Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: skernsk on October 15, 2006, 08:03:35 PM
-
I am sure this has been discussed and argued about but I am wondering if these guns are modelled correctly. I am no expert on guns, aircraft or making games.
After flying in the Battle of Britain scenario and emptying my 303's into Ju's and 109's with little or no effect I felt compelled to post about it. With CT coming out I gotta say I aint looking forward to flying early war RAF birds with these pathetic guns.
So, here is my take.
50 cals at convergence take very few rounds to saw a wing off. 303 rounds at convergence MIGHT put a hole in the wing but won't even take off an aileron.
Does anyone else feel these 303's need some tweaking?
-
Yes. Take 8 .303's and shoot them at something and see what happens to it. Especially with the RoF they have.
-
it's all about convergence there skernsk.
For me...I think 150 is as close as they get and that's what I use. Fly right up behind the bad guy and let him have it from close range.
-
How it's modelled in the sim I don't know, but THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm) gives you a glimpse of RL.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by skernsk
Does anyone else feel these 303's need some tweaking?
Usually folks make the mistake of thinking that .303s should act like 20mm cannon or .50 MGs. They don't. After all, they are .30 caliber cartridges, almost the same as in your hunting rifle.
Set your convergence to 175. Take no shot over 200. Forget about snap shots. But once you get on someone's six, and close up, .303s really chop the poor man to pieces.
- oldman
-
I understand they are rifle calibre and not as heavy as a 50 cal. And they are not even close to a 20mm so we won't even bring them up.:D
I guess for me, I looked at my film and had some shots right around the covergence (I set mine at 200) and the bloody plane didn't even lose a scrap of metal or smoke or nothing.
Like I said, I aint no expert, it just doesn't seem right. I've seen BoB film and the plane is being torn by 303's.
-
Aces high has an "all or nothing" damage model. You hit a part of the plane (say, the inner wing) and you do X damage. That part has a Y threshold for damage. When X is equal to or greater than Y that part falls off. Oh sure there's internal parts like gas tanks and whatnot, but that's the VERY basic description of it.
Historically there were lots of things to hit. Vital parts. No part of the airplane's wings or nose went un-used. Sometimes the tails had some room left, but not always. So historically when you shot at a plane you would:
1) scare the pilot, because he's being shot at and wants to live badly, and he will exit the fight and go home
2) damage important systems, like oil, gas, hydraulics, air equipment, fuel lines, control rods, instruments, you name it. If any part of the plane was damaged, chances are the pilot would run for home quickly.
3) .303 bullets do damage from kinetic energy. That is, they move real fast and smash into something. If they move slower, they don't smash as hard. This means if you fire at ranges above 200 yards, you lose a lot of the "punch" these guns had. Remember, they were historically fired at 150 yards or less, sometimes.
4) bombers in real life didn't "cruise" at full throttle, as they do in Aces High. AH has bomber speeds WAY too high, because nobody cruises. Historically they would cruise the entire time, because fuel was life, and ranges were not scaled down like AH has. Because they're going almost twice as fast, your attack on them has a slower relative closing rate. This means that if the enemy bomber were going 200mph and you dove in at 400mph, your bullets would do more damage (at the same range) than they would if the bomber were doing 300mph and you were doing 400mph. Less punch, diminished fire, and they're bombers so I'm guessing you opened fire at longer range.
All this means you get the feeling that these guns aren't doing anything. That's because, while they may be modeled accurately (who knows), they are NOT being used historically, so the results are not going to be the same. I like to think AH2 tries to be accurate, but not historic. That's part of the fun :)
-
It's actually combination of three related problems, skernsk.
* convergence issues
* the "all or nothing" DM
* easy gunnery
1. Convergence Issues
The convergence problem is as described by many, including Mr. Tony Williams in his web article. The .303 are able to do meaningful damage in the game as well, but most often convergence issues are a probelm as the Spit1 and Hurr1 both equips the guns at the wings. Because the 30cal rounds are much weaker in destructive power than compared to the 50cals, the problem of "hitting distance" is pretty serious when flying those two planes. In other words, the shots must be fired at close ranges, all guns converged at target, in a concentrated stream of fire.
If any of these three conditions are not met, than it is most likely you won't be able to shoot anything down.
2. DM problem
The Damage Modelling problem is as Krusty mentioned. AH deals damage in "all or nothing" manner. A certain part functions to its 100% efficiency before it is destroyed. Your wing could be "1 bullet" away from being destroyed and yet it will function perfectly, whereas in real life the results could be very different.
Due to the convergence problems stated above it is quite possible an enemy plane might not face immediate destruction despite prolonged exposure to 30cal fire. It is very possible that you "light up the enemy plane like Christmas tree" and he is still flying. However, the barrage of bullets SHOULD take its toll at some point. All those bullets landed might have missed a critical component absolutely necessary for flight, but it is bound to have hit something that at least effects the plane in some manner. The control cables, rods, internal spars, various engine components, not to mention the exterior skin of the plane being serious tattered and flimsy.. etc etc..
All of this leads to loss of various performance, speed.. stability.. control effectiveness.. etc etc.. which will ultimately act in favor of the attacker, making it possible to finally land a "close range, all guns converged, concentrated stream of fire" as a coup-de-grace.
However, there's no such thing in AH. Scrape the entire plane surface with a whole lot of bullets, and still if it is not enough to cause a structural damage, then the enemy plane flies fine.
3. Easy Gunnery
This problem is not as much recognized as the previous two problems listed, but it also subtley effects the outcome.
AH gunnery is easy - in terms of general hitting distance, that is. Shots fired from 300~400 yard ranges are common, and the probability of a killing blow landing on the plane is pretty high. Now, this is an improvement when compared with AH1 - which I remember to have a average "killing distance" of bout 500~600 yards. When you look behind and see an enemy plane at 500~600 yards you were practically dead in AH1. Nowadays this "killing distance" has been reduced to 200~400 yard ranges.
However, this range is still much too long. The real life maximum distance where a kill may be obtained, has been estimated to 200m for a fighter, and 400m for a bomber, when flying straight and level. Yes, there are occasional "freak shots" happening sometimes even out to 1000yards, but commonplace reality is that you should be within at least 200 yards to be able to expect a kill by shooting at an enemy plane. and inside 100 yards, if he is maneuvering.
Now, how does this involve the 30cal problem? It is because the 30cals are the only weapons that require a very close vicinity, which only then it will be able to land converged shots with enough destructive force to bring down a plane. The 50cals and 20mms, do not require such distances in AH. You can spray with the 50cals or 20mms from 400~600 yards out and it will still bring a plane down. Yes, 50cals and 20mms are powerful enough to bring a plane down at those distances, but the frequency of such incidients happening is way too high in AH that it is considered a 'normal killing distance', when in reality it should be considered as a very far distance to try and bring down an enemy plane.
Therefore, when you are armed with 30cals, you should fly within 200yards to expect a heavily grouped hit, but the same should also apply to 50cals and 20mms - it doesn't matter what weapon you are armed with in aerial combat. The reality is long distance shots just don't happen. 50cals and 20mms should also fly inside 200yards to be able to hit something - but this is not the case in AH, and therefore, the relative effectiveness between 30cals and 50cal/20mms are amplified to abnormal levels - 50cals/20mms are too effective over long distances.
-
Just expanding the question a little here, based on your post Kweassa, regarding easy gunnery. Could you expound on that a little. I know U.S. planes generally set their convergence at 300m and most of the aces say they quickly learned to not shoot beyond that range. Some even say to get closer before the shot. What's missing in AHII that makes the gunnery so much different? Is there a way to accurately model that difference?
I always love that 1.0K 20mm shot that pops my wing off.
-
Hi Tony,
>How it's modelled in the sim I don't know, but THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm) gives you a glimpse of RL.
Interesting article!
Two comments: There were hardly any Me 109E-3 lost during the Battle of Britain, just a fair number of E-1 versions and a large number of E-4s. Conversion of the E-3s to E-4s seems to have been almost complete when the battle commenced.
And what does "in total muzzle energy there was nothing to choose between them" mean? (My knowledge of English seems to suggest that this is a way of saying "total muzzle energy was equal", but I'm not certain that's correct.) In terms of total muzzle energy, the 2x MG17 + 2x MG FF actually yielded about 2.5 times the firepower of 8x Browning 0.303 ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I read it as saying between the .303 and the 7.9mm rounds, muzzle velocity of the round was basically the same.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
And what does "in total muzzle energy there was nothing to choose between them" mean? (My knowledge of English seems to suggest that this is a way of saying "total muzzle energy was equal", but I'm not certain that's correct.) In terms of total muzzle energy, the 2x MG17 + 2x MG FF actually yielded about 2.5 times the firepower of 8x Browning 0.303 ...
I was comparing the total kinetic energy delivered per second of firing.
Muzzle energy of one shot from a .303 was around 3,200 Joules, for a 7.92mm 4,000 J and for the 20x80RB 22,500 J.
Shots fired in one second: 8 x .303 = 160, x 3,200 = 512,000 J
(2 x 7.92mm = 33, x 4,000 = 132,000 J) + (2 x 20mm = 17, x 22,500 = 382,000) = 514,000 J
So, effectively no difference. Of course, as the article says, you then need to add the chemical energy of the projectile contents, which gives the cannon a big advantage.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I'd love to see stuff like shredding a guy's wing, even if it stays attached, leads to loss of lift and control because the airfoil is torn up.
-
"The Bf 109E-4, which entered service in May 1940 and was therefore the latest model used at the time of the BoB, introduced the MG-FFM cannon. "
Interesting, I wonder which cannon our E4 has?
-C+
PS. Check this out, some weird data here:
http://www.hoofsperformance.wwiionline.com/weapammo.htm
-
Hi Tony,
>I was comparing the total kinetic energy delivered per second of firing.
Ah, I see! I had mentally pictured "total total" energy, which lead me to arrive at a different comparison :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The problem isn't the .303s, it's the other weapons. Most of the firearms in Aces High are far, far too powerful against aircraft structure, at least. The primary cause of aircraft loss by enemy action in World War Two was fire, followed by pilot death. Last of all was catastrophic structural failure. In Aces High, however, the primary cause of death is pilot death, followed closely by catastrophic structural failure. In the game, fire is the very least common cause of aircraft loss by enemy action.
Last time I remarked on this, I was flamed to Berlin and back. But do some research. Read some wartime reports on the subject, and spend half an hour browsing through gun camera footage. Make a note of how often you see fire, and how seldom you see structural failure of any type, even from cannon fire. Indeed, almost all of the few times you see structural failure, it's either a FW-190 getting hit in its Mark 108 ammunition containers in the wings, or a Japanese featherweight airplane. Many films show several seconds of constant hits from cannons (you can tell that they are not heavy machine guns because there are explosions and not simply "sparkles" or flashes) without the aircraft being visably affected, barring large chunks of skin falling away.
