PDA

View Full Version : Uselessness of 0.50 caliber (12,7 mm)



Pages : [1] 2

U978
05-17-2006, 05:49 AM
Hi all,

I'm flying almost exclusively on wester front servers, and I've been practising the P51D 20NA quite a lot. I know that 0.50 caliber is less effective than the 20 mm cannon that other planes have.

However, I think it is currently way too weak, and very frustrating.
I happened several times to hit Bf-109 G6/AS or G10 about 80 times with 0.50 ammunition and the 109 was still flying nicely (sure, he couldn't do acrobatic manoeuvers anymore, but it could still fly and turn).
A friend of mine, flying a P47D, has put 130 (ok, only 128, actually) rounds in a Focke-Wulf, and the thing could escape (help from his teammate) and land on its base.
We used ingame statistics available on servers like War Clouds to find out how many times we had hit our targets.

Truly enough, I've had a number of lucky hits too, killing the pilot or cutting a cable, but what I want to talk about here is the amount of more common plane damages caused by 0.50.

Quickly, I became frustrated due to the number of hits that I could put in targets and they could still fly, escape, and come back to fight in a more advantageous position without being much affected by my hits.

I assume it's less aproblem on Pacific theaters, since Japanese planes were quite fragile (not all of them were, but still most of them as Jap emphasized more on manoeuvrbility and weight than on protections), but really, I don't know how to enjoy planes with 0.50 ammunition anymore.

I heard that 0.50 was nerfed (don't know when as I made a gaming pause and didn't play a number of patches), and if it's the case, I assume the nerf went too far (like it happens in other games).

There is no comparison possible with the obvious effectiveness of 20 mm ammunition. Not to talk about 30 mm...

What's your opinion?

Capt.LoneRanger
05-17-2006, 05:59 AM
2 short question, before the flaming begins:

1. How do you know it were (<STRIKE>300</STRIKE>) 130 rounds and ALL hit?

2. You ARE aware that Cal50 (12,7mm) is AP or API, which means, they are meant to penetrate the target or maybe set fuel to flame, while 20mm uses a combination of armor-piercing and High-Explosive ammo?

WWSensei
05-17-2006, 06:01 AM
My opinion is that without tracks showing what distance you fired from it's hard to render an opinion.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the .50 cals but then I don't fire from over 150m either. On average for an Fw-190 it takes me from 20-40 actual hits (as counted by the game) to bring one down.

U978
05-17-2006, 06:05 AM
In answer to above posts:

1- we know how many times we hit thanks to ingame server statistics (<gunstat, for those who know about that).
2- Yes, I'm aware about the difference between those ammo (not explosive,...).
3- I am usually firing at my targets from 100 to 250 m, I would say. I don't waste ammo on dots I can barely see, nor on still small planes. I wait them for being quite big (end or page down key, regarding the view). This is quite necessary due to the fact that the guns are in the wings.

Even if not explosive, 80 hits is still a lot for a plane and/or its wings, don't you think?
If it was that ineffective, why did all those US planes keep that ammo?

I frequently put 30 bullets in Bf109 or Focke-Wulfs, but only luck can bring the german planes down with this amount of bullets (pilot kill, control cables, or with the 109, hitting the engine cooling system). That is my experience with teh P-51D and the P-47D.

HotelBushranger
05-17-2006, 06:12 AM
20mm isn't the be all and end all of ammunition. Also, 20mm was usually HE, and IIRC Spitfires used a 50/50 HE/AP combo.

.50 calibre ammunition was all sorts of stuff, someone posted up a table yonks ago showing the .50 had about 10-20 possible type rounds.

Don't be expecting wing shears and explosions for every kill, in real life that didn't happen as much as playing Il-2 would have you think. .50 cals do more to kill pilots, knock out surfaces and kill engines.

My advice is practise some more with .50s only, and see how you go after a while. Personally, I have no problem with .50s.

U978
05-17-2006, 06:20 AM
I agree, practise always help to impove.
But I'm speaking about hits already scored.
And I aim for the wings too (the engine is hard to get from behind the ennemy, and I'm behind the ennemy in almost all cases).

Vipez-
05-17-2006, 06:23 AM
If you compare weapon powers for their real life counterparts, probably all weapons are undermodelled in firepower.. I've read, that according to OKL statistics on eastern front it took only average 1.3 20 mm rounds to down a VVS fighter. Dunno how accurate this is, but I've also heard from Ky¶sti Karhila about his two PE-2 kills, with only two cannon ammo rounds spent. Offcourse, it depends when you hit the bad guy. I can list many other examples. Point is, this is usually not possible in the game.

However, imho this is mostly because of game balance, after all in real life gun accurasy was probably something like below 1-2 % on average. In game there is no problems archieving over 20 % gun accurasy. All weapons are undermodelled, but perhaps you should focus more on your gun accurasy, and you won't be having this problem. Why this talk allways gets focused on browing .50cal is beyond me.. I would not want to get more powerfull guns, it could really turn the dogfighting into arcade dogfighting (unless it allready is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif )

U978
05-17-2006, 06:29 AM
Vipez,

Allright, I understand what you mean and don't want arcade either.

But I can't believe it when I see a 109 or a 190 going back home without much problems after being hit by 80 (I also mentionned the 130 bullets on a FW).

Lets put it this way: on servers with experienced pilots using teamspeak, the ammo effectiveness makes a big difference. You can't spend much time after a single target or you'll get shot by his teammates.
And I get frustrated being killed in a single pass by 20 or 30mm, and needing so much ammunition to down 109s and 190s in average.

To compare with when I fly a Tempest, I usually down targets in a single pass too.

Btw, the P51Ds and P47s that I fly when playing online are in no way dogfighters... The only dogfighter I happen to fly is the Spit, for the moment, and it has 20 mm.

I'd be happy to be convinced by you that I'm wrong, and to get some hopes back for the P51D. But right know, you know my personal experience.

Bearcat99
05-17-2006, 07:13 AM
Actually the P-51 isnt as bad as it was... and I have made 109s explode with 1 second bursts.... and often set the engine smoking with the same... I think as thewy are they are manageable..... even if they could have more punch.. I know in the jugs I set my convergence to 175-225.... with a difference of 5m between inboard a & outboard... on Mustangs it is usually @200... works well for me.

darkhorizon11
05-17-2006, 08:07 AM
Hmmm .50 cals weak? No wonder the P-47 had eight of em! U, this has been beaten to death on these forums...

I should point out that FB (in its greatness) models range as well what the ammo is itself. Therefore this is a huge factor in the game trying pumping that many shots into a 109 at close range and see what happens as Bearcat pointed out.

Brain32
05-17-2006, 09:11 AM
You fired, you hit, you removed your opponent from the battle and prevented him to act - job done. If you want to blow planes to pieces try flying planes with cannon, end of story.

U978
05-17-2006, 09:55 AM
Thanks all for your replies.

Brain32, the content of your post doesn't help with my frustration, but I must say I like the philosophy behind and agrees with it (especially when I'm out of the game lol).

Chuck_Older
05-17-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by U978:
Hi all,

I'm flying almost exclusively on wester front servers, and I've been practising the P51D 20NA quite a lot. I know that 0.50 caliber is less effective than the 20 mm cannon that other planes have.

However, I think it is currently way too weak, and very frustrating.
I happened several times to hit Bf-109 G6/AS or G10 about 80 times with 0.50 ammunition and the 109 was still flying nicely (sure, he couldn't do acrobatic manoeuvers anymore, but it could still fly and turn).
A friend of mine, flying a P47D, has put 130 (ok, only 128, actually) rounds in a Focke-Wulf, and the thing could escape (help from his teammate) and land on its base.
We used ingame statistics available on servers like War Clouds to find out how many times we had hit our targets.

Truly enough, I've had a number of lucky hits too, killing the pilot or cutting a cable, but what I want to talk about here is the amount of more common plane damages caused by 0.50.

Quickly, I became frustrated due to the number of hits that I could put in targets and they could still fly, escape, and come back to fight in a more advantageous position without being much affected by my hits.

I assume it's less aproblem on Pacific theaters, since Japanese planes were quite fragile (not all of them were, but still most of them as Jap emphasized more on manoeuvrbility and weight than on protections), but really, I don't know how to enjoy planes with 0.50 ammunition anymore.

I heard that 0.50 was nerfed (don't know when as I made a gaming pause and didn't play a number of patches), and if it's the case, I assume the nerf went too far (like it happens in other games).

There is no comparison possible with the obvious effectiveness of 20 mm ammunition. Not to talk about 30 mm...

What's your opinion?

My opinion:

The fragile IJA and IJN planes we have still resist .30 and .50 cal hits

Everyone assumes the .50 is too weak. You read online the .50 was "nerfed". Well, you're reading online right now that I'm a billionaire? Want to bet that my bank account has less than 3K in it?

What you're seeing isn't the fault of your guns. You are seeing effects from your hits if you see a plane that can't maneuver well. You know this already. But what you don't seem to understand is that two things are at work here:

1) weapon effectiveness
2) aircraft damage model

Now let me ask a question here:

When you land 80 rounds of .50 on a Bf 109, how many did you fire? What was your hit percentage? Knowing your raw hits is fine, but if you landed 80 rounds out of 320, my response is to check convergance and/or range you fire from

Firing at 150m is great but if it's not a range you can get consistent hits from, you are just peppering the enemy instead of puring lead into him


The Fw190 is not some flimsy wispy aircraft, and it used electrical controls for a lot of things other planes used cables for.

This thing you are talking about is precisely the reason that so many pilots were denied victories. These planes are warplanes; they are tough. The damage model on some of them may be generous. Also bear in mid that soem aircraft that are 'older' in the sim (not chronologically but ones that have not been added in the last few years) have simplified damage modeling that in my opinion gives them an advantage. Take the P.11 for example

DuxCorvan
05-17-2006, 10:52 AM
Well, P.11c really needs that, having those porked -in Il-2- punch 7,92s, with that porked -in real life- spray-and-pray convergence pattern. But don't get fooled by its old design: P.11 was really a very tough bird of the early thirties, with rugged metal structure and surfacing, not some puny fabric-covered plane from the twenties.

BTW, grampa: 3.000$? You are a billionaire! I have less than 500 bucks right now, and it's a good month... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Scen
05-17-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by U978:
Vipez,

Allright, I understand what you mean and don't want arcade either.

But I can't believe it when I see a 109 or a 190 going back home without much problems after being hit by 80 (I also mentionned the 130 bullets on a FW).

Lets put it this way: on servers with experienced pilots using teamspeak, the ammo effectiveness makes a big difference. You can't spend much time after a single target or you'll get shot by his teammates.
And I get frustrated being killed in a single pass by 20 or 30mm, and needing so much ammunition to down 109s and 190s in average.

To compare with when I fly a Tempest, I usually down targets in a single pass too.

Btw, the P51Ds and P47s that I fly when playing online are in no way dogfighters... The only dogfighter I happen to fly is the Spit, for the moment, and it has 20 mm.

I'd be happy to be convinced by you that I'm wrong, and to get some hopes back for the P51D. But right know, you know my personal experience.

Perception is everything my friend... I suggest you try the Blue Side on War Clouds for an evening. I don't think the problem is thier hitting power any more. It used to be attributed to wobbles and of course the huge syncing problem. IMO after being hit by 50s you might change your mind.

Also keep in mind you might not be hitting in critical areas. Wing Roots, Cockpits, Engine, are much better places to concetrate your fire.

If your hits are spread all over the plane it might not be enough to bring him down.

In addition when flying online vs real life we tend to pursue our foe until he'd dead when in reality you would hit him see that he's out of the fight and move on.

VW-IceFire
05-17-2006, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by U978:
Thanks all for your replies.

Brain32, the content of your post doesn't help with my frustration, but I must say I like the philosophy behind and agrees with it (especially when I'm out of the game lol).
I think Brain32 has got it right here...if the guy is out of the fight then thats objective accomplished. I find often, with a server like WarClouds with that style of setting, that when flying a .50cal armed aircraft that I more often get "Aircraft Destroyed" messages and "NS-Ice shot down XXX" long after I've left the battle and am usually on my way home. Usually because you've shot the guy and he landed, or you shot the guy and he flew away and then lost control and crashed, or you shot him and his engine cooked a few minutes later and crashed or bailed.

Its not satisfying but it did achieve the objective. Not everyone can accept that either and I understand coming from the instant gratification society myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In terms of the situation you found yourself in I would "agree" that the .50cal is not effective enough...but its not weak. It works perfectly well and is a very good weapon but the problem is in the way that it deals damage to a target we're missing some stuff. We're missing exploding ammo boxes, we're missing radiator damage (only the IL-2 experiences this damage), and we're missing structural failure caused after the fact by battle damage and G loading.

This game doesn't do them but we know that the next game probably will and I think the experience will improve even when Oleg may tell us that the bullet physics are essentially unchanged.

So personally my feeling is this...the weapon has been well tweaked and in the right situation its very effective so your job is to create as many "right" situations as you can humanly create. This means that when you hit your target you try your best (above and beyond) to hit the areas that you can damage. Ignore the radiator...we know that doesn't work...aim for the engine as thats a nice big and juicy target on most planes. Nail a 109 in the engine a few times and he's done for. For Focke Wulfs...concenrate on getting an angle shot on the rear fuselage and puncture the fuel tank...his fuel will bleed dry in 4 minutes or less and he's toast. In the process of doing this...you usually cause damage to multiple areas and the fight is over much quicker. But it is difficult when the guy knows your there and your getting glancing blows...and I know how it feels...been there. You just have to try and get the shots that count and realize that a single .50cal to a bit of the tip of the wing isn't counting for much.

FatBoyHK
05-17-2006, 03:40 PM
Believe me, 50cals is fine. Of course it is not a very powerful weapon, but it really get the job done. Learn about the fact that an air victory does not necessarily be an air kill.

Contrary to the general practice most people would suggest to you, I <span class="ev_code_RED">WOULD NOT </span> shoot until I am quite close and quite sure to make a solid hit, despite the good user-friendlness and large amount of ammo of 50cals.

Yes you can shoot early, and spray non-stop, to land quite a number of hits on your target, but quite often you would achieve nothing spectecular, instead you just warned him about your presence with some door-knockers.

Instead of doing that I will surprise my target, give one burst in close range, and fly away. By doing this, combined with a short convegence setting, you will put a few but significant amount of hits in a small area, which is quite often what it takes to bring it down or put it completely out of the fight.

My average number of hits required to bring down a 109 (a confrimed kill) is below 20. If I give someone more than 30 hits and he is still flying, I will iqnore them as I know he is no longer a threat, let him fy back home peacefully and I will get the credit.

However, no matter how you use 50cals, I think it is powerful enough to give you results. It was certainly bad in v401, but not anymore.

FritzGryphon
05-17-2006, 04:08 PM
I happened several times to hit Bf-109 G6/AS or G10 about 80 times with 0.50 ammunition and the 109 was still flying nicely

I have to doubt this number too, as it's about 4x the average hits to shoot down a plane of that type. Lag might be a factor, or bad luck, but still unlikely.

If it's a guess, I'd point out that the estimated number of hits is usually much less than how much you actually got.

When I've tried to estimate, I find I exaggerate by double or more. Only user stats will give you an accurate number.

As for comparison of M2 to Hispano, it is found to be about 3-5 : 1 by fourm members who have done tests. Depending on plane, with more flammable and poorly armored planes being more vulnerable to MG.

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2006, 04:11 PM
I've gotten good results at 200-250m from deflection shots raking nose to mid-fuselage behind
the cockpit. The plane flies on but before I can line up another pass it is going down or
losing control. Pilot armor is best front and rear, not the sides. Pilot is the weak link.

Really it takes not only tracks but arcade=1 to begin judging hits and damage.

The weapons must be very close to right since relative velocity of projectile and target,
projectile mass, angle of hit and drag are all modelled. For a while it was thought that HE
blast was weak but then 151/20 ammo mix was corrected, blast effect is modelled some ways.

We have less than super detailed DM's though, but still 'find better!'. There is not stress
on damaged structure. Parts seem to take damage right up till completely destroyed which AP
is less good at. Fire 109 gunpods only to see what a high amount of AP does for 20mm, that
is the old 151/20 ammo mix that had people yelling for two years, it really is not so good
except for strongly armored planes which is by history. The gunpods mix is what they used
because of IL-2's.

Can you play online with arcade=1? Would be funny to see the arrows on the planes.

WTE_Galway
05-17-2006, 08:53 PM
whats the ROF of a .50 cal ? seems to me your 80 shots would equate to a single quarter second burst from 8 x 0.50 cal in convergence

you also really need to be more specific about where the shots came from

80 .50 cal shots hitting from 250 metres (with convergence set to something else entirely) dead six so they either skim the wing surface and glance off or slam into the heavy armor plate behind the pilot should be lucky to even cause a fuel leak

the same 80 shots with convergence set to 50 or 100 metres, at high deflection into the engine and cockpit, or straight into the belly from beneath, or side on into the wing root as he turns and has the wing loaded .. would be a totally different scenario

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2006, 09:52 PM
80 hits if gunstat is any measure.

chris455
05-18-2006, 12:17 AM
(holds thumb and forefingers together and chants: )
"Harmonization................. harmonization.................. harmonization................."

Convergence is EVERYTHING with .50's.



"

U978
05-18-2006, 02:28 AM
I'm glad to say you are convincing me... That gives me hopes and I will give flying time to the P-51 again.

Treetop64
05-18-2006, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
80 .50 cal shots hitting from 250 metres (with convergence set to something else entirely) dead six so they either skim the wing surface and glance off or slam into the heavy armor plate behind the pilot should be lucky to even cause a fuel leak

the same 80 shots with convergence set to 50 or 100 metres, at high deflection into the engine and cockpit, or straight into the belly from beneath, or side on into the wing root as he turns and has the wing loaded .. would be a totally different scenario

This is a very important point to consider. Not sure if this is actually modelled in game, but I would assume that not every hit actually penetrates the skin of the aircraft, especially if you're firing from behind the aircraft you're shooting at. Scoring hits from high deflection shots is a different story, however...

Vrabac
05-18-2006, 03:24 AM
As someone who usually ends up on the receiving end, I assure you .50 cal hurts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Honestly. Of course, it can't make critical structural damage as 20mm can, but it hurts a lot. Problem is IMHO that in RL people didn't often have friendly AF 5 kilometers away, nor were they often in position to fly a damaged plane (and live to draw conclusions from I mean), so when they were hit they bailed. Or lost control and died. Anyway, RL was in many aspects waaaaaay different from typical online dogfight, so machine guns in general can seem weaker than they actually effectively were.

For example, when you see 109 trailing thin smoke, he's basically out of fight. In RL he would be happy if he managed to get to friendly territory, let alone airfield. In BoB scenario, he wouldn't be able to cross the channel. But in the game it's different because first of all every plane in 10km radius will swarm on anyone who's smoking and basically steal the kill, second the one smoking doesn't really care since he only needs to hit refly and will continue fighting to the end, third if he decides to get away he'll very probably not only be able to bail over friendly territory, but actually LAND on an airfield and no kill yor you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

carguy_
05-18-2006, 05:52 AM
Commie bastid Vrabac is right.
If you persuade online pilots to bail how it was done in real life,50cal will be very effective.


As for my personal opinion Gibbage ruined them awfully pressing Oleg to make point instead of box convergence.

As for online practice,I`m afraid of .50cal more than any calibre smaller than 30mm.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
05-18-2006, 06:01 AM
I think that 0.50 cals are good weapon here. Someone written here, that only few shots were needed to down a fighter in rl, and I know why. Pilots werent waiting until their plane explode, wing will rip off or something else, some pilots would jump just if they hear that they were hit. Only we can take so much risk, rl pilots nothttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
05-18-2006, 06:16 AM
...he'll very probably not only be able to bail over friendly territory, but actually LAND on an airfield and no kill yor you.
But you do get the kill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, many times while I was flying P51, on my way home I saw a message "XXXX is on the ground safe and sound" and then "Enemy aircraft destroyed" messsage popped out. Also if you want to force your opponent to rtb ASASP aim for the wings, you need less than 10 shots placed in the wing of the 109 or 190 to make flying and fighting in it suicidal, sometimes even landing is impossible because the damaged wing drops very violently...

Vrabac
05-18-2006, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...he'll very probably not only be able to bail over friendly territory, but actually LAND on an airfield and no kill yor you.
But you do get the kill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, many times while I was flying P51, on my way home I saw a message "XXXX is on the ground safe and sound" and then "Enemy aircraft destroyed" messsage popped out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes, but you know that's "not it". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif My typical reaction is "damn, he landed!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142_Astro
05-18-2006, 09:09 AM
Hi U978,

Well the .50s seem to be fairly close to what they were documented to be in real life. I think more of your problem relates to the Damage Model of the 2 main opponents you mentioned. Simply put, there is a bug in this game, intentional or not, that allows the 109 and 190 to absorb too much damage from dead astern. I've not once read an allied account saying that the best way to bring down these super birds was to avoid shooting dead six and try some fancy engine shot. In fact, quite the opposite. Don Blakeslee has said numerous times the best way ways to fly right up their butt and let them have it. There are many accounts of the results of firing on either of these a/c with .50s in the dead astern position....and it wasn't pretty.

The reason I point towards the DM of these two a/c is from the experience of 1,000's of online engagements my wingman and I have been in. Often we laugh and count the number of 20mm cannon hits that ships like the 109G2 can soak up and remain airborne. Often times, it is quite comical. I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should. Yes, a small wing hit to the 190 does remove some speed and its razor edge of handling, but I submit that its damage model is still very simplifed to this day and hope for something far better in BOOB. (That's a tribute to the UBI marketing crew)

As for late model 109s that supposedly had wooden tail sections, again, something wrong with their DM. Maybe the Jerries imported OlegWood towards the end there.

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

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/aablakeslee.jpg

Brain32
05-18-2006, 09:18 AM
Standard "I fly only one plane and not anything else" BS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. 109 is one of the fragilest planes in the game, 190 is quite strudy but nothing spectacular. The same story you just shared with us happens on the Blue side very often, Spits, P51's, Tempest's etc, etc. Fly both and you will see exceptions simply happen, once I shot FW190D 22 times with my Tempest and it was still flying, other time one burst was enough, I have thousands of such examples with various plane combinations...

Chuck_Older
05-18-2006, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, P.11c really needs that, having those porked -in Il-2- punch 7,92s, with that porked -in real life- spray-and-pray convergence pattern. But don't get fooled by its old design: P.11 was really a very tough bird of the early thirties, with rugged metal structure and surfacing, not some puny fabric-covered plane from the twenties.

BTW, grampa: 3.000$? You are a billionaire! I have less than 500 bucks right now, and it's a good month... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

yeah but where you live 500 bucks is a fortune. I'm surprised you're not a King

StellarRat
05-18-2006, 11:15 AM
Since 4.04 the .50s are quite good. Most of my kills are with less than one second burst (in P-47). The trick is to set you convergence short like 125m and fire only when the enemy covers your gunsight ring.

Bremspropeller
05-18-2006, 11:27 AM
http://www.dooya.schildersmilies.de/fred_ww.gif

justflyin
05-18-2006, 02:08 PM
Great points, some not-so-great.

I will only add that "who" you are shooting at online has much to do with how much damage you inflict. Make of that what you will.

Gibbage1
05-18-2006, 02:15 PM
This is my view.

I fly the P-38 a lot. Almost exclusivly. The 4 .50's in the nose only "tickl" the enemy. The 20MM will put them down.

Everyone seems to agree that 3 .50's = 1 20MM. I agree with that also. But in IL2, the P-38's 4 .50 cal are about HALF as powerfull as the 1 20MM.

Using the .50's only, I need to hose them down for a good 2 second birst before I get good results. The 20MM only needs to hit 2-3 times before the enemy is dead. Thats a huge differance. Sure, every now and then the .50 cal will hit something critical, but the single 20MM is much more powerfull then all 4 .50 cal's and it should not be that way.

I dont think that the .50 cal is undermodeled. Its not that easy. I think AP ammo is useless in IL2's DM, and HE rounds are overmodeled by a lot. Why do I say the AP's are useless? Anyone that flew the P-39 before FB will tell you, the 37MM AP shell was USELESS!!!!!!!! I remember countless times watching the AP shell go RIGHT THROUGH a 109's engine block and causing only a little smoke. The P-39 before FB had a AP/HE loadout and every other shell was useless. I got into the habbit of firing off the AP round into the air just so the next time I hit, I would hit with something that could actually do damage.

AP rounds in general are handi-capped in IL2 due to its DM. I dont think its just the .50 cal thats weak, but almost any non-AP round.

StellarRat
05-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Gibbage has hit the problem on the head. API rounds would cause a lot more fires and even an occasional explosion in the gas tanks or ammo magazines IF they were included and the effects modeled correctly. I think modeled as straight AP they working about as well as can be expected. You can see the possiblities if you consider how many times you see a plane streaming fuel after you've shot it up with .50s and then imagine that it would be BURNING fuel far more often with API hits.

