Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vinkman on July 24, 2012, 12:54:47 AM
-
So I spent most of the night Buff hunting in a 410 with the 50mm and observed two things:
1) 50mm may be too good. 1 shot will kill any buff. I had a sortie tonight where I killed two groups of buffs flying together with 15 rounds. Every shot was from outside 1000 yrds. And the velocity is so high, and the trajectory so flat it's very easy to make 1000yrd shots. That was only my second sortie with the 50mm.
2) The pilot of the 410 is as fragile as an egg. 1 ping from 1500-1000 yards from the buff insta killed me 6-7 times tonight. I know the 410 has a lot of cockpit glass, but wasn't any of it bullet proof? I failed to get credit for about 7 buffs tonight that I blow the wing off of, only to be insta-killed before the buff crashed. (so don't get a kill recorded, but that's a different thread)
It's like the 50mm is so good, they made the pilot extra easy to kill to give the buffs a chance. It must be frustrating for the buff pilots to have to face such a lethal weapon, and it's equally frustrating for the 410 pilots to be insta-killed by a single ping from 1500-1000yrds.
Perhaps the gun, and the frontal toughnes of the 410 could be tweeked to provide a bit more survivability for the both the 410 and the buffs. :salute
:salute
-
Instant pilot kill from any aspect is seriously messed up. Should be more protected than that. Armored seat and headrest, aswell as an armored tub around the pilots -- I still found myself in the tower before I heard the ping from behind.
I managed to find a formation of bombers and popped 2 before he got out of the bombsight, and the first shot he fired I literally was back in the tower instantly -- no damage just instant tower. There should be forward armor somewhere on it. Doesn't appear to work.
Happens far too often, it seems.
-
I am not sure if airplanes had bullet proof glass back then.
semp
-
I am not sure if airplanes had bullet proof glass back then.
semp
Most in AH have the front pane as bullet proof.
Historically, for example, Robert Stanford Tuck's Spitfire Mk II had the front pane replaced with bullet proof glass when he was covering the Dunkirk evacuation. He took a 20mm round from a Bf110C in a headon the flight after it was added and would have died then and there had it not been added.
I do not know where the Me410 stands in that regard, but given its role, size and weight I'd be surprised if it weren't bullet proof in the front.
-
Buffs are going to need Fighter escort now :)
I thought 410 were meant to fetle Bombers.
This would add a new side to the game close cobat support from fighters. <S>
Sqaud members and friends will have to work together to defend bombers.
-
Nerfing things for "balance" turns a sim into an arcade game. I am not for it for the sake of balance. I am for making the game as much of a simulation as possible. If it is really that dangerous maybe it should be pushed up on the ENY scale. Personally I think the fewer used planes in the war that barely got out there should be much lower in numbers encountered.
Think of it as a good time to learn to escort buffs to get them to the target.
Just my two cents.
-
+1
-
I think the 50mm may be just what the Dr. ordered.
I hope this is an eye opener in that escort fighters are a GOOD thing. :aok
-
Or, when long range strat runs on the city are getting more popular in the future again, we will see a significant increase in B-29 usage for that ;)
-
No tweaking necessary, the fact a bomber destroyer is actually becoming effective in that role is a good thing.
Besides, most bombers guys fly so high that they might as well fly offline. If you want to bring a Me410 to that altitude, you might as well be rewarded for it.
-
No tweaking necessary, the fact a bomber destroyer is actually becoming effective in that role is a good thing.
Besides, most bombers guys fly so high that they might as well fly offline. If you want to bring a Me410 to that altitude, you might as well be rewarded for it.
It is an tedious process. the 410 with 100% fuel and the 50mm climbs at a bout 1.95K/minute. In level flight on military power it cruises at about 320mph. So you need to fly it like bomber. Take two sectors from where you are headed, and climb to about 20k and circle on station. It's faster up high, with a top speed of 360 at 20K. (with the big gun in the front). So you can chase down formation given enough time. I think I chased some B-24s last night for 45 minutes.
The comment about escorts is spot on. After the first 2 hours of hunting, the buffs all had escorts. Many of the escort planes were flown by buff pilots I had shot down previously that night. They had realized the threat and adjusted.
And the threat is very significant. I came across two formations of B-17s at 20K. I pulled up behind them at 1500 yrds and opened fire. I killed all six buffs with a total of 15 rounds fired. Later DejaVu and I were both climbing out in 410s when we spotted two groups of Lancs coming in NOE to the base we just took off from. We dove and killed 5 of the 6 on the first pass, the other one got evasive, mis-dropped his bombs and got killed by the auto ack.
-
From historical references, the BK 5 autocannon we have in Aces High is acurate. It is essentially a Panzer III cannon that was redesigned to fire a high velocity 50mm fragmentation shell.
Trust me. If you take a 50mm shell in the tail of a B-17, the fragments will essentially shred everything right up to the nose gunner. 1 shot kills is not unrealsitic. This weapon took down 127 bombers during its limited use.
(reference: Stocker, Werner; Petrick, Peter (2007), Messerschmitt Me 210 / Me 410 Hornisse/ Hornet, Midland Publishing).
-
From historical references, the BK 5 autocannon we have in Aces High is acurate. It is essentially a Panzer III cannon that was redesigned to fire a high velocity 50mm fragmentation shell.
Trust me. If you take a 50mm shell in the tail of a B-17, the fragments will essentially shred everything right up to the nose gunner. 1 shot kills is not unrealsitic. This weapon took down 127 bombers during its limited use.
(reference: Stocker, Werner; Petrick, Peter (2007), Messerschmitt Me 210 / Me 410 Hornisse/ Hornet, Midland Publishing).
Question: The 410 ammo for the 50mm is not a choice, meaning I can't choose AP or HE. It kills tanks like an AP, and kills planes like an HE. Is it modelled as both to make it more effective? or did the actual round perform both roles? :salute
-
From historical references, the BK 5 autocannon we have in Aces High is acurate. It is essentially a Panzer III cannon that was redesigned to fire a high velocity 50mm fragmentation shell.
