Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEDPIG on June 25, 2006, 09:26:26 AM
-
I've always been led to believe that the P-38 gun arrangement was pretty deadly, but i've been pretty dissapointed by the stopping power in the game. You have to spray them a number of times to get a kill whereas a Spit will cheew you up on first pass. I've always heard the 38's guns in the Pacific would eat a Jap plane alive, Japanese planes being sawed in half was not uncommon, even German planes bit the dust. Does the fact that the guns are so concentrated make up for the fact it has one hispano, other planes have more than one cannon and 6 or 8 50 cal's while the 38 only has 4 50's and one hispano. Does the concentration make up for it's lack of guns?
-
Yep. P38 J only has *one* cannon. Since its in the nose, your concentration of bullets is a lot better then on wing guns and you dont have to worry about convergence. Youll still have to hit with the same amount of rounds, meaning compared to a Spitty with two cannons youll have to hit twice as long (provided the Spit hits you in convergence). The advantage of the P38 gun is that you can shoot long range (up to 1000 yards) as well as close up.
Compared to the Japanese cannons, the PJs ballistics are a lot better.
-
Your kidding right Ledpig?
The guns are very deadly on the 38. You can get 10-12 kills when the cannon runs out and the other 1200 mgs can get you another 6 kills. Its all about accuracy. If you know the weakspots of each plane you know where to aim. Such as a spit aim for the wings or a 51 aim for the engine. Its all about knowing a planes strength spots and weak spots. But like you said about a zeke just drop a match on the zeke and it will go boom so saying something about a jap plane isnt all that good of an example.
Just pray that HT puts in a 38L super strafer (38 with 12x50s). Ill at least settle for a 38 with 6x50s.
-
I have seen a fair share of wings being rip off, entire tails being blown off, but that's up close. My aim sucks so bad i don't start shooting till i'm 200 out. One hit at that range and that's it. I used to be able to hit stuff at long range but i quit cause i felt it was wasting ammo when i could get a definite hit at maximum damage and be done with it. I'm not that accurate Hoarach, plus 10-12 kills, what usually happens is i dogfight 1 target and after i'm done with him all the MA sees me and i've got 10-12 Spitfires on my tail and no e, a 2 kill mission is lucky for me. Seems you have to bleed your E to get a shot at all those turny little planes they in the Ma nowadays. Anyway i've been a little dissapointed by all i've heard historically about the P-38's guns and then see how it acts in the Ma. Maybe AH is not totally accurate
-
Oh yea i sometimes wonder why the Army air corp didn't mount two Hispanos in the nose, Too heavy you think?
-
I think you're setting yourself up for disappointment here Led. What source did you get this impression from? Probably pilots telling stories I'm guessing... think about what they're saying and look @ what they had to complare it to. The 38 has arguably the best gun package in the stable of US frontline fighters.. you can argue the P47 I'm sure. But the 4 .50 x 1 20mm centrally mounted is pretty potent compared to the usual 4 or 6 wing mounted .50's. Plus anyone going from a trainer w/ 1-2 guns to the 38 would be amazed by it's firepower. That coupled w/ human tendency to exagerate and 50-60 years. You kinda gotta take it w/ a grain of salt.
Also I think wing mounted guns here in AH had a slight advantage of the ranger finder on the icon so you can hit @ convergence.. I think you could guage distance by using the ring and bead gunsights but I still think our little cartoon pilots have a edge in range guestamation.
-
P-38 guns are one of the most lethal MG setups in the game. It's one of the few planes you can consistently (and easily) get kills after you run out of cannon ammo.
-
I have yet to see guncam footage of .50 cals doing catastrophic structural damage. I believe it to be a myth. All I’ve seen are engine smoke, radiator hits and fuel fires. In AH, fuel fires are the oddities while structural failures are the norm.
-
Madman, you forget that AH is but a game, a game without the hundreds of thousands of vital components that -- in real life -- are necessary to keeping that plane functioning. Without said components, AH cannot simulate their damage -- the next best way (and the same end result) is to rip the wing off after so much damage. Hey it's not the best, but there's no way you can simulate real life damage in AH. Just not possible with any team and with any hardware.
