50 cal damage upped

[MK-84]

250 is the magic setting info source pulled from a ww2 combat pilot in a

I was at 300 until hearing about this interview switched to 250 noticed they sliced like butta!

But play ur own game

Am I correct in that I think historical combat often took place at far closer ranges than we are doing in AH?  I'm fairly sure I have repeatedly read and heard about historical convergences set in the 100-250yrd ranges.  If that is the case in AH that is incredibly close for us. 200 and under is really really close for us. but thats still two football fields in length.  Is the game by design causing us to shoot at ranges that are not really matched to historical weapons effective ranges?

[Lusche]

Am I correct in that I think historical combat often took place at far closer ranges than we are doing in AH? 

Probably, but then maybe not as much as one might think. There's a famous long german guncam film on the net, where before each attack sequence there's a table showing the actual firing distance vs the pilot's own estimate... almost invariably the pilots tended to underrate the distance they were firing at, often dramatically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-TY4G99zYI

When there are distances given in parentheses, it's the pilots estimate. For example at attack #7, the pilot gives the distance as 150m to 20m, while in fact it was 700m to 150m...

[Ninthmessiah]

a single Hispano 20mm installation was provided the same destructiveness as a triple Browning .50 installation,
Aces High is pretty close to that, so no, the .50 damage does not need to be increased.

By this data, a p47 with the 8 guns should have the same destructive firepower of a spit16.  Last time I flew a spit, the guns were noticeably much more lethal than those on a  p47.  I know its anecdotal and purely subjective, but anytime there is an enemy moving laterally across my gunsight in a perfectly setup snapshot, I'm gonna want cannons.  Too many times I've lit up an enemy plane from tip to tail with hit sprites; only to be rewarded with a radiator leak if I'm rewarded with anything at all.

Having said that, I don't think .50 damage needs to be upped.  I think the problem is that with the damage model we have, the .50 just stops.  It doesn't really go through
the plane.

Till then, cannons are better.  They just are.

[bustr]

HTC says that films give them more info than we can see.

HTC could probably create a beta guncam film function to auto film every time we pull the trigger. Then ask everyone flying anything american with 50cal to use it for several sortie a tour and mail in the results. I'm not sure how they would analyze it or for what. If there were really a problem, that would be how the AAF solved it in ww2. In late 1944 and early 45 AAF guncam, you can see smoother tracking of cons in relationship to the K14 gyroscope. Earlier then that time there are more erratic rounds due to pilots calculating it all by eye. Many of us look at these films and remark that their 50cal seem to accomplish more than ours.

Is it because their average combat distances were 300 and closer? Or is our 50cal in need of adjustment? On the other hand, we are having a pretty bad winter with connection quality questionable. Over the years potency of guns posts seem to almost come around with national election events, storms, and disasters that impact the Internet infrastructure directly or indirectly by increased usage between distraught citizens.

[Randy1]

Probably, but then maybe not as much as one might think. There's a famous long german guncam film on the net, where before each attack sequence there's a table showing the actual firing distance vs the pilot's own estimate... almost invariably the pilots tended to underrate the distance they were firing at, often dramatically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-TY4G99zYI

When there are distances given in parentheses, it's the pilots estimate. For example at attack #7, the pilot gives the distance as 150m to 20m, while in fact it was 700m to 150m...

Good information for sure.
As a side note, it is interesting to see most of the attacks of the bombers are coming from the six.

[ReVo]

I have frequently had parts taken off, or been pilot wounded by a single 50 cal round at 1k out. The guns are fine just the way they are.

[Scca]

Jed, what's your ingame name?  I would be curious to look at your stats to better understand your request.

I personally fly the 47's most of the time, and they do quite well. 

[-ammo-]

Jed, what's your ingame name?  I would be curious to look at your stats to better understand your request.

I personally fly the 47's most of the time, and they do quite well. 

ingame name is Hub -  he's a great stick too

[Scca]

ingame name is Hub -  he's a great stick too

It would seem...  The low post count led me to wonder if he was newer, but that's clearly not it...  Good K/D, good hit %...

