PDA

View Full Version : Accuracy of Planes?



BobbyBrinks
05-06-2008, 12:05 AM
My question this time has to do with planes and there capability as firing platforms. Playing online is a blast, and I love to fly both il2 and World War 2 online. However, in both games pilots regularly make kills at ranges that seem to be extreme. For this post i think it is just best to stick to il2 because thats the forum we are in and the game we ALL are familar with.

I am by no means an expert ariel marksman, but I do find myself a pretty confident shot. Though I set my convergence for about 225, I find that i am very comfortable shooting at ranges that border DOUBLE this distance. It is also my experience that within 500 meters or so, other players are very capable of hitting my plane. Difficult? certainly, but not rare. I dont mean spamming away blindly either, I have been on the recieving end of some excellent short burts that quite simply hit "dead on". My experience is that this not only applies with centerlined gun packages but also with planes that have wing mounted guns. In general, If people can get their nose up enough they can reach out and touch me. I understand that with this one problem is it rest on my perception, but i'm willing to bet others on here have noticed or experienced similar things.

A while back a number of pilot interviews were posted here converning russian pilots. They were excellent and I read every one. I wish I could link you all but I haven't a clue what pilot interview it was, sadly they all tend to melt together with time. One thing stuck with me though is one russian ace was asked about his convergence. He responded that his preference under 200 meters. When asked "well what about if you had to shoot at something... say 400 meters away?" his answer was "(laugh)Who shoots at such ranges?" I specifically remember thinking about the fact that this man had shot down about 15 aircraft over his carrer, and he was thought it was rediculous to shoot at ranges where in il2 kills happen with some frequency.

Ariel gunnery...
A.)Are the planes too accurate as firing platforms?(Ie. spread of cannons is very tight allowing long range shooting) While this isnt the best example, I think it is interesting. Here is a link to 20mm hispano, while the gun has 4 barrels, it is mounted to the ground which should make it pretty stable. Take note of the spread... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiReOKTeldk (sry i cant imbed)
B.)Or is it that being virtual pilots constantly flying/fighting, good gunnery skills are on a level unheard of during the actual war? (the fact every time we take off we end up dogfighting gives us hours and hours of trigger time)
C.)Or perhaps rl factors such as severe wind and other things that dramatically affect gunnery over long distances arent present which allows pilots to snipe away?

My feeling is that it is a mixture of all three, but im curious to see what other people think. And for this thread STOP being so humble. Half of you guys all the time say you are all terrible shots. Some of you maybe... but ive been on the receiving end to many times and I know better.

BobbyBrinks
05-06-2008, 12:05 AM
My question this time has to do with planes and there capability as firing platforms. Playing online is a blast, and I love to fly both il2 and World War 2 online. However, in both games pilots regularly make kills at ranges that seem to be extreme. For this post i think it is just best to stick to il2 because thats the forum we are in and the game we ALL are familar with.

I am by no means an expert ariel marksman, but I do find myself a pretty confident shot. Though I set my convergence for about 225, I find that i am very comfortable shooting at ranges that border DOUBLE this distance. It is also my experience that within 500 meters or so, other players are very capable of hitting my plane. Difficult? certainly, but not rare. I dont mean spamming away blindly either, I have been on the recieving end of some excellent short burts that quite simply hit "dead on". My experience is that this not only applies with centerlined gun packages but also with planes that have wing mounted guns. In general, If people can get their nose up enough they can reach out and touch me. I understand that with this one problem is it rest on my perception, but i'm willing to bet others on here have noticed or experienced similar things.

A while back a number of pilot interviews were posted here converning russian pilots. They were excellent and I read every one. I wish I could link you all but I haven't a clue what pilot interview it was, sadly they all tend to melt together with time. One thing stuck with me though is one russian ace was asked about his convergence. He responded that his preference under 200 meters. When asked "well what about if you had to shoot at something... say 400 meters away?" his answer was "(laugh)Who shoots at such ranges?" I specifically remember thinking about the fact that this man had shot down about 15 aircraft over his carrer, and he was thought it was rediculous to shoot at ranges where in il2 kills happen with some frequency.

Ariel gunnery...
A.)Are the planes too accurate as firing platforms?(Ie. spread of cannons is very tight allowing long range shooting) While this isnt the best example, I think it is interesting. Here is a link to 20mm hispano, while the gun has 4 barrels, it is mounted to the ground which should make it pretty stable. Take note of the spread... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiReOKTeldk (sry i cant imbed)
B.)Or is it that being virtual pilots constantly flying/fighting, good gunnery skills are on a level unheard of during the actual war? (the fact every time we take off we end up dogfighting gives us hours and hours of trigger time)
C.)Or perhaps rl factors such as severe wind and other things that dramatically affect gunnery over long distances arent present which allows pilots to snipe away?

My feeling is that it is a mixture of all three, but im curious to see what other people think. And for this thread STOP being so humble. Half of you guys all the time say you are all terrible shots. Some of you maybe... but ive been on the receiving end to many times and I know better.

Pirschjaeger
05-06-2008, 04:09 AM
When I used to fly I often made most of my kills between 750 and 850m. Sounds incredible and inaccurate because it is.

