Originally posted by lazs2
but... this thread.. beet you seem to be saying that even tho WWII pilots got hits at 1000 or more yards... we shouldn't be able to? Even tho we try a lot more often and don't have barrels that melt down or guns that have worn mounts or are out of adjustment for convergence?
I've said all along that I don't doubt that the
occasional hit was possible at 800yds. But I'm saying that these would be extremely lucky hits, and I'm saying that you could not get enough of them to bear upon the target at that range to do serious structural damage.
You are just mad because.... years ago.... when you left here... guys would occasionaly ping you as you were running... er.... "extending" after a brave B&Z pass on a bored to slumber pilot... at... what you seen as 1000 yards and was probly 600-800 yards at your predictable (save that e) no manuver fly straight and in a slight climb.. shooting a moving target from the ground woulda been ten times harder than shooting you.
I'm saying that those golden shots from 800yds were an almost daily occurrence, and the effect was out of all proportion to what would have happened in RL. I also felt that the FM which allowed the noobs to pull into helicopter mode and spray vertically upwards in the hope of a golden BB was happening on a daily basis. Apprently HTC agreed with me because the gunnery model was completely changed along with the FM which put a stop to that helicopter crap. But of course, there were a lot of quitters and whiners, and I quit too but my own reasons - nothing to do with the GM or FM, which I always considered to have been huge improvements.
I'm also saying that it was BS even when *I* was the attacking plane and shot a guy down at 800yds, ie. 800 on
my FE - total BS - I did it as a test and even apologised to my victim afterwards for pulling such a gamey stunt.
What I find funny about this thread is the way that some people are using two opposing theses to support the same argument. I have already proved that to land hits on the wings of a typical fighter plane from its dead 6 position at 800yds assuming ZERO dispersion would require accuracy of pitch to within ~0.012°. To land hits on the tail/fuselage would require accuracy of pitch to within not much more than that - well under 0.25°. Few people would believe that an aircraft could be flown that accurately (turbulence/vibration/wing flexing/recoil etc.) and I think even you would accept that bullet dispersion occurred, increasing the chances of hits. But then you switch the the other thesis to support the viability of opening fire at such a huge range by quoting articles about the accuracy of the .50 cal in an
entirely different mode of deployment - a solid, stable, stationary platform on the ground. These days I'm sure the gunsight/other aiming mechanism is a lot more accurate than anything available in WW2. To pretend that a WW2 airman could aim his guns as accurately as a modern day ground based M2 setup is just silly.
At one time, you were interested in the realism aspect of these games. You even announced to us all that to get hits with cannon you had to be getting to point blank range, and that Erich Hartmann even had the film to prove it.
But now I see that you have lost all interest in reality - you don't want your favourite WW2 sim to be anything like WW2 and have said so in this thread. So for you, the transition from WW2 sim realist to armchair gamer dork is complete. But don't feel bad - you have numerous like-minded friends!