Trust me. If you take a 50mm shell in the tail of a B-17, the fragments will essentially shred everything right up to the nose gunner. 1 shot kills is not unrealsitic. This weapon took down 127 bombers during its limited use.
(reference: Stocker, Werner; Petrick, Peter (2007), Messerschmitt Me 210 / Me 410 Hornisse/ Hornet, Midland Publishing).
Please stop quoting references... this is the HTC forum. Conjecture and whines... THAT is the stuff forums are made of!
:aok
p.s. Love floating around in a BK 5 packing 410 above Vbases which are under attack. Low level buffs are sure to show up sooner or later :devil
-
I will fly as fighter escort at a small charge of $1.50 a hour :old:
-
From historical references, the BK 5 autocannon we have in Aces High is acurate. It is essentially a Panzer III cannon that was redesigned to fire a high velocity 50mm fragmentation shell.
It might have been accurate but in real life the 50mm wasn't as effective as it is in game. Pilots had to get in very close to the bombers to aim and fire the 50mm cannon and it had a tendency to jam after a round or two, unlike in here where you can snipe from over a thousand yards away and the gun never jams.
ack-ack
-
I will fly as fighter escort at a small charge of $1.50 a hour :old:
Do you offer any kind of satisfaction guarantee?
Because if you're all "Payment up front" i'ma be all :noid
-
None at all.
I tend to fall asleep while playing game due to lack of intellenece and a inability to focus upon any topic for more than 2 minutes.
-
+1 for armored glass (if it had it) you very easily get pilot wounded or just die in the 1.5-1k range. And your not getting closer then that lol and of you do the buff should be dead because if not you are
-
Ok did some research standard 410 did not have bullet proof glass and models designed for buff hunting did have a plate of bullet proof glass. So dammit. Also all versions did have bullet proof glass for radio operator/rear gunner
-
real life .50s from gunners where far from as effective they are in here. I mean how many times did german planes get hit by all 8 guns from a set of 3 planes at distances up to 1.5k ?
It might have been accurate but in real life the 50mm wasn't as effective as it is in game. Pilots had to get in very close to the bombers to aim and fire the 50mm cannon and it had a tendency to jam after a round or two, unlike in here where you can snipe from over a thousand yards away and the gun never jams.
ack-ack
-
I mean how many times did german planes get hit by all 8 guns from a set of 3 planes at distances up to 1.5k ?
In here: None.
At least not at 1.5K ;)
-
it is balanced by the "rock paper scissors" principle:
Me410 kills bombers, Fighter kills Me410, Bombers kill fighters... hmm wait. OK, bombers kill fighter hangars. There, rock paper scissors.
-
it is balanced by the "rock paper scissors" principle:
Me410 kills bombers, Fighter kills Me410, Bombers kill fighters... hmm wait. OK, bombers kill fighter hangars. There, rock paper scissors.
:rofl
-
It seems to me that it is just not the 410 that gets waxed with 50cal from bombers with ease. I can pour 500 rounds of 50cal into a buff with little effect . However if I am hit by a few 50cal from the bomber my wing fly's off or the oil goes or you just blow up. If the 50cal from bombers were that effective in WWII there would have been no need to have escort fighters at all and Germany would have been bombed to here knees years sooner.
I think it has more to do with all guns shooting at one target in synchronization here in AH while in a real WWII formation each gunner from each bomber would have to locate an enemy fighter and fire on it. In fairness to the game I have shot don't a full set of bombers in a P-51D without damage and then been accused of being a cheater so it goes both ways sometimes. As for ground attack with the 410, Well that may be another tread.
-
Compare the technical data.
50mm
• Hersteller: Mauser
• Kaliber: 50 mm × 420 mm
• Masse: 490 kg
• Gesamtlänge: 4,16 m
• Kadenz: 150 Schuss/min
• V° des Geschosses: 920 m/s[/font][/color]
• Geschossgewicht: 1,54 kg
to the 30mm
• Typ: einläufige Maschinenkanone
• Funktion: Rückstoßlader
• Kaliber: 30 × 90RB
• Hersteller: Rheinmetall-Borsig
• Länge: 1057 mm
• Rohrlänge 545 mm
• Gewicht: 58 kg
• Schussfolge (pro min): 650
• Mündungsgeschwindigkeit: 505–540 m/s
• Projektilgewicht: 330 g
• Patronengewicht: 480 g
• Mündungsenergie: 42.079–48.114 Joule
The 50mm bullet has 3 times the weight of the 30mm but 2 times the velocity.
Faster, bigger and much more explosive power.
Yes, the 50mm is a real deadly weapon. It was design of the germans 50mm anti Tank canon.
If the 50mm PAK is a Tank buster, it is logical the the 50mm canon in the 410 is a Bomber buster.
Buffs need now better aircover, that's for real.
-
I will fly as fighter escort at a small charge of $1.50 a hour :old:
I will do it for $14.95 / month
-
to the 30mm
• Typ: einläufige Maschinenkanone
• Funktion: Rückstoßlader
• Kaliber: 30 × 90RB
• Hersteller: Rheinmetall-Borsig
• Länge: 1057 mm
• Rohrlänge 545 mm
• Gewicht: 58 kg
• Schussfolge (pro min): 650
• Mündungsgeschwindigkeit: 505–540 m/s
• Projektilgewicht: 330 g
• Patronengewicht: 480 g
• Mündungsenergie: 42.079–48.114 Joule
That data is not for the MK103 but for the MK108.
---------------------------------
Here are some scematics of the Me410's armouring:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410armor.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410armor2.jpg)
-
it is balanced by the "rock paper scissors" principle:
Me410 kills bombers, Fighter kills Me410, Bombers kill fighters... hmm wait. OK, bombers kill fighter hangars. There, rock paper scissors.
:lol :aok
-
That data is not for the MK103 but for the MK108.
