Author Topic: The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 2: Ballistics andEnergy (Read 1379 times)

eskimo2 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 16, 2002, 04:15:26 PM »

Bumped for the "Buff's- THEY SUCK" thread.

eskimo

Yeager · « **Reply #31 on:** February 16, 2002, 04:54:19 PM »

Correct me if I am wrong:

Guns on buffs have a greater effective rnage than guns on fighters. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 yrds.

Most (if not all?) Projectiles in AH are not modeled from initial firing to eventual impact? In other words: In reality, if you pointed a gun straight up and fired a projectile, that projectile would eventually fall back to terra firma. In AH rounds travel a given distance then cease to exist.

Guns on buffs (and mannable field ack among others) do not have dispertion. I havent seen dispertion when firing from a buff gunners position and when I am manning a field gun all rounds travel perfectly along any given path to impact (or ceasation). Grab on osti and fire at a GV 1000 yrds away and notice how the rounds hit in a random manner upon the impact area then go to a manned field gun position and fire at same target. Every round will impact at exactly the same point if the aim is not disturbed.
In buffs the lethality is increased in this manner.

I guess my point is that because the lethality in AH is so high, giving buffs and fighters equall ballistics doesnt work well at all. Thats why buff guns are superior, to offset the total easy with which buffs can be taken, if you survive the ingress to firing range that is. I seem to remember when this took effect back in beta.
I think it was B26s (not sure) that were just getting creamed so HTC extended the lethal range in buffs guns to offest.

Again, if AH had a reduced lethality, imo a more realistic lethality, folks could tangle it up alot better, ACM would be far more interesting and important. Damage would play a far more powerful role and skill at engaging and firing at guns solution would be more important. As it is, get in there, get a few hits and kaboom! Dead. I know this is a gameplay issue, alot of folks would get frustrated and not pay to play if lethality was more plausible. Thusly, get in there, do halfway decent and kill kill kill hehe

Just my observations.

Y

eskimo2 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2002, 06:20:39 PM »

From the "Buff's- THEY SUCK" thread. (In Gameplay):

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Buff 50's or any other rounds do NOT have longer range or lethality than there fighter counter parts.

HiTech

hitech · « **Reply #33 on:** February 16, 2002, 06:59:23 PM »

Just so my statement is not miss understood, the effect eskimo describes happens in AH.

KBall · « **Reply #34 on:** February 16, 2002, 07:57:16 PM »

Yeager · « **Reply #35 on:** February 16, 2002, 08:21:50 PM »

My recollection is corrected!

But my recollection remains...........

Anyhoo...its not a vibrant issue to me personally. I like the challenge of buffing when the mood strikes me.

Y

Löwe · « **Reply #36 on:** February 16, 2002, 09:12:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
I only like realism when it's on my side!

Ravs

AMEN BROTHER!:D

niklas · « **Reply #37 on:** February 17, 2002, 04:28:47 AM »

Whethter your plane is hit by a round with 2000ft/sec or 1000ft/sec is not so important imo, especially with an AP round. In both cases it will pass through the structure, if no armor is present. In both cases the AP round will leave a little hole, and kinetic energy is not completly - maybe only to a minor part - transfered into damage.

niklas

Creamo · « **Reply #38 on:** February 17, 2002, 04:47:55 AM »

Interesting Eskimo, if not a bit confusing to casual players without any math skills. I fit the latter unfortunatley well.

However, I still can make a viable opinion on the subject from what I have seem to have a "feel" for online, regarding the buff guns, namely the B26 and most definate, the B17. They just seem as out of wack as much as the osti does not having a killable gunner. Whatever the gameplay reason, I'm going with the technical explanation that it IS actually modelled realistic. Or is it? That what your saying here, right?

Although i don't understand the lot of it, it's better than just whining i guess. I'm still in the camp that the buff guns aren't a result of ballistics compared to other .50 equiped planes in the same sense. I just don't see that, I see gameplay adjusted models, but have vented, and it actually made a enlightning discussion.

Now if we could only get HiTech to explain it in detail and put it to rest. Or just agree with your post explaination, that would suffice.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 17, 2002, 05:42:10 AM »

Well the fact remains still that if buff guns would have been as leathal as they are in this game, no 190 or 109 pilot would have lived to tell from the encounter of 100 B-17 formations.

Stories of 190's approaching from the 6, taking fire from buffs, moving to kill the gunners to get peace to work with the engines..

That kind of approach would get the 190 killed instantly. Buff gunners are extremely hard to kill in the game, I can't remember when I would have killed the tailgunner with a shot to the tail.

First hit ping from a B17 usually means some part missing from the plane..

So maybe the armoured planes here are not as strong as they should be compared to the hitting power of the accurately modelled .50's.

Creamo · « **Reply #40 on:** February 17, 2002, 06:05:34 AM »

Good point, and can gunners actually be disabled? That would counter the "Realistic" (add super math code methodolagy formula's here) buff guns.

I don't think so. Back to wondering about gameplay priority code that makes it all so loving confusing.

popeye · « **Reply #41 on:** February 17, 2002, 09:22:19 AM »

Buff gun positions can be killed.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 17, 2002, 09:28:48 AM »

Yes they can be killed, but they very rarely do even if you smash the tail of a buff with 20mm.

IRL gunners were pretty vulnerable and they were targeted first when attacking a buff. After the gunners were dead, the fighter could start taking off engines one by one from 100 yards or less distance.

One interesting point was in the story I read - propwash..

AH does not model propwash of any kind. It seems that the fighters aim could be severely affected by the buffs propwash if he flew through it..

lazs2 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 17, 2002, 10:23:54 AM »

well... to answer the original question... If the question is a question of energy rather than accuracy or toughness... It would be easy to kill a Muatang with an API fifty round at either range.. parked on the runway or in the air. When you are talking about the neighborhood of 5,000 lbs of remaining energy it is a lot of energy. The thin skin on a fluff won't notice nor will anyone hit by a .50 700 grain projectile with 3-5000 lbs of energy. To compare.... My .44 magnum revolver round has about 1000 lbs of energy... point blank at the muzzle, with hot loads. Of course, an attack from the side or front or down should still give the advantage to the Mustang.

The problem is that all the fluff guns are slaved to one guy so there is no "dispertion". Every one of em is psychically linked and they are firing through their plane at times. I also don't see the crew dieing... even a dozen or so bullets through the fuselage should take out the crew who are completely helpless with nothing but thin alum. to "protect" them. The fluff pilots of course have armour but so does the 51 pilot.

From ded six at 1000 yards at low alt there is a significant difference but there is a lot more wrong with fluff gunnery than a little energy from one position.
lazs

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #44 on:** February 20, 2002, 02:48:36 PM »

Both the Germans and the Japanese used head-on attacks against the B-17 and B-24 whenever possible. In addition, some German pilots favored an overhead pass from the high 12 o'clock position with the cockpit and wing tanks as the main target.

The added velocity of the .50 caliber guns of the buffs being discussed in the above posts, even if it made any real difference, would only be realized by the tail guns. The nose guns on the buffs would suffer the same effects of the six .50s of the P-51D firing from the 6 0'clock position. German fighters, whether one is discussing the 109 or 190, were armed with MG-151/20mm cannon whose muzzle velocity was equal to that of the .50 caliber machine gun but which had much greater destructive power. In a one-on-one encounter the fighter held most of the high cards.