PDA

View Full Version : About incendiary ammo



Stafroty
09-01-2007, 11:19 AM
on different kinds of weapons.

in my opinion, it is too rare when planes caught on fire.
I think that problem is game engine which reduses different kinds of effect from different calibers..

Isnt the tests even saying, that cannon incendiary ammo was almost 100% if it hits the fuel tank?
even wiith .50cal made good work with several hits.

small call effect i find quite good at the moment.. but only against non protected ones..

protected ones are the *******s who feels too hard..

opinions?

Stafroty
09-01-2007, 11:19 AM
on different kinds of weapons.

in my opinion, it is too rare when planes caught on fire.
I think that problem is game engine which reduses different kinds of effect from different calibers..

Isnt the tests even saying, that cannon incendiary ammo was almost 100% if it hits the fuel tank?
even wiith .50cal made good work with several hits.

small call effect i find quite good at the moment.. but only against non protected ones..

protected ones are the *******s who feels too hard..

opinions?

jurinko
09-01-2007, 04:12 PM
How often do we see burning engine of LaGG? I do not remember.

DKoor
09-01-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko:
How often do we see burning engine of LaGG? I do not remember. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG52Karaya-X
09-01-2007, 04:56 PM
LaGGs/Las/Yaks can burn (ingame)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

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

Wildnoob
09-01-2007, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
LaGGs/Las/Yaks can burn (ingame)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ivan Kozhedub in an interview talking about the LA-5 :

"he had an excellent anti fire system witch turn out the engine exhausts directly by the fuel tanks, in one ocasion this saved me by wat looks like certain death"

obviolsy this feature was maintened (maybe improved) in later versions like the LA-5 FN and the LA-7.

despite the improvement (witch I really don't know)the rest I have sure.

this interview was in Portuguese, but is very famous and should be find in English (probably in all languages)easly.

Widowmaker214
09-01-2007, 08:24 PM
Staf, what range are you firing at?
I see 50s getting the best incendiary effect when firing at ranges closer than 250m. And of course you will see them lighting up Japanese aircraft more often (cept for their bombers for some reason! hack cough sputter) due to the lack of armor and self sealing tanks.
The ETO has much more armored aircraft and other safety features.. so they don't burn as readily, but they still flame up pretty good if you do your shooting in close and ACCURATE. Tail chewing isn't going to do much, but a few close well placed bursts around the engine of a 109 or FW is another story.

Ratsack
09-01-2007, 08:49 PM
I get better effects with the 12 x 0.303s of the Hurri bus IIb. It's probably because they spew so many tracers that I can see where I'm shooting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am the master of p1ss-poor gunnery.

cheers,
Ratsack

M_Gunz
09-01-2007, 09:51 PM
And how should self-sealing tanks with CO2 or cooled engine fumes instead of air make out?

SUPERAEREO
09-02-2007, 02:10 AM
The MiG-3 also had redirected exhaust fumes piped into the fuel tanks.

Not a bad idea, actually.

VW-IceFire
09-02-2007, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
And how should self-sealing tanks with CO2 or cooled engine fumes instead of air make out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better than the fumes from the aviation gas which are the ones most likely to ignite.

alert_1
09-02-2007, 12:39 PM
All planes with Vk105 were burn happily if hitted in engine, ASh 82 might be other story though

M_Gunz
09-02-2007, 03:36 PM
<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 M_Gunz:
And how should self-sealing tanks with CO2 or cooled engine fumes instead of air make out? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better than the fumes from the aviation gas which are the ones most likely to ignite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only in the presence of sufficient oxygen in these planes. There's plenty in the fuselage
but not inside some fuel tanks. Engine fire gets plenty of air.

Stafroty
09-02-2007, 08:05 PM
for range i shoot mostly is under 200m, on online, where i only fly when i fly, my hit percentage on enemy fighters is between 6%-20%, now, it has been dropped on 8% but i find that not so bad.

and about fuel tanks when they receive HEI ammo or such from cannon, does really exhaust gas save the plane ... there would no be fuel tank, if explosive ammo hits it.. now ppl here think that its 100% sure system. WEll, it might be, IF tank would maintain in ok cond.. 20mm holes or many 50cal holes would make such system not work, as exhaust gas runs away from wrong adress.