I think Oleg will address this in BOB along with true gun harmonization (you can set the pattern you want instead of the just the convergence.)

mortoma1958
05-18-2006, 03:38 PM
I always feel frustrated when shooting something ( heck, anything ) with .50 BMG. But I did happen to shoot down 3 109-G10s in about 35 seconds the other night. That was in a Razorback using all eight barrels too though. So it's hard to say one way or another if the ammo is nerfed in game. Sometimes I'd say yes, sometimes no. Depends on my mood and my success at the time.

OldMan____
05-18-2006, 04:31 PM
You can´t take worst case scenarios and use them to evaluate the game.

I also had cases when in my FW i landed 37 20 mm hits (after the 151/20- got corrected) on a tempest and it kept flying and out turned me(I enganged to turn since I beleived a so crippled palne would not turn). This is obviously also unlikely to happen in real life.. but I cannot judge the game from such a single episode.

Chuck_Older
05-18-2006, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by mortoma1958:
I always feel frustrated when shooting something ( heck, anything ) with .50 BMG. But I did happen to shoot down 3 109-G10s in about 35 seconds the other night. That was in a Razorback using all eight barrels too though. So it's hard to say one way or another if the ammo is nerfed in game. Sometimes I'd say yes, sometimes no. Depends on my mood and my success at the time.

If you had been a real Jug pilot in the war, and did that, your squadmates would say you had a very good day, and then have a celebration http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I'm not really seeing the historical inacurracy in your example

WTE_Galway
05-18-2006, 06:33 PM
This tread inspired me to take a P51 for a spin offline, my current campaigns are hurricanes, J8's and an F2 so I havent flown .50 cal bird for a long while

To be honest i found them quite effective, especially compared to the 15mm cannon in the Emil/F2 (poor ROF and soso damage)and the .303 of the hurricane. I even managed to take a wing completely off a 109 about a metre out from the root with a single well place burst.

One thing I did observe was that convergence was critical and good rudder control important.

Directly comparing .50 cal with 20mm based on the assumption that "20 is only a little bit bigger than 12.7" is just silly. One look at a photo showing the relative sizes of the ammo will tell you a 20mm round is substantially bigger than a .50 cal round plus the 20mm is usually explosive.

How .50 cal rates compared to its historical equivalent I am not sure .. but in terms of game balance it seems as good or better than its similiar calibre competition.

CUJO_1970
05-18-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should. Yes, a small wing hit to the 190 does remove some speed and its razor edge of handling


My bull****-o-meter just went off the charts.

HellToupee
05-18-2006, 09:15 PM
i been on the receving end in a 190d9 with a p51 and 47 shooting me, i wasnt manoving much since i had no elevators from flak dammage but eventually they ran outa ammo and friends arrived :P

I think the problem is with all AP rounds in general, eg with hispano often u see the ap rounds hit(no explosion just debrees) and generally no results at all. Most of time shooting someone down is a matter of brut force where he rounds > ap. U dont seem to see planes on fire till they are going down in peices, things like ammo magazines arnt modeled.


I even managed to take a wing completely off a 109 about a metre out from the root with a single well place burst.

events like that tho its about consistancy, in a mustang 3 i dewinged a ju87 in one pass and shot off the wing of a 190 at long range in a single hit in the same sortie but have i repeated that ever no.

At the moment i would choose a the arment of a g2 over the p51 spitfire over the 47, in the p38 favour the single cannon over 4 .50s.

Esel1964
05-18-2006, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Actually the P-51 isnt as bad as it was... and I have made 109s explode with 1 second bursts.... and often set the engine smoking with the same... I think as thewy are they are manageable..... even if they could have more punch.. I know in the jugs I set my convergence to 175-225.... with a difference of 5m between inboard a & outboard... on Mustangs it is usually @200... works well for me.

Bearcat,just out of curiosity;are those convergence settings of historical significance,or personal preference?

Just wondered if you'd been given inside info by a veteran. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GR142_Astro
05-19-2006, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should. Yes, a small wing hit to the 190 does remove some speed and its razor edge of handling


My bull****-o-meter just went off the charts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good for you. This place needs more charts.

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

GH_Klingstroem
05-19-2006, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Commie bastid Vrabac is right.
If you persuade online pilots to bail how it was done in real life,50cal will be very effective.


As for my personal opinion Gibbage ruined them awfully pressing Oleg to make point instead of box convergence.

As for online practice,I`m afraid of .50cal more than any calibre smaller than 30mm.

Carguy can you explain that "point instead of box convergence"!?
I too have a feeling that unless your enemy is exactly at the small dot of your gunsite, most of your rounds will miss with the 0.50s. However, using a spitfire or a hurricane with the weaker .303s I am far more successful scoring hits, but they are so weak so you need lots of hits... And they have a different spread dont they?
If the .50s were the same I have a feeling a lot more hits would be scored!!

Ratsack
05-19-2006, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Hi U978,



The reason I point towards the DM of these two a/c is from the experience of 1,000's of online engagements my wingman and I have been in. Often we laugh and count the number of 20mm cannon hits that ships like the 109G2 can soak up and remain airborne. Often times, it is quite comical. I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should...

The problem with on-line damage appraisals is that the damage is client-side. If your opponent's computer doesn't register the hit, it doesn't matter what you see on your monitor. This means that you will often see 'hits', particularly cannon rounds exploding, and be left wondering why the baddy is still flying on. In the meantime, the bandit on the receiving end hasn't registered your hits and is laughing at your cr@ppy shooting.

That said, I think the problem with machine guns is the lack of complexity in the damage model. I just don't think that on-line is the place to test it.

cheers,
Ratsack

rnzoli
05-19-2006, 05:49 AM
I think this client-side issue is the way around.

You shoot and your PC evaluates the damage done by your own shooting. Then it sends the results over the net, e.g, to the PC of the target.

This way, only the actual damage result has to go across the net, not the trajectory of all your bullets.

This is amply demonstrated by lag effect - banding shooting waaay behind you, you laugh about his poor deflection shooting skills and then suddenly you get a PK.

edit: BTW, I have been in situations, when many, more than 10-15 20mm shells hit my Corsair and my friend swore that something is wrong with the net connection, because "I shouln't be flying anymore..." In fact, there was nothing wrong, I heard and saw all his hits on my plane ("registered"), it did lots of damage, but the damage was spread across my whole plane, meaning everything was damaged, but not critically, so I could even land.

VW-IceFire
05-19-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
You can´t take worst case scenarios and use them to evaluate the game.

I also had cases when in my FW i landed 37 20 mm hits (after the 151/20- got corrected) on a tempest and it kept flying and out turned me(I enganged to turn since I beleived a so crippled palne would not turn). This is obviously also unlikely to happen in real life.. but I cannot judge the game from such a single episode.
Wow...thats far out. Not disputing what you're saying there but any good hit in the wing fuel tanks, the engine, the nose fuel tank or the tail section should have shredded that Tempest. They are decently tough but not like the American fighters. I've seen this happen too...I wonder if its just random chance or (if it was online) some lag playing up...no idea.

carguy_
05-19-2006, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Carguy can you explain that "point instead of box convergence"!?
I too have a feeling that unless your enemy is exactly at the small dot of your gunsite, most of your rounds will miss with the 0.50s. However, using a spitfire or a hurricane with the weaker .303s I am far more successful scoring hits, but they are so weak so you need lots of hits... And they have a different spread dont they?
If the .50s were the same I have a feeling a lot more hits would be scored!!


Yes,in 4.05m 50cal macineguns converge at a certain "dot" in which you have to place the enemy plane and you score a kill.Point convergence was mostly used by aces but the box one was the most used.

So if you see tracers yu have convergence image

box :::

point *.


Gibbage pressed Oleg to make the second as box was default FB convergence.Back then people moaned about every bit of 50cal to make it right.I don`t think anyone of us knew that the real problem was synced tracers until P40 field mod got flyable.People though the spread of bullets rendered 50cal weak.That was not it.If we had box conv ight now unsyced we would have a perfect weapon.

Big caliber weapons focus on hiting few times wil big strenght,little caliber multiple weapons focus on hitting all over the plane`s desired part ofairframe.Right now we have 50cal cannon oriented.That makes no sense,unless you fly a plane that has all its armament in the nose as P38.P51/P47/P40 suffer greatly from this.Spitfires have machineguns all over the wing so point convergence is hard to make.


.50cal is highly effective up to 220m,whereas .303 need to be used from max 70m.Above 300m all you can do with machineguns is scare the enemy or score a very lucky engine hit on planes like Bf109.

Look up the guncams with .50cal used.If you hit the plane from upper dead six you got hits spread all over the mid tail section scoring multiple hits on eerything that is placed there - control cables,fuel tank,etc.
Straffing guncams also show box convergence.

And lets be straight here.
120 hits of 13mm fire focused on a 30cm circle of airframe will always make external structure destruction less then 3 20mm HE/AP rounds.

To add to that all 50cal are AP.

GH_Klingstroem
05-19-2006, 06:55 AM
Thats exactly what I always felt with the .50s! If they had the same spread as the .303s then they would make more damage! As it is now your target has to be exactly where the dot on the gunsight is or you will miss!
Any chance of them to change it to "box" instead of "point" convergence??

Brain32
05-19-2006, 07:00 AM
Believe me, 7 out of 10 pilots will stale in "friendly air" (usually over airbase) as long as they can some even land and wont hit refly untill I land.
I would never fly on a server like that, that kind of acting is stupid and foolish because P51 has waaaaaaaaay more fuel than any Axis plane. BTW I rarely if ever shoot the planes to total distruction even when flying cannon equipped planes, sometimes it just happens but I usually let people go after damaging them heavily, chasing them all the way down is stupid and ammo wasting...

mortoma1958
05-19-2006, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma1958:
I always feel frustrated when shooting something ( heck, anything ) with .50 BMG. But I did happen to shoot down 3 109-G10s in about 35 seconds the other night. That was in a Razorback using all eight barrels too though. So it's hard to say one way or another if the ammo is nerfed in game. Sometimes I'd say yes, sometimes no. Depends on my mood and my success at the time.

If you had been a real Jug pilot in the war, and did that, your squadmates would say you had a very good day, and then have a celebration http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I'm not really seeing the historical inacurracy in your example </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said there was any inaccuracy, was just trying to say there are times I'm not sure. Sometimes I can't seem to down stuff, sometimes I down things easily.

Brain32
05-19-2006, 08:34 AM
And gave up on that server because they have banned me for no reason on comms

Well the entire Croatian T-Com ip range is banned because one of our morons who misbehaved on comms http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I'm on "Iskon", so I'm not banned...

Bearcat99
05-19-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Esel1964:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Actually the P-51 isnt as bad as it was... and I have made 109s explode with 1 second bursts.... and often set the engine smoking with the same... I think as thewy are they are manageable..... even if they could have more punch.. I know in the jugs I set my convergence to 175-225.... with a difference of 5m between inboard a & outboard... on Mustangs it is usually @200... works well for me.

Bearcat,just out of curiosity;are those convergence settings of historical significance,or personal preference?

Just wondered if you'd been given inside info by a veteran. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From many accounts that I have read and a few Airmen I met.. most of them said that convergence was set between 175-200.. I set my jugs the way I do (with the 8 50s you can set the inboard & outboard guns) because I figured that a difference of 5m or less between inboard and outboard would do more damage with more concentrated fire than say.. a difference of 25(where I used to have it set) meters.. which can basically almost give you the fire of two 4 gunned planes in a Jug when you think about it..

Simes06
05-19-2006, 12:32 PM
You think the American planes with .50's had problems??

You should try shooting anything down with a Fiat G50...Jeez!!

SB-2's, I-16's, I-153's all go flying away without a care in the world, knowing I can empty my whole ammo pack into them and just about scratch the paintwork.

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

chris455
05-19-2006, 02:19 PM
Standard USAAF practice was to harmonize @ 1000' (304.8m). This is actually a good convergence range for the .50s, but I like using the "personal range index" better.
Of course, not all pilots did so.
Crew chiefs are wonderful people when it comes to tinkering.

Red_Storm
05-19-2006, 02:23 PM
I often wonder if the people whining about the .50s ever fly any other type of aeroplane in this game. Today I scored twelve (12) countable (that means I saw the explosion) MK108 hits on a P-47D while flying an Me-262A-1a and all the damage it did was blow off one of her elevators.

I then continued to hunt a P-47D Razorback, which took eight countable hits to lose a wing, after which I went after its teammate, another P-47D razorback, which I scored four hits on before running out of ammo, making me crawl back to base on all fours like a doggie.

I recall another mission where it took half of my Do-335 MK-103 ammo to down a P-51 and how it often takes over twenty or thirty MG-151/20 hits to take down any plane in the book.

OldMan____
05-19-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
You can´t take worst case scenarios and use them to evaluate the game.

I also had cases when in my FW i landed 37 20 mm hits (after the 151/20- got corrected) on a tempest and it kept flying and out turned me(I enganged to turn since I beleived a so crippled palne would not turn). This is obviously also unlikely to happen in real life.. but I cannot judge the game from such a single episode.
Wow...thats far out. Not disputing what you're saying there but any good hit in the wing fuel tanks, the engine, the nose fuel tank or the tail section should have shredded that Tempest. They are decently tough but not like the American fighters. I've seen this happen too...I wonder if its just random chance or (if it was online) some lag playing up...no idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. It should, as usually they do, start becoming "somethign that does not fly" after the 6th or 8th 20 mm hit. But this was a case that I remember very well. Got very angry , but I cannot say Tempests are overdone just because of that single episode. Usually the behave nicely and fall apart when I hit them hard.

So its not right to say.. " once I landed 350 .50 ona FW190 and it kept flying.. so everything is worng. It on most cases they fall with 20 hits.. then its still ok. Exceptions are exceptions, not usefull to judge.

Scen
05-19-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
You can´t take worst case scenarios and use them to evaluate the game.

I also had cases when in my FW i landed 37 20 mm hits (after the 151/20- got corrected) on a tempest and it kept flying and out turned me(I enganged to turn since I beleived a so crippled palne would not turn). This is obviously also unlikely to happen in real life.. but I cannot judge the game from such a single episode.
Wow...thats far out. Not disputing what you're saying there but any good hit in the wing fuel tanks, the engine, the nose fuel tank or the tail section should have shredded that Tempest. They are decently tough but not like the American fighters. I've seen this happen too...I wonder if its just random chance or (if it was online) some lag playing up...no idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. It should, as usually they do, start becoming "somethign that does not fly" after the 6th or 8th 20 mm hit. But this was a case that I remember very well. Got very angry , but I cannot say Tempests are overdone just because of that single episode. Usually the behave nicely and fall apart when I hit them hard.

So its not right to say.. " once I landed 350 .50 ona FW190 and it kept flying.. so everything is worng. It on most cases they fall with 20 hits.. then its still ok. Exceptions are exceptions, not usefull to judge. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you hit a FW190 with 350 .50cal hits... uhhh and he's still flying but I would say bearly. I don't think he would make it home.

The key is if you're looking for structural failure then poor it on at point blank range something will come off.

If you think your .50s aren't effective then try flying for the other side and take some hits. I think you will change your mind very quickly. 50s in the game hit quite well. It doesn't take much to take you out of the fight and just a tad more and you're dead.

OldMan____
05-19-2006, 05:25 PM
I think you are not paying attention.. i am saying that I fly a Fw190 usually.. and I am saying that if ONE time a plane survive to 350 hits that is NOT PROFF of anything.

GR142-Pipper
05-19-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by U978:
I heard that 0.50 was nerfed (don't know when as I made a gaming pause and didn't play a number of patches), and if it's the case, I assume the nerf went too far (like it happens in other games).

There is no comparison possible with the obvious effectiveness of 20 mm ammunition. Not to talk about 30 mm...

What's your opinion? My opinion is that the 50's as modeled in this game are exceptionally weak and not at all representative of the hitting power of their real life counterparts.

There are game planes in which the 50's DO hit well, notably the P-40. Fly the P-40, use the weapons and then fly the P-51 doing the same. You'll see an obvious difference in the respective lethality of each aircraft's 50's. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-20-2006, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Hi U978,



The reason I point towards the DM of these two a/c is from the experience of 1,000's of online engagements my wingman and I have been in. Often we laugh and count the number of 20mm cannon hits that ships like the 109G2 can soak up and remain airborne. Often times, it is quite comical. I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should...

The problem with on-line damage appraisals is that the damage is client-side. If your opponent's computer doesn't register the hit, it doesn't matter what you see on your monitor. This means that you will often see 'hits', particularly cannon rounds exploding, and be left wondering why the baddy is still flying on. In the meantime, the bandit on the receiving end hasn't registered your hits and is laughing at your cr@ppy shooting.

That said, I think the problem with machine guns is the lack of complexity in the damage model. I just don't think that on-line is the place to test it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then how do you explain the difference in punching power between a P-40's 50s and a P-51's 50s?

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-20-2006, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
I think this client-side issue is the way around.

You shoot and your PC evaluates the damage done by your own shooting. Then it sends the results over the net, e.g, to the PC of the target.

This way, only the actual damage result has to go across the net, not the trajectory of all your bullets.

This is amply demonstrated by lag effect - banding shooting waaay behind you, you laugh about his poor deflection shooting skills and then suddenly you get a PK.

edit: BTW, I have been in situations, when many, more than 10-15 20mm shells hit my Corsair and my friend swore that something is wrong with the net connection, because "I shouln't be flying anymore..." In fact, there was nothing wrong, I heard and saw all his hits on my plane ("registered"), it did lots of damage, but the damage was spread across my whole plane, meaning everything was damaged, but not critically, so I could even land.

RB3D works that way. Someone shoots nowhere near you and yes, you get hit all over.
Only solution is kick all but the green connects and keep the server limited to less than
full load either bandwidth or PC capability. Then you all see more closely the same thing.

Imagine if everyone in a mission is in the same city and using the same ISP. Ping under
50ms? Maybe 60....

Ratsack
05-20-2006, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Hi U978,



The reason I point towards the DM of these two a/c is from the experience of 1,000's of online engagements my wingman and I have been in. Often we laugh and count the number of 20mm cannon hits that ships like the 109G2 can soak up and remain airborne. Often times, it is quite comical. I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should...

The problem with on-line damage appraisals is that the damage is client-side. If your opponent's computer doesn't register the hit, it doesn't matter what you see on your monitor. This means that you will often see 'hits', particularly cannon rounds exploding, and be left wondering why the baddy is still flying on. In the meantime, the bandit on the receiving end hasn't registered your hits and is laughing at your cr@ppy shooting.

That said, I think the problem with machine guns is the lack of complexity in the damage model. I just don't think that on-line is the place to test it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then how do you explain the difference in punching power between a P-40's 50s and a P-51's 50s?

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't. What difference?

I've taken a wing off a 109 in a single, high-deflection pass while flying a P-51B a couple of times on line. More usually, they just smoke. If they're left alone, they crash. Of course, in most on-line servers the smoke draws every dweeb in visual range, like flies to sh1t, so somebody else usually 'gets the kill', whatever that means.

Do they hit like 20 mm? No. Should they? No.

Have a look at that google video of P-47s shooting the living cr@p out of every thing they can get their sights on, in the air or on the ground. In about 8 air to air scenes, not a single German plane lost a wing or exploded or burst into flames. The smoked at best, and that's with eight 0.50s.

I don't doubt those German planes were in deep sh1t after taking those hits. Visually, however, it was not very impressive.

I know there are shots of FW190As with their wing magazines exloding and so forth. The reason they're so well known is because they're spectacular. Whey are they spectacular? Because they're unusual.

Try flying an FW190A on a server full of 0.50 armed planes. I don't think you'll be claiming they're firing popcorn.



cheers,
Ratsack

anarchy52
05-20-2006, 03:18 AM
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/head-on.avi (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/head-on.avi)

Xiolablu3
05-20-2006, 04:07 AM
50's are great, but you have to get in closer, you cannot 'snipe' like you can with a 20mm.

Same with the 303's, you must get in close, then they shred the target.

I would say 200 yards max for 50's and 150 for 303's. With the 303s you are better not shooting until he fills your sight.

Nevertheless either shred 109's if you get in close and he will not make it home.

Xiolablu3
05-20-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/head-on.avi (http://marvin.kset.org/%7Eriddler/head-on.avi)

Wow that p47 took a whole lot of hits then, dont ever say the P47 isnt tough again!

I would say no other single engined plane in the game could take that and still be flying.

Kwiatos
05-20-2006, 04:25 AM
Yea DM in these game is still poork. And i dont think will be better anymore. Maby in Oleg's BoB will se some improvement ( but after read interview with Oleg i dont expect to much changes). But still we will have new addons with new Migs, Yaks, Ils etc. so enjoy people.

BTW Fw190 could also alive many 20mm, 0,50 cal hits and still fly expecially from 6 o'clock position.

OldMan____
05-20-2006, 05:51 AM
A very important issue is that US birds (P51 best example) have a HORRIBLE weapons disposition. They are in trwo groups too far apart and too tighty packed.

One reason Fw190 is my preference is its very good weapon disposition. A wide plane is covered by 6 weapons, from nose, wing root and wing middle. Much easier to hit somethign with a FW than with anything else.

DmdSeeker
05-20-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Then how do you explain the difference in punching power between a P-40's 50s and a P-51's 50s?


How are you going to explain the difference in 0.303 hitting power between the Hurri and the Spit in BoB?

Exactly the same weapons; but they were renowned for having different hitting power.

ucanfly
05-20-2006, 11:19 AM
One thing I could never figure out was why the P51D's 50s were weaker than the P-40s 50s and maybe even weaker than the 4 gun version of the 51. Apparently there is a problem there as well as a lack of DM fidelity on some planes that were not known for their structural strength (like the 109). YOu could get the 109 to flame up easily some times. At other times pour lead with no effect (to the AI). It may be a combination of uber AI, lack of DM in some areas, and ratty 50s in some planes.

The discouraging thing is that Oleg thinks all is well apparently and BOB will build on this only a little (if I read his interview literally). Don't expect future addons (with 50 cal planes) in BOB to do much better if that is true.

horseback
05-20-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
How are you going to explain the difference in 0.303 hitting power between the Hurri and the Spit in BoB?

Exactly the same weapons; but they were renowned for having different hitting power. Never heard that one before, at least in terms of the real-life a/c. If a Mark of Hurricane had a rep for greater firepower than the 8-gun Spitfire, then it was either the IIb (12x.303) or IIc (4x20mm), not the Mk I or IIa (both 8x.303).

The two big differences between the two are that the Spit's guns are spread across a wider area on each wing than the Hurricane's with the two most inboard guns 18 inches or 46cm farther apart (13.5 ft from barrel to barrel vs 12 ft from barrel to barrel on the Hurri), and the speeds at which the aircraft were likely to attack a target.

Simply put, the Hurricane would usually have more time with the pipper on its target because it was a bit slower.

Similarly, the difference between P-40 and P-51, as near as I can tell, was also about 18 inches (approx 46 cm). The Mustang's inboard guns are about 13 feet (3.96m) apart as opposed to the P-40E's 11.5 ft (3.52m). Both aircraft packed their guns closely together for maximum effect (if one gun hit you, it was likely that at the very least, the other two on that wing were also hitting you less than 18 inches away, the guns being 9 inches apart).

Again, the Mustang was simply faster than the P-40 and usually spent proportionately less time on target.

However, in neaither case do I think that the time difference would be critical. An accurate 2 or 3 second burst would disable most enemy fighters (or at least convice a pilot that it was time to jump).

But in-game, damage modeling comes to the forefront of the equation, and the lack of cooling system hits, even undermodelled oil cooler damage (even the vaunted Il-2 would burst into flames in less than a couple of minutes after its oil cooler was hit), a prejudice for big gun or HE damage to structures, and there's a huge problem with the difference between radial vs inline engine DMs (as in there isn't much difference between them in game). All of these penalize the HMG-only users.

Of course, the biggest difference is that the Soviets successfully used lots of P-39s, P-40s, Hurricanes and Spitfires, and it did not use Mustangs at all.

As I have pointed out since the release of the Aces Expansion Pack, Oleg has very good information on the qualities of the aircraft the Soviets flew and liked, and some very odd ideas about the ones they had in limited numbers and misused (like the P-47, and to a lesser extent the Spitfire) or did not fly at all (like the P-38 and P-51).

In spite of the volumes of information available to him, Oleg has generally taken the stance that it's his sim and he'll depict the aircraft the way he likes and if you can find a better WWII sim, buy that instead.

...and there isn't one, and there won't be one any time soon.

cheers

horseback

anarchy52
05-20-2006, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ucanfly:
One thing I could never figure out was why the P51D's 50s were weaker than the P-40s 50s and maybe even weaker than the 4 gun version of the 51. Apparently there is a problem there as well as a lack of DM fidelity on some planes that were not known for their structural strength (like the 109). YOu could get the 109 to flame up easily some times.

Same myth being perpetuated over and over again. 109 was not structurally weak aircraft, not a zero or a yak. It's weakness was the same as with all liquid cooled inline engines. One hole in the radiator means serious trouble, however unlike P-51 109 pilot could isolate the damaged radiator and get home on single radiator, or at least have more chance to get to friendly lines.

