Shooting

[Karnak]

Originally posted by 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.

Sorry, but this is a common misconception based on the statement that 85-90% of pilots who were shot down never saw their attacker.

Many (most maybe) people take this to mean that the victim was flying along, straight and level, without a clue the enemy was in the area when suddenly his plane was out of control due to fire from an unseen aircraft. This is the common definition of a bounce.

What that statement actually referes to is that most pilots never saw the attack that got them.  They were manuvering, fighting, possibly target fixated when an enemy aircraft that was in the fight, but that they did not see take up a guns position on them, and it proceded to shoot them down.

[Kweassa]

I'm just interested what AH would be like with ammo counters removed, and hit sprites that diminish in size with distance and differs by ammo type.

 Times like this I wish there was a "Test Arena" in AH, where new suggestions would be tried out for real to see if they are appealing.

[Dowding]

I can't remember the last time I was killed at ranges greater than d 0.6, nevermind 1k etc. I never fire at anything over 400 and rarely over 300.

[culero]

Originally posted by Otto
Good Shooting beats Good Flying every time.  Sad but true...

Just as an aside, relative to nothing in particular - while I never flew AW with HiTech (he'd left by the time I arrived) I'm told by those who did that he was the best sharpshooter ever there, by far

culero (he shoot anybody here lately? ~G~)

[OIO]

a .50 cal can hit up to d1.3 , now lag might be in effect when I see d1.3 and the other guy sees d900, so I can only say that from MY end, I can hit up to d1.3. Spraying of course.

I agree that its the ICONS in AH that make such long range shots (which were very rare IRL in WW2).


Why HTC has not done a better icon system is beyond me. Ive said it a hundred times and i'll say it again, the WW2OL icon system, unquestionably the only thing CRS seems to have done right, is an EXCELLENT icon setup.

Icon will fade into view if you stare at the point in the sky for 3 or 4 seconds simulates the pilot "focusing" , there is no laserangefinder, but instead theres a distance indicator that encircles the target and "ticks away" the closer you get. It also turns a different color when it gets "in weapons range".

[Rude]

Hey....I have an idea!!!!

All of you guys that can't seem to enjoy yourselves in AH and believe that the gunnery, FM or the material used in building the runways are not as accurate as IL2, just quit AH and go fly the better sim.

Or, is your life so pathetic that you must spend your time whining to others who actually enjoy themselves about something that matters only to you?

The best of all of this, to me at least, is that none of you have any real life experience which would apply to these whiner discussions.

Have ya flown a warbird? How about just a real aircraft? Ever shoot a .50 caliber round on the ground or in the air?

Oh wait, I forgot the part about misery loving company....unhappy folks are always lookin for someone to hang with so they can enjoy a bowl of "aint life a pisser" soup.

If some of you could see how ridiculous you look posting this crap.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Karnak
Sorry, but this is a common misconception based on the statement that 85-90% of pilots who were shot down never saw their attacker.

Many (most maybe) people take this to mean that the victim was flying along, straight and level, without a clue the enemy was in the area when suddenly his plane was out of control due to fire from an unseen aircraft. This is the common definition of a bounce.

What that statement actually referes to is that most pilots never saw the attack that got them.  They were manuvering, fighting, possibly target fixated when an enemy aircraft that was in the fight, but that they did not see take up a guns position on them, and it proceded to shoot them down.

Karnak, The 80-85% may include distracted manuevering targets, however, most of the kills that I have read about were bounces.  Hartman described his typical kill as zoom climbing up to point blank, under an IL-2's blind spot and blasting the oil cooler.  From what I have read, most kills were on planes that were on a given coarse and were snuck up on without any manuevering from the victom until shot at.  I've also read accounts of pilots who went months of combat duty without seeing an enemy plane.  Most combat duty was relatively boring and I could see how easy it could be to let your gaurd down.

In RL, good fighter pilots were patient HUNTERS.  They stalked their prey much like a hunter searches and kills his prey.  Most planes were destroyed before they could put up a decent fight.

eskimo

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by Wotan
Read over that AGW thread I linked......

its pretty interesting.....

that site has 20 or 30 popups when u ping it
Commie bastards.....    

[Kweassa]

Rude, you're whining about the whiners again.

 Maybe you can set up a good example to us whiners by not popping up in every post you think it even sounds like a whine to you.

 Or maybe we're just all addicted to this whine-antiwhine love/hate relationship for Kodak moments. Ugh..!

