simple questions...

[hazed-]

jesus hooligan f**K off mate you go find it!

remember it was the average so some had many more and some many less but 20-30( and yes that is from memory because i cant be arsed searching for it) was the stated amount

oh and btw it also stated it took on average 3 x 30mm to down a b17.

and that is easy to find because it has a picture(alfred price fw190 book) P 128 lower photo.

ahhhhhhhhh just stumbled on it page 61......and i diddlying quote

"Even when the german pilot started firing on a heavy bomber, initially his fighter lacked the firepower to give a good chance of shooting it down.The fw190a-4, the most effective single engined fighter then available for this purpose, carried four 20mm cannon and two 7.9mm machine guns.In a three-second burst it loosed off 130 rounds of 20mm ammunition (fire from 7.9mm weapons was irrelevant in this sort of engagement).Froma examination of crashed US bombers brought down by fighters, Luftwaffe officers found that few had less than twenty hits from 20mm rounds.However, examination of combat films revealed that a pilot of average ability scored hits with only 2 per cent of the carefully aimed rounds he fired.On those figures, an average pilot had to loose off ONE THOUSAND rounds of 20mm ammunition at the bomber to obtain the required 20 to 30 hits.But the Fw190A-4's maganzines carried only 500 rounds of 20mm ammunition. Thus to secure the destruction of a heavy bomber it was necessary for two or more fighters to attack it. It is stressed that these figures relate to pilots of average ability."

ok hooligan? now like i said F**k off!

or better still lets see you explain the damage model and how its calculated? ooh you dont know you say? you dont work for HTC? you're not a programmer? what a suprise.

[mrsid2]

Raubvogel was that a single incident or happens often?

Because that single 30mm could have been lost with a single packet - network problem.

I have no problems shredding p38's to pieces with la5 20mm guns, OTOH I've found out that sometimes you have to pour dozens of 30mm to planes before they die.

One lancaster took 2 ammo loads of a8 20mm+30mm before he died eventually to at least 1 second continuous burst at d200 to his tail. (he killed me once during his sortie after I smashed his tail from d600 20mm+30mm and didn't get damage, I reuped and chased him down on landing, that time with film on.)

[Raubvogel]

Might have been, who knows. I saw the 30mm hit sprite on his left boom, engine started smoking oil, he flew away like nothing happened. Also hit with a few 20's, so who knows what happened.

[Hooligan]

So when you said 25-30 you were wrong and the part about the 38 tail fragility was simply a lie.  Thanks for clearing that up.  So far your truthfullness has tested 0 for 2 out of 2 statements.  Here is another gem you wrote:

when a P38 takes 20 hits of 20mm and limps home, is it correct?

I really doubt that this happens much in AH if at all.  But it does seem as truthful as everything else you have written.

Also, no matter how many times you tell me to "f**k off" this has no bearing on how accurate your statements are.

Hooligan

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Hooligan
Personally I think this is just BS.  However you can prove me wrong by providing the sources.  

I've heard the "20+ hits required to down a B-17" before, too.  Frequently.  (Admits:  Most recently in Caiden's "Black Thursday" - was just reading it for the pictures, though!)  Don't know where it originated; Hazed's "inspection of downed B-17s" is probably as good a guess as any.  Does this conflict with someone's notion of how hard it was to down a Fortress?

- Oldman

[Sikboy]

While I agree that good arguments must involve supporting data, I think that Hooligan might be suffering from a confirmation bias. I think that Hazed's quote demonstrates that it took 20-30 (not the 25-30 stated by Hazed, but within the range of the quote). I hope that everyone takes the point that argument without evidence is pointless, but I'm affraid that the relentlessness of hooligans prosecution might turn people away from that fundemental idea.

I'm just sayin

-Sikboy

[Hooligan]

Sikboy:

Personally I think that you are being rather forgiving of Hazed now that we know the part about the 38 tail vulnerability was an outright lie.  It does make everything else he says rather suspect wouldn't you agree?

Hooligan

[Tac]

Its very hard to see a 30mm and a 20mm hit if they are fired at the same time.. especially in hi speed passes.