Speaking of ammunition, the only time ammunition will make a big kaboom is if there are warheads. Thirty and fifty caliber rounds do not make a large explosion when hit, but merely "cookoff." They pop and burn. Mark 108s, on the other hand, are hefty grenades and a disaster waiting to happen.
-
I'd certainly agree with you as far as the gun camera footage goes. Saw a clip of a P-47 saddled up on a 109. The P-47 was probably 100 meters behind, if that, and was getting lots of hits. The 109 was getting chewed up a good bit, but trailing just a bit of smoke. No visible fire. Small pieces coming off the 109. Plane kept flying down to the deck and augered in pretty much intact. Lots of PTO pilot reports talk about "I must have killed the pilot, because he just rolled over and hit the ground/water..."
-
Flying in the MA with light armament normally means you get HO'ed a lot.
But in RL, as in the BoB, the difference in firepower wasn't THAT much.
In RL, getting a rifle bullet through your aircraft is rather....bad. There is more than just armour to penetrate, and if you get close enough and hose an aircraft structure with .303's, it's not too pleasant.
Aim your .303 at the wings or engines. In my 2 little hops in the last BoB scenario, I killed 2 LW aircraft, a JU 88 and a 109, in both cases sawing off parts. Wasn't THAT close, but the shooting was good :D
-
Hi Benny,
>Last time I remarked on this, I was flamed to Berlin and back. But do some research. Read some wartime reports on the subject, and spend half an hour browsing through gun camera footage. Make a note of how often you see fire, and how seldom you see structural failure of any type, even from cannon fire.
Hm, though you mention cannon fire, the rest of your post seems to imply that you viewed mostly Allied gun camera films (of which of course more were filmed, and more have survived), and with the relatively weak effect of heavy machine guns, I'd expect about the results you describe.
However, German wartime combat experience and ballistic research indicated that the way to kill an aircraft (any aircraft, including fighters) quickly and with a high probability was to cause structural failure by exploding charges within the structure to blow off the load-bearing skin and ruin the structural integrity of the target aircraft.
This lead to the development for the mine rounds, which quickly became the main ammunition type for German fighters in WW2, and which were adopted world-wide after WW2.
Your research, however, is validated with regard to Allied aircraft by US post-war research that (according to Roger Freeman's P-51 book) indicated that the most effective round used in the 12.7 mm machine guns was the armour-piercing incendiary round, which had the capability to start a catastrophic fire in the target aircraft, just as you pointed out.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
No, I also have watched a considerable amount of Luftwaffe gun camera footage. Nowhere have I witnessed the sort of violent demolition of aircraft from two or three cannon rounds as we have in the simulator and which you suggest is correct. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a single video of an American fighter suffering loss of a wing or tail from a German fighter. The only time I've seen that sort of destruction is when the aircraft is bearing explosive payloads or is a Japanese lightweight. If you look at diagrams of the internal structures of aircraft such as the P-47, P-38, and P-51, it will become immediately apparent why the removal of skin, stressed though it may be, was not a significant problem for United States fighters.
Below is a well-known example of the kind of damage cannons can do to well-built (anything not Japanese) aircraft. American aircraft, in particular, were extremely sturdy, structurally speaking. Note that the skin is indeed flying off of the aircraft, as the explosive rounds were designed to do. But do we see wings, fuselages, and other things being removed? Copy and paste.
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/6.avi
Here are more examples if you think that the above film is an exception to the rule. These are readily available and easily found and most people here should be familiar with them. In the last one, if you do not feel like watching the entire compilation, skip forward to two minutes and ten seconds to see an impressive display of the structural might of a heavy bomber. Try replicating this in the simulator. I promise you, you cannot.
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/11.mpeg
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/10.mpeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjlN49szFOc
-
Always the question, where does the bullet hit, at what angle, what does it penetrate, what does it break, does it start fire etc etc.
Is it control cables, wires, the oxygen bottle, the pilot, the ammo casing in the wing guns, control surfaces, hinges,, things related to instruments or weapons, fuel lines, fuel tanks, ordnance, wings, tailplanes, stabs, rudder, the radio, windshield, undercarriage, radiator, oil cooler, and I'm not into anything that a .303 could not do! It's not all about just punching through the armour. But that's where the big guns start shining. There is nothing they won't screw up! They'll knock off many times more than the .303 with a single shot, they'll slam through armour, they rip skin, they punch through entire structures, they penetrate into an engine's chamber, they go through .... a lot.
I've looked at footages, seen lots of pictures, and read lots of reports.
The mine rounds that HoHun mentioned were the nightmare of bombers, since a single one could blow big holes into the structure.
(for that sake, if you look at the inside of WW2 bombers, almost anything will be dangerous to the crew, especially gunnersand navigators. On 200 yards my .22 magnum will penetrate a barrel, which is vastly thicker than aircraft skin, and .22 mag is just a friction of a humble .303)
There are thousands of examples where just the .303 knocked down bombers, and DeWilde ammunition would on many occations "flame" enemy aircraft. I even remember an account where a Stuka got peppered to death with only 2x.303's!
Going up to Hispanos was already a big steps, that's where I started running across things like "parts flying of the enemy aircraft", and "it was incredible how much damage those little cannons could do with only a few rounds", and "with only 13 rounds fired the enemy aircraft (maybe it was 2) was/were down, up to "the enemy aircraft exploded (HO situation) and I flew through the wreckage".
So goes the story. bigger and bigger guns and rounds, - more and more effect. But you can still kill almost anything up close with a .303
-
Originally posted by HoHun
However, German wartime combat experience and ballistic research indicated that the way to kill an aircraft (any aircraft, including fighters) quickly and with a high probability was to cause structural failure by exploding charges within the structure to blow off the load-bearing skin and ruin the structural integrity of the target aircraft.
Hm... if that had been true, the Germans would have used only "minen" type projectiles when available for the gun. But in reality they used various compositions of mixed ammunition (according to p. 32 in the "Schießfibel" (http://hthttp://rafiger.de/Homepage/Pages/Schiessfibel.html)). Also FAF used mixed composition of ammunition in the MG151/20, containing practically allways armour piercing rounds (the Il-2 was met often).
Below is page 33 from the "Schießfibel" showing the effect of various rounds against different targets. Generally a four engined Bomber was quite soft and large target ie a good target for a "minen" type projectile while an Il-2 was rather hard and small target where AP or API projectiles were better.
gripen
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/852_1161249979_schssf.jpg)
-
I repeat, if you care enough about the issue, watch this large compilation of German gun camera footage. After you have watched it, then restate your claim that the cannon damage in the simulator is correct, if you still believe so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjlN49szFOc
-
Interestingly Butch2k posted following to the ORR (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3821034482/p/3) (translation from a German doc):
"In fighting armored ground-attack aircraft such as the IL 2 up to 50% AP ammunition should be belted (however not for 4 motor bombers, since the best results are obtained with blast and incendiary effect against the nacelle.)"
gripen
-
Mixed belts normally were mixed for a reason.
-
I have a question for Tony, or whoever knows.
Reading the article about BoB, it says RAF selected 225 meters (250 yards?) after trying 360. Does it mean it was the adviced convergence, mandatory convergence...? Did the pilot have a say in the convergence for his plane? I ask mainly because I would like to know if it would be historically "accurate" to fly BoB planes with a custom convergence. Thx.
-
Hi Benny,
>No, I also have watched a considerable amount of Luftwaffe gun camera footage. Nowhere have I witnessed the sort of violent demolition of aircraft from two or three cannon rounds as we have in the simulator and which you suggest is correct.
Hm, slight misunderstanding: I'm not talking about the visual effects in the simulator. In real life, mine shell damage might be relatively subtle: The weakened wing might distort under load enough to send the airplane down out of control without the exact cause being obviously evident to the shooter. From reading combat reports, it seems that the breaking of wings (or "Abmontieren der Flügel" in Luftwaffe slang) usually occurred when an aircraft dived down (out of control) after a hit. The weakened structure could not withstand the increased aerodynamic loads, leading to the failure of the wings.
In the simulator, it appears that the wings tend to break apart as if separating on a design break line, and if it's that what you are concerned about, I'd immediately agree that it's hardly realistic.
I'm glad to hear you have checked Luftwaffe films, too, but personally have to skip them for bandwidth reasons. Thanks for the links anyway :-)
>If you look at diagrams of the internal structures of aircraft such as the P-47, P-38, and P-51, it will become immediately apparent why the removal of skin, stressed though it may be, was not a significant problem for United States fighters.
I'm afraid merely looking at the diagrams will not readily yield that kind of information. A load-bearing skin is just that, and removing it will generate significant problems for any aircraft regardless of its country of origin.
Heavy aircraft require a heavy structure, but you really have to look at the design load multiple to assess the actual strength of the structure, and at the design principle to assess the role of the skin.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well, if you were able to watch that video, you would see dozens of clips of aircraft taking many times more damage from cannon fire than is possible in the game under the best of circumstances. I'm talking about several seconds of constant cannon fire, sometimes even in the same location. In the game, a half second of cannon fire guarantees the destruction of the aircraft.
-
Hi Benny,
>In the game, a half second of cannon fire guarantees the destruction of the aircraft.
Hm, might be question of hit ratio more than of damage modelling.
The Luftwaffe figured that 6 randomly placed 20 mm hits would probably destroy a fighter-sized target. That's a half second of fire - provided that every shot hits.
In real life, usually most shots missed (unless we're talking about guys like Marseille, who was an exceptional marksman, or Hartmann, who often flew very close to the unsuspecting target).
Maybe that's the explanation for the different impressions from the game and from the films? Kweassa has already pointed it out for the 0.303" guns as "easy gunnery" problem, and I think he might be right.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
That surely accounts for some of it. But as I said, in the film which I am referring to there are many shots of aircraft being bombarded for several seconds with cannon, clearly showing dozens and dozens of very visible hits. The Luftwaffe's six round estimation (a lot of people even claim three) is for disabling an aircraft, not structurally destroying it. Cannon rounds, upon detonation, send shrapnel through the structure, doing the same sorts of damage that .303 rounds do. But never, in literally hours of gun camera footage, have I seen an aircraft destroyed by three or even six cannon rounds. As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, I've never seen an aircraft structurally destroyed at all, except for Japanese aircraft and aircraft carrying explosives.
The truth is out there, and readily available for anyone with a halfway decent connection and a few hours to spare. For everyone to insist that the cannon damage is correct without actually watching a few hours (or even half an hour) of real footage is simply intellectual dishonesty. I once more challenge anyone to replicate in the game some of the scenes from the video I linked to, such as the scene at two minutes and ten seconds.
-
Originally posted by Sombra
I have a question for Tony, or whoever knows.
Reading the article about BoB, it says RAF selected 225 meters (250 yards?) after trying 360. Does it mean it was the adviced convergence, mandatory convergence...? Did the pilot have a say in the convergence for his plane? I ask mainly because I would like to know if it would be historically "accurate" to fly BoB planes with a custom convergence. Thx.