As an illustration of structural "weakness":
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/109_damage.jpg

ucanfly
05-20-2006, 03:35 PM
To clarify, to say "the 109 was not known for it's structural strength" is not the same as saying it was weak as a zero. But when a P47 and a 109 have similar strength in game something is very wrong IMO.

anarchy52
05-20-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by ucanfly:
But when a P47 and a 109 have similar strength in game something is very wrong IMO.

that is simply not true.
Take a look at the video I posted. Show me a 109 that can take as much damage.

ucanfly
05-20-2006, 05:20 PM
From dead 6 the 109 can swallow a lot of lead and keep flying. Perhaps it is an AI thing as I don't fly online anymore. I have snap shot a P-47 and watched it disintegrate BTW and have poured lead in a 109 and seen it fly away streaming fuel and then shoot at me when I broke off.

drose01
05-20-2006, 11:58 PM
Back to beating this dead horse but here I go:

The consensus here is that the .50 cals are "good enough"- they really do more damage than you think, it just really doesn't look like it, and it really is terribly inconvenient when flying a blue side plane to be hit with .50s, you usually have to fly back to base at some point, and .50s really are great as long as you are firing at point blank range with very precise aim, etc etc...

Of course if you are firing cannon you just might fireball your entire target with a short burst. (About 5 minutes ago a FW190 on the 334th Server turned my P51 into a puff of smoke before I even saw him. Again.)

Now maybe the physics and the considerations of AP vs HE rounds etc are all accurate, but it all just doesn't add up to pass the basic "smell test," that is, if this .50 cal (coincidentally, American) ordinance is accurately modelled in this game, there is just no way that later war US models wouldn't all be fitted in cannon.

Or put it another way- would any fliers of cannon-equipped planes here (FW190s,Me109s, Las, Yaks, Spits, etc) choose to swap out to .50 calibers for any reason?

Ratsack
05-21-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
Back to beating this dead horse but here I go:

... but it all just doesn't add up to pass the basic "smell test," that is, if this .50 cal (coincidentally, American) ordinance is accurately modelled in this game, there is just no way that later war US models wouldn't all be fitted in cannon.

Or put it another way- would any fliers of cannon-equipped planes here (FW190s,Me109s, Las, Yaks, Spits, etc) choose to swap out to .50 calibers for any reason?

This argument assumes the suppliers and buyers of U.S. weapons couldn't make mistakes or errors of judgement. Unfortunately, there's an entire school of thought that suggests the U.S.A.A.F.'s perseverance with the 0.50 cal machine gun for its fighters was a mistake.

This is not to say the gun is modelled correctly, but rather that this particular argument doesn€t fly.

It€s been suggested before that the €˜problem€ with ALL the machine guns is the lack of complexity in the damage model. There are no oxygen bottles to hit, or radiator damage. It€s virtually impossible to kill the gunners in bombers, even though you€ve sprayed their position with machine gun and cannon fire, etc, etc. etc.

In short, the relative simplicity of the damage model doesn€t take into account a lot of the kind of damage that machine guns do (or a lot of splinter damage from shellfire, either, while we€re at it).

But look on the bright side: you can still kill tanks with MGs.

Ratsack

Aaron_GT
05-21-2006, 01:01 AM
Never heard that one before, at least in terms of the real-life a/c. If a Mark of Hurricane had a rep for greater firepower than the 8-gun Spitfire, then it was either the IIb (12x.303) or IIc (4x20mm), not the Mk I or IIa (both 8x.303).

Horseback, this isn't correct. The Hurricane I was reputed to have more hitting power than the Spitfire I, even when both had 8 .303s. The Hurricane was felt to be a more stable aircraft, making aiming easier, and the groups of guns were more concentrated making hitting at convergence with all guns easier.


Now maybe the physics and the considerations of AP vs HE rounds etc are all accurate, but it all just doesn't add up to pass the basic "smell test," that is, if this .50 cal (coincidentally, American) ordinance is accurately modelled in this game, there is just no way that later war US models wouldn't all be fitted in cannon.

But the move at the and of the war _was_ for US aircraft to be fitted with 20mm cannon more and more, especially USN aircraft.


Or put it another way- would any fliers of cannon-equipped planes here (FW190s,Me109s, Las, Yaks, Spits, etc) choose to swap out to .50 calibers for any reason?

Part of the problem is not even to do with the modelling of the guns, but the AI and the way people fly online. In real life pilots would get out of the fight with much lighter damage than happens in the game. In real life almost no pilots would try to carry on fighting after losing rudder control but many do online - I've even found myself doing it.

drose01
05-21-2006, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
This argument assumes the suppliers and buyers of U.S. weapons couldn't make mistakes or errors of judgement. Unfortunately, there's an entire school of thought that suggests the U.S.A.A.F.'s perseverance with the 0.50 cal machine gun for its fighters was a mistake.

I am not saying that mistakes by US suppliers and buyers of weapons were not possible- in fact I know they happened in many areas, as all sides in WW2 did in various ways and to varying degrees.

What I am saying is that if such a mistake were made, that it would be recognized and well publicized, and probably a fix would be made eventually.

Take the example of the huge problems American tanks had when facing their German counterparts. The American Shermans and other types were no match- their weapons were not large enough nor did they have high enough muzzle velocity to do much damage at all to Tigers and Panthers (unless from behind). This was well known, well documented, bemoaned by US soldiers and leaders and eventually remedied to an extent by new designs and refitting of old designs with more powerful weapons.

Nowhere do I believe that there exists any comparable record of US fliers finding that their machine guns were inferior to German cannons. I have been an avid student of the air war of WW2 for much of my life- if there is any documentation during the war of US fliers or commanders commenting on the relative weakness of their weapons compared to their opponents, I would be interested to see it.

GR142-Pipper
05-21-2006, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Hi U978,



The reason I point towards the DM of these two a/c is from the experience of 1,000's of online engagements my wingman and I have been in. Often we laugh and count the number of 20mm cannon hits that ships like the 109G2 can soak up and remain airborne. Often times, it is quite comical. I won't even go into what the 190 can soak up. Both these a/c retain air worthiness after damage, far longer than they should...

The problem with on-line damage appraisals is that the damage is client-side. If your opponent's computer doesn't register the hit, it doesn't matter what you see on your monitor. This means that you will often see 'hits', particularly cannon rounds exploding, and be left wondering why the baddy is still flying on. In the meantime, the bandit on the receiving end hasn't registered your hits and is laughing at your cr@ppy shooting.

That said, I think the problem with machine guns is the lack of complexity in the damage model. I just don't think that on-line is the place to test it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Then how do you explain the difference in punching power between a P-40's 50s and a P-51's 50s?

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't. What difference?

I've taken a wing off a 109 in a single, high-deflection pass while flying a P-51B a couple of times on line. More usually, they just smoke. If they're left alone, they crash. Of course, in most on-line servers the smoke draws every dweeb in visual range, like flies to sh1t, so somebody else usually 'gets the kill', whatever that means.

Do they hit like 20 mm? No. Should they? No.

Have a look at that google video of P-47s shooting the living cr@p out of every thing they can get their sights on, in the air or on the ground. In about 8 air to air scenes, not a single German plane lost a wing or exploded or burst into flames. The smoked at best, and that's with eight 0.50s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First, there are plenty of videos showing German planes being absolutely shredded by the 50's...not just smoked. However, what I was asking was for people to fly the P-40 and use its 50's and then do the same thing with the P-51. There's a noticable difference with the P-40 being definitely a harder puncher. Try it and see for yourself.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-21-2006, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
As I have pointed out since the release of the Aces Expansion Pack, Oleg has very good information on the qualities of the aircraft the Soviets flew and liked, and some very odd ideas about the ones they had in limited numbers and misused (like the P-47, and to a lesser extent the Spitfire) or did not fly at all (like the P-38 and P-51). Agreed. Similar to your remarks, in a recent post my view of Oleg's rule of thumb was: 1) if the Russians liked the aircraft, it flys well in this game (to wit: P-40 and P-39), 2) if they didn't like the aircraft, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-47), and 3) if the Russians couldn't build something as good (to wit: P-51), it also doesn't fly well in this game. This rule seems to hold up pretty well.

GR142-Pipper

Ratsack
05-21-2006, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
First, there are plenty of videos showing German planes being absolutely shredded by the 50's...not just smoked.

Yes, I know there are, and what I was pointing out to you is that they're the exception and not the rule. Have a look at the video of that panel with some surviving aces from the 56th on it. One of them describes an incident where a 109 flamed, and he specifically mentioned that it was the first time he'd ever seen it.

I think that the expectations of many people are skewed in this respect.


Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
However, what I was asking was for people to fly the P-40 and use its 50's and then do the same thing with the P-51. There's a noticable difference with the P-40 being definitely a harder puncher. Try it and see for yourself.

GR142-Pipper

Yes, as I said above, tried it, and I see no difference. About the only thing I can say with any degree of certainty is that the view for deflection shooting from the P-47D-10 and D-22 is as bad or worse than that of the FW190 (wanna talk about historical accuracy?). Other than than that, over the course of several QMBs I found the six 0.50s of the P-51Ds to have rather more punch than the four of the P-51B, and that the eight on the P-47 kill bombers very nicely.

I think you're seeing a placebo effect caused by better shooting resulting from lower closing speeds.

I'm happy to be refuted with track evidence.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-21-2006, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by drose01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
This argument assumes the suppliers and buyers of U.S. weapons couldn't make mistakes or errors of judgement. Unfortunately, there's an entire school of thought that suggests the U.S.A.A.F.'s perseverance with the 0.50 cal machine gun for its fighters was a mistake.

I am not saying that mistakes by US suppliers and buyers of weapons were not possible- in fact I know they happened in many areas, as all sides in WW2 did in various ways and to varying degrees.

What I am saying is that if such a mistake were made, that it would be recognized and well publicized, and probably a fix would be made eventually.

Take the example of the huge problems American tanks had when facing their German counterparts. The American Shermans and other types were no match- their weapons were not large enough nor did they have high enough muzzle velocity to do much damage at all to Tigers and Panthers (unless from behind). This was well known, well documented, bemoaned by US soldiers and leaders and eventually remedied to an extent by new designs and refitting of old designs with more powerful weapons.

Nowhere do I believe that there exists any comparable record of US fliers finding that their machine guns were inferior to German cannons. I have been an avid student of the air war of WW2 for much of my life- if there is any documentation during the war of US fliers or commanders commenting on the relative weakness of their weapons compared to their opponents, I would be interested to see it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The comparison with tanks is not a good one. In tank combat, gun power against armor is the key defining feature of combat. In aerial combat, it€s speed. You€d be unlikely to see accounts of pilots complaining about lack of firepower, and far more likely to see them complaining about lack of speed (which is what we do see).

Furthermore, note the British experience during the Battle of Britain. There was no outcry about the lack of stopping power in the Browning 0.303. On the contrary, there was a lot of misguided adulation about the eight-gun fighter. This is extremely remarkable when you consider that the Brits had lots of evidence €" in the form of German planes littering the fields of south eastern England €" that their 0.303s did next to bugger-all structural damage to German bombers. In most instances the plane was brought down because they€d hit something critical: aircrew, controls, fuel tanks, radiators, etc. Fighter Command correctly concluded that if the Luftwaffe added a modest amount of armor to their bombers, the 0.303 would be almost entirely ineffective. Thus the accelerated push for cannon.

And yet in the face of this concrete evidence, even experienced pilots like Douglas Bader actually complained about cannon when they got them. Bader went as far as to insist on flying a Spitfire MkIIa to lead his wing, simply so he could keep his eitht 0.303s. (He had the grace to admit that he was wrong about cannon€¦after the war).

Now, I don€t know if there is no record of American flyers comparing their 0.50s unfavaourably with cannon. But even if there isn€t, I don€t think the absence of any such comment would count for much. In addition, there are a number of reasons you€d be unlikely to see much comment like this. I€m happy to go into these via P.M. if you wish.

Cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
05-21-2006, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
As I have pointed out since the release of the Aces Expansion Pack, Oleg has very good information on the qualities of the aircraft the Soviets flew and liked, and some very odd ideas about the ones they had in limited numbers and misused (like the P-47, and to a lesser extent the Spitfire) or did not fly at all (like the P-38 and P-51). Agreed. Similar to your remarks, in a recent post my view of Oleg's rule of thumb was: 1) if the Russians liked the aircraft, it flys well in this game (to wit: P-40 and P-39), 2) if they didn't like the aircraft, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-47), and 3) if the Russians couldn't build something as good (to wit: P-51), it also doesn't fly well in this game. This rule seems to hold up pretty well.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't even know where to begin with this!

Do you remember the way the P-40 flew in the first release of this game?

Are you seriously suggesting the Spitfire - a plane much loved by the VVS (not!!!)- is a dog in the game?

Take off your red white and blue goggles.

Ratsack

ImpStarDuece
05-21-2006, 02:44 AM
USN view of the 20mm vs .50:


"As it is now, we have the 50-cal. gun which has reached its peak. The only improvements will be minor. The only good increase is to increase the number of guns. So it seems to be just about the right time to look for a better weapon. There are two possibilities here - the one we have and the one we might get shortly. The one we have is a 20-mm gun. I think very highly of it. In fact, it is one we have here, and it is one in hand. It won't do what the 60 will do, but we haven't got the 60, and we won't have it for a year. So, we are gradually working into all of our aircraft the 20-mm gun. To give you some idea of the 50 versus the 20 and dispel a lot of ideas that have bothered us, I would like to give you a comparison. When somebody goes from four 50's to two 20's, to the layman that means a decrease in fire power. Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers. In the actual rate of fire delivered at the target, one 20 equals three 50's; in kinetic energy at 500 yards, one 20 equals two and one half 50's.

That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judging by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have the much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal, will go through only .43. In addition to that you have one more great advantage - that is you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up their barrels and ruining their guns on one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over. They will come down with screaming barrels and get trigger happy, and then all the barrels are gone in one flight. It should not happen in a 20mm. Of course, you have disadvantages. You have a heavier installation, on-half as much ammunition for the same weight. Our standard ammunition in the Navy is 400 rounds in one gun. The Fleet has set up 30 seconds of fire as a minimum requirement for the .50 cal gun. We can't do that with the 20, so we give them 200 rounds. The 20 is lethal enough to get far more results out of that 200 rounds than the .40 ever will out of 400 rounds."

-REPORT OF JOINT FIGHTER CONFERENCE NAS PATUXENT RIVER)

drose01
05-21-2006, 02:47 AM
First of all, I'm enjoying the discussion, and especially for it's civility!

It's an interesting point about the relative insignificance of firepower in air to air combat when compared to the importance of speed.

If weapons were less important in real life, I think they become quite important in this game that we are playing. Anyone who goes up against a plane with 30mm mk 108s knows that.

And regarding the Spitfire pilots who had a hard time seeing the advantage of cannon over their .303 machine guns, that seems to support the idea that in real life, cannons were maybe not so obviously superior to machine guns.

CyC_AnD
05-21-2006, 03:09 AM
Haven't read all pages, but if you want to see what a bullet can do, look here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9101895862044064019

I wouldn't like to stand behind those target...

JG5_UnKle
05-21-2006, 04:47 AM
US aircraft in the ETO faced mainly fighters - esp on escort duty. .50 cals are plenty to take down fighters and that is true in this sim.

The .50 is effective at range and as a regular 109 and 190 pilot I can tell you they really hurt. I have been hit several times by very long range 500M+ hits that have disabled controls and damaged the engine.

Even if you get 1 wing hit in the fw you can lose 50kmh top speed.

They are very damaging weapons - they have been "tweaked" several times - modified grouping and (de)synchronisation - we have seen a lot happen to the .50 in IL-2

It just isn't a snapshot weapon like a cannon - and such a weapon is more useful in the dogfights you see online.

And that's about as far from reality as you are likely to get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
05-21-2006, 05:21 AM
In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers.

Well! So if THIS is famous USN's "3 vs.1", then it didnt include explosive in projectiles.

Gibbage1
05-21-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by CyC_AnD:
Haven't read all pages, but if you want to see what a bullet can do, look here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wouldn't like to stand behind those target...

That video is not a good indicator AT ALL of the lower of the guns used. Why? SCALE!!!!!!! That wing "section" is very small. Its also DUCT TAPPED! This can in NO WAY represent a 15' wing held togeather with rivits!

I can take a 1/72 scale model and blow the wing clean off with a .22. Does that mean the .22 is a good anti-aircraft weapon? NO!!!! Think about it.

OldMan____
05-21-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by CyC_AnD:
Haven't read all pages, but if you want to see what a bullet can do, look here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9101895862044064019

I wouldn't like to stand behind those target...

that is what a real bullet can do:

http://www.ijnhonline.org/howard_special/The_Guns_at_Filipstad_pics_docs/4-in%20armor%20plate.jpg

Ratsack
05-21-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CyC_AnD:
Haven't read all pages, but if you want to see what a bullet can do, look here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9101895862044064019

I wouldn't like to stand behind those target...

that is what a real bullet can do:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice pic. Do you know what the weapon was, and what the specs of the plate are?

cheers,
Ratsack

WTE_Galway
05-21-2006, 05:36 PM
The cannon versus gun debate historically has gone on for over 50 years now.

By the time of Korea .50 cal was definitely outdated, it literally bounced off the Mig 15, but in WWII it obviously still did the job at least early war, the question was how well compared to cannon.

For a good comparo of various gun types go here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html



I will say one thing is fairly clear on these forums .. regardless of the gun in question, someone is always going to claim it is "underpowered".

horseback
05-21-2006, 08:48 PM
I don't even know where to begin with this!

Do you remember the way the P-40 flew in the first release of this game?

Are you seriously suggesting the Spitfire - a plane much loved by the VVS (not!!!)- is a dog in the game?

Take off your red white and blue goggles.

Ratsack Yes I remember how the P-40 flew in FB 1.0; as I recall, the big beef was that it exploded when it exceeded its rated dive speed. However, the point here is that it was thoroughly rehabilitated quite some time ago, unlike the P-47, which is still not quite right, or the P-38, which has never approached its real life qualities, or the Mustang, whose superior qualities in-game have waxed and waned according to some arcane formula known only to Oleg (for the sake of clarity, it's in a waning phase right now). I won't even go into what they've done to the later USN fighters, as it's close to dinner time here.

The Spitfire was initially poorly received by the Soviets because most of the first examples they got of the Mk V were already used and badly beaten up; in short, leftovers (they had a very hard time believing that the British were in more desperate financial straits than the USSR in 1942/3). Once new aircraft started making their way in through Murmansk and Iran, the unhappiness was quelled, although they always considered the Spit a bit too fragile, and too demanding of skilled maintenance.

They never questioned its virtues, once demonstrated, and they didn't send any of them back. In-game, it too has been fixed to a large degree after its adherents made the facts known, and no doubt Oleg consulted documents at TsAGI which confirmed them.

My theory of Oleg's FMs for major US fighters is that he got his information from postwar Chinese examples. The Nationalists flew P-38s and Mustangs for sure, and it wouldn't surprise me if they got a few P-47s via Lend-lease as well. These eventually ended up in the communists' hands, and they passed a few (and probably not their best examples) on to the Soviets in the name of international socialist brotherhood. TsAGI then flew and appraised these aircraft, pronounced them cr@p, and filed the documents. Oleg looks them up 55 years later, says "Aha! I knew it!" and porks the FMs and DMs of the top US fighters, ignoring the fact that the Nationalist Chinese were the biggest screwups on the Allied side in almost every phase of military operations, and didn't take good care of their toys at all until learning some harsh lessons post-war and having to run for their lives to Taiwan.

Here's the reality: of all the US fighters, only the P-39 approximated the Soviet idea of what a fighter should look like, and it was a little 'hotter' than the P-40 below 12,000ft, where most of the action was for them. However, these two US fighters are the only major types that the Soviets used in any great numbers, and according to you, it's just a coincidence that these are the only two US fighters that aren't seriously handicapped in the game compared to their real-life qualities.

I think I'd rather be wearing goggles than a blindfold, pal.

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
05-21-2006, 09:46 PM
Soviets were delivered P-47's during WWII. Many of them. They did not suit doctrinal uses
and were used for defense of the rear. Gee, not much action over 6km in the East.

Soviets were given many aircraft by US. And tanks, trucks, jeeps, motors, metal, rubber,
whatever was in need even while US citizens turned in items for materials collection for
the war effort. It was all the same war but not every country had active fighting inside,
people still worked harder and gave.

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
First, there are plenty of videos showing German planes being absolutely shredded by the 50's...not just smoked.

Yes, I know there are, and what I was pointing out to you is that they're the exception and not the rule. Have a look at the video of that panel with some surviving aces from the 56th on it. One of them describes an incident where a 109 flamed, and he specifically mentioned that it was the first time he'd ever seen it.

I think that the expectations of many people are skewed in this respect.


Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
However, what I was asking was for people to fly the P-40 and use its 50's and then do the same thing with the P-51. There's a noticable difference with the P-40 being definitely a harder puncher. Try it and see for yourself.

GR142-Pipper

Yes, as I said above, tried it, and I see no difference. About the only thing I can say with any degree of certainty is that the view for deflection shooting from the P-47D-10 and D-22 is as bad or worse than that of the FW190 (wanna talk about historical accuracy?). Other than than that, over the course of several QMBs I found the six 0.50s of the P-51Ds to have rather more punch than the four of the P-51B, and that the eight on the P-47 kill bombers very nicely.

I think you're seeing a placebo effect caused by better shooting resulting from lower closing speeds.

I'm happy to be refuted with track evidence </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. This is a "no brainer" as far as I'm concerned. If you get the same results with the P-51's 50s as you get with the P-40's 50s, you're probably not flying the P-40 right. It has nothing to do with deflection or trigger pull time. It has everything to do with hitting power. Again, my take.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:
As I have pointed out since the release of the Aces Expansion Pack, Oleg has very good information on the qualities of the aircraft the Soviets flew and liked, and some very odd ideas about the ones they had in limited numbers and misused (like the P-47, and to a lesser extent the Spitfire) or did not fly at all (like the P-38 and P-51). Agreed. Similar to your remarks, in a recent post my view of Oleg's rule of thumb was: 1) if the Russians liked the aircraft, it flys well in this game (to wit: P-40 and P-39), 2) if they didn't like the aircraft, it doesn't fly well in this game (to wit: P-47), and 3) if the Russians couldn't build something as good (to wit: P-51), it also doesn't fly well in this game. This rule seems to hold up pretty well.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't even know where to begin with this!

Do you remember the way the P-40 flew in the first release of this game?

Are you seriously suggesting the Spitfire - a plane much loved by the VVS (not!!!)- is a dog in the game?

Take off your red white and blue goggles. Indeed I do remember. The P-40 was an extremely unstable craft when first introduced in this game but it's guns ALWAYS worked well. Maddox and Company finally fixed the flight model so it wasn't a schizo-bird the result of which was that it and the P-39 just happen to be the best modeled U.S. aircraft in the game.

Second, the Spit was not disliked by the Russians. As Horseback has pointed out the initial models were war-weary when received by the Russians; later aircraft were new and it was a new day.

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts. The P-38 was the only one in the group to be finally improved in 4.02 only to be re-porked with the arrival 4.03/4.04. In this game, they're only fit for the very defensive BnZ drive-by...anything else and their bait. Again, this just wasn't the case in real life. If these aircraft flew like this in the real world, there is NO WAY they would have the hard-earned war records they do.

If Maddox doesn't want to fix them, that's his business but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they're anything but the handicapped half-planes they are.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
My theory of Oleg's FMs for major US fighters is that he got his information from postwar Chinese examples. Horseback, with all the information available on the major U.S. fighters available from countless reputable sources (military, civilian, academic, governmental), do you honestly believe that Maddox and Company was reduced to using Chinese data for these aircraft? IMHO, you're being entirely too generous with that view given that this game arrived on the scene in 2001. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

GR142-Pipper

HellToupee
05-22-2006, 03:11 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. This is a "no brainer" as far as I'm concerned. If you get the same results with the P-51's 50s as you get with the P-40's 50s, you're probably not flying the P-40 right. It has nothing to do with deflection or trigger pull time. It has everything to do with hitting power. Again, my take.

this is ither a placabo effect or its that the p40 is a slower better turning plane more suited to spending more time on target shooting which makes it more effective. Other than the field mod which had unsynced guns when others didnt p40 seems exactly the same.


he P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw)

many of these planes are exceptional the f6f is very fast vs its opponents and can even turn fight with zeros easy enough and takes massive amounts of dammage while its opponents will go down witha few hits of the .50s, f4us a bit wobbly but flys well enough just rear view lets it down. P38 ingame not a great plane, but then it did struggle more than other US planes when facing german opponents.

IMO the 47 and 51 fly mostly as ild expect they did not have great rates of climb acceleration or turn, mostly let down by the ineffectiveness of 50s vs cannon armed planes and strength of german plane DMs.