Tipo_Man
09-05-2007, 07:58 AM
Currently there is big discrepancy of the incendiary power of different guns.
Needless to say, the absolute champion in incendiary power is the ShKAS.
It is like a flamethrower, being much more power than large caliber MG like Berezin for example...
Here is an example of its effect on Zero fuel tank.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/UltraShKAS.jpg


The weakest incendiary power prize belongs to the Italian Breda-Safat 12,7 MG. That's rather strange, since it was considered very effective and even russians copied its shell-design...
Here is what it can(not) do on a Zero:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/zero.jpg

To explain it with simple words.
One ShKAS bullet is usually enough to set a fire a fuel tank of a plane.
Dozens of Breda-Safat bullets can't. They are actually five times heavier than 7,62 ShKAS.
This is a known bug to me, which makes early war duels very unhistorical

Stafroty
09-05-2007, 12:31 PM
so some of the incendiary ammos in game are just a names without no action on it... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Wildnoob
09-06-2007, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

To explain it with simple words.
One ShKAS bullet is usually enough to set a fire a fuel tank of a plane.
Dozens of Breda-Safat bullets can't. They are actually five times heavier than 7,62 ShKAS.
This is a known bug to me, which makes early war duels very unhistorical </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the ShaKas machine gun have rate of fire at about 1,800 RPM (ultra ShaKas witch doens't enter in service due to unreliable performance have rate of fire at about 2,700 RPM).

While Breda-SAFAT heavy machine gun (12.7 x 81 mm)have rate if fire about 700 RPM.

the ShaKas machine gun was able to place much more projectiles per square meter them the heavy Breda-SATAT.

here's wat I found about the ShaKas machine gun in Wikipedia :

"A one-second burst from four ShKAS in Polikarpov I-153 or Polikarpov I-16 placed 120 bullets within 15 angular mils at 400 meters (1,312 feet) giving a firing density of 5 bullets per square meter of the sky. This was significantly higher than contemporary aircraft from other nations, especially considering that four guns with 650 rounds of ammunition per gun weighed a total of only 160 kg (350 lb)."

unhappyly I don't find nothing about the heavy MG Breda-SATAT, just it have a not very good performance in comparison with other similar guns.

FritzGryphon
09-06-2007, 07:27 PM
The Breda must be totally AP, because I can never get fires with it. Lots of leaks, but not fires.

If you look closely, the rounds don't spark like the explosive and incediary rounds of other guns. You just get that little piece of debris floating off.

The shkas, in addition to it's RoF, used effective incendiary compounds like aluminium and thermite from the very begining of the war. And for every bullet, not just some, IIRC. It is a monster.

The M2 started using all incediary at the end of the war, but unfortunately we don't have that loadout in the game.

DKoor
09-07-2007, 02:40 AM
With .5 in game I get mostly structure failures.

Enough said.

avimimus
09-11-2007, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
LaGGs/Las/Yaks can burn (ingame)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget the mig! Touch a mig-3 and it goes up like a candle. Bloody death traps...

Stafroty
02-12-2008, 01:20 PM
how can self sealing tank seal hole made by HEI ammo from cannon?? how is it possible?

and how it is possible to seal multiple holes as well.

Planes burn way too rarely. especially those which have protected fuel tanks. protection makes them way too tought against fire.

still, u can leak fuel from every plane, lots of, but still, it wont caught on fire no matter what ammo u use. bit odd http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

we want more fire, and less explosions takin out target, gunner and his wingman.

VW-IceFire
02-12-2008, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by avimimus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
LaGGs/Las/Yaks can burn (ingame)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget the mig! Touch a mig-3 and it goes up like a candle. Bloody death traps... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mig-3 goes up like a candle for sure. The Yak I've almost never seen light on fire. La's rarely but on occasion. Since the LaGG-3 got its DM worked on its more prone to lighting on fire...even from light machine guns on occasion.

biggs222
02-12-2008, 07:14 PM
Mig are flying petrol rags...

as for the .50s i usually get structural failures and engines stoppages... i cant really remember getting engine fires... im guessing because there are no API rounds in the .50s in this sim.

Tater-SW-
02-12-2008, 09:07 PM
Flying vs the japanese I see far more fires when I fly a hurri than with anything with 50s.

