. Whether this justified the additional cost and size of the P-38 is another debate. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A comparison with the P-51 shows that the 20mm Hispano was the equivalent in weight of fire and muzzle power of two .50 Brownings; its more deadly ammunition was another advantage. </span> <span class="ev_code_RED">(The US Navy estimated that the 20mm cannon was the equivalent of three .50s, reducing to 2.5 at long range.) On the other hand the ammunition supply of the cannon was limited." </span>

The USAAF thought the 20mm = (2).50cal guns
The Navy thought the 20mm = (3) .50cal guns (reducing to 2.5 at long range)



http://www.pt103.com/Browning_50_Cal_M2_History.html

"By 1942 flyers had come to regard some type of incendiary as indispensable for air combat. "These pilots, who are in daily conflict with the enemy, swear by the effectiveness of the incendiary ammunition and would as soon go up without their machine guns as without this type of ammunition." But the M1 incendiary did not serve every purpose. In the spring of 1943 the air forces were suffering heavy losses of B-17's in daylight bombing operations over Europe, partly because the M1 incendiary, though excellent against enemy fighters approaching from most angles, was ineffective against frontal attack. The protection afforded by the engine of the enemy craft served to exhaust both the incendiary and the penetration energy of the projectile before it got to the fuel tank. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Ordnance small arms ammunition specialists consequently suggested use of the M8 armor-piercing-incendiary developed for antiaircraft defense. The M8, when manufactured in relatively small quantities, proved more efficient than either armor-piercing or standard incendiary rounds, </span> but, when manufactured by mass production methods with the types of powder then available, retention of its high velocity became impossible. Inasmuch as armor-piercing-incendiary with less velocity lost most of its penetrating and its incendiary properties, the Ordnance Department recommended that until something better could be perfected the M1 incendiary continue to be used for general air combat and straight armorpiercing for ground strafing. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The something better than either standard incendiaries or the M10 tracer emerged in the spring of 1944 in the T28 armor-piercing incendiary tracer standardized in March 1945 as the M20.</span> Air Forces theatre commanders were authorized to request such quantities as they saw fit."


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Postwar research demonstrated that only armour-piercing incendiary rounds were really effective, by setting fire to ammunition or fuel."</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"The M8, ... proved more efficient than either armor-piercing or standard incendiary rounds."</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"The something better than either standard incendiaries or the M10 tracer emerged in the spring of 1944 in the T28 armor-piercing incendiary tracer."</span>

There is no API rounds in US .50cal belting and no radiator damage modeling in IL2.



50 cal API High Speed Video No DSS Installed
"High Speed Video of a 50 cal Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 round fired into a 50 gal drum filled with JP-8 fuel. Detonation Suppression Material (DSS) IS NOT installed. An explosive event occurs."

youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXlr-xwcCc)


M8 .50 Caliber armor piercing / incendiary cartridge: The M8 armor piercing / incendiary cartridge was designed for use against soft skinned and lightly armored vehicles as well as material destruction. It has an incendiary component. The M8 can be identified by its silver (aluminum) tip.


M20 .50 Caliber armor piercing / incendiary tracer cartridge: The M20 armor piercing / incendiary tracer cartridge is the tracer variant of the M8 API cartridge. The M20 can be identified by its red tip with a silver (aluminum) ring below that.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, Armor Piercing Incendiary, M8
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50/50_M8_API.gif
Used by M2 and M85 machine guns, and the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. The cartridge combines the functions of the M2 armor piercing bullet and the incendiary bullet, and is used against flammable targets and light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similar bullet-resisting targets.

Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 0.63 in (16 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.32 in (8 mm)

Incendiary composition: 15 grains (0.97 g) IM 11

The cartridge is identified by an aluminum bullet tip.

Type Classification: OBS - MSR 11756003



Cartridge, Caliber .50, Armor Piercing Incendiary-Tracer, M20
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50/50_M20_API-T.gif
Used by M2 and M85 machine guns, and the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. The cartridge combines the functions of the armor piercing and the incendiary bullet, and is used against flammable targets and light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similar bullet-resisting targets. This tracer is dim at near ranges, but increases to bright as it moves further from the gun.

Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 0.83 in (21 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.43 in (11 mm)

Incendiary composition: 27 grains (1.74 g) IM 161
Trace range: 328 - 1,914 yards (300 - 1,750 m)
Tracer: R256

The cartridge is identified by a red bullet tip with an aluminum colored ring to the rear of the red tip.