-
Actually there are plenty of better ways to model it. Look at Il2FB for instance. Wing strikes could easily be modeled to have a % chance of disabling control surfaces and equipment in that wing without the components actually falling off. In fact if you shoot someone’s flaps off in AH they are actually still there, just jammed, but we see them fall off. Makes no sense at all. Having a 10-ton bomber fall apart like aluminum confetti because you shoot at it with a machinegun is nothing but laughable. Only heavy cannon did that kind of damage.
-
IL2 is primarily an offline game. It was designed for that. Offline games can keep track of thousands of more components, because they only have one thing to track -- the player craft.
AH has 500+ people logged in at any given time. The amount of info being sent back and forth (nonstop) needs to be balanced big time -- same goes for any online game. You simply can't have a "realistic" damage model because you have to track everything, whether it's on, off, broken, damaged, holed, leaking, smoking, shredded, etc etc.
So IL2's damage model (which I have issues with anyways) will not work in AH, due to how much info is tracked.
-
You’re mistaken. AH’s damage modeling is done on the front-end. The different damage states are transmitted when the damage occurs. It doesn’t matter if you have 10 components or 100.
Btw. Il2FB is now running 128 players in the same game. 128 players in the same area in AH still strangle the net code and we get massive warping and disappearing planes.
-
128 player in the same game in il2 and 750 in the same game in ah2, compare what goes together.
P38 guns are great. Try to fly a C202 or a P40b for a few month and you ll get tons of kills with the p38 guns afterwards.
-
IL2 is primarily an offline game. It was designed for that. Offline games can keep track of thousands of more components, because they only have one thing to track -- the player craft.
AH has 500+ people logged in at any given time. The amount of info being sent back and forth (nonstop) needs to be balanced big time -- same goes for any online game. You simply can't have a "realistic" damage model because you have to track everything, whether it's on, off, broken, damaged, holed, leaking, smoking, shredded, etc etc.
You grossly underestimate the power of the net.
AH already (probably) deals in as much information which you'd presume 'too many track'. It already deals in plenty of complex equations involving many factors such as penetration, bullet strike angles, kinetics, and etc etc.. Besides, IL-2 itself deals in as many as 128 people on-line with no problems at all in depicting detailed damage situations, as long as a mere player-downloaded dedicated server program is in place. I'd sincerely doubt the equipment at HTC offices would not be anything more powerful than a dedicated server program.
The perceived problem at hand is concerned with in which manner the information is manifested into in-game reality, not the number of variables to calculate. The only reason AH doesn't have a 'realistic damage model' is it started off without it in the first place, and it would need a total overhaul in the DM system to depict damage in that manner. And when the developers are already hard-pressed with the development of the CT, the new interface, and redoing 3D modelling which has got a long long long long long long long long way to go, it's no wonder they could hardly find time to start another fundamentally influential change such as redoing the DM from scratch.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The only reason AH doesn't have a 'realistic damage model' is it started off without it in the first place, and it would need a total overhaul in the DM system to depict damage in that manner. And when the developers are already hard-pressed with the development of the CT, the new interface, and redoing 3D modelling which has got a long long long long long long long long way to go, it's no wonder they could hardly find time to start another fundamentally influential change such as redoing the DM from scratch.
I think you've got a big point there
-
Kweassa is right. In Il2 you can run a 128 player server at home with no super connection or computer. AH has dedicated server farms.
If the makers of Il2 or even 3rd party modders made a server based “war” with strategy, nifty statistics and squads like in AH. HTC would quickly find themselves out of business.
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
I've always been led to believe that the P-38 gun arrangement was pretty deadly, but i've been pretty dissapointed by the stopping power in the game. You have to spray them a number of times to get a kill whereas a Spit will cheew you up on first pass. I've always heard the 38's guns in the Pacific would eat a Jap plane alive, Japanese planes being sawed in half was not uncommon, even German planes bit the dust. Does the fact that the guns are so concentrated make up for the fact it has one hispano, other planes have more than one cannon and 6 or 8 50 cal's while the 38 only has 4 50's and one hispano. Does the concentration make up for it's lack of guns?
