Shooting

[Toad]

That was a quick copy from a website that used an 800 Gr bullet. Not the same as a WW2 bullet.

Here's a trajectory computation I did from WW2 data supplied by Hooligan from source documents and a WW2 chart Pyro posted.

Check this thread for more detail:

190 A/F engine dammage Test  06-21-2001  in Aircraft and Vehicles.

.50 BMG

Trajectory (Basic) Output

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 712 grains
Sight Height: 36.00 inches
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Zero Range: 350 yards
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculated Table
Elevation: 17.594 moa
Azimuth: 0.000 moa

Range/ Velocity/ Energy/ Drop
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (inches)

0 2845.0 12795.7 -36.0
100 2754.8 11996.9 -19.8
200 2666.5 11240.1 -8.2
300 2580.0 10523.2 -1.4
400 2495.4 9844.3 0.1
500 2412.6 9201.6 -4.0
600 2331.5 8593.6 -14.0
700 2252.2 8018.8 -30.5
800 2174.6 7475.6 -53.8
900 2098.5 6962.1 -84.4
1000 2023.7 6474.0 -123.0
1100 1950.2 6012.8 -170.0
1200 1878.4 5577.9 -226.2
1300 1808.2 5169.1 -292.2
1400 1739.9 4785.5 -368.9
1500 1673.3 4426.6 -457.1
1600 1608.7 4091.3 -557.7
1700 1546.0 3778.7 -671.7
1800 1485.3 3487.7 -800.3
1900 1427.1 3219.5 -944.7
2000 1371.2 2972.3 -1106.2

*********

[Gman]

Why does everyone keep bringing up Il2?  Why the hell do we even discuss it here?  I've never mentioned it until this thread.  Sure it may be a great game, and may even model ballistics and damage better.  But this is the board for AH last time I checked.

Also, my dig on Oleg has nothing to do with his game, only him, since he lied repeatedly to me when trying to arrange interviews, never submited beta material as was promised multiple times, and was piss hammered drunk the one time I got to speak to him.  Also, remember the SimHQ fiasco, where Oleg claimed that Russian data stated that the Il2 could outfight a 109 in A2A combat.  LOL!  Ask Zigrat et al who participated in that thread, I'm sure they will remember the lunacy.

All I am saying is that Onepunch's claim that getting killed at 1000 yards isn't possible is crap.  Hitting at that range obviously is far less likely then say 300 yards A2A, but it certainly is more than possible.  But hitting, AGAIN, wasn't what he was talking about.

[Griego]

Originally posted by Toad

As I pointed out, I think rounds terminate early here in AH. Clearly, some of these heavy BMG's will do damage out past 2500. Yet you never hear of any pings at that range, do you? Try as you might on the biggest target in the game and there'll be no a single ping in 1000 tests using the full ammo load

 Toad i have heard pings at 2500 from b17's. I was totally pissed when it was happening but it has more than once.

 not sure how much lag had to do with it cause everything seemed stable. No warpn

[Otto]

Good Shooting beats Good Flying every time.  Sad but true...

[Wotan]

Gman onepunch didnt say that. Heres what he said

I'm sorry to say but being killed from d-1000 d900 d-800 d-700 d-600 is all but impossible. Think about it folks were talking 10 football fields in lenght here.  Or 9, 8, 7, 6 football fields in length.

Seems to imply that getting hits at 10 football fields is what would be "all but impossible". He never said is was outright "impossible".  All thats in your head

I believe onepunch has a relative who was bomber gunner. Ask him about their range

But bombers are easy kills so one can understand a gameplay tweak here.

Deeztard brought up il2.

[Dago]

So many experts, so little clue.

[Vipermann]

maybe it's not yds in the game, maybe its ft???

considering most everything else is in imperial??

[Urchin]

Hate to say it guys, but if anything the .50 is undermodelled.  I don't know a thing about the Hispano, but I know the farthest I've ever heard of a plane being 'killed' by .50 fire was ~4000 yards in the Korean War.  Some guy hit a Mig at that range with machinegun fire.  

In Aces High, the .50 calibers dissapear at a little more than d1.4 (I believe it is 1,470 yards, I tested it once with the .target command).  Fired from a tailgun of a B-17, the .50 will hit out to d1.7 and change.  

After that it just dissapears.  I guess keeping track of all the rounds for an infinity would be hard on the server, not to mention your FPS .