[OnePunch]

My original post here was trying to put into perspective the actual distance a kill could be made on a moveable platform onto or into another moveable platform.
I will not dispute or even try to dispute the energy some projectiles have at distance.
What my intent here was to put into perspective shooting from a flying moving shaking platform.Not a fixed platform.
Now it seems some people have discussed well they have their convergence at 400 yards or 300 yards or whatever.
This being the case then at 300 or 400 yards or whatever these projectiles would intersect each other at these relative points and continue on there way, however a target at 1000 or plus yards 3 or 4 times the distance of their convergence the bullets would be imo widening and moving away from the actual target based on their convergence setting.
Food for thought.

[lazs2]

there are cases of jap planes being killed at over 1000 yards by guys testfiring their guns in WWII.

Are any of you saying that the dispertion of .50's would not allow a person to shoot down a non manuevering plane dead ahead of him at 1000 yards or more?   So... if it is possible in AH but not in Il2..... who is right?   Seems that test firing guns at 200 yards from real planes shows that it is not only possible but probbible that you would get a hit with 6 .50's at 1000yard especially if your convergence was set at 450 like most of us do..

It is not the gunnery in AH It is the skill... Drex is as poor a shot as I am.  neither of us breaks 5% with any regularity... I can't even hit a plane unless it is a full deflection shot.   I don't see where drexies pitiful marksmanship has hindered his ability to kill planes.

And Wotan... I don't think that haveing boocoup more hors of shooting practice is something to sneeze at..  I also say that not having any fear or stress is a factor and the fact that you are in a target rich environment and basicly close to home.   It is also good to know that your guns won't jam but I don't see any way to do that fairly... The average for .50's was 1 jam in 3000 rounds.. that would mean that only one of your guns might jam in  two sorties.   I lose more guns than that to damage.

Also... Il2 is a cannon game.   cannon have low rounds per sec because you only have 1 or 2 cannon as oppossed to 4, 6 or even 8 high rate .50's....   do they have the p47 and 51 now?   if so... how do they do against stable targets at 1000 yards?
lazs

[Hades55]

At 1980 when i was in the army, i had
shoot , between others, with the 4 barrel
0.50, our known m.16 at 1000m  dist.
I can tell you one thing.
You dont want to be to the point where
the 0.50s go. Its Hell . You will never see
in a moovie how in reality is. I repeat  1000m.
I dont know for bigger dist. but at 1000m
the bullets was going complete straight.
I dont know if they was WWII era 50s  or the new ones.
I have also shoot with the 20mm  rheinmetal  and with the old good 40 bofors.
The 20 mm at 2000m dist.
It has 2 barrels 920 shells per min each.
The hell on earth @ 2000m.
We was doing also shoots @
2000m all on target (sights with zoom).
The 40mm bofors (is on PTs in AH) its a
deadly weapon at 3000m IF it gets you. Only 6 sells and very lazy. But Deadly. I believe a good shooter can have results even @ 4000m.
That is my little experience with GUNS.

[OnePunch]

I have never made a comment in my original post or replies about il2 in any respect.I dont play it .
I am saying the probability of killing a target at 1000 yards out is and should be extremely low.
You state their have been cases of guys testfiring their guns and killed japaneese targets at 1000 yards. Can you post your proof please? did they have range indicators? im not disputing you just would like to read for myself.

[SlapShot]

OnePunch ...

How many times have you been killed at 1000+ yards ?

Is it happening to you alot lately ?

I have hit a fair amount of planes at 1000 yards in my F4U/FM2/F6F/P51 and they continue to fly ... very rarely have I gotten a kill and if I did, I presumed that they must have already sustained some prior damage. What usually happens is that they sustain some sort of damage that either slows them down or they figure "screw it" and they turn back for the fight. That is usually my intention when firing at long distance .. I never expect a kill.

[lazs2]

onepunch... the reference is in 'aces of the pacific'  I can't point to the page but it's worth reading in any case...  I don't believe that the guy had any real clue as to how far he shot from but his wingman and him agreed on the yardage.

I believe that judging by every account I have read about.... pilots consistently UNDERESTIMATED the ranges that they were firing at... believing that they were firing at 2-300 yards when in reality they were shooting at planes further than 1000 yards.  

I cannot think of a factor that would prevent a percentage of well aimed bullets hiting a non manuevering target from a WWII ac at 1000 yards.... In AH I have hit planes at 1000 yards (pinged em) but I have never killed one from that distance.    I think that there is no way for WWII pilots to know if they got a hit or two at 1000 yards or not unless the plane started smoking or went down or lost something large.

wotans score shows that he took and average of 211 rounds to kill a plane in Il2... this seems excessive to me.
lazs