PDA

View Full Version : Weak ability of .50s to set Zeke to fire



jurinko
09-06-2005, 07:24 AM
It is since 4.01.. yesterday I shot maybe 8 Zekes online and only one catched fire. All the rest cases were - wing off, pilot killed, or did not managed to land due inflicted damage. I have 2 guncamera DVDs "Corsair vs Zeke" and those poor chaps burn like torches after being hit. (Almost) always.

jurinko
09-06-2005, 07:24 AM
It is since 4.01.. yesterday I shot maybe 8 Zekes online and only one catched fire. All the rest cases were - wing off, pilot killed, or did not managed to land due inflicted damage. I have 2 guncamera DVDs "Corsair vs Zeke" and those poor chaps burn like torches after being hit. (Almost) always.

LEBillfish
09-06-2005, 07:30 AM
"Always"....is an awfully big word.

Von_Zero
09-06-2005, 07:49 AM
My squad and some friends started an Online Campaign on Guadalcanal... most of the planes that we got down were because of fire... but i do agree that .50 should be less capable (imo, at least) of inflicting structural damage... it seems akward making a pass from a zeke's 2 o'k high and clipping his wings with a "lucky burst". In any case... against japanese planes... they work like a charm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KIMURA
09-06-2005, 07:59 AM
Most reason for me to bail from a Zero, (exclusively online (4.01)), is fire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Diablo310th
09-06-2005, 08:42 AM
I think part of theh reason is that we need an ammo mix of 4X API AND 1XT.

BSS_CUDA
09-06-2005, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko:
It is since 4.01.. yesterday I shot maybe 8 Zekes online and only one catched fire. All the rest cases were - wing off, pilot killed, or did not managed to land due inflicted damage. I have 2 guncamera DVDs "Corsair vs Zeke" and those poor chaps burn like torches after being hit. Allways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your joking right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

BSS_CUDA
09-06-2005, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Zero:
My squad and some friends started an Online Campaign on Guadalcanal... most of the planes that we got down were because of fire... but i do agree that .50 should be less capable (imo, at least) of inflicting structural damage... it seems akward making a pass from a zeke's 2 o'k high and clipping his wings with a "lucky burst". In any case... against japanese planes... they work like a charm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHOLLY CR@P someone that thinks the 50's are overmodeled. the 50 was a supersonic round unlike the 20 + 30 MM, the kenetic energy alone will do structural damage

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the 50 was a supersonic round unlike the 20 + 30 MM, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Hispano II had the same muzzle velocity so if the 50 was supersonic the 20mm rounds from the Hispano II most assuredly were too.

Hoarmurath
09-06-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
WHOLLY CR@P someone that thinks the 50's are overmodeled. the 50 was a supersonic round unlike the 20 + 30 MM, the kenetic energy alone will do structural damage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what the speed of sound is? around 340 m/s at sea level

mg 151/20 muzzle velocity 720 m/s to 755 m/s
mk 108 muzzle velocity 500 m/s

Wholly cr@p, you know nothing about ballistics!

anarchy52
09-06-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the 50 was a supersonic round unlike the 20 + 30 MM, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

supersonic &gt; ~340m/s at sea level

so stop the .50 bull$hit.

They are much more powerful in the game then the real world (structural damage). If they weren't they'd be pretty much useless in a game where radiators and ammoboxes are missing from DM, and fuel tank damage is just plain weird.

P.S. grrr not fast anough

quiet_man
09-06-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko:
It is since 4.01.. yesterday I shot maybe 8 Zekes online and only one catched fire. All the rest cases were - wing off, pilot killed, or did not managed to land due inflicted damage. I have 2 guncamera DVDs "Corsair vs Zeke" and those poor chaps burn like torches after being hit. (Almost) always. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what version of Zero?

correct me but if I remember right, the later versions should be less prone to fire.

quiet_man

Hoarmurath
09-06-2005, 09:52 AM
a6m5b had auto fire extinguishers near fuel tanks.

a6m5c was the first version really improved in protection.

3.JG51_BigBear
09-06-2005, 09:57 AM
I think the .50s are dead on. I'd say 75% of the time I'm going against zeros I take them out with an engine fire. Knocking a wing off is also not uncommon but after watching a lot of gun camera footage I don't think it was that uncommon for zeros to lose wings under sustained .50 fire.

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2005, 09:59 AM
I fly off line in the Zeke & find they burn very easy, when flying against them in Hellcat or F4U they burn very easy from deflection shots

Abbuzze
09-06-2005, 09:59 AM
This guncam proofs are allways a bit doubtfull. (Not related to this special problem.)
Why? It is simply not interesting to see a burst of 0.50 or any other weapeon without any visible result! So all this collections are made from the most Hollywood like shots.

