Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- on February 18, 2002, 07:39:43 AM
-
why is the mosquito, historically a very durable aircraft, so weak in AH?
why is the P38, historically vulnerable to tail hits, now built like a tank in AH?
I was all for toughening the p38 a little after flying with the glass tail but sheesh dont you think its overdone? At the VERY least, it certainly should not be tougher now than the mossie.
Im going out on a limb here but i gotta say I think this is one area where AH has NO BEARING on what you see and read in history books.
Ive seen film of hits on B17s where the damn thing seems to take an unreal amount of hits.the gunners are obviously dead but the thing just kept flying.Why in AH dont we see more of our shots killing gunners?they had no armour around them, shouldnt they be susceptable to damage long before the structure gives out?
Ive read stories of the p38 having the tendancy to lose its tail when hit by even small caliber fire and although AH at first seemed to model it, I agreed it felt a bit too glasslike for the overall enjoyment of the game, and needed a bit of a boost but now the tail is as tough as any plane in AH.
The P51, Notorious for its vulnerability(exposed radiator) to ground fire is also a tank in AH. I have survived more AA hits in a p51d than i EVER have in a 190F8 (supposedly a specialised toughened 190 ground pounder).Have none of you heard the stories from korea where even the pilots said a farmer can down a p51 with a rifle bullet? see that happening in AH? why? because we havent got farmers modeled :D
The 190f8, supposedly able to take more damage than the other 190 models due to increased armour around engine and guns and pilot.Do you notice the difference in AH?
etc etc
Now Im not saying its rigged but hell it sure feels like it. SO if HTC would id like them to explain the damage model a bit.Could we have a graph showing the most durable, down to least durable in AH? and could we know how it was decided?
You see i see certain 'quirks' of planes modeled, ie the zero feels like it has exploding fuel tanks which you read about. The P47 is REALLY tough in AH JUST as it was known to be in real life.the 109 undercarriage is narrow and weak and seems to be in AH too
but other characteristics are totally contrary to what you read about the aircraft.
so how about it HTC? a list of toughest to weakest with a note as to why? or maybe if you feel this is an unfair request maybe a tough/medium/weak grouping with little detail?
Im just fed up trying to match what i read to what i see in AH.With the usual mob of 'knowalls' telling me that what i read is nonsense or it doesnt match data from tests etc.well unless im mistaken they didnt 'test' shooting at these planes, it was pilots recollection which gave them knowledge in real fights.
So with this in mind why not use the pilot stories and other records (ie german official crash investigators counted hits on downed bombers and said on average 25-30 20mm hits brought down a bomber) to judge and set the damage levels so they match up to the stories we can read in the history books?
If this is ignored then well, im sorry, but I'll no longer consider AH a sim with accuracy in mind, rather just one companys idea of what they think is good for business.The way things seem to be going any USAAF plane seems to be made of titanium (with the exception of the f6f, thats F&*(_& KEVLAR! :D)
ok finished......
-
all the whiners about whine and other ,,HTC guild members ,, CM stuff WILL EAT U ALIVE HAZED ! :eek: :D
-
I was disappointed by the fragileness of the Mosquito... :(
As for the B17, I got a piccy somewhere of a B17 with a 109 imbedded in it's fuselage, just ahead of the vstab! It just made it home - crashed on approach I think. I'll have to hunt for the piccy!
Regards
Nexx
-
The FM on the P-38 does seem a bit much. I knocked an engine out on a 38 with 20mm strikes and he still out ran my KI-61 on one engine! :rolleyes:
Genearlly the tail was the weak spot on the 38 but it doesn't seem to be modled that way here in AH. In WB's that was were you aimed when trying to shoot down a 38 from the rear quarter.
-
replicant, you will be happy to know that the b17 which you are talking about landed safely. The tail severed from the aircraft after it was already on the ground. While I have seen B17s take massive damage and make it home, I have also seen B17s with no apparent damage crash. Anyone seen the 1943 movie "Memphis belle". Why in the world is that B17 spinning in (The one where you see a crewman bail out of the bombay)? It has no visible damage.
-
Hazed I assume you have performed some sort of objective tests on the various AH aircraft (how many 20mm hits does it on average take to down a Mustang and a Mosquito?). Also presumably you have archival documents which show data detailing how the planes in question should behave, how much damage they absorb etc...
Unfortunately you seem to have left the important parts of your post out (i.e. the data and analysis). It’s almost as if a 50 page analysis were presented but only the paragraph with conclusions was actually included without the data upon which those conclusions were based. The conclusions you do present seem to be lacking somewhat in structure and logic. Frankly they seem emotion-laden, petulant and whiney.
I'm sure this is just an oversight and I am looking forward to you presenting the missing data and analysis that will provide HTC with the information they need to make the requisite improvements.
Hooligan
-
Things that match what I have read:
The Ju88 seems about as tough as I have read it was. I have taken an ungodly pounding in that thing and stayed in the air at times.
Mustang wings pop off quite readily if you get ham handed at high speed.
Lancaster tail gunners die quickly. It is very rare for me to have a Lanc's tail gunner live long enough to exhaust the small amount of ammo he has.
The Bf109 has a horribly cramped cockpit that give very little room to adjust your view position. Even Spitfire pilots commented on how roomy their normal ride was compared to the 109.
Hellcats are tough mofos.
Zero's catch fire very, very readily.
....And many other things.
Things that stand out as odd to me:
The Mossie does seem quite fragile to me. I would in fact put it in the "most fragile" category along with things like the C-47 and Spitfire. The stuff I have read frequently mentioned the Mosquito's durability and ability to absorb more damage than other aircraft its size.
The Zero seems a bit too structurally sound to me, being tougher than the Spitfire.
The Spitfire seems a bit too weak structurally. I have never read anything that indicated the Spit was considered a particularly fragile aircraft, just as I have never read that it was considered a durable aircraft.
Spitfires and Mustangs doing ground attack work should suck bullets into their oil/cooling systems like the Typhoon does.
The B-17G and Lancaster both seem excessively fragile compared to their war record. They also seem to be deadlier to fighters.
La-7s seem shockingly durable. I have noticed this on both ends, recieving and giving.
-
in my studys i have come accros thet the spit had a VERY fragile under carrage and with tha mossie being made of wood it would go up in smoke if it ever caught fire. As for tha A6M the one we have has more armor than the later ones still it only has the armor directly behind the piolits head. The Typhoon Tempest had a little more radiator protection because of the prop spin. The Mustangs would suck spent caseings in there radiators regularly. that being one of there main desing flaws. Yes the mossie was very structraly sound, but try takeing out a sheet of plywood and shoot your gun at it, thats what it was like. That is why when you look at pasific AC you see that they had covers over there radiators to keep bugs and leafs out.
