Were smaller cal weapons REALLY this bad?

[Sincraft]

I was flying tonight, sans cannon in my ki84, found a 190 to play around with, had him dead to sites, and waited till I was point blank and unleased ALL of my mg ammo into him.  Eventually I was void that ammo and just flew with him toying around having fun keeping up with his moves.  I think he knew I was out.

So I have to wonder, were the smaller cal weapons really this lame?  I hit him in the wings, underbelly, tail etc.

Also tonight while in a 190d9 - I nailed a funky chicken defending spit 3 or 4 times in the tail section only to watch him wiggle his stick violently avoiding 6! attackers for over 5 minutes.

This is getting outright nuts.  There are some battles that make this worth the price of admission and more, but whenever I get down to bb's in a ki or see a spit16 flying low...I know he's going to pull the uber ufo 180's and funky chicken defense, I don't even both trying anymore.

Anyone else starting to feel this way eh?

[OOZ662]

I hit him in the wings, underbelly, tail etc.

This is actually the most common cause of the problem. With a cannon shell, an impact literally explodes and blows apart whatever it hit. With the smaller MG ammo, it's usually a solid ball round or some kind of AP (read: doesn't cause a big explosion on impact). With these, you must literally saw off pieces of an opponent...and if you've ever seen the episode of MythBusters when they're trying to replicate shooting yourself a hole to fall through in a floor, you know this is quite difficult.

The best way to cause damage with the lighter calibers is to concentrate every single bullet on its convergence point on the same point such as the wing spar or tail connection.

[Motherland]

Thats the way it should be. Cowl guns had ammunition designed to kill animals and humans, not 10,000 lbs aircraft. I read an account of a German fighter pilot who had flown in the First World War, when all planes had were 1 or 2 rifle caliber machine guns. When he was assigned to the 109E in the Second World War, with not only two rifle caliber machine guns but two 20mm cannons (and crappy cannons at that), he was quite surprised with the effectiveness of the new era of weaponry. I'll type up his account tomorrow, I'm too tired to do it now.

[BnZ]

~.30 caliber incendiary ammo was available. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems like you set more airplanes on fire in AHII when your ammo mix has some ~.30 calibers in it. But generraly, yeah, there is a reason that multiple .50s were about the minimum by wars ends.

Pilot kills probably accounted for alot of downed planes with smaller calibers. Remember, if your fuel tank got holed, you were quite possibly screwed as regards RTB, to say nothing of oil lines, radiator, hydraulic lines...commonly these guys had to RTB alot farther than 25 miles. Also, you've got to take into account that we've got something of an all-or-nothing damage model in AHII. You either blow the elevator off or nothing happens to it. Wherease in reality, you might put holes in the skin that cause tearing, aggravated by slipstream. If it goes to fluttering, that could make the airplane un-flyable right there. You might cut a control cable, jam a pushrod, etc-all sorts of possibilites than a reasonable sim damage model can't account for. Just like in some rare cases you might put a butt-load of .50s or even 20mms into real aircraft and not hit anything that even disables it. Be waaaaaaaay too complex to try and put all of these factors into a sim though.

[Krusty]

First, define "point blank"

Second, how much MG ammo did you have when you ran out of cannon?

Third, of all the shots you fired, how many hit?

If you have 2x 50cal or equivelant (MG131, 12.7mm, etc) and have a lot of ammo left, you are NOT out of the fight. The more manuverable your plane is, the more lethal you still are. 2x 50cals are more than enough to bring a plane down (especially if nose mounted!) IF you land a good solid burst on target. I'm not talking a glancing snapshot as he ducks and dodges your BnZ. It takes a solid burst, but it's quite effective.

If you're lucky it takes just a single ping (to the cockpit), but generally don't bet on that.

In summation, "You missed him."

[OOZ662]

~.30 caliber incendiary ammo was available.

This is true, but for future readers I'll note that the .303s in the Spitfire and Hurricane Mk. I were designed for the purpose of using the same ammunition as the standard infantry rifle of the time, and therefor would be standard ball rounds.

[Krusty]

Actually, incendiary rounds were common early on. A throwback from WW1 I believe, they still had the nice effect of setting a plane's fuel tanks on fire rather than just draining them.

The caliber of the weapon doesn't really dictate the type of round it can fire. Look at the german guns, for example!

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Problem is aces high has full damage, and no damage.