Actually the RAF tried several different convergence patterns (and the FAA had their own). This wasn't up to the pilots, each squadron was told what to use and the results compared. I've read a letter from Dowding in which he complained that the Luftwaffe was failing to cooperate with this research because they kept crashing their planes into the sea where they couldn't be examined - I hadn't realised that Stuffy had a sense of humour!
I should point out that the original setting of 400 yards was not decided on in the expectation that that would be the killing distance. What they wanted at first was a spread of fire across the target, preferably covering both engines as well as the fuselage of a twin-engined bomber. They expected shooting to take place within the 200-400 yard zone. With battle experience, they realised that effective shooting took place at a shorter distance, and that the fire of the .303s had to be more concentrated to be effective, so they dropped to 250 yards as standard. When the Hispanos were first issued the RAF wanted them zeroed at 200 yards, but the Spitfire's gunbays weren't wide enough to angle them in that much, so they had to settle for 300.
It is worth stressing a point made in my article: that the planes on both sides got tougher during the summer of 1940, with armour apparently being added in the field as a result of battle experience. So the effectiveness of the .303s - quite good in the Battle of France - was significantly less by the end of the BoB.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
4) bombers in real life didn't "cruise" at full throttle, as they do in Aces High. AH has bomber speeds WAY too high, because nobody cruises.
Neither did the fighters......
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Neither did the fighters......
I think you're in the wrong thread, or is this an analogy to the whole "real world" vs. Aces High portion of this one?
-
no - I know what thread I'm in - just making a counterpoint about Krustys point earlier in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, I've never seen an aircraft structurally destroyed at all, except for Japanese aircraft and aircraft carrying explosives.
There are some few photographs of 8th AF bombers suffering fatal structural damage - one famous one of a B17 with a wing loss caused by 262 fire comes to mind. Otherwise I agree with you. Mathematics to the contrary, crew hits and engine/fuel hits seem to have been the cause of most 8th AF losses.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
no - I know what thread I'm in - just making a counterpoint about Krustys point earlier in this thread.
Sorry, I thought I remembered that quote from another thread...
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
There are some few photographs of 8th AF bombers suffering fatal structural damage - one famous one of a B17 with a wing loss caused by 262 fire comes to mind. Otherwise I agree with you. Mathematics to the contrary, crew hits and engine/fuel hits seem to have been the cause of most 8th AF losses.
Seems that also Luftwaffe believed that engine and fuel line hits were most effective because these were located around the Nacelles (Butch2k's quote above).
gripen
-
Yes, but even then, in the video which no one but me seems to have bothered to watch, several of the bombers take several cannon rounds directly in the engine nacelle without stopping the engine (or, I might add, causing any visible damage). Watch the movie, people! Stop talking about how good cannon damage was and watch the stupid film!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjlN49szFOc
If that's too big for you, then here's a tiny taste. Copy and paste this one.
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/6.avi
-
Hi Benny,
>For everyone to insist that the cannon damage is correct without actually watching a few hours (or even half an hour) of real footage is simply intellectual dishonesty.
There are accepted standards of historical research, and you're invited to prepare an evaluation of gun camera films that actually means anything.
The Luftwaffe figures for how many shells are required to kill aerial targets were actually prepared from gun camera films, complete with knowledge which type of ammunition was used, which belting arrangement was used, and how much ammunition was actually expended.
If you claim to know better than they did just from watching a few hours of footage, that's the same as claiming you can tell that US aircraft won't be affected by the loss of their load-bearing skin just from looking at a cutway diagram: Intellectual stupidity.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Tony,
>I've read a letter from Dowding in which he complained that the Luftwaffe was failing to cooperate with this research because they kept crashing their planes into the sea where they couldn't be examined - I hadn't realised that Stuffy had a sense of humour!
In the Big Wing controversy, he once pointed out that he wasn't ready to accept "a Czech squadron's unchecked claims" as proof of the Big Wing's tactical superiority :-)
By the way, I had known about Dowding's spiritualist ideas for a while, but I was surprised when I learned that Conan-Doyle actually wrote a spiritualist propaganda piece using the characters from his "Lost World" series. Seems spiritualism it was fashionable in Britain for a while?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
The Luftwaffe figures for how many shells are required to kill aerial targets were actually prepared from gun camera films, complete with knowledge which type of ammunition was used, which belting arrangement was used, and how much ammunition was actually expended.
Well, nothing in the LW and FAF material I have indicates that structural damage was the main reason for a kill (naturally there will be structural damage when the plane finaly hits the ground). Infact it seems that the effect of the "minen" type projectiles came from the ability to damage something vital equiment (engine, tanks, fuel line etc.) in the large area near the hit - that is also what quote by Butch2k indicates.
If the structural damage had been the main reason for a kill, there would had been lot of gun camera evidence of that. In reality engine damage and fires seem to by far most common reason for the kill - at least according to the gun camera films, including LW training films.
Originally posted by HoHun
If you claim to know better than they did just from watching a few hours of footage, that's the same as claiming you can tell that US aircraft won't be affected by the loss of their load-bearing skin just from looking at a cutway diagram: Intellectual stupidity.
Generally the WWII planes were stressed for breaking load factors near 10g even in the case of the bombers (assuming that planes were only partially loaded when attacked). Given that normally accelerations over 2-3g are rare for the bombers, it's unlikely that even extensive damage in the skin is fatal. In most cases wing spars were alone stressed for the required loading while function of the skin was to ad torsional stiffness.
gripen
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Hehe, Dowding was a spiritualist indeed. After the war I heard he had been talking of all the dead pilots around him.
Anyway, to the subject. There is more than just guncam. There are stills and there are reports. Both are available in more quantity.
It was mentioned above that often the crew of bombers were being killed.
I have a decent reel of LW interceptions, and I remember a B17 or a B24 being shot up from behind without any return fire.
Then here is a little statement:
Nov 25th 1942, N-Africa, SQN Leader Anthony Bartley
"In the late afternoon, I spotted a formation of Ju 87's, called Mac to act as top cover and led my section to attack them. The Ju 87's dived for the ground when they saw us coming and started a frantic evasive action, twisting like corkscrews. I picked one of them who practically turned himself inside out with contortions before I blew his wing off"
I've got tons of this, really.
-
There seem to be two separate issues here:
1. How effective were cannon hits in shooting down aircraft.
2. How effective were cannon hits in causing catastrophic structural damage to aircraft.
The first one is really beyond question, in my opinion. The way in which the Germans, the Russians and the Japanese, who all had perfectly good HMGs available, all upgraded to 20mm cannon (and 30+mm where they had heavy bombers to deal with) says it all. The German research into the number of hits required for each type of gun to shoot down aircraft (on average) just provides some statistical underpinning to that.
However, I have no idea what percentage of cannon kills were as a result of structural failure, and frankly I don't think it's that important. It was well known that the vast majority of shootdowns of Allied bombers was due to fire, not structural damage. I would expect that more fighters would suffer structural damage, simply because they were smaller, but I have no data on that.
The British tested the MG 151/20 against the Hispano and concluded that while the German mine shells inflicted more blast damage, the Hisso shells penetrated more deeply and were more likely to inflict structural damage.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
"On the topic of the oh-so-vital load-bearing skin, I've seen enough pictures of aircraft with multiple (three or more) gaping holes in their stressed skin from twenty and thirty millimeter cannon fire to believe that three to six rounds could remove a wing or even a stabilizer from the airplanes in question. Here are just a few examples. The last one was a flak hit and I do not know the caliber."
I have seen some pictures too and they tell me pretty much nothing of the ammo used.
Firstly the people who got hit by ground or by aircraft fire could not always be sure what actually hit them. How could they? Did they always see the quad 20mm shooting at them? At that time it probably was very common to "get hit by a 20mm".
But was the damage actually of a bigger grenade passing through the wing without exploding, was the damage actually caused by 13mm HE round (used in FW190A8), was the hole in the tail parts of P38s caused by standard HE or actual Minengeschoss? Pretty much open questions don't you think?
Secondly if people got hit by actual 20/30mm Minengeshoss would they be posing by their damaged a/c or were they actuall scattered in the landscape somewhere? We do not know for sure, because some people never RTB'd and they sure did get hit by something. The time line and german beltings and their changes might give us some clue.
I have seen a few reports of 262 hitting a B17 or a Mossie with 30mm round and the plane survived with rather small damage and RTB'd. However I've also seen the 30mm Minen round test on Blenheim and Spitfire fuselage and the pictures of those suggest that you do not survive a 30mm hit in the wing unless the round passes through the wing and detonates after that. That is because the timing of a fuse is a compromise of how deep it penetrates before detonating.
http://me109.sofiacity.com/Waffen/MK108/MK108_pics/mk108blenheim.jpg
So it is actually only a few cases where people DID really know what hit them. If you are hit by a 109G2 you do know what is cannon damage and what is mg damage because of apparent difference. In case 109G6 hits you the difference may be harder to tell, unless you actually get hit by a 30mm MG that is...
The LW guncam shows a few examples of standard gunnery of that era. Only a few hits grazing or even missing altogether. In those guncams you can even see the exploding rounds hit the propellor. But you cannot be sure what rounds actually hit those planes. 13mm HE or 20mm Minen or HE.
Again something by Butch 2k on another board:
C. BELTING AND PREPARATION
1. GENERAL
(1) The deciding factors for the choice of type of ammunition are:
a) The attainment of the greatest possible effect
b) The reasonable ammunition expenditure corresponding to the supply situation
(2) The unit commander, based on the knowledge of the individual types of ammunition, must strive to achieve the best degree of effect in combat by his choice in belting ammunition. At the same time he must understand that ammunition expenditure must be within the limits of the existing supply situation.
(3) The manufacture of ammunition will immediately incorporate in its production process any new knowledge gained at the front or from experimentation. The troops must be aware of the fact however, that at the appearance of a new effective type of ammunition, manufacture can not be changed over at once. The large supply of existing stocks of previously manufactured types of ammunition can not simply be thrown away but must be used up.
(4) New types of ammunition at the start will always be "scarce items." The supply command must be so elastic, however, as to make them available to the troops (in this case under the con¬cept of issuing the newest stocks first, and utilize the older type of ammunition as a reserve and to fill out shortages.
The effort of Development to provide the troops with more effective means of fighting is defeated if these are not issued until the old stocks are used up.
This is especially true of ammunition, wherein an improve¬ment is made within the same type of ammunition.
II. BELTING
Based on combat experiences in conjunction with comparison and effectiveness tests, and in line with the supply situation, the following suggestion for belting the various types of ammunition can be given.
(1) 13mm weapons (MG 131)
1 13mm Br.Spgr.L’Spur o.Zerl (HEIT not self-destroying)
1 13mm Pzgr.L’spur o.Zerl or 13mm Pzbrgr.Patr.(Ph)El o.Zerl (APT or APIT not self-destroying)
(2) 15mm Weapons (MG 151, MG 151 electric primer).
1 15mm Br.Sprgr.L’Spur m.Zerl (HEIT self-destroying)
1 15mm H.Pzgr.o.Zerl (AP not self-destroying.)