-
I dont think the zero is tougher than the spit, granted I DO NOT FLY SPITFIRES. I have had many engagements against Spitfires in my trusty Zeke. The 20mm has a devastating effect against the Spit. But If my shooting is off, or the pilot is a good stick, I can easily expend a good deal of my 20mm ammo. The Zeke's combo MG's can be hazardous to any aircraft. But it doesnt take very long in a low and slow turning fight to be on the recieving end of any enemy aircraft. Ive found one succesful burst onto the Zero and it loses critical parts to remain flying or usually goes up like a book of matches. But there has been many times where I get ignited, only to fight for and sometimes kill for a few minutes, while on fire.
I think the zeke has a reasonable Damage Model as does the Spit.
-
Zeek = No armor, no self sealing fuel tanks, so light that it cant turn right in a dive, Pulss as you sead it goes up like a book of matches.
-
hooligan
objective tests? lol im not about to spend 8 hours sitting various planes on runways firing various guns from various angles..well i hope you get the picture....
What i can do is give my overall feeling of the various models.I have flown and been shot by all the fighters in different combinations.Im trying to just understand how the DM works before i decide its off or correct.
great models that feel right-P47-ju88-b26,lancaster,zero(yes i meant it was right earlier,just an example!)-spitfire-typhoon-205-109s-arado-TBM-
models that dont feel right- p51d(p51b I've not seen/flown enough to really get a feel for its durability,but assume its the same as p51d)-mossie(feels very weak but im going on misleading info i guess,could be like you said ,tough airframe but susceptable to cannon fire?)-B17(doesnt feel robust enough,guns still seem very deadly even for high speed weaving attacks which are hard/boring to set up! :))-190f8(not sure on this one but shouldnt it feel a tad tougher than other 190s with its extra armour? otherwise why model it? why not put 4x50kg on a8?)-General effects of all bombs seems a little muted and weak.
There are others of course but you get the general idea.Id just like to know what 'makes' the model behave the way they do? is it a simple matter of adding the figure for armour thickness for each model into the overall game engine? or is it a penetration/velocity/angle/armour/position calculation? Ive heard of the 'hit bubble', is that the same method used for AH?
Am i reading too much complexity into it or too little? :D
This is the problem.You say my view is an emotional one(i believe you used whine as per fu**in usual:mad: ) but how can anyone be expected to have an objective view of what they see without the knowledge of what goes on in the code or model?
Do you know how the calculations for hits on various planes armour work?
If any HTC member would just give us an idea of what is done to adjust the toughness maybe we can really help refine it to a level we all think or feel is about right.I know this sounds like a call for adjusted realism to suit individuals whims but really it isnt.I think if you asked those that like to fly bombers if they would mind having more durability and (very slighty) less lethality they would like it and so would those having to face the terror of 30k.The P38 im sorry but to me it seems to take a hell of a lot more to kill (admitedly imo but id like to see how many agree)-the Mossie as has been said could possibly be quite weak against cannon so could be correct.I will do my damndest to find material on mosquito airial damage though :).Everything i have read points to it being able to withstand lots of damage.Mentions of the same durability enjoyed by the hurricanes wooden structure are commonplace.
ok enough for now..
-
Originally posted by Andijg
The FM on the P-38 does seem a bit much. I knocked an engine out on a 38 with 20mm strikes and he still out ran my KI-61 on one engine! :rolleyes:
Wow... you suck!
-
Hazed, you made some good observations. Many of which I've been wondering myself also.
Of course the buff thing is clear already - gameplay concession.
I'd enjoy buff killing far more if I could work the gunners dead and then pound the sucker good, seeing it fall slowly to pieces opposed to 1 pass cannon hit to wingtip kill (if the gunner sucked and didn't catch you on the way down..)
-
I think AH's DM might be a bit F***** up when it comes to most things. What was asked for for the P38 (rightfully asked for) was to strengthen the tail, not only did HTC strenghten the tail but the whole plane and unless ya put 5x20mm in the very tip of a wing you can keep shooting 20mm at that freaking thing for ever, not to say that it can handle more then 1x30mm in the wing (30mm are known to even have killed B17's with a single hit).
F6F's and LA7's same thing.
-
The only thing I see wrong in the 38's DM now is that the wings take too much damage. Wings as in wing ROOTS.
But the rest of the DM seems to be a-ok to me. Every time I get hit by some doofus spraying 50 cal and 20mm I lose entire parts, mainly engines and elevator and rudders and in MANY occasions the big 'ole stabilizer and wingtips. I shoot down P-38 now in the same manner I shoot a 109 or P-51.. with a concentrated burst of hits, not like before where 1 or 2 pings ANYWHERE in the plane would kill both engines, snap the stabilizer, snap the tail or blow a wing off.
The tails ARE vulnerable. Go ahead and shoot at a 38 from below or from the top and hit the tails, they'll snap out. Hit it from behind and chances are you're not hitting the tails but the stab and wing-fuselage.
One thing most people dont realize is that the 38 has TWO of everything. Shoot 1 engine? Hey, there's another one. And the 38 can keep 300mph with 1 engine.. put it on a dive and it still dives quite good. Shoot 1 of the vert. stabs? No prob, the other one is there. Shoot 1 tail? You'd better damn be hitting it with a 30mm shell and BLOW it off, 'cause IRL the other tail held the plane in place till the pilot did a high-g manouver and did the snapping for the enemy plane. Wish this could be modeled, but its not.
Just right now lazerr, Kappa, MrWulf and I got bounced in Mindanao W of 32 by a flight of 152's (wilbuz? that u guys?). Lazer and I got hit by a close quarter, high speed snapshot.. and verily enough, both of us got bad damage on the plane. I had lost 1 engine, 1 elevator, pilot wounded and both my rudders. Even then I dived below the clouds and managed to RTB and land. Lazerr crashed on the landing because of the damage. If those 152's had jumped a P-51, Spit or any other plane it wouldve been dead instantly.
In almost all cases of damage to a 38, the 38 ends up dead. if one elev is lost the 38 cant turn for crap. if it loses 1 flap its f*cked in low speed combat (and gee, high speeds of 450max before compression means it can only run away from a zeke and hurricanes!). Loses 1 engine and 38's only chance is to dive and hope he aint followed, 'cause if he turns he'll be limited to 300mph..or 200mph if turns start.