VW-IceFire
02-12-2008, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by biggs222:
Mig are flying petrol rags...

as for the .50s i usually get structural failures and engines stoppages... i cant really remember getting engine fires... im guessing because there are no API rounds in the .50s in this sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alegedly we have a APIT round in the package so only the tracers themselves are incendiary. The rest are AP or the highly unusual HE .50cal rounds (its a weird one).

Tater-SW-
02-12-2008, 10:47 PM
The AP is apparently lacking from the API. Something like that.

uf_josse
02-15-2008, 12:30 PM
In game belting is APIT/AP/HE/AP

mbm003
02-21-2008, 03:50 PM
Strange phenomenon. When I'm offline, planes I'm shooting go up in flames at the touch of the trigger. Online, I can't make anything catch on fire.

Tater-SW-
02-22-2008, 05:13 PM
I think josse said in another thread that the HE in the .50s is very very weak. Not weak compared to 20mm, weak compared to other MG ammo. If that is true, then perhaps the only way with stock to get fire is the APIT. Online, with packet loss, etc, if you lose that single APIT round, no fire.

If it was properly API, API, API, API, APIT then ANY hit might cause fire.

VW-IceFire
02-22-2008, 07:10 PM
They didn't start using that combination until 1944 right? Wasn't the standard more of a AP AP AP APIT?

stansdds
02-23-2008, 08:04 AM
Allied pilots in the Pacific quickly discovered the fact that Japanese aircraft were poorly armored and usually lacked self-sealing fuel cells. In this theater, AP rounds were of little use, so pilots preferred having more incendiary rounds in the belting. Hits in the fuel cells with the incendiary rounds made the fuel cells ignite very nicely. Unfortunately, custom belting is not possible in Il2, at least as far as I know.

Tater-SW-
02-23-2008, 05:42 PM
According to Ken Walsh, their belting in February, 1943 was API, APIT, AP.

That's USMC F4Us.

So it's fair that API/AP/APIT was possible throughout 1943 at the least.

VW-IceFire
02-24-2008, 05:44 PM
I wonder what the Russian P-39s used...maybe thats why we have such a funky loadout.

Diablo310th
02-25-2008, 08:47 AM
somewhere I have a picture of a jug with the 4x API 1xAPI loadout. I'll see if I can find it and see if a year is posted on it. Guse may have it also.

Monguse
02-25-2008, 10:41 AM
I have made every attempt to copy the pictures into my web site as not to directly link from the sources. All web sites are accredited. The only thing I have done is gather the information.


Weights and Measures
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm


Some pics


http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/Types_01.jpg

http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/Types_02.jpg

http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/Types_03.jpg

Where these pictures came from
http://www.liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/09_ammo.htm


Now my friend 310th_Diablo posts the following (books and ISBN numbers follow)

A book sample:

Wolf, William. American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2003
ISBN 0-7643-1878-0
391 pages

http://stonebooks.com/archives/031123.shtml


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57"' Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet.

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

So, basically there wasn't a problem with killing aircraft with the .50 caliber because the U.S. was able to mass produce specialized Incendiary and Armor Piercing Incendiary .50 cal ammo for use in it's aircraft. Only in the Korean war because of the high altitude nature of the aircraft, and the jet engine and fuel used was the only limiting factor that caused the .50cal to go out of favor. It was more than adequate during WW2 though as can be seen in the examples above.
------------------------------------------------

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

With API ammo the 50's will actually have more power and stopping ability too.

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

more

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.vought.com/heritage/special/html/symilitary.html, recounted by Marine Corps crew chief Bud Yinger:

"Other crews were kept busy belting ammunition. Belting the 50-caliber ammunition had to be arranged so that the rounds were in order-- tracer, armor piercing, incendiary."

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



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://www.cannon-lexington.com/Pages/Bob%20Capps.htm, recounted by CV-16 crew chief Lowell R. Capps:

"Our next learning adventure was how to belt 50 cal. ammo. There were four of us that sat around this belting machine that had a tray. One of us would put an armor piercing shell in the tray, another an incendiary and the other a tracer."

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

more...LOL

AlmightyTallest Posted Sat February 26 2005 12:03 Hide Post
Okay, just found one of my books that gives a standard aircraft belted ratio for the Corsair.

