Author Topic: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?  (Read 4693 times)

Offline Vinkman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #45 on: July 26, 2012, 01:41:19 PM »
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
« Last Edit: July 26, 2012, 01:47:08 PM by Vinkman »
Who is John Galt?

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #46 on: July 26, 2012, 01:43:22 PM »
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.

Offline Tracerfi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1932
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2012, 02:23:38 PM »
+1 for the 410s cockpit to be more protected
You cannot beat savages by becoming one.

He who must not be named

Offline tunnelrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1739
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #48 on: July 26, 2012, 03:22:26 PM »
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.

In-Game: 80hd
The Spartans do not enquire how many the enemy are but where they are.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #49 on: July 26, 2012, 05:36:09 PM »
+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.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline M1A1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #50 on: July 26, 2012, 07:09:15 PM »
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

Offline M1A1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2012, 07:19:46 PM »
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

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2012, 09:39:43 PM »
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.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2012, 01:58:46 AM »
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.

Offline M1A1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2012, 05:22:25 AM »
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..

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2012, 06:35:49 AM »
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.
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2012, 07:00:38 AM »
"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+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2012, 09:54:56 AM »
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.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2012, 10:16:36 AM »
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.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: 410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2012, 10:45:29 AM »
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.