Moving away from the 38, the mossie does eat a lot of hits, far more than a 38 when I fly it.
Id like to know how it is that an M3 and M16 can take more than 10 shots of .50 cal and have their gunners survive. And how the Pzr and M8 AP rounds dont kill a flaktank with the first shot.. or how the Pzr's get their turrets blown off by 50 cal planes... or how the PZR 7.9mm mg gives INSTANT pilot wound to any plane it hits, no matter WHERE its hitting the plane...
and why the heck can you strafe a B17/B26 with 100 rnds of 50 cal in a long arc from nose to tail and have all its gunners live? I dont care if the buff doesnt go down, but a B17/B26 had NO armour for the gunners.. them gunners should be confetti with a short burst.
-
Ah hazed, so you just have a "feeling" that some things are wrong, but no actual data. Why exactly do think HTC would pay any attention to this?
Hooligan
-
It's a Damage Modelling issue.
..
ps) I shot a P-38 at 200 yards with a Mk108, single round.
It landed on the left wingroot/engine area. I thought he
was down.
I got his engine oil. Boy.. that wing root area sure is tough.
-
Hooligan...
Who presented factual data that the N1K2 was retaining to much energy (this may actually be a poor example)?
Who presented factual data comparing the weight in pounds of our P47-D11 before it was adjusted to the weight of the real plane? How did they get this data? It isn't available in game, as far as I know.
Who presented factual data that the F4U-1C was underweight? How did they get this information again (I Still haven't found it in game yet)?
As an addendum:
Who presented factual evidence that the P38 was not tough enough? Is there such a thing as factual evidence in a case like that?
Who presented evidence that the F6F's stall was to 'vicious'? Again... is there a book that I haven't read that gave HTC the information to convince them that they had modelled the stall wrong?
There are a MULTITUDE of things that we have NO factual data for. Climb rate, level speed at most altitudes, fuel and ammo capacity- we can look those up.
Diving performance? I mean EXACT, FACTUAL diving performance too, not general statements like ' The X4F67 will pull away from the FR456W initially, but the FR456W will catch up and eventually pass the lighter X4F67 in a sustained dive' - I want 'The X4F67 will go from 300 to 350 mph in 4.6 seconds when diving at a 60 degree attitude at a starting altitude of 27,500 feet'.
Can you point out where I can find information like that? I'm no military historian, so perhaps you (being one, I presume) can tell me where to find the more exotic material on the planes we have modelled.
How about acceleration? I've got a few books on WW2 aircraft, some of them are even quite 'academic'... but none of them list the time it takes the planes to go from speed X to speed Y at altitude Z... where can I get that information?
Zoom performance? I hate to sound like a broken tape... but none of the books I personally have give information on the altitude the various planes gained when zooming from a dive of any speed. Where can I get that information also? I mean.. I get generalities like "the P47 could outzoom any LW aircraft when diving from the same altitude"... but it doesnt say how MUCH it outzooms the LW plane there. Did it gain a thousand feet in the zoom? Ten thousand feet? Four inches? It would gain in all those circumstances... but it would still get shot to hell in the last one, wouldn't it?
As I am trying to point out, all most of us have to go on is feelings. In general I'd say most of the feelings are quite accurate, and point out potential problems that should be looked at, at the very least. For instance.. it is my FEELING that the M8 and PanzerIV really need to be looked at, because they are quite easily incapacitated and even destroyed by what amounts to small arms fire (I had a Ostwind blow my tank up using just his 7.92mm hull mounted MG, while he absorbed 6 hits of 75mm AP and innumerable rounds of 12.7mm coax MG fire.. I have a FEELING something is a little off here).
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
But there has been many times where I get ignited, only to fight for and sometimes kill for a few minutes, while on fire.
I think the zeke has a reasonable Damage Model as does the Spit.
I've been called a kill stealer many times chasing down a Zero that's on fire...unlike the other planes in AH, you have to make sure that flaming ball of fire is missing vital parts before terminating your attack.
-
Okay Urchin:
F4UDOA produced navy performance charts for various models of the F4U. Pyro noticed that the AH 1C did not match the new data in weight and corrected it.
Acceleration figures. dive and climb performance etc... for US fighters can be found in AHT ("America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis Dean. This is a very technical book on US WWII fighters).
Likewise descriptions of the F6F stall characteristics in AHT were some of the evidence given for changing this in AH.
190A5 weight was corrected because of FW and Rechlin documents provided by the likes of funked, Vermillion and others.
I am not a military historian (Engineer by profession), but I have found documents of this sort by using local University libraries and microfilm records, corresponding with book authors, corresponding with Germans who have friends who work at Mauser, trading Documents with Vermillion and so on. A good place to start is to look at the bibliographies of books like AHT and track down the documents listed there.
Occasionally some particular feature will be so widely commented upon (apparently the 38 tail fragility was one of these rare cases) that HTC examines it closely and finds an error. But this is rare. Most things that are changed through player input (Niki ammo load, a5 and 1C weights, F4U-1D climb and acceleration, F6F stall) are changed because somebody did a lot of work and came up with historical documents which provided proof. Without this proof it is nothing but an opinion.
Hazed makes a slew of statements as if they were fact when in reality they appear to be half-recalled anectdotes from some second or third hand account. He states:
german official crash investigators counted hits on downed bombers and said on average 25-30 20mm hits brought down a bomber...
Where does this come from? I believe its wrong because it doesn't match the figures I've seen from Rechlin documents and from: "The Development of German Aircraft armament to 1945, USAF Historical Studies: No. 193".
Is the 51 "a tank" in AH? Is the 190f8 really that weak? Since we are talking about AH it's easy to test. We all have everything we need right at home. Of course hazed hasn't bothered to actually try to test it and is offended that I even suggested it.
If you "feel" something is wrong the rational thing to do is to do some research and find out if your "feelings" have a basis. The research results might surprise you. You said an Osty killed your tank with a 7.92mm machinegun. How much research do you think you would have to do to show that mg17s didn't kill tanks? There is a world of difference between saying that an mg17 should not kill tanks and Hazed's statements regarding the relative durabilities of the P-51 and 190f8 in AH.
Hooligan
-
When a lightly armoured flakpanzer can kill a medium panzer with his mg before the panzer has time to load enough 75mm ammo on it, you don' t need any data to know that it's wrong.
A light attack vehicle or AA vehicle should die from the first direct 75mm hit and get damaged by a close miss. OTOH MG fire should not do any damage to the panzer whatsoever unless it manages to penetrate the armour through an observation hole for example.
Panzers were designed to withstand much heavyer fire than mg's, that's the whole point of building them. MG fire only richochetes away.
It seems that AH has the infamous % DM, only divided to more sections. That means you can kill anything with a pistol, just need to shoot a bit longer.. With a high rate of fire weapons that can lead to situations that the lighter gun can deliver more 'damage' per minute than the slower but heavyer cannon. I'm pretty sure this is the reason why we see what we see on the game arena.
-
Was more like 20x20mm mm from the Minengeschoss. Bout 3-5 (sometimes less aswell, aswell as sometimes more) 30mm Mk108's.
It comes from the ground crew and people who examined the bombers.
-
Hooligan, Before you write off everything i say as irrelevant READ WHAT YOU SEE HERE eh? Im quite willing to listen carefully to what tac says about the P38 durability as he flies it more than i or you(no doubt) do.
You attack what is essentially a REQUEST to HTC to EXPLAIN THE DAMAGE MODEL a bit. Im not DEMANDING instant change.Im pointing out what feels totally incorrect compared to info i have in many books. Its THEN time for anal retentives like you to do HTCs work and test it out :)
I have done my fair share of testing so do me a favour and stop trying to make me look like im talking toejam.READ what im diddlying driving at eh? I have NO TIME to sit and test evrything about guns, I HAVE tested shooting MG151s at all manner of targets and ITS BORING! I dont feel its my place to do the work for HTC even though i have helped out.It was me who noticed the spread of bullets from all guns was following a pattern and after i mentioned it it was looked into AND CHANGED,none of your bloody DATA sheets, NO historical referencel, JUST PURE OBSERVATION.
AND btw the 20-30 20mm hits to kill a b17 isnt made up,how dare you! who the f*k do you think you are? You want the book i read it in then read 'fockewulf fw190 in combat-alfred price','the first and the last-adolf galland'-'the luftwaffe fighter force-veiw from the cockpit-galland et al-david isby'-among others, I cant remember which but i have posted it all before for HTC and im not about to start looking for it for your sake.
You continue to ignore what i have asked about, demanding i prove what i see? well how am i supposed to? I have no idea how the DM works, I have no idea if the bullet is caculated after impact and continues to travel and be calculated through the model? are all bullets equal or do every other bullet calculate as AP or HE? when a P38 takes 20 hits of 20mm and limps home, is it correct?
HOW THE HELL SHOULD WE KNOW? there are no documents ive seen on bullet penetration of various parts an aircraft.Ive seen a thousand pictures of bullet damage sure but how does that help me when i fly in AH?
Its all a matter of WHETHER HTC DECIDED THEMSELVES on the way planes break up or if somehow they have info on it which i doubt. HTC heard the complaints on the p38 glass tail, they heard the complaints of the 1 ping engine, they heard the complaints of the niks and it was adjusted right? ONLY bcause somewhere along the line they AGREED it was wrong.
Did they use data? did they go to hooligan to help them out? I sorely fu**in doubt it :D
So from this we can extrapolate that the damage model was matched as closely as they could to the scraps of info we have. then they added some sort of mathmatical equation to calculate bullets, no doubt using vermillion as a help here? maybe they used armour penetration data who knows??
BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE they had to guess or add their own idea of what is correct so that what they saw on screen matched as closely as they could to what they read right?
Id be willing to bet every penny i had that it isnt purely made up on data.If that was the case there would be no mistakes as it would just be a matter of adding the numbers.
NIK e retention,190s engine+speed,p38s glass tail,p51d wing rip,armour of all ground vehicles,bullet dispertion etc etc etc etc.
all were things that were essentially unprovable because no one had any data but it just didnt FEEL right did it.maybe like you said some were later proved by archive documents but it all started with players complaining it was wrong.
Im sorry hooligan but you really angered me with your 'show the data' crap..Im well aware of the merits of testing,Im well aware of the masses of data that has been found by other flyers here and how usefull it has been.BUT some things are about what feels right, whether you like it or not.If we gave perfect data on aircraft and added it to an imperfect computer programme it would still be wrong.I could test forever and you would argue the data is perfect but the only hint we would have that something is wrong would be quirky behaviour that doesnt look or 'FEEL' right. see my point??
and the fact that ive flown AH for over 2 years and have flown all models, fired every gun, tried every vehicle and essentially play tested it every day(almost) means nothing right hooligan? what the hell do i know? Ive probably played AH more than some of the HTC staff!! :D
so lay off eH? bloody anal retentive accountant/engineer
-
Why bother using smilies?
-
sikboy youre right , i wasnt smiling at all in reality.......but CAN YOU SHOW DATA TO PROVE IT? :D
-
LOL
-Sikboy
-
I have done my fair share of testing so do me a favour and stop trying to make me look like im talking toejam.
Actually I am not trying to make you look like you are talking toejam. I think you are doing that yourself. However I would be happy for you to disprove this. Just tell us exactly where you found the following information.
Ive read stories of the p38 having the tendancy to lose its tail when hit by even small caliber fire
german official crash investigators counted hits on downed bombers and said on average 25-30 20mm hits brought down a bomber
Personally I think this is just BS. However you can prove me wrong by providing the sources. Then we can examine them and see if they seem to be reliable. Or you can just continue to rant, tell us all how much testing you have done and what an expert you are etc.. etc.. But anybody can claim to have read or tested a lot; that claim is meaningless. It's rather juvenile to just say "I know what I'm talking about, so back off." I don't think you know what you are talking about so prove it.
If you really want some changes in AH then you will go to some effort to provide proof. Otherwide I guess your position is: "Well some things about AH "feel" wrong to me, so I am going to yell and pout." At the very least in the future you can save some bandwidth and instead of typing so much, you can just post a short message about how you feel pouty.
Hooligan
-
like i said hooligan, i have previously posted all the info i have mentioned, I admit the p38 small calibre fire was an exageration on my part, but the source for the crash investigators was the FW190-alfred price' book i mentioned earlier.
what i find fascinating is how you seem to think only the data is relevant.In case you havent noticed the data is Real life but its added to a PROGRAMME.Bugs,errors, net effects all play their role.
you now demand i prove my testing too? well Im not about to wade through 2 years of posts just to prove a mute point to you.