From: "Corsair The F4U in WW2 and Korea"
by: Barrett Tillman

Page 20-21

"most aviation .50cal ammo was belted in the ratio of AP-I-AP-I-Tracer"

So at any rate since the .50cal ammo belt used in PF goes for all .50cal guns, I think if the HE load is incorrect the HE round should be replaced by either an Incendiary, or if you want to cover all bases, an Armor Piercing Incendiary round.



Here is the rest of the thread at the Zoo: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1771003335/p/13


Now for some pictures:

Now here is the picture of Schmatzie 57th FG 64th FS 'Black Scorpions' #53 SN 4420866 (shown 420 866)
Register: http://perso.orange.fr/p-47.database/Database/44-xxxxx.htm

http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/57thFG_Armorer_Main11.jpg

The armorer loading a nice belt of 4 API and one tracer that backs up my friend Diablos post.
Now, compare the belting here with the paragraph above and the accompanying pictures.

Notice the light colored tips on those rounds?

Here is Grabesky's aircraft in color (same from above)
http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/MustangAmmo2.jpg

Now here is a report from the 359th FG (Green Nosed) 16 August 1944
http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/359-cranfill-16aug44.jpg
Note J: 776 Rounds API

Now all we have to do is to make sure we all know the true History all we need now is to get it fixed.

As you can see, if we had the historical belting in IL2 we should only press the trigger (provided you aimed correctly) for 1 to 2 seconds and not the current game implementation of using the entire belt to bring down an enemy.

Diablo310th
02-25-2008, 12:14 PM
Thanks Guse. I knew you would have everything needed.

Tater-SW-
02-25-2008, 01:02 PM
Any sources on changes in belting, though?

I know for a fact in the Pacific they were using ball and tracer alone for a while. I think up to Midway or so, at least for the USN. I also know that by early 1943, the USN/USMC was demonstrably using at least 1/3d API, 1/3d APIT, 1/3d AP since I have a quote from Walsh saying as much. Later we know that 4xAPI/APIT became a sort of standard.

I've used that mix in il-2 and it is nice to see the hit sparks. Doesn't seem to improve effectiveness vs german planes any, but man does it torch early japanese planes. You also see far more smoking/burning japanese planes than before vs having them break to pieces.

The problem is that there is only 1 M2, and in the stock game it is also used by the japanese planes, for example (different gun name, but all the values are the same except tracer color I think). Ideally, there would be 2-3 M2 types.

One for early war: maybe 4xAP, 1xAPIT.

One for mid 42-mid 43: maybe API, AP, API, AP, APIT

One later war (mid 43 on): 4xAPI, 1xAPIT

Planes that saw a lot of use in all war might get the 42-43 load with mixed api/ap. Planes like the F2A, F4F-3, P-40B/C (and Hawks) get the early war mix. Flex guns might get the early mix, too. B-25C and A-20C get early M2, the rest get the mid version (figure since it was used primarily for suppression they'd use up the ball ammo).

VW-IceFire
02-25-2008, 03:13 PM
Has any of this been sent in before or would it be new to the Maddox team?

Monguse
02-25-2008, 03:26 PM
Posted on the bananna forums

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=36756#post36756

M_Gunz
02-25-2008, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I wonder what the Russian P-39s used...maybe thats why we have such a funky loadout. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was to bet money, that is what I would choose as the reason.

One thing about self-sealing and inert gas overfilled fuel tanks is that none of that should
have any effect on engine fires.

Tater-SW-
02-25-2008, 08:45 PM
You posted the 2d image twice instead of the 3d:

http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/Types_03.jpg

tater

Monguse
02-26-2008, 05:54 AM
Good catch Tater, fixed.

totalspoon
03-03-2008, 02:27 PM
In WW1, Aircrews were given tracer ammo for their MG's to help with aiming. These bullets were similar to normal ones except the had a hole in their tail which was packed full of a phosphorous compound. On firing, this ignited and left a smoky trail. Although not designed as an incendiary, these rounds did have some incendiary effect and many unfortunate pilots meet a firey death when tracer rounds ignited their fuel tank. Later, when improved rounds were needed for shooting at Zeppelins and Ballons, bullets with a larger cavity and more phosphorous compound were developed. The english round was called "Buckingham".