Unlike reality, I haven't lost my wings for wasting tonnes of ammo before becoming a good shot. I've died and returned hundreds, maybe more than a thousand times.

I'm confident the planes are quite accurately modeled. It's the players who are not.

Fritz

Capt.LoneRanger
05-06-2008, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
When I used to fly I often made most of my kills between 750 and 850m. Sounds incredible and inaccurate because it is.

Unlike reality, I haven't lost my wings for wasting tonnes of ammo before becoming a good shot. I've died and returned hundreds, maybe more than a thousand times.

I'm confident the planes are quite accurately modeled. It's the players who are not.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I think dying is *way* under-modelled in this sim.

ImMoreBetter
05-06-2008, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A while back a number of pilot interviews were posted here converning russian pilots. They were excellent and I read every one. I wish I could link you all but I haven't a clue what pilot interview it was, sadly they all tend to melt together with time. One thing stuck with me though is one russian ace was asked about his convergence. He responded that his preference under 200 meters. When asked "well what about if you had to shoot at something... say 400 meters away?" his answer was "(laugh)Who shoots at such ranges?" I specifically remember thinking about the fact that this man had shot down about 15 aircraft over his carrer, and he was thought it was rediculous to shoot at ranges where in il2 kills happen with some frequency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't think he meant OUT of range.

Most aces waited until they get reeeally close to fire, you can't miss, and any hits are sure to be good.

It's out of his preference range, not gun range.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-06-2008, 06:23 AM
I think ballistics are decently modeled considering the medium.

My .02c

M_Gunz
05-06-2008, 06:40 AM
Getting hits at long range with automatic weapons is not unreal at all.
But the scatter is wider and it's going to be harder to hit just due to geometry alone.

I have a LW aiming diagram for FW190A and the sight crossing lines go out to 550m for the
wing cannon. Consider that they wanted to shoot bombers from beyond effective bomber gunner
range of 500m, or at least start the shooting from that far out.

It can be found HERE as 190-gun-2.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/)

Thing to remember when setting converge is that you are setting vertical elements as well as
the crossing distance. The gunsight views a straight line but unless you are firing straight
up or down the bullet path is curved by gravity. So the guns are tilted up to cross the sight
line on horizontal shots.
In general (but not always) the shots cross the sight line inside converge on the way up and
cross again at the converge on the way back down. But if you have a close converge and the
guns are well below the sight line as wing guns tend to be about 1m below then the shots will
cross at converge on the way up -- consider you fire to hit 1m higher than the gun at 100m
range there is no way that bullet comes back down to cross the sight line in less than 100's
of meters!

The FW diagram shows cannon shot cross on the way up at about 140m and then back down at 550m
-- at both places the pipper sight line is crossed but note below the shots cross at nearly
800m and this is a historic document!

In IL2 if you shoot inside or beyond convergence then it's best you know whether the shots
will be above or below the crosshair!

And just to trip you up because gunnery is not nearly so simple as that:

1) If you are firing off-horizontal, on a slope either up or down, the shots will always be
high in relation to the crosshairs at range. The relation varies with the slope.

2) If you and your target are changing distance when you shoot then in relative sense he
may be closer or farther by the time the shots get to him -- the effective range is less
when you are closing on the target. With deflection shots this can get big, perhaps it's
why the 90 degree crossing shot beyond close range is so iffy even when timed right.

3) the closer you are, the less any of this matters.

4) these bullets and shells really lose a lot of kinetic energy with range. Sure they still
have a lot, 50 cal at 1km is plenty potent but not like at 100m!

5) the big saving grace of automatic weapons is that you can usually see where the shots go
and correct your fire. Well, it don't save the target. The thing is that with automatics
you don't have to be a sniper to hit. Firing an MG on ground you look over the gun in
general use by training and not through the sight. The sights are there so someone must
have use of them but I never did which was how I was trained. You fire short burst about
where you should and correct the aim -- it's good enough for man size targets at 400-500m
with one or two short bursts stationary on ground with only one gun and for not using the
sights that should tell something about what you don't need. Try that with a single shot
rifle and every shot is a gamble -- you need to use the sights to have a chance where with
a MG you don't.

6) with automatics you can form a stream of fire that the target may pass through. The
longer the range the more shots you will waste but a single critical hit may be all you need.
If it's a PK through side window then a 30 cal can be just as effective as a 300mm.

7) if you shoot while flying with Slip then your aim will be OFF unless you're good enough
to make slip part of the shot or you're very close.

8) being close always make it easier to hit the target, esp moving targets.

#'s 5 and 6 are why it happens so often the long range kills. The rest may help you make
them or decide not to waste ammo.

The more you practice nothing but gunnery with no distractions the better you will just know
where your shots are going and how long they take to reach ranges. That is to me the most
critical part of shooting. Depending on sight formula and having the rest as a mystery is
how to be a mediocre shot at best -- it will be close or sitting duck or spray and pray.

Taylortony
05-06-2008, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
I think ballistics are decently modeled considering the medium.

My .02c </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the heck has some person that speaks to dead people got to do with it?


