410 vs Buffs tweek the balance?

[M1A1]

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

[Paladin3]

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. 

[Vinkman]

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

[Karnak]

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?

[Delirium]

You're probably still beaten by A6M drivers  .

Always.. particularly when they start behind my 38 at 400 yards because I was busy with someone else.

[Shuffler]

Back from Austin.... did not see Karnak. Lots of lowriders for some carshow called heatwave.

[Krusty]

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.

[Delirium]

I'm no expert, but I can't imagine the armored glass of WW2 is as effective as the designs we have today.

[Karnak]

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.

[Krusty]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[save]

Front glass of a plane is angled , much like late war tanks where.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[Krusty]

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