Thoughts on .50 cals.

[dedalos]

Originally posted by Kweassa

You got me all wrong.  I don't want the ack to die easyer.  I was just saing that it does not make sence that 2 20s anywhere around the ack kills it, but 50 or 100 50s do nothing.  I was compering the amound of 50 cal being sprayed with shrapnl.

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by Karnak
Heh.  That is why I said "approximately" as it will vary depending on the size of your monitor and how far you sit from your monitor.  There is, unfortunately, no way to get it just right.  I have a 21" monitor that I sit fairly close too and so max zoom will be bigger than max zoom on a 17" monitor, especially if the viewing distance is greater.

NEC 29" monitor here....

_______________
Ren
The Damned

[Kweassa]

You got me all wrong. I don't want the ack to die easyer. I was just saing that it does not make sence that 2 20s anywhere around the ack kills it, but 50 or 100 50s do nothing. I was compering the amound of 50 cal being sprayed with shrapnl.

 Naw dedalos, we got you covered. What we're trying to tell you is that it makes perfect sense.

 The problem you see is not a .50 problem. It's a gun mounting problem that has nothing to do with .50s themselves.

 The bullet has to hit the ack gun itself - and those ack guns are quite tiny and very thin objects compared to a fighter-sized target. Also, the chances are, when you go into a strafing run the ack gun barrels are pointing at your plane - which minimizes the surface area which can be hit with .50 rounds.

 So basically, you have to hit a target that is practically a single dot, with wing mounted armament.

 How many rounds does it take to kill an ack gun with .50s?

 It takes five rounds. Yes, five.

 People with wing-mounted guns, can't hit mere 5 rounds out of hundreds they have fired.

 Why?

 Because all the rounds fired before/after the convergence range just basically does nothing but throw up dust all around the gun and obscures the target, or gives visual info that confuses them.

 They think they are hitting a lot of rounds at the ack, except none of the rounds fired ever connected with the ack gun intself.

 If you don't believe me, take up a SBD or a TBM with cowl-mounted guns, or even a P-38, and see how much it is easier to knock acks with these planes with only 2x .50s.

 The cannons are different. They have a radius of blast effect. They are detonated weapons that blow up upon impact.

 ...

 It's just the price you have to pay for mounting so many guns at the wings, and a fact you must accept.

 The HMG armed P-47s or P-51s and stuff may be efficient for an A2A weapon, but the way how the game is set(where you have to hit that very small and thin ack gun), it just sucks at hitting tiny targets.

[Kweassa]

Or, if you would prefer a visual explanation of what happens in a typical gunnery pass;

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by DamnedRen
I can understand the differences in hitting power on buffs. It's fighter v fighter where the weight of fire has been proven to be very effective with a direct hit.

For Mashuerbrum,

While it may not be common knowledge the Mustang suffered from many gun jams. They also had some tail problems as in "loosing them" and wings in hard, rolling turn fights. I think they had an abort rate in the EUR theatre of operation of around 30%. I still enjoy the ride in the game though.

_________________
Ren
The Damned

Machine gun rounds (50 cal) were far more RELIABLE in WWII than any Cannon (Hispano's included).  However out of the Cannons, the Hispano was the most reliable.  

Karaya

[Karnak]

I understood that the Hispano was rather unreliable by cannon standards.  At least that is what I have read on this board.

[dedalos]

Kweassa,
you are killing me man.  Never said 50s are nutered.  All I said is (one more time) that since the explanation for the gun deing to 2 20s fired somewhere around it was shrapnel hitting 'soft' stuff around it, then 100 rounds of 50s should have the same effect.  Those things would be bouncing around all over the place hitting ammo and people even if nothing ever hit the gun.  Thanks for the pics though.  Being new in the game I had no idea what happens when you fire 50s from a plane.  Looks like you missed, lol.  I assume you have fired reall guns and you have some idea of what bullets do when the hit the grownd or the cement our guns are on.  They dont just stick there.

[eskimo2]

The only thing in our game that I am convinced needs to be added, and would be practical, would be gun crews who could also take “damage”.

eskimo

[Kweassa]

All I said is (one more time) that since the explanation for the gun deing to 2 20s fired somewhere around it was shrapnel hitting 'soft' stuff around it, then 100 rounds of 50s should have the same effect.

 Which part of the word "High Explosive" do you not understand?

 Cannon shells are not frag shells. They tear away pieces of metal with pure explosive force, and that is what kills the acks with a near hit.

 They have a explosive blast radius - which due to AH game limitations, cannot be confirmed visibly. However, HT himself told me when I asked him, that there was a blast radius, and that is why acks die with near hits from cannons.

 It's got nothing to do with 'shrapnels'. You think a 'shrapnel' can do this?

Those things would be bouncing around all over the place hitting ammo and people even if nothing ever hit the gun.

 Except that ain't how it's modelled in the game. To kill something you hit something - directly.

