A few I would like to see

[Nemisis]

So Ack-Ack, you're saying that it would take more 20mm rounds than 7.7mm rounds to knock the wing off (assuming same target area)? If the 7.7's were more leathal to fighters, why did the niki have a 20mm armament?



And fbWldcat, I can see your point, but since you were saying it would take lots of ammunition to bring down an F4U, I think its only fair to assume the rounds impact in the same area (all hit the wing, as opposed to 7.7's in the wing and 20mm's in the fuselage).

[Imowface]

I don't think you get what he meant, he was saying that a 7.7mm round can be just as effective as a 20mm cannon round depending on where the round hits, if I get a head shot on you with a 7.7mm, its gonna do allot more damage then if I hit you in the rudder or aileron with a 20mm, it really all comes down to how good of a shot you are.

[Ack-Ack]

So Ack-Ack, you're saying that it would take more 20mm rounds than 7.7mm rounds to knock the wing off (assuming same target area)? If the 7.7's were more leathal to fighters, why did the niki have a 20mm armament?

I don't think you get what he meant, he was saying that a 7.7mm round can be just as effective as a 20mm cannon round depending on where the round hits, if I get a head shot on you with a 7.7mm, its gonna do allot more damage then if I hit you in the rudder or aileron with a 20mm, it really all comes down to how good of a shot you are.

Imowface had no troubles understanding.

ack-ack

[Nemisis]

I get that Imowface, but I don't think that chance of a lucky hit or level of accuracy should be taken into account when discussing how many rounds it would take to kill a fighter. Thats like asking what loadout for a bomber is more effective at killing hangers, and then saying "well, what if some are soft already?".

[Imowface]

That is one thing you are wrong about though, while you are right, the number of rounds it takes to kill a fighter is not important, accuracy is, one common thing to all aces of all country's in WW2 is that they were all great shots, if you are inaccurate, you can put hundreds of bullets into something and not take it down, however if you are, you can take a couple rounds and end the fight before it even starts

[Muzzy]

Uh, a lot of the best fighter pilots actually claimed to be poor shots.  That's why they always got in close.

[Imowface]

and which ones would that be? so your saying hartmann got his 200+ kills just by "getting up close" ? or that Ivan Kozhendub did the same? if you didnt know, Ivan was considered the "deflection shot master" and I dont recall him ever saying he was a bad shot?

[Ack-Ack]

I get that Imowface, but I don't think that chance of a lucky hit or level of accuracy should be taken into account when discussing how many rounds it would take to kill a fighter. Thats like asking what loadout for a bomber is more effective at killing hangers, and then saying "well, what if some are soft already?".

No, you don't get it.  You seem to think that it takes X amount of ammo to take down planes when that is not the case at all. There is no "golden" number on how many rounds it takes to shoot down a plane with any type of ammo.  Yes, cannon rounds like 20mm rounds do have more destructive power than machine gun caliber rounds but that doesn't mean it takes 5 rounds to take down a Corsair with a 20mm cannon and 150 rounds when using .50 cals.  It doesn't work that way in real life or in game.

To prove my point, here is the story of "Half-Pint" and Robert S. Johnson.

June 26, 1943 mission details:
Early in the morning forty-eight Thunderbolts took off from the advanced base at Manston. Having previously been criticized for going off on his own, this morning Johnson resolved to stay in formation. The three squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group were all up: the 61st (Johnson's), 62nd, and 63rd. Before the mission, Johnson felt the cold fear that he always felt, and which he was able to channel into higher alertness. They flew up, over the Channel, into France, and soon spotted sixteen Fw-190s. Before Johnson could communicate or coordinate with his flight, he was hit. 20mm cannon shells ripped through his plane, smashing the canopy, punching holes in the plane, and inspiring in Johnson an overwhelming urge to bail out. More explosions smashed the plane, and Johnson's frantic "Mayday!" calls drew no response. Fire began to envelope the cockpit.

The Thunderbolt spun crazily out of his control and the twisted and jammed canopy frame resisted his repeated, superhuman, full-body efforts to open it. As he struggled vainly with the canopy, the engine fire miraculously went out, but he could hardly see, as oil spewed back from the battered engine. He tried to squeeze out through the broken glass of the canopy, but the opening was just too small for both him and his chute. Trapped inside the P-47, he next decided to try to crash-land and evade. He turned the plane south, toward Spain - the recommended evasion route. After struggling with hypoxia and hallucinations(?), his thoughts came back into focus and he realized that the aircraft was still flying fairly well. He headed back for England, counting on his high altitude to help him make a long, partially-powered glide back home.

The instrument panel was shattered. The wind constantly blew more oil and hydraulic fluid into his cut up face and eyes. He had neglected to wear his goggles that morning, and any attempt to rub his eyes burned worse than ever. He and his plane were horribly shot up, but incredibly he was still alive. He made for the Channel, desperate to escape the heavily defended enemy territory.

Swiveling constantly, he froze in horror as he spotted a plane approaching him, an Fw-190, beautifully painted in blue with a yellow cowling. Johnson was totally helpless, and just had to wait for the German to get him in his sights and open up. The German closed in, taking his time with the crippled American fighter. Johnson hunched down behind his armor-plated seat, to await the inevitable. The German opened up, spraying the plane with 30-caliber machine gun fire, not missing, just pouring lead into the battered Thunderbolt. Johnson kicked his rudder left and right, slowing his plane to a crawl, and fired back as the German sped out in front of him.