---------------------------------
Here are some scematics of the Me410's armouring:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410armor.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410armor2.jpg)
Do you have the image of the armor glass that the caption says is "above"?
-
man cockpits had bullet proof glass and yet nobody thought of adding them to the wings and the fuselage to make it tougher. I wonder if wonder woman's plane was glass just to bounce bullets.
semp
-
man cockpits had bullet proof glass and yet nobody thought of adding them to the wings and the fuselage to make it tougher. I wonder if wonder woman's plane was glass just to bounce bullets.
semp
The bullet proof glass is very heavy, hence being limited to the forward screen on fighters.
-
The bullet proof glass is very heavy, hence being limited to the forward screen on fighters.
I may be up around Austin this weekend. I'll have to hunt down karnak.... muhahahahahaha.
Just ignore any large white chevy trucks in your vacinity that are being driven by an old ugly redneck guy. :D
-
Just ignore any large white chevy trucks in your vacinity that are being driven by an old ugly redneck guy. :D
This is Texas. You just described about 20% of vehicles on the road. :p
-
This is Texas. You just described about 20% of vehicles on the road. :p
I know :D
This should help a little.................
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/IMAG0635.jpg)
-
I really think it's gotta be a bug, though. Seems the pilot is 5x larger than the plane. In fact the ONLY time I took a hit and didn't die was from a con below and behind me in a prolonged tail chase. I figure he hit the tail more than the cockpit area.
-
:headscratch:
I've attacked a set of B17s from a dead 6 position and I got hit mutiple times, lost flaps and ailerons and oil, but didn't die.
I got HOed by a Typhoon and killed him, but not before losing oil and an aileron.
I got jumped by a F4U4 and took at least 3 bursts before going down.
I never caught on fire.
I never got insta pilot killed.
I have gotten PW but that was because I was being stupid and attacked buffs from dead 6. Never have I died from a hit that made me go ":huh", when I died, it was because I screwed up big time (like trying to TnB with a F4U-4 :D). You guys must be in some unlucky situations. :uhoh
-
Standard load out for .50 cal ammo carried by bombers was a mix of AP or API and tracer. .%0 cal will penetrate bullet proof glass. Put a burts of .50 cal from oh 3 guns what do you have 50 to 100 rounds hitting in generally same area so poof pilot wound and death. You wanna sit back there and snipe you deserve to take onhe in the head. Anyone who thinks .50 cal AP won't penetrate bullet proof glass can ask one of the gunners from my troop who had his knee blown off from a .50 round that went through bullet proof glass in a blue on blue mishap...
-
Do you have the image of the armor glass that the caption says is "above"?
Yeh, I'll post it when I get home. It shows a separate armored glass infront of the actual "windshield"/canopy. The description of the aircraft in the same book mentions that a 75mm armored glass was provided.
Something like in this EAW-mod:
(http://uppix.net/0/8/4/26cefde90b0aa23e56346d8a43799tt.jpg)
-
"It might have been accurate but in real life the 50mm wasn't as effective as it is in game. Pilots had to get in very close to the bombers to aim and fire the 50mm cannon and it had a tendency to jam after a round or two, unlike in here where you can snipe from over a thousand yards away and the gun never jams."
Add to that that the interceptor had to fly in turbulent slipstream of the bomber making the aiming even more difficult.
-C+
-
Here's the pic:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410armor3.jpg)
-
Add to that that the interceptor had to fly in turbulent slipstream of the bomber making the aiming even more difficult.
-C+
No agenda question here- Would following in a buff's wake at 1000 yards be turbulent?
Wiley.
-
Just ignore any large white chevy trucks in your vacinity that are being driven by an old ugly redneck guy. :D
This is Texas. You just described about 20% of vehicles on the road. :p
And 80% of the drivers...
:cheers:
-
Here's the pic:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Me410armor3.jpg)
Well, that doesn't look like it would be full protection, just head protection.
-
There was protection below that glass panel, too. Most of the cockpit area was covered.
I still think it's a bug because even from dead 6 shots the round has to go through the tail, the rear gunner, the gunner's armor plating, the SEAT and headrest (often thick plating), and then kill you -- and it happens instantly before you ever hear a ping. You're just in the tower.
Hence why I cry foul.
-
Standard load out for .50 cal ammo carried by bombers was a mix of AP or API and tracer. .%0 cal will penetrate bullet proof glass. Put a burts of .50 cal from oh 3 guns what do you have 50 to 100 rounds hitting in generally same area so poof pilot wound and death. You wanna sit back there and snipe you deserve to take onhe in the head. Anyone who thinks .50 cal AP won't penetrate bullet proof glass can ask one of the gunners from my troop who had his knee blown off from a .50 round that went through bullet proof glass in a blue on blue mishap...
From 1500 yards? That's the question. :salute
Perhaps there is more pilot area exposed in the frontal modelling of a 410, and all pilots hits count the same. Seems too easy to kill the pilot. :salute
-
Historically speaking, armored glass WORKED. Rounds more powerful than 50cal were stopped dead. Including 20mm and higher sized cannon rounds. It might have shattered and made a mess, but it stopped the round.
I'm sorry about the guy from your troop, but the glass he had and the glass WW2 airplanes had were not the same.
-
+1 for the 410s cockpit to be more protected
-
I can pour 500 rounds of 50cal into a buff with little effect .
Outside of a hangar, I don't think there is anything in this game that you can pour 500 .50 caliber rounds into with "little effect".
I mean, literally, you are talking seconds of firing time... unless you're hitting the antenna, I do not believe what you are saying is possible. Like, literally, the game engine would be like "Sir, please. Sir, the plane already disintegrated, please... please sir, stop firing..."
Now, if what you really meant was "I can hose 500 round in the general direction of a bomber well outside of my convergence setting with little effect" I would go for that.
