.50 cal?

[Ctrl E]

am i the only one to find that the hitting power of the .50 cal is a bit soft? trying to shoot somebody down in a p-51 or f4u can be quite a struggle. i'm sure in reality it would not have been so. .50 cal is might large round. and 6 guns would have made quite a mess of an aircraft i would have thought.

anyway - just an observation. addicted to the game.

[Kaptein_Damli]

am i the only one to find that the hitting power of the .50 cal is a bit soft? trying to shoot somebody down in a p-51 or f4u can be quite a struggle. i'm sure in reality it would not have been so. .50 cal is might large round. and 6 guns would have made quite a mess of an aircraft i would have thought.

anyway - just an observation. addicted to the game.

I know how you feel. What matter is convergency. You should open fire from the range you have set convergence. If you have 250m as convergencesetting, all your shots will centre at 250m. If you fire from too far out, the bullet will not hit the center, but will hit the plane all more spread. Think of the damage if you are able to center all your six guns in on spot. ie engine or wing etc. Also, if you shoot from too far out, the time the bullets has before hitting target will be a factor. (Less damage on impact due to loss of speed). Also bullet drops because of gravity and speed. Try practise on convergenceshooting. Always aim a bit more ahead than you think you should aim. It also takes lots of time finding the right convergencesetting. Some like it at 150-200m, other likