View Full Version : F4F`s sink ships with only 50 cals

03-05-2007, 02:04 PM





(in order now)


03-05-2007, 02:06 PM
Must be a shipment of Tiger tanks

03-05-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Must be a shipment of Tiger tanks


03-05-2007, 02:21 PM
Sorry, modelling AC to those specs is not possible due pleabargain with grumman http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

03-05-2007, 02:27 PM

03-05-2007, 03:10 PM
FINALLY, an original source reference.

03-05-2007, 03:42 PM
LOL, I feel better now, knowing the true basis of Grumman's objections to the sim. I always thought box-labelling was a meaningless issue...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


03-05-2007, 04:00 PM
Must be a shipment of Tiger tanks


03-05-2007, 04:56 PM
Many ships were destroyed with naught but 50 cals. Showing it sinking is probably fanciful, but they could easily have been set ablaze by 50 cals, particularly since ships running to Guadalcanal were used as supply/troop ships and laden with ammunition, etc on the decks.

It's also important to note that pilots usually reported attacking ships one size larger than was actually engaged. 2 DDs sunk (furiously burning would be considered a probable sinking (for good reason)) could well have been 2x1000 ton old DDs, or 2x300 ton subchasrers. Another possibility is that the TTs or depth charges could have been hit if they didn't promptly jettison them during air attack (possibly difficult if the decks were crowded).

The tiger tank story as we all know is bogus (cept maybe lighting jerry cans or a towed fuel bowser). DDs, DEs, and PCs are a different matter altogether. They had steel that was not as thick as the thinnest tank armor on the deck, and wasn't hardened like tank armor. It was easily pierced by .50 cal fire. Ships were frequently set ablaze by nothing but .50 cal fire. Any ship hugging the coast near Guadalcanal was a Tokyo Express run (they called it "Cactus Express" at the time, the former was what the censors called it not to give away Guadalcanal's code name, "Cactus"). As such, it was laden with supplies, men, or both.

The scenario is entirely plausible.

03-05-2007, 05:00 PM
100% proofs

03-05-2007, 05:09 PM
This is what happens to a ship laden with cargo bound for japanese troops when hammered by .50 cal API:


Can't tell if that is a wooden Sugar Dog, or a Sugar Charlie Sugar (steel sea truck). I tend to think it's a SCS since the hull is clearly not burning. Note that virtually all warships had wooden decks, however. Regardless, it isn't the hull that is burning, it's the stuff inside. A DD heading to Guadalcanal would have been crowded with men, ammo, food, and possibly fuel (for barges, stoves, etc). That's in addition to extremely flamable torpedos and depth charges. Just one secondary would sink even a large DD if it was a long lance.

03-05-2007, 05:14 PM
Strafing attack by a B-25 on a merchant ship. Note the ship is already heavily smoking before the B-25 even overflies it:


The bottom line is that there is a huge difference between RL damage due to MG fire and what this sim is capable of modeling. In RL damage is progressive. Fire is the worst enemy, and MG fire kills people and sets fires. Many such "sunk" strafed ships might well have limped home or to some sort of safety, but they were effectively "mission killed" none the less.

The notion that even larger ships are somehow unharmed, or trivially harmed, by many thousands of .50 cal rounds is not realistic. I don't think ships should go "poof!" and sink from bombs in PF, much less MG fire. they should, however, catch fire.

03-05-2007, 07:19 PM
It's all academic now, since development has stopped, but maybe a better representation of damaged/destroyed ships would be showing them on fire rather than sinking. IRL, even the most heavily armored battleships had stuff on the deck that would react none to kindly to getting hit with HMG fire, and even the smallest cargo ship wouldn't sink twenty seconds after being hit with a GP bomb.

As it is now, ships have a very simple damage model, and don't even show damage until they are completly destroyed, at which point the immediatly sink.

03-05-2007, 08:38 PM
^^^ I agree completely. I wish they had taken the damaged/smoking state and made it appear at a FAR lower damage threshhold. I also wish sinking took 10-30 minutes instead of 2, lol.

03-05-2007, 09:39 PM

It's also too bad runways can't be cratered for a meaningful amount of time, especially in online battles.

03-05-2007, 09:57 PM
A more practical thing I would have liked to see changed is the durability of light, unprotected guns on ships.