-
+1 for the 410s cockpit to be more protected
+2. This plane is basically useless. In fact the entire upgrade of two new airframes were both very dissapointing. I think the fragility of the 410 is the one thing hard to stomach, which includes the front glass. I dont expect it to be a wunderplane cause it wasnt in real life, but e-gads, at least be useful for something. The plane it replaced in History is batting a K/D of 0.73 while the 410 is 0.56
Ive thought most new intros have been great, even if I wanted different. The 25-H, the Mossie bomber, P-47M, Brewster, Bettie, P-39...ect. This recent one of the 410 and 87G has been very disappointing.
-
From 1500 yards? That's the question. :salute
Perhaps there is more pilot area exposed in the frontal modelling of a 410, and all pilots hits count the same. Seems too easy to kill the pilot. :salute
50 cal will penetrate 1/2" armor plate at 1200 meters especially API. Armored glass at that time is nowhere near as well made as it is to day. As for the ammo at the time it was just as effective then as it is now. I know this because 90% of the ammo we used in Iraq that was .50 cal was manufactured in 1945 and 6...lol
-
Historically speaking, armored glass WORKED. Rounds more powerful than 50cal were stopped dead. Including 20mm and higher sized cannon rounds. It might have shattered and made a mess, but it stopped the round.
I'm sorry about the guy from your troop, but the glass he had and the glass WW2 airplanes had were not the same.
If you think the bullet proof glass in WWII was more effective than what we had in an armored Hmmvee then how about I sell you some beachfront property in AZ. The simple fact that the manufaturing processes has been refined should tell you that the glass today is much better. Not to mention years more research testing and test data to build a better product.
Besides you mean to tell me that having a super armored buff killer that withstands and kills all would be better for the game? Really that is just about preposterous! For every one shot kill that happens I bet about 30-40 groups of Buffs die with the 410 getting clean away with little to no damage so don't ya think it has a way of balancing out?
Surely we can find something else to squeak about right??? :D
-
The glass in WWII wasn't better on a mm for mm basis, but I bet a fighter windscreen in WWII had a lot more mm of glass than the Humvee was carrying.
-
Humvees aren't armored to withstand 50cal rounds. they're meant for light arms fire (7.65, 5.56).
There's a helluva big difference between AK47 and .50cal.
-
You have not seen the new Hmmvee Frag 14 armor package..it is meant to withstand IED blasts...almost 7 tons of armor plating and VEry thick Glass...Glass that is laminated to boot which was not even thought of in WWII I bet..This isn't the standard MP hummers we had in the begining of the war ..I am sure I can find specs on the armor package so we might compare the two..
-
We had a post on here one time with a pic of a Beaufighter with a 20mm shell embedded neatly in the armoured windscreen - dead square in the middle. Shattered the centre of the screen but didn't get through.
Will see if I can find the pic, I think the relevant book may be in my local library.
Somewhere upstairs I also have a pic of John Cunningham's windscreen after it stopped a bullet from a German gunner.
-
"Would following in a buff's wake at 1000 yards be turbulent?"
The air remains turbulent for some time after the aircraft has passed a certain point and entering that turbulence may cause destabilizing effects depending on how strong the wake is. I'm not sure but the strength of turbulence depends prolly on object's speed and lift force i.e. a smaller and lighter aircraft produces less turbulence than a heavy one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence
http://physics.aps.org/story/v9/st5
-C+
-
Outside of a hangar, I don't think there is anything in this game that you can pour 500 .50 caliber rounds into with "little effect".
I mean, literally, you are talking seconds of firing time... unless you're hitting the antenna, I do not believe what you are saying is possible. Like, literally, the game engine would be like "Sir, please. Sir, the plane already disintegrated, please... please sir, stop firing..."
Now, if what you really meant was "I can hose 500 round in the general direction of a bomber well outside of my convergence setting with little effect" I would go for that.
I bet every one who has ever attacked bombers in this game has experienced pouring fire into bombers with only a few parts coming off them then losing a wing on your fighter with a few pings from the bomber. At least that is how I see it.
-
You have not seen the new Hmmvee Frag 14 armor package..it is meant to withstand IED blasts...almost 7 tons of armor plating and VEry thick Glass...Glass that is laminated to boot which was not even thought of in WWII I bet..This isn't the standard MP hummers we had in the begining of the war ..I am sure I can find specs on the armor package so we might compare the two..
If a .50 got through it, well, it is demonstrated to be weaker than the WWII armored glass, full stop. You can go on and on and on as much as you like, but the fact is that the WWII stuff would stop a .50 or even a 20mm. Also, you don't say how thick it is, "VEry thick" is not a useful statement. The Ki-84's was, iirc, 65mm thick and the Japanese weren't known for being liberal with the armor.
I bet every one who has ever attacked bombers in this game has experienced pouring fire into bombers with only a few parts coming off them then losing a wing on your fighter with a few pings from the bomber. At least that is how I see it.
Nope, can't say that I have. Bombers are easy kills.
-
If a .50 got through it, well, it is demonstrated to be weaker than the WWII armored glass, full stop. You can go on and on and on as much as you like, but the fact is that the WWII stuff would stop a .50 or even a 20mm. Also, you don't say how thick it is, "VEry thick" is not a useful statement. The Ki-84's was, iirc, 65mm thick and the Japanese weren't known for being liberal with the armor.Nope, can't say that I have. Bombers are easy kills.
You are my hero because you are so good.
-
I bet every one who has ever attacked bombers in this game has experienced pouring fire into bombers with only a few parts coming off them then losing a wing on your fighter with a few pings from the bomber. At least that is how I see it.
Not me but then I am smart about the way I go and attack bomber formations.
ack-ack
-
I bet every one who has ever attacked bombers in this game has experienced pouring fire into bombers with only a few parts coming off them then losing a wing on your fighter with a few pings from the bomber. At least that is how I see it.
In the last scenario I racked up over 50 bomber kills without a single loss in a 262 or single ping on my plane. There was jokes flying that the bullets were "down graded" for the allies when in fact they were not tweaked, we just hit from the correct angles using the 262's...... SPEED and firepower to defeat the buffs.
You can try the same thing in a P51D and not get much results, thus is why the Germans had heavier firepower.