Every time I go up against Hblair or Rollo or Mandoble or any other 30mm totting 109/190 geeks I die on a single ping. I hate them. I hate them

In my 38 vs other 38 using .50's only I just hit it with a short burst and it smokes up,  another nice burst and loses wingtips or tail stab. Its just not like before where you sprayed the pings all over the planeform and the entire thing would pop open.

Pay attention next time u shoot a 38, it will never break its wing (which it did before the fix), but it will shed wingtips easy enough. Most hits to the wing section will result in engine damage (it takes half the wing anyway!). Most cannon hits will break its flaps and elevator right off the bat AND whack the engine. It seems to be more durable now because the entire wing doesnt snap out like before imo. BTW, try hitting the little stub in the tail stab.. hit it and the 38 blows up. It counts as pilot kill lol.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Hooligan
So when you said 25-30 you were wrong and the part about the 38 tail fragility was simply a lie.  

I don't think I'm being too forgiving, and EVERYTHING is suspect until supported by data. However. The above quote seemed to mar your argument because Hazed 25-30 hit statement was within the range of the earlier quote. While he was slightly off on the number, I think that the quote he offered validates the idea that he wasn't just making that up. That while he was not 100% accurate, this evidence was based in fact. This is certainly not scholarly debate here, and I wouldn't want to turn it into that. Bring evidence, or expect to provide evidence. But this seems to have gone beyond that basic debate and into something more personal. I'm certainly not going to take sides in the personal matter, but I think I've made my opinion clear with regards to evidence and argument.

-Sikboy

[Hooligan]

I'll quote myself then.

Hazed makes a slew of statements as if they were fact when in reality they appear to be half-recalled anectdotes from some second or third hand account.

It think that accurately describes his statment concerning 20mm hits.  It is not a deliberate falsehood, merely inaccurate because he recalled it incorrectly.

Hooligan

[Urchin]

I can certainly see both sides of the argument here.  Hooligan has a point that much of what we throw around as 'fact' is often misremembered and oft-repeated hearsay.  However, I also think that Hazed has a point in that there are some things that just 'feel' fishy but are incredibly hard to proove.  The 190 engine 'bug' is a great example of that.  There just isn't any way to know whether or not the 190A's would lose their engine at the drop of a hat, but it conflicted with their 'historical reputation' of being 'tough' aircraft.  

Anyway, I agree with Sikboy that these seems to have turned into something personal, so this is the last I'll post in this thread.  I'll stop by occasionally to see the scorch marks though.

[Wulfmen]

hehehe nice discussion
Hooligan do u have datas from Rechlin??
i know only two people have 90% of Documents from Rechlin, Kurt-Tank, Messerschmidt-Werke, Bundsluftfahrt-Archiev (u know what is it? ) etc, etc.
Both are testing and gave all information for an other game.

I think u never have all this information, but w ur two papers u think u a Professor

Many People in AH say thats not right and it feel not right. Why u sayng thats all wrong what they feel?

Look the IL2, and get some datas from it. i have no Problem in AH to shot down the IL2 w 20mm from long rnage w a few Burst.
Is this real? is this real Datas?

I have read many books too, and ALL German Pilots say, thats the IL2 was a Flying Tank. 20mm bullets riccochet from the Armour from short distance shoots. Many Pilots used 100 20mm rounds to get ONE il2 down. In AH i get 4-5 down w 100 Bullets.

The sickness from the IL2 was the lower Oil-cooler. German Aces get al there most IL2 kills on this Info.

Think u have read all ur Graves and other stuff, but u have no feeling for it

greeeeeeeeeeeeets

[hazed-]

oh i see hooligan is practicing the 'spin'. Much used by the many polititions we watch on tv everyday.

Rather than answer my question on the damage model he concentrates on a simple 5 round discrepency.Am i accused now of trying to destroy the realism by a sneaky move of adding 5 20mms? I dont even fly the damn things, I shoot them down! so why would i ?? he goes on to call me a blatent liar for it. I provide the proof of what ive read, which incidently he was obviously was hoping i wouldnt . I could spend days looking for the references Ive seen on the tail structure of P38s, admitedly small caliber was a slight exageration to emphasise my point, hehe ,but I know Ive read about its weakness and to call this another blatent lie is pathetic.Hooligan why dont you go to MA and ask on open channel 'whos has read about the weakness of the P38 tail' and see how many have.Then call them liars and demand they show proof eh?
If this was a lie on my part then i guess it was a lie that spread quickly eh?

