50 cal damage upped

[Ack-Ack]

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.

It doesn't take more than one pass to take out the radar in a P-38 using guns.

ack-ack

[LCADolby]

The 50s work fine, if you're having trouble with such lazer beams it's user error.
I read a comparison to a spit16,  20mm cannons are epic.

[bustr]

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

Until the P38L, the gunsights in existing P38 had either a 50Mil with the Lynn L3 or 70Mil ring with the N-3. In the heat of the moment it would be very easy to misjudge how close the con was if the p38 pilot didn't get close enough so 1\3 of the wingspan was out past the main ring. For that, you could have shots being opened at 400 to 600 yards due to the smaller main rings. The modification for rockets to the L3 increased the ring to 101Mil. This was one reason the N-3 gunsights were traded out in the ETO for MkII in other AAF fighters.

[Ack-Ack]

Until the P38L, the gunsights in existing P38 had either a 50Mil with the Lynn L3 or 70Mil ring with the N-3. In the heat of the moment it would be very easy to misjudge how close the con was if the p38 pilot didn't get close enough so 1\3 of the wingspan was out past the main ring. For that, you could have shots being opened at 400 to 600 yards due to the smaller main rings. The modification for rockets to the L3 increased the ring to 101Mil. This was one reason the N-3 gunsights were traded out in the ETO for MkII in other AAF fighters.

I suspect that you're right and the P-38 aces probably thought they were closer because of the plane filling their sight ring with the older sights. 

ack-ack

[guncrasher]

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.

i take out dar with a pony in one pass.  same for ords bunkers


semp

[BnZs]

On what airplane and what G loading?

A single spar hit at 1G loading would not break most WWII fighter's wings.

The only hit Johnnie Johnson ever took was from a head on with an Fw19o. His Spit IX took a 20mm hit to the wing spar near the wing root which caused the wing to bend back a bit and caused the Spit to be a write off, but the wing didn't fail and he flew back to base and landed normally.

I remember an episode of "Dogfights" where a P-51B pilot recounts shooting at a 190 in a high-G turn, inside of convergence. Each bank of .50s hit a different wings. He recalls the wings of the 190 folding up, as if it were a carrier plane. I feel like the .50s in AHII have an effectiveness right in line with this sort of thing. No need to change.

Since someone brought up Il2...Il2 is just silly in how it models .50s. You can unload the ammo load of a P-51D on an *un-maneuvering* 190 in front of you to almost no effect. .30s seem about equally effective in that game. Il2 gets so far up its own bellybutton looking for "realism" and glorifying the Eastern Front uber alles that it winds up doing unrealistic things, like making engines fail from a few minutes of WEP.

[BnZs]

It varies widely from plane to plane IMO Mak. Some planes simply fall a part from .50s, some don't. The worst offenders in the later regard seem to be the Russian birds, which seem impossible to kill with a single 6x.50 snapshot, more difficult even than P-47s and P-38s.

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.

[TOMCAT21]

I guess I need move my convergence in from 650... I am not hitting anything to any real great effect

[Ninthmessiah]

For the purposes of this thread, I think attacks made against buildings should be left out for two reasons.  First, when a bullet hits a building, all the kinetic damage counts.  That is to say hitting a building at 1000yds or at 100yds doesn't matter against a building.  http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/guns/guns.htm.  This actually evens the playing field of cannons v. machine guns.  Second, buildings don't have parts, so the importance of convergence is diminished.  Knicking the sides of a building does the same damage as hitting the building in the middle at perfect convergence.  I don't think anyone here is arguing that .50 damage should be upped as against buildings.

If I'm wrong about the damage model against buildings then the statement is withdrawn.  Otherwise, the building damage model is a completely different and simpler animal.

So about the spit16 v. p47 comparison.  The 20mm Hispano does 4.03 damage.  The .50 does 1.17.  A spit16 does 10.4 damage while a p47 does 9.36. 