Me-410 is a great buff hunter, but add a single escort and its threat is practically zero unless the Escort is useless.
-
You can go on and on but you can find it for yourself that a .50 cal AP round will penetrate over 2' of modern class 4 armored glass. Try as you might there is no way you are gonna get around arguing that point. While it may save your hide at distances over 1.5 miles away under it tests have shown time and again .50 wins 9 times out of 10. As for 20mm I can see where that might be true as the muzzle velocity was probably much less than that of the.50 cal browning. Even with todays modern advances armored glass designed to stop a .50 cal clean would weigh in excess of 30 lbs per square foot. In aircraft as we know weight = performance loss and it's not good..You don't beleive me fine go to Total Security Solutions websight and you can read what the experts say on the .50 cal debate themselves... http://www.tssbulletproof.com/category/bullet-proof-glass/page/4 (http://www.tssbulletproof.com/category/bullet-proof-glass/page/4)
-
In AH some good pilots/gunners can land good numbers of kills, sometimes that challenge what a full scale raid of 500-700 buffs did IRL.
Why buffs did not get more kills IRL , can be related to how hard it is to hit a moving target ,shooting from a moving platform in very turbulent air mass, among them the plane own slipstream.
Also the glass part of the frontal area must be a hard task to hit under above conditions, without optics found in tanks at longer distances.
ave not seen any dispersion test in AH , but they hit harder than most escorts ever did
-
It's too easy to kill planes with bombers. ;)
And there isn't a real solution without making bombers sitting ducks. You could up the amount of planes in a formation if you want to increase difficulty in gunning. Or you can leave it as it is and reduce a formation of 3 to 2.
-
You can go on and on but you can find it for yourself that a .50 cal AP round will penetrate over 2' of modern class 4 armored glass. Try as you might there is no way you are gonna get around arguing that point. While it may save your hide at distances over 1.5 miles away under it tests have shown time and again .50 wins 9 times out of 10. As for 20mm I can see where that might be true as the muzzle velocity was probably much less than that of the.50 cal browning. Even with todays modern advances armored glass designed to stop a .50 cal clean would weigh in excess of 30 lbs per square foot. In aircraft as we know weight = performance loss and it's not good..You don't beleive me fine go to Total Security Solutions websight and you can read what the experts say on the .50 cal debate themselves... http://www.tssbulletproof.com/category/bullet-proof-glass/page/4 (http://www.tssbulletproof.com/category/bullet-proof-glass/page/4)
Hispano Mk II muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
Aircraft mounted Browning .50 muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
20mm cannons had markedly higher armor penetration than did the Browning .50. The Browning .50 is not a god weapon that violates the laws of physics.
Sorry, but you are claiming that something that factually happened didn't happen.
-
r105
Wing up with a bomber killer, and you might learn what you are doing wrong.
Change your perception of "I was poring ammo into the wing" to "I was poring ammo out of my guns hoping to hit a wing" and you will be more honest to yourself.
Patience is the key to attacking buffs. It takes me more than 5 minutes to reset for the next pass sometimes. Timing is everything.
I have exactly 50 kills of B17's this month so far and have been shot down 1 time by a B17. I don't think it's because B17's are easy kills.
I would be happy to wing up with you and show you and explain everything as I am attacking.
Currently I'm kickin around squadless so I also have no problem changing sides
to help someone who really wants to improve.
Not trying to thump you r105, I don't realy know you sir :salute
-
It's too easy to kill planes with bombers. ;)
And there isn't a real solution without making bombers sitting ducks. You could up the amount of planes in a formation if you want to increase difficulty in gunning. Or you can leave it as it is and reduce a formation of 3 to 2.
I do not agree sir.
But I have observed that the 410 does seem fragile.
-
Everything with the 410, even vis-a-vis killing Buffs with its 50mm, seems accurate to me. The BK 5 was a brutal HE round against bombers. It might be said its far more accurate in the game then it was in real life, but bomber formation gunnery is a whole lot more brutal in the game too then it was in real life. The 410 is a duck against one engined fighters, but it was so in real life as well. Overall the destroyer concept was unremarkable in actual war conditions. The exception being maybe as a night fighter. It did OK when accompanied by enough fighter cover but so did the Stuka. Besides the Luftwaffe had a very short window when it had enough fighter cover for its bomber/attack planes.
Like I said its the fragility of the thing that doesn't seem right. Let alone the glass the frame seems made out of paper machete. With a .55 K/D already compared to the 110s .74s, along with the 110s versatility, I'll bet within 3 months the 410 will end up with at least 1/2 the usage of the 110. Maybe less. One interesting use I bet would be worth the effort is to fly one over a CV group. The IB bombers being often left unprotected.
-
I do not agree sir.
But I have observed that the 410 does seem fragile.
I find it so. It's fun once in a while to up a set of B17s and go Death Star into a furball. This coming from some one who flies bombers maybe once a month. I haven't met a single situation where I found it hard to hit a fighter.
-
We had a post on here one time with a pic of a Beaufighter with a 20mm shell embedded neatly in the armoured windscreen - dead square in the middle. Shattered the centre of the screen but didn't get through.
Will see if I can find the pic, I think the relevant book may be in my local library.
Somewhere upstairs I also have a pic of John Cunningham's windscreen after it stopped a bullet from a German gunner.
I posted it. See below. I think what we have to be careful with though is just because we can find some examples of the armor glass working, doesn't mean it was 100 percent stop em every time. We don't know how fast the shell was moving at the time of the hit or how many hit on the canopy etc. The reason there is a photo is cause the plane got home. That doesn't mean they all got home and every shot was stopped.
I'd suggest that a big part of this is still that folks were expecting the 410 to be more then it is in terms of performance. Just cause it looks good and carries big cannons, doesn't mean it's not just a big target :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BeauFlakhit.jpg)
-
I posted it. See below. I think what we have to be careful with though is just because we can find some examples of the armor glass working, doesn't mean it was 100 percent stop em every time. We don't know how fast the shell was moving at the time of the hit or how many hit on the canopy etc. The reason there is a photo is cause the plane got home. That doesn't mean they all got home and every shot was stopped.