Its not badly done, the biggest leap forward we had was when they remodelled the visuals from simple railroad track rounds to the spray and pray effects http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif or ballistic scatter if you wanna sound geeky http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

BobbyBrinks
05-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Intersting, i had no idea about the 190 sights for the bombers ranged out beyond 500 meters. However let me specify that I am primarily concerned SOLEY with targeting fighters. B-17s are monsterous, I would not be suprised if it was common for experienced pilots in real life to be able to hit them (though not critically) in in excess of 500-600 meters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 5) the big saving grace of automatic weapons is that you can usually see where the shots go
and correct your fire. Well, it don't save the target. The thing is that with automatics
you don't have to be a sniper to hit. Firing an MG on ground you look over the gun in
general use by training and not through the sight. The sights are there so someone must
have use of them but I never did which was how I was trained. You fire short burst about
where you should and correct the aim -- it's good enough for man size targets at 400-500m
with one or two short bursts stationary on ground with only one gun and for not using the
sights that should tell something about what you don't need. Try that with a single shot
rifle and every shot is a gamble -- you need to use the sights to have a chance where with
a MG you don't.

6) with automatics you can form a stream of fire that the target may pass through. The
longer the range the more shots you will waste but a single critical hit may be all you need.
If it's a PK through side window then a 30 cal can be just as effective as a 300mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me refine my question a bit then. I am not a ballistics expert, and know very little about bullets and their loss of kinetic engery/joules of force delievered over extended ranges. I do have little doubt that most of the rounds in this game and in rl are deadly out to obscene ranges, so im not concerned with that at all.

It seems that long distance hits/kills are common. But in my experience, people dont stream rounds and walk them into me. I dont find it rediculous at all if someone in a 6-8 gun plane wants to shotgun rounds over 500 meters and rudder it home. Honestly that makes sense and it takes a lot of their ammunition before they get the rounds to go where they want. They make up for this accuracy with sheer amount of rounds expended. Instead, I see alot of small bursts over very far ranges and first round hits are common. Noone in the posts so far as disagreed with me that pilots in il2 tend to be able to hit targets at very far ranges.

BUT WHY???
Maybe this is the wronge question to ask? maybe aces from any of the nations would have been capable of sniping a fighter at 450 meters? Has anyone read anything where someone engaged and destroyed a fighter (with a sniper shot or very short burst) in the real war?

It seems to me that....
1.)il2 pilots are either way too GOOD at burst shots over long distances (from hours upon hours of virtual gunnery practice. OR long range gunnery ingame is too easy because of...
2.)mgs/cannons not tending to spread over range much (little dispersion means that as long as you time your burst right most rounds will hit)
3.)Maybe the guns in rl dont disperse much over range even despite recoil? instead factors such as wind etc dispersed bullet spray and caused pilots to need these long streams to down planes?

The reason I included the pilot interview was because upon reading it, my interpretation was that he thought shooting a BF-109 at 400 meters was inconvievable. He probably would have agreed with the fact that you could hit it, but he made it seem like it was such a difficult task and one would just end up wasting ammunition with just a few plinks.

Any ideas? Thanks for your input and sorry for my long novel style posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
05-06-2008, 03:59 PM
This is online right? All depends on where your flying. If the target is stationary enough it doesn't matter if its the smallest profile fighter in the game...I feel I'm good enough with the ballistics of most guns and planes to be able to hit you at extreme range (except with the 37mm) with the first or second very short burst. I'm not the best marksman but I can do it...and I'd say that much of the reason for this is the 4 or more years I've been playing the game so if you're on a server full of people who are like me or who are better than I am (there are plenty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) then that explains it.

If you fly in a server where the skill levels are high then what you'll see in some respects are pilots who are far "more skilled" than the real ones. Not to denigrate the real pilots either because they had to cope with death, fear, uncertainty, the friend they lost last week, cold/hot, cramped conditions, the family they left behind at home, etc. So removing those considerations and adding the collective millions of hours spent and what happens is you're going to find servers that are full of top rated pilots...the worst of which can probably still hit a target reliably at maximum range.

If you fly in another server where the skill level is much lower then you'll see much the opposite where people spray their shots and complain. Blamimg the innacuracy of the sim and on why they can't get a kill and how this weapon is undermodelled and so on. You're approaching from the opposite perspective which is a much rarer thing (and quite refreshing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

I think most of the successful aces of WWII were definitely interested in two things:

1) Achieving the kill
2) Getting out of there really quickly

So they weren't interested in hanging about and firing at the enemy for long range hits. They wanted the closest, quickest, cleanest gun kill they could get and then to get the heck out of there (and I don't blame them). So a shot at 800 meters or even 400 meters is silly because they don't want to waste shots and let the enemy know they are right behind them when they can wait and get a cleaner kill.

If you apply this to the game it DOES work as well which is why I feel the game is largely correct. I wait...and I'm training myself in the last several months to wait even more than I used to...making sure that I'm close and that the first burst is going to be crippling or devastating.