When WW2 came around, most nations (including Britain and Germany) were using improved WW1 style incendiaries. In June 1940, England introduced its new 'De Wilde' WW2 style incendiary round. These new rounds didn't ignite when fired. They ignited on striking the target producing an 18 inch flame which could be seen by the shooting pilot. Not only was this round twice as effective, pilots also loved the flash effect as it gave a clear visual indication they were hitting the target

"The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five."

The following .5m movie shows a Fw190 (still with drop tank on) being shot down by Major Randall "Pinky" Hendricks in his "Razorback" P47 on 12th June 1944. The API round was a WW2 style incendiary. Notice the flashes on the FW before it bursts into flames...

http://www.368thfightergroup.com/media/397-hendricks-av2.avi

I'm only guessing but I'd say the HE is included in the .5 belting to give the flash effect. If we had APIT-API-API-API-API, we wouldn't get any flash effect in IL2.

Tater-SW-
03-03-2008, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we had APIT-API-API-API-API, we wouldn't get any flash effect in IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true at all. You get many hit flashes with such a belting.

totalspoon
03-03-2008, 03:50 PM
IRL, they all flash. In IL2, incendiaries don't flash, the flashes you can see when you fire your .50cals are the HE exploding (APIT - AP - HE - AP).

IMHO, the simplest way to improve the belting of the .50cal using the existing rounds available would be, APIT - HE - APIT - HE. This would give us twice the volume of tracers (the .50cal tracers are hard to see), twice the incendiary effect and twice the number of flashes-on-hitting we have now...

Spoon

Tater-SW-
03-03-2008, 04:10 PM
Funny, I just tested a pure API/APIT belting and I saw far more flashes than the APIT - AP - HE - AP belting.

Do you know that such a proper belting produces no flashes from testing it?

totalspoon
03-03-2008, 05:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I was just giving my opinion from what I've read. If you've now tested my theory and I was wrong, then I'll change my opinions. No, I haven't done any testing because I didn't realize you could. How do you test different ammo beltings? I'd love to test pure API/APIT and see what the incendiary effect is like...

Spoon

Tater-SW-
03-03-2008, 06:10 PM
Not allowed to talk about it. Search uf_josse's posts and be educated.

VW-IceFire
03-03-2008, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Funny, I just tested a pure API/APIT belting and I saw far more flashes than the APIT - AP - HE - AP belting.

Do you know that such a proper belting produces no flashes from testing it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Was the combination more effective? Or about the same?

Tater-SW-
03-03-2008, 11:09 PM
What josse said in a few posts. More effective, or at least more likely to cause FIRE in japanese planes, little difference vs german planes. I have to admit I can fly a little vs the IJNAF/IJAAF and instantly grok the "feel," but I so rarely fly ETO that I have no gut feel for it.

GH_Klingstroem
03-04-2008, 09:39 AM
This is what I have sdaid for a long time but I get flamed for it every time! We need more hit flashes on target!!

Stafroty
03-31-2008, 10:23 AM
somehow this went .50 cal debate..

Tater-SW-
03-31-2008, 11:23 AM
It is needed certainly for all planes that had incendiary rounds, I agree. It "went .50 cal debate," because the US relied entirely on API(T) ammunition, and il-2 gives us ZERO API ammo except for the single tracer.

HerrGraf
03-31-2008, 08:50 PM
In real life there was no H.E. rounds for the .50 except as experimental.

VW-IceFire
03-31-2008, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HerrGraf:
In real life there was no H.E. rounds for the .50 except as experimental. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True that and I had always figured that the HE in the belt was to compensate for a problem with modeling the gun otherwise. Maybe not...given the experiences with all API ammo.

M_Gunz
04-01-2008, 01:26 AM
I wonder if the 3rd party crew not finished with 4.09 could be allowed to implement such a change?
It might prevent a split due to people running 'illegal' mods.

US 50 cal incendiaries used, IIRC, a magnesium core that ignited from impact energy and air alone.

Totalspoon, a lot of those WWI planes self-ignited though some were worse by far. The DH2 nickname
was 'The Spinning Incinerator' for good reason! The planes at times leaked gas, had wiring that
sparked and the exhaust threw flames. A few tracers only added to the risk.

M_Gunz
04-01-2008, 01:28 AM
That might have been 'Whirling Incinerator'.

Where did the EDIT POST widget go?

Stafroty
04-15-2008, 04:53 AM
what i think is that self sealin tanks are way too effective. Even cannon rounds wont make them fire up.

we need more fire, and less catastropical explosions which almost always kills attacker too..

