303's ....

[zorstorer]

Let me see if I can follow this...

Because you watched lots of gun camera footage (did you do any statistical data work, ie what was the belt load out for the plane, how many rounds of what type hit, etc?) and didn't see alot of planes "blow up" like they do in here or suffer massive structural failure in the near future you think that cannon in here are over modeled, am I on it so far?

how in the world did any luftwaffe plane get shot down in the BoB?

Plus not very many of those target planes were pulling many G's.  Not like in here at least for me I am almost always pulling heavy G's when hit.  The cannon hit + G's = wing-B-gone tm

But for now I'll have to go with the folks who have done research on the subject, not just watching film.

[Stoney74]

But why can't the film be PART of the analysis.  I personally have a hard time understanding the importance of the statistical analysis.  Yeah, I can do the long division, but for someone to say "6 20mm hits equaled a destroyed plane" is hard for me to bite into.  Or, getting into the energy calculations.  Like I said, I understand the math of it, and I'll even buy into the science, but there is something to be said for practical application.

When I was in the Marine Corps, I was always amazed at engineers from all sorts of defense contractors that would swoop down from the pristine environs of their design lab, and swear that they had a piece of gear that was going to revolutionize my job.  I dealt with a lot of communications equipment, and just because it tests out on the bench does not mean it will work in the field.    

I respect the statistical analysis--there's a lot of work in there and certainly some insight to be gained.  But, I can't believe its the sole basis on which we should form our decisions.  The gun camera footage is certainly relevant, but also not the sole basis on which we should form our decisions.

It certainly gives you a picture, and a picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words

[Tony Williams]

The statistical analyses by both sides were not simply theoretical exercises. They included the careful examination of aircraft hit by cannon and MG fire - both those which survived, and those which crashed (where they could get at them). They also included shooting at different kinds of aircraft structures on the ground, with different kinds of guns and ammo, and evaluating the results. And of course they included analyses of losses, and of the cause of those losses wherever that could be determined. Gun camera footage was examined and fed into the statistical analyses.

It was very much in the interests of the air forces to find out exactly what was happening when aircraft were attacked, partly so they could provide the most efficient forms of protection to aircraft (armour of the right thickness - no more than was necessary -  automatic fire extinguishing systems etc) and partly so they could find out which gun and ammo combination was most effective in damaging the enemy.

The results of all this research were consistent and obvious to all by the latter stages of WW2:

- for a given weight of armament, cannon were more effective than MGs

- fire was a major plane-killer, so HEI cannon shells were more effective than plain HE

The only force not to implement this was the USAAF (the USN held a different view) for reasons explained HERE

I have no comment on the how the relative armaments are modelled in the game, because I don't play it. However, I have the impression that hitting and destroying targets is much easier in all combat sims than it was in RL. After all, in RL most fighter pilots never shot down anything, ever.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[gripen]

Originally posted by zorstorer

Because you watched lots of gun camera footage (did you do any statistical data work, ie what was the belt load out for the plane, how many rounds of what type hit, etc?) and didn't see alot of planes "blow up" like they do in here or suffer massive structural failure in the near future you think that cannon in here are over modeled, am I on it so far?

There is plenty of gun camera films around and wast majority of these show fires etc. when a plane is hit while a major collapse of the structure of the plane appear to be quite rare. While we don't know for sure if these films are presentative, it's quite unlikely that these are somehow selectively picked. Infact, if I had been putting together a training films, I would have chosen clips which contain enemy planes blowing, collapsing etc.

gripen

[Angus]

Tony:
"I have no comment on the how the relative armaments are modelled in the game, because I don't play it. However, I have the impression that hitting and destroying targets is much easier in all combat sims than it was in RL. After all, in RL most fighter pilots never shot down anything, ever."