The Focke-Wulf easily avoided the gunfire from the half-blinded Johnson, and circled back, this time pulling level with him. The pilot examined the shattered Thunderbolt all over, looking it up and down, and shook his head in mystification. He banked, pulled up behind Johnson again, and opened up with another burst. Somehow the rugged Republic-built aircraft stayed in the air. The German pulled alongside again, as they approached the southern coast of the Channel. Still flying, Johnson realized how fortunate it was that the German found him after his heavy 20mm cannons were empty.

As they went out over the Channel, the German get behind and opened up again, but the P-47 kept flying. Then he pulled up alongside, rocked his wings in salute, and flew off, before they reached the English coast. Johnson had survived the incredible, point-blank machine gun fire, but still had to land the plane. He contacted Mayday Control by radio, who instructed him to climb if he can. The battered plane climbed, and after more communication, headed for his base at Manston. Landing was touch and go, as he had no idea if the landing gear would work. The wheels dropped down and locked and he landed safely.

As you can see, there was no magic number for how many 20mm cannon or .30 caliber machine gun rounds it takes.  The only reasons why the Butcher Bird turned around was that he was out of ammo and close to England, having used pretty much all of its .30 caliber rounds trying to destroy Johnson's P-47.

Your bomber example is another poor example to use, why?  Because unlike airplanes, destroyable objects like the hangers, town buildings, radar, etc. all have a set hardness that requires a certain amount of ordnance (in pounds) to destroy.  Which is why people will mention that such and such target is soft to let the other guy bombing that he doesn't have to drop the full load to take out an already damaged building.

ack-ack

[Muzzy]

and which ones would that be? so your saying hartmann got his 200+ kills just by "getting up close" ? or that Ivan Kozhendub did the same? if you didnt know, Ivan was considered the "deflection shot master" and I dont recall him ever saying he was a bad shot?

You can have computer sights of anything you like, but I think you have to go to the enemy on the shortest distance and knock him down from point-blank range. You'll get him from in close. At long distance, it's questionable.

I opened fire when the whole windshield was black with the enemy . . . at minimum range . . . it doesn't matter what your angle is to him or whether you are in a turn or any other maneuver.

— Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, GAF.

I am not a good shot. Few of us are. To make up for this I hold my fire until I have a shot of less than 20 degrees deflection and until I'm within 300 yards. Good discipline on this score can make up for a great deal.

— Lt. Colonel John C. Meyer, USAAF.

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

— Major Thomas B. 'Tommy' McGuire, USAAF.


Granted, Hartmann doesn't say he's a bad shot, but he does say get in close to where the difficulty of the shot is minimal. I seem to recall both Billy Bishop and Greg Boyington favoring similar tactics in their biographies but I haven't found the exact quotes yet. Again, several fighter pilots spent a lot of time practicing their shooting (hunting and sport shooting in their spare time, etc.), but there was definitely a school of aces who favored getting in close where deflection and range were minimal and blasting away.

[Nemisis]

I know there isn't a specific number of rounds a fight can take before it gets shot down. Still, assuming the same aimpoint and level of accuracy, in general, which will shoot off a wing first: 2 7.7mm MG's, 2 12.7mm MG's, or 2 20mm cannons? Thats all I'm saying.

[StokesAk]

20mm are heavier, so they do more damage, If they are pulling alot of G then the wing would proboly come off even though the 20mm's didn't sever it completely.

[Nemisis]

It likey would, which is something I hadn't though about. It would be cool if HTC would lower the structural integrity of shot up wings, stabalizers, and control surfaces. Might make for some interesting fights.



Oh and Ack-Ack, I missed your comment on the bomber thing: There is a set ammount of ordanance needed to destroy a hanger in the game, and people call out what hangers are soft. They also call out "that spities tail is real soft", in the hopes that someone will finish it off, either giving them the kill or preventing their target from escaping.

I use the bomber loadouts as an example because you can't know exactly how soft they are, and if you know which ones are soft at takeoff, the situation will likely have changed by the time you arrive. Your going to outsmart yourself in a hurry if you just assume that all the hangers have been hit with a 1000lb bomb and take a B-26 with the 500's so you can save time and have some ord left over to hit the ammo bunkers and the troops. Same as if you assume you'll kill the pilot after firing around 50 rounds at him.

[Imowface]

Only need one round to kill a pilot so If I fire 50 rounds at a cockpit, I know for a fact that I will kill the pilot, I dont asume stuff like that when im in a fight, I shoot stuff untill I know the plane is down for good

[Nemisis]

At it, not into it. Again, I don't think that pilot kills and the like should be taken into concideration when discussing the damage of different calibers and types of rounds.

[Ack-Ack]

Oh and Ack-Ack, I missed your comment on the bomber thing: There is a set ammount of ordanance needed to destroy a hanger in the game, and people call out what hangers are soft. They also call out "that spities tail is real soft", in the hopes that someone will finish it off, either giving them the kill or preventing their target from escaping.

When someone says something like "that spitfire is damaged" is to let everyone else know that the bandit is damaged and most likely a free lunch.  Unlike objects like hangers and the like, planes don't have a "hardness number" so it doesn't take XX amounts of hits to destroy.


ack-ack