I'd suggest that a big part of this is still that folks were expecting the 410 to be more then it is in terms of performance. Just cause it looks good and carries big cannons, doesn't mean it's not just a big target :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BeauFlakhit.jpg)
Holy Crap
-
In the last scenario I racked up over 50 bomber kills without a single loss in a 262 or single ping on my plane. There was jokes flying that the bullets were "down graded" for the allies when in fact they were not tweaked, we just hit from the correct angles using the 262's...... SPEED and firepower to defeat the buffs.
You failed to mention that we were in B-26's flying NOE to sneak through enemy lines to hit our targets. I do remember at least smoking some 262s but not shooting them down.
-
Instant pilot kill from any aspect is seriously messed up. Should be more protected than that. Armored seat and headrest, aswell as an armored tub around the pilots -- I still found myself in the tower before I heard the ping from behind.
I managed to find a formation of bombers and popped 2 before he got out of the bombsight, and the first shot he fired I literally was back in the tower instantly -- no damage just instant tower. There should be forward armor somewhere on it. Doesn't appear to work.
Happens far too often, it seems.
Armored or not...even a Lanc can easily kill a 410 on his 6 co-alt or high with all that open glass in front....wonderful SA/visibility, but at a tremendous cost. I also was very surprised at the flat trajectory & overshot with the first 5/6 rounds scratching my head & not believing I missed. :airplane: :old:
-
Most in AH have the front pane as bullet proof.
Historically, for example, Robert Stanford Tuck's Spitfire Mk II had the front pane replaced with bullet proof glass when he was covering the Dunkirk evacuation. He took a 20mm round from a Bf110C in a headon the flight after it was added and would have died then and there had it not been added.
I do not know where the Me410 stands in that regard, but given its role, size and weight I'd be surprised if it weren't bullet proof in the front.
I have no documentation to show whether it's ballistic glass or not, but I was killed with not more than 2-3 rounds from a Lanc @ my co-alt 6....So...? you tell me, maybe it's supposed to be, but it ain't! :salute
-
Nerfing things for "balance" turns a sim into an arcade game. I am not for it for the sake of balance. I am for making the game as much of a simulation as possible. If it is really that dangerous maybe it should be pushed up on the ENY scale. Personally I think the fewer used planes in the war that barely got out there should be much lower in numbers encountered.
Think of it as a good time to learn to escort buffs to get them to the target.
Just my two cents.
-2 because the easy kills before you get landed out way the leathality of the AC. :salute :aok
-
I know :D
This should help a little.................
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/IMAG0635.jpg)
My Dodge Quad-Cab 4X4 used to be that pretty 'till I used it to kill a whole herd of mule deer early one morning on a country highway doing 65 in the dark....DOH!
-
I posted it. See below. I think what we have to be careful with though is just because we can find some examples of the armor glass working, doesn't mean it was 100 percent stop em every time. We don't know how fast the shell was moving at the time of the hit or how many hit on the canopy etc. The reason there is a photo is cause the plane got home. That doesn't mean they all got home and every shot was stopped.
I'd suggest that a big part of this is still that folks were expecting the 410 to be more then it is in terms of performance. Just cause it looks good and carries big cannons, doesn't mean it's not just a big target :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BeauFlakhit.jpg)
kinda looks like a bird-strike on an F-15... :salute
-
I posted it. See below. I think what we have to be careful with though is just because we can find some examples of the armor glass working, doesn't mean it was 100 percent stop em every time. We don't know how fast the shell was moving at the time of the hit or how many hit on the canopy etc. The reason there is a photo is cause the plane got home. That doesn't mean they all got home and every shot was stopped.
I'd suggest that a big part of this is still that folks were expecting the 410 to be more then it is in terms of performance. Just cause it looks good and carries big cannons, doesn't mean it's not just a big target :)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/BeauFlakhit.jpg)
Thanks Guppy.
-
I have no documentation to show whether it's ballistic glass or not, but I was killed with not more than 2-3 rounds from a Lanc @ my co-alt 6....So...? you tell me, maybe it's supposed to be, but it ain't! :salute
What plane? The armored glass is only in front, so from your six you'd be relying on the armor plate behind you. If the rounds miss the armor by coming in from the side, well, even a single .303 round can kill then. All most fighters have on the side or top is the aluminum skin, cockpit control bits or thin perspex.
It sounds like our Me410 doesn't have armored glass in front.
-
to clarify...I was on the Lanc's co-alt 6 he bloodied my 410 pilot w/ those puny tail guns with only 2-3 pings from the direct front angle...... :salute
-
to clarify...I was on the Lanc's co-alt 6 he bloodied my 410 pilot w/ those puny tail guns with only 2-3 pings from the direct front angle...... :salute
.50 cals are puny?
Also, as it seems the Me410 lacks any armored glass in front, even if our Lanc had the quad .303 turret it would still be quite capable of killing the Me410's pilot.
-
No news for me , got PK'ed by a 110 rear gunner in an A8, direct behind him , guess they lack front armored glass too.
-
Nerfing things for "balance" turns a sim into an arcade game. I am not for it for the sake of balance. I am for making the game as much of a simulation as possible. If it is really that dangerous maybe it should be pushed up on the ENY scale. Personally I think the fewer used planes in the war that barely got out there should be much lower in numbers encountered.
Pw thing sounds more like a bug, as I would be absolutely astonished if the 410 didn't have armored glass, even if the glass wasn't nessicarily 'bullet proof'.
what was the 'bullet-proof' glass in WWII rated for, anyway? 7.92mm, 12.7mm? 20mm, 30mm? 128mm APCR rounds?
As to the 50mm, you could make it less effective by simply reducing the zoom level for the 410. Properly speaking, we shouldn't have zoom for any aircraft.
