As for Tony's quote, with all due respect, that's merely anecdotal evidence. AFAIK, we have little evidence of actual kill range. What we have is pilot estimations.
This is a good one.
So, since we have little "evidence" of actual kill range9as claimed by you), we are entitled to use a system of gunnery which the subtle factors which might influence it are absent?
And continue to discredit 'anecdotal evidence' which researchers highly agree on, and at the same time, we're supposed to support results of in-the-game gunnery that doesn't have any evidencial link to history at all?
By your logic we are to choose between two differing views on gunnery, both with not much 'evidence' to prove its superiority.
So, we are to arbitrarily support a type of gunnery that is against every 'anecdotal evidence', and conclusions of research from the historians, on the sole fact that ballistics supports it. That leads to a very intriguing perspective on history of gunnery in WW2, Toad.
You're saying every pilot was range-impared that they always mistook shots being fired as close range, when it was much further than that in reality.
That's also saying the major battling air powers, which victory or defeat was at stake, made decisions on matters surrounding gunnery upon ridiculous reports from range-impared pilots, and at the same time, the numerous true aces of the war became obsessed in doing something that was totally unnecessary - getting in close to fire, which is risking collision, overshoot, unexpected mistakes and unnecessary dangers.
Such doofuses..! According to the ballistics, they just had to aim a right point from 400~500 meters out, and they could have killed their targets easily.
...
Ok. You didn't exactly say those things, and I know I'm putting words in your mouth. But the point is, your brushing away what little 'evidence' there is concerning this issue as the category of 'anecdotes', and are in support of an arbitrary gunnery modelling which matches no accounts, and has no evidence at all.
Well, it's not arbitrary. It does have ballistics, and that alone.
....
This may come as a shock to you, but there are many exceptions to overall realism. These are usually characterized as "gameplay concessions" although some are "hardware concessions" due to the limitations of trying to create a huge 3d world where folks use stereoscopic vision on a 19" flatscreen monito
What's more shocking, is you are actually relating various other matters which are related to 'gameplay concessions' to this very issue.
Where's the game play concession on plane stalls? E-retention characteristics? I don't see anyone talking about game play concessions on the combat flaps of the P-51D? Or the performance charts of the planes?
No. I hear concessions about strats, CV/Ship modelling, GV aspect, ground-war aspect. But I don't see any 'game play concession' on matters which are directly related to the issue of portraying planes itself.
So then, why the gameplay concession on gunnery? Why is the gunnery aspect a game concession in the first place? Why does anyone need a gameplay concession to aid people to do something which many people specifically claim that rarely happened in WW2 air combat of real life?
In other words, if it is a game play concession, why do we need a game play concession allowing people to hit and aim easily at targets at "claimed" unrealistical distances? Which in turn, provides the community of countless misunderstandings and gripes, discontent and disbeliefs, fights on Ch1, "bullshi*" claims and etc etc?
I'm sure that I get as many kills inside 300 yards as I do outside of it. I admit, I look for the whirling, swirling, close-action dogfights, however. But your generalization is just that, and purest speculation besides. That's putting it politely
Speculation on what? Speculation that 300~600 yard kills aren't often in AH? Or speculation that real life gunnery wasn't any good over those distances?
Besides, I notice that you aren't denying the fact it happens. You're merely questioning the 'frequency' of it happening. This is so ironic that by the "ballistics" you have quoted, is exactly what adds to my analogy. People know they can kill over ranges out that far. They don't hesitate to shoot. It happens frequently, and that is why people are discontent.
The true 'long range' gunnery - over 800yards? I admit that is not very frequent. 1.2k deaths? Not me, I never went through that one.
But hits at 300 to 600 yards? Happens all the time. How do you think the Spitfires and N1k2s, which are relatively slow planes, get 20% of kills in the MA? Its because they are barely fast enough to come into above distances, and gain a chance to spray.
...
Well, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. Note that HT has posted in this thread and elected not to comment on either side
And I am thankful to HT, for patiently listening the debate out.
........
Now let's review the sacred laundry list again. Suppose you got every single wish with respect to your "other factors" granted. Then suppose you still got nailed at 500 yards on your dead straight or repetive no-change slow jink?
Then what are you going to blame it on?
Nothing.
I've wrote it before, and I write it again. If that is so, then it does prove AH pilots are much skilled, despite the various inhibiting factors.
Quoting my own words "I humbly rest the case".
But that's a problem to worry about when the changes actually come.