(3) 2 cm weapons (MG 151/20, MG 151/20 electric primer, MG-FFM)
a) Fighter Aircraft on Western Front.
1 2cm M.Gesch.Patr.151 m.Zerl (M-projectile, self-destroying)
1 2cm Brgr.Patr.L’spur 151 m.Zerl (Incendiary Tracer self-destroying)
1 Pzgr.Patr.L’spur 151 o.Zerl (APT not self-destroying)
b) Fighter Aircraft on Eastern Front,
3 2cm M-Gesch.Patr. 151 m.Zerl (M-projectile, self-destroying)
1 2cm Brgr.Patr.L’spur 151 m.Zerl (Incendiary Tracer self-destroying)
1 Pzgr.Patr.L’spur 151 o.Zerl (APT not self-destroying)
c) Night Fighters
Same as a) or b) except for night tracer in place of tracer or without tracer or night tracer.
d) Night Fighters with oblique mounted weapons will belt only M-projectile rounds.
e) Bomber, ground-attack, and fighter aircraft in attacking ground targets, ships and boats,
3 2cm M-Gesch.Patr. o.Zerl (M-projectile, not self-destroying)
1 2cm Pz.Sprgr.Patr.o.Zerl (APHET not self-destroying) or 2cm Br.Sprgr.Patr.o.Zerl (HEI not self destroying) or 2cm Pzbrgr.El (or Ph) o.Zerl (API not self destroying)
(In place of the M-projectile rounds and armor-piercing incendiary rounds it is better here to use up existing stocks of high-explosive-incendiary rounds and armor-piercing high explosive rounds),
(If, due to shortages, self-destroying ammunition is used, an attack altitude of at least 800 meters in horizontal flight must be kept.)
(4) 3 cm Weapons (MK 103)
a) Fighter Aircraft.
1 3cm M-Gesch.Patr.L’spur m.Zerl (M-projectile/tracer, self destroying)
1 3cm Bgr.Patr.103 El.o.Zerl (Incendiary, not self-destroying)
b) Bomber, ground-attack, and fighter aircraft in attacking
ground targets.
3 3cm M.Gesch.Patr.o.Zerl (M-projectile not self-destroying). (Here it is preferable to use up 3cm Spgr.Patr.o.Zerl (HE not self-destroying.)
1 3cm Pz.Sprgr.L’spur.o.Zerl (APHET not self-destroying)
In attacking boats
3cm Pzbrgr.Patr.L’spur o.Zerl (APIT not self-destroying)
c) Aircraft for attacking tanks.
1 3cm H-Pzgr.Patr.L’spur.o.Zerl (Special core APT not self-destroying)
Note. - In the case of shortages of some types of ammunition the ammu¬nition listed in parentheses, whose manufacture has been stopped, is to be fired.
In fighting armored ground-attack aircraft such as the IL 2 up to 50% AP ammunition should be belted (however not for 4 motor bombers, since the best results are obtained with blast and incendiary effect against the nacelle.)
(Editors note : this apply to all ammo from 13mm to 30mm where AP shots are available, this is not clear enough given the current tabulation)
(5) 3 cm Weapons (MK 108).
a) Day fighters and night fighters will belt
1 3cm M-Gesch.Patr.o.Zerl (M-projectile not self-destroying) or 3cm M-Brgr.Patr.108 El m.Zerl (M-projectile Incendiary self destroying)
1 3cm Bgr.Patr.108 El. O.Zerl (Incendiary not self destroying)
(or only M-projectiles)
b) Night fighters with oblique mounted weapons will belt only
M-projectile rounds.
Nightfighter munitions use night tracer (Glimmspur).
(6) 3. 7 cm Weapons (3. 7 cm Flak 18, 3. 7 cm Flak 43)
a) Aircraft for attacking ground targets and landing operations,
2 3,7cm Sprgr.Patr.L’spur m.Zerl (HET self-destroying)
1 3,7cm M-Gesch.Patr.L’spur m.Zerl (M-projectile/tracer self-destroying
1 3,7cm Br.Sprgr.Patr.L’spur m.Zerl (HEIT self-destroying)
b) Aircraft for attacking tanks.
Only 3.7cm H.-Pzgr.Patr.L’spur o.Zerl (Tungsten core AP not self-destroying
(7) 5 cm Weapons (5 cm BK).
a) Aircraft for attacking air targets.
Only 5cm M-Gesch.Ptr.Gl’spur BK m.Zerl (M-projectile/night tracer self-destroying)
b) Aircraft for attacking ground targets.
1 5cm Sprgr.Patr.BK o.Zerl (HE not self-destroying)
1 5cm Pzsprgr.Patr.L’spur BK o.Zerl (APHET not self-destroying)
(8) 7.9mm aircraft weapons.
a) MG 17 (Fighters)
5 S.m.K-v (AP - high velocity)
4 P.m.K-v (API - high velocity)
1 B.-Patrone-v (Observation cartridge - high velocity)
and before the last 50 rounds of the belt (as counters)
10 S.m.K L’spur 100/600 (APT high velocity) for day fighting
or
10 S.m.K Gl’spur (APT high velocity night tracer) for night fighting
b) MG 17 (for ground attack use)
MG 81 (flexible and in auxiliary container)
MG 15
2 S.m.E (SAP)
2 S.m.K L’spur 100/600 (APT)
or
2 S.m.K.Gl’spur (APT with night tracer)
2 P.m.K-v or (1 P.m.K-v and 1 B.-Patrone)
I hope Butch don't mind.
So there is some variation in the beltings.
Some other data:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html
-C+
PS.
"I've heard quite enough Nazi propaganda to recognize it when I see it."
"the masses of biased pseudo-intellectuals with an agenda"
Rrright...:aok
-
You're completely skirting the issue about the gun cameras. You can argue paperwork until you're blue in the face, and the fact remains that the effects of cannonfire in the simulator and in the gun camera footage are as different as meat and potatoes.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
By the way, I had known about Dowding's spiritualist ideas for a while, but I was surprised when I learned that Conan-Doyle actually wrote a spiritualist propaganda piece using the characters from his "Lost World" series. Seems spiritualism it was fashionable in Britain for a while?
Yes, it was very popular among a surprising number of well-educated people, for a number of years. A fake photo of 'fairies at the bottom of a garden', taken by some young girls, was widely believed - it certainly took in A C-D.
No doubt there is some sort of correspondence between belief in the supernatural and wider social factors at the time, but I don't know what it might be!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
You're completely skirting the issue about the gun cameras. You can argue paperwork until you're blue in the face, and the fact remains that the effects of cannonfire in the simulator and in the gun camera footage are as different as meat and potatoes.
After watching all of these videos, I just have one question.....what happened to all those planes 1 min after the footage stops?
-
In Finland war time president Risto Ryti's wife was a spiritualist but it's unlikely that it somehow affected to the Ryti's decisions. Spiritualism was quite popular in western europe in the beginning of the last century.
gripen
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
After watching all of these videos, I just have one question.....what happened to all those planes 1 min after the footage stops?
Some might have burned, some might have crashed and some possibly made home.
gripen
PS: 1500, do I get a cookie?
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
You're completely skirting the issue about the gun cameras. You can argue paperwork until you're blue in the face, and the fact remains that the effects of cannonfire in the simulator and in the gun camera footage are as different as meat and potatoes.
Did you never see gun cam footage where the aircraft blew up?
Were you looking at the reels at the IWM?
Then...there is actually a famous picture of a Hurricane, - wingless, pilot has jumped and is in the air. WINGLESS, - wing is half severed off, and the Hurricane was a rugged bird. . Killed by a 109 in the BoB.
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
After watching all of these videos, I just have one question.....what happened to all those planes 1 min after the footage stops?
The Jugs and Ponies show up and shoot down the German plane with .50 cal., and the Allied victim limps back to England.
-
Originally posted by Angus
WINGLESS, - wing is half severed off, and the Hurricane was a rugged bird.
The Hurricane was made of wood and canvas. Compared to an American heavy, it was a paper airplane. This kind of thing was quite rare, and as the dozens of clips posted within this thread show, even under several seconds of sustained cannon fire with dozens of hits.
The fact is that the damage done by a second of cannon fire with all rounds on target surpasses in the game by far the same in real life, by very many times. The same is also true, to a lesser extent, of the fifty calibers.
The amusing thing is that the very subject of this thread, the .303, is the only gun that seems to be modelled correctly. Everyone's whining that the .303's too weak and assuming that the rest of the guns are right, but it's really the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
The Hurricane was made of wood and canvas.
Yeah right.
-
"The Hurricane was made of wood and canvas. Compared to an American heavy, it was a paper airplane. This kind of thing was quite rare, and as the dozens of clips posted within this thread show, even under several seconds of sustained cannon fire with dozens of hits."
The Swordfish was made of wood and canvas, yet a squadron of them flew through the fire from Bismarck without a loss. Similar things happened at Taranto, paper planes flying through fire.
Wood and canvas, or "paper" are better when it comes to explosive shells than a metal skin. The cannonshells often simply fly through without detonating.
In the BoB the "paper" Hurricane proved more rugged than the metal coated Spitfire.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Everyone's whining that the .303's too weak and assuming that the rest of the guns are right, but it's really the other way around.
The .303s are relatively weak compared to most gun packages on other fighters and this was something that the RAF had to contend with during the BoB. That is why the first Spitfires with 20mm cannons were rushed into service but had mixed results because of constant jams and other issues with the Hispanos. What made the .303s the RAF used during the BoB relatively successful were the rounds that were used. It gave the .303 a little more punch power. If you were to read reports about engagements between Hurricanes bouncing Ju88s, you'll see that even with 8x .303s, the Hurricanes had a tough time shooting down the well armored Ju88s.
ack-ack
-
There is very little wood in the Hurricane; the main structure of the plane (mid wing and the fuselage) is steel constructed and only some fuselage forming parts are from wood. Generally the forward fuselage of the Hurricane is very strong.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The .303s are relatively weak compared to most gun packages on other fighters and this was something that the RAF had to contend with during the BoB. That is why the first Spitfires with 20mm cannons were rushed into service but had mixed results because of constant jams and other issues with the Hispanos. What made the .303s the RAF used during the BoB relatively successful were the rounds that were used. It gave the .303 a little more punch power. If you were to read reports about engagements between Hurricanes bouncing Ju88s, you'll see that even with 8x .303s, the Hurricanes had a tough time shooting down the well armored Ju88s.
ack-ack
Yeppers,,, mostly. The .303's still killed some 1.200 LW aircraft in a couple of months.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Wood and canvas, or "paper" are better when it comes to explosive shells than a metal skin. The cannonshells often simply fly through without detonating.
Yes, I know. But either way, wood or metal, catastrophic structural failure was very rare, even in the case of sustained barrages from cannon. As I keep stating and everyone else ignores, only a tiny fraction of the kills seen on gun camera are this way. The simulator is wrong in this. In real life, an aircraft can and regularly did sustain dozens and dozens of hits from twenty millimeter cannon and keep flying.