-
I was on the Lanc's co-alt 6...
learn to play
-
Hispano Mk II muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
Aircraft mounted Browning .50 muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
20mm cannons had markedly higher armor penetration than did the Browning .50. The Browning .50 is not a god weapon that violates the laws of physics.
Sorry, but you are claiming that something that factually happened didn't happen.
It isn't violating the laws of physics - it is merely the difference between HE and AP ammo. The 1940's era M2 ball ammo (and even the M10 ammo for aircraft machine guns) was perfectly capable of blasting through a 1/2" of steel plate. I once saw a demonstration of the old (1940s-era) vs new (1990's sabot rounds) and both were pretty devastating. The old ammo went through one side of the M3, but wouldn't penetrate a BMP. The new ammo went right through the M3 and blasted holes in the BMP.
20mm HE ammo explodes on impact - it has a nose fuse along with 18g of HE inside (nice boom). The 20mm MG-151 AP-T is what had 13mm+ of armor piercing capability, and that was just by filling in the cavity in the round. The german APHE and API rounds had a smaller amount of HE that would detonate after 4-5mm of armor penetration.
There is no .50 cal HE round, so pretty much everything you shoot has some armor penetration capability - this is not the case with a MG-151 loaded up with HE ammo, or some mix of HE / HEI / APHE. I can definitely see that armored glass stopping an 20mm HE round, but I wouldn't want to be on the other side of it when it cops an AP round.
-
Whats the argument here?
That a .50 cal would be more effective against armored glass than a 20mm?
No. Why? Even the HE rounds are gonna do some damage to the glass, depending on how thick, they might break it or crack it. If it couldn't even damage glass, it would be useless against metal.
And the AP rounds would be better than the .50's at punch through a sheet of glass. Same muzzle velocity + higher mass = more penetration.
And besides, when all it takes is one bullet to hit the pilot, they'd all be about equally effective.
So, should the 410's pilot be so vulnerable? Probably not. It almost certianlly was armored glass, we've seen proof that armored glass can stop 20mm rounds. At ranges above 1000yds, .50's shouldn't be punching through where 20mm's wouldn't.
Is it a bug? Possibly: for a while, the M4(76) had thicker armor on the (left?) hull side than it should have been. We've had bugs before, and we'll have them again in the future.
Is it a decision by HTC? It very well might be exactly that. Who knows what exactly they're trying for. Not us.
-
P38 drivers have suffered from pilot wounds for years, I'm glad someone can now suffer with us.
-
Pw thing sounds more like a bug, as I would be absolutely astonished if the 410 didn't have armored glass, even if the glass wasn't nessicarily 'bullet proof'.
what was the 'bullet-proof' glass in WWII rated for, anyway? 7.92mm, 12.7mm? 20mm, 30mm? 128mm APCR rounds?
As to the 50mm, you could make it less effective by simply reducing the zoom level for the 410. Properly speaking, we shouldn't have zoom for any aircraft.
Wronnn-gahhh :D
410 should have MORE zoom than any plane in AH, they actually had a 12" (give or take) long telescope sight to aim the Bk-5
-
P38 drivers have suffered from pilot wounds for years, I'm glad someone can now suffer with us.
You're probably still beaten by A6M drivers :D.
-
Hispano Mk II muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
Aircraft mounted Browning .50 muzzle velocity: 880m/sec
20mm cannons had markedly higher armor penetration than did the Browning .50. The Browning .50 is not a god weapon that violates the laws of physics.
Sorry, but you are claiming that something that factually happened didn't happen.
I am not claiming anything happened, actually I am claiming that the glass would not stop the rounds. I am claiming " Bullet Proof Glass" isn't and is a misnomer. That has been my argument the whole time sir....LMAO
-
Our HMMWV glass in 98 was about three inches thick and heavy as heck. No way that the front windscreen on a fighter in WWII was that thick IMO. To much weight on something that has to defy gravity to do what it is designed to do.
The K/D rate between it and whatever it replaced - well we don't know how to fly it yet. It has only been around for a month (less than) and everyone is playing in it even doing silly things like upping at a capped field. Of course the first few months it will have a horrid K/D ratio. As far as damage... Well I think BUFFS are ridiculous with their accuracy. Having fired a pintle mounted .50 from a stationary target I can safely say I can imagine how hard it would be to fire upon a moving a/c from a moving a/c and say wow I am amazed those men shot down anything. The weapons do damage of course, but the amount of hits are just crazy. If they were as accurate as they are in AH we would not have made the P51 because it would have been a waste - buffs would have not needed an escort.
I stand by it, leave the 410 where it is. Stop trying to nerf, buff, or whatever they say in warcraft or evercrack and use it as designed...
Hint hint: 4th Fighter Group does LOVE flying escort missions with bombers - at least those folks that fly bombers with an intent to hit a target and return. You guys dive bombing or going in at 3000 feet agl are still on your own. :lol
-
P38 drivers have suffered from pilot wounds for years, I'm glad someone can now suffer with us.
Not wounds....Insta-kills. It's like first hit, and the pilot is dead in a 410, and your back in the tower. I think it may be a result of there being nothing in front of the pilot all the way to his ankles. With nothing to hide behind, he's absorbing more bullets than pilots of other planes who are only exposed from the shoulders up. Perhaps it's a true representation of the danger to the pilot.
But with the Buff gunning more acurate that RL, and the 50mm perhaps more lethal than real life, my question was could some scatter be added to the dispersion of the 50mm, and some re-modeling of the below-the-shoulder pilot toughness be added to create more of a realistic confrontation between these two planes. (410 vs. Buffs)
Not saying it's unworkable the way it is, but if the lethality/effectiveness is a little high for both, some tweeking could be in order.
That said, the buff pilots needs to be a pretty good shot to get hits from 1500 yrds. I've seen a dramatic increase in the number of buff pilots shooting from 1500yrds now (at 410s). remember when you knew a buff gunner was a noob because he was shooting from that distance?
