good lord, i hope so </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
When BoB brings more complex systems into the DMs, smaller caliber AP rounds will become more effective.
It has to Irish, the way I figure it.The developers have to notice that .303 rounds are having little effect if the models are like FB, and will be forced to model the systems that are easily damaged by this type of round.
Let's hope!!!!!!!!
Machineguns in IL2 are not a very big issue IMO.It still is presented correctly.Relative performance is ok.First UBB then Browning then MG131,etc.
What puts me off is the effective range.UBB is 300m,fifties is roughly 200m and MG131 is around 80m.Oh and anyone can get up to 5 bomber kills with a twin7mm alone,it just requires 30-60m firing distance.Check that with real life figures.
There are some 'funny' observations made by some armchair pilots here about that interview.
OK the man flew real warbirds in real war and engaged real enemy.
You play the game and think that you know something that can correct his statement or perhaps teach the "poor guy" something.
Better give up clowns, do not make fool out of yourselves bigger than you are.![]()
They just aren't the same guns, even though they are of similar caliber. As I recall, the Germans referred to the MG131 as a 'doorknocker' because it was good only for announcing your presence. Rate of fire, muzzle velocity & trajectory were somewhat inferior to the M2 Browning .50, which was in turn not as powerful than the Soviet 12.7mm. The gap between the MG131 and the M2 seems significantly greater than the gap between the M2 and the UBS 12.7mm in-game, although the UBS is rarely mounted in pairs.Originally posted by Brain32:
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
And btw I can shoot down a 109 with 2x.50's without much trouble, yes online...
About the original link, it's been around for at least a couple of years. The pilot was recalling events at least 50 years past, and some details are simply wrong. The wing guns on the Hawk 81/P-40/Tomahawk Mk I were light machine guns in the .30 caliber class; only the guns over the nose were .50s, and their rate of fire would be limited by interruptions to allow the prop blades to pass.
But mounted close together and hitting a target less than 100m away, there's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy imparted, and this destructive energy is all the greater because of the proximity of the impact points. This is why the HMGs are modelled in game to be so much more effective at or near convergence, when all the bullets are striking the a/c at one point.
The game, however, doesn't seem to differentiate between nose mounted guns (which in a practical sense, are ALWAYS at convergence) and wing mounted guns' convergence points.
cheers
horseback