I shouldn't be surprised, because years of posting reliable proof to simulator communities should prepare me, but I am a bit incredulous at most of the folks in this thread. Truth be known, you just don't want to lose your precious instant kills from quarter second snapshots. You don't want to know the truth, and you don't want an accurate simulation of how it really worked.
-
Truth be known, you just don't want to lose your precious instant kills from quarter second snapshots. You don't want to know the truth, and you don't want an accurate simulation of how it really worked.
The truth is that AH2 models pilot kills by blowing up the aircraft. We all know it isn't REAL.
...years of posting reliable proof to simulator communities...
:D
It's always fun when somebody new shows up to enlighten the community.
Flight simulators are not supposed to be 100% accurate. It would be nice but it's not feasable.
After years of similar posts you might consider the possibility that tone is important.
-
Let me see if I can follow this...
Because you watched lots of gun camera footage (did you do any statistical data work, ie what was the belt load out for the plane, how many rounds of what type hit, etc?) and didn't see alot of planes "blow up" like they do in here or suffer massive structural failure in the near future you think that cannon in here are over modeled, am I on it so far?
how in the world did any luftwaffe plane get shot down in the BoB?
Plus not very many of those target planes were pulling many G's. Not like in here at least for me I am almost always pulling heavy G's when hit. The cannon hit + G's = wing-B-gone tm
But for now I'll have to go with the folks who have done research on the subject, not just watching film.
-
But why can't the film be PART of the analysis. I personally have a hard time understanding the importance of the statistical analysis. Yeah, I can do the long division, but for someone to say "6 20mm hits equaled a destroyed plane" is hard for me to bite into. Or, getting into the energy calculations. Like I said, I understand the math of it, and I'll even buy into the science, but there is something to be said for practical application.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I was always amazed at engineers from all sorts of defense contractors that would swoop down from the pristine environs of their design lab, and swear that they had a piece of gear that was going to revolutionize my job. I dealt with a lot of communications equipment, and just because it tests out on the bench does not mean it will work in the field.
I respect the statistical analysis--there's a lot of work in there and certainly some insight to be gained. But, I can't believe its the sole basis on which we should form our decisions. The gun camera footage is certainly relevant, but also not the sole basis on which we should form our decisions.
It certainly gives you a picture, and a picture, as they say, is worth a thousand words
-
The statistical analyses by both sides were not simply theoretical exercises. They included the careful examination of aircraft hit by cannon and MG fire - both those which survived, and those which crashed (where they could get at them). They also included shooting at different kinds of aircraft structures on the ground, with different kinds of guns and ammo, and evaluating the results. And of course they included analyses of losses, and of the cause of those losses wherever that could be determined. Gun camera footage was examined and fed into the statistical analyses.
It was very much in the interests of the air forces to find out exactly what was happening when aircraft were attacked, partly so they could provide the most efficient forms of protection to aircraft (armour of the right thickness - no more than was necessary - automatic fire extinguishing systems etc) and partly so they could find out which gun and ammo combination was most effective in damaging the enemy.
The results of all this research were consistent and obvious to all by the latter stages of WW2:
- for a given weight of armament, cannon were more effective than MGs
- fire was a major plane-killer, so HEI cannon shells were more effective than plain HE
The only force not to implement this was the USAAF (the USN held a different view) for reasons explained HERE (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm)
I have no comment on the how the relative armaments are modelled in the game, because I don't play it. However, I have the impression that hitting and destroying targets is much easier in all combat sims than it was in RL. After all, in RL most fighter pilots never shot down anything, ever.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Because you watched lots of gun camera footage (did you do any statistical data work, ie what was the belt load out for the plane, how many rounds of what type hit, etc?) and didn't see alot of planes "blow up" like they do in here or suffer massive structural failure in the near future you think that cannon in here are over modeled, am I on it so far?
There is plenty of gun camera films around and wast majority of these show fires etc. when a plane is hit while a major collapse of the structure of the plane appear to be quite rare. While we don't know for sure if these films are presentative, it's quite unlikely that these are somehow selectively picked. Infact, if I had been putting together a training films, I would have chosen clips which contain enemy planes blowing, collapsing etc.
gripen
-
Tony:
"I have no comment on the how the relative armaments are modelled in the game, because I don't play it. However, I have the impression that hitting and destroying targets is much easier in all combat sims than it was in RL. After all, in RL most fighter pilots never shot down anything, ever."
Firstly, try AH, it's a blast ;)
Secondly, hitting is probably much easier than in RL, but still not that easy. Some pilots are good shots, some are not.
The weapon effectiveness seems to be more than in RL if anything, and yet sometimes not.
I flew Il-2 as well, it seemed more realistic in terms of damage and gunnery model. In my first online fight however, I pinged 5 enemy aircraft (5 on 1 situation), then with no ammo left I got away from them. I used AH tactics and they worked, but you'd not get away like this in AH, - I used blackout maneuvers and clouds to escape ;)
In RL indeed, many a pilot never had an engagement. However, in RL you also had pilots with dozens of kills without being scratched, so.....
In RL aircraft did get gunned down, they lost major parts, they blew up, they got eaten up by fire and so on. Maybe AH does not represent it accurately, but I belive it's slowly getting there.
BTW, a recent analysis of Douglas Bader being downed claims he was shot down by another Spitfire. He belived it was a collision with a 109.
Well, his aircraft was cut in half behind the cockpit so I rather would think it was a collision.
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
how in the world did any luftwaffe plane get shot down in the BoB?
... Mainly engine fires and pilot death. But you're a fool to assume you know something without watching the proof offered to the contrary. You didn't watch the stuff, you just started arguing.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
... Mainly engine fires and pilot death. But you're a fool to assume you know something without watching the proof offered to the contrary. You didn't watch the stuff, you just started arguing.
Hmmm watched the long one you posted, 7+ minutes.
Ok based just on the gun cam views you posted, how many of the target planes were pulling 5+ g's? Any??
How many high deflection shots are there in AH that the target plane is at or near black out?
Here we go with the names again, class act .
Anyway .303's work well enough ;)
(http://www.thatguysgarage.com/pics/AH2%20Pics/harpij3.jpg)
Little ole' Hurri Mk1 sawing the wings off a 110.
-
my grandfarther was ground crew in the real BoB and the Hurri was a killer aircraft mostly cos it could take damage. What downs an aircraft is what it's made of. The hurri was fadric and wood to heavy calibra rounds did squat to it it woould make a hole and that was it. But cannon and incindry rounds woul dmake a hurri into a bal of flame.
The spit on the other hand was mettal so cannon woul dbe effective BUT AP of .50 or .303 would be devistating to the control and wing serface. The holes would cause a vacume effect on the surface ( like blowing over a bottle neck) this would strees the skin and buckle . Then that skin buckle woould over stress rivots and they go POP .
My grand farther many a time saw his hurri fly home with a 1.5 M holw in the wing ready to fly and fight again with no problems in it's control or flight .
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Ok based just on the gun cam views you posted, how many of the target planes were pulling 5+ g's? Any??
How many high deflection shots are there in AH that the target plane is at or near black out?
I am not talking about gees. I am talking about low gee situations. What we see in those videos cannot be replicated in Aces High, and that is the truth of it. The aircraft in the simulator cannot take a fraction of the damage that the real things did.
-
Maybe there is a point to this, but also look at Marseilles or for that sake Beurlings ammo expenditure compared to the kills they got.....
-
It would be interesting if we did not have such a catistrophic damage model. However, I do recall in Hartman's book and Saburo Sakai's book but pilots shooting done aircraft with a handful of 20mm or 30mm rounds.
Only a few of the pilots in those clips had good shoots. They missed alot of shots. The headons that hit in the cockpit most likely killed the pilots. And the cameras stop rolling after the shooting so hard to tell what happens soon after.
Oh and Sakai's encounter with a B17 was funny! 3-4 planes empty all there ammo into it and it flew away.
So who knows alot more variables in real life.:aok
-
Here's one 20mm hit ;)
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/side2.gif)
And prolly some 30mm's
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/wings/aileron120.jpg)
One 190 Shell:
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/rudder5.gif)
More donations from 190's
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/rudder3.gif)
Yet another 190 attack:
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/tail/tail3.jpg)
20 mm into the nose:
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/nose/nosefire.gif)
frontal attack by fighters:
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/nose/nose8.jpg)
More 20mm's from fighters, one took the pilot's head off.
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/nose/nose9.jpg)
-
Those look like 88 shells to me. Anyway, regardless of the caliber, I fail to see how that proves that the current damage model is anywhere near being correct. If anything, it demonstrates once again that a few holes does not cause the airplane to fall apart. Show me well-built planes, such as an American or the average European airplane, losing wings and tails (other the ones carrying explosives in the wings). Then you'll have something to say.
-
There's a few famous ones I can think of, but these generally involve heavy firepower, like a direct hit from a flak burst.
-
None of those are 88's.
All these aircraft made it home.
The first picture is just one hit.
There are no pictures of aircraft that exploded in mid air and so on.
-
Some more damage pics: http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/
-C+
-
Thanks, some of them might be caused by collision (bomb or plane) but very dramatic pictures overall.
gripen
-
Exactly, we do not know what caused them. Only a picture in some context can give a clue of what caused the damage. If the bomber formation was not under attack from fighters during the raid and the writer was in the bomber in question we can be sure that the damage is caused e.g. by flak, but what flak? 88, or bigger? Some o the damages look indeed as caused by a collisions to other bombers or even with attacking fighters.
-C+
-
The pictures I posted were analyzed. There were tons more, and the '88 damage was tremendous. There were some of aircraft being hit by bombs, rockets and from collisions. I just picked some that were from air to air attacks.
I've been looking for that famous picture of a Hurricane with a severed wing, but without luck, - just have it in a book. Anyone?
-
Hi Benny,
i did watch some of the guncam films and saw many before, but i have a absolut different conclusion than you.
1. I cant remember to saw a broken wing in AH by only 3 cannon impacts.
2. I dont saw a guncam film with a constand bulletstream to one section of the plane(wing or engine).
3. I mainly saw what i would call spraying and the resulting very short impact times per plane section.
4. In Ah i often get much more concentrated impacts, as result many more bullets hit one target section, than shown in any of the guncam films.
5. When my plane is slow(IAS) in AH, i get a similar unstable behaviour and the result also is pretty much similar, then i cant bring down a B17 and though i see plenty of impacts and wonder why the target dont break.
Since i know many complaints from newbes in AH, where they complain the unstable gunplattforms and very difficult to destroy targets, my conclusion is that the AH FM and world(no wind , turbolences etc) in combination with our extreme skill provide a much increased hitquote, resulting in uncommon damages. Although not many guncam fims will show such damages, storys of aces like Hartmann, Rall, Graf and Marsaille make me belive that they did happen frequently.
So my conclusion is: The missing wind/turbolences(general turbolences and specialy turbolences behind the enemy) in AH, in combination with our extreme skill provide a much higher hitquote than a real WWII pilot did archive.
Normal German fighters got a hitquote of 2-5%, while attacking strait flying bombers from the rear, while i guess we get up to 30% while this task!