Type Classification: OBS - MSR 04776009

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/50BMG_Rounds.jpg/756px-50BMG_Rounds.jpg
50 BMG back row left to right: Mk211 Raufoss Multipurpose Round, SPOTTER round, "Silver tip" Armor Piercing Incendiary, "Blue tip" Incendiary, "Black tip" Armor Piercing, "SLAP-T" Tracer SLAP, "SLAP", "Red tip" Tracer, Ball. .223 front row left to right: "Green tip" Ball, "Red tip" Tracer, "Blue tip" Incendiary, "Black tip" Armor Piercing, .500 S&W Magnum.


http://www.pt103.com/images/TMG_Chinn_Automatic_Aircraft_Gun_T_Number_Assignme nts.jpg

Gun, Machine, Caliber .50 M3.
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In 1945 the caliber .50 Browning T25E3 was standardized as the M3</span>. There are slight variations in guns of early and later manufacture. The M3 gun is based upon the caliber .50 aircraft machine gun M2 and has essentially the same exterior dimensions, except for the increased diameter of the backplate buffer, and the length added by the recoil booster. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It fires at a cyclic rate of approximately 1,200 rounds per minute with standard ammunition and links. Nearly all parts of the M3 gun differ in detail from those of the M2, having been improved in design and metallurgy. </span>


http://www.fototime.com/1CB2F0E7BFC3637/standard.jpg
.50cal being loaded into a P51 wing--ok ok just kidding!

JtD
09-24-2009, 02:04 AM
There is no API rounds in US .50cal belting and no radiator damage modeling in IL2.

We have an APIT round and radiator damage is modeled in IL2.

csThor
09-24-2009, 02:29 AM
In my opinion this is more a question of damage modelling than .50 effectiveness. Almost all the machine guns in-game are pretty much "dead weight" since the game (initially released in 2001!) doesn't feature damagable parts which would highlight the effect of HMG fire on an aircraft. Fuel systems are rudimentary, I am not aware of ammunition or bombload explosions, no hydraulic systems to cripple or oxygene tanks to blow up ... SoW will have to make a major advance here, but I don't expect the old dog Il-2 to learn so many new tricks ...

BigKahuna_GS
09-24-2009, 02:29 AM
We have an APIT round and radiator damage is modeled in IL2.

Hya JTD,
Can you clarify?

According to Gibbage there is no radiator damage modeling in IL2.
In previous posts he listed what he knew personaly from working on the sim
and what Oleg had told him. There is of course oil cooler and engine damage
modeling.

If there is an APIT round who uses it?
The US .50cals sure dont seem to have it and if they do it's broken.
See previous screen shots of Betty bomber for example.


.

JtD
09-24-2009, 02:52 AM
The standard belting of the .50 in Il-2 is APIT-AP-HE-AP if I remember that correctly, this has been posted by Oleg Maddox originally. It's like that in all .50 installations. Every second round has some incendiary effect (HE and APIT). I assume that the HE is in fact a simple incendiary round and just mislabeled.

The radiator damage debate is pretty old. I assume that there may be exceptions where radiators are not modeled. The general statement is they are, and in particular we recently had FacCat99 saying the radiators in the Spitfire are modeled. He's working on the 4.09 patch and knows the code. Still people did not believe him, so I tested it. I fired a single AP round into the wing radiator of a Spitfire. Because of that, the engine started to smoke (losing coolant) and a couple of minutes later the engine quit. So the radiator is modeled, radiator damage is modeled, but the graphic representation is wrong with the leak coming from the engine not the radiator.

I don't want to put words in FatCat99's mouth, but I think it was also him who said that radiators are generally modeled (also on the P-38 where Gibbage said they weren't). But maybe you ask him directly via PM, 1st hand info is certainly best.

M_Gunz
09-24-2009, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Ordnance small arms ammunition specialists consequently suggested use of the M8 armor-piercing-incendiary developed for antiaircraft defense. The M8, when manufactured in relatively small quantities, proved more efficient than either armor-piercing or standard incendiary rounds, </span> but, when manufactured by mass production methods with the types of powder then available, retention of its high velocity became impossible. Inasmuch as armor-piercing-incendiary with less velocity lost most of its penetrating and its incendiary properties, the Ordnance Department recommended that until something better could be perfected the M1 incendiary continue to be used for general air combat and straight armorpiercing for ground strafing.