Xiolablu3
05-22-2006, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.

I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?

They were on par with what other countries were producing (except maybe the jets) in the speed stakes, and very good at hi-alt. But I think your statement above is full of bias.

JtD
05-22-2006, 03:59 AM
I think most of the US planes are pretty decent.
If you fly the P-38 in defensive B'n'Z no wonder you think it sucks. The P-47 owns 109's (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/tracks/P47vs109.ntrk) but struggles against 190ies. P-51 is almost a life warranty, but you won't collect a lot of kills quickly.

I do not recall that I have been defeated in combat above 6500 meters in any of these types, however I did rack up quite a number of kills up there.

Imho the 0.50 is a bit weak, but not by much.

Manu-6S
05-22-2006, 04:41 AM
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 GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.

I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?

They were on par with what other countries were producing (except maybe the jets) in the speed stakes, and very good at hi-alt. But I think your statement above is full of bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

America is the best... you should know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Men, there is no conspiracy against US fighters, also other planes have modelling problems (Antons, Macchis).

I like the .50s (and i usually fly Blue) because they give me the chance to damage the plane (or kill the pilot) even from 400m... when I use bf I shoot only within 200m.

Bye.

WOLFMondo
05-22-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

America is the best... you should know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


But why can't I pwnz0r1z3 like Chuck Yeager and take the entire 3rd reich down in my American plane just like real life?!

Ah, I'm not Chuck Yeager and I live in the real world.

Manu-6S
05-22-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:

America is the best... you should know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


But why can't I pwnz0r1z3 like Chuck Yeager and take the entire 3rd reich down in my American plane just like real life?!

Ah, I'm not Chuck Yeager and I live in the real world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Please don't make me speak about Yeager... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Now that I see Wolfmondo I add the Tempest to the list of the "porked" planes.

Every nation have porked planes, so you can complain about that FM but can't say "Oleg hates my country!".

Speaking about videos... I have one about a dog with Capt D. W. Johnson (503 sqdn, 8? Air Force) fighting an Anton... I can't count the hits but the german plane only smokes from the fuel tank.

When the pilot bail out the Capt keep firing from near BUT the plane dont' explode or start to burn.

You know, this video is less spectacular than the Hendricks' ones, but maybe is the true strenght of the 0.50s .

Bye

horseback
05-22-2006, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
My theory of Oleg's FMs for major US fighters is that he got his information from postwar Chinese examples. Horseback, with all the information available on the major U.S. fighters available from countless reputable sources (military, civilian, academic, governmental), do you honestly believe that Maddox and Company was reduced to using Chinese data for these aircraft? IMHO, you're being entirely too generous with that view given that this game arrived on the scene in 2001. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>First of all, it's sarcasm, Pipper.

It's a simple progression, though. Oleg's primary trusted source of aircraft data is obviously taken from the old Soviet equivilent of NACA, TsAGI, or the Central Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Institute, which was tasked with appraisal of all aircraft acquired by the Soviets, including foreign types. I understand that he may have been associated with this organization or its descendent, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Soviets never received flying or even remotely serviceable examples of the Mustang or P-38 from the US. None were left behind from the 'shuttle' raids in any form than a smoking crater, and as far as I know, no one crashlanded in Soviet held territory in either type, leaving a recoverable wreck.

The Soviets' primary sources of information in the immediate post-war period would be German appraisals of rebuilt wrecks and combat reports, and they may have acquired some of these rebuilt wrecks.

Meanwhile, in China, Chiang Kai-shek had received P-51s and P-38s via Lend-Lease or that were just left behind by the departing 14th Air Force, and if American contemporary sources are to be believed, these aircraft were definitely not kept in the best possible flying condition, due to lack of spares and slipshod Chinese maintenance practices of that period.

The survivors eventually ended up in Mao's hands, very much the worst for wear, around 1948, when his Soviet advisors probably made sure that examples were sent to TsAGI in Moscow for appraisal. While TsAGI's technicians were no doubt very capable, I don't believe that even they had the ability to fully resurrect these aircraft to their original potentials (Vegas bookies would've set odds against Jesus for this resurrection), but they may have thought that they could extrapolate the aircrafts' real capabilities from the materials they had.

In any case, these aircraft were 'slotted' in a category beneath their Soviet wartime contemporaries, the official documents were put in the folders, and that was what I suspect Oleg used for his primary source of performance data. Any conflicting data that did not appeal to his personal prejudices could easily be dismissed as American Cold War propaganda (see Gibbage's trials during the introduction of the P-38 he worked so hard on).

As we noted, the P-39 and P-40 are fairly well represented in the sim, and except for that 'flying bomb' trick in the original release versions of the P-40, have had pretty much the same characteristics throughout the life of the sim. Every other American fighter's FM has varied significantly, and on more than one patch, has suffered badly from an overdone fix that makes me wonder if there wasn't a 'see what you made me do?' element to it.

I don't think Oleg's heart was in the Western fighters' addition to the sim, or that the same attention to detail and authenticity was given them. It seems likely in retrospect that the Pacific Fighters project was pressed on him by Ubi (dollar signs in their eyes), and the resulting premature release problems (it took me two months before I could get the game to run right on my machine) coupled with the legal dustup with the Evil American Defense Contractor Who Shall Not Be Named Again Ever pretty much soured him and his crew on US birds that the Soviets didn't use.

I'm afraid that this sim is best treated as an Eastern Front specialist's treat, and you can use the other fronts as a fantasy vacation when the Soviet German conflict starts to wear on you.

cheers

horseback

StellarRat
05-22-2006, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
it literally bounced off the Mig 15
It might have been less effective, but I don't think it "bounced off". Rounds will only bounce off if they hit a very severe angle, but that is possible with even anti-guns.

Scen
05-22-2006, 11:15 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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.

I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?

They were on par with what other countries were producing (except maybe the jets) in the speed stakes, and very good at hi-alt. But I think your statement above is full of bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

America is the best... you should know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Men, there is no conspiracy against US fighters, also other planes have modelling problems (Antons, Macchis).

I like the .50s (and i usually fly Blue) because they give me the chance to damage the plane (or kill the pilot) even from 400m... when I use bf I shoot only within 200m.

Bye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bias... heheh funny you should mention Bias. Even when presenting Oleg with real p-38 documents he scuffed it off as American Bias.

This game has bias PERIOD. Everyone and their mom has entered into these forums with their Bias so please give it a rest. I know we all want the best for the sim but given we are people we are going to inject our own bias.

The best thing to do is present as best as possible accurate information and hope that someone is paying attention. Most of the stuff I've seen implemented right or wrong comes from the online community whinning that goes on.

Take a look at the not so hot fighters such as the p-38 and the numbers aren't even close to the real thing.

If you want proof let me know I can send you the data.

Scendore
aka Capt Stubing

Scen
05-22-2006, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
it literally bounced off the Mig 15
It might have been less effective, but I don't think it "bounced off". Rounds will only bounce off if they hit a very severe angle, but that is possible with even anti-guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why the US maintained a 12 to one kill ratio during the Korean war. Those crummy 50s can take a part a fragile jet especially at speed. I'm sure the Mig 15 had armor but send a few half inch wholes through a jet engine and see what happens.

Better trained pilots made the difference.

Xiolablu3
05-22-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Scen:
<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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.

I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?

They were on par with what other countries were producing (except maybe the jets) in the speed stakes, and very good at hi-alt. But I think your statement above is full of bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

America is the best... you should know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Men, there is no conspiracy against US fighters, also other planes have modelling problems (Antons, Macchis).

I like the .50s (and i usually fly Blue) because they give me the chance to damage the plane (or kill the pilot) even from 400m... when I use bf I shoot only within 200m.

Bye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bias... heheh funny you should mention Bias. Even when presenting Oleg with real p-38 documents he scuffed it off as American Bias.

This game has bias PERIOD. Everyone and their mom has entered into these forums with their Bias so please give it a rest. I know we all want the best for the sim but given we are people we are going to inject our own bias.

The best thing to do is present as best as possible accurate information and hope that someone is paying attention. Most of the stuff I've seen implemented right or wrong comes from the online community whinning that goes on.

Take a look at the not so hot fighters such as the p-38 and the numbers aren't even close to the real thing.

If you want proof let me know I can send you the data.

Scendore
aka Capt Stubing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to look at it thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Please send the data to xiolablu3@hotmail.com

PS: P38 is an awesome plane in the game and results in a lot of wins for red on servers with ground targets. Its not a pure dogfighter, but nor should it be.

StellarRat
05-22-2006, 11:46 AM
It amazes me that some people think bullets will bounce off aircraft. I've been around a lot of them and worked on helicopters. They are skinned with THIN aluminium to keep the weight down. Any type of rifle bullet would go right through the skin almost anyplace on most aircraft. You can certainly armor small vital areas, but you can't protect the vast majority of the aircraft or it wouldn't get off the ground.

JtD
05-22-2006, 11:54 AM
The 0.50ies bouncing off MiGs is about angles and not plate thickness.

They did bounce off.

ucanfly
05-22-2006, 12:03 PM
I have read that one of the problems that 50 cals had with the MIG was that since the MIG used kerosene and flew at higher altitudes than WWII, fires were much less of a problem when enemy planes were hit. That plus the increased firing ranges and speed of jets reduced the 50 cal effectiveness in modern air warfare.

Manu-6S
05-22-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Bias... heheh funny you should mention Bias. Even when presenting Oleg with real p-38 documents he scuffed it off as American Bias.

This game has bias PERIOD. Everyone and their mom has entered into these forums with their Bias so please give it a rest. I know we all want the best for the sim but given we are people we are going to inject our own bias.

The best thing to do is present as best as possible accurate information and hope that someone is paying attention. Most of the stuff I've seen implemented right or wrong comes from the online community whinning that goes on.

Take a look at the not so hot fighters such as the p-38 and the numbers aren't even close to the real thing.

If you want proof let me know I can send you the data.

Scendore
aka Capt Stubing

Post these data directly on the web, so that everyone can read it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I agree with you, there aren't unbiased persons; somebody have less and somebody too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Scen
05-22-2006, 12:09 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 Scen:
<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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.

I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?

They were on par with what other countries were producing (except maybe the jets) in the speed stakes, and very good at hi-alt. But I think your statement above is full of bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

America is the best... you should know it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Men, there is no conspiracy against US fighters, also other planes have modelling problems (Antons, Macchis).

I like the .50s (and i usually fly Blue) because they give me the chance to damage the plane (or kill the pilot) even from 400m... when I use bf I shoot only within 200m.

Bye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bias... heheh funny you should mention Bias. Even when presenting Oleg with real p-38 documents he scuffed it off as American Bias.

This game has bias PERIOD. Everyone and their mom has entered into these forums with their Bias so please give it a rest. I know we all want the best for the sim but given we are people we are going to inject our own bias.

The best thing to do is present as best as possible accurate information and hope that someone is paying attention. Most of the stuff I've seen implemented right or wrong comes from the online community whinning that goes on.

Take a look at the not so hot fighters such as the p-38 and the numbers aren't even close to the real thing.

If you want proof let me know I can send you the data.

Scendore
aka Capt Stubing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to look at it thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Please send the data to xiolablu3@hotmail.com

PS: P38 is an awesome plane in the game and results in a lot of wins for red on servers with ground targets. Its not a pure dogfighter, but nor should it be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to **** Bong with 40 Kills... Highest scoring US Ace of WWII.

It was a great fighter in every respect. You just can't do some of the things it actually did in real life in the game. Not only are the numbers off like compressability etc. but things like using the asymmetrical trust doesn't quite work in the game.

JtD
05-22-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Take a look at the not so hot fighters such as the p-38 and the numbers aren't even close to the real thing.

Which ones? What should they look like?

StellarRat
05-22-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The 0.50ies bouncing off MiGs is about angles and not plate thickness.

They did bounce off. I'm sure an occasional round skimmed the surface and bounced away, but that would be a rare thing. It could happen with any size round. However, looking at the combat record of the USAF vs. Commies it's pretty obvious that the .50 was plenty effective.

StellarRat
05-22-2006, 12:26 PM
I do not recall that I have been defeated in combat above 6500 meters in any of these types, however I did rack up quite a number of kills up there. I've only lost up that high a couple times in two years (in 47.) Even then it was when I was surprised by a TA-152 that was even higher than me.

Unfortunately, almost every online server has scenarios that require low altitude bombing so you don't get use them where they are best. Taking armored vehicles out the target selection would fix this.

Scen
05-22-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Take a look at the not so hot fighters such as the p-38 and the numbers aren't even close to the real thing.

Which ones? What should they look like? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try these at first...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38j-roll.jpg

For starters, look at the boosted vs. unboosted, simply no comparison. Boosted just a hair under half a second at 400 mph, and not even charted but extropolated more than 4 seconds for an unboosted bird. Basically zilch for difference between the unboosted J and boosted L in game. Very telling right there.

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CyC_AnD:
Haven't read all pages, but if you want to see what a bullet can do, look here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9101895862044064019

I wouldn't like to stand behind those target...

that is what a real bullet can do:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice pic. Do you know what the weapon was, and what the specs of the plate are?

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I am not mistaken this one is a 4 inch armor plate against a 8 inch gun from WWI time frame. I need to check although.

NonWonderDog
05-22-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Basically zilch for difference between the unboosted J and boosted L in game. Very telling right there.

Since when? Last time I tried there was a HUGE difference in roll rates between the models at high speed. That was 4.01, granted, so I'm off to test it again.


[EDIT]
I want whatever you're smoking. At 400 mph indicated the P-38J is practically outrolled by a B-17 while the P-38L outrolls an FW-190. That's just a bit more than "zilch for difference."

OldMan____
05-22-2006, 02:07 PM
FW190 also have roll rate wrong (too fast down slow , too slow while at speed), while P51 has it higher than it should. Just an example of how there is no directional bias. There are PROBLEMS. just that.

JtD
05-22-2006, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Basically zilch for difference between the unboosted J and boosted L in game. Very telling right there.

Yep, tells me you are playing a different game.

Scen
05-22-2006, 02:38 PM
Not sure what that means but give it a go... I'll be back later with other numbers for you to chew on.

Sorry as much doubting as you have numbers will prove otherwise

Scen
05-22-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Basically zilch for difference between the unboosted J and boosted L in game. Very telling right there.

Since when? Last time I tried there was a HUGE difference in roll rates between the models at high speed. That was 4.01, granted, so I'm off to test it again.


[EDIT]
I want whatever you're smoking. At 400 mph indicated the P-38J is practically outrolled by a B-17 while the P-38L outrolls an FW-190. That's just a bit more than "zilch for difference." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... Yeah that is a difference between different airplanes... Sorry off the cuff I haven't been doing comparisons between different planes. Try the different models. Also haven't done recent testing with the latest patch. I think it was 4.01 when I last tested. I'll go back and take a look.

Question since you are testing. What where the times like compared to the chart?

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.


I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world? You must be confused because I never said that. What I DID say was that of the aircraft listed (to wit: P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F), they truly were legendary based as their respective war records attest. You'd never know it by the way they fly in this game.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I like the .50s (and i usually fly Blue)... No wonder you like the 50's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
05-22-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.


I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?{/quote]You must be confused because I never said that. What I DID say was that of the aircraft listed (to wit: P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F), they truly were legendary and they have the war record to prove it.

GR142-Pipper

You said the US planes were world beating. This suggested to me that you thought they were the 'best' in the world.

Have you read many WW2 books written by real pilots?

The first book I ever read was 'I flew for the Fuhrer' by Heinz Knocke, the odds he was facing were unbelievable, by 1944-45 it was amazing he didnt desert, one such sortie was 2 unairworthy Me109s sent up versus 200+ bombers and 300+ fighters.

He talks often of escaping 10 or more p51/p47 pursuers after attacking the bombers a few times.

I am sure you have heard all this before, so I wont repeat with lots of references, but do you not realise the odds in favour of the US planes in the latter period (1944-45) of the war?

I am worried that you are believing your own countries hype. We have lots of hype too in the UK for the Spit and Hurricane, yet only the knowledgeable know that the Spitfire V was totally outclassed by the FW190 for part of the war. Try not to believe it all and get some other countries opinions on the p47/p51/p38 for a more balanced view.

How would the p51/p38/p47 have done in the same situation the 109/Fw190 did being outnumbered 5:1 or even 10:1? I guess we will never know. You have to look below the surface. (I have a feeling I am wasting my time here)

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 04:39 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 GR142-Pipper:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.


I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world?{/quote]You must be confused because I never said that. What I DID say was that of the aircraft listed (to wit: P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F), they truly were legendary and they have the war record to prove it.

GR142-Pipper

You said the US planes were world beating. This suggested to me that you thought they were the 'best' in the world.

Have you read many WW2 books written by real pilots?

The first book I ever read was 'I flew for the Fuhrer' by Heinz Knocke, the odds he was facing were unbelievable, by 1944-45 it was amazing he didnt desert, one such sortie was 2 unairworthy Me109s sent up versus 200+ bombers and 300+ fighters.

He talks often of escaping 10 or more p51/p47 pursuers after attacking the bombers a few times.

I am sure you have heard all this before, so I wont repeat with lots of references, but do you not realise the odds in favour of the US planes in the latter period (1944-45) of the war?

I am worried that you are believing your own countries hype. We have lots of hype too in the UK for the Spit and Hurricane, try not to believe it all and get some other countries opinions on the p47/p51/p38 for a more balanced view.

How wuld the p51/p38/p47 have done in the same situation the 109/Fw190 did being outnumbered 5:1 or even 10:1? You have to look below the surface. (I have a feeling I am wasting my time here) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, you might want to check your facts and dates. This is indeed material that has been covered ad nauseum so let's get to the bottom line. The F6F swept the IJN aircraft from the skies. Period. It was the right plane at the right time. They were then complimented by the F4U which was even more lethal. Regarding USAAC aircraft, the P-47's, P-38's and P-51B/C aircraft were involved in WWII when it was still pretty much an undecided conflict (1942/43/early 44). These planes (and the Spits on a shorter-ranged basis) took the war straight to the Third Reich and bye bye Luftwaffe. Yes, by late 1944/early 1945 it got progressively worse as tne numbers built up but the war records of the American aircraft in question had already been well established. So, if you want to invent some other fantasy scenario, enjoy, but those are the facts. One other fact worth mentioning, the 50 caliber was the weapon responsible.

GR142-Pipper

Manu-6S
05-22-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.


I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world? You must be confused because I never said that. What I DID say was that of the aircraft listed (to wit: P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F), they truly were legendary based as their respective war records attest. You'd never know it by the way they fly in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, like Xiola says the germans were outnumbered, but there's another thing: the american propaganda.

I take the data from "The Big Show" (I try to translate correcly from an italian book... you know, my english is't good).

Nov 15 1943 - Apr 15 1944

RAF report:
878 enemy planes destroyed
102 enemy planes presumably destroyed
347 enemy planes damaged

8? Air Force report:
2223 enemy planes destroyed by bombers
696 enemy planes presumably destroyed by bombers
1818 enemy planes destroyed by bombers

and

1835 victories made by Escorts

Clostermann and the entire RAF said these american numbers were false.

And again, after a sortie an american pilot declared 6 victories (assigned), when according to the RAF method only 1 victory was real (and not so clear).

Look the Yeager's 5 victories on his first sortie... totally ludicrous.

The last 2 things: the poor skill of the german pilots in the last years added to the primary objectives of these pilots: bringing down the bombers, so the escorts always were in advantage not only numerical but also strategical.

Bye http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
05-22-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
FW190 also have roll rate wrong (too fast down slow , too slow while at speed), while P51 has it higher than it should. Just an example of how there is no directional bias. There are PROBLEMS. just that.

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

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

faustnik
05-22-2006, 05:34 PM
Manu,

How can you call inflated kill claims propoganda? Please name an airforce that whose kill claims matched enemy losses. It's natural for overclaiming to occur.

I think Pipper has a very narrow POV and his expectation that USAAF a/c performance should be "legendary" says it all. However, I do not think that the great records of these a/c are propoganda. Look at performance figures for the USAAF escort fighters compared to LW fighters at altitudes from 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The answers are all right there.

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
First of all, it's sarcasm, Pipper. OK...must have just not seen it. I concur with the remainder of your post.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Look the Yeager's 5 victories on his first sortie... totally ludicrous.


And you say propaganda? Yeager never claimed that, USAAF never claimed that, why YOU claim that?
I know, someone helped you with 'facts' to 'prove' that all US are wrong. Good help you have!
What you prove is you are able to believe your own BS.

Read the biography. It took him a long time to get to five. He was shot down and escaped through
Spain before then.

And Pipper, horseback, whoever... kill counts do not prove the plane. Just about as bad as Manuc.

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 05:53 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 GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.


I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world? You must be confused because I never said that. What I DID say was that of the aircraft listed (to wit: P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F), they truly were legendary based as their respective war records attest. You'd never know it by the way they fly in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, like Xiola says the germans were outnumbered, but there's another thing: the american propaganda.

I take the data from "The Big Show" (I try to translate correcly from an italian book... you know, my english is't good).

Nov 15 1943 - Apr 15 1944

RAF report:
878 enemy planes destroyed
102 enemy planes presumably destroyed
347 enemy planes damaged

8? Air Force report:
2223 enemy planes destroyed by bombers
696 enemy planes presumably destroyed by bombers
1818 enemy planes destroyed by bombers

and

1835 victories made by Escorts

Clostermann and the entire RAF said these american numbers were false.

And again, after a sortie an american pilot declared 6 victories (assigned), when according to the RAF method only 1 victory was real (and not so clear).

Look the Yeager's 5 victories on his first sortie... totally ludicrous.

The last 2 things: the poor skill of the german pilots in the last years added to the primary objectives of these pilots: bringing down the bombers, so the escorts always were in advantage not only numerical but also strategical.Bye http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, so you attribute the utter and complete distruction of the Luftwaffe to the poor skill of the German pilots in the last years of the war (probably because most of the good ones had already been killed by 1943/44 by then-serving versions of the P-47, P-38, Spit and P-51), as well as the numerical advantage that the Allies had by the end of 1944. You might want to factor in that the mid/late-war U.S. planes were exceptionally good and got increasingly better...as did their pilots.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I think Pipper has a very narrow POV and his expectation that USAAF a/c performance should be "legendary" says it all. However, I do not think that the great records of these a/c are propoganda. Look at performance figures for the USAAF escort fighters compared to LW fighters at altitudes from 25,000 to 30,000 feet. The answers are all right there. So on the one hand you claim that I have a narrow point of view while on the other you cite the great war records of the very same planes. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

And Pipper, horseback, whoever... kill counts do not prove the plane. Just about as bad as Manuc. Oh, they certainly do...particularly so given the timeframe in which the respective reputations were earned (1943/44).

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2006, 06:09 PM
Factor in pilot training and experience, sorties run, fatigue of pilots, doctrines and all
the other variables and no I don't think that kill counts prove the planes.

Yeah the guns worked. We have how many threads and posts about one hit stopping engine on both
sides and... that really happened. We have others about 100's of hits and still flies and...
that really happened. But saying 'I did this and results not right.' or 'these planes made
kills' is not right.

Not all German pilots in the West from 1942 on were veterans let alone aces. Yeager did get
shot down early on. What does that 'prove'? Only that he got shot down. End of story.

berg417448
05-22-2006, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:


Look the Yeager's 5 victories on his first sortie... totally ludicrous.

Bye http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yeager never claimed 5 kills on his first sortie. Stop making things up.

WTE_Galway
05-22-2006, 07:05 PM
oh dear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

next we will hear America saved the world and everything in the movie pearl harbour was actually true

what does a plane being "legendary" have to do with the inability of some people to fly it well in an online game 50 years later ?

WTE_Galway
05-22-2006, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The 0.50ies bouncing off MiGs is about angles and not plate thickness.

They did bounce off. I'm sure an occasional round skimmed the surface and bounced away, but that would be a rare thing. It could happen with any size round. However, looking at the combat record of the USAF vs. Commies it's pretty obvious that the .50 was plenty effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well some US jets had cannon. The .50 cal only aircaft were the P51's and Sabres.

check out this page ..

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fk.html

In particular the section on the sabre ...

" In terms of weight of fire and muzzle power it was not so bad; but the during the Korean war it became clear that the .50 projectile was inadequate against the sturdy and well-armoured MiG-15. Many MiG-15s returned to base despite numerous hits. Four 20 mm cannon were installed in a few Sabres for combat evaluation, but only after the Korean war did they become standard armament on USAAF fighters. "

Note that the USAAF itself eventually decided that .50 cal was inefffective against post war jets.

Scen
05-22-2006, 07:41 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 GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

As Horesback and many others have pointed out (me included), the P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F have never reached the potential of their real life (world-beating and legendary, btw) counterparts.


I am confused by this statement. Where do you get this information that all American aircraft were the best in the world? You must be confused because I never said that. What I DID say was that of the aircraft listed (to wit: P-47, P-38, P-51, F4U, and F6F), they truly were legendary based as their respective war records attest. You'd never know it by the way they fly in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, like Xiola says the germans were outnumbered, but there's another thing: the american propaganda.