Another reason for often ripped off wing is that we ingeneral dont bail when our plane got damaged badly. We fight on with burning planes, without alerons, smoking engines, missing undercarriages etc. All this damages happen pretty often to me and would cause performence related problems to be a reason for most WWII pilots to bail, not so in AH.
btw, down is down, if the plane burn or if the wing rip off dont matter much i think. Important is a credible relation between the different guns.
HT could create a different damagegraphic, where the wing would stay with a hole and the tail also would stay complete but lose all controlls, without to change the damage flightmodel, then you would be happy?? I also would like this, cause most AH planes are still able to fly without the half wing, so the graphic dont fit to the damages.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
wing gun test (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9101895862044064019&q=ww2)
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
wing gun test (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9101895862044064019&q=ww2)
NICE! First B-17 picture in Charge's folder labled "allamerican" is from a collision with a 109--at least that's how it was attributed in another book...
-
Knegel:
"Since i know many complaints from newbes in AH, where they complain the unstable gunplattforms and very difficult to destroy targets, my conclusion is that the AH FM and world(no wind , turbolences etc) in combination with our extreme skill provide a much increased hitquote, resulting in uncommon damages. Although not many guncam fims will show such damages, storys of aces like Hartmann, Rall, Graf and Marsaille make me belive that they did happen frequently. "
This I belive is very much the truth.
We have thousands of combat hours at no risk, and we fired our cyber-bullets and shells many times more than any WW2 pilot. Our gunnery is better and more concentrated, and our stable world is simpler. So, it isn't just about the impact of each projctile, - it's how many are hitting.
Sidenote: Today I emptied my load into some 3 bombers, - I destroyed one and was killed in the process. I am a rather good shot, so does that sound abnormal?
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
NICE! First B-17 picture in Charge's folder labled "allamerican" is from a collision with a 109--at least that's how it was attributed in another book...
The site is here (http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselag2.htm):
"The B-17 "All American" (414th Squadron, 97BG) flown by Lieutenant Kenneth R. Bragg, its tail section almost severed by a collision with an enemy fighter, flew 90 minutes back to its home base, landed safely and broke in two after landing.
SOURCE: Flying Forts by Martin Caiden"
Quite a miracle.
gripen
EDIT: A bit more here (http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/03RelatedStories/03.03shortstories/03.03.13contss.htm) and here (http://www.detektorweb.cz/index.4me?s=show&i=2031&mm=1&vd=1&PHPSESSID=62add5fcc1968dffa).
-
:rofl
Okay, sorry I had to do that... Now regarding this thread, and damage from collisions, 303's 50's 20mm and 30mm's, ad nauseum.
Anyone know if gun spacing is modeled? B25's Mossies, 38's, ME-109's and I forget which Kraut planes had their fixed forward guns in a nice compact jack-hammer arrangement, versus the 40, 47, 51, Spit, Hurri, etc having theirs set out horizontally.
The compact arnagement of guns in planes like the P-38 made it seem more lethal becasue all those bullets were hitting relatively the same part of the the target like a jackhammer. whereas your wing mounted guns had to find the convergence sweet spot for max damage, the nose mounted guns did not.
my $0.02 worth:aok
-
Gun spacing is modelled, or rather already existant in the game.
Benny Moore's comments are rash and overly conclusive, and I seriously doubt the 'proof' he is talking about is anything more than just a bunch of second hand video clips which anyone can collect through a half hour of surfing on the internet.
20mm cannons are powerful enough to bust through a vital surface and sever off a vital part, plain and simple. It's like detonating a bunch of small grenande inside a closed surface. 50 calibre weapons are also potent enough to 'saw off' a certain part with consecutive hits under ideal conditions.
However, there is one general premise I agree with him, and that is catastrophic structural failures on a plane happens way too often, and way too easily in Aces High.
Who knows? Perhaps HT purposely made it this way. If a plane is landed with a barrage of 50cals still it might not snap a wing, but the odds are that the internal controls and machinery inside the plane are messed up enough for the pilot to consider bailing out. Maybe HT thinks that this process can be 'skipped' - if the plane is damaged internally beyond the ability to fly, and the plane will be shot down anyway, then why not just make it so that something snaps off or blows up? That will make it easier for people to shoot down things, at a much faster rate.
One thing is for certain.
If HT sets his mind and decides to update the DM component of the game, it will become perhaps the largest update to the game ever, even dwarfing the change from AH1 to AH2. The entire DM section will have to be redone, with internal components of planes modelled in.
My guess is a change this big would actually require something as big as 'AH3' to come forth to see daylight. 1C:Maddox's IL-2 had this kind of DM modelled in from day one and yet, people still complained about it. Only after tweaking the DM through numerous numbers of add-ons and patches did they finally 'complete' it, years afer the first IL-2 surfaced.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Gun spacing is modelled, or rather already existant in the game.
Ahhh this is good news to see posted ;)
Originally posted by Kweassa Benny Moore's comments are rash and overly conclusive, and I seriously doubt the 'proof' he is talking about is anything more than just a bunch of second hand video clips which anyone can collect through a half hour of surfing on the internet.
Mostly I concurr, but something HT said a couple years back comes to mind, in that what we have to remember, that each shot is actually a burst of 3 to 6 rounds.
Originally posted by Kweassa However, there is one general premise I agree with him, and that is catastrophic structural failures on a plane happens way too often, and way too easily in Aces High.
Agree totally here, with the thought that if AH2 planes were more hardy, then there may be fewer people playing due to lack of gratification in dog fights. The game might turn into a ground war instead, and we (well most of us) wouldn't want that, now would we.
Originally posted by Kweassa Who knows? Perhaps HT purposely made it this way. If a plane is landed with a barrage of 50cals still it might not snap a wing, but the odds are...
One thing is for certain.
If HT sets his mind and decides to update the DM component of the game, it will become perhaps the largest update to the game ever, even dwarfing the change from AH1 to AH2. The entire DM section will have to be redone, with internal components of planes modelled in.
My guess is a change this big would actually require something as big as 'AH3' to come forth to see daylight. 1C:Maddox's IL-2 had this kind of DM modelled in from day one and yet, people still complained about it. Only after tweaking the DM through numerous numbers of add-ons and patches did they finally 'complete' it, years afer the first IL-2 surfaced.
Here again I agree totally. It's tough to get things balanced and keep the players happy, especially in a game of this calibre. The Devs still have to make it fun to play, and seeing a whole can of ammo pumped into a plane that refuses to go down just isn't fun for a lot of folks... (303's not withstanding) And if, as you mentioned, it takes planes blowing up and wings falling off then who am I to disagree?
-
Hi,
i thinks its mainly a graphic mistake, not a mistake in the damagemodel!!
Many planes are still flyable with a half wing, thats rubbish of course, therefore i think the damage graphic need to get adjusted. If it would show a hole in the wing it would fit again.
I also did reread some booksand found that catastrophic structural failures did happen. Bombers did explode after a burst into the fuselage from below, wings fall off after a 109G(30mm) attack, 109´s missing the wingtip or the whole tail etc.
Of course not all is perfect and some planes are much to weak, specialy the IL-2 is very much a paperplane, but aim pretty sure the extreme hitquote, caused by our skill and missing Wind/turbolences is the main reason for easy kills.
In AH most fights find place in low/medium altitude, here the planes are mainly very stable gunplattforms, but in more high alt or slow speed the results look different.
When iam very slow and forced to spray around, like the guncam films show, the results are much more similar.
Rarely i saw a gun cam film where the pilot got a clean stable shoot for 1 sec, like it is common in AH. A 0,5 sec burst with a FW190D9 are already 12 x 20mm impacts and very often all bullets seems to hit.
There seems to be a rather easy possibility to adjust the hitprobability of the bullets on long range. At least the .50cal and 30mm´s lost their heatseaker behaviour and the MG151/20 provide a playable hitprobability after the last update.
So what AH imho need(actually i dont see a real drastic need), is a decreased hitprobability on long range for all guns and a "hole in the wing graphic" as replacement for the "broken wing graphic".
Greetings,
-
Like I suggested many times, it is not an issue solely depending on the DM alone. It is an amalgam of the entire AH system and how it handles the aerial gunnery aspect of the game. I dare say that just two simple, relatively easy changes (that do not require a major gunnery/damage modelling update)...
1) remove the distance counter and maintain only the +/- sign on the icon
2) remove the ammo counter
... will immediately lower the average hit probability in the game.
The catastrohpic structural failures will still be the number one reason why planes are shot down in the game (since it involves no major modelling change). However, the difference is that this time, the average length of the window of opportunity which makes it possible to shoot down an enemy plane, will become considerably shorter than it was before.
Since there is no distance counter, the only reference you have in judging distances will be the relative size of the target compared to your gunsight. Misjudging distances will be farely common. Better yet, the lack of an exact ammo counter compells the pilots to be much careful in shooting at a target in the first place. You have no way of knowing how much ammo you have left - thus, the only instances where you will pull the trigger is when you are absolutely sure that you are close enough to hit a target.
...
This, as a result, will neutralize much of the (situationally) unrealistic, relative advantages the 50cals and 20mms hold over 30cal bullets.
This is how it works:
With distance indicators and ammo counters, a seasoned AH P-51 pilot chasing a Spitfire can snipe him out of the sky from some 400~600 yards away. With much offline practice shooting at the bull's eye this pilot knows where to aim at such distances, since he already knows the dispersion pattern at a given distance.
He could think to himself, "I'll try and fire about 500 rounds max, and see if it hits", and he will fire controlled bursts without the danger of wasting too many rounds at a long distanced target.
Now, take away the distance counter and the ammo counter. How sure is P-51 this pilot now, when there is no '400' or '600' number to tell him the approximate distance? How confident is he, about how many rounds he will fire?
The implications are clear.
He will have no choice but to approach very close to the target (since there is no mistaking how close the enemy plane is, once you are inside about 200 yards), and he will fire only when he thinks he can absolutely land a hit. Not only does the absolute number of rounds fired decreases (thus, lowering overall hit probability), but also he will have to engage in much more close range combat than ever, since the Spitfire will react in defense, but he cannot just snipe it out of the sky at a long distance like he used to(because he cannot be sure of the distance unless very close).
Therefore, due to reasons of safety, this P-51, now without the distance indicator and ammo counter, will have much less opportunity to shoot at a given target.
The relative advantage 50cals and 20mms holds over 30cals, are now neutralized. It will still be much more easier to shoot down enemy planes with 50cals and 20mms, but only when he is within very close distances, just like the 30cals are required to do so. No more "snapping wings and blowing the plane up at 400 yards with 50cal/20mms, while the 30cals are required to get in really close inside 200 yards to ever be useful".
...
There you have it. A much more realistic representation of aerial gunnery, by simply removing two crutches from the game.
The question is, how many people will really like this kind of 'realistic' gunnery?
I can hear the whines already, vets and newbies alike.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The question is, how many people will really like this kind of 'realistic' gunnery?