Small runs of M8 with special propellant out-did the mass-produced AP and Incendiaries? And when produced in large quantities
were -less- effective? And the real deal didn't make showtime until March 1945? So which available in 1942 API does the M2 get
in IL2 that likely shipped to Russia for use in P-39's ***historically**?

Really gotta hate that historic bias, don'tcha?

irR4tiOn4L
09-24-2009, 03:21 AM
Kahuna, great article but they mention several times that .50's really werent all that in WWII. They also mention 6 guns being standard, and if the poorly made M8 couldnt maintain velocity, perhaps it wouldnt be all that accurate either..

Daiichidoku
09-24-2009, 07:38 AM
Kahuna, there is a new CWOS http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/phpBB3/
and a new (though as yet empty) Lockheed Syndicate, waiting for some good solid info about 38 that may be used to help correct the type for patch 5.0 or 5.1

hope to see you there

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2009, 10:19 AM
Hya JTD,

It wasn't just the P38 that didnt have radiator damage it was ALL inline engines. This sim is what 9 years old now and if radiator damage has just been introduced to the Spitfire as you mentioned wouldn't you think that odd that was not modeled from the very beginning?

I recieved an email from Oleg a long time ago and he said the .50cal belting was:
AP-HE-Tracer-Incendiary

There was no mention of API or APIT

I realize this sims age and things have changed alot over the years but I had a pretty good line of communication with 1C over the years and I never heard API or APIT used.



__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Gunz & irR4tiOn4L--

Kahuna, great article but they mention several times that .50's really werent all that in WWII. They also mention 6 guns being standard, and if the poorly made M8 couldnt maintain velocity, perhaps it wouldnt be all that accurate either..

Small runs of M8 with special propellant out-did the mass-produced AP and Incendiaries? And when produced in large quantities
were -less- effective? And the real deal didn't make showtime until March 1945? So which available in 1942 API does the M2 get
in IL2 that likely shipped to Russia for use in P-39's ***historically**?

Really gotta hate that historic bias, don'tcha?

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



I posted the whole article so you could see the good and bad of development.
The M2 .50cal heavy MG was in constent development throughout the war as was the ammo.
The .50 heavy MG is not the issue as it was more than able to bring down enemy fighters, it is the ammo belting and lack of a good API or APIT round in IL2.

If you check the historical records many kills were made against 109s & 190s with the P51B & C models with only 4 .50cal guns. Bud Anderson made all his 190 kills in the P51C model with only 4 .50cal guns. In the PTO some Sqdns turned off the out board .50cals to make their ammo supply last longer.


View this video for example of an API round hitting a fuel source.

.50cal API High Speed Film Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXlr-xwcCc)

50 cal API High Speed Video No DSS Installed
"High Speed Video of a 50 cal Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 round fired into a 50 gal drum filled with JP-8 fuel. Detonation Suppression Material (DSS) IS NOT installed. An explosive event occurs."



When you start using the word bias be careful because it shows what your mind is really wanting to read:

Gunz--And the real deal didn't make showtime until March 1945? So which available in 1942 API does the M2 get in IL2 that likely shipped to Russia for use in P-39's ***historically**? Really gotta hate that historic bias, don'tcha?



They were used throughout the war and the new and improved APIT round was mass produced in the spring of '44 not in 45'. The name was changed and standardized as the M-20 in 45'.



The something better than either standard incendiaries or the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">M10 tracer emerged in the spring of 1944 </span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the T28 armor-piercing incendiary tracer </span> standardized in March 1945 as the M20. Air Forces theatre commanders were authorized to request such quantities as they saw fit."

.

Kocur_
09-25-2009, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I assume that the HE is in fact a simple incendiary round and just mislabeled.


Unfortunately it is true HE. Anyone who hit anything from close enough knows that, for he was hit by fragments of his own projectiles... After replacing original belting with the unspeakable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif there are no fragments flying around hitting points anymore.

horseback
09-25-2009, 12:34 PM
If radiator damage is modeled, it does not appear to be modeled in all aircraft. I certainly haven't noticed it.

Oil coolers are definitely modeled, and as I recall, the Spit VII and later Marks have the supercharger intercooler sharing space with the oil cooler in the port underwing radiator, with the radiator proper under the starboard wing.

You can shoot the hell out of a 109's wingroots, where its radiators are located, and you will not see coolant leaking out and the engine eventually overheating and seizing up or bursting into flames. That thin whitish stream you might mistake for coolant is most likely fuel, from the nearby fuselage fuel tank.

You have to hit the oil cooler under the chin to make it overheat (and even then it takes a lot longer than it should).