ImMoreBetter
05-06-2008, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
So they weren't interested in hanging about and firing at the enemy for long range hits. They wanted the closest, quickest, cleanest gun kill they could get and then to get the heck out of there (and I don't blame them). So a shot at 800 meters or even 400 meters is silly because they don't want to waste shots and let the enemy know they are right behind them when they can wait and get a cleaner kill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo. Tactical Accuracy.

It's tactically impractical to use up all your ammo firing long range, rather than to get closer and kill with a single burst.

Sniping happens in game because we're not dead when we get caught in another fight without ammo.

OMK_Hand
05-06-2008, 05:03 PM
Is this long range shooting more often seen in 'cockpit off' servers? I seem to remember that it's a lot easier to shoot accurately from further away using Wonder Woman view, as well as being able to shoot more often...

Wildnoob
05-06-2008, 05:11 PM
most time I play is trying to found the perfect shoot from the 6'clok of the target.

for me, the perfect fire is with the gunsigth set directly on the target, and could have at least 2 seconds of fire.

it's normally devasting, I make frequency tests with the zero against wildcats, and normally the aircraft blow up.

I just need a pair of pedals to improve more my air gunnery, as sometimes I manage to put the gunsigth perfectly on target, but not exactly on their 6.

Lurch1962
05-06-2008, 05:22 PM
Hmmm... Less bullet dispersion than in reality?

I think that for some planes at least, this game actually introduces a bit *more* bullet scatter than would be found in the real world. After observing gun cam films and comparing with similar in-game plane/armament hit patterns during ground attack, it really does seem that we don't in any way enjoy an unrealistic advantage regarding bullet stream cohesion. Unlike CFS2, for example, where extreme range sniping which still results in a high hit percentage is easily achieved, due to the ultra rock-steady firing platform.

====================

I've read pilot reports wherein shots were made against fighters at 800 yd ranges and which scored hits.

====================

Wind by itself will have no impact on bullet trajectories. Unless the plane is in an extreme attitude with respect to airflow (slipping, high angle of attack, etc.), the relative wind moves along the longitudinal axis. What *will* affect trajectories is turbulence, because of the jostling of the A/C.

M_Gunz
05-06-2008, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BobbyBrinks:
Let me refine my question a bit then. I am not a ballistics expert, and know very little about bullets and their loss of kinetic engery/joules of force delievered over extended ranges. I do have little doubt that most of the rounds in this game and in rl are deadly out to obscene ranges, so im not concerned with that at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know that IRL a modern 50 cal is effective on light armor out to 2000 yards?
The old ones weren't much less, still good at over 1000m.
So what's obscene?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems that long distance hits/kills are common. But in my experience, people dont stream rounds and walk them into me. I dont find it rediculous at all if someone in a 6-8 gun plane wants to shotgun rounds over 500 meters and rudder it home. Honestly that makes sense and it takes a lot of their ammunition before they get the rounds to go where they want. They make up for this accuracy with sheer amount of rounds expended. Instead, I see alot of small bursts over very far ranges and first round hits are common. Noone in the posts so far as disagreed with me that pilots in il2 tend to be able to hit targets at very far ranges. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all you don't just hold the trigger down, the guns will jam and you waste ammo.
You fire bursts. 1st burst is ranging but if you're good then that one hits. With M-60 you
say 6 to 9 and in that amount of time about that many shots go out and that's your burst.

But if you run into the Red Baron then remember he had a reputation for a reason.
Lot of players online have had huge practice and yowza they is snipers!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BUT WHY???
Maybe this is the wronge question to ask? maybe aces from any of the nations would have been capable of sniping a fighter at 450 meters? Has anyone read anything where someone engaged and destroyed a fighter (with a sniper shot or very short burst) in the real war? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korean war at over 25,000 ft one pilot had written about another taking a shot and downing a
MiG-15 at 800 yards. He said it was only later that he realized the thinner air made less
drag on the bullets and that's why his wing leader was an Ace, cause he knew and made the shot.
Those were 50 cals and the MiG-15 could take a lot of punishment.

Marseilles perhaps could make such shots. And some of the P-38 Aces did long range kills.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems to me that....
1.)il2 pilots are either way too GOOD at burst shots over long distances (from hours upon hours of virtual gunnery practice. OR long range gunnery ingame is too easy because of...
2.)mgs/cannons not tending to spread over range much (little dispersion means that as long as you time your burst right most rounds will hit)
3.)Maybe the guns in rl dont disperse much over range even despite recoil? instead factors such as wind etc dispersed bullet spray and caused pilots to need these long streams to down planes?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can prove the spread. By history the .50s should be, IIRC 75% within 8 mils. It was a
Hot Topic here I think from 2003 to 2005. The new issue is about lack of API in 50 cals.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason I included the pilot interview was because upon reading it, my interpretation was that he thought shooting a BF-109 at 400 meters was inconvievable. He probably would have agreed with the fact that you could hit it, but he made it seem like it was such a difficult task and one would just end up wasting ammunition with just a few plinks.

Any ideas? Thanks for your input and sorry for my long novel style posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did include people getting way too much practice.