The P-38 guns are lethal in AH but not as they were in RL. In RL they had a little more punch and pilots described the hitting power of the first burst as a shotgun blast and substained bursts cutting through planes like a buzz saw. That's something that isn't true in AH but it's close enough that it's not an issue. Even without the 20mm cannon, the concentrated firepower of the 4x .50cals will easily remove vital parts with a burst. But as someone pointed out, a lot depends on other factors such as gunnery skill and where you hit the target. If you hit the target in a well protected area then the damage won't be as great as hitting the target in a less protected or weak spot. That's why I primarily aim for 3 spots, the engine, wing root area and tail and make sure that I get in close (400 yards or closer) so I have a better chance of hitting the target and doing severe, if not fatal damage. YMMV.
ack-ack
-
u might be having the "rubber bullet" problem. Alot of guys are screaming about it in the m/a, im one of them. Ill com up on one spit and rip off both wings on one pass, then the next one sucks up damage like a il2. maybe thats the problem.
i never seen 750 people in the m/a, at the most u see 500.When is ct goin to be done,
-
I'm not sure what you consider "deadly" guns. This is no 30mm bombs.
The P-38 has more effective guns than the P-47. You may have 8*0.5 in the jug but they come at two sets of four. This means that unless you are very close to convergence range you hit two places on the enemy airplane. If you shoot at point blank in a P47N, the guns sets are so wide apart that you'd hit both wingtips of an La7. So localy you only hit with 4*0.5 guns - same as the P38 but with no 20mm and a wacky aim.
Now throw in the Hispano which is worth another 3-4*0.5 hitting at the exact same location and snap shots with the 38 are more effective than the P47. Unless you really know how to utilize all the 8 guns (firing at convergence, rolling so snap shots are cross nose instead of up/down), P-38 has better hitting power than a P47.
Bozon
-
lol bozon is right, i have done that before in a 47. get close up and start shootin and the plane fits right in between my coverage lol.
-
Originally posted by Hoarach
Your kidding right Ledpig?
The guns are very deadly on the 38. You can get 10-12 kills when the cannon runs out and the other 1200 mgs can get you another 6 kills. Its all about accuracy. If you know the weakspots of each plane you know where to aim. Such as a spit aim for the wings or a 51 aim for the engine. Its all about knowing a planes strength spots and weak spots. But like you said about a zeke just drop a match on the zeke and it will go boom so saying something about a jap plane isnt all that good of an example.
Just pray that HT puts in a 38L super strafer (38 with 12x50s). Ill at least settle for a 38 with 6x50s.
All hail Hoarach, the only person I know that can aim directly at a wing, nose, tail etc in a dog fight.
LEDPIG, do you have any evidence that supports this ? Like WW2 gun cam footage ?
-
Another factor to consider is that pilots who are used to 6-8 wing mounted guns can be at a disadvantage in that they don't have the shotgun effect with the bullets.
I a P-51 or P-47, you can be a few feet off target and with all those bullets firing in a cone pattern, a few rounds are bound to hit something just by sheer percentages, while the "Firehose" stream from a P-38 (or Bf-109) is much more demanding of pinpoint accuracy. They're very rewarding of a good shot, but it's also much easier to bejust enough off target to have what should have been a kill shot miss a vital area or go wide altogether than with the wide-pattern fire of the other types.
-
I don't know about you, but I have no trouble with the 38's guns. Usually a quick burst on any of the main fighters in the MA (spit, 109, la, n1k) will rip its wing right off. The other day I was rtb because of ammo, I had no cannon left and only 24 50 cal left. A 110 was vulching the field I needed to land at, and I was able to get behind it and kill it with the remaining 24 rounds.
-
Originally posted by Kazaa
All hail Hoarach, the only person I know that can aim directly at a wing, nose, tail etc in a dog fight.