I have participated in tests with otherplayers on the MG151, Ive talked to vermillion and others on the subject often enough but i can hardly recall when the hell it happened.....try searching posts from over a year ago eh?
ive had enough of you hooligan, I have read your answers and i must admit some of the material you talked of I was unaware of.
I took in what was written and I agree data is paramount.but let me ask you this.......
when the p38 was looked into by HTC how was the adjustment(and the level of adjustment) decided? Did they go to the programme model of p38 and add some numbers to the armour value? did they adjust the effect of all guns on that particular model? is there a set number for each aircraft model? Obviously they thought something was wrong, so WHAT was wrong? was it a bug? was it an error in input of data? was some other part of the programme affecting it?
you see what i mean? It WAS wrong,it WAS changed.Did the adjustment conformed to some new data found by the likes of you or FUDOA? was the old data incorrect? well in your tradition Id like to see this data.
My guess is it was a bug or they simply agreed it felt weak and needed adjustment.
you jump on my back about my request to look at it again and seem to be implying that the data used is perfect until someone can come up with new material.Well it isnt is it? mistakes happen and usually the first sign of a problem is complaints from players seeing 10X20mm hits causing little or no damage or similar effects.When these complaints are ignored it causes frustrtion and for me personally it starts to affect my enjoyment of the game.
I dont post these things to attack HTC, Im requesting that they help me understand whats happening so my view becomes more objective.I did not request you to do it on their behalf but if you can explain what i have asked then by all means do it, if not then kindly mind your own business and ignore it.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Just right now lazerr, Kappa, MrWulf and I got bounced in Mindanao W of 32 by a flight of 152's (wilbuz? that u guys?). Lazer and I got hit by a close quarter, high speed snapshot.. and verily enough, both of us got bad damage on the plane. I had lost 1 engine, 1 elevator, pilot wounded and both my rudders. Even then I dived below the clouds and managed to RTB and land. Lazerr crashed on the landing because of the damage. If those 152's had jumped a P-51, Spit or any other plane it wouldve been dead instantly.
That was me, Furious, and Glasses. I hit Lazerr with at least 1 30mm and a couple 20mm. It should have made that plane unflyable....instead it seemed to just take out oil on 1 engine.....
I'm glad they fixed the 38 because it was a bit too fragile....but I think they may have gone too far in the other direction. Just my 2 cents, and I haven't done a double-blind placebo test so go away :)
BTW...Furious lost both wingtips on that sortie...guess how?
He fired the 30mm in straight and level flight and both wingtips came off.....now there's something that needs looked at.
-
Okay so you made up the part about 38 tail vulnerability. I'll get the book and see what it says about 20mm hits on bombers. You wouldn't want tell us what page it's on or produce a quote would you?
Hooligan
-
jesus hooligan f**K off mate you go find it!
remember it was the average so some had many more and some many less but 20-30( and yes that is from memory because i cant be arsed searching for it) was the stated amount
oh and btw it also stated it took on average 3 x 30mm to down a b17.
and that is easy to find because it has a picture(alfred price fw190 book) P 128 lower photo. :)
ahhhhhhhhh just stumbled on it page 61......and i diddlying quote
"Even when the german pilot started firing on a heavy bomber, initially his fighter lacked the firepower to give a good chance of shooting it down.The fw190a-4, the most effective single engined fighter then available for this purpose, carried four 20mm cannon and two 7.9mm machine guns.In a three-second burst it loosed off 130 rounds of 20mm ammunition (fire from 7.9mm weapons was irrelevant in this sort of engagement).Froma examination of crashed US bombers brought down by fighters, Luftwaffe officers found that few had less than twenty hits from 20mm rounds.However, examination of combat films revealed that a pilot of average ability scored hits with only 2 per cent of the carefully aimed rounds he fired.On those figures, an average pilot had to loose off ONE THOUSAND rounds of 20mm ammunition at the bomber to obtain the required 20 to 30 hits.But the Fw190A-4's maganzines carried only 500 rounds of 20mm ammunition. Thus to secure the destruction of a heavy bomber it was necessary for two or more fighters to attack it. It is stressed that these figures relate to pilots of average ability."
ok hooligan? now like i said F**k off! :D
or better still lets see you explain the damage model and how its calculated? ooh you dont know you say? you dont work for HTC? you're not a programmer? what a suprise.
-
Raubvogel was that a single incident or happens often?
Because that single 30mm could have been lost with a single packet - network problem.
I have no problems shredding p38's to pieces with la5 20mm guns, OTOH I've found out that sometimes you have to pour dozens of 30mm to planes before they die.
One lancaster took 2 ammo loads of a8 20mm+30mm before he died eventually to at least 1 second continuous burst at d200 to his tail. (he killed me once during his sortie after I smashed his tail from d600 20mm+30mm and didn't get damage, I reuped and chased him down on landing, that time with film on.)
-
Might have been, who knows. I saw the 30mm hit sprite on his left boom, engine started smoking oil, he flew away like nothing happened. Also hit with a few 20's, so who knows what happened.
-
So when you said 25-30 you were wrong and the part about the 38 tail fragility was simply a lie. Thanks for clearing that up. So far your truthfullness has tested 0 for 2 out of 2 statements. Here is another gem you wrote:
when a P38 takes 20 hits of 20mm and limps home, is it correct?
I really doubt that this happens much in AH if at all. But it does seem as truthful as everything else you have written.
Also, no matter how many times you tell me to "f**k off" this has no bearing on how accurate your statements are.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Personally I think this is just BS. However you can prove me wrong by providing the sources.
I've heard the "20+ hits required to down a B-17" before, too. Frequently. (Admits: Most recently in Caiden's "Black Thursday" - was just reading it for the pictures, though!) Don't know where it originated; Hazed's "inspection of downed B-17s" is probably as good a guess as any. Does this conflict with someone's notion of how hard it was to down a Fortress?
- Oldman
-
While I agree that good arguments must involve supporting data, I think that Hooligan might be suffering from a confirmation bias. I think that Hazed's quote demonstrates that it took 20-30 (not the 25-30 stated by Hazed, but within the range of the quote). I hope that everyone takes the point that argument without evidence is pointless, but I'm affraid that the relentlessness of hooligans prosecution might turn people away from that fundemental idea.
I'm just sayin
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy:
Personally I think that you are being rather forgiving of Hazed now that we know the part about the 38 tail vulnerability was an outright lie. It does make everything else he says rather suspect wouldn't you agree?
Hooligan
-
Its very hard to see a 30mm and a 20mm hit if they are fired at the same time.. especially in hi speed passes.
