.303 damage

[Grayclif]

Anyone else agree that .303 rounds are still not doing proper damage in game? Even .50cal damage is not correct still after so many years.

I emptied 1500 rounds from a Jug into 3 bombers (B24's), so approx 500 rounds per bomber with not a single part coming off, or a vapor stream of any kind. I could detect no damage whatsoever.

[VonMessa]

Film?

[gyrene81]

how did you get .303's on a p-47?

[Lusche]

And how does someone who's landing 1500 hits on 3 bombers in a single sortie only have a hit percentage of 4.98%   

[VonMessa]

how did you get .303's on a p-47?

He is the Graybeard, of course...

And how does someone who's landing 1500 hits on 3 bombers in a single sortie only have a hit percentage of 4.98%   

See above explanation...

[bozon]

And how does someone who's landing 1500 hits on 3 bombers in a single sortie only have a hit percentage of 4.98%   

it means he likely hit about 75 bullets out of the 1500, and if spread between all 3 in the formation, each got hit by about 28 bullets.

5% is not that bad by the way.

[SmokinLoon]

First, stop referring to ALL .30 caliber MG's as "3oh3's".  That is the name of the .30 caliber cartridge the British used (.303 British).  There are I think 6 different .30 caliber MG's in AH, and they all do close enough in damage and have similar enough trajectories to not worry about the differences.  The same can't be said for the .50 cal/13mm MG's or 20mm cannon in AH.

A .30 cal FMJ does an average of .295 lbs of damage (.28 to .31 respectively).  The typical .50 cal FMJ does 1.03 lbs of damage.  Take in to consideration the rate of fire, the number of guns, the convergence, the range of the target, etc, etc...  there are many factors to take in to consideration when trying to tinkle in to the wind.  Trust us when we say dont worry about it and keep practicing.  

 

[R 105]

 I am pretty sure I shot down a Lancaster in a KI-43 with those punky little guns. I bet 8 Browning 303s will do even better at 250 meters. Do you think it may be a marksmanship problem? 

[Volron]

I am pretty sure I shot down a Lancaster in a KI-43 with those punky little guns. I bet 8 Browning 303s will do even better at 250 meters. Do you think it may be a marksmanship problem? 

8 is nothing.  12 is where it's at!

[Karnak]

I am pretty sure I shot down a Lancaster in a KI-43 with those punky little guns. I bet 8 Browning 303s will do even better at 250 meters. Do you think it may be a marksmanship problem? 

I got the "Shoot down three American bombers in one mission" by downing three B-17s with the Ki-43.

Each round from the Ho-103 does 1.000lbs of damage to a structure.  Against aircraft the velocity of the impact factors in as well so the damage is not exact.  I was very close to the 17s when I downed three of them.

The .303 British does 0.295lbs of damage per hit to a structure.  .30s lose their energy a lot faster so you must be close to be effective against airplanes.  The rate of fire for the .30s is typically much higher than for HMGs and cannons.

Machine guns don't do as much damage per hit as cannons, so it is much more important to focus your fire accurately.  Spraying over the target frequently results in a perforated, but functional, target.

For reference:

Ho-5 20mm does 3.35lbs per hit.
MG151/20 does 3.540lbs per hit.
Type 99 Model II does 3.860lbs per hit.
Hispano Mk II does 4.060lbs per hit.
MK108 does 11.710lbs per hit.
BK5 does 54.680lbs per hit.

[Ack-Ack]

Anyone else agree that .303 rounds are still not doing proper damage in game? Even .50cal damage is not correct still after so many years.

I emptied 1500 rounds from a Jug into 3 bombers (B24's), so approx 500 rounds per bomber with not a single part coming off, or a vapor stream of any kind. I could detect no damage whatsoever.

There is nothing wrong with the .50 caliber in AH, you're just a very crappy shot.  Same with the .303,  it's a rifle caliber round so it's not going to have hitting power of a .50 caliber round but it is still lethal if you are close to your target and can actually hit what you shoot at.

ack-ack

[bustr]

Grayclif,

What I run into when I don't fly a 30cal or 50cal only plane for awhile, is not the guns and their results modeled incorrectly. It's my ability to apply them consistently to my target that is off. With MG you have to first be able to place a concentration of rounds on target inside of a small area. Otherwise spaced out across an airframe you are punching random holes with the off chance of a pilot kill or maybe holing a fuel tank.

Those Oh so spectacular 45-90 degree MG crossing snap shots from 400 and closer that magically blows up the con. You got a magic lucky bb through the side of the pilots head or torso. If the wing falls off, you got the required steady concentration of MG rounds into the correct place on the wing to trigger the damage response of a wing falling off.

MG require more skill during the 2sec burst needed to kill a plane or damage a bomber than cannons. Cannons are hail mary easy mode because they work on chemical destructive energy that doesn't change in potential over it's programed range of effectiveness. With MG you have to be able to hold the stream on your con or be able to place your stream in front of the con so much of it impacts the con to effect the damage counter to give you your desired response.

When I'm attacking bombers with a 47 and I cannot damage them in the face of rounds landed. I start looking at my connection visa the Internet, my choice of convergence, and how much lack of practice I've had lately shooting MG. If I'm feeling really pig headed, I load up the offline drone circle with B17 and film myself for awhile shooting to see how much it takes to dismantle the bomber piece by piece with 50cal hanging back 400-600. It's an eye opener how tough bombers are.

Many of my squad mates have noticed bombers have been toughened up a bit in the last 9 months. I've looked at it offline in the drone circle and bombers seem to be a bit tougher when I dismantle test them. Unless you get a magic bb into the cockpit. That's why I HO bombers in the cockpit with Yak's from 100yds. Sometimes I only tap the 2-50cal in a short 20 round burst into the pilot's seat. Eight 50cal from a 47 is over kill and very satisfying.

 

[Debrody]

Failclef 

[Saxman]

There is nothing wrong with the .50 caliber in AH, you're just a very crappy shot.

ack-ack

Agreed. I shoot at 200yds, and I've taken wings off P-47s with less than a 1-second burst in convergence with the Ma Deuce Six Pack.

[Butcher]

I have a film somewhere (dont think our film viewer will show older films because it keeps crashing when I load old films) Anyhow, I was in a Ki-84, with less than 50rpg in my 12.7mm I shot off a tail of a P-47 that was bombing tanks, no 20mms and he had no damage, I just got closer then 200yards.
In an FSO event once I shot down 9 axis aircraft with 303s, all under 200 yards.

Thing is I tend to shoot under 400 yards, regardless - I wait and hold ammo otherwise I end up spraying endless for little damage. Most will joke the spitfire wings are "Weak" reality is it will take some damage, but in a turn fight the wings are exposed giving a big FAT target, little effort is needed to take a wing off when the target is that big, P51D however is much harder to hit on the wings if anything you take out a few guns.

Thus being said, Ive had a few fights in hurricanes where I dump half my ammo shooting at 400 or more, even in a P-47.

I think it comes down to distance, a 30mm can take a tail off with 1 hit at 1000k, problem is the size of the bullet it only needs ONE hit, a 12.7mm however disperses so much that you cannot get enough hits to do that kind of damage - so you end up spraying more ammo just to make up for it.