It's actually easier than you think. I do the same thing, depending on my angles I'll either aim for the engine, wing root or tail area.
ack-ack
-
I shoot in the direction the sound is comming from. That's why I need all 3400 bullets.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The only reason AH doesn't have a 'realistic damage model' is it started off without it in the first place, and it would need a total overhaul in the DM system to depict damage in that manner. And when the developers are already hard-pressed with the development of the CT, the new interface, and redoing 3D modelling which has got a long long long long long long long long way to go, it's no wonder they could hardly find time to start another fundamentally influential change such as redoing the DM from scratch.
Kweassa has a good point, as usual. I just wish the damage model had received even a fraction of the work what they have poured to the CT development over the years..
About the P-38 guns then, I usually don't fly the P-38, but my impression is at the receiving end that you are very close to be sent to the tower when that plane points its nose at you. I suggest that Ledpig tries to fly with a 109 F4 or G2 and for a while and then switch back to the P-38. You'll learn that the 38 is actually pretty nice plane to fly and packs quite deadly guns :)
-
lol you guys don't aim for an exact point or part on an enemy airplane?
Good for Ack-Ack and Hoarach at least then, lol.
:confused:
-
All my planes i fly have te wing mounted 50s, i dont aim at parts of the plane i just put the con in the sight or get tracers in front of the con.my converages have a decent set so they take something off whether its the tail wings or ur engine. I have had ALOT of time when i come out on a con and take both his wings off in a pass. I noe its not what u vets do but it gets the job done every time.
I tryed the 38 for alittle and i really dont like nose mounted weapons, its supposed to be easier to aim but i cant shoot wit it to save my life:lol . I need my guns on the wings.
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
Oh yea i sometimes wonder why the Army air corp didn't mount two Hispanos in the nose, Too heavy you think?
(http://479th.jasminemarie.com/images/2-20mm.jpg)
-
Rather than add a second 20MM to the 4 50's, they should have just installed 4 20MM cannons with about 250-300 rounds each instead. As hard as planes with 4 20's hit, imagine 4 20's in the nose of a P-38.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Rather than add a second 20MM to the 4 50's, they should have just installed 4 20MM cannons with about 250-300 rounds each instead. As hard as planes with 4 20's hit, imagine 4 20's in the nose of a P-38.
Mmmmmm....4x 20mm cannons mounted in the nose...chubby time!
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
imagine 4 20's in the nose of a P-38.
I imagine....
and I see a mosquito! :D
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
I have yet to see guncam footage of .50 cals doing catastrophic structural damage. I believe it to be a myth. All I’ve seen are engine smoke, radiator hits and fuel fires. In AH, fuel fires are the oddities while structural failures are the norm.
Not sure if it's .50 but I'm thinking it is.
Looks like something flies off. May not be catastrophic but I'd guess if enough hits were made, might just take off a bigger piece.
109 (http://home.comcast.net/~hudcomp/109.wmv)
Breakup (http://home.comcast.net/~hudcomp/AHII/breakup.wmv)
Bronk
Edit: just checked what that fg flew . They flew 51/47 so it was .50s.
-
I have yet to see guncam footage of .50 cals doing catastrophic structural damage. I believe it to be a myth. All I’ve seen are engine smoke, radiator hits and fuel fires. In AH, fuel fires are the oddities while structural failures are the norm.
- uvwpvW
Not sure if it's .50 but I'm thinking it is.
Looks like something flies off. May not be catastrophic but I'd guess if enough hits were made, might just take off a bigger piece.
-bronk
I'm no expert at this, but the way the 'blast' definately seems to indicate .50 API rounds rather than 20mm shells. Again, since I'm no expert I can't say I've seen at every guncam footage nor my comments are entirely accurate, but I did make some observations and small analysis in the guncams Mosq was grateful enough to post.
The footage which would provide helpful info, in this case, would be the 'breakup' footage Mosq posted and Bronk linked to this thread. My observation (as you can also see in the main forums in Mosq's thread) is;
The "break-up" footage is one of the very rare cases I've ever seen a Luftwaffe plane go through an immediate, abrupt structural failure by being shot with .50s. I'm no expert, and the guncam footages I've seen are merely what goes around in the internet, but in most cases the .50s would rarely cause such a sudden, catastrophic structural failure. At first I suspected the .50s might have detonated the ammunition of the gondolas, but the target 109 was clearly in clean configuration with no gunpods.