Aaron_GT
04-19-2008, 11:42 AM
Some self sealing tanks were designed to be able to cope with 20mm fragmentation damage from non penetrating rounds of the same sort of HE power as Hispano HE rounds, although not German 20mm MG rounds or penetrating hits by 20mm.

Manu-6S
04-21-2008, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Currently there is big discrepancy of the incendiary power of different guns.
Needless to say, the absolute champion in incendiary power is the ShKAS.
It is like a flamethrower, being much more power than large caliber MG like Berezin for example...
Here is an example of its effect on Zero fuel tank.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/UltraShKAS.jpg


The weakest incendiary power prize belongs to the Italian Breda-Safat 12,7 MG. That's rather strange, since it was considered very effective and even russians copied its shell-design...
Here is what it can(not) do on a Zero:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b128/TipoMan/zero.jpg

To explain it with simple words.
One ShKAS bullet is usually enough to set a fire a fuel tank of a plane.
Dozens of Breda-Safat bullets can't. They are actually five times heavier than 7,62 ShKAS.
This is a known bug to me, which makes early war duels very unhistorical </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The russian planes are a joke...

Tonight I fled in Finland with HurryI and G50 against I16 and I153...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

joeap
04-22-2008, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:

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

The russian planes are a joke...

Tonight I fled in Finland with HurryI and G50 against I16 and I153...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What BS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Manu-6S
04-22-2008, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:

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

The russian planes are a joke...

Tonight I fled in Finland with HurryI and G50 against I16 and I153...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What BS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you explain?

The image above is a good example, but it doesn't focus the different DMs of the plane...

Nor a Emil is strong as the I16 against 0.303...

And, btw, I tested the planeset all the night with my squad (first as russian... 6 kills in a sortie with little bursts... Hurricane being dewinged and Gladiators exploded; later with HurriI I gave a 2 second burst with a 50% hit ratio in the back of a 153 and nothing happened...)

I'm talking of DM against MGs... MKs are another things. Was Luthier the guy who complained about I16's DM when flying a Ki?

TinyTim
04-22-2008, 08:19 AM
<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 joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:

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

The russian planes are a joke...

Tonight I fled in Finland with HurryI and G50 against I16 and I153...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What BS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you explain?

The image above is a good example, but it doesn't focus the different DMs of the plane...

Nor a Emil is strong as the I16 against 0.303...

And, btw, I tested the planeset all the night with my squad (first as russian... 6 kills in a sortie with little bursts... Hurricane being dewinged and Gladiators exploded; later with HurriI I gave a 2 second burst with a 50% hit ratio in the back of a 153 and nothing happened...)

I'm talking of DM against MGs... MKs are another things. Was Luthier the guy who complained about I16's DM when flying a Ki? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Planes like I-153 or I-16 were not much more than flying gas canisters plus some ammo cartridges. Yet they are incredibly resistant to any kind of MG fire. Trying to shoot down an I-16 with a Ki-27 even in a situation when I-16 just keeps flying straight can be as frustrating as killing a tied up elephant with bare hands.

joeap
04-22-2008, 03:58 PM
Well IAR-80s are also resistant to Mg fire in my experience. I-16s and early Yaks, and look at these threads, Yaks (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7501046356),
I-16s (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3711090356)

are by no means "uber" planes like many accuse the Spit (well the IX I agree but not the Spit Vs or Seafires in the game) and it is not easy to master them in fact.

I don't see any light caliber MG really performing up to it's real world counterpart, and I do include the Bredas here.

Don't mean to pick on you Manu, but I only recall jabs about Allied planes from you, as I said there is some question about the Spit IXs (though it surely was not as bad IRL as some think) there are problems with some Axis planes but I think the Russian planes have their share of sim weaknesses and strengths too.

TinyTim
04-23-2008, 01:22 AM
AFAIK this problem with I-153 and I-16 (and possibly also Yak-1) invulnerability for light MG fire emerges from the fact that these planes still retained the old DM (from initial IL2-Sturmovik). Not sure tho.

I find light machineguns quite effective as far as incendiary effect goes. They light up fuel tanks waaaay easier than heavy MGs. We, however, shouldn't mix DM problems with weapon modelling problems. This is something we do all the time so consequently everything seems messed up.