I take the data from "The Big Show" (I try to translate correcly from an italian book... you know, my english is't good).

Nov 15 1943 - Apr 15 1944

RAF report:
878 enemy planes destroyed
102 enemy planes presumably destroyed
347 enemy planes damaged

8? Air Force report:
2223 enemy planes destroyed by bombers
696 enemy planes presumably destroyed by bombers
1818 enemy planes destroyed by bombers

and

1835 victories made by Escorts

Clostermann and the entire RAF said these american numbers were false.

And again, after a sortie an american pilot declared 6 victories (assigned), when according to the RAF method only 1 victory was real (and not so clear).

Look the Yeager's 5 victories on his first sortie... totally ludicrous.

The last 2 things: the poor skill of the german pilots in the last years added to the primary objectives of these pilots: bringing down the bombers, so the escorts always were in advantage not only numerical but also strategical.

Bye http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even more ludicrous it wasn't his first sorte...

Even if the margin for error on the numbers are a massive 25 percent off it's still an amazing amount of aircraft.

Contrary to EU popular belief most Americans do get facts and figures from other than US sources. There is just to many books out there to ignore.

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2006, 08:07 PM
Margin for error is more like 2x, 3x.

But I don't know how much is kills of grounded planes which how do you confirm?

Scen
05-22-2006, 08:28 PM
As quickly as your ready to discredit any numbers where do you get your figures from?

I don't quite understand the instant doubt and discrediting that goes on in these forums. And it maybe just my imagination but most of it is from EU guys. What's up with that?

I'm sure there is a bias that comes from the states but guys that are interested in this genre no better than to just go by what's been said by the states.

2X or 3X that amount you say? That just sounds like a total load to me.

Do you think the numbers are fabricated? Just given the massive numbers of airframes sent over tells me otherwise.

horseback
05-22-2006, 09:08 PM
I'm always fascinated by the number of people who quote Closterman's opinions of "inflated" American claims, given the disparity between the RAF's official numbers for him (and just coincidentally, the claims he made while in the RAF) and the numbers attributed to him postwar(and made 'official' by the French Armee de l'Air).

I'm away from my resources at the moment, but I seem to remember that the postwar number was something like a third more than the RAF credits.

I'm sure that the guy wrote a great story, and that much of it was true...but a number of the parts that the Ameriphobes love to quote just ring hollow.

I need to fire up the search function and find a post I made some time ago quoting Roger Freeman's book on the P-47. One of the Polish pilots who flew with the 56th FG wrote his own short memoir of his time with the Jug, and compared it directly to the Spitfire -with a revealing section on armaments.

cheers

horseback

Targ
05-22-2006, 09:11 PM
This thread was doing really well until the kill claims debate sprouted.
This means that the thread is dead as the original topic has been hashed out and is no longer relevent or it has been hijacked and branched unto another subject.
Either way end the debate on kill claims, as we all know that it will end up ugly.
Or I can just lock this thread.

horseback
05-22-2006, 09:22 PM
Found it:

(From Roger Freeman's Thunderbolt: A Documentary History of the Republic P-47

EUROPE: WITOLD LANOWSKI

€œWhen I was flying Spitfires in the Polish Air Force in 1943 we occasionally met Thunderbolts and had friendly €˜fights.€ This was at low altitudes and we could out-climb and out-turn them€"it was easy to get on their tails. We laughed about them and said, €˜This is not a fighter, it is a flying barrel!€ At the time I would not have been very happy if someone had told me I would one day be flying a Thunderbolt on operations. That such a big aircraft could be considered a fighter was silly in my opinion.

€œIn autumn 1943 I was assigned to a desk job---to my disgust. By then I had completed 97 operational flights. There were many other experienced Polish pilots being similarly placed and many of us had no intention of being grounded if we could possibly help it. The question was resolved when the Americans invited us some of us to fly with them and eventually permission was obtained from Air Ministry for six of us to go on short-term loan to the 56th Fighter Group. It was reciprocal gesture of friendship that had begun in 1919 when American fighter pilots (the originators of the first Kosciuszko Fighter Squadron) flew in Poland in her defense against the Bolsheviks; and later, in 1941 and 1942 American Poles trained and flew in the Polish Air Force under British Command. Francis Gabreski was one of these American Polish pilots and later as a USAAF Lieutenant Colonel commanded the 61st Fighter Squadron in the
56th Group. So in May 1944, we went to Boxted and formed a Polish flight in Gabreski€s squadron. I was going to fly the Thunderbolt! But Thunderbolt or whatever, at least I was going to fight.

€œMy immediate reaction was amazement at the size of this single-seater. Climbing up the enormous fuselage and getting into the wide cockpit, it was hard to believe I was in a fighter. It was just like sitting in an armchair, I had space everywhere, fantastic visibility. (The pilot fitted like a hand in a glove in the other fighters I had flown€"in the French Caudron C714 the Perspex was a half-inch (12.7mm) from my shoulders and there was hardly room to turn my head.) At the same time there was satisfaction in being in such a large, powerful machine. I had laughed at it once but the Americans had shown what it could do: and in no time at all she gained my complete respect and admiration.

€œThere wasn€t any time for a conversion course. Everyone on the aerodrome was too busy. They said here is the aircraft, explained what is what, and off I went. All six of us were experienced and had flown many types of aircraft, so the Thunderbolt was one more and was no problem to fly once you knew where everything was in the cockpit. The Spitfire was relatively simple; the amount of clocks and gauges you had were negligible; the supercharger was automatic and from a simplicity angle piloting was easy. In comparison, the Thunderbolt was complicated, but in many ways easier to fly. When you took-off or landed the Thunderbolt never really swung and you could lock the tail wheel to keep it straight down the runway. The undercarriage was set very wide and, really, you had to be a bloody awful pilot to have an accident in a Thunderbolt --- if there was nothing mechanically wrong. With the Spitfire with its narrow track undercarriage take-off and landing required a lot more skill, especially in
winter in snow and on the ____ (missing word-hb) it could be held on a steady course. Another thing that was good was the cockpit heating. We didn€t have this in the Spitfire which made it more difficult to be efficient if you were half frozen.

€œThe biggest disadvantage of the Thunderbolt was its weight and we knew that we would have to fight in a different way to that in Spitfires. On the other hand it possessed the capacity to give an extra 400 hp by means of water injection, for use in an emergency, but only for a few minutes otherwise you blew your engine to pieces. I don€t think there was any aircraft at the time that would dive so fast as the Thunderbolt. First time I dived after an enemy plane I came up with him so quickly it was a bit of a shock. The Germans nearly always dived to escape: just flip over and down. So we could easily catch them with the superior speed of the Thunderbolt --- but it gained so quickly I am sure there must have been some collisions. Later models even had dive brakes. The Thunderbolt could turn quite well at speed but it was not safe to try to turn too far with a 190 or 109. It was best to go only a half circle, shoot, and then pull out; or three-quarters of a circle at the most. I had several engagements with German fighters at heights of between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. Dogfighting with them in a Thunderbolt needed care, it was not for the inexperienced. It was better to clear your tail, make a swift attack, then dive away. The only Thunderbolt pilot I saw hit and go down in a dogfight didn€t check his tail. I shot the German off him but it was already too late. I considered the 190 a better aircraft than the Messerschmitt; it could give you a tougher fight. The problem was that in a mix-up you sometimes had difficulty at long range telling which was a P-47 and which was an Fw 190 as they both had radial engines. In fact, I once mistakenly fired on another Thunderbolt. Luckily, I didn€t hit him.

€œThe most impressive thing about the Thunderbolt was the armament. There was no time for gunnery practices when I joined the 56th so I had no experience of what the heavy Browning machine guns would do in combat. The very first time I got on the tail of a Focke-Wulf and gave him a very short burst he absolutely exploded! It was fantastic! Nothing like this had ever happened in Spitfires due to the wide setting of the cannons (2) and machine guns (4), and small amount of rounds per cannon. Sometimes the enemy fighter would smoke but I had never seen one explode. The concentration and punch of bullets from those eight €˜Point-Fifties€ in the Thunderbolt was tremendous. You could see where you were hitting which you rarely saw with other fighters I flew. And if you saw where you were hitting all you had to do was pull your deflection, and there it was--- explosion! I have always believed the principal reason the Thunderbolt did so well in air fighting was its firepower.

€œI would say that there was very little difference between the flight behavior of the various Thunderbolt models I flew. The bubble hood gave a vast improvement in visibility, and the hood, being electrically operated, was simple to ease open a few inches, enabling you to get a breath of fresh air in the cockpit. Because the engine had a big appetite the cry was always for bigger tanks to carry more fuel. The first bubble hood P-47Ds were given to the leaders and we then had a problem because these aircraft had a bigger internal fuel tank. Some leaders would be busy chasing Germans and forget that they had more fuel than the other pilots.

€œI never had any real mechanical problems on my Thunderbolt; the standard of American engineering was very good and our mechanics were excellent. Another good thing was that Republic had a permanent representative on the aerodrome who was constantly interested in what we wanted improved or modified. Because the 56th was such a successful group --- and in my opinion a lot of this success was due to Hubert Zemke: he was the best leader of any nationality that I served with --- it often got new equipment to try out. We tested the rocket tubes fitted under the wings. Nobody liked them. There was a story that when some fellow fired his rockets they did a 180? turn and came back at him! We were one of the first to try napalm --- I think it was Schilling who dropped some on the field at Boxted to see what would happen.

€œNear the end of the war we got the very fast P-47M which we polished up to get extra speed. It had the very good gyroscopic gunsight only I must admit that we were not really happy about the change as we had become so used to the old sight. Then there was the two-seat Thunderbolt which was fitted out with a radar set and had antenna sticking out form the wings. The idea was to try and find German aircraft in the air while we were over Germany. It wasn€t successful as the radar did not function very well and the aircraft was so much slower than the rest.

€œThe Thunderbolt was well known for the punishment it could take. I have seen one come back to Boxted with a top cylinder and piston blown completely off with a shell. No liquid cooled engine fighter could take such punishment (I had a friend who was shot down in a Spitfire by a single rifle bullet in the cooling system --- on maneuvers in England!). Between 1935 and 1959 I flew more than forty different aircraft. The Thunderbolt wasn€t the best propeller driven type I flew but during the war I never felt safer than I did in a Thunderbolt. It could take more and give more than any other single-seat fighter of its day.

€œTo make comparisons between the Thunderbolt and any other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, is not really justifiable in that its capacity and ability were totally different. Therefore it is somewhat unfair to make such omparisons. The Spitfire was a short range --- per one battle, aircraft --- Paris and back. The Thunderbolt was a long range (and with later models, a very long range) aircraft --- 2 to 3, or more, battles per mission --- Berlin and back. Even so, this exceptional aircraft demanded greater experience plus additional training of its pilots to do it justice. But due to the progressive speed of the war itself and the demand so placed on the pilots, the US 8th Air Force had no option but to replace the Thunderbolts with the less demanding long range P-51 Mustang.

€œHowever, the 56th Fighter Group, on their own request, were permitted to keep the Thunderbolt. As the top scoring American Group*(in air-to-air combat) it seemed fitting they should retain the remarkable Thunderbolt that had helped to make them one of the most famous fighter units of the war.€

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
05-22-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Well some US jets had cannon. The .50 cal only aircaft were the P51's and Sabres. ...as well as the F-80, B-26, and F-84 aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-22-2006, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
As quickly as your ready to discredit any numbers where do you get your figures from?

I don't quite understand the instant doubt and discrediting that goes on in these forums. And it maybe just my imagination but most of it is from EU guys. What's up with that?

I'm sure there is a bias that comes from the states but guys that are interested in this genre no better than to just go by what's been said by the states.

2X or 3X that amount you say? That just sounds like a total load to me.

Do you think the numbers are fabricated? Just given the massive numbers of airframes sent over tells me otherwise.

I'm a US Citizen. I've also seen the figures from Germany of planes actually shot down, theirs.
And planes actually made, theirs. There are only so many to go around and this was discussed
on more civilized forums back 7-8 years ago. That's where I get the 2X to 3X.

Consider I don't think the 109 was a UFO and yet look at all the kills Hartmann made in 109's.
And he wasn't the only. Yet I somehow feel that kill counts don't make 109 a super plane.

JtD
05-22-2006, 11:39 PM
I'd like to know more about the P-47...what were it's strong points when it appeared?

Compared to the Spitfire, the "Allied standard" so far:
- better firepower
- excellent speed at alitude
- very good diving characteristics
- very damage resistant

Would that be enough to make a big difference?

Manu-6S
05-23-2006, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Targ:
This thread was doing really well until the kill claims debate sprouted.
This means that the thread is dead as the original topic has been hashed out and is no longer relevent or it has been hijacked and branched unto another subject.
Either way end the debate on kill claims, as we all know that it will end up ugly.
Or I can just lock this thread.

Sorry Targ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , when I read "they truly were legendary based as their respective war records attest" I went OT.

I'll make another post on the "other subject" , the last, I promise.

I'm wrong, it wasn't Yeager's first mission, don't know why I said that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif, sorry.

I was concerning to the sortie when 2 german planes collided each other and Yeager claimed the victories, without touching the trigger: this is ludicrous, is't it?

I agree with WWMaxGunz, kill counts do not prove the plane... I only tried to demostrate that the "war records" mean nothing, because the claim methods were very different.

So I can realize that US pilots reported more victories than RAF, but this don't make their planes "the best": nobody porked them in FB because hates USA.

Ok, I'll post on this subject no more, I just discussed about 0.50s before.

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

Ratsack
05-23-2006, 04:09 AM
Good to see the discussion is going so swimmingly well since I last looked in. I had high expectations, and I wasn't disappointed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

All this crud about kill claims and 'legendary' status is utterly irrelevant (the mod is right...hell, the mod is always right, by definition!). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The claims being made are:

1. the 0.50s are under modelled;
2. the guns on the P-40 work better than those on the P-51; and
3. US planes in general are porked.

In relation to 1, I think there is an adequate explanation, rolled out ad nauseam, that the damage model is not adequate for the type of damage machine guns do. Some of the 0.303 advocates have agreed on this score, too. Until BoB, we are stuck with it.

The 0.50s shouldn't hit like 20 mm cannons, and if they were beefed up further, they would. A large part of what people are complaining about is just really bad online behaviour where a 0.50-equipped plane smokes and fatally damages a plane, and some kill-stealing mongrel in a Spit comes and finishes it off. Well, too bad. I don't give a pinch of goat sh1t for kill stealers, and I don't play for points. What, me worry? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

As far as point 2 is concerned, it's just an unsubstantiated claim. Let's see some proof of this assertion. Until then, it's hot air. If you want 'self evident', try the forward view of the Fw190 or the razorback P-47s. THAT's self-evident.

As for 3, it's been said already. There are plenty of planes with problems. The Fw190A drivers complain about E bleed, the Spit drivers (and yes, I'm talking about you here, Pingu) complain that it's not well harmonized, the 109 drivers b1tch about the glass jaw engine, as do the P-51 jocks and the P-47 drivers, the Yak-9 drivers complain that their planes have been porked, etc, etc, etc, etc, . In my view, the only one of the complaints I've listed above that has a shred of justification is the P-47 and its fragile R-2800. The rest just goes to demonstrate that no one country's aircraft are stuffed.

Indeed, in terms of stuffing aircraft, Oleg has been nothing if not broadly ecumenical in his depredations. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Give it a rest, guys.


cheers,
Ratsack

Sharpe26
05-23-2006, 04:34 AM
you know what's interesting, find some combat reports about the battle of Britain and the later parts of the war. Look at the distances involved. Eye opener don't you think.

and as far as the cannon vs machine gun debate goes Shaw categorically states that due to the speeds involved with jet combat, a search began for a weapon that could destroy an enemy within the few seconds of firing time as allowed by maneuvering.

Ratsack
05-23-2006, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'd like to know more about the P-47...what were it's strong points when it appeared?

Compared to the Spitfire, the "Allied standard" so far:
- better firepower
- excellent speed at alitude
- very good diving characteristics
- very damage resistant

Would that be enough to make a big difference?

Not initially, no. Its good turn of speed at altitude was at very high altitude (28-30,000 ft), where the early versions made about 425 mph. Later versions pushing 64 inches of boost made 419 mph at 20,000 ft (max speed 441 mph at 27,700 ft, according to USN). From this, and from British tests against captured German planes, it's a pretty safe bet that the early P-47 wasn't much faster (if at all) than the Fw190A and Bf109G around 20,000 ft. Below that, the German fighters had the edge.

In terms of agility, the early P-47 was not in the same class as the German fighters. In turn and rate of climb it was inferior to both German types, particularly as speeds dropped below 250 mph. The later versions never caught the Germans types in these parameters. The max rate of climb of the later P-47Ds with water methanol, 64€ of boost and paddle blade props was only 3,170 feet per minute at sea level. The January 1941 vintage Spitfire MkV could out climb that (max RoC 3,200 fpm).

It was inferior to the Fw190 in acceleration and rate of roll under practically all circumstances. At high speeds it could out roll and thus out manoeuvre the 109. While the 109€s controls became very heavy at high speeds, it€s rate of turn was always superior to the P-47.

The P-47€s clear advantages were its speed in the dive, and its zoom climb. Even here, the acceleration advantages of the German planes meant they pulled away initially in the dive. If they maintained the dive, however, the P-47 swarmed all over them. The later, higher-boosted versions had better acceleration, but never equal to the Fw190€s. The water methanol improved low altitude performance, too. This made the later P-47s a better match for the German planes at lower altitudes. Even then, though, the P-47 was not at its best near the deck.

So in summary, the P-47 was more manoeuvrable than the 109, particularly at high speeds, by virtue of its superior rate of roll. At high altitudes the later versions could give or deny combat at will by virtue of their speed advantage, although at lower altitudes it was line ball.

The Fw190A was almost certainly more manoeuvrable under most circumstances below 20,000 ft, and would probably be faster below 18-15,000 feet, and faster than all but the very latest P-47s (Ms and severely over-boosted Ds running 100/150 octane juice) below 5,000 ft. Above 20,000 feet, the game would belong entirely to the P-47 in terms of speed. But even up there, it was not wise for the P-47 to attempt to turn or climb with the Fw190A, particularly the early P-47s. (The Brits tested their captured Fw190A-3 €" a very early Focke-Wulf €" against an early P-47 at 26,000 feet, and they found the Fw out-turned, out-climbed and out-accelerated the early P-47. We have to remember that at 26,000 feet the Fw was well out of its comfort zone, so while this was an early P-47, we shouldn€t discount the capabilities of this very nasty German fighter.)

So, while the early Thunderbolt enjoyed some advantages over the Spitfire MkIX €" primarily high altitude speed, diving and zoom performance - the main thing commending it for the escort role was its superior range. All other things being equal, I can€t help thinking I would rather have been flying a Spitfire LF MkIX than a P-47 if it came to trying conclusions with the Jagdwaffe (particularly the Abbeville Boys). But of course, if you were attempting to escort bombers, the Spit wasn€t a viable option.

Cheers,
Ratsack

HayateAce
05-23-2006, 05:37 AM
I'd pork the US planes too if I were Oleg. American pilots are a cut above the rest.

WWMaxGunz
05-23-2006, 07:55 AM
Anywhere one plane can outclimb another it can also get some climb at the top speed of the other.
Compound that with the faster the top speed of the other, the better that speed margin will serve
the first. Where the P-47 is faster it can outclimb the FW by keeping the speed high if the FW
tries to stay with it. Add a bit of spiral and if the FW slows to climb faster it becomes meat.

The same applies to Spit VB vs FW 190A-3 as it did at Farnborough.

Best climb rates are not absolute compares in combat conditions.

Ratsack
05-23-2006, 09:24 AM
Yep, you're right, provided the slower plane chooses to stay in a high-speed climbing competition. However, if the pilot of the faster plane is no fool, he will retain the energy advantage.

On the other hand, the Brits noted that it was suicidal for a P-47 to attempt a defensive turn against the Fw190A, and that if the P-47 tried a climbing turn, it served only to let the Fw190A get to a killing position quicker. Obviously they weren't talking about energy neutral moves, but about violent accelerated turns.

In any case, I'm not saying the P-47 was rubbish: far from it. But I am saying that the very high top speeds of the P-47 were at very high altitudes. Lower than about 18-20,000 feet, things evened out and in many respects the German planes - particularly the Fw190 - had an edge. So people expecting the P-47 to be a superlative dog fighter in this sim, where the vast majority of the knife work is done below 10,000 feet, have unrealistic expectations in my view.

cheers,
Ratsack

Blood_Splat
05-23-2006, 09:46 AM
The way I look at it is, the pilots only had seconds to react in a dogfight... so all the charts and this plane can do this and that went out the window.

Maj_Solo
05-23-2006, 10:11 AM
The pilots liked the .50, cause you could start hosing at longer ranges with many bullets in the air some hits, and these tiny damages start picking the enemy apart slowly, damageing control surface and making it harder to fly the plane, and or the pilot could get wounded from this hailstorm.

When the enemy is not flying that well anymore you move in and give a final good burst.

.50 should be good to have if your opponent is really good and or really maneuvable. Problem is when you go up against bombers.

berg417448
05-23-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:


I was concerning to the sortie when 2 german planes collided each other and Yeager claimed the victories, without touching the trigger: this is ludicrous, is't it?


So I can realize that US pilots reported more victories than RAF, but this don't make their planes "the best": nobody porked them in FB because hates USA.


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


You better take away some of Erich Hartman's IL-2 kills then for they were achieved the same way. They are called "maneuver kills" and were awarded as victories if the attacker's action was directly responsible for the loss of the enemy plane.
In Yeager's case his attack on a pair of German fighters caused one to take evasive action and he collided with his wingman.

In Hartman's case he attacked some Soviet planes and they flew into the ground while attempting to evade him.

The whole point is to destroy enemy aircraft....does it matter how you do it?

Scen
05-23-2006, 10:57 AM
So I can realize that US pilots reported more victories than RAF, but this don't make their planes "the best": nobody porked them in FB because hates USA.

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

Uhh No but FB does have a bias towards some of the allied aircraft. I know even when presenting numbers that come from the manufacturer of certain planes it was scuffed off as propaganda.

The bottom line is as Oleg and team try to get close to the numbers for each and every plane there is a compromise and sometimes it's done for game play sake.

Personally if a certain plane has an advantage so be it. As long as it's close to realworld the better I say. That way we can have fun trying to figure out a counter to it.

Scendore

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 11:00 AM
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Scen
05-23-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Specifically p-38 data that was presented and discounted.

I already had what p-38 Data put Correct? Uhhh how?

It was only compared to other planes and no data was ever presented. So I'm not sure what your yammering on about.

Shall I give you the dive chart and have you figure out the compressability problems as well as being able to pull certain gs which can't be done in the game?

I'll be glad to email it to you if you like. I have the entire POH

JtD
05-23-2006, 12:20 PM
There is no plane in this sim that has their dive characteristics represented anywhere near the real limits. Not 1. Must be bias against planes, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Scen
05-23-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
There is no plane in this sim that has their dive characteristics represented anywhere near the real limits. Not 1. Must be bias against planes, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

True however, none of the other planes suffer from compressibility like the 38. Call it what you will but the bottom line it leaves the 38 in a very different class of plane when it comes to Dogfighting...

StellarRat
05-23-2006, 12:23 PM
The 38 is very good now. It was porked in the original incarnation, but is very deadly now. A lot guys only fly it now.

Scen
05-23-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
The 38 is very good now. It was porked in the original incarnation, but is very deadly now. A lot guys only fly it now.

Indeed it has improved but it's nothing close to what it was in real life... It's basically been rendered into an amazing strike plane with some dogfighting ability.

JtD
05-23-2006, 12:32 PM
When it comes to dogfighting the P-38 is about the best US design available. It has little to no tendency do drop a wing and this allows you maneuvers pretty close to the historical ones you can read in test reports. The downsides of the plane are the size and the high speed handling, but the P-38 did suffer from that. It essentially reached compression when flying level at high altitude. In game, it is still a joy to fly up there.

You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed.

Scen
05-23-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
When it comes to dogfighting the P-38 is about the best US design available. It has little to no tendency do drop a wing and this allows you maneuvers pretty close to the historical ones you can read in test reports. The downsides of the plane are the size and the high speed handling, but the P-38 did suffer from that. It essentially reached compression when flying level at high altitude. In game, it is still a joy to fly up there.

You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed.

I agree the 110 is the worst of them all IMO...

Yes the 38 has some of it's ability but it's still lacking... The compression onset is way to low and most guys offset it by using the dive breaks which in turn kills your E.

Kocur_
05-23-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
There is no plane in this sim that has their dive characteristics represented anywhere near the real limits. Not 1. Must be bias against planes, I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Naturally you meant western planes only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Specifically p-38 data that was presented and discounted.

I already had what p-38 Data put Correct? Uhhh how?

It was only compared to other planes and no data was ever presented. So I'm not sure what your yammering on about.