Similarly, the Soviet fighters like the LaGG-3s or Yaks with their rear mounted radiators can take all of your ammo in that area and fly on as though nothing ever happened.

The effectiveness of ALL MG armament, not just the .50s, would be doubled if realistic coolant system effects were added to the current damage models.

cheers

horseback

DKoor
09-25-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
Kahuna, there is a new CWOS http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/phpBB3/
and a new (though as yet empty) Lockheed Syndicate, waiting for some good solid info about 38 that may be used to help correct the type for patch 5.0 or 5.1

hope to see you there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
09-25-2009, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

The effectiveness of ALL MG armament, not just the .50s, would be doubled if realistic coolant system effects were added to the current damage models.

cheers

horseback I tend to think so too... especially if any additional parts in aircraft are modeled like oxygen bottles etc. stuff that are extremely dangerous when hit.
To cut the story short... the more complex DM is the more effective LMG/HMG fire is, both incendiary and AP.

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2009, 01:12 PM
Horseback-The effectiveness of ALL MG armament, not just the .50s, would be doubled if realistic coolant system effects were added to the current damage models.


Amen Horseback


This is my personal opinon on the .50cal issue:

1.Improve the visibility of the tracer rounds from <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">inside </span> the cockpit.

2.Give the ammo belting a good API or APIT round that will actually start a fuel fire.

3.Correct coolant system damage modeling for ALL inline aircraft in IL2.

.

JtD
09-25-2009, 01:21 PM
Hya JTD,

It wasn't just the P38 that didnt have radiator damage it was ALL inline engines. This sim is what 9 years old now and if radiator damage has just been introduced to the Spitfire as you mentioned wouldn't you think that odd that was not modeled from the very beginning?

I recieved an email from Oleg a long time ago and he said the .50cal belting was:
AP-HE-Tracer-Incendiary

There was no mention of API or APIT

I realize this sims age and things have changed alot over the years but I had a pretty good line of communication with 1C over the years and I never heard API or APIT used.

I didn't say that radiator damage has just been introduced. I said it is modeled on a Spitfire. I also said if you wish to _know_ more you can contact FatCat_99. No need for making assumptions.

I've checked, the belting of the .50 is APIT-AP-HE-AP. That's a fact now, not an iIrc. If you have not received this information, your communication with Oleg may not have been as good as you thought.
-----

Kocur_, yes, you're right.

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2009, 03:04 PM
JTD-I didn't say that radiator damage has just been introduced. I said it is modeled on a Spitfire. I also said if you wish to _know_ more you can contact FatCat_99. No need for making assumptions.

I've checked, the belting of the .50 is APIT-AP-HE-AP. That's a fact now, not an iIrc. If you have not received this information, your communication with Oleg may not have been as good as you thought.
-----


Hya JTD,

As I said before this is an old sim and has obviously changed over the the years. The information I recieved was good for the timeframe it was delivered in. The only assumption I see is thinking that coolant system damage modeling is "generally there" and that .50cal API / APIT rounds are working properly in IL2.

.

.

M_Gunz
09-25-2009, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Gunz--And the real deal didn't make showtime until March 1945? So which available in 1942 API does the M2 get in IL2 that likely shipped to Russia for use in P-39's ***historically**? Really gotta hate that historic bias, don'tcha?



They were used throughout the war and the new and improved APIT round was mass produced in the spring of '44 not in 45'. The name was changed and standardized as the M-20 in 45'.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The something better than either standard incendiaries or the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">M10 tracer emerged in the spring of 1944 </span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in the T28 armor-piercing incendiary tracer </span> standardized in March 1945 as the M20. Air Forces theatre commanders were authorized to request such quantities as they saw fit."

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We must read that part differently. Just when did the more effective APIT go into full production and become available?
Not just in small quantities, not just being developed but actually coming off the production lines in quantity?
Spring of 44 or was that when they got the hand-made's working to suit? Because after that you still have the whole
mass production supply issues to deal with (hello DuPont?) and that still doesn't cover delivery.

In the meantime we have a game that features 50 cal starting in 1942 when by your article the API was the M8's?

This is like the 190 boost issues, what month and year the 1.42ATA went gold as opposed to was tried and then derated.
How many different answers were there for that, all with some kind of "was used" document, took Butch2K to straighten out.

I do wonder which cartridges are modeled but I won't say "for sure" when guessing from perceived results. What the
problem is is more likely something different than what it seems like, same as with the 151/20 ammo issue that took
2 years just to find out it wasn't MG shell effectiveness at all. 6 months later it was patched thanks to all the
forum noise and time wasted at Maddox Games chasing BS demands.