I looked at frame to frame and realized the .50s, landed a remarkably well grouped barrage of shots concentrated on the left wing of the 109, just a to little bit left of the radiator exhaust. A near perfect shot, in perfect convergence - one of the best shots I've ever seen in guncam films. Probably sawed right through the segments of wing spars there.
-kweassa
I'm not aware of what kind of plane the guncam footage is from, but if it is from standard P-51s or P-47s that kind of perfect shot is rare. The great average of what we'd see in guncams is usually a barrage of .50s spread out through a certain sizeable area on the target plane. You'd usually see something like the smoke, flash, puff and debris from the tail section, rudder, elevators, wingroots, and etc etc.. - hits landing in a quite wide pattern on the enemy plane.
But the 'breakup' footage clearly shows you what the .50s can do when they land at its ideal pattern. It literally saws it off. I haven't seen any internal 'detonation' manifest before the left wing snaps off, so it seems to be clearly a result of .50s 'sawing them off' instead of 'blowing something inside the wing, that causes subsequential structural failure'.
My 2cents.
-
PS)
Went through the 'breakup footage' again.
It seems some of the left wing still stays intact despite the 'breakup' - I'm not sure, but to me it looks like something caused a big chunk of the trailing edge part of the left wing to fall of. The concentrated barrage of the .50s must have detached or sawed off something vital to keep that part together - but most parts of the left wing, are still left intact.
I went through again on the part the 109 flips over, and noticed something I haven't seen before. The 'flipping over' might not have been entirely the result of the parts of the left wing falling off. Just as the shots begin to land, I've noticed what seems to be the aierlon deflected.
The first group of shots land near the left wingroot (and parts of the left rear fuselage). After that the barrage concentrates on the middle of the wing. The last, final big incendiary flash lands on the left wing, at the right edge of the left aielron and bam! The left aileron is suddenly deflected. However, the right aileron is not.
It could be something just hanging loose, instead of being an aileron, but if it is indeed an aileron, then the deflection wasn't caused by the pilot, since the right aileron stays neutral. There was no pilot input, the barrage of shots caused some kind of malfunction of the controls, the left aileron deflects, as a big chunk of the left wing falls out, abrupt change in the attitude of the attitude of the airflow on the left wing, and the 109 is 'snaprolled'. The speed of the 'roll', and attitude of it clearly indicates the plane being out of control, while the large part of the left wing is still intact.
So now..
I'm not sure if it was really the result of .50s "sawing off" the leftwing.
-
Here's a sequence of gun camera frames showing a 109 getting clobbered by .50 cals at high deflection. Notice that HTC has managed to duplicate hits rather well.
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-09.jpg)
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-10.jpg)
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-11.jpg)
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-12.jpg)
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-13.jpg)
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-14.jpg)
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/339/gun/r59-15.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here's an interesting montage of gun camera film (some in color), mostly from P-38s in the SWPA. Be advised, Active X must be enabled.
Gun Camera Footage (http://www.pacificghosts.com/video/guncamera/index.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Why all this video footage of 109's getting ther arses kicked??:cry
wheres all the German footage shooting down spits and ponies and buffs??? :confused:
-
OH NO! It's a Luftwhiner!
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
OH NO! It's a Luftwhiner!
ack-ack
chillax it aint that serious...
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
OH NO! It's a Luftwhiner!
ack-ack
Don't make any sudden movements....they ARE an endangered species, you know....
-
NO but seriously all Luftwhines aside, anybody know of any german guncam footage?
-
Originally posted by Platano
NO but seriously all Luftwhines aside, anybody know of any german guncam footage?
Luftwaffe gun camera video on DVD (http://rareaviation.com/store/cart.php?target=product&product_id=2956&category_id=922)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Kweassa
IMHO
What it looks like to me in the break up is...
The attacker gets good hits on the wing tip and it more or less splits open.
It doesn't look like an aileron that far out and that small. There is no right aileron deflection. The outer part of the left wing does come off.