Firstly, try AH, it's a blast
Secondly, hitting is probably much easier than in RL, but still not that easy. Some pilots are good shots, some are not.
The weapon effectiveness seems to be more than in RL if anything, and yet sometimes not.
I flew Il-2 as well, it seemed more realistic in terms of damage and gunnery model. In my first online fight however, I pinged 5 enemy aircraft (5 on 1 situation), then with no ammo left I got away from them. I used AH tactics and they worked, but you'd not get away like this in AH, - I used blackout maneuvers and clouds to escape
In RL indeed, many a pilot never had an engagement. However, in RL you also had pilots with dozens of kills without being scratched, so.....
In RL aircraft did get gunned down, they lost major parts, they blew up, they got eaten up by fire and so on. Maybe AH does not represent it accurately, but I belive it's slowly getting there.

BTW, a recent analysis of Douglas Bader being downed claims he was shot down by another Spitfire. He belived it was a collision with a 109.
Well, his aircraft was cut in half behind the cockpit so I rather would think it was a collision.

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by zorstorer
how in the world did any luftwaffe plane get shot down in the BoB?

... Mainly engine fires and pilot death.  But you're a fool to assume you know something without watching the proof offered to the contrary.  You didn't watch the stuff, you just started arguing.

[zorstorer]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
... Mainly engine fires and pilot death.  But you're a fool to assume you know something without watching the proof offered to the contrary.  You didn't watch the stuff, you just started arguing.

Hmmm watched the long one you posted, 7+ minutes.

Ok based just on the gun cam views you posted, how many of the target planes were pulling 5+ g's?  Any??

How many high deflection shots are there in AH that the target plane is at or near black out?

Here we go with the names again, class act .

Anyway .303's work well enough



Little ole' Hurri Mk1 sawing the wings off a 110.

[B3YT]

my grandfarther was ground crew in the real BoB and the Hurri was a killer aircraft mostly cos it could take damage. What downs an aircraft is what it's made of. The hurri was fadric and wood to heavy calibra rounds did squat to it it woould make a hole and that was it. But cannon and incindry rounds woul dmake a hurri into a bal of flame.
The spit on the other hand was mettal so cannon woul dbe effective BUT AP of .50 or .303 would be devistating to the control and wing serface. The holes would cause a vacume effect on the surface ( like blowing over a bottle neck) this would strees the skin and buckle . Then that skin buckle woould over stress rivots and they go POP .

My grand farther many a time  saw his hurri fly home with a 1.5 M holw in the wing ready to fly and fight again with no problems in it's control or flight .

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by zorstorer
Ok based just on the gun cam views you posted, how many of the target planes were pulling 5+ g's?  Any??

How many high deflection shots are there in AH that the target plane is at or near black out?

I am not talking about gees.  I am talking about low gee situations.  What we see in those videos cannot be replicated in Aces High, and that is the truth of it.  The aircraft in the simulator cannot take a fraction of the damage that the real things did.

[Angus]

Maybe there is a point to this, but also look at Marseilles or for that sake Beurlings ammo expenditure compared to the kills they got.....

[parin]

It would be interesting if we did not have such a catistrophic damage model. However, I do recall in Hartman's book and Saburo Sakai's book but pilots shooting done aircraft with a handful of 20mm or 30mm rounds.

Only a few of the pilots in those clips had good shoots. They missed alot of shots. The headons that hit in the cockpit most likely killed the pilots. And the cameras stop rolling after the shooting so hard to tell what happens soon after.

Oh and Sakai's encounter with a B17 was funny! 3-4 planes empty all there ammo into it and it flew away.

So who knows alot more variables in real life.

[Angus]

Here's one 20mm hit


And prolly some 30mm's


One 190 Shell:


More donations from 190's


Yet another 190 attack:


20 mm into the nose:


frontal attack by fighters:


More 20mm's from fighters, one took the pilot's head off.

[Benny Moore]

Those look like 88 shells to me.  Anyway, regardless of the caliber, I fail to see how that proves that the current damage model is anywhere near being correct.  If anything, it demonstrates once again that a few holes does not cause the airplane to fall apart.  Show me well-built planes, such as an American or the average European airplane, losing wings and tails (other the ones carrying explosives in the wings).  Then you'll have something to say.

[Saxman]

There's a few famous ones I can think of, but these generally involve heavy firepower, like a direct hit from a flak burst.

[Angus]

None of those are 88's.
All these aircraft made it home.
The first picture is just one hit.
There are no pictures of aircraft that exploded in mid air and so on.