Have some fun. Make a track of you doing some gunnery practice on sitting ducks at long range.
View the track but every time your plane fires, pause and go to the POV of the target then
resume at 1/4 speed while watching the shots from angle where you can see shooter and target.
Notice the scatter or the tracers?
If you set arcade=1 on before you play the track then you will see the hits scattered on the
target.

Them's as real as ballistics on any game get.

Fire parked on the ground at those wide smokestacks at convergence with arcade=1 and the white
dots will show you the spread. Gibbage and others ran tests back when the spread was 30 mils
wide done with brakes set and single shots. If you want to challenge that then good luck.

There are 1000 mils in a circle, btw. 1 mil is 1 yard wide at 1000m range. At 500m 8 mils is
4m wide circle. Work out your demo, we haven't seen new screenshots in a while now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Then think about this. If the target is not on a steady course then 400m takes bullets a
while to cross. If the target jinks even a little then you miss. If you're catching lead
all the time then you might just be a nice steady target for the less than a second it takes
for those shots to reach you. OTOH random path changes will slow you down a bit.

BobbyBrinks
05-06-2008, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
Is this long range shooting more often seen in 'cockpit off' servers? I seem to remember that it's a lot easier to shoot accurately from further away using Wonder Woman view, as well as being able to shoot more often... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Ironically its not. I sometimes will fly like a rambo on arcade servers but i get bored with it very quickly. Usually when i am flying I love to fly full real on Spits vs 109s. I have two specific memories (both full real) that kinda sparked this post...

The first memory i was in a BF-109G10 and I bounced a Spitfire (prob 25lb boost but im not 100% sure. it was the bastogne map i think) that emerged out of a cloud at my slightly low 3. He spotted me at the last second and rolled, but i still managed to put a mk108 round into his left wing. Believing he was crippled i went straight vertical with my remaining E so that i could stall and knife down on him to finish him if he still wanted to fight. To my suprise, the spit nosed up and looked like he wanted to try and take a shot at me. Now I didnt have a huge E adv, but i managed to stall out at least 600 meters above him, and hes got a 30mm hole in his left wing. I was still in the process of begining to stall and was looking out of the side window smiling at him, when he fired a short 1 second burst at me (i remember just three pairs of tracers from his 20mm hispanos) and dewings me. An absolutely stunning shot. I was furious at the time, but now i am just more awed by the gunnery skills that pilot posessed. No spray and pray or wild shooting, just nose up (even though his plane is crippled and listing) took his time and boom put me down (at an extreme range too!).

The second memory comes from when i was chasing a P-51/Mustang III, he was trying to extend away and i was giving him chase in my BF-109G6. He was pulling away slowly, but i took my time and lined up my shot. He was at least 400m away, prob close to 500 when i figured i had the distance worked out. I held down the trigger for about a second and a half, and watched round after round after round of mg151/20 slam into the tail and right wingroot. He dewinged and i was kinda amazed that even at that range the cannon didnt splatter rounds all over his airplane. Though its centerlined, I figured at that range my rounds would hit, but kinda all over; instead I just drilled him in a very tight cluster.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by M_Gunz
You know that IRL a modern 50 cal is effective on light armor out to 2000 yards?
The old ones weren't much less, still good at over 1000m.
So what's obscene? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There seems to be some confusion but I am agreeing with you. As far as I know, most military rounds are still very effective out to extremely far ranges. There might be some confusion with the word obscene, but i meant it as mind boggling or as an extreme distance, not as in the sim is incorrect.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz
Korean war at over 25,000 ft one pilot had written about another taking a shot and downing a
MiG-15 at 800 yards. He said it was only later that he realized the thinner air made less
drag on the bullets and that's why his wing leader was an Ace, cause he knew and made the shot.
Those were 50 cals and the MiG-15 could take a lot of punishment.

Marseilles perhaps could make such shots. And some of the P-38 Aces did long range kills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fantastic! Do you by chance have a link to any of these interviews? I would very much like to read about them. Another reason for this post is because almost every pilot interview i have read (not a huge number mind you) mainly only talks about them firing at extremely close range. While i dont disagree with this AT ALL (it makes sense in almost every way), I am just suprised I have never read of any long range a2a victories. Marseilles in fact came to my mind when i started this post and i almost asked specifically about him, but i then changed the text to read "aces from any nation." I have read very little other than wiki and a few other small web pages about him, but everything covering Marseille basically said he waited until almost point blank to shoot (this obviously is his choice and preference. Sadly the sites just left out any reference to long range shots and his ability to score hits/kills).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by M_Gunz
You can prove the spread. By history the .50s should be, IIRC 75% within 8 mils. It was a
Hot Topic here I think from 2003 to 2005. The new issue is about lack of API in 50 cals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, I have only been really flying il2 since slightly before 1946 came out and was not aware of this or about tests being made by gibbage etc. It seems however then that planes and their guns did fire in very tight groups, even out to extended ranges. And while i have my inner doubts/questions/raised eyebrows sometimes about the .50's, you can sleep soundly in the fact that i wont post another "wtfbbq.50sareporked" thread. This game is fantastic, and if it has minor or just merely percieved quirks, one should work around/overcome them rather than crying about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW_IceFire
This is online right? All depends on where your flying. If the target is stationary enough it doesn't matter if its the smallest profile fighter in the game...I feel I'm good enough with the ballistics of most guns and planes to be able to hit you at extreme range (except with the 37mm) with the first or second very short burst. I'm not the best marksman but I can do it...and I'd say that much of the reason for this is the 4 or more years I've been playing the game so if you're on a server full of people who are like me or who are better than I am (there are plenty ) then that explains it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the posts this seems to be the largest factor in the ability to destroy planes at long range then. This is very intersting to me, as I would have figured it would be a combination of the guns seeming like lazer beams (joke, the gunnery is actually very difficult its just people are masters at it) and hours upon hours of perfecting the skill. And icefire, while i love to fly the late BF-109s, i am cursed with that mk108. Anything over 200-300m is reaching into the impossible to hit range for me with it, and i usually start laughing (out of sure dumbluck/amazement) when ever i randomly hit something at a range greater than that. Im still at the stage of soley using it like a 100m auto shotgun, which i know is its purpose but sometimes the situation calls for the ability to hit something slightly farther away (which i usually critical fail at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