I like the idea. People currently shoot - and get kills - at unrealistically long ranges. Your suggestions strike me as good ones.
- oldman
-
Personally, I'm all for it. I hate being sniped by 20mm at 800 yards. The biggest challenge would be to develop a calibrated gunsite. Maybe have a gunsite calibration slider much like the convergence setting in the hangar. Set the gunsite to where a standard sized fighter fills the ring at 300 yards, and voila. No need to guess the range, when it fills the sight, its at 300 yards. That's the way it was done historically. The K-14 actually had a handle on the throttle to twist the range desired into the reticle.
I'm all for it. Anything to take away "gamey" aspects. I realize the way the damage model is set up, and can buy into it for gameplay purposes. But I hate reading books where guys say firing beyond 300 meters is useless, then seeing guys in the game spraying ammo at 1000 meters in the chance their cannon round catches you and pops your tail off.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
But I hate reading books where guys say firing beyond 300 meters is useless, then seeing guys in the game spraying ammo at 1000 meters in the chance their cannon round catches you and pops your tail off.
But thats not unrealistic in general!
The USAF did rate the Hispanno 20mm with max 2400yard theoretical range and 1200 yard practical range.
I have no doubt that it is possible to hit a plane on 1km distance, but same like in the game this need some luck and a absolut strait flying target.
If the target bank smoth from right to left its not realy common to get shot down on 1km distance, even on 400yard it need much ammo or luck. Lag also is a problem here, your attacker may see you on 600, while you see him on 800 or even 1k distance.
Even in a H2H game with unlimited ammo its not easy to kill someone on 1k disatnce, if he dont fly strait.
The normal shooting range in AH is 100-500 yard, above 500 yard it need many guns, many ammo or a strait flying enemy to get a kill, for me this sounds credible.
Imho the bullte trajectory is to strait for some guns. The Hispanno bullets seems to fly almost strait up to 1k, this seems to make the long distance kills on strait flying targets quiet easy, cause no lead is needed.
But never forget: We have much more training and therefor a much higher skill than any WWII Ace(at least regarding shooting).
I dont would like to see a unrealistic difficult DM. We need to measure the credibility of the gunnery on the flightsim newbes(the 1st 2 month), not on us superskilled aces (with 10.000 death on the clock until we got where we are).
Look to most guncam films, if Marsaille would have wobbled around like most pilots do in this films, he would have needed a complete ammoload to bring down a Hurri. Most WWII pilots was rookis and never got above this skill. Looks what a rooki in Ah do(even if he did play other flightsims before): He cant kill anything and he die very fast!
There are plenty of storys about 500m kills, but most aces thought: Why shooting from 500m, when i can sneak in to 50m, where the hitprobability of course is more big and where the guns have more punch??
For people who wanna have it less gamy i would like the POSSIBILITY(option) to dissable all icons(determined by the host for all players)!
This probably would solve many problems, cause only then disengaging like in R/L would be possible and shooting with very high deflection would be more luck(currently the plane can be hidden behind my cowling, but the icon still show the position).
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Since I'm no expert in this theme I'm not sure how to put it, but it is what I call a classic case of "technical realism vs. situational realism".
The actual 'likeliness', or 'probability' of gaining a kill is something entirely different from the concept of 'practical range', which takes into account not much more than a few mechanical and theoretical conditions. However, aerial gunnery is often dynamic, with many more factors than just mechanical - everything range from the psychological to the condition of the air, and etc etc.
One very typical example appears from your own post;
The normal shooting range in AH is 100-500 yard, above 500 yard it need many guns, many ammo or a strait flying enemy to get a kill, for me this sounds credible.
Indeed, having more armament, more ammo, and most importantly a more powerful gun (hence, the 'relative advantage' of 50cal/20mms over the 30cals) does make it more likely for the attacker to shoot down an enemy plane over 400 yards distance. This is where the term 'spraying' comes forth. However, just how compelling is it for the attacker to take a shot at an enemy plane at such distances?
In AH you know how far the enemy planes is out in front of you. You have exact information on how much ammo you have left. Therefore, your eagerness in taking a long-ranged shot is much higher than in real life. The frequency of taking shots is much higher in the game, which by itself is another factor that increases the hit probability. Whereas in real life, without any direct information concerning distance and ammo conditions, a pilot would be seriously discouraged from taking a shot under those conditions.
In other words, we are provided with such information that did not exist in real life, that effects each pilot to attempt long distance gunnery with much higher accuracy and confidence than ever possible for a real life pilot.
A very helpful, direct comparison would come from playing another game, IL-2/FB for example, in a multiplayer session that removes all icons from the game. The very need to identify friend or foe, the lack of info on the status of your ammunition and relative distances - all these factors bring out a very different tendency in game pilots. These are psychological factors that effect the reality of aerial gunnery.
But never forget: We have much more training and therefor a much higher skill than any WWII Ace(at least regarding shooting).
This is perhaps the most over-used and over-rated reasoning in defense of 'gamey gunnery'. Again, take IL/2FB for example. You could play in two different multiplayer sessions for direct comparison - one that has icon settings similar to AH, other that has no icons at all. The same people in same planes in the same game, and yet they react astonishingly different under different settings.
When there are icons with distance indicators around, IL-2/FB isn't all that much different from AH. People take pot-shots from some 300~400m out and it still brings down planes in such settings. However, take away the icons and and everything suddenly changes.
This is not an issue concerned with tech realism. Whether a gun is potent enough to bring down a plane at 1000 yards or not is absolutely meaningless. The only thing that has meaning is the probability of it all, and if it is more probable in the game than in real life, then it means the game clearly lacks some important factor that was present in real life, which inhibits such instances from happening.
Tony Williams has set down a rule of thumb, as a result of his studies in guns and aerial gunnery. 200m max for fighters, and 400m max for bombers - both flying straight and level.
AH has a 'killing range' that is approximately 200 yards further than in real life. It means AH is missing some factor that accounts for that critical 200 yards, and my explanation for it is the 'psychological factor'.
1) The anxiety, the worry of running dry of ammo during long engagements
2) The reluctancy to try a shot against a target which you do not have range info
These two real-life factors are responsible for the creation of the legendary maxim of fighter pilots;
"When you think you are close, get in closer".
- ... since you can never be truly sure how far the enemy is out. Give up 'foolish attempts' to snipe your target out from afar, and get in close ranges so distance (and convergence, as well) loses meaning.
- ...since long range shots are usually a waste of ammo, and going dry during combat usually means you are defenseless. Get in close and take short controlled bursts, instead of spraying out from a distance.
...
In turn, it is the lack of these very factors that makes the maxim unnecessary and non-existant in AH. Therefore, logic dictates that by removing the ammo counter from the plane, factor 1 is brought into the game. By removing the distance numbers from the icons, factor 2 is also brought into the game. (The +/- icons are enough for judging relative E state and closure/departure rate)
If people still take 400~600yards shots under those conditions, and so often brings down enemy planes, then I'll admit that us gamers really do have superhuman gunnery than compared to real pilots.
But until then, I call the "we play more games, so we have better skill" theory bullshi*.
-
I really shouldn't say this, but...
The gunnery model in Il-2 is quite good.
Opinions?
-
Some aerial gunnery here. No vital parts falling, but one good flamer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0kmUwp1TKk&mode=related&search=
More flamers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdAtIRef7I0&mode=related&search=
-
:D Bang on Kweas, you go the right of it! Something else to consider about all those aces from WW2 is, they were all hunters who's shooting skill in the field was used to put food on the table. Many of them attribute that one fact to their air marksmanship. Indeed, this is why the flying military uses (used?) Skeet practice to help instill a natural sense of deflection and leading the target.
Angus, as usual you have provided some excellent film footage. Especially the 51's propaganda one. Keep at it man. :aok
-
Hehe, the 51 footage was Hollywooded, but there were sure some good attacks.
I have been at the IWM film archive in London looking at Guncam films from 1944. Those were from P51C's, Spitfires (if I remember right) and Tempests/Tiffies.
You had blow-ups and aircraft rapidly losing control and crashing into the ground.
It would be a hell of a job to compare those with the LW loss archives, which do not match, - but it's hard to debate a film showing a 190 slamming into the ground you see....
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
This is perhaps the most over-used and over-rated reasoning in defense of 'gamey gunnery'. Again, take IL/2FB for example. You could play in two different multiplayer sessions for direct comparison - one that has icon settings similar to AH, other that has no icons at all. The same people in same planes in the same game, and yet they react astonishingly different under different settings.
Tony Williams has set down a rule of thumb, as a result of his studies in guns and aerial gunnery. 200m max for fighters, and 400m max for bombers - both flying straight and level.
If people still take 400~600yards shots under those conditions, and so often brings down enemy planes, then I'll admit that us gamers really do have superhuman gunnery than compared to real pilots.
But until then, I call the "we play more games, so we have better skill" theory bullshi*.
[/i] theory bullshi*.
Hi,
if you think its oversused and overrated, you should look to the MUCH increased hitquote due to the new computed gunsights at the end of the war.
I guess Tony Williams rule of thumb is made for a "normal"pilot, not for a real Ace. Hartmanny, Marsailles and Ralls wingmans told that this guys shot and did hit on 400+ meter.
But i agree that something is AH is missing, at least for us oldhands, its the fear to die and to miss a target, its the excitation born out of the greed to get a kill and the possibility to miss etc.
Newbes have all this and they also miss like the real Aces. In a competition many oldis also have this and they fail under presure, where they would hit in training mission.
In IL-2 many people shoot better with icons, simply cause the middle distance graphis is very bad, as result its almost impossible to see if the plane is in 400 or 800m distance, with some planes its difficult to see them at all. But if you once got aware of this, 600m kills are not that difficult in IL-2, also without icons(My squad mainly play IL-2 without or only with short range icons).
In EAW, where the middle distance graphics are far better, its good possible to estimate a distance without the need of icons.
For people who once are used to play without icons and ammo counter, long range kills are same easy like with icons. Very fast you get a feeling for the distance and also for the number of left rounds. In games where the host can determine if icons or not, i preffer to play without icons and even in AH i often dissable the icons to be better able to see what manouver my oponent just make. This dont hinder me to shoot from 500+ yard, if i see him flying smooth, while i also try to follow the rule to get in as close as possible, simply cause then i can get a fast clean kill with smal ammo, not only a smoking plane or a wounded pilot.
Read some more storys about the shooting skill of the aces who did prefer to shoot from longer range. Rall, Marsaille, Graf and even Hartmann was known to shoot very good from long range.
The rule to get in as close as possible cant count while a dogfight where the enemy saw you, where you dont have the time to close in and not all aces did like Hartmanns rules, cause they did fear to collide.
Compare the shootingskill of a combatsim newbe with a AH oldi, no matter if icons or not, the newbe will have a pretty similar hitquote like most real WWII pilots, but after some hundret missions this will change, at some point he will get the hang on it, same like most real aces did need quite a time, but after many thousand, rather hundret thousand possibilitys to shoot, its absolutly normal to be better than any real WWII pilot.