Another point, if the Zeros are burning all the time but not loosing a wing. So the Zero wing was stronger than the FW wing, cause lot of guys in this forum rate the 0.50 as a horrible wing/plane shredding weapon! Cutting of wings without problem. In my eyes a logical argument, nevertheless nonsense!

Thats the problem. Only the most impressive guncam movies made it to such CD/DVDÔ┬┤s.

tigertalon
09-06-2005, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
They are much more powerful in the game then the real world (structural damage). If they weren't they'd be pretty much useless in a game where radiators and ammoboxes are missing from DM, and fuel tank damage is just plain weird.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My words exactly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Most guncam footage I have seen with american .50 against Fw is fatal ammoexplosion that rips off Fws wing... Since this is not modelled in DM they have to offset it with stronger structural damage capability.

Gryphonne
09-06-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Zero:
My squad and some friends started an Online Campaign on Guadalcanal... most of the planes that we got down were because of fire... but i do agree that .50 should be less capable (imo, at least) of inflicting structural damage... it seems akward making a pass from a zeke's 2 o'k high and clipping his wings with a "lucky burst". In any case... against japanese planes... they work like a charm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHOLLY CR@P someone that thinks the 50's are overmodeled. the 50 was a supersonic round unlike the 20 + 30 MM, the kenetic energy alone will do structural damage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHOLLY CR@P, if you don't know anything about physics, don't post a reply like this. Even the 30mm MK108 shell is "supersonic" (@ 540m/s) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Oh, and it's kinetic.

BSS_Vidar
09-06-2005, 02:26 PM
BSS_Cuda's quote is a mistake on my part. Sorry XO, I should have been more clear.

The .50 cal wasn't the only supersonic round. But, it was one of -if not- the fastest rounds which is why it caused so much internal damage (even without HE tips) on ANY airframe or the occational Locomotive Engine. Especially on 109's and 190's, along with the light construction of the Zeke without self-sealing tanks, making it a sinder box.

The Bell X-1's (first super sonic aircraft)fuselage was aerodynamicaly designed and shaped exactly like the .50 cal projectile, because nothing else at that time was more efficiant at high speeds.

I think the .50 cals are fine; however, the DM on German airfraft show a lot of external damage, but they're not being modeled correctly for the internal structuaral damage that is caused by the high firing rate, and kenetic energy 6 x .50 cals could inflict on any airframe. You can't honestly think a tiny 109 would endure more hits from .50 cal than a Corsair would? Corsairs get shredded by .50's in this game in short order, but 109's, and especially 190's -more times than not- fly like the Energizer Bunny unless you take out an engine or kill the pilot.

Gryphonne
09-06-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
BSS_Cuda's quote is a mistake on my part. Sorry XO, I should have been more clear.

The .50 cal wasn't the only supersonic round. But, it was one of -if not- the fastest rounds which is why it caused so much internal damage (even without HE tips) on ANY airframe or the occational Locomotive Engine. Especially on 109's and 190's, along with the light construction of the Zeke without self-sealing tanks, making it a sinder box.

The Bell X-1's (first super sonic aircraft)fuselage was aerodynamicaly designed and shaped exactly like the .50 cal projectile, because nothing else at that time was more efficiant at high speeds.

I think the .50 cals are fine; however, the DM on German airfraft show a lot of external damage, but they're not being modeled correctly for the internal structuaral damage that is caused by the high firing rate, and kenetic energy 6 x .50 cals could inflict on any airframe. You can't honestly think a tiny 109 would endure more hits from .50 cal than a Corsair would? Corsairs get shredded by .50's in this game in short order, but 109's, and especially 190's -more times than not- fly like the Energizer Bunny unless you take out an engine or kill the pilot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, muzzle velocity isn't the only factor when calculating kinetic energy. Weight of the round is too. And the 50 cal loses in that department.

The difference between the mv of the 50s and some 20mm is negligible, while the difference in weight is substantial, not to mention the explosive power.

Kocur_
09-06-2005, 03:09 PM
In a test in P-47 bug of cutting fuselage behind cocpit thread, Bf-109 lost tail after 10 (ten) .50 hits. And IMO that figure is too low. OTOH Bf-109 showed strangely high resistance to different 20mm HE projectiles...

12,7mm x 99 BMG is one of three close top matches in MV for WW2, two others are UB and British Hispano Mk.II, all at ~860-880ms. But top in MV is MG151/15 at 905m/s averagely. Its 57g HE projectile is top scorer with MV=960m/s.