Gunz and the rest thanks for your insights.

VW-IceFire
05-06-2008, 09:40 PM
Yes that'd be true of the late Bf109s and the MK108...if you DO hit at range then the effects are devastating as the weapon is effective thanks to the extremely power HE blasts but making the shot is difficult (although not impossible as I proved with a stint on the 109G-10 and K-4 for quite a while). If you NEED to hit at range with the late 109s...best bet is the machine guns. I'd rather close in for that 100m shot as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In any case, thanks for having a good discussion on this. Its a valid question and you laid out your points well. I hope we have done the same and given you something to think about. Its not always we get to have these levels of discussion around here. Cheers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
05-06-2008, 10:48 PM
Bear in mind to that many pilots here have logged years with this sim. Forget hours..

Also too.. like many have said.. If you knew that one slip up could get you killed, seriously wounded, or captured by the enemy, your primary concern would be making as clean a kill and as clean a getaway as possible. Shooting at more than 175-225m would make that more difficult.

M_Gunz
05-06-2008, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BobbyBrinks:
And while i have my inner doubts/questions/raised eyebrows sometimes about the .50's, you can sleep soundly in the fact that i wont post another "wtfbbq.50sareporked" thread. This game is fantastic, and if it has minor or just merely percieved quirks, one should work around/overcome them rather than crying about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no!

Consider how many times people with good evidence and conclusions have gotten good fixes on the
basis of having something that met Oleg's very high indeed standards.

If you really have something solid then yeah that's great!

I think that people online pretty much all the time either get very very good at shooting or
they complain a lot about ineffective guns -- quite the opposite of you!

BTW, hanging near or even dead stopped in the air does make a plane very easy to hit.

klemlao
05-07-2008, 07:01 AM
...all of the above....

In that Youtube film I would say that the gun is very poorly anchored or the barrel is horrendously worn or the ammo is of a very poor standard. It looks like a cheap firework! Watch the guncams for a more realistic idea.

The LW would sometimes use cannon at long range to stay at long range from the defensive B17 50 cals. Also I have read in a few RAF biographies of pilots making desperate long range shots and on occasions hitting the target.

It's been said above, many guys have been doing this for longer than WWII ran - I have been online for 12 years and in IL-2 for about 6 years. Like many here, I watch my targets movements and I can track by 'feel' the position, direction and speed of the guy I have pulled beneath my nose for a high deflection shot and very often hit him. In real life I believe would have only have lasted a couple of weeks and if I had lasted longer I doubt I would have hit anything for months. I have made those long range shots - usually to get a runner to turn, and have often enough hit him. My most memorable was a 109 from my Spit hispanos at about 800m (size ~1/8 ringsite) angled up about 70 degrees, laid off well ahead of him, as he made the mistake of turning back at the top of his zoom - I hit his engine - big black smoke http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But it was probably only one cannon hit.

In RL small calibre will do some damage at over 1000m (I used to fire 7.62 at static 1200m targets), cannons probably further. In IL-2 I wouldn't bother. At lesser range you can but you do have to be very accurate aiming/deflecting ..... and then quite lucky that you managed to pull it off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
05-07-2008, 07:48 AM
BobbyBrinks,

I've read about ballistics and I've shot many rounds from many different guns on the ground. I even won an M1 Garrand from the DCM (Division of Civilian Marksmanship) while competing in their program. Those statements merely lend toward what I am about to describe to you in the hope that you will see this factor as very likely the missing factor in the simulation that causes the unnatural accuracy in the simulation.

One gunnery manual I read described something called bullet jump. If the aircraft is not flying perfectly straight into the relative wind there will be a very high relative factor of windage. In helicopters where side gunners have to shoot with high speed cross winds the effect of bullet jump is extreme. The manual stated how the right side gunner shooting a right hand twist (If I remember this right) will have a bullet JUMP up and left while the left side gunner shooting the same gun will have a bullet JUMP down and right (or some odd combination of up, down, and sideways) the manual stressed the difficulties association with compensations for windage while firing from a moving vehicle.