Every time I go up against Hblair or Rollo or Mandoble or any other 30mm totting 109/190 geeks I die on a single ping. I hate them. I hate them :D
In my 38 vs other 38 using .50's only I just hit it with a short burst and it smokes up, another nice burst and loses wingtips or tail stab. Its just not like before where you sprayed the pings all over the planeform and the entire thing would pop open.
Pay attention next time u shoot a 38, it will never break its wing (which it did before the fix), but it will shed wingtips easy enough. Most hits to the wing section will result in engine damage (it takes half the wing anyway!). Most cannon hits will break its flaps and elevator right off the bat AND whack the engine. It seems to be more durable now because the entire wing doesnt snap out like before imo. BTW, try hitting the little stub in the tail stab.. hit it and the 38 blows up. It counts as pilot kill lol.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
So when you said 25-30 you were wrong and the part about the 38 tail fragility was simply a lie.
I don't think I'm being too forgiving, and EVERYTHING is suspect until supported by data. However. The above quote seemed to mar your argument because Hazed 25-30 hit statement was within the range of the earlier quote. While he was slightly off on the number, I think that the quote he offered validates the idea that he wasn't just making that up. That while he was not 100% accurate, this evidence was based in fact. This is certainly not scholarly debate here, and I wouldn't want to turn it into that. Bring evidence, or expect to provide evidence. But this seems to have gone beyond that basic debate and into something more personal. I'm certainly not going to take sides in the personal matter, but I think I've made my opinion clear with regards to evidence and argument.
-Sikboy
-
I'll quote myself then.
Hazed makes a slew of statements as if they were fact when in reality they appear to be half-recalled anectdotes from some second or third hand account.
It think that accurately describes his statment concerning 20mm hits. It is not a deliberate falsehood, merely inaccurate because he recalled it incorrectly.
Hooligan
-
I can certainly see both sides of the argument here. Hooligan has a point that much of what we throw around as 'fact' is often misremembered and oft-repeated hearsay. However, I also think that Hazed has a point in that there are some things that just 'feel' fishy but are incredibly hard to proove. The 190 engine 'bug' is a great example of that. There just isn't any way to know whether or not the 190A's would lose their engine at the drop of a hat, but it conflicted with their 'historical reputation' of being 'tough' aircraft.
Anyway, I agree with Sikboy that these seems to have turned into something personal, so this is the last I'll post in this thread. I'll stop by occasionally to see the scorch marks though.
-
hehehe nice discussion :D
Hooligan do u have datas from Rechlin??
i know only two people have 90% of Documents from Rechlin, Kurt-Tank, Messerschmidt-Werke, Bundsluftfahrt-Archiev (u know what is it? :D ) etc, etc.
Both are testing and gave all information for an other game.
I think u never have all this information, but w ur two papers u think u a Professor :D
Many People in AH say thats not right and it feel not right. Why u sayng thats all wrong what they feel?
Look the IL2, and get some datas from it. i have no Problem in AH to shot down the IL2 w 20mm from long rnage w a few Burst.
Is this real? is this real Datas?
I have read many books too, and ALL German Pilots say, thats the IL2 was a Flying Tank. 20mm bullets riccochet from the Armour from short distance shoots. Many Pilots used 100 20mm rounds to get ONE il2 down. In AH i get 4-5 down w 100 Bullets.
The sickness from the IL2 was the lower Oil-cooler. German Aces get al there most IL2 kills on this Info.
Think u have read all ur Graves and other stuff, but u have no feeling for it :D
greeeeeeeeeeeeets
-
oh i see hooligan is practicing the 'spin'. Much used by the many polititions we watch on tv everyday.
Rather than answer my question on the damage model he concentrates on a simple 5 round discrepency.Am i accused now of trying to destroy the realism by a sneaky move of adding 5 20mms? I dont even fly the damn things, I shoot them down! so why would i ?? he goes on to call me a blatent liar for it. I provide the proof of what ive read, which incidently he was obviously was hoping i wouldnt :). I could spend days looking for the references Ive seen on the tail structure of P38s, admitedly small caliber was a slight exageration to emphasise my point, hehe ,but I know Ive read about its weakness and to call this another blatent lie is pathetic.Hooligan why dont you go to MA and ask on open channel 'whos has read about the weakness of the P38 tail' and see how many have.Then call them liars and demand they show proof eh?
If this was a lie on my part then i guess it was a lie that spread quickly eh?
Hooligan doesnt even mention the dispertion observation which produced a refinement to the code.
He ignores my request for an explanation of the damage model which he obviously cant give.
He ignores what i said about real data being used in an imperfect programme
hell basically he comes in here says im a liar and demands i prove otherwise.
Well in the past hooligan, Ive mentioned that ive read about how a P47 managed to return to base with absolutely no oil left in it.After it was attacked the pilot headed home.The oil ran out on the way, and from memory I recall he said he flew over 150 miles on empty. Now this 150 might be incorrect,as it is indeed my best recollection, but it doesnt mean the rest is a lie does it? or that immediately we should ignore it entirely. I saw no demands from people to prove the p47 was a rugged bird.Why? because i garentee they've read similar stories.If we saw p47s dropping out of the sky as easily as any other aircraft we would obviously question it, BUT to then demand us to all go prove it is rediculous.99% of us have only read the accounts in books that are far from technical but are not necessarily inaccurate.Its for the likes of you who obviously know everything(coff) to provide the proof.Oh and before you ask i dont recall where ive read it, possibly ive even seen it on a documentary.
The way I see it hooligan you need to take the stick out of your ass.Your president has made worse mistakes on prime time tv before he was elected.Why dont you go and bother him?
So now people, in order to ask about the damage model i have to perform tests on P38s,La7s,Mosquitos,B17s etc etc. I have to find some other mug to let me spend hours shooting him down
(hmm perhaps hooligan would be interested?).
well im not prepared to do it. Does this mean that anytime any customer requests something to be looked at or checked, they will be ignored unless they go out and prove it themselves? Since when does the development of a game which charges money require those same customers go out and find the exact problem themselves? HTC would obviously appreciate the help but I havent got the time or inclination to test for hours especially as i dont even know how i would go about proving such a minute discrepency as the level of damage a real p38 could take vs a p38 computer model which i have no knowledge of. I base my judgment on the before/after P38 I shoot down almost everyday and when i compare how hard it is to 'down' verses other planes in the game renouned for being tough aircraft(ie p47). It seems off to me and i stand by it.