Shall I give you the dive chart and have you figure out the compressability problems as well as being able to pull certain gs which can't be done in the game?

I'll be glad to email it to you if you like. I have the entire POH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talked about roll rate that what I am 'yattering on about' you admitted you were wrong.

I already asked you to email me this data. eariler in the thread.

xiolablu3@hotmail.com

Have you flown a p38? You are talking like you have.

Kocur_
05-23-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Scen:

Yes the 38 has some of it's ability but it's still lacking... The compression onset is way to low and most guys offset it by using the dive breaks which in turn kills your E.

Not brakes! Those were "dive recovery flaps" to use official nomenclature and their very purpose was to counter P-38's unusually early comprssibility problems.

Scen
05-23-2006, 12:59 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 Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Specifically p-38 data that was presented and discounted.

I already had what p-38 Data put Correct? Uhhh how?

It was only compared to other planes and no data was ever presented. So I'm not sure what your yammering on about.

Shall I give you the dive chart and have you figure out the compressability problems as well as being able to pull certain gs which can't be done in the game?

I'll be glad to email it to you if you like. I have the entire POH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talked about roll rate that what I am 'yattering on about' you admitted you were wrong.

I already asked you to email me this data. eariler in the thread.

xiolablu3@hotmail.com

Have you flown a p38? You are talking like you have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've already emailed you and you failed to respond...

Check your email right now... PDF on the way

bazzaah2
05-23-2006, 01:21 PM
I think the .5 is just fine.

I'll get me coat.

HayateAce
05-23-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by JtD:


You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed.

This is the kind of BS that gets spewed around and eventually leads to the cryballing that has improved some of the axis planes beyond historical realities. The 110 was mauled, and I mean mauled in the BOB. Relegated to a night fighter and suicide bomber attack aircraft after BOB.

Fork-N-spoon
05-23-2006, 01:39 PM
Those of you who feel that I'm anti-Luftwaffe, please take a deep breath...

The Bf-110 may have been "mauled" in the Battle of Britain, but I feel that this was mostly due to Luftwaffe fighter doctrine rather than shortcomings of the Bf-110's design.

Considering that the Bf-110 had decent speed, I see no reason why it shouldn't have been more successful during the battle of Britain. German bomber crews were like those of many nations in that they wanted their escorting fighters to fly right next to them. The Luftwaffe command honored their desires and had Bf-110 crews fly "close bomber support." As a result of this tactic, the Bf-110 was denied its obvious good points during this period... this would be speed. The Bf-110 had decent speed during the Battle of Britain, but despite this it was tied to the bombers and couldn't exploit hit and run tactics. By tying the Bf-110 to the bombers, the Luftwaffe high command sealed the Bf-110's fate. I believe that the Bf-110 was capable of sustained cruise speed that was higher than the Hurricane€s top speed. I also believe that the Bf-110's top speed not only exceeded that of the Hurrciane, but also nearly equaled the Spitfire's top speed. I could be mistaken, but I believe that some Luftwaffe fan boys could probably provide the needed proof of my beliefs.

I would never argue that the Bf-110 was an effective fighter after 1942, but prior to this it wasn't as bad as some would have you believe. Even after 1942, it still made a very effective bomber interceptor. I would go so far as to say that the Bf-110 was probably a better bomber interceptor than the Bf-109. Once allied fighters arrived on the scene to escort the allied bombers, then the Bf-110 was truly outdated.

Toten_Waffe
05-23-2006, 01:48 PM
To be honest the 110 is one of my favourites in the game and in my oppinion the performance and armament seem reasonably realistic.

What does annoy me greatly about it is the old "broken gunsight" glitch that falls off the dashboard from a single stray shot from a bomber about 50 miles away. That gets tiresome as I find it happens far to regularly even when being shot at from some totally obscure angles.

I also find the engines catch fire too easily and explode to soon......especially compared to the P-38 which can seem to fly forever wth both ngines on fire.

JtD
05-23-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Scen:

Yes the 38 has some of it's ability but it's still lacking... The compression onset is way to low and most guys offset it by using the dive breaks which in turn kills your E.

Compression onset is too low only at low altitude. At high altitude, it comes to late. This is because FB's flight model is based on IAS, while compression and dive limit are TAS related. Only at about 25000ft you will find what I consider correct numbers. Naturally, this puts the P-38 at an ahistorical disadvantage in the vast majority of engagements.

Mind you, if I say P-38 I usually mean P-38J. It has no dive brakes. I use trim and combat flaps for pullouts. I attest it to be a weak B'n'Z plane but a great dogfighter. It can pull some fancy maneuvers no German plane can follow and will stay on their tail as long as they keep it slow. It has downsides, but as a dogfighter it rocks.

Thanks for sharing your unlimited knowledge with me, HayateAce. Which planet are you from?

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Specifically p-38 data that was presented and discounted.

I already had what p-38 Data put Correct? Uhhh how?

It was only compared to other planes and no data was ever presented. So I'm not sure what your yammering on about.

Shall I give you the dive chart and have you figure out the compressability problems as well as being able to pull certain gs which can't be done in the game?

I'll be glad to email it to you if you like. I have the entire POH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talked about roll rate that what I am 'yattering on about' you admitted you were wrong.

I already asked you to email me this data. eariler in the thread.

xiolablu3@hotmail.com

Have you flown a p38? You are talking like you have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've already emailed you and you failed to respond...

Check your email right now... PDF on the way </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I didnt check it till just now. If something is totally out compared to its real life counterpart then I will campaign on your behalf. But I have never seen anything that makes me think that its too far out, but Im no P38 expert either. Remember this is an old computer game and nothing is ever going to be perfect.

I have always had my doubts when people say a twin engined plane like the p38 should dogfight like a single engined fighter. I can see it being fast, I can see it climbing well, but in hard manouvres, turns and roll rate, I just cant see it, but hey maybe your data can change my mind. Other twin engined designs (Me110, Beaufighter, Mossie,Pe2 etc) didnt really compete as PURE dogfighters in WW2, what makes the P38 so different?

Similarly why the Tempest (a BIG fighter) cant manouvre like a Spitfire, it just seems to make sense that the tiny nimble Spit will manouvre better. Not scientific I know, but I need to be proved wrong.

Does anyone have a host that Scen can upload his P38 data to please? Its about 100mb.

Fork-N-spoon
05-23-2006, 02:13 PM
Mach limitation in this game seems to be something that's rather weird. I don't care what aircraft we're talking about you can exceed the speed of sound in most of them above 6,000 meters with no negative effects. JtD's point is something that I agree with. Having extensive data on the real P-38 and testing our in game P-38, I too have noticed that the P-38 easily exceeds its documented critical mach at altitude, while at low altitude the P-38's critical mach is far too low. The P-38 is probably the worst-case scenario in this game, but all our game's aircraft have unrealistic mach capabilities above 4,000 meters.

As far as the P-38 is concerned it, like most aircraft, in this game can exceed the speed of sound at high altitude. On the other hand it has been hashed over several times over several year about the real life P-38€s critical mach. Does anybody dispute that according to most sources the P-38 without the aid of dive recovery flaps would begin to buffet at mach .68 and that at mach .74 the pilot could no longer prevent the aircraft from €œtucking under?€ Considering that at mach .68 compressibility effects being and that control isn€t lost until mach .74, I€d say that there is a definite problem with our in game P-38. Meaning that our in game P-38 begins to lose control at speeds as low at mach .5 and by mach .54 the P-38 is completely uncontrollable.

JtD
05-23-2006, 02:14 PM
Try this http://www.airwar.ru/aww2.html
and that http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

This should eliminate much of the need for uploads.

Scen
05-23-2006, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:

Yes the 38 has some of it's ability but it's still lacking... The compression onset is way to low and most guys offset it by using the dive breaks which in turn kills your E.

Compression onset is too low only at low altitude. At high altitude, it comes to late. This is because FB's flight model is based on IAS, while compression and dive limit are TAS related. Only at about 25000ft you will find what I consider correct numbers. Naturally, this puts the P-38 at an ahistorical disadvantage in the vast majority of engagements.

Mind you, if I say P-38 I usually mean P-38J. It has no dive brakes. I use trim and combat flaps for pullouts. I attest it to be a weak B'n'Z plane but a great dogfighter. It can pull some fancy maneuvers no German plane can follow and will stay on their tail as long as they keep it slow. It has downsides, but as a dogfighter it rocks.

Thanks for sharing your unlimited knowledge with me, HayateAce. Which planet are you from? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly if you're happy with the performance say 20K and below then thats fine by me.

For me most fights take place at low Alts I would like to see things improved. I'm NOT saying the plane isn't capable as I do just fine flying them but they aren't quite the plane they're supposed to be. I know that goes for quite a few planes but this time I happen to bring up the 38.

Scen
05-23-2006, 02:53 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 Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Specifically p-38 data that was presented and discounted.

I already had what p-38 Data put Correct? Uhhh how?

It was only compared to other planes and no data was ever presented. So I'm not sure what your yammering on about.

Shall I give you the dive chart and have you figure out the compressability problems as well as being able to pull certain gs which can't be done in the game?

I'll be glad to email it to you if you like. I have the entire POH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talked about roll rate that what I am 'yattering on about' you admitted you were wrong.

I already asked you to email me this data. eariler in the thread.

xiolablu3@hotmail.com

Have you flown a p38? You are talking like you have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've already emailed you and you failed to respond...

Check your email right now... PDF on the way </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I didnt check it till just now. If something is totally out compared to its real life counterpart then I will campaign on your behalf. But I have never seen anything that makes me think that its too far out, but Im no P38 expert either. Remember this is an old computer game and nothing is ever going to be perfect.

I have always had my doubts when people say a twin engined plane like the p38 should dogfight like a single engined fighter. I can see it being fast, I can see it climbing well, but in hard manouvres, turns and roll rate, I just cant see it, but hey maybe your data can change my mind. Other twin engined designs (Me110, Beaufighter, Mossie,Pe2 etc) didnt really compete as PURE dogfighters in WW2, what makes the P38 so different?

Similarly why the Tempest (a BIG fighter) cant manouvre like a Spitfire, it just seems to make sense that the tiny nimble Spit will manouvre better. Not scientific I know, but I need to be proved wrong.

Does anyone have a host that Scen can upload his P38 data to please? Its about 100mb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it makes sense to think that a bigger Twin can't compete with a single engine fighters but the fact is it did and quite well I might add. Regardless of Theatre and early problems it had later on it proved to be a very good airplane.

Just to give you an idea about some of the wacky things they did try on asymetrical trust manuevers to get the plane to turn better.

I just recently met a few 38 pilots and it was quite and interesting conversation.

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 03:22 PM
Just been doing a bit of research :

'(c) Against the P-39D, P-51, and the P-40F, the P-38F had a longer
radius of turn below twelve-thousand (12,000) feet. From twelve-thousand
(12,000) feet to approximately fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet, the radius
was almost the same, and from fifteen-thousand (15,000) feet on up, the P-38F had a equal or shorter radius of turn. In the initial turn, due to
the slowness of aileron roll of the P-38F, the other types could roll into
a turn faster and close up the circle rapidly before the P-38F would reach
its maximum radius of turn. It would then take the P-38F sometime, if
ever, to overcome this initial disadvantage. The P-38F€s best maneuver
against all types tested was to climb rapidly out of range and then turn
and commence the combat from a superior altitude. Once gaining this
altitude it should retain it, making passes and climbing again rapidly.
Knowledge of the local enemy fighter performance will dictate the tactics
to be used by the P-38F in the combat zone. It is doubtful if this
aircraft will meet in combat any type of enemy aircraft in which close-in
fighting will be its best offensive action. '

From www.Spitfireperformance.com, (http://www.Spitfireperformance.com,) and a US trial.

This part sticks out for me - 'It is doubtful if this
aircraft will meet in combat any type of enemy aircraft in which close-in
fighting will be its best offensive action.' - suggests that it should not be used as a dogfighter.

However this is the P38F, and it has been said on this forum that extras were added to the later models to turn better, is that correct?

OldMan____
05-23-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Which planes, which are so wrong? Which data was called propaganda?

You already had your p38 'data' put corrrect, which others?

Specifically p-38 data that was presented and discounted.

I already had what p-38 Data put Correct? Uhhh how?

It was only compared to other planes and no data was ever presented. So I'm not sure what your yammering on about.

Shall I give you the dive chart and have you figure out the compressability problems as well as being able to pull certain gs which can't be done in the game?

I'll be glad to email it to you if you like. I have the entire POH </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You talked about roll rate that what I am 'yattering on about' you admitted you were wrong.

I already asked you to email me this data. eariler in the thread.

xiolablu3@hotmail.com

Have you flown a p38? You are talking like you have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've already emailed you and you failed to respond...

Check your email right now... PDF on the way </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I didnt check it till just now. If something is totally out compared to its real life counterpart then I will campaign on your behalf. But I have never seen anything that makes me think that its too far out, but Im no P38 expert either. Remember this is an old computer game and nothing is ever going to be perfect.

I have always had my doubts when people say a twin engined plane like the p38 should dogfight like a single engined fighter. I can see it being fast, I can see it climbing well, but in hard manouvres, turns and roll rate, I just cant see it, but hey maybe your data can change my mind. Other twin engined designs (Me110, Beaufighter, Mossie,Pe2 etc) didnt really compete as PURE dogfighters in WW2, what makes the P38 so different?

Similarly why the Tempest (a BIG fighter) cant manouvre like a Spitfire, it just seems to make sense that the tiny nimble Spit will manouvre better. Not scientific I know, but I need to be proved wrong.

Does anyone have a host that Scen can upload his P38 data to please? Its about 100mb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it makes sense to think that a bigger Twin can't compete with a single engine fighters but the fact is it did and quite well I might add. Regardless of Theatre and early problems it had later on it proved to be a very good airplane.

Just to give you an idea about some of the wacky things they did try on asymetrical trust manuevers to get the plane to turn better.

I just recently met a few 38 pilots and it was quite and interesting conversation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the P38 did payed the prie of its size. Its inertia tensors were high.

In almost every detailed combat description I found between P38 and enemy. Is easy to find statements like the 109 rolled and turned intially gaining some ground but a few instant later the P38 would reach the same rate of roll or turn (or even overpass it).

The maximum roll or turn rate might be high, but it took more effort ant time to reach it than nimble small fighters.

A crude example. A small slow boat can turn much tigher than an F15 fighter. but tyhe F15 will start the turn in much less time. I know that is a very distant example.. but just to illustrate the idea.

Scen
05-23-2006, 03:26 PM
Interesting Find...

I don't expect it to be a turn fighter but BnZ it should do just fine. Similar tatics where used in the Pacific by Bong.

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 03:31 PM
Didnt you say that they added stuff on the later models to allow it to turn better, Scen? That is the p38F in that report.

I am also impressed with the P38s climb rate, it seems it climbed better than most other planes of it day.

This chart :- http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/fighter-comp-chart.jpg

However it does muddy the water with the WEP on some fighters and not others. No mention of models of FW190, Zero, etc.

Just one thing about that chart, what is a XP51F? Was it a post war plane? It is the fastest on that chart by far, totally beating the Spitfire 9 (could be the Merlin 61 Mk9 tho). Google throws up nothing. I suspect it was an experimental P51 judging by the XP designation.

I wonder why no Bf109 on the chart as well, that would probably have the fastest climb.

VW-IceFire
05-23-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
Interesting Find...

I don't expect it to be a turn fighter but BnZ it should do just fine. Similar tatics where used in the Pacific by Bong.
In the right spot the P-38 can try and be a turn fighter for a little while. Against 109s and 190s I can use it as a turn fighter in high AoA situations because I can keep the nose up high while torque rolls them over.

The P-38 performs like a single engined fighter already. Its nerfed in terms of its elevator and compressability speed problem (as already mentioned) but that aside its a fantastic aircraft in the right hands. Bong's exploits against the Japanese definately were helped because the Japanese didn't have anything that was as fast or climbed as well as the P-38 does. In the ETO the P-38 didn't do as well and when you take it up against FW190s and 109s its a very hard fight to do well in a P-38.

If you do manage to get your guns on the target....the 4 .50cal chews em up really well. I find its just the hardest to actually get on target in the P-38 with the delayed roll rate and sluggishness of the elvator at speed.

GR142-Pipper
05-23-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
When it comes to dogfighting the P-38 is about the best US design available. It has little to no tendency do drop a wing and this allows you maneuvers pretty close to the historical ones you can read in test reports. The downsides of the plane are the size and the high speed handling, but the P-38 did suffer from that. It essentially reached compression when flying level at high altitude. In game, it is still a joy to fly up there.

You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed. Oh, you mean the Bf-110 that has engines that continue to operate for 10 minutes even though they're completely engulfed in flames and a tail gunner that only needs a handful of bullets to destroy your plane? That 110? In the real world, the 110 was so easily savaged that it was reduced to the world of night fighting. Game play rears its head yet again.

Anyway, it's clear the developer either can't or won't model the U.S. mid/late-war planes or the 50's correctly.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
When it comes to dogfighting the P-38 is about the best US design available. It has little to no tendency do drop a wing and this allows you maneuvers pretty close to the historical ones you can read in test reports. The downsides of the plane are the size and the high speed handling, but the P-38 did suffer from that. It essentially reached compression when flying level at high altitude. In game, it is still a joy to fly up there.

You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed. Oh, you mean the Bf-110 that has engines that continue to operate for 10 minutes even though they're completely engulfed in flames
GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Errrm, the P38 does exactly the same, I have seen it fly for OVER 10 minutes back to base both engines in flames.

Why do you not mention the P38 does exactly the same?

berg417448
05-23-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:



Just one thing about that chart, what is a XP51F?



XP-51F lightweight fighter info:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_12.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_12.html)

GR142-Pipper
05-23-2006, 04:01 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 GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
When it comes to dogfighting the P-38 is about the best US design available. It has little to no tendency do drop a wing and this allows you maneuvers pretty close to the historical ones you can read in test reports. The downsides of the plane are the size and the high speed handling, but the P-38 did suffer from that. It essentially reached compression when flying level at high altitude. In game, it is still a joy to fly up there.

You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed. Oh, you mean the Bf-110 that has engines that continue to operate for 10 minutes even though they're completely engulfed in flames
GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Errrm, the P38 does exactly the same, I have seen it fly for OVER 10 minutes back to base both engines in flames.

Why do you not mention the P38 does exactly the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Because it doesn't last nearly as long as a 110 does in the same condition.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
When it comes to dogfighting the P-38 is about the best US design available. It has little to no tendency do drop a wing and this allows you maneuvers pretty close to the historical ones you can read in test reports. The downsides of the plane are the size and the high speed handling, but the P-38 did suffer from that. It essentially reached compression when flying level at high altitude. In game, it is still a joy to fly up there.

You want to complain about a two engined fighter? Complain about the 110. That one is screwed. Oh, you mean the Bf-110 that has engines that continue to operate for 10 minutes even though they're completely engulfed in flames
GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Errrm, the P38 does exactly the same, I have seen it fly for OVER 10 minutes back to base both engines in flames.

Why do you not mention the P38 does exactly the same? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Because it doesn't last nearly as long as a 110 does in the same condition.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sure it does, I have seen P38s fly for ridiculous times while on fire, landing back at base in flames. I fly the 110 a lot for ground attack, and I think 10 minutes is an exaggeration, it doesnt take long to blow up after setting alight.

I have escorted P38's on fire in a Spitfire and the pilot has actually said 'Fire is no problem, just keep the fighters off me'' (!) He flew all the way back to base in flames, honestly over 10 minutes, and landed fine.

StellarRat
05-23-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Mach limitation in this game seems to be something that's rather weird. I don't care what aircraft we're talking about you can exceed the speed of sound in most of them above 6,000 meters with no negative effects. JtD's point is something that I agree with. Having extensive data on the real P-38 and testing our in game P-38, I too have noticed that the P-38 easily exceeds its documented critical mach at altitude, while at low altitude the P-38's critical mach is far too low. The P-38 is probably the worst-case scenario in this game, but all our game's aircraft have unrealistic mach capabilities above 4,000 meters.

As far as the P-38 is concerned it, like most aircraft, in this game can exceed the speed of sound at high altitude. On the other hand it has been hashed over several times over several year about the real life P-38€s critical mach. Does anybody dispute that according to most sources the P-38 without the aid of dive recovery flaps would begin to buffet at mach .68 and that at mach .74 the pilot could no longer prevent the aircraft from €œtucking under?€ Considering that at mach .68 compressibility effects being and that control isn€t lost until mach .74, I€d say that there is a definite problem with our in game P-38. Meaning that our in game P-38 begins to lose control at speeds as low at mach .5 and by mach .54 the P-38 is completely uncontrollable. Oleg has said that the high altitude model is wrong. What I don't remember is where high altitude begins in Oleg's model.

ImpStarDuece
05-23-2006, 04:27 PM
What Oleg actually said was more like "the atmosphere model doesn't change much past 10,000m"


10,000m = 32,800 feet

Scen
05-23-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt you say that they added stuff on the later models to allow it to turn better, Scen? That is the p38F in that report.

I am also impressed with the P38s climb rate, it seems it climbed better than most other planes of it day.

This chart :- http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/fighter-comp-chart.jpg

However it does muddy the water with the WEP on some fighters and not others. No mention of models of FW190, Zero, etc.

Just one thing about that chart, what is a XP51F? Was it a post war plane? It is the fastest on that chart by far, totally beating the Spitfire 9 (could be the Merlin 61 Mk9 tho). Google throws up nothing. I suspect it was an experimental P51 judging by the XP designation.

I wonder why no Bf109 on the chart as well, that would probably have the fastest climb.

Just going off of some memory here... The P38F wasn't all that great when the 38 first came out. It was a decent turning plane but it had some problems with acceleration and it couldn't match the climb of a 109.

The later version was the P38J model which addressed the climbing and acceleration issues and made it much more of a problem for opponents. But it had high speed turbulance and lift problems which decreased the elevator effectiveness.

They then added power assisted ailerons which increased the roll rate by like 10X and dive recovery flaps to help out with the high speed problems and it became the P38L. The P38L can turn as well as the P38F and climb much better and the dive problems are solved with the recovery flaps. I do remember reading somewhere that when it comes to turning and rolling the P38L was incredible but it took a few versions to make it right.

Scen
05-23-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Interesting Find...

I don't expect it to be a turn fighter but BnZ it should do just fine. Similar tatics where used in the Pacific by Bong.
In the right spot the P-38 can try and be a turn fighter for a little while. Against 109s and 190s I can use it as a turn fighter in high AoA situations because I can keep the nose up high while torque rolls them over.

The P-38 performs like a single engined fighter already. Its nerfed in terms of its elevator and compressability speed problem (as already mentioned) but that aside its a fantastic aircraft in the right hands. Bong's exploits against the Japanese definately were helped because the Japanese didn't have anything that was as fast or climbed as well as the P-38 does. In the ETO the P-38 didn't do as well and when you take it up against FW190s and 109s its a very hard fight to do well in a P-38.

If you do manage to get your guns on the target....the 4 .50cal chews em up really well. I find its just the hardest to actually get on target in the P-38 with the delayed roll rate and sluggishness of the elvator at speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All true and just to add to it part of the reason why the 38 didn't do as well in the ETO had to do with when they started to address the problems as mentioned above. The P38L would have done much better if it where available earlier on.

Scen
05-23-2006, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Didnt you say that they added stuff on the later models to allow it to turn better, Scen? That is the p38F in that report.

I am also impressed with the P38s climb rate, it seems it climbed better than most other planes of it day.

This chart :- http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/fighter-comp-chart.jpg

However it does muddy the water with the WEP on some fighters and not others. No mention of models of FW190, Zero, etc.

Just one thing about that chart, what is a XP51F? Was it a post war plane? It is the fastest on that chart by far, totally beating the Spitfire 9 (could be the Merlin 61 Mk9 tho). Google throws up nothing. I suspect it was an experimental P51 judging by the XP designation.

I wonder why no Bf109 on the chart as well, that would probably have the fastest climb.

Just going off of some memory here... The P38F wasn't all that great when the 38 first came out. It was a decent turning plane but it had some problems with acceleration and it couldn't come close to the climb of a 109.

The later version was the P38J model which addressed some of the climbing and acceleration issues and made it much more of a problem for opponents. But it had high speed turbulance and lift problems which decreased the elevator effectiveness.

They then added power assisted ailerons which increased the roll rate by like 10X and dive recovery flaps to help out with the high speed problems and it became the P38L. The P38L can turn as well as the P38F and climb much better and the dive problems are solved with the recovery flaps. I do remember reading somewhere that when it comes to turning and rolling the P38L was incredible but it took a few versions to make it right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTE_Galway
05-23-2006, 05:13 PM
The P38 will never fly like it should when asymmetrical thrust is not modelled properly and we only have one throttle axis.

Its just a limitation of the flight engine in IL2, it was never really designed for accurate representation of flyable twins.

Scen
05-23-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The P38 will never fly like it should when asymmetrical thrust is not modelled properly and we only have one throttle axis.