I think Hartmann is one of the fighter pilots with most combat missions in WWII, if i remeber right, that was around 1400, and 700 with contact. So lets say he had 1000 possibilitys to shoot to a plane, thats already a lot, and related to this his skill was.
With luck the normal pilot did survive maybe 100 mission and if he had luck he did survive 50 with contact. How good your shooting skill was after 50 possibilitys to shoot to a plane??
Get a Flightsimulator Cessna pilot to play AH and see how good his shooting skill is after 20 and then after 50 mission.
Iam playing in the H2H area mainly, there you will see many newbes, not able to hit anything. Many times i did read something like " WOAAAA, i got my 1st kill, and i play AH since 2 weeks".
In EAW is the same, newbes complain to difficult gunnery and ask for unlimited ammo, while oldis get 3-8 kills with one 109F ammoload.
One of my EAW mates did test AH after i told him about it, but he thought that the planes are much to unstable, he coulnt hit anything and left frustrated.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Here's a goodie for you Knegel. Or some rather..
1: Marseille shot his opponents down at close range while stall-banking, with very good accuracy on the cockpit and engine.
2: Rall was famous for wild deflection shooting, and has be mentioned as the finest shot of the LW in the period. He himself modestly claims that Marseille was the finest shot.
3. Guys like "Screwball" Beurling were also phenomenal shots, - and mind you, that the guns were located in the wings, so there was no central benefit as in the 109. He did indeed kill an enemy aircraft with 5 hits, and was actually saying that he hit the enemy aircraft with 5 hits around the cockpit. It was true.
4. Getting into wing mounted guns, the record must be the "lucky 13", where a Spitfire downed 2 190's (AFAIK) with only 13 rounds fired from each of it's cannons.
So, here endeth the Saturday cookie. Enjoy ;)
-
I agree with Kweassa, allthough what I actually put in the "Effectiveness" article was this:
"It is sometimes argued that a projectile with a high muzzle velocity and a good ballistic shape (which reduces the rate at which the initial velocity is lost) provides a longer effective range. To some extent this is true, but the greatest limitation on range in air fighting in the Second World War was the difficulty in shooting accurately. The problem of hitting a target moving in three dimensions from another also moving in three dimensions (and probably at a different speed and on a different heading) requires a complex calculation of range, heading and relative speed, while bearing in mind the flight time and trajectory of the projectiles. Today, such a problem can easily be solved by a ballistic computer linked to a radar or laser rangefinder, but at the time we are examining, the "radar" was the human eyeball and the "ballistic computer" the human brain. The range, heading and speed judgements made by the great majority of pilots were notoriously poor, even in training. And this was without considering the effects of air turbulence, G-forces when manoeuvring, and the stress of combat. These factors limited the effective shooting range to around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m."[/B]
That does not mean to say that kills could not occasionally be achieved at longer distances by average pilots, or quite regularly by exceptional ones. It is noticeable, however, that the same few aces keep being mentioned as being capable of such feats. I think that such skillful pilots were very rare.
There is one other psychological factor (apart from lack of information) indicated in the extract above: combat stress. One thing which no sim can ever replicate is the knowledge in the back (or maybe the front) of every WW2 pilot's head: that if he got it wrong, he was liable to be killed. Really dead. With no possibility to reset and start again. That acted to concentrate the minds of a few pilots (the good ones) but destroyed the judgement of many.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Hi Tony,
"I think that such skillful pilots were very rare."
Yes, they was rare for sure, but they are not rare in the flight sim communitys and thats the point.
I know many people, including myself, who are able to estimate distances and the needed lead while deflection shooting very good, and even more important, they(we) are able to estimate a perfect attacking course, including possible evadingmanouvers of the attacked one.
When i got a online connection in late 2000, i already did play EAW for 2 years, before this i did play X-wing, SWOTL, AirwarriorII and their finest hours until i could fulfill all offline missions with success.
At this point i probably had 100 times more possibilitys to shoot to a target than any WWII pilot, but online all was different. Enemys made unknown evading manouvers and they shot me out of the sky from for me unbelievable distances and deflection angles, with a minimum of ammo(very short tracerline).
So i was sure they cheat! (shame on me)
A half year and at least 3000 kills and probably same number deaths later i had the same skill and others called me cheater.
Thats why iam sure, we need to look to virtual pilots with a similar ammount of training like the real pilots had, to value a damagemodel/gunnery of a flightsim!
And if i see the newbes in AH, i cant see a to easy gunnery.
In the H2H area rarely a host keep the default ammoload, simply cause the people (many newbes) get frustrated, if they need to land always without ammo or after only 1 kill.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Yes, they was rare for sure, but they are not rare in the flight sim communitys and thats the point.
Again, this is a mere assumption, and a very crude one. The amount of individual skill gained does indeed coincide somewhat with time and experience, but it is not unlimitedly exponential. Repetition makes certain parts of aerial gunnery more familiar, thus assisting in overall judgement, but that does not mean more sorties and more kills directly feed into one's own score.
If we buy into that kind of logic, the same can be applied to overall situational awareness and defensive maneuvering also. More sorties mean better aim for the attacker? Fine. Then it also means better maneuvering on the part of the defender(!). In theory, these contradictions would result in a zero sum, as follows;
There's no reason gunnery distances should be so different from real life, since even if game pilots could aim better, they could also defend themselves better. The advantages gained in gunnery would be neutralized. Even if some game pilot is skilled enough to snipe targets from 500 yards, the defending game pilot would be skilled enough to jink and maneuver away from 500 yard shots with inhuman level of defensive maneuvering, thus making it necessary for the game pilot to get in as close as possible as in real life. Therefore, AH gunnery tendencies would become no different than in real life, no?
[/i]
The problem with these kind of assumptions is that it has no solid basis whatsoever. Those are literally assumptions, derived from the need to explain why in-game gunnery is so different from real life. How do we know just exactly how much skill level is gained with each minute spent in the game? It's a wild goose chase.
The only thing we have that is viable for comparison is the fact that a component exists in the game that did not exist in real life, in the form of icons and ammo counters (and a few more). How can anyone treat these obvious, material evidence as something secondary, while relying on something so immaterial and intangible as 'pilot skil'l to be the primary reason in differences in gunnery?
There are many factors in real life that are missing in the game. If we were to come up with explanations that has no tangible substance for objective comparison (such as the "game pilots are more skilled" theory), then it would not be too late to rely on such explanations only AFTER such missing factors are introduced into the game, instead of relying on it in the first place while so many factors are missing.
Again, get rid of the ammo counters, get rid of the distance indicators. Then we'll have something to compare, since game conditions would more closely match reality. Only then will it be really possible to see if gunnery is so different for game pilots.
ps) Obviously your "squadmate" has a very different IL2/FB experience from mine. The only instance where I ever got a kill over 400m in that game was when a lucky Hispano II round set fire to a Bf109G running straight and level.
In all of my days flying in most of the IL2/FB's most renowned open servers, never have I met anyone who shoots people down regularly at over 200m distance without range info specified in the icons, nor have I myself been regularly shot down under such circumstances. Freak shots and desparate spraying does happen, and when unlucky such hits will bring you down - but I can hardly say that it is the 'norm' in that game, unlike in AH.
When do I know I am going to be shot down in IL2/FB? When I see the enemy plane at the corners of my eyes, right behind me. Not when I see him at 400m.
-
Grab some popcorn, a pop, and enjoy the shows... :cool:
This is an excellent film document on how the 109 pilots were taught to fight the Spits... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBm86lrCq2c
Of course, this was made quite a bit after the war, but you get the idea of air tactics with real planes.
Also, in the side panel there, you'll find some great WINGS footage of the Hak P6E and others from Duxford airshow. :cool:
-
Hi,
nice video Odee, where do it comes from?? Where they got the 109F or G from??
Originally posted by Kweassa
If we buy into that kind of logic, the same can be applied to overall situational awareness and defensive maneuvering also. More sorties mean better aim for the attacker? Fine. Then it also means better maneuvering on the part of the defender(!). In theory, these contradictions would result in a zero sum, as follows;........................
Here you hit the nail!!
At least my evading manouvers(if i see the enemy) are good enough to dissapoint most attackers, even with the soooo easy AH gunnery, specialy on ranges above 300 yard.
But it looks like many people have more fun to attack than to evade. They use high bases, if available, instead of fighting into a high position out of a disadvantage, they use Tepestrs and La7´s or any other advanced plane.
I saw some A6m5 pilots who land regulary 5-8 kills(unlimited ammo), this shouldnt be possible, if its sooo easy to shoot all down.
Originally posted by Kweassa
The problem with these kind of assumptions is that it has no solid basis whatsoever. Those are literally assumptions, derived from the need to explain why in-game gunnery is so different from real life. How do we know just exactly how much skill level is gained with each minute spent in the game? It's a wild goose chase.
I think i gave pretty many examples, but again: Look to the newbes, and regarding newbes i dont mean someone who just got the the 1st flightsim, i talk about people who have maybe 100-200 fights, just like most real pilots had.
And the gain due to training i VERY big, specialy if it comes to long range shots.
Originally posted by Kweassa
Again, get rid of the ammo counters, get rid of the distance indicators. Then we'll have something to compare, since game conditions would more closely match reality. Only then will it be really possible to see if gunnery is so different for game pilots.
ps) Obviously your "squadmate" has a very different IL2/FB experience from mine. The only instance where I ever got a kill over 400m in that game was when a lucky Hispano II round set fire to a Bf109G running straight and level.
In all of my days flying in most of the IL2/FB's most renowned open servers, never have I met anyone who shoots people down regularly at over 200m distance without range info specified in the icons, nor have I myself been regularly shot down under such circumstances. Freak shots and desparate spraying does happen, and when unlucky such hits will bring you down - but I can hardly say that it is the 'norm' in that game, unlike in AH.
When do I know I am going to be shot down in IL2/FB? When I see the enemy plane at the corners of my eyes, right behind me. Not when I see him at 400m.
In IL-2 not many people try to hit on long range, cause the planes are very smal(bad visible), but once you got used to it, you will find that kills are as easy as on 50m distance, though not the clean kill. Cause a unknown reason the hitprobability seems to increase with the distance in IL-2. At least some guns (specialy .50cal and the allied cannons) have a very similar behaviour like the AH HispannoII and MK108(before the last update).
btw, in IL-2 with icons and range there isnt a different, people still dont shoot at this distances, simply cause they have so much problems on close range, they seems to think on long range it must be impossible, but its not.
In IL-2 i get most kills(rarely a clean kill though, most the planes only get damaged) while a snapshot from impossible positions. Often from 300-500m with very high deflection(the enemy dissapear behind my cowling).
But i must admit, i didnt play IL-2 for some time now, so it might be different today(the damage and flightmodel changed a lot fro patch to patch).
And i agree that IL-2 is more difficult regarding the gunnery in general, but i dont think thats ok. Imho it got adjusted to bring similar results like in the war, but with much better skilled pilots.
Greetings,
Knegel