For example, man-operated light flak should be eliminated with very few hits. In the game, it takes a dozen MK108 shells to knock out a single one of these. Realistically, the gun would be scrap metal, the magazine would be on fire, and the operator would be hamburger.

Also, nearby bomb and rocket explosions should knock out flak as well. This does happen in the game, but usually only with direct hits. A gunner standing 5 meters from a SC500 explosion will be just fine.

03-06-2007, 04:21 AM
U.S. military used an over modeled version of the 50 cal in WW II, be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

03-06-2007, 04:54 AM
I wish people would stop talking about '50cal versus ships' being too weak, as if it's the only one that is somehow special.

The weapons in the game all use the same simulation system based on their mass, speed and explosive values. If one weapon is ineffective against ships, they all are.

I guarantee that, if a 50cal can sink ships, cannons should too, and many times better. 37mm and 50mm should be gutting destroyers, but they don't. Lets have whine thread for those.

03-06-2007, 01:06 PM
I think too many of us have been playing too many games where we think destroyed means BOOM and it turns grey, or a ship goes BOOM and it sinks. Many ships and tanks were crippled to the point of being totaled, but not destroyed or sunk in the sense that we see in games or sims.

03-06-2007, 02:08 PM
^^^ spot on.

Immersion would be much inproved if the ground targets---all of them---were more likely to smoke/burn, but less likely to be utterly destroyed.


03-06-2007, 09:33 PM
......why bother.........Luftwaffle whiners rule these fourms so I wont even try http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif........You would think that the mk108 won the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

03-07-2007, 05:25 AM
A more detailed ship damage system would perhaps allow Mistels to do their intended historical job. Too bad that's out of the reach.

03-07-2007, 08:55 AM
Let us not forget about enemy aircraft on the ground and their weird damage modelling, also bridges, silo-buildings, trees http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif etc.

I guess I'll need a monster machine to run it, should ever a simulation with accurate damage models for all objects be released... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


03-07-2007, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
......why bother.........Luftwaffle whiners rule these fourms so I wont even try http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif........You would think that the mk108 won the war http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Let em whine.
In fact all, 100% of the German weapons
lost the war.
No German weapons were "world beaters".
In fact they were beaten by the world.


03-07-2007, 07:45 PM
Read the same thing in a book written by Stanley Johnson called "Queen of the Flattops". ('bout the Battle of the Coral Sea) It actually had a painting depicting the F4Fs straffing the 'Destroyer' and stating it had sunk it (!)

The book I had was probably written during the war as it named the Carrier(s) as 'Carrier X'!
Still a good book, IMHO.

03-07-2007, 08:24 PM
This is why the Geneva Convention forced the discontinuance of the F4F's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

03-08-2007, 06:38 AM
Mint find! LoL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


03-08-2007, 07:22 AM
Agreed more realistic damage models on ground targets would be nice! One can only hope that in SoW this will be taken into consideration!
You just need to compare what it takes to bring a plane down out of the air compared, to what it takes to knock out a static plane, is almost as if it where filled with concrete!
Knocking out ships aaa with gun fire would be fun! But I would say against the big babies still tricky! I think it took a fair number of planes to sink the Yamato didnĀ“t it, and not all got away scratch free. Oh well goes down to the team thing again which so seldom is found online, still far too much everyone for themselves.

03-08-2007, 07:41 AM
A lot of you always want everthing realistically modeled. You got to have priorities. This is a flight sim. You have to keep in mind that everything has te be calculated. The more realistic the dm the more calculations. This takes up much needed pc resources. I would rather have good realistic aircraft dm. Structual damage with its calculations. For instance a bullit in a main wingspar may not breack the wing at first but if you would take a tight turn I could. Ofcourse blowing stuff up does have to look good it should not downgrade the rest of the game. I guess it is all in the compromises.

03-08-2007, 07:49 AM
Ah wrong a good realistic flight sims contains everything, as realistic planes are not going to give you the immersion if everthing else is half hearted. Or do you only see planes out of your cockpit?
If you are happy with realistic planes alone fine, I am not, with computers geting fancier and more powerful more can be expected. After all it is also a market thing if Ubi does not do it some one else might and customers usually do not hang around because of a name but because of what they are geting.
Staying with realistic planes alone is almost like asking to be happy with that ancient game pong when you have a dual core computer!
Of course there will be always compromises but if you do not aim at a 100% you will not get 90% so why settle for 75%??