Its just a limitation of the flight engine in IL2, it was never really designed for accurate representation of flyable twins.


Yeah I know and I don't expect it to change. I would like to see some of the compressibility numbers change for the better though. I know it has to do with the way the lack of atmospheric conditions and it's based upon IAS not TAS.

Fork-N-spoon
05-23-2006, 05:19 PM
Xiolablu3,

The link you provided wouldn't work for me. However I'm familiar with this site and I've a direct link to the test I believe you're speaking of.

Please note that in this test

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p-38/p-38f-tactical-trials.html

note the aircraft's numbers. "tested were the standard P-38F type airplanes, A.C. Serial Numbers 41-7536 and 41-7612." These are P-38F-1-LOs that didn't have maneuvering flaps. Maneuvering flaps were only incorporated into production aircraft starting with the P-38F-15-LO. The serial numbers for the production block P-38F-15-LO started with 43-2064 and ended with 43-2184. Also note that for having a much higher wing loading than the early P-51A, P-40, and P-39 it turned fairly well considering its much higher wing loading and the fact that it didn't have the benefit of maneuvering flaps.

To others, dive limitations in this game...

It seems that critical mach only begins at 3,500 - 4,500 meters. Above this altitude most aircraft that we have in this game can go super sonic. I believe that what most people's complaints are in regards to the P-38's low critical mach is that at altitudes at or below 3,000 meters. Near sea level you begin to lose elevator effectiveness at speeds around mach .5 and that by mach .53 or mach .54 the P-38's elevator is completely ineffective. Just going on several difference sources there seems to be a common theme, mach .68 buffet begins, mach .72 "tuck under" begins, and at mach .74 the pilot can no longer counter "tuck under" with elevator input. It seems that it isn't until mach .72 that the elevator begins to lose its effectiveness yet in this game it is much lower. Since all aircraft seem to have rather high abilities above 4,500 meters and it seems like it's an issue with the game's engine, I haven't seen nobody ask that this be fixed in quite sometime now. What people are asking to be fixed is the P-38s low altitude compressibility issues. Several people have tested this and come up with similar numbers. Without the benefit of dive recovery flaps, the P-38 in our game hits compressibility 120-140 mph sooner than it should.

I€ve seen people state over and over again about the P-38€s slow roll response. I watch Roaring Glory€s video on the P-38 from time to time. I often wonder where this initial hesitation is because I cannot see it with the naked eye. I€ve seen several other P-38 videos and they all seem to lack this €œinitial roll hesitation.€ I€ve often wondered if writers and or historians took it out of context. I believe that P-38s without boosted ailerons most likely had very sluggish ailerons at high true air speed and high altitude. It seems that pilots flying P-38s in other theaters figured a way around this. By going to full power on one engine and reducing power on the other engine the P-38 could effectively execute a rather fast split-s maneuver. I€ve read about 9th Air Force P-38 pilots who received their stateside P-38 instruction from a PTO veteran. I can think of one book in particular on a 9th Air Force P-38 pilot who states that his PTO instructor told him to execute the above mentioned maneuver and when he was done it would shake the enemy from his six. The 9th Air Force P-38 pilot reported that one-day he found an enemy fighter on his six that was shooting at him. He did as his PTO veteran instructor told him and when he came out of the maneuver his tail was clear. I believe €œVictory Roll€ or €œFighter Aces of the United States of America€ makes mention of asymmetric power use in the P-38 to effectively counter and roll deficiencies that the P-38 may have had.

Brain32
05-23-2006, 05:22 PM
The P38 will never fly like it should when asymmetrical thrust is not modelled properly and we only have one throttle axis.

Its just a limitation of the flight engine in IL2, it was never really designed for accurate representation of flyable twins.

Well that's OK but two most pronounced "whines" about the 38 are climb rate and stall speed, and if boys who deal with it have all the data to prove it, I see no reason for those issues not to be fixed.

And Pipper just implying that BF110 is over- anything is extremely lame http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It's really no wonder you whine about Luft planes so much if you find the ol' cr@ppy 110 difficult to down...

WWMaxGunz
05-23-2006, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The P38 will never fly like it should when asymmetrical thrust is not modelled properly and we only have one throttle axis.

Its just a limitation of the flight engine in IL2, it was never really designed for accurate representation of flyable twins.

There are people using two throttles via devicelink. It is tricky but possible.

Ratsack
05-23-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
...

Anyway, it's clear the developer either can't or won't model the U.S. mid/late-war planes or the 50's correctly.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

Click your heels together and repeat, 'There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home...'


Ratsack

WTE_Galway
05-23-2006, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The P38 will never fly like it should when asymmetrical thrust is not modelled properly and we only have one throttle axis.

Its just a limitation of the flight engine in IL2, it was never really designed for accurate representation of flyable twins.

There are people using two throttles via devicelink. It is tricky but possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that is interesting .. i will have to look into it when i get time

asymmetrical thrust turns with only one throttle are generally a good way of killing yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
05-23-2006, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Similarly why the Tempest (a BIG fighter) cant manouvre like a Spitfire, it just seems to make sense that the tiny nimble Spit will manouvre better. Not scientific I know, but I need to be proved wrong.


Ask yourself how the F-15 can be one of the biggest jet fighters out there, yet one of the most manuverable. Aerodynamics goes WAY beyond size.

stoopidlimey
05-23-2006, 08:35 PM
The 50's are just fine they way they are. The crybaby allied jocks just want to see explosions with every hit. WWWWAAAAWWW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif I've been raked with 50's more than once, each and every time I have to bail out. What do you guys want? A phazer looking blast from the Muzzles eveytime you pull the trigger? Keep wishing.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Your ever loving sim pilot,

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Stoopidlimey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Gibbage1
05-23-2006, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by stoopidlimey:
What do you guys want? A phazer looking blast from the Muzzles eveytime you pull the trigger? Keep wishing.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Your ever loving sim pilot,

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Stoopidlimey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I dare you to quote anybody that says they want this. Thats not what we are asking! There are many sources that say that it takes about 2 1/2 to 3 .50's too equal the power of the 20MM. In IL2, the 20MM's are eather over powered or the .50's are under powered because the 4 .50's on the nose of the P-38 do a FRACTION of the damage as the 1 20MM.

Its easy to guage the damage. Fly the P-38 a bit. Set up a bunch of targets on friendly in a QMB and hose them down! First use only the .50's and get a feel for how LONG it takes. Then use the 20MM. With The .50's will take around 2 seconds of fire to get a result. 20MM only needs to contact 2-3 times to bust a wing, detach the back end, or whatever catastrofic damage you can think of. Thats a big differance.

Again, im not sure if the 20's are over powered, or the .50's are underpowered, but 3 .50's in IL2 in no way = 1 20MM.

VW-IceFire
05-23-2006, 09:28 PM
Again...I can't stress this enough....

The reason why AP bullets don't do as much damage is because there isn't enough inside of our aircraft to do damage to. Compare 3 .50cals hitting the engine block of a 109 to 1 20mm on the engine block and its about the same effect. Do that for any component thats actually modeled and its about the same. The 20mm do "more" damage because they do quite a bit more with the HE against structure.

I believe this largely explains why you can be pinging away at a target and not achieve a thing and the next time you do it the plane flies apart. Please tell me Gibbage that you haven't surprised yourself at least a few times when a properly aimed shot of those concentrated .50cals took a 109 right apart. Its happened to me a fair amount of the time. But its also happened to me where I hit that 109 a ton of times and he keeps on flying. Alot has to do with what you hit.

It'd be a darn bit more exciting if those radiators could get hit and spew smoke all over the place but it doesn't happen. Next game.

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Similarly why the Tempest (a BIG fighter) cant manouvre like a Spitfire, it just seems to make sense that the tiny nimble Spit will manouvre better. Not scientific I know, but I need to be proved wrong.


Ask yourself how the F-15 can be one of the biggest jet fighters out there, yet one of the most manuverable. Aerodynamics goes WAY beyond size. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I agree when you are talking about 'god knows how much horsepower' in a electric powered modern Jet plane. It will have all sorts of advnaced systems to make it more manouvrable, But can you answer why the p38 should be so much more manouvrable than other twin engine fighters of the day? Especially considering that its engines were the same power or even less than its contemporaries.

Generally, the smaller you go, the more manouvrable, look at the aerobatics prop planes we see today, tiny little things, we dont see big massive twin engined planes doing these tight aerobatics courses, and if they did I suspect they would get soundly beaten.
Exaggerated, a sparrow can turn much quicker than a eagle, a fly even more so, and is much more manouvrable, so unless you have very advanced ways to counteract the 'small' advantage (like the F15 will likely have as its a very advanced modern jet plane with incredibly powerful engines) I cannot see how it can compete in manouvrability with single engined fighters without very advanced modern tech.

We alreay talked about the manouvring flaps, is there anything else like that on the later P38's?

(I am not trolling here, I am just asking for explanations, I want to know why the P38 should be so much more manouvrable than the Beaufighter, Me110, Mosquito, Pe2 and other twin engine planes)

GR142-Pipper
05-23-2006, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have escorted P38's on fire in a Spitfire and the pilot has actually said 'Fire is no problem, just keep the fighters off me'' (!) He flew all the way back to base in flames, honestly over 10 minutes, and landed fine. If it turns out that you're correct on this point, then it's bogus.

To be clear, I'm for realistic flight/damage/weapons models. If a red plane is off, fix it; if a blue plane is off, fix it.

Honestly, I think Maddox has fiddled with the flight models so much in the interest of game play that he's managed to have them thoroughly screwed up. I fly Russian aircraft (Yaks mainly, sometimes LAs) but it's just painfully obvious that the U.S. mid/late war fighters are so subpar it aches. If that's the best Maddox could do, he should have left them out of the game entirely.

GR142-Pipper

Xiolablu3
05-23-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have escorted P38's on fire in a Spitfire and the pilot has actually said 'Fire is no problem, just keep the fighters off me'' (!) He flew all the way back to base in flames, honestly over 10 minutes, and landed fine. If it turns out that you're correct on this point, then it's bogus.

To be clear, I'm for realistic flight/damage/weapons models. If a red plane is off, fix it; if a blue plane is off, fix it.

Honestly, I think Maddox has fiddled with the flight models so much in the interest of game play that he's managed to have them thoroughly screwed up. I fly Russian aircraft (Yaks mainly, sometimes LAs) but it's just painfully obvious that the U.S. mid/late war fighters are so subpar it aches. If that's the best Maddox could do, he should have left them out of the game entirely.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only real plane I think is very bad at the moment is the Corsair, I cannot fly that plane it just wobbles so badly. Just like the old P51 used too. I realise it wasnt the best climber (according to spitfireperformance.com its only a little better than the p47) but if it would just stay still when you fire/manouvre that would help!

I am flying a campaign with the P51D right now (single player) and am loving the plane, I dont fly it online much, but I intend to soon. But to be honest I have only been up against Zeros and the newest flyable JP plane with 4x20mm forget its name. It deals with these beautifully.

The P38 and Wildcat on the Winds Of War pacific map totally own the Japanese planes if you keep fast, every time I play that map the blue team gets hammered.

I started on easy settings servers like 334th and have progressed thru the settings to now playing full real and can tell you that the closer things get to realistic in the servers, the better the US planes do. On the pure dogfight WW servers the US planes are not great because they are not very good slow speed tnbers, which I feel is correct.

On Winds Of War the US planes rock and are better than the Japanese planes and on a par with the common LW planes like the 190A8 and 109G10.

What servers do you fly on Pipper? You should come for a game on Winds OF War one night and I think you will see how well the US planes do in a full real environment. (If you want to see bad planes try the Russian side 1941-early 1943 vs Germans, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif)

GR142-Pipper
05-23-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
And Pipper just implying that BF110 is over- anything is extremely lame http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It's really no wonder you whine about Luft planes so much if you find the ol' cr@ppy 110 difficult to down... Brain, try using yours and respond to what's being said for a change. The 110 burns for FAR too long before going down and the tail gunner is often a sniper. Did I ever say that I have trouble off-ing 110s? No. Do I think that as it's modeled in this game the 110 is a farcical joke? Yes, I do. So many aircraft are completely compromised for game play that Maddox (IMHO) is losing his credibility. If you feel differently, wonderful...everyone has a view.

As an aside, it really is amazing here how people don't bother to READ others posts before responding to points they never made. Go figure.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-23-2006, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
What servers do you fly on Pipper? My preference is for full real servers. I fly some on Winds of War and the Russian servers (Gennadich, Alexserver, Streamarena). On the Russian servers, the opportunity for engagements is much better as the transit times are typically shorter. In addition, the Russians come to fight and they'll mix it (they have many good pilots). If you want to sharpen your engagement skills those servers are good places to go. I'm also trying to spend more time on a new full real Eastern Front server, Normandie-Niemen.

GR142-Pipper

WTE_Galway
05-23-2006, 10:45 PM
maybe its also time to reiterate something that oleg has said over and over again in the past

visual damage reflected on the 3D model in external view or as seen from another aircraft and damage as recorded by the game engine are two different things ... just because no visual damage shows up doesnt mean the game hasnt recorded damge taken

GR142-Pipper
05-23-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Generally, the smaller you go, the more manouvrable, look at the aerobatics prop planes we see today, tiny little things, we dont see big massive twin engined planes doing these tight aerobatics courses, and if they did I suspect they would get soundly beaten.
Exaggerated, a sparrow can turn much quicker than a eagle, a fly even more so, and is much more manouvrable, so unless you have very advanced ways to counteract the 'small' advantage (like the F15 will likely have as its a very advanced modern jet plane with incredibly powerful engines) I cannot see how it can compete in manouvrability with single engined fighters without very advanced modern tech.

We alreay talked about the manouvring flaps, is there anything else like that on the later P38's?

(I am not trolling here, I am just asking for explanations, I want to know why the P38 should be so much more manouvrable than the Beaufighter, Me110, Mosquito, Pe2 and other twin engine planes) Aircraft are OPTIMIZED for different roles. They're all compromises. If you want some of this, you give up some of that. The P-38 was designed to be a long-range air-to-air fighter therefore its performance underlines those characteristics that enable it to do that. The Beaufighter, on the other hand, was optimized to be a strike (attack) aircraft and focused its characteristics in these areas. This is why some similarly appearing aircraft can behave worlds apart.

As an aside, remember, in sustained close-in combat it's nearly always Ps (power to weight)and turn RATE (rather than turn radius) that carries the day. This is where the F-15/16/18/22/Mig-29/Su-27/Typhoon stand out.

GR142-Pipper

Gibbage1
05-24-2006, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Please tell me Gibbage that you haven't surprised yourself at least a few times when a properly aimed shot of those concentrated .50cals took a 109 right apart. Its happened to me a fair amount of the time.

Blasting a 109 to bits in is rare with the .50 cal. Very very rare. On the otherhand, blasting a 109 to bits with 20MM is very very common.

I did a small QMB test like I asked the other guy to do. 8 friendly FW-190 A8's and my P-38. I pulled up behind the 1st group of 4 and fired dead-6 into there tail. Took about 1 1/2 to 2 secodns of fire with just the .50's in the P-38 to get a definit kill. I count kill as something vital falling off, fire, or PK. Pulled up to the 2nd group and used only 20MM. All 3 of the 4 FW's went down with about 2-5 hits from 20MM. I could not kill the 4th because the 3rd exploded in my face, taking me with him! On average, it took about 3-4 hits of 20MM to bring down that FW-190A8. To me, that seems too little to be honest. On the otherhand, it took about 80 hits of .50 cal to kill the same target. 1 PK, 1 wing snap, and 2 fuel fires using the .50 cal. 2 aft in "detachments" and 1 explosion using 20MM. Thats a huge differance in damage. Since I was firing into the tail and forward, I was hitting stuff with the AP rounds. Pilot armor, fuel, and even some passed into the engine and made it smoke.

Thats how I am judging damage potential. 80 hits vs 3 hits is a huge differance. Please, try it out.

JtD
05-24-2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Scen:

Honestly if you're happy with the performance say 20K and below then thats fine by me.

For me most fights take place at low Alts I would like to see things improved. I'm NOT saying the plane isn't capable as I do just fine flying them but they aren't quite the plane they're supposed to be. I know that goes for quite a few planes but this time I happen to bring up the 38.

And I wouldn't want to say that everything is 100% as it should be, but I am very much against statements that there is a general anti-US bias in the game and that the P-38 is underperforming severly (doesn't match any number).

Just for fun, take the QMB and fight against a La-5FN (Ace) at 2000meters. Pick any German plane and try to stay on his 6 for extended periods. With the P-38 this is done almost easily.

Gibbage1
05-24-2006, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Aircraft are OPTIMIZED for different roles. They're all compromises. If you want some of this, you give up some of that. The P-38 was designed to be a long-range air-to-air fighter therefore its performance underlines those characteristics that enable it to do that.

Correction. The P-38 was designed as a high altitude bomber intercepter, pure and true. The fact that it could manuver was a bi-product of its requirements, but not a trait needed for the job. It was designed to climb very fast, and fly very fast. Manuvering was not much of a factor when intercepting big bombers. In fact, it was not till even later models that the P-38 even had any combat flaps! It was also never designed spacificly for long range. Its early models D and E had some short legs on it compaired to its later models. They also did not have any hardpoints for drop tanks.

The P-38 had traits that benifited its namuverability that single engine aircraft did not have. #1 being the counter rotating props. Torque hinders a single engine aircraft by forcing one wing down more then the other. Also the prop-wash over the wings surface is uneven due to the cyclone like effect behind a prop. This makes an aircraft snap-stall at low speeds since 1 wing has more stress then the other. Also a single engine aircraft favors one direction of turn then the other. P-38 did not have this problem. Stalls were very forgiving with very little to no tendancy to drop a wing. #2, propwash over the wings surface added a LOT of lift, especially at low speeds. The major lifting surfaces were directly behind two big props. Accounting for about 75-80% of the wings lifting surface. Single engine aircraft only have propwash over the inner most 25%. #3. At high angles of attack, the propwash not only provides extra lift, but vectored thrust. The aircraft may have a high angle of attack, but the wind over 80% of the wings surface is NOT at a high angle of attack. That lowers power-on stall speed. #4. Between the engine and center gondola is a venturi effect that accellerates air and generates even more lift. Much in the same way the downward folding wings of the XB-70. #5. Fowler flaps. Normal slotted flaps like that on the FW-190 and Spitfire only provide 60% more lift then a standard wing when deployed. The fowler flap on the otherhand produces 90% more lift, and much less drag. Thats for standard flap setups. That does NOT take into account the size of the flaps, or the fact that they are again located behind the propwash, adding even more lift! #6. The P-38 has a high lift aspect wing. So the wing provides more lift then say a FW-190 wing of the same area.

If anyone needs proof of how much all these aspects benifit the P-38, think of this. Even though it has poor wing loading of 54lb/ft, it has a lower stall speed then almost any other fighter aircraft of WWII. Only the A6M zero can beat it! And thats power off stall. Power on stall has been tested as low as 55MPH on the P-38! Its landing speed was just over 70MPH, compaired to around 115mph for the FW-190 with better wing loading, or the BF109 at 90MPH! With that information, you can see how much more lift the P-38 can generate. Wing loading WONT tell you the full story.

JtD
05-24-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Oh, you mean the Bf-110 that has engines that continue to operate for 10 minutes even though they're completely engulfed in flames and a tail gunner that only needs a handful of bullets to destroy your plane?

These problems are in no way specific for the 110. The fact that you blame the 110 for it speaks for your ignorance.


That 110? In the real world, the 110 was so easily savaged that it was reduced to the world of night fighting. Game play rears its head yet again.

I guess you never choose to hear about the duties the 110 performed on the Eastern front. If you got no clue at all, why don't yozu remain silent?

Also, in case I am wrong and you know it all, why does a plane like the P-47 with a worse power/weight and worse wingloading outturn and outclimb the 110?


Anyway, it's clear the developer either can't or won't model the U.S. mid/late-war planes or the 50's correctly.

Whatever is clear to you most likely has nothing to do with the truth.

Xiolablu3
05-24-2006, 12:31 AM
I just ran 6 QMB with a P38 using just the 50cal vs FW190A6.

It killed him very easily in around three 1/2 sec bursts. Most often ripping his wing off at the root.

BUT I had to be close, its no use firing when 400 metres away cos most of your shots miss. Get in close and it rips him up good.

You cant use the 50's like you can a 20mm, range matters a lot to the 50's whereas it doesnt matter to the 20mm's (the explosion is going to be the same at any distance as long as you hit.)

With the 50's its just a case of getting closer, dont be tempted to shoot from afar. Even after 1 burst most of the time he was leaking fuel or smoking. I took tracks but have nowhere to host them, but I can if anyone has a place. But its very simple just to try it yourself.

Try it out on a friendly AI FW190.

JtD
05-24-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Exaggerated, a sparrow can turn much quicker than a eagle, a fly even more so...

That's not a good comparism, an eagle can turn in place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

StellarRat
05-24-2006, 12:41 AM
€œThe most impressive thing about the Thunderbolt was the armament. There was no time for gunnery practices when I joined the 56th so I had no experience of what the heavy Browning machine guns would do in combat. The very first time I got on the tail of a Focke-Wulf and gave him a very short burst he absolutely exploded! It was fantastic! Nothing like this had ever happened in Spitfires due to the wide setting of the cannons (2) and machine guns (4), and small amount of rounds per cannon. Sometimes the enemy fighter would smoke but I had never seen one explode. The concentration and punch of bullets from those eight €˜Point-Fifties€ in the Thunderbolt was tremendous. You could see where you were hitting which you rarely saw with other fighters I flew. And if you saw where you were hitting all you had to do was pull your deflection, and there it was--- explosion! I have always believed the principal reason the Thunderbolt did so well in air fighting was its firepower."

Above is a cut from an early post from an account by a Spitfire pilot that had swtiched to Thunderbolts in WW II.

In this game the opposite seems to be true. The 20mm armed are far superior in firepower. Also, .50s are difficult to see while 20mms are easy to see. Again the opposite of the account above.

I bet I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a P-47 blow apart any plane online in the three years I've been playing. I only remember once or twice when this happened. I've de-winged a quite a few and PKed tons, but I've actually exploded probably two to five in the whole time I've been playing.

My theory is that API's hit ammo or fuel stores on the enemy planes and the resulting secondary explosion blew them apart. We don't have .50 API and I don't think ammo and fuel explosions are modeled. Fires yes, (but not API induced) and structural failure yes. Both of these would definitely favor the 20mm in IL2.

All that said, I think .50s are sufficient to kill enemy AC in IL2 if:

1. you are a competent shot
2. get in real close (150 meters or less)
3. set your convergence close (mine is 125m)
4. are willing to let the target die slowly.

It is rare that you will get a long enough burst in to snap an enemy AC very often. With improved/added API and damage modeling I think we'd see more dramatic kills.

Fork-N-spoon
05-24-2006, 01:34 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but my offline gunnery is a very different experience than my online gunnery, offline being much more destructive.

The largest factor in my experience with aircraft armed with the .50 cal is that I can rarely keep the guns on the target for a one or two second burst. One slight input with my joystick sends the pipper jumping wildly about. I've tried several custom stick settings and I've even copied ones that others swear by, but it only seems to make it worse not better.

Xiolablu3
05-24-2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
I don't know about the rest of you, but my offline gunnery is a very different experience than my online gunnery, offline being much more destructive.

The largest factor in my experience with aircraft armed with the .50 cal is that I can rarely keep the guns on the target for a one or two second burst. One slight input with my joystick sends the pipper jumping wildly about. I've tried several custom stick settings and I've even copied ones that others swear by, but it only seems to make it worse not better.

I have this very problem with the Corsair, Fork, it makes the plane unusable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

I think the best profile you can get is on which rises in a curve 3,7,13,20,29,40,55 sort of thing. It doesnt cure the wobbles on some planes tho. It is however as good as you can get it.

I was wondering, maybe you have the famous 'wobble' problem that many of us have had at one time or another? Where ALL planes wobble. Only a reinstall seems to fix it. Best way to test it is to take the 109G2 up and do some hard manouvres. When you let go of the joystick does the gunsight come to an almost complete stop or does it wobble madly and then settle?? If its the latter it might be worth a reinstall.

GH_Klingstroem
05-24-2006, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
I don't know about the rest of you, but my offline gunnery is a very different experience than my online gunnery, offline being much more destructive.

The largest factor in my experience with aircraft armed with the .50 cal is that I can rarely keep the guns on the target for a one or two second burst. One slight input with my joystick sends the pipper jumping wildly about. I've tried several custom stick settings and I've even copied ones that others swear by, but it only seems to make it worse not better.

Thats exactly the reason why I want the box convergence and not the point convergence. The point convergence was apperently introduced to the american planes becasue people for some reason had problems downing AC when the bullets hit all over their target. Now, with the point convergence the bullets will to serious damage when they hit, but since US planes wobble alot more now a days than they did when they point convergence was introduced, the chance of hitting something has reduced dramatically for exactly the reason you said, They wobble alot more! in 4.04 and 4.05 a bit less than 4.02 but still more than when point convergence was introduced.....
However people seem happy they way they are.
But if either the wobbles would disappear totally or convergence goes back to box convergence, the chance of downing an AC with the 0.50s will lower than with a 20mm!