Lets not overestimate solid bullets effect on airplane structure. IMO if none of .50 projectiles hit something vital, like in-line engine, pilot, fuel tank (API) or ammo (API)(and most probably with multiple hits from multimple M2s such hits would occur), likelyhood of serious damage of structure per hit was low. Seems that was reason to change beltings from mix of different bullets, including ordinary M2 Ball, to belting with API almost exclusively later in WW2.


Is it just me or are planes like Val or early Betty, i.e. as highly flammabe as early Zero IRL, considerably harder to light than Zero...?

anarchy52
09-06-2005, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
The .50 cal wasn't the only supersonic round. But, it was one of -if not- the fastest rounds
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I can't think of any WWII era weapon (apart from aerial mines and possibly some rockets) that fired subsonic projectiles. They'd be pretty useless unless fired from extremely close distance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
which is why it caused so much internal damage (even without HE tips) on ANY airframe or the occational Locomotive Engine. Especially on 109's and 190's, along with the light construction of the Zeke without self-sealing tanks, making it a sinder box.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.50 cal
pro:
- high density of fire in 6-8 guns installation.
- good armor piercing characteristics
- reliable (after they changed the installation on P-51 which caused frequent jamming)
- used in both army, navy and airforce - logistics advantage
- homogenous arnament makes shooting easier (all guns with same balistics)

con:
- short effective range (not a problem since thy weren't used against heavily armed bomber formations)
- lack of effect unless it hits some critical component (not a problem if your target's aren't B-17s)

Inline liquid cooled engines were very voulnerable to MG fire. Allied and Axis alike.
109 had one advantage (at least theoretically) though: if only one radiator was leaking it could be sealed off with a valve in cockpit and the plane could limp back home on remaining radiator. P-51 had single large radiator. Big target. One hit, coolant leaks out and the engine stops.

Take THIS guncam for example: http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/P51-109.avi

FW-190 was heavily armoured aircraft (you can tell by it's weight for such a small plane). British tests concluded .30 cal to be totally ineffective and .50 only partially effective shooting from 5-6-7 O'clock-ish. Most spectacular footage of .50 vs 190 are those of ammo boxes blowing up or fuel tanks/drop tanks lighting up. Sometimes they would seal and extinguish the flame after a spectacular flame.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Bell X-1's (first super sonic aircraft)fuselage was aerodynamicaly designed and shaped exactly like the .50 cal projectile, because nothing else at that time was more efficiant at high speeds.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno about the shape, but it it had the same trim system as Bf-109 and that was the key to flying the aircraft faster then sound (the entire surface moves).

...

IIRC Kit Carson claimed he put at least 200 .50 rounds in FW-190 which then flew away after he (Carson) run out of ammo.
I guess he whined too about FW-190 DM when he landed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, details of internal systems are lacking in all planes in FB. Most notable the radiators, ammo boxes, while control damage happens quite often for some reason.

Zekes...no pilot armour probably means that .50 cal from 6 O'clock won't be stopped by structure but will end up hitting the pilot. Fuel tanks were unprotected ...doesn't take much imagination to imagine what happens when it get's hit...even if it doesn't light up immediatelly that fine fuel-air vapour trailing the plane will.
But one thing is wrong - Zeke was NOT structurally weak as some might think. It's a carrier borne aircraft which must be able to take rough carrier landings and high-G loads in aerobatics for which it was famous.

Look at this:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/Zero.avi
This Zero was hit pretty good. In FB You'd have cut it in half, IRL You had catastrophic fuel fire.

In game, Zeke is very soft. Even a round or two NOT hitting the tank will cripple it. You get 1-2 .50 cals in the wing and Zeke flies like it lost half the wing surface. Which is wrong.

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-06-2005, 03:24 PM
Hmm. Im usually the first to jump on the .50s not effective enough threads but in this case I must disagree with the author. I have been killing Zekes online since PF release and fly ZvW several days a week since it was put up by WoP and I can say for certain that roughly 80-90% of the Zekes I have destroyed went up in a blaze.

I think you should test longer before you make this argument.
S~

BSS_Vidar
09-06-2005, 03:25 PM
You seem to think I'm not in agreement that the 20mm round is better. Heck yeah it's better! Especially after they learned how to keep the guns from freezing up. But the .50 cal was no slouch neither. It hit more effective on German aircraft than what is being portrade in this game - that's for certain. The .50 cal is a big round in its own right. It's hitting power along with its rate-of-fire effectively compensated for its lack of mass compared to cannon rounds, and still is quite a substantial armament being used in the USN/USMC today.

For instance, the Brit 303's were terrible vs German armament round per round, particulaly in mass differences. BUT, You through enough 303's down range via rate-of-fire, the weapondry during the Battle of Brittain virtually equaled out between the two sides. It was who saw who first that made the difference, not ammo.