 

[-ammo-]

My personal experience is a bit different than my squad mate's.  I DO have days when I can't seem to bring down AC (other than my own) and can't really explain it.  Other days, a quick deflection shot and they lose parts or just simply explode.  When I am having those bad days, I generally like to believe its net lag

[LilMak]

I agree with Messiah. I think the biggest issue with .50s is the damage model. Damage in AH is cumulative you have to hit one spot hard and long to do damage with .50s vs cannon. Cannon have splash damage so you don't nessecarily need to hit any particular area to break something off. A perfect example is deacking with a spit vs a jug. All the spit has to do is get close to the pit with a 20mm whereas a jug has to hit the actual gun to do any damage. The damage model, I think, puts too much emphasis on convergence for .50 armed aircraft. A standard .50 cal round will penitrate 1/4" steel at almost a mile. A Jug throws about 100 of these rounds in a second. If you get caught at convergence for a 1/4 second snap shot, that will put around 20 rounds in the same area and break stuff off. Far too often, aircraft in game fly away unscathed after turning white white hit sprites from tip to tail because of the dispersment of the ammo and the lack of cumlitive damage to any single piece. Our aircraft don't have nearly the ammount of moving parts the real counterparts did. If they did, even long range shots would wreak havoc With the aircraft. Knocking out electrical systems, punching holes in coolant lines (not just radiators), breaking control cables and pullies, breaking gauges, perforating superchargers and impellers, breaking hydraulic lines, making holes in props and breaking hinges. All these things wouldn't nessarily bring an aircraft down but would seriously degrade its ability to fight. None of this is accounted for when that aircraft flies through a waterfall of .50 cal bullets. I've fired the browning several times before. I know what that weapon is capable of and AH is not quite up to its legendary standards in my opinion.

 I've said it many times on range...
 I want three shots at Dale's car with a .50. It might start afterwards but if it drives more than a half mile after taking those three shots, I'll replace the car and apologize for questioning the lethality of the browning armed aircraft in game.

[BluBerry]

A perfect example is deacking with a spit vs a jug. All the spit has to do is get close to the pit with a 20mm whereas a jug has to hit the actual gun to do any damage.

You are comparing explosive cannon rounds with .50's.. so this is not a perfect example.

[Ack-Ack]

Probably, but then maybe not as much as one might think. There's a famous long german guncam film on the net, where before each attack sequence there's a table showing the actual firing distance vs the pilot's own estimate... almost invariably the pilots tended to underrate the distance they were firing at, often dramatically:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-TY4G99zYI

When there are distances given in parentheses, it's the pilots estimate. For example at attack #7, the pilot gives the distance as 150m to 20m, while in fact it was 700m to 150m...

I wonder if there were similar findings for Allied pilots.  Reading the book "P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO", almost all the aces in their AARs would mention firing at ranges of 200 yards or closer.  If the findings for the Luftwaffe pilots were as you mentioned, then the same must be true of these P-38 aces and in reality probably fired at longer ranges then they thought they were.

ack-ack

[Randy1]

I know if I try to take out the radar with an eight 50 package P47 it takes two passes.  It takes one pass with the Typhoon.  That is pretty much as one would think it should be.  Next time out I will try the P38 and see how it compares, then a spit 16.

If i were to rate the firepower of the P38 and a P47 eight gun package, the P47 wins by a nose.

[LilMak]

You are comparing explosive cannon rounds with .50's.. so this is not a perfect example.

It is a perfect example when you're comparing snapshot ability. Test it youself. With a .50 armed Jug you have to hold down the trigger much longer and cross your fingers much harder. A Spit16 consistently will require much less (maybe by 1/2) trigger time to get the same effect and convergence is almost a not a factor. To me, it speaks volumes about the disparity of the snapshot ability between aircraft that are supposed to have virtually equal gun packages.