When shooting target practice on the ground on a day when the wind is blowing across the range at, say, 25 miles per hour and the target is 100 yards away there is definitely a need to account for and compensate for that cross wind even when shooting a 22-250, 270, or 223 (AR-15). Of course, a slow firing (relatively slow) big bullet like a 22 requires more adjustment for windage and elevation.

What is the true (not simulated) effect of having a bullet shot from a barrel that is moving at 300 km/h sideways through the air?

BobbyBrinks
05-07-2008, 07:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:

If you really have something solid then yeah that's great! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as solid is concerned... not really at all. Before I started really taking interest in planes, i was very interested in modern infantry combat. I have seen alot of random combat footage, and the m2 shows up alot in any of the more modern videos from iraq etc. To my understanding the m2 has remained relatively unchanged since its introduction, so i am assuming that its capabilities would be similar to the ones used in US airplanes during wwii. I looked through my collection of footage that i have, and its pretty difficult to find anything that would be truly useful for oleg or for a significant arguement (most footage is taken by the soldiers themselves, who are understandably behind cover and protecting themselves instead of trying to get good camera angles.) I specifically had 2 videos in mind, however one of them isnt really applicable. (it was a test of the m82 barret, the .50 caliber sniper rifle. it is very impressive, however after watching it again i believe that most of the shooting is using a .50 sabot round, which we def DONT have in our aircraft belting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

The other video, a Military Ballistics test of various US weapons+ak47 against a house/brick/cinderblocks. Gunz, you might find this one particularly interesting if you havent seen it, as the m2 browning is tested at 11:39. The thing gets amazing penetration, the rounds bounce/tumble all over the place destroying everything in their path. It can be found here, and is about 20 min long. It would have been nice if they tested the m2 against some steel plates too, but most marines prob dont run into things like pilot armor on the ground to shoot at.

Video can be found here : http://www.militaryvideos.net/videos.php?videonum=43

We dont have tumbling/bounces/fragmenting like this in game in il2 do we?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
BTW, hanging near or even dead stopped in the air does make a plane very easy to hit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes indeed, but he only needed a split second to aim properly and hit me before he rolled out of control. Perhaps it was more fine flying and excellent control instead of fantastic gunnery, but it was very impressive to me at the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Klemao:
In that Youtube film I would say that the gun is very poorly anchored or the barrel is horrendously worn or the ammo is of a very poor standard. It looks like a cheap firework! Watch the guncams for a more realistic idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good idea, i hadn't thought about the gun barrels condition or its anchoring (its sitting on the ground but thats all you can really tell). And yes, that film does make it look like a cheap firework show. the thing just spams rounds everywhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
When shooting target practice on the ground on a day when the wind is blowing across the range at, say, 25 miles per hour and the target is 100 yards away there is definitely a need to account for and compensate for that cross wind even when shooting a 22-250, 270, or 223 (AR-15). Of course, a slow firing (relatively slow) big bullet like a 22 requires more adjustment for windage and elevation.
What is the true (not simulated) effect of having a bullet shot from a barrel that is moving at 300 km/h sideways through the air? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea that is what i would think, that airflow and wind would have a decent effect scattering the rounds over far ranges. From the previous posts, it seems like topic B (guns should have more dispersion in game) is not applicable as most of these weapons seem to fire in a very tight cone.

One conclusion that i have come to is that in the very sterile world of il2 (ie. no wind etc.), such shots should be possible. The pilots are skilled enough in gunnery and the guns fire in very tight clusters. In real life however, there might be a number of little factors that make short bursts at long range targets much less certain. The burst might be shifted just a little which could cause you to hit your target but with not near as much concentration/damage. In il2 the whole burst stays together and assuming you aim right it hits where you want in a tight tight cluster.

OMK_Hand
05-08-2008, 01:36 PM
There's a manual from 1944 called 'Aircrewman's gunnery manual'
It covers all things guns and firing for American air gunners at that time.


"Chapter - This is your gun - The caliber .50 Browning machine gun M2. Aircraft, Basic.

Your gun fires 750 to 850 shots a minute - 14 shots a second. The bullets, weighing nearly 2 ounces each, leave the barrel at 1,977 miles an hour - 2,900 feet a second... ...Even at a distance of four miles - the guns maximum range - one of those bullets will kill a man.
At closer distance... In tests on the proving ground, the caliber .50 smashes through the metal skin and framework of an aeroplane, drills through a metal ammunition box, penetrates a hard pine board - and still has enough power to pierce a plate of armour nearly half an inch thick."



"Chapter - When to fire...
Expert studies show that aerial machine guns are most effective at ranges up to 2000 feet (609.6 metres). Very careful calculations prove that further out bullets scatter so widely that they make your chance of a hit almost entirely a matter of luck. You can't hope to break even on the game that way.

Most fighters who are any good won't open up on you outside of 2000 feet. A good fighter pilot may wait until he is much closer.

... Be ready with the right deflection and let him have it at 2000 feet...

Nose attacks are so fast that you should begin shooting when he's lined up on you-normally at 3000 feet (914.4 metres).