As far as 'easily' getting killed at anything past 600 yards, it hasn't happened recently.  Has it happened before?  Well sure.  Once that I can remember.  Someone killed my Ta-152 about a year ago with a P-38, firing from 800 yards out or so.  

But even then, you usually won't get killed (outright) by a single .50 round hitting you past 600 meters.  If you are hearing one ping and a wing is falling off, you must have taken a pretty severe pounding from something else before you got out to 600+ meters.  As far as losing flaps, ailerons, elevators, radiator damage... none of those things are hard to damage.  

Hell, you could probably punch through the radiator tubing in a car with a pencil, much less a machinegun bullet.  And although the AH DM doesn't 'show' control cables, I'm pretty sure it would model them, and a single round of any caliber could cut those- they weren't made of titanium.

[GRUNHERZ]

50,000 feet Urchin....

Saw an interview with an F86 pilot who also flew in WW2. He said quite clearly that range went up a lot because of thinner air at very high alts making less drag on bullets. He said he never shot past 600 yards during WW2 but in korea at very high alts in his F86 he would open up at past 1000 yards.  Plus there was new .50cal ammo with more power that came in use after WW2.

So your 4,000 story is not applicable, but that wont bother people...

[Urchin]

Well, I didn't know how high they were. Regardless, I still think it is applicable, at least for part of this argument.  The guns themselves are not overmodelled.  The bullets that pilot fired didn't 'dissapear' at 1,400 yards.  They kept right on trucking until they intersected with the MiG.  In AH, I'll shadow a bomber at 1,800 yards.  I like to see them shoot.  I laugh when they shoot, because I KNOW none of those bullets are going to reach me.  In real life at least a few would.

  I play IL-2, I like the gunnery 'system' there better even if it is 'under-modelled'.  It 'feels' more real to me.  And I'm an even worse shot there than I am here, I usually don't start firing until I'm inside of 150 meters, as opposed to 300ish here.  

However, that doesn't mean that IL-2 has it 'right' and AH has it 'wrong'.  It means they are different.  That is all it means.

[lord dolf vader]

After the second burst of 3 or 5 out of a m2 ( the heavyer barrel not the  light short one on ww3 planes ) the spread of the bullets increased about 10,000%  was like a shotgun mayby 3 to 5 deg of spread

i looked thru the whole thead and didnt see anyone mention it .


You cant hit toejam with a hot barrel (after first .2 seconds) over 100 or 200 yards you would never ever the sustained 2 foot pattern at 1000 yds  that you see in ah.

That is the problem

htc has to know it and have known it for years cause people have told them befor.

they dont care get over it or quit.

[eskimo2]

I've been playing IL-2 for the past couple of days, offline.  The gunnery model sure feels different than AH's.  In RL, bullet groups spread more at longer distances, (I.E. a 1 foot group at 100 yards may become a 3 foot group at 200, and a 9 fot group at 300).  I have the feeling that this effect is more pronounced in IL-2 than in AH.  Which is closer to reality?  I don't know, but I'd love to see some charts comparing the two against reality.

One "issue" that I have in these discussions is the term "damage model".  Some folks talk about damage model in terms of how much damage bullets do to particular parts, others talk about "damage model" as how planes look and burn etc., when they are hit.  These two aspects are totally different.  It is a mistake to assume that since IL-2 has a better APEARING damage model that the physics side of "damage model" is also better.

IMHO, most guns in IL-2 are too weak at all ranges.  This is based on years of reading about the airwar, watching documentaries/footage, and talking to vets.  Planes in IL-2 seem to be very tough, like the exception has been made into the rule.  37mm and 45 mm cannon seem about right, however.

eskimo

[Wotan]

Read over that AGW thread I linked......

its pretty interesting.....

[eskimo2]

One huge difference between RL and any sim is that in WWII, 80-85% of all kills were bounces.  If you are sneaking up on a guy, you're not going to blow your big surprise by starting to hose away at 500 yards, you're going to get in close so that he's dead before he even knows that he's under attack.

In flight sims, we have better SA (esp. with icons and radar).  Its rare to go 5 or 10 minutes without seeing an enemy.  In WWII, a heck of a lot of guys died without ever seeing an enemy plane!Bounces in sims are probably the inverse of RL (15-20%).  

The bottom line is, because we play a game/sim, we fly and shoot VERY differently than the guys in WWII did.

eskimo

[eskimo2]

Check out "The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 2: Ballistics and Energy" for more.

eskimo