Author Topic: Buff guns strengths- "study" (Read 340 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #15 on:** September 14, 2001, 11:31:00 AM »

Grunherz, Baugher's web pages are taken, often almost verbatim, from books that many of us have in our libraries. They are just books written by authors. They don't get their knowledge from a divine source and they make mistakes.

I've been involved in discussions on this topic before, and it has been pretty clearly demonstrated to me (by guys using primary sources, scientific knowledge, etc) that none of the armor plate on the 190 was sufficient to stop a .50 cal at WWII engagement ranges. It's just not thick enough. So I can't agree with Whels.

Anyways we are hijacking Urchin's thread, which was a refreshing attempt to apply science to this kind of stuff. So I'll shut up now.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Olgzr3 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 14, 2001, 02:59:00 PM »

I have died many times to buff guns. They are a squeak. But I have to say leave buff guns alone. They may or may not be accurate but its a gameplay issue, bigtime.

Olgzr

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** September 14, 2001, 03:35:00 PM »

LOL Funked!

Is that the same scientific knowlege you guys used to prove that the Chog, P47D11 and Niki FMs were not wrong. Oh wait now HTC says niki chog and 47D11 FM are diddlyed up, but how can that be your "scientific knowlege" have been wrong. O O, guess its time to change that "factual" knowlege. Huh?

Anyway recent developments in AH have shown me 99% of you self proclaimed AH all knowing experts dont know toejam and change your "facts" on a whim to suit your and HTCs changing ideas and implementatinos in AH.

Anyhow the LW figured out additonal armor on 190A8/R8 allowed them to come within very close range of bomber formations even from dead astern and survive. Yet none of that armor by your ideas is thick enough to stop the main 50cal defensive guns of US bombers.
It seems that history doesnt support your ideas. I guess the LW didnt have your first hand "scientific knowlege" of the US 50cals. I mean its not like they had AH arrogant USA fanatics' close and personal daily knowlege of the 50cal guns ability and what it did to their fighters. Certainly not, not possible they know anything not known by the AH fanatic USA guys.

Why dont you read whels post? It clearly says how the armor was effective even though its not literally thick enough in a 90degree best case non armor steel 50cal penetration ability under ideal circumstances.

The problem with you USA 50cal fanatics is very clear. You only look at 90degree hit figures on less than armor quality steel fired under ideal conditions at short ranges with absolutly no accounting for deflection or any other imperfect flight profile for the shells. No other circumstances that occured 100% of time in RL are ever considered by you whoopee fanatics.
Some of you people are so fanatic that you compare the WW2 50cal aircraft MG to custom made single shot 50cal sniper rifles and make staements that 50cals can kill out to
miles and miles and miles. Thats diddlying hillarius, really hillarious.

funkedup · « **Reply #18 on:** September 14, 2001, 03:51:00 PM »

Sorry Urchin, I can't let this go unchecked. It's unfortunate your nice thread was defaced by the hijackers.

Quote

Is that the same scientific knowlege you guys used to prove that the Chog, P47D11 and Niki FMs were not wrong. Oh wait now HTC says niki chog and 47D11 FM are diddlyed up, but how can that be your "scientific knowlege" have been wrong. O O, guess its time to change that "factual" knowlege. Huh?

What on earth are you talking about? That's false. I've done no such thing. I did the only quantitative flight tests to date which showed a problem with the N1K2 flight model. You are lying or you have memory problems.

Quote

Anyway recent developments in AH have shown me 99% of you self proclaimed AH all knowing experts dont know toejam and change your "facts" on a whim to suit your and HTCs changing ideas and implementatinos in AH.

So I'm now changing facts to suit HTC's game? I'm part of some kind of apologist conspiracy for HTC? Why would I do something like that? I have an official relationship with only one flight sim company, and it's not HTC. What possible reason would I have to lie (that's what you are accusing me of BTW) in order to make the competition look good?

Quote

The problem with you USA 50cal fanatics...

I'm a USA fanatic now? That's funny. I'm in a POLISH squad. I've flown maybe 10 sorties in a US plane in the last 6 months. I've flown for the Axis in the last three major scenarios. But I'm a USA fanatic. Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay...

I only see one fanatic here. You can't attack facts so you attack people with lies and profanity. Real classy and real convincing. Why the moderators allow worms like you to crawl through here again and again I can not understand.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

-ammo- · « **Reply #19 on:** September 14, 2001, 03:54:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
LOL Funked!

Is that the same scientific knowlege you guys used to prove that the Chog, P47D11 and Niki FMs were not wrong. Oh wait now HTC says niki chog and 47D11 FM are diddlyed up, but how can that be your "scientific knowlege" have been wrong. O O, guess its time to change that "factual" knowlege. Huh?

Anyway recent developments in AH have shown me 99% of you self proclaimed AH all knowing experts dont know toejam and change your "facts" on a whim to suit your and HTCs changing ideas and implementatinos in AH.

Anyhow the LW figured out additonal armor on 190A8/R8 allowed them to come within very close range of bomber formations even from dead astern and survive. Yet none of that armor by your ideas is thick enough to stop the main 50cal defensive guns of US bombers.
It seems that history doesnt support your ideas. I guess the LW didnt have your first hand "scientific knowlege" of the US 50cals. I mean its not like they had AH arrogant USA fanatics' close and personal daily knowlege of the 50cal guns ability and what it did to their fighters. Certainly not, not possible they know anything not known by the AH fanatic USA guys.