The exact time to start firing and the proper length of burst to fire depends on combat conditions. They are determined, in each theatre, by the type of mission usually flown, ammunition loads, and enemy tactics."


For air gunners on large aircraft, but revealing nevertheless.
There's no mention specific or otherwise of allowing for wind speed that I have found yet.
Gravity drop? Yes. (Compensated for to an extent in the harmonisation between sight and gun.)
Relative speed between target and self for calculating lead? Yes.
Wind speed? Er, no.

I imagine that effects of wind speeds were noted at the research stage, and the practice outlined in the manual takes this and everything else into account?

Interesting...

OMK_Hand
05-08-2008, 02:04 PM
Ah, found it. Here's the link:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/a...1944-color-9500.html

You'll have to register (free) if you haven't already.
Site's like this are pure gold for a ww2 aviation buffer... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Also, there's a thread on wing vs. nose gun RL accuracy on the same site, here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/c...gurations-11037.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/centerline-guns-configurations-11037.html)

M_Gunz
05-09-2008, 03:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BobbyBrinks:
To my understanding the m2 has remained relatively unchanged since its introduction, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so, the rifling was changed post-WW at least once if not twice. You can surf and check
but I think that the twist was relaxed a bit, too much makes a less stable bullet with lower
MV according to articles I've seen on twist and high velocity rifles.

The ammo is better all the time.

Best to get ballistics tables which I don't have. I do have armor penetration chart, it was
posted here before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The other video, a Military Ballistics test of various US weapons+ak47 against a house/brick/cinderblocks. Gunz, you might find this one particularly interesting if you havent seen it, as the m2 browning is tested at 11:39. The thing gets amazing penetration, the rounds bounce/tumble all over the place destroying everything in their path. It can be found here, and is about 20 min long. It would have been nice if they tested the m2 against some steel plates too, but most marines prob dont run into things like pilot armor on the ground to shoot at.

Video can be found here : http://www.militaryvideos.net/videos.php?videonum=43

We dont have tumbling/bounces/fragmenting like this in game in il2 do we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link and no we don't due to hardware limitations back when the game engine was
written.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
When shooting target practice on the ground on a day when the wind is blowing across the range at, say, 25 miles per hour and the target is 100 yards away there is definitely a need to account for and compensate for that cross wind even when shooting a 22-250, 270, or 223 (AR-15). Of course, a slow firing (relatively slow) big bullet like a 22 requires more adjustment for windage and elevation.
What is the true (not simulated) effect of having a bullet shot from a barrel that is moving at 300 km/h sideways through the air? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea that is what i would think, that airflow and wind would have a decent effect scattering the rounds over far ranges. From the previous posts, it seems like topic B (guns should have more dispersion in game) is not applicable as most of these weapons seem to fire in a very tight cone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did he really say Of course, a slow firing (relatively slow) big bullet like a 22 ?

How fast the bullet is deviated depends on how much force of wind and how heavy the bullet.
A 2x as heavy bullet needs less windage. I don't know of any slow 22's except rimfires that
are indeed slow, but none of them have more than about 65 gr bullet, some only 20 gr.
Put that next to 180-210 gr 30 cals or look at 45's and 50 cals for big.

Acceleration (as in deflection) = Force / Mass. The heavier the shot, the less deflected per
second and the faster the shot, the less seconds being deflected. The heavier guns are not
all that much less in MV as the high velocity small bores and the heavier bullets hold speed
against drag better so in the long range you want the big high velocity guns, 20mm is nice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One conclusion that i have come to is that in the very sterile world of il2 (ie. no wind etc.), such shots should be possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're trying to invoke crosswind in ground shooting to apply to shooting from planes in
flight then you should know that the planes being IN the wind also move relative to it and
you don't have the effect as you would on ground with relative wind when you are still.
The game does have some level of atmospheric effects but AFAICT the turbulence is limited
to the planes. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect shooting but firing tracers from ground
in a heavy crosswind should show that pretty quickly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The pilots are skilled enough in gunnery and the guns fire in very tight clusters. In real life however, there might be a number of little factors that make short bursts at long range targets much less certain. The burst might be shifted just a little which could cause you to hit your target but with not near as much concentration/damage. In il2 the whole burst stays together and assuming you aim right it hits where you want in a tight tight cluster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Each bullet is supposed to be separately modeled. Back a ways the massed 50's were packeted
somehow and they did hit or miss as a group but that's long over.

You zoom the gunsight view in fully and you have a sniper scope compared to wideview.
With a target rifle and scope and practice and not wobbling the barrel you can drive nails
at 100m so why not 2+ automatics making PK's at 500m?

Are you sure how many shots were fired that hit your plane? Cause you could be recording
events like that for post-action review.

klemlao
05-10-2008, 12:35 AM
I put this together several years ago after visiting various weapons sites. It may give you an idea of what to expect in a 'perfect' world of pure trajectory and no wind. It primarily gives a guide of elevation correction in %age target wingspan for a dead astern shot. It can't be strictly applied to all circumstances but I think it gives a fair guide, a starting point if you like.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/klem/Vac/Information/guns.xls