Nothing in between, fairly light damage modeling with engine components, wires,fuel lines pully systems for control. In reality No one gets shot at with ANYTHING, and sticks around in that persons sights for long.
Try flying your damaged f4u, when the left aileron is none functional and just flapping in the wind, or even worse jammed in a not so good always keeping you rolling position. If ever we got these things, or more. EVERYTHING with aces high combat would change.

Imagine loosing lift, or added drag from a 20mm hole in your wing, your wing forever dipping, the constant correction.
With a flying machine, every bit of damage effected something.

Ask any pilot if he would mind someone taking pot shots at him with machine guns, you will most likely get a big "nuh uh, no thanks" 

In short.no machine guns were really not that bad, aces highs damage model is, all or nothing at all. <3 HTC for everything

[Karnak]

I have killed many aircraft with just the two Ho-103 12.7mm machine guns on the Ki-84.  In one case I downed a Hurricane Mk IIc, one of the tougher single engined fighters, after an extended fight and still had enough ammo to kill the C-47 he was escorting afterwards.

I also remember shooting down a B-26 using just the MG131s on the Fw190D-9 (this was before formations) in a single, relatively short, pass.

The only B-17 kill I remember getting with the C.202 was also done in a single pass, but it was a long pass with me firing the whole way in.

[Widewing]

I've landed 7 kills air to air with a TBM, which has only a pair of .50 cal MGs. On the other hand, I've had my Wildcat hit by at least a dozen 20mm rounds and suffered no disabling damage. My experience tells me that 190s can suck up a lot of machine gun hits in the fuselage and fly on seemingly undamaged.

My regards,

Widewing

[Bodhi]

Actually, incendiary rounds were common early on. A throwback from WW1 I believe, they still had the nice effect of setting a plane's fuel tanks on fire rather than just draining them.

The standard early war load out for US aircraft was three AP, one Incendiary, and one tracer.  Repeat.

By the end of the war, we were loading out all API, unless of course you had clout enough to have the armorers load your own personal mix.

[Simaril]

Problem is aces high has full damage, and no damage.

Nothing in between, fairly light damage modeling with engine components, wires,fuel lines pully systems for control. In reality No one gets shot at with ANYTHING, and sticks around in that persons sights for long.
Try flying your damaged f4u, when the left aileron is none functional and just flapping in the wind, or even worse jammed in a not so good always keeping you rolling position. If ever we got these things, or more. EVERYTHING with aces high combat would change.

Imagine loosing lift, or added drag from a 20mm hole in your wing, your wing forever dipping, the constant correction.
With a flying machine, every bit of damage effected something.

Ask any pilot if he would mind someone taking pot shots at him with machine guns, you will most likely get a big "nuh uh, no thanks" 

In short.no machine guns were really not that bad, aces highs damage model is, all or nothing at all. <3 HTC for everything

But don't forget that there was a good bit of this action in the war as well. Innumerable stories of guys who landed with major holes blasted open, or several hundred bullet holes SCATTERED ALL OVER THE AIRPLANE.

Two points explain what the original poster describes. First, and most importantly, the distances we shoot at here are unhistorically long. The vast majority of air to air kills came at ranges of 200 yards or less -- which makes sense because the real pilots had to deal with far more engine and airframe vibration than AH ever dreamed of. At those ranges, the kinetic energy was higher, especially for the rifle caliber guns. If you doubt this, talk to some of the guys who use them regularly and you'll hear how 8x303s are a buzzsaw inside 200 yards.

Second, there's that "scattered all over the airframe" thing. Damage is appropriate when bullets are concentrated right on the point of impact. When you scatter shot, you're hoping for the golden BB that happens to do critical damage.

[valdals]

i fly these type planes alot. you have to get close to your target and concentrate your fire on a certain spot to get the kill. if your hits are spread out, it will take most of your ammo to kill a target.

[Charge]

What good they were IRL was that they increased the chance of a stray critical hits in systems or in pilot and because there are no ricochets and small components modelled in AH the MGs may be less efficient that they were IRL -unless they are compensated in some way in how much damage they do.

-C+

[Ghosth]

Spit 1 and Hurri I, .303 cal mg's. Shoot those things at 400 and out and its like hail on the roof. They scatter all over, punch a few holes and don't break anything.

Shoot those same guns in the same plane at 150 convergence with 150 distance to target and they saw wings off. But, you have to be steady, and you have to keep your rounds hitting in the same area.

Chances are if you'd of gotten in to 150 and opened up with those mg's and kept hitting the SAME spot, you would have nailed him eventually. But it takes training, and discipline to be able to do that consistently.