 How about contacting HT and telling him how he modelled the game sucks, and he should model random bullet bounces that might go boing around the field gun and perhaps strike a field gun on whim?

Thanks for the pics though. Being new in the game I had no idea what happens when you fire 50s from a plane. Looks like you missed, lol.

 Judging by your "shrapnel" comments, is it any wonder I might confuse your knowledge on this matter is somewhat akin to a newbie?

I assume you have fired reall guns and you have some idea of what bullets do when the hit the grownd or the cement our guns are on. They dont just stick there.

 So tell me, dedalos.

Just what in the world is it that you want?

 Do you want the 50 cal guns, despite having no explosive quality whatsoever, be able to knockout a field gun even if the gun has not obtained enough strikes to be destroyed?

 Or do you want a better system, where perhaps the soldiers manning the gun can be also modelled(like eskimo and me suggested), so wing mounted guns still have a reasonable chance to disable it, despite not being able to destroy the gun itself?

 Oh by the way, all of our countrymen go through 3 years of military duty as conscripts.

You got me all wrong. I don't want the ack to die easyer. I was just saing that it does not make sence that 2 20s anywhere around the ack kills it, but 50 or 100 50s do nothing. I was compering the amound of 50 cal being sprayed with shrapnl.

 Remember when you made the above comment?

 "I don't want the ack to die easier"? - Yeah, right.

 Admit it dude. You want the ack to die easier. You can't stand the fact that among hundreds rounds of fired, you can't place just 5 on the ack gun... and thus, like so many people, you start faulting the game on grounds of "realism".

[dedalos]

nice pick.  Is that what happens in the game when you hit a plane with a 20mm?  For the last time, try to understand what I was saing.  No reason to be an arse when you dont agree with something.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by dedalos


nice pick.  Is that what happens in the game when you hit a plane with a 20mm?  For the last time, try to understand what I was saing.  No reason to be an arse when you dont agree with something.

Sometimes one 20mm hit does knock off a tail or wing.  I think we do understand what you are saying; do you?  I don’t think that Kweassa is being an “arse”; he’s just frustrated that you don’t seem to be getting something that has been explained to you repeatedly, in different ways, even with pictures.  You keep falling back to your original complaint without offering logical support.

eskimo

[dedalos]

Originally posted by eskimo2
Sometimes one 20mm hit does knock off a tail or wing.  I think we do understand what you are saying; do you?  I don’t think that Kweassa is being an “arse”; he’s just frustrated that you don’t seem to be getting something that has been explained to you repeatedly, in different ways, even with pictures.  You keep falling back to your original complaint without offering logical support.

eskimo

no complains.  I get what he is saing.  Don't have to agree with it, do I? He is being an arse about it.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by dedalos
no complains.  I get what he is saing.  Don't have to agree with it, do I? He is being an arse about it.

What is there not to agree with?

How is he being an “arse”?

eskimo

[dedalos]

Originally posted by eskimo2
What is there not to agree with?

How is he being an “arse”?

eskimo

You don't see a difference on the way you reply and the way he does?

In any case.  I said something in my first message in here about how the 50s and the 20s act in the game.  You posted some picks of guns and explained that the explosive power of the 20s and the shrapnel would kill those men and cause secondary explosions from hitting the ammo.  All that makes perfect sence.  All I said to that was that 100 rounds of 50s would have a similar effect.  Meaning, they may miss teh gun but could hit the men or the ammo.  Just a responce to your post, nothing more.  So far it is a conversation.  Somehow he jumps in talking about whining about the nutered 50s and posts pics of exactly what I was saing.  Lots of 50s hitting around the gun but not killing it due to secondary explosions or from killing the crew.  

My point was originaly that the ammo has different effect on the crownd than in the air.  Never said which one is correct or wrong.  When you can die from shooting at a plane at close range with 20s while he flies away, it means to me that something is up.  

As far as hi explosives, I have see 30s hit the grownd.  I know what it looks like.

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by dedalos
.  You posted some picks of guns and explained that the explosive power of the 20s and the shrapnel would kill those men and cause secondary explosions from hitting the ammo.  All that makes perfect sence.  All I said to that was that 100 rounds of 50s would have a similar effect.  Meaning, they may miss teh gun but could hit the men or the ammo.


As far as hi explosives, I have see 30s hit the grownd.  I know what it looks like.

My take is this: Explosions are omnidirectional. A bullet will skip but will continue pretty much in it's direction of travel. The effect being that if you hit three feet beside me I will crap my pants but the bullet will sail off and bounce off a hanger or trees or something until it's forward kinetic energy is expended. Maybe even hit one of your country man who is on the deck.

If the gun mounts died any easier all you would have to do is say "BANG" on range.

My personal frustration is from the ground going up. If he is lined up on my ack or Osti and I am lined up on his prop hub why is it he is going to hit me and I have a less than 50% chance of hitting him. I could hit him with my .308.