Btw hooligan what was the rechlin report claim on the average number of hits needed to take down a b17? (i hope it is about B17s only and not extrapolated from all allied bombers)
and just for fun, can you prove the tail unit of the p38 was not weak at all and that any reference to this is a blatent lie?
hmm i see a 'spin' coming :)
Id still like to know how the DM is done but with hooligan around im hardly likely to find the time to read it. Ive got a busy schedule of research and playtesting ahead of me :).
-
Hazed:
As you can probably tell, the point of my posts is that you are making statements about alleged problems with AH and supporting those statements with falsifications that you attempt to pass off as facts. You can be as evasive as you want about this but I am perfectly satisfied that you have demonstrated your dishonesty.
Hooligan
-
i fly the mossie quite often and i've not noticed anything really bad about it's damage model (not including the time i got shotdown by a panzer mg, but i'm guessing thats an pz mg issue). I often get shotup and manage to limp home ok, however my fuel tanks do seem to go up in flames often. Usually when i get shotdown i take a hit to the fuel and 15-20secs later my wing goes BOOM!. Whether the mossie had a weak spot such as the fuel tank i don't know (anyone else know if it did or not?).
One thing i have noticed is that i very rarely hit a p51's radiator- infact i can't recall off memory ever doing this. Seeing as coolant pipes ran up and down 2/3 the length of the plane i woulda thought that p51'd would be very vulnerbal to radiator hits in AH (i would imagine 1 20mm to the fuselage would more likely than not hit a coolant pipe).
Hey i was also with tac, kappa, lazer et al in that fight with you sneaky ta152's.
Hehe i was the spitV:D I saw lazer get hit and lose oil on 1 engine and then i started to get buzzed. I slowly got an alt advantage on 2 of u 152's but there was one slightly higher constantly buzzing me (i hate you, whichever one you were :) )
In the end you 152's all ran from me so i dove on a low b26 and shot him down instead:D
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Hazed I assume you have performed some sort of objective tests on the various AH aircraft (how many 20mm hits does it on average take to down a Mustang and a Mosquito?). Also presumably you have archival documents which show data detailing how the planes in question should behave, how much damage they absorb etc...
Unfortunately you seem to have left the important parts of your post out (i.e. the data and analysis). It’s almost as if a 50 page analysis were presented but only the paragraph with conclusions was actually included without the data upon which those conclusions were based. The conclusions you do present seem to be lacking somewhat in structure and logic. Frankly they seem emotion-laden, petulant and whiney.
I'm sure this is just an oversight and I am looking forward to you presenting the missing data and analysis that will provide HTC with the information they need to make the requisite improvements.
Hooligan
Why is it everyone has to be a freekin statistician in order to avoid being labled a whiner?
Dude, hazed is making a point (a good one). The tail flat on a P-38 used to fall of if you stared at it hard enough, now...it doesn't. If you'd like to counter that, please post your flight time in seconds since joining AH, the number of single cannon-rounds and single machinegun rounds you fired at opposing P-38's, the number of tail flats you dislodged as opposed to didn't and the exact number and name of every brain cell you killed looking up the numbers.
....otherwise, we'll call it a sophisticated troll.
sorry for the rant but hey, the whine whiner prove-it attitude's gettin real old around here.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Hazed:
As you can probably tell, the point of my posts is that you are making statements about alleged problems with AH and supporting those statements with falsifications that you attempt to pass off as facts. You can be as evasive as you want about this but I am perfectly satisfied that you have demonstrated your dishonesty.
Hooligan
Sheesh, wish I'd read the whole thread before that last post...it was pointless, my apologies.
Hooligan, I really hope hazed doesn't bother to reply to any more of your drivel. You are doing nothing more than "stirring the pot" so to speak. I'm sure you enjoy it, but...it's still childish.
Thank god for that happy new "ignore" feature.
-
Ok, i just got back a bunch of sorties in the mossie. I got shotdown 3 times, 2 times due to getting hit in the fuel and it flaming. The other time i got shotdown was from a 550yrd dead 6 shor from a 190 which blew off my right wing (that was after i fight with a n1k that shotoff my right elevator).
I also managed to ditch my mossie when my fuel got hit during one time. i went into a hard flat turn until i lost my speed, lowered my gear and ditched inbetween the trees.:D
As i said before, did the real life mossie have a weakness with it's fuel tanks- because it does in AH.
-
Just for kicks i did some tests of the p38 with hizakite and it seems the damage model is pretty accurate in terms of where i hit on my fm to what damage it causes on his fm.but i still question the DM as we had some strange results from single shots.
first i flew about 200 yards on his 6oc (me 109 hiza p38) and tried to fire 1 round at a time of the 20mm at his tail. I fired 5 rounds, saw 4 flashes and the tail broke away.Hiza said he got 3 hits his fm 2 heavy hit sounds and 1 normal hit(?this was a bit puzzling, 20mm should make the same sound?)
(so is it net lag/packet loss that caused 1 hit not to register hiza's end?[hiz saw 3 i saw 4], and where did my 5th bullet go on my fm?[only saw 4 hit sprites but fired 5)
the tail in this case took 3 or 4x 20mm to break away.
realising flying would take forever we decided to straffe each other as one sat on the runway. This is where we started to see excellent damage modelling and then some very strange modeling.we set up passes in 109 again trying to fire 1 round each pass.Overall id say 90% of the hits were fairly accurate in terms of where i saw hits to where hiza said the damage occoured which was good, just to clear somthing up , where is the radiator on the p38? because on several passes i aimed at the rear tail spars seeing hits and hiza said he lost radiator.If its located behind the wing nacell in the tail spar then great, if not why did this happen?
hiza also (once) straffed with 1 shot from my 7oc.He saw hit on left wing root and get this: heres a list of the damage it caused hehe
left engine,left aileron,left flap,left gear,main fuel,aux fuel,pilot wounded.
now i know this sort of disproves what Ive claimed previously but this amount of damage from 1 round seemed rediculous.How can 1 round of 20mm hitting the left wing almost destroy it but 3 or 4 hits on the tail are needed to damage it?(each fired shot was very close range in order to assure a hit <300 yards)
all these flights probably took almost an hour and were far from accurate tests.We got wild results, sometimes single hits caused massive damage sometimes like the tail hits they caused no damage.Is this packet loss? or something else?
basically we were both fairly bored after this time and flying from base to base was tedious to say the least especially as we both died a few times from collisions on one players Fm but not on the other and had to re-up while the other waited patiently on the runway.