I just wish the spread was a bit higher in the vertical plane for the 0.50s! If your target is just a mm above the pipper none of your rounds will hit, same if target is just below your pipper. With the convergence of the four .303s on the spit, you will see hits allover your target in any situation!
wellI just feel sorry for US pilots! The p51 is a dream to fly but hitting anything with it is....

GR142-Pipper
05-24-2006, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Oh, you mean the Bf-110 that has engines that continue to operate for 10 minutes even though they're completely engulfed in flames and a tail gunner that only needs a handful of bullets to destroy your plane?


These problems are in no way specific for the 110. The fact that you blame the 110 for it speaks for your ignorance. Pssst...genius...I wasn't referring to a plane at all. I was referring to the programmer.


Pipper quote: That 110? In the real world, the 110 was so easily savaged that it was reduced to the world of night fighting. Game play rears its head yet again.


I guess you never choose to hear about the duties the 110 performed on the Eastern front. If you got no clue at all, why don't yozu remain silent? It was on the WESTERN FRONT during this evolution called "The Battle of Britain" that the 110 was banished to night flying duty after getting it's a$$ so thoroughly shot off that it was deemed unfit for daylight fighter operations. It was also sent to the desert/Med/Eastern Front where the opposition was a lot milder.


Also, in case I am wrong and you know it all, why does a plane like the P-47 with a worse power/weight and worse wingloading outturn and outclimb the 110? Here are two links that will help you understand the aircraft better:
Bf-110: http://www.aviation-history.com/messerschmitt/bf110.html
P-47: http://www.chuckhawks.com/p47.htm


Pipper Quote: Anyway, it's clear the developer either can't or won't model the U.S. mid/late-war planes or the 50's correctly.


Whatever is clear to you most likely has nothing to do with the truth. While your education on the Bf-110 and P-47 finally begins, you might want to do some reading on the 50 calibers as well. It will serve you well when you attempt to discuss that topic too. Happy reading.

GR142-Pipper

Sharpe26
05-24-2006, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
€œThe most impressive thing about the Thunderbolt was the armament. There was no time for gunnery practices when I joined the 56th so I had no experience of what the heavy Browning machine guns would do in combat. The very first time I got on the tail of a Focke-Wulf and gave him a very short burst he absolutely exploded! It was fantastic! Nothing like this had ever happened in Spitfires due to the wide setting of the cannons (2) and machine guns (4), and small amount of rounds per cannon. Sometimes the enemy fighter would smoke but I had never seen one explode. The concentration and punch of bullets from those eight €˜Point-Fifties€ in the Thunderbolt was tremendous. You could see where you were hitting which you rarely saw with other fighters I flew. And if you saw where you were hitting all you had to do was pull your deflection, and there it was--- explosion! I have always believed the principal reason the Thunderbolt did so well in air fighting was its firepower."

Above is a cut from an early post from an account by a Spitfire pilot that had swtiched to Thunderbolts in WW II.

In this game the opposite seems to be true. The 20mm armed are far superior in firepower. Also, .50s are difficult to see while 20mms are easy to see. Again the opposite of the account above.

I bet I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a P-47 blow apart any plane online in the three years I've been playing. I only remember once or twice when this happened. I've de-winged a quite a few and PKed tons, but I've actually exploded probably two to five in the whole time I've been playing.

My theory is that API's hit ammo or fuel stores on the enemy planes and the resulting secondary explosion blew them apart. We don't have .50 API and I don't think ammo and fuel explosions are modeled. Fires yes, (but not API induced) and structural failure yes. Both of these would definitely favor the 20mm in IL2.

All that said, I think .50s are sufficient to kill enemy AC in IL2 if:

1. you are a competent shot
2. get in real close (150 meters or less)
3. set your convergence close (mine is 125m)
4. are willing to let the target die slowly.

It is rare that you will get a long enough burst in to snap an enemy AC very often. With improved/added API and damage modeling I think we'd see more dramatic kills.

best post on the entire thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GR142-Pipper
05-24-2006, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Aircraft are OPTIMIZED for different roles. They're all compromises. If you want some of this, you give up some of that. The P-38 was designed to be a long-range air-to-air fighter therefore its performance underlines those characteristics that enable it to do that.


Correction. The P-38 was designed as a high altitude bomber intercepter, pure and true.. You're absolutely right. The point that I was trying to make (perhaps rather poorly) was that all planes are compromises which account for their respective differences in flight characteristics even though the two may be somewhat similar looking aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

WOLFMondo
05-24-2006, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
We don't have .50 API and I don't think ammo and fuel explosions are modeled. Fires yes, (but not API induced) and structural failure yes. Both of these would definitely favor the 20mm in IL2.

Fuel tank explosions are modelled!! I had one only yesterday from when my Tempests wing tank (Still not sure they had them, I assumed they were deleted and replaced with the fuselage tanks) exploded after an Mg151 hit. The message on the right side HUD reads 'Fuel tank: Exploded'. I'll post the screeny when I get home.

mynameisroland
05-24-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:

Honestly if you're happy with the performance say 20K and below then thats fine by me.

For me most fights take place at low Alts I would like to see things improved. I'm NOT saying the plane isn't capable as I do just fine flying them but they aren't quite the plane they're supposed to be. I know that goes for quite a few planes but this time I happen to bring up the 38.

And I wouldn't want to say that everything is 100% as it should be, but I am very much against statements that there is a general anti-US bias in the game and that the P-38 is underperforming severly (doesn't match any number).

Just for fun, take the QMB and fight against a La-5FN (Ace) at 2000meters. Pick any German plane and try to stay on his 6 for extended periods. With the P-38 this is done almost easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it you are saying the P38 does better agianst the La5FN at 2000m than the Bf 109G or Fw 190 A does ?

R_Target
05-24-2006, 06:24 AM
The hitting power of the .50's seems pretty good to me. What drives me bananas is the one-sided recoil kick that jerks the Corsair and Wildcat to the right, and the Hellcat to the left. Those planes handle fine until you pull the trigger.

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
80 hits vs 3 hits is a huge differance. Please, try it out.

The numbers are wide apart but remember that 3 50's = 1 20mm is not hits but time with the 50's
firing at a higher ROF. Still not even by your numbers obviously but maybe closer to 60:3?

I really like your analysis of the wings and propwash but can I point out that depending on
speed the wash hits wing on both sides of the engines at different angles and no fixed wing
can be optimized for all of those. Wings twisted to make the most at low speed will not be
so great when flying past that low speed, long before cruise. What saves your explanation
is the data on stall speeds and I'm sure you have some references you can quote book, chapter
and page on that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif which is ace cards in the trump suit to me!

LStarosta
05-24-2006, 07:00 AM
How did this gay thread get to page 12?


It's like flogging a dead horse, really.

EDIT: Looks like I <<<BUMPED>>> it up to 13.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
maybe its also time to reiterate something that oleg has said over and over again in the past

visual damage reflected on the 3D model in external view or as seen from another aircraft and damage as recorded by the game engine are two different things ... just because no visual damage shows up doesnt mean the game hasnt recorded damge taken

I do think that with regard to fire we have an even more exaggerated situation. There are
fewer 'fire modes' so we may be seeing a full conflagration when in the DM it is not.

Blutarski2004
05-24-2006, 07:33 AM
50Cal Pattern Convergence -

I suggest that you try fiddling with separate point convergence ranges for the 2 x 4 gun batteries on the P47. If Oleg indeed models his ballistics accurately, as is claimed, setting the outer 4 guns @ 250 yards or so, and the inner 4 guns at 500 yards SHOULD produce a good pattern effect at the 250 yard range.

- - -

Relative Weapon Effects -

The USAAF in WW2 studied their air-to-air combat experiences and produced the following analysis of the relative projectile hit effects from enemy a/c weapons:

Projectile-------- Relative Value

.30 caliber------- 1.0

.50 caliber------- 2.4

20 mm----------- 5.4

(*) cited in VICTORY ROLL: The American Fighter Pilot and Aircraft in WW2, by William Wolf.

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 08:04 AM
I find the 50's to be very useful and hope that testing is not limited to sitting behind a
target and counting hits as that's not a general measure comparison but a specific one.

I have blown targets up with em generally by I call it luck but with a probability factor
about it. Hit the right spots from the right angles and boom she goes.

They are a very fast bullet with less arc out a good ways and the combined ROF from a few
of them is very high. With the new unsynched ROF's I do like em better except as was shown
since 4.04 the ROF's of some planes (Corsair, Wildcat) should be randomized as to balance
from one side of the wings to the other, not faster guns on one side causing yaw. I do hope
that just as the 151/20 ammo mix-up got made right that this can be also, the cause is easy
to show repeatably.

I set convergence for 300m with P-51. I do that just as I do for FW. Reason is that firing
at high closure does not give the AI time to jink before you get hits in. High closure gives
you get effective extra range, I start firing somewhere below 400m and with deflection to get
around small rear protecting armor.

Where the pipper is put will be on the center of target at range plus some amount for closure
but inside convergence it gets complicated and I have to watch hits to check aim. The sight
line is straight but the shots come from below that line to cross at some range that varies
with convergence. From more than a meter below the shots come with a gun that bullets don't
drop a meter from horizontal fire in 200m so first crossing point may be =at= convergence if
it is set close and you have to aim high to get hits inside that. In all cases at very close
range you should have to aim a bit high, not over the plane unless you want to hit the top
only but say from dead six aim at canopy top to hit center.

This is about vertical rise and drop only. Convergence set close the rounds will cross sight
line at that range, rise above (you aim a bit low *on* the target) and fall to cross again
a ways out but by then the shots have crossed and spread, you still get as wide a spread as
your wing guns are at twice the convergence by simple geometry.

Not as precise by any means as nose MG's but then those have less 'loft' of the rounds starting
from just below the sight line and if convergence is close they will appear to drop quickly
from POV of the sight line... the barrels are closer to horizontal than ones set low on wings.

So I set convergence for 300m and get sight line cross at perhaps 200m and again at 300m (unless
I have high closure that gives higher relative bullet velocity on target giving longer effective
range *on target* not actual arc relative to me but what I aim at is the target, complicated)
and I aim slightly low of center between those and slightly high inside that. The longer my
convergence the flatter my guns fire so I like it that way.

So the convergence with difference between sight line and bullet arcs and horizontal spread
makes a huge difference in aiming and where you get your hits. I've seen enough replays with
arcade=1 showing hits on non-critical parts of planes as well as spread hits to be satisfied
with counting hits alone, it's just not good past a hit bubble DM which IL-2 was always.

I am happy with the 50's more now than ever. Deflection is productive for me. If I keep my
speed up then I don't get nose bob that to me comes more from being out of trim with the speed
change of zooming in and trying to slow down to attain the 2 second on dead six burst from all
close range. The target jinks as well, btw, so if you're fixated on the sight what will it
look like?

First time I shoot ducks with 4.05 P-51 I make a pass from starting 4 o'clock and don't see
much damage to the bomber. I curve around for another pass figuring I didn't aim right and I
see it going down with chutes coming out. I figure it's a fluke and go for the next one.
That one also looks like not much result but when I curve around he is smoking engine and
dropping so I chase and it does take more hits. I am only firing short bursts, not 2 seconds.
Usually 1/2 to 1 second. In several goes I have one landed on me, 2 collided with each other
that takes replay to figure out, and 9 kills with 4 PK's and a couple on fire before bail.
Sure they are big targets and I vary what bombers but the goal is only getting my reflexes
a feel of where the shots are going and nothing else, deflection practice much needed here.
The rest is observation, what is needed and hey these things can be effective 200m and out.

Your results may vary but I suggest firing from side or below to avoid armor seats and what.
The hardest to kill Russian bombers have gear behind the engines in those pods and you will
not get good results sitting behind and plinking the engine pods, not at all. It's not just
armor. I wonder if tailwheel and structure are stopping esp lighter hits on fighters from
dead six? I know that tail wings and rudder soak up a lot of hits too.

Luck favors the prepared.

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I suggest that you try fiddling with separate point convergence ranges for the 2 x 4 gun batteries on the P47. If Oleg indeed models his ballistics accurately, as is claimed, setting the outer 4 guns @ 250 yards or so, and the inner 4 guns at 500 yards SHOULD produce a good pattern effect at the 250 yard range.

S! LB!

Yah that gives some vertical seperation, looks like at all ranges.

I just wish that the P-51's could work as 2 convergences, 4 guns as MG and 2 guns as cannon
since the P-51 has no cannon. P-40 maybe as 2 and 2? Would be sweet!

Fork-N-spoon
05-24-2006, 08:14 AM
Comparing offline gunnery to online gunnery is spotty at best and "online" and "offline" gunnery, in my experience, resemble each other little.

My problems with jittery aircraft seem to be with every aircraft that we have in this game. I still marvel at people who hit what they're shooting at in the Spitfire because they obviously have a grasp on something that I do not. I think that the Spitfire, Hellcat, and Corsair are the most difficult to shoot with for me. I don't think that I suffer from the "wobble phenomena" as others do because my aircraft do not "wobble" if I have the stick centered. It may not fly straight, but it definitely isn't "wobbling."

To further add to Gibbage€s explanation on the P-38. Not only did the high lift wing, prop wash, and fowler flaps contribute greatly to the P-38€s low stall speed and favorable stall characteristics but the following greatly contributed to giving the P-38 more favorable characteristics than many single engine aircraft.

P-factor effects vary from aircraft to aircraft, but P-factor appears in several forms in all WWII single engine fighters:

A) One side of the propeller has more thrust than the other side; I believe that the upward side of the rotating propeller has less thrust than the downward side. Produces yaw, considerably in certain aircraft.
B) Not only does this asymmetric thrust of the propeller affect the aircraft, but it also causes the propeller wash to strike the left wing at a different angle of attack than the right wing. This causes one wing to have more lift than the other. In single engine aircraft I believe this produces roll and negative stall effects on the wing contributing to spins when the wing is stalled.
C) The €œcorkscrewing€ air strikes the rudder on one side, thus pushing the tail in the direction that the propeller€s wash is striking it. This produces yaw.

All these factors effects vary greatly in singe engine WWII aircraft. The best black and white example I can think of for €œP-factor€ is the F4U-1D (no spoiler fitted to leading edge of wing) and the F6F. Even though both aircraft are of similar size, weight, wing area, engine power, etc. The F4U-1D suffered far greater negative effects from €œP-factor€ than the F6F did. The F4U-1D was so bad that a spoiler was fitted to the port wing to decrease the wing€s lift so that both wings would stall at the same speed. Prior to this fix, inexperienced Corsair pilots could easily be caught unaware of the asymmetric stall of the Corsair€s wing due to €œP-factor,€ the results€¦ €œEnsign Eliminator.€ The stiff landing gear did contribute to this, but the asymmetric stall greatly aggravated the problem.

I also believe that €œP-factor€ is a large reason why aircraft must be trimmed with speed and power changes. The reason why more trimming is needed on some aircraft more than others reflects on the fact that €œP-factor€ effects vary greatly in WWII fighter aircraft.

I feel that propeller torque is pretty easy to understand and doesn€t need an explanation.

Since the P-38 had counter-rotating propellers, the torque effects and P-factor cancel each other out so that the P-38 has no ill effects due to torque and P-factor. Something else that the P-38 benefited from is the length of the control surfaces from the center of gravity. Since the distances were longer than most other WWII fighters, the control surfaces could be much smaller, but have the same effects due to mechanical advantage. The longer distances also served to make the aircraft more stable because their greater mechanical advantage served as a €œshock absorber.€ This dampening effect of the control surfaces combined with a high wing loading, and no negative torque effects or P-factor made the P-38 more stable in level flight than other single engine WWII fighters. It also meant that regardless of speed changes or power changes P-38s didn€t need to be trimmed, thus it still flew straight and was more stable than single engine aircraft. Most pilot€s comments on the P-38 as a gun platform, dive bombing, and strafing are more favorable than other single engine fighters. This of course is only speaking about accuracy, ease of bringing the armament to bear, and ability to stay on target during the run.

I am speaking of normal flight operations from stall speed to critical mach.

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 09:10 AM
You only get P-factor when the prop disk is not facing directly into the airstream and
then it's only going to amount to much when the angle is beyond small. It has to do with
the difference between blade AOA from side to side or even top to bottom in cases where
the angle of the disk to flight is off to one side rather than high or low. P-factor
can be any direction but most usually it is due to pitch higher than flight path or in
hard turns. It is certainly not present in straight flight at cruise or higher speed
or in straight dives. Most normally people notice it in best speed climbs as a constant
yaw to one side, the better ones learn and the dweebs just b!tch.

You deal with P-factor by using the rudder.

You get more P-factor if you slow down to where you are flying nose up in some slow
circle-jerk turn and burn contest, usually known as newbies in DF.

Even old sims like the Aces series have P-factor.

Scen
05-24-2006, 09:57 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 WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The P38 will never fly like it should when asymmetrical thrust is not modelled properly and we only have one throttle axis.

Its just a limitation of the flight engine in IL2, it was never really designed for accurate representation of flyable twins.

There are people using two throttles via devicelink. It is tricky but possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that is interesting .. i will have to look into it when i get time

asymmetrical thrust turns with only one throttle are generally a good way of killing yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True for a regular Twin... It's not as bad with counter rotating props..

Scen
05-24-2006, 10:22 AM
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 Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Similarly why the Tempest (a BIG fighter) cant manouvre like a Spitfire, it just seems to make sense that the tiny nimble Spit will manouvre better. Not scientific I know, but I need to be proved wrong.


Ask yourself how the F-15 can be one of the biggest jet fighters out there, yet one of the most manuverable. Aerodynamics goes WAY beyond size. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I agree when you are talking about 'god knows how much horsepower' in a electric powered modern Jet plane. It will have all sorts of advnaced systems to make it more manouvrable, But can you answer why the p38 should be so much more manouvrable than other twin engine fighters of the day? Especially considering that its engines were the same power or even less than its contemporaries.

Generally, the smaller you go, the more manouvrable, look at the aerobatics prop planes we see today, tiny little things, we dont see big massive twin engined planes doing these tight aerobatics courses, and if they did I suspect they would get soundly beaten.
Exaggerated, a sparrow can turn much quicker than a eagle, a fly even more so, and is much more manouvrable, so unless you have very advanced ways to counteract the 'small' advantage (like the F15 will likely have as its a very advanced modern jet plane with incredibly powerful engines) I cannot see how it can compete in manouvrability with single engined fighters without very advanced modern tech.

We alreay talked about the manouvring flaps, is there anything else like that on the later P38's?

(I am not trolling here, I am just asking for explanations, I want to know why the P38 should be so much more manouvrable than the Beaufighter, Me110, Mosquito, Pe2 and other twin engine planes) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really Fair question... Just to help you out a bit. As you know when you design planes there are always compromises and trade offs... Aerobatic planes are not combat planes. They carry no weapons or armor nor are they made to withstand being hit and proteching pilots up to 30k. Apples and Oranges if you will.

What made the P38 better later on was they added more horsepower power assisted ailerons better props and other improvements.

Also because it had counter rotating props it doesn's suffer from the low speed problems of single engine fighters and generally speaking twins climb much better that singles.

A P38 even though it's large compared to single engine fighters it's much smaller than a 110 a Beaufighter or a Mossie.

You might want to do a little research on em. The earlier versions had problems but all those additions made it turn into a great fighter later on. It's sort of a master of everything. It had great range great strike capabilities and it could dog fight.

The PTO theatre is where it really shinned. As mentioned before McGuire and Bong used it's superior speed and climb to stay away from the Zeros. BTW it can turn with a zero but they are about even and it would be easy pickings for a winging to get you if you where to play in that regime. Basically you would be riding a stall. So those guys kept it fast and use a modified BnZ tatics.

You can use some of these tatics in the game as a matter of fact. You will leave zekes in the dust. If the 38 had it's real numbers at low Alt there would be even more disparity.

Scendore

Xiolablu3
05-24-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Scen:

You can use some of these tatics in the game as a matter of fact. You will leave zekes in the dust. If the 38 had it's real numbers at low Alt there would be even more disparity.

Scendore

Oh mate, I agree already. I would much rather be in a P38 than a Zero for survivability. You have to make a mistake before he can even get on your 6. I totally understand how the '38 could be a great B&Z plane, fast climb, fast on the flat, good armament.

I was just wondering about roll rate, turn rate and general manouvrablility thats all.

No question that its a great plane, esp vs the Japanese planes. And also for mixed ground targets where you may have to mix it with fighters too.

The P38 and the Tempest are fantastic map winning planes as they can put a lot of ordanance down on the targets and then fight their way back to base. In my opinon you are often much better off taking one of these planes than a A20 or other bomber.

I am interested in any info on this plane as it not one I know much about.

Scen
05-24-2006, 10:39 AM
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 Scen:

You can use some of these tatics in the game as a matter of fact. You will leave zekes in the dust. If the 38 had it's real numbers at low Alt there would be even more disparity.

Scendore

Oh mate, I agree already. I would much rather be in a P38 than a Zero for survivability. You have to make a mistake before he can even get on your 6. I totally understand how the '38 could be a great B&Z plane, fast climb, fast on the flat, good armament.

I was just wondering about roll rate, turn rate and general manouvrablility thats all.

No question that its a great plane, esp vs the Japanese planes. And also for mixed ground targets where you may have to mix it with fighters too.

The P38 and the Tempest are fantastic map winning planes as they can put a lot of ordanance down on the targets and then fight their way back to base. In my opinon you are often much better off taking one of these planes than a A20 or other bomber.

I am interested in any info on this plane as it not one I know much about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool... Glad you're interested... There's a bunch of stuff out there on em. I happen to have a full blown copy of a Flight Manual. I'm sure you can find some data out there on their turning ability etc.

Let me see what I can find.

A very under rated bird IMO. Other planes get more attention.

StellarRat
05-24-2006, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
We don't have .50 API and I don't think ammo and fuel explosions are modeled. Fires yes, (but not API induced) and structural failure yes. Both of these would definitely favor the 20mm in IL2.

Fuel tank explosions are modelled!! I had one only yesterday from when my Tempests wing tank (Still not sure they had them, I assumed they were deleted and replaced with the fuselage tanks) exploded after an Mg151 hit. The message on the right side HUD reads 'Fuel tank: Exploded'. I'll post the screeny when I get home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'll buy that, but in that case .50s don't ever seem to cause them.

I don't hold any hope that API or damaging modeling will be changed in this game. BOB is our best hope.

Fork-N-spoon
05-24-2006, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You only get P-factor when the prop disk is not facing directly into the airstream and
then it's only going to amount to much when the angle is beyond small. It has to do with
the difference between blade AOA from side to side or even top to bottom in cases where
the angle of the disk to flight is off to one side rather than high or low. P-factor
can be any direction but most usually it is due to pitch higher than flight path or in
hard turns. It is certainly not present in straight flight at cruise or higher speed
or in straight dives. Most normally people notice it in best speed climbs as a constant
yaw to one side, the better ones learn and the dweebs just b!tch.

You deal with P-factor by using the rudder.

You get more P-factor if you slow down to where you are flying nose up in some slow
circle-jerk turn and burn contest, usually known as newbies in DF.

Even old sims like the Aces series have P-factor.

That makes little sense and could you explain it better?

Also I'm speaking about real flight characteristics and not in this game.

Sharpe26
05-24-2006, 02:22 PM
how did the P38 get involved in this?

ah heck who cares.

Fork-N-spoon
05-24-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Sharpe26:
how did the P38 get involved in this?

ah heck who cares.

Read back through the thread and then you will see. Thank you for your input...

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

That makes little sense and could you explain it better?

Also I'm speaking about real flight characteristics and not in this game.

Draw or imagine a plane flying slow, perhaps climbing. The nose pitch is higher than the flight path.
The propeller disk is tilted upwards with respect to the motion of the plane, what can be thought
of as the incoming airstream while really it is the plane that is moving. Okay so far?

Suppose the prop turns clockwise as seen by the pilot. The blade sweeping downwards on the right
will have a higher AOA that the blade sweeping upwards on the left. So they each differ in lift
and depending on those AOA's you -may- have more thrust on the right side of the disk as seen
from behind than on the left side. You might get the opposite if the AOA of the right side is
so high the blade stalls if the actual prop pitch is already high so there is no hard and fast
one size fits all test. The situation is a little complex or can be made so IRL.

If the plane is flying with nose pitch matching flight path then the prop blades meet the air
all evenly or so close it doesn't matter and you get no P-factor.

In a banked turn or loop or a yaw turn you will get P-factor. Hold a hard turn and it will
become a real component in where the nose goes.

You counter this with rudder, something that up till 4.x has not been a big part of the sim.
In fact, it's not been a big factor in most sims and the standard hardware install of most
prospective customers may be the reason why.

Other factors of flight also weigh in and may move the nose other than expected.

Cool? That is IRL and most often if not always the sim part of the game.