Hooligan doesnt even mention the dispertion observation which produced a refinement to the code.
He ignores my request for an explanation of the damage model which he obviously cant give.
He ignores what i said about real data being used in an imperfect programme
hell basically he comes in here says im a liar and demands i prove otherwise.


Well in the past hooligan, Ive mentioned that ive read about how a P47 managed to return to base with absolutely no oil left in it.After it was attacked the pilot headed home.The oil ran out on the way, and from memory I recall he said he flew over 150 miles on empty. Now this 150 might be incorrect,as it is indeed my best recollection, but it doesnt mean the rest is a lie does it? or that immediately we should ignore it entirely. I saw no demands from people to prove the p47 was a rugged bird.Why? because i garentee they've read similar stories.If we saw p47s dropping out of the sky as easily as any other aircraft we would obviously question it, BUT to then demand us to all go prove it is rediculous.99% of us have only read the accounts in books that are far from technical but are not necessarily inaccurate.Its for the likes of you who obviously know everything(coff) to provide the proof.Oh and before you ask i dont recall where ive read it, possibly ive even seen it on a documentary.

The way I see it hooligan you need to take the stick out of your ass.Your president has made worse mistakes on prime time tv before he was elected.Why dont you go and bother him?

So now people, in order to ask about the damage model i have to perform tests on P38s,La7s,Mosquitos,B17s etc etc. I have to find some other mug to let me spend hours shooting him down
(hmm perhaps hooligan would be interested?).
well im not prepared to do it. Does this mean that anytime any customer requests something to be looked at or checked, they will be ignored unless they go out and prove it themselves? Since when does the development of a game which charges money require those same customers go out and find the exact problem themselves? HTC would obviously appreciate the help but I havent got the time or inclination to test for hours especially as i dont even know how i would go about proving such a minute discrepency as the level of damage a real p38 could take vs a p38 computer model which i have no knowledge of. I base my judgment on the before/after P38 I shoot down almost everyday and when i compare how hard it is to 'down' verses other planes in the game renouned for being tough aircraft(ie p47). It seems off to me and i stand by it.

Btw hooligan what was the rechlin report claim on the average number of hits needed to take down a b17? (i hope it is about B17s only and not extrapolated from all allied bombers)
and just for fun, can you prove the tail unit of the p38 was not weak at all and that any reference to this is a blatent lie?

hmm i see a 'spin' coming

Id still like to know how the DM is done but with hooligan around im hardly likely to find the time to read it. Ive got a busy schedule of research and playtesting ahead of me .

[Hooligan]

Hazed:

As you can probably tell, the point of my posts is that you are making statements about alleged problems with AH and supporting those statements with falsifications that you attempt to pass off as facts.  You can be as evasive as you want about this but I am perfectly satisfied that you have demonstrated your dishonesty.

Hooligan

[thrila]

i fly the mossie quite often and i've not noticed anything really bad about it's damage model (not including the time i got shotdown by a panzer mg, but i'm guessing thats an pz mg issue).  I often get shotup and manage to limp home ok, however my fuel tanks do seem to go up in flames often.  Usually when i get shotdown i take a hit to the fuel and 15-20secs later my wing goes BOOM!.  Whether the mossie had a weak spot such as the fuel tank i don't know (anyone else know if it did or not?).

One thing i have noticed is that i very rarely hit a p51's radiator- infact i can't recall off memory ever doing this.  Seeing as coolant pipes ran up and down 2/3 the length of the plane i woulda thought that p51'd would be very vulnerbal to radiator hits in AH (i would imagine 1 20mm to the fuselage would more likely than not hit a coolant pipe).


Hey i was also with tac,  kappa, lazer et al in that fight with you sneaky ta152's.

Hehe i was the spitV:D   I saw lazer get hit and lose oil  on 1 engine and then i started to get buzzed.  I slowly got an alt advantage on 2 of u 152's but there was one slightly higher constantly buzzing me (i hate you, whichever one you were )

In the end you 152's all ran from me so i dove on a low b26 and shot him down instead:D