For the record, my 410 record aginst buffs stands at 42-7 or 6:1
My record against fighters is 8-19 or 0.42
Fighter escort ends almost any threat from a 410
-
P38 drivers have suffered from pilot wounds for years, I'm glad someone can now suffer with us.
Mosquito and Bf110 drivers have been right there with you the whole time. I think it has to do with not having an engine block in front of you in the damage model.
I am not claiming anything happened, actually I am claiming that the glass would not stop the rounds. I am claiming " Bullet Proof Glass" isn't and is a misnomer. That has been my argument the whole time sir....LMAO
And yet it did. I wonder how?
-
You're probably still beaten by A6M drivers :D.
Always.. particularly when they start behind my 38 at 400 yards because I was busy with someone else.
-
Back from Austin.... did not see Karnak. Lots of lowriders for some carshow called heatwave.
-
Our HMMWV glass in 98 was about three inches thick and heavy as heck. No way that the front windscreen on a fighter in WWII was that thick IMO. To much weight on something that has to defy gravity to do what it is designed to do.
I think you just have to accept that what humvees have and what planes have are totally different. The differences include thickness, weight, impact resistance, and COST. Yes, COST. The considerations given to vehicles are not the same as given to front line fighter planes at the height of WW2.
-
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine the armored glass of WW2 is as effective as the designs we have today.
-
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine the armored glass of WW2 is as effective as the designs we have today.
Can't imagine it was. But to say it couldn't stop the rounds that it, at least sometimes, stopped is kinda silly.
-
I'm no expert, but I can't imagine the armored glass of WW2 is as effective as the designs we have today.
There are tons of different ratings. Thickness is merely one aspect of it. Depending on the materials used, thicker glass doesn't mean better resistance.
It often is solely a price-based decision. How much money is the US going to allocate per humvee? What kind of fire are they expecting? Small arms. They aren't rated to take RPGs or HMG rounds. They're meant to be fast and mobile. Otherwise, they'd all cost $2 Billion per car and drive 2 mph because they were so heavy.
It's a decision made somewhere. It has nothing to do with the technology now vs then.
-
A humvee's windscreen is also a lot larger in terms of area. The 65mm screen on the Ki-84 has a fraction of the area.
-
Front glass of a plane is angled , much like late war tanks where.
-
Always.. particularly when they start behind my 38 at 400 yards because I was busy with someone else.
You missed what I was saying. I was saying that you were beaten (in how bad PW's are) by the A6M (the A6M being the most flimsily built and fragile plane in the game right now).
Does anyone here think that WWII bullet proof glass couldn't stop at least some of the rounds at least some of the time?
If not, theres no reason to think the 410 (or any plane really, for that matter) getting PW's at 1.5k from a couple of .50 hits. And lets stress the "couple", because unless you're 999000, you aren't going to be landing heavy concentrated fire on the cocpit area at 1.5k.
-
You missed what I was saying. I was saying that you were beaten (in how bad PW's are) by the A6M (the A6M being the most flimsily built and fragile plane in the game right now).
Actually A6Ms were built fairly ruggedly as they have to survive carrier landings. They just don't have any armor or self sealing fuel tanks. I think Spitfires in AH are more fragile than A6Ms, at least their wings are.
-
I would disagree on the wings. Zeke wings are weaker. A6M5 had thicker metal on the wings to withstand higher dive speeds, and this must also have meant more rigidity in manuevering as well, but the earlier models had a very thin metal for the wings' surface. In an A6M2/3 I creak the wings just by hauling stick back too hard. In spits you REALLY have to be going too fast to rip wings off. It happens, but not nearly as slow as the A6Ms wings.
So I'd rate the zeke much more fragile.
Not that this has anything to do with me410 and their lack of any armor as modeled in AH :)
-
The 410 carried more than 800 pounds of armor, mostly in and around the cockpit. AS others have pointed out, the cockpit floor was armored with metal, and so was the "flank" panels of the nose next to the armored window below the canopy. The pilot's seat and the gunner's side windows were armored along with the rear cockpit wall and parts of the side fuselage to the rear. Bomber-destroyers also had a large armored glass shield protecting the front canopy. Bomb bay and guns were armored and so was the ammo bin in the rear fuselage. Radiators and other vital components were also armored.
Our 410 seems to be lacking much of this armor.
As for the effectiveness of WWII armored glass. WWII armored glass usually comprised of multiple layers of hardened glass with thin transparent acetate sheets between. The Germans also used this type of armored glass on their tanks. German ace and all-round great guy Franz Stigler was shot in the face at point blank range while attacking a B-17. The .50 cal penetrated his armored windshield, but only had enough energy left to get stuck in Stigler's forehead. After the war he would point to a dent in his forehead and say "this is where the Americans shot me in the head".
The armored windshield of a 109G:
(http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp202/ruspren/109_armouredglass.jpg)
-
Actually A6Ms were built fairly ruggedly as they have to survive carrier landings. They just don't have any armor or self sealing fuel tanks. I think Spitfires in AH are more fragile than A6Ms, at least their wings are.
In AH, the measurment is usually its ability to stand up to gunfire. I'm well aware of the fact that the A6M was built fairly strongly for carrier landings (as are all carrier aircraft), but thats not what I was refering to.
-
In AH, the measurment is usually its ability to stand up to gunfire. I'm well aware of the fact that the A6M was built fairly strongly for carrier landings (as are all carrier aircraft), but thats not what I was refering to.
I think its wings take more than the Spit's to remove, gunfirewise. Not sure, but it seems that way.
-
I think its wings take more than the Spit's to remove, gunfirewise. Not sure, but it seems that way.
IDK, I've always felt the spitfire's wings were just a touch stronger. Either way, they're both still among the weakest aircraft for withstanding gunfire.
-
The armored windshield of a 109G:
(http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp202/ruspren/109_armouredglass.jpg)
Really? they used to walk around with their faces pressed against a piece of armored glass?
You can never be too careful.
-
After the war he would point to a dent in his forehead and say "this is where the Americans shot me in the head".
:aok