Why dont you read whels post? It clearly says how the armor was effective even though its not literally thick enough in a 90degree best case non armor steel 50cal penetration ability under ideal circumstances.

The problem with you USA 50cal fanatics is very clear. You only look at 90degree hit figures on less than armor quality steel fired under ideal conditions at short ranges with absolutly no accounting for deflection or any other imperfect flight profile for the shells. No other circumstances that occured 100% of time in RL are ever considered by you whoopee fanatics.
Some of you people are so fanatic that you compare the WW2 50cal aircraft MG to custom made single shot 50cal sniper rifles and make staements that 50cals can kill out to
miles and miles and miles. Thats diddlying hillarius, really hillarious.

clueless is his name, spewing is his game.

Maverick · « **Reply #20 on:** September 14, 2001, 05:20:00 PM »

Grunherz,

You need professional help. I hope you get it soon.

My post never said I was a 50 CAL fanatic. I am however rather well experianced with it and not in a single fire bolt action rifle that likely has a shorter barrel.

My question to whells was if the FW had armor to the front of the engine. He answered that is only has an armored ring around the leading edge of the cowl. That leaves virtually the entire fromtal area of the engine including the crankcase unarmored. Shells going in there are going to absolutely screw up the works.

The other qquestion was about the leading edgees of the wings. That was rather nicely answered with the diagram showing no leading edge armor.

The final question was about whether or not 20+ hits should not cause extensive damage or down the AC, particularly if concentrated in a small area like dead 6 attack on a buff. For that answer I guess I'll just have to rely on the numbers of FW's shot down. They were fanatics but I guess they didn't have your level of fanaticism to hold their planes together.

Mav

Now if you cannot keep you comments on a reasonable civilized level just go totter off by yourself. You have already given me all I need to know about you.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #21 on:** September 14, 2001, 05:51:00 PM »

Oh yea ppl who constantly quote best case data for the 50cal and ignore other real world info are not fanatics.

But I apologize for trying to reason with you fanatics. Sorry.

funkedup · « **Reply #22 on:** September 14, 2001, 06:14:00 PM »

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** September 14, 2001, 06:25:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Some of you people are so fanatic that you compare the WW2 50cal aircraft MG to custom made single shot 50cal sniper rifles and make staements that 50cals can kill out to miles and miles and miles. Thats diddlying hillarius, really hillarious.

Are you talking to me?

Are you talking to ME?

Well, Grun, here's proof once again that while you can probably read, your comprehension is severely lacking.

I'd suggest you go back and read those posts again.. and again.. until you actually understand what was written.

...Oh, wait... you're not interested in what was actually said... you just want to spew some more.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

Drivel on, Grun.

Wilbus · « **Reply #24 on:** September 14, 2001, 08:00:00 PM »

Somebody mentioned that a 50 cal will go right threw the engine block of the 190 with AP rounds, atleast if I understood it right.
That is SOO wrong, there are about no rounds wich would penetrate the whole engine and go threw it, AP or no AP. The armored glass in the 190 was made specificly to stop MG and heavy MG (50 cal) fire from fairly close range, it deflected the shots thanks to a good angle and it consisted of 50mm armored glass. It DID in many caes stop the 50 cal bullets, even at close ranges. the 190 A8/R8, sturmbock version of the 190 A8, had extra armor (not more glass though) and it was used to fly in behind the bombers, quite slow, line up behind them and not fire untill the leader gave the command. They flew in V formation and they usually opened up at about 100-200 meters. The armored glass stopped bullets from hitting the pilot, the extra armored plates in the wings protected the guns, the extra armor around teh engine and around the cockpit stopped bullets from there (of course engine was vulnerable anyway, it was just a ring around it).
The Sturmbock squads usually didnt loose any planes in these attacksm when they did, they usually didn't lose more then 1 or 2.

Remember, they did this in group of about 9 planes, and they attacked 100+ B17's whom most, not all, were shooting at them.

SageFIN · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2001, 12:44:00 PM »

Funny, it's always a deja vu when I read these threads with people arguing. The setting is always the same, only the roles, people and the topic of the argument change. Feels like I've been here before

.

Of course I can't resist and have to participate in hijacking an otherwise very decent thread.

What I have in mind is that surely there must be 50 cal penetration numbers also for face hardened plate? Maybe different angles have also been tested? I did a quick search on the net but didn't find anything. I bet though that if such info exists then someone from this bb is bound to have it (or atleast have access to it)

bloom25 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2001, 06:06:00 PM »

You guys are aware that pyro already said that several planes engine damage models are being revised right?

(I know p38, 190d9, 109g10 are on that list for sure.)

As for my opinion, I think the 50 damage model is about right, but the dispersion is not great enough. If you just put single rounds around the engine it actually takes quite a bit of damage, but AH bombers almost always land 5 - 10 hits on the exact same spot. In AH I attack bombers everytime I see them. I've only died once to them in about 6 tours caused by them shooting me down (carbombing and vehicle bombings not counted), and that was a dead 6 attack that I was forced to make on a lanc with a spit 5. (Yes, I did kill him.

) It's VERY VERY easy to kill bombers if you know how, they all have weak points. Lancs and B26s can be attacked from head on and below pretty easily. Forward beam attacks on lancs and b26s are also quite effective. B17s are tough, but I find diving from directly above and aiming for the wingroot or cockpit will kill them 90% of the time in one pass. Just yesterday I killed 2 lancs and a b26 in a single spit 5 sortie without altitude advantage without taking 1 single ping.