The problem isn't THAT large numbers of hits are not lighting fires, it is WHY. We don't know WHY, only WHAT.
Since they work fine enough of the time there must be some reason why sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
Find that and maybe Team Daidalos will know where to look besides the same old places that say what they should.
Bark up the wrong tree long enough and you'll never get that bobcat, Maurice.

Here is the official document on Guns and Ammo:

Oleg's Gun and Ammo Table --- "Here is the direct table of shells and bullets from source code of IL-2. "
Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

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

Author:
Oleg_Maddox
Rank:
Creator of IL-2
Sturmovik
Date:
08/14/02 12:56PM



Here is the direct table of shells and bullets from source code of IL-2.
Comments:

power - here is the TNT, that also modelled (as well as pices of shells).

T - Tracer bullet
AP - Armor-Piercing bullet
APT - Armor-Piercing with Tracer
API - Armor-Piercing Incendary
APIT - Armor-Piercing Incendary Tracer
HE - High-Explosive shell
HEI - High-Explosive Incendary shell
HET - High-Explosive with Tracer
HEIT - High-Explosive Incendary Tracer
MG - M-Geschoss, thin-shell High Explosive

such line destinated the sequence of shells/bullets:
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API


Table itself.
==========================


Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

M4
// HET - (APT/HET)

HET
mass = 0.604
speed = 612.0
power = 0.044

MG 131
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.035
speed = 710.0
power = 0.00148

AP
mass = 0.034
speed = 750.0
power = 0

MG 15
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.0128
speed = 760.0
power = 0

MG 151
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.057
speed = 960.0
power = 0.0019

AP
mass = 0.072
speed = 859.0
power = 0

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

MG 17
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 810.0
power = 0

MG 81
// AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 920.0
power = 0

MG/FF
// APIT - HE - HE - MG

APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 585.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 690.0
power = 0.0186

MK 103
// APT - MG - MG - HE

APT
mass = 0.502
speed = 752.0
power = 0.0

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 900.0
power = 0.072

HE
mass = 0.455
speed = 800.0
power = 0.024

MK 108
// HEIT - MG

HEIT
mass = 0.455
speed = 500.0
power = 0.024

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 525.0
power = 0.072

NS-37
// HEIT - APT

HEIT
mass = 0.735
speed = 900.0
power = 0.0406

APT
mass = 0.760
speed = 880.0
power = 0

NS-45
// HEIT - AP

HEIT
mass = 1.065
speed = 780.0
power = 0.052

AP
mass = 1.000
speed = 850.0
power = 0.0

PaK40
// HEIT

HEIT
mass = 6.800
speed = 770.0
power = 0.680

ShKAS
// APIT - API - T - API

APIT
mass = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0.0005

API
mass = 0.0096
speed = 871.0
power = 0.0005

T
massa = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0

ShVAK
// APIT - HE

APIT
mass = 0.096
speed = 800.0
power = 0.001

HE
mass = 0.0676
speed = 800.0
power = 0.0068

UBS / UBT
// APIT - AP - HEI

APIT
mass = 0.0448
speed = 850.0
power = 0.001

AP
mass = 0.051
speed = 850.0
power = 0

HEI
mass = 0.0428
speed = 850.0
power = (0.00114+0.00128)

VYa
// SIT - API - API

SIT
mass = 0.195
speed = 890.0
power = 0.0156

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008


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

If you'll ask why some bullets has TNT, its because they had explosive in warhead.



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

M_Gunz
09-25-2009, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JTD-I didn't say that radiator damage has just been introduced. I said it is modeled on a Spitfire. I also said if you wish to _know_ more you can contact FatCat_99. No need for making assumptions.

I've checked, the belting of the .50 is APIT-AP-HE-AP. That's a fact now, not an iIrc. If you have not received this information, your communication with Oleg may not have been as good as you thought.
-----


Hya JTD,

As I said before this is an old sim and has obviously changed over the the years. The information I recieved was good for the timeframe it was delivered in. The only assumption I see is thinking that coolant system damage modeling is "generally there" and that .50cal API / APIT rounds are working properly in IL2.

.

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less than a year ago Fatcat let out that the radiators are modeled. He would be the one to ask, not JtD, unless you don't
want a real based-on-the-code-and-data answer that's for sure going to be hard to dispute. Fatcat is a Daidalos member.