Tests were done in the DA as the TA has reduced lethality so there was no chance to both launch at the same base and make tests a lot easier(perhaps a test arena would be a good addition?)
so in conclusion. results were ranging from good modeling to crazy effects from one hit to another, I think this sort of testing, the best any customer can do were hardly accurate or scientific which is what hooligan seems to be demanding.They took considerable time which personally id rather be playing in MA/CT.
I dont think this sort of testing is really a paying customers responsibility and from what i saw sometimes i seemed to be getting satifactory results while other times got nothing or excessive results.
again i ask how is the damage model calculated? Im no wiser now than i was before, only im more willing to accept packet loss as the cause of the lack of damage we sometimes see in MA or CT. But im still VERY suspicious that the DM for the P38 has something strange going on and might deserve review by HTC.
can someone else do tests for all the other planes? :D
ok I've done as much as im prepared to do.Im none the wiser about the damage model, the way penetration is calculated(as in do the bullets pass thru and continue to be calculated? this i suppose could explain the devastating effect 1 minute and the almost non existant damage the next).I must admit im beginning to think it has a lot more to do with net issues etc than id thought before but this doesnt explain why it doesnt seem to happen when hitting most other aircraft(f6f,la7 etc not included here ;)) .All ive managed to do is give myself even more questions !!
ahhhhh btw im far from dishonest hooligan and i find your interpretation insulting but hey who gives a toejam, you're a anal retentive who enjoys the arguement more than the subject of it, much like laz and several others you just drop a subtle(sometimes not so subtle) insult in and wait for the pot to stir itself.what a child.
ahhh what the hell..........F**K OFF HOOLIGAN :D
-
Originally posted by hazed-
and the fact that ive flown AH for over 2 years
Own and extensive experience, that is what counts for me, infinitely more than any controled test.
If I want to know what is the performance of a fighter compared to the others, I'm not going to ask to someone that did some controlled tests, I'll ask to someone with a lot of fight experience in that plane.
-
Experience is relative.
Data is factual.
-SW
-
It is impossible to give factual data on asumed damage model flaws without ferm understanding of the damage model and knowing how it is programmed. Even if you have that knowledge you need the right tools to perform statistical tests and get that factual data.
Now none other than HTC have the knowledge neither the tools (correct me if I'm wrong) for AH.
Yet still the 'P38 glass tail' and "190 1 ping engine dead' problems where solved by pure complaints of people based on their experience.
Although I agree that complaints about AH should be backed up by hard data if possible, it should be clear that this is not always possible. In the case of proving a damage model flaw we can only use historical data (if available) and information based on experience in AH. And than ask HTC to investigate it.
SO simply stateting "proof your point" isn't always correct simply because it is NOT always possible.
And if you don't agree with that I would like to ask HTC to reintroduce the 'p-38 glass tail', because I find it a nuisance how much ammo it takes to kill the freaking bastards, :D
Apar
-
Well Hazed I am pleasantly surprised to see that you did some testing. I earlier wrote:
If you "feel" something is wrong the rational thing to do is to do some research and find out if your "feelings" have a basis. The research results might surprise you.
and in your last post you said…
now i know this sort of disproves what Ive claimed previously but this amount of damage from 1 round seemed rediculous.
Maybe the P-51 really is a tank in AH and maybe the 190F8 is unusually fragile? If somebody comes up with a reliable way to test it and does the work, we’ll have a better idea about this. It seems the idea that the 38 can shrug off 20 20mm hits is put to rest for the meantime.
Hooligan
-
So, you believe that the "one ping engine kill" was from experience or from thinking something was wrong then going on to find out whether or not it was?
It was the latter, someone thought something was wrong, went out and found that it only took one round to destroy some engines then told HTC and they found the problem.
Otherwise it's all subjective. Imagine this, there is no bug in the damage model regarding the 1 ping engine kills... it was just your connection. The entire time you were recieving 1/8th of the hit sounds.
Well, it'd be pretty rediculous to complain about there being a problem without finding out by testing it with another person if it was your end.
-SW
-
maybe I'm wrong but I think hooligan is noticing that hazed's "observations" seem..... wrong... not what others seem to experiance.
Hoolign doesn't seem to upset about the opinbion part..That is fine. everyone is entitled to an opinion if that's what it is but... hazed doesn't stop there.. to prove his somewhat "controversial" opinions he uses data... data that he makes up or poorly recalls. he would have been better served to leave out the questionable data and stuck with "In my opinion".
for instance.... hazed defends himself by saying if he related the p47 story about flying 150 miles with no oil and it turns out that he didn't have the right number on the miles then it is still relevant .... running on no oil. I disagree. I recall several PW2800 stories of PW's coming home with no oil... I might say that I "believe" it was twenty minutes or so.. or "not sure for how long" or.... I would simply look it up and quote but just throwing ina number from memory.... gives a false relevance to the story.
I think the point is that hazed is probly pretty far off all the way around but it rankles when he tries to legitamize his theories with poorly gathered and missrepresented data.
lazs
-
Ah Thrila I hink that was me fooling around with you thenya dove for the clouds I saw your P38 friend and 2 1/2 sec burst took care of them I rtbed after a close encounter with Ute in his Pony B lucky for me there were some friends tat dispatched him I had to land my nerves were shrecked :-)
-
Well, hazed lied about what the book said. This is his quote (with the part he altered in bold).
On those figures, an average pilot had to loose off ONE THOUSAND rounds of 20mm ammunition at the bomber to obtain the required 20 to 30 hits.
This is the actual quote:
On those figures, an average pilot had to loose off one thousand rounds of 20mm ammunition at the bomber to obtain the required twenty hits.
Hooligan
-
Ouch
-
Is it possible you have different versions of the book? Different Languages, editors, editions, anything? Doesn't seem like a huge big deal to me, but it is possible that he DID qoute from his copy of the book, it just doesn't agree with your copy?
-
I don't think that is likely. If you examine the whole quote, it talks about 2% of 1000 rounds being a requirement. 2% of 1000 is 20 not 20-30. I don't think the book is terribly rare, you can always take a look at it yourself.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Well, hazed lied about what the book said. This is his quote (with the part he altered in bold).
Hooligan
lol... dude, you really need some proffesional help.
-
AKSWulfe,
Actually, you are wrong.
As I recall it, somebody posted complaining about their frequent seeming 190 and P-38 "1 ping, engine dead" experience and HiTech replied that it was true, but that it affected more aircraft than just those being complained about.
There was only a complaint from the player's end, HiTech did the investigating.