That means a p47 does 90% of the damage a spit16 does when both pilots tap the trigger.  It sure doesn't feel like it. 

[Karnak]

So about the spit16 v. p47 comparison.  The 20mm Hispano does 4.03 damage.  The .50 does 1.17.  A spit16 does 10.4 damage while a p47 does 9.36. 

That means a p47 does 90% of the damage a spit16 does when both pilots tap the trigger.  It sure doesn't feel like it. 

Keep in mind that the damage model against planes and GVs is more complex that against structures.

That said, the cannons focus the damage a lot better whereas machine guns spread it out.  That makes it a lot easier to cause fatal damage with cannons.  Even Hispanos aren't fatal if you spread it out.  I once did so with a Typhoon, hitting an La-7 with 10 rounds and causing no damage what so ever to him.

[Randy1]

Maybe the question should be about how easy or hard is it to aim and hit with 50 cal instead of the 50 cal damage modeling?

From things HTC has shared about modeling in general in other post it has a lot of hard facts and detailed calculations figured into the models.  I think sometimes our minds over simplify the modeling aspect into something like axb=c.

[LilMak]

I think you're right about the building damage model Messi. That's why it's realitively easy to kill buildings with .50s. Cannons don't even need to connect to do damage. The splash damage does it for you. Perhaps the radius of splash damage on 20mm is excessive rather than the lack of hitting power of 50s. I actually think HT has the damage pretty close to perfect for .50s when you hit at convergence. Stuff readily falls off and planes break up nicely. When you get outside that (which happens much more often than right at convergence) and you turn an entire plane white with hit sprites, SOMETHING should be broken.

I was thinking about this last night. I lit up a spitfire like a Christmas tree while he was in a nose up stall. I had to take my shot early as I had a trailer and was going to be defensive in a few seconds. Spit flew away completely intact and started flippy floppy "defense."  Took three more bursts to bring it down. 2nd burst was a two sprite ping with understandably no damage. 3rd burst caused a fuel leak. 4th burst finally took him down. If I had any plane with a 20mm package or been closer to convergence on the 1st pass, that spit would've never survived to start floping around and I could've paid more attention to the guy who finally killed me.

[Cwhite118]

I prefer the Spit. Seems To have much more damage then the 51. Canons FTW
 

[Wiley]

I'm pretty sure I remember reading the way guns are modeled here, MG's lose their damage over distance but cannons don't or lose less, to help simulate the explosive damage.  That would account for a lot of the behavior I've seen, as other than the P38 I don't find .50s particularly effective much over 400 yards.  I think that's more to do with the tight grouping of the stream of bullets and the way the DM works than the .50 cal round.

I seem to recall reading several accounts that the .50s were known for being more effective in close, less so the further you got from the target.  I wonder if it had more to do with the rounds dispersing than round energy on impact.  A few .50 rounds will not be pleasant to an airframe at 600 or 800 yards, but it won't be nearly like 20 or 30 of them hitting in close proximity to one another at 200.

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

I'm pretty sure I remember reading the way guns are modeled here, MG's lose their damage over distance but cannons don't or lose less, to help simulate the explosive damage.  That would account for a lot of the behavior I've seen, as other than the P38 I don't find .50s particularly effective much over 400 yards.  I think that's more to do with the tight grouping of the stream of bullets and the way the DM works than the .50 cal round.

I seem to recall reading several accounts that the .50s were known for being more effective in close, less so the further you got from the target.  I wonder if it had more to do with the rounds dispersing than round energy on impact.  A few .50 rounds will not be pleasant to an airframe at 600 or 800 yards, but it won't be nearly like 20 or 30 of them hitting in close proximity to one another at 200.

Wiley.

cannons have an explosive charger that doesnt get used till it hits something be it.  bullets use it's own energy to penetrate. then again if you are using api rounds all the have to do is penetrate a little and "hold on" to cause more damage.


semp