I think that is significant structural damage .
Bronk
-
It's a bit confusing for sure.
When the initial attack happens, and parts start flying out, it looks like the whole left wing has snapped. Especially when you see the violent spinning out of control, you get the impression that the structural damage done to the left wing was something severe.
But as I look frame by frame after the 109 goes into its first spin, when it becomes inverted, the more I look at it the more it feels like the entire left wing is almost unharmed.. follow the lines of the edges and the wing is still there...
Frankly, I'm a bit stumped. The only incidence I can imagine of a plane going into that kind of spin is when one wing is snapped off.. yet a large part of the wing still remanins intact... Could partial structural failure evoke such violent spinning out of control, despite a large part of the wing staying intact? While AH is merely a game when a plane loses half a wing still many of them remains control for quite some time with desparate pilot input on the stick to stabilize the plane.
Could it be because the pilot was already dead when the 'breakup' happened?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Not sure if it's .50 but I'm thinking it is.
Looks like something flies off. May not be catastrophic but I'd guess if enough hits were made, might just take off a bigger piece.
109 (http://home.comcast.net/~hudcomp/109.wmv)
Breakup (http://home.comcast.net/~hudcomp/AHII/breakup.wmv)
Bronk
Edit: just checked what that fg flew . They flew 51/47 so it was .50s.
Very nice. Thanks for posting them!
In the "Breakup" clip it looks like the .50s shredded the skin on the 109's left wingtip. Aerodynamic forces then twisted the wingtip structure inducing uncontrolled clockwise roll (in opposite direction to if the left wing had lost lift).
This does not constitute a catastrophic structural failure in my opinion, but it is clearly catastrophic damage. In any case it is hardly "sawing" the wing in two as some have stated.
The British and US correctly identified fire as the primary cause of aircraft destruction. Thus the .50 API round was specifically designed to punch through light armor and ignite fuel.
I have now seen one guncam footage of arguable structural failure arguably caused by .50 cal fire. I think my earlier point stands. Structural failures as a result of .50 cal fire were the oddities in WWII. In AH they are the norm.
-
Kweassa , uvwpvW
OT:
I would like to thank you both for your inputs on the films .
Though we may interpret them differently, we kept it civil.
I just wanted to thank you for that. A civil discussion here is rare thing.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
Very nice. Thanks for posting them!
In the "Breakup" clip it looks like the .50s shredded the skin on the 109's left wingtip. Aerodynamic forces then twisted the wingtip structure inducing uncontrolled clockwise roll (in opposite direction to if the left wing had lost lift).
This does not constitute a catastrophic structural failure in my opinion, but it is clearly catastrophic damage. In any case it is hardly "sawing" the wing in two as some have stated.
Think of it in game as.. You weakened the wing to the point that aerodynamic forces ripped it off. Instead of it just being sawed off.
The British and US correctly identified fire as the primary cause of aircraft destruction. Thus the .50 API round was specifically designed to punch through light armor and ignite fuel.
I have now seen one guncam footage of arguable structural failure arguably caused by .50 cal fire. I think my earlier point stands. Structural failures as a result of .50 cal fire were the oddities in WWII. In AH they are the norm.
I can't argue with you there . But we also fly our AC unrealistically in game. So I'd assume unrealistic things could happen.
Bronk
-
I just wanted to thank you for that. A civil discussion here is rare thing.
You too
Think of it in game as.. You weakened the wing to the point that aerodynamic forces ripped it off. Instead of it just being sawed off.
Although I’m sure it happened on occasion, I have yet to see that in guncam footage too.
I can't argue with you there . But we also fly our AC unrealistically in game. So I'd assume unrealistic things could happen.
Yes AH is unrealistic and that is the very issue here; shouldn’t we strive to make it more realistic?
-
Originally posted by Murdr
(http://479th.jasminemarie.com/images/2-20mm.jpg)
Jeez Murdr where'd you get this picture? :confused: :O
-
Widewing, your the man for posting all this guncamera footage. You always add something interesting to the disscusion. Thanks! :D
P.S you writing an aviation book anytime soon? I'd buy it :D