The same way should be in this game when I see a 109/190 first and pop'em a good one while in a Pony. ;-)

S!

BSS_Vidar
09-06-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
engine stops.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The Bell X-1's (first super sonic aircraft)fuselage was aerodynamicaly designed and shaped exactly like the .50 cal projectile, because nothing else at that time was more efficiant at high speeds.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno about the shape, but it it had the same trim system as Bf-109 and that was the key to flying the aircraft faster then sound (the entire surface moves). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the 109's stab was still stationary. The trim effect was moving the whole elevator via trim input instead of tabs, not the whole horizontal stab assembly. The Bell X-1 was the first aircraft to incorporate the "Flying Tail" assembly, in which the entire stablizer was moveable while still having a functional hinged elevator and trim tabs. The development was a US state secret throughout the Korean conflict. The F-86 Sabre was the first fighter aircraft to encorporate this flying tail trim technique, and hence was able to fly super sonic when early Soviet jets could not.

Kocur_
09-06-2005, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, the 109's stab was still stationary. The trim effect was moving the whole elevator via trim input instead of tabs, not the whole horizontal stab assembly. The Bell X-1 was the first aircraft to incorporate the "Flying Tail" assembly, in which the entire stablizer was moveable while still having a functional hinged elevator and trim tabs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. Bf-109's entire horizontal stabiliser was movably by turning wheel on left side of cocpit. In fact that wast unique for Bf-109 at all. You are mixing tho things: means of achieving TRIMMING and elevator control. "Flying tail" means that both stabiliser and elevator, are moving (at different angles) by STICK DEFLECTION, not by using any kind of trimming device.
AFAIK the technique was developed in UK during WW2 for a Miles plane, which was supposed to reach supersonic, but was dropped right after WW2, and technology was transferred to US.

Xabre_361st1956
09-06-2005, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
In a test in P-47 bug of cutting fuselage behind cocpit thread, Bf-109 lost tail after 10 (ten) .50 hits. And IMO that figure is too low. OTOH Bf-109 showed strangely high resistance to different 20mm HE projectiles...

12,7mm x 99 BMG is one of three close top matches in MV for WW2, two others are UB and British Hispano Mk.II, all at ~860-880ms. But top in MV is MG151/15 at 905m/s averagely. Its 57g HE projectile is top scorer with MV=960m/s.

Lets not overestimate solid bullets effect on airplane structure. IMO if none of .50 projectiles hit something vital, like in-line engine, pilot, fuel tank (API) or ammo (API)(and most probably with multiple hits from multimple M2s such hits would occur), likelyhood of serious damage of structure per hit was low. Seems that was reason to change beltings from mix of different bullets, including ordinary M2 Ball, to belting with API almost exclusively later in WW2.


Is it just me or are planes like Val or early Betty, i.e. as highly flammabe as early Zero IRL, considerably harder to light than Zero...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I dont have a problem with flamin zekes its where you hitum,how hard,and the amount of ,50's you put into um...they flame nicely.

X

FritzGryphon
09-06-2005, 08:57 PM
I tried flaming A6Ms in a ground test, shooting at them with a M2 tailgun.

I found it only takes 2-4 hits to ignite the tank (possibly just 1 hit, but I'm using a 2 gun turret).

The problem is that, the wing itself only takes about 6 hits to blow off. It's a lot easier to hit the wing, a huge target, than hit the fueltank, which is quite small. Most of the time, the wing will blow off before you manage to light the tank (or they happen simultaneously).

If the plane was more durable, you'd probably see alot more fires. Like you see on the P-39, for example.

Try HurriIIb instead, and you'll see lots of flaming Zeros.

ElAurens
09-06-2005, 10:18 PM
I fly Japanese aircraft almost exclusively online now and I will say that fire is the number 1 killer. Too often in some types. The later Ki61s had fire extinguishing systems that are not modeled in the game, and the Ki84 is far to easy to set alight. In fact the JAFC (Japanese Army Flying Corps) aircraft (with the exception of possibly the Ki43) were stronger and less fire prone than the IJN aircraft. Remember that the initial IJN specifications for the A6M demanded a long range and extreme maneuverability, all from an aircraft with no more than 1000HP. So the Mitsubishi design team had little choice but to make the aircraft a very light flying fuel tank. Same for the Betty.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2005, 01:57 AM
Zero had no self sealing fuel tanks.

I have seen a LOT of guncam shots showing big flames coming from the Zero after a few .50 cal hits.

I'm pretty sure they did burn up a lot.

Diablo310th
09-07-2005, 06:35 AM
If there is any problem with the .50's it can be fixed with 2 things.

1. de-synch the wing guns
2. change to ammo loadout to API-API-API-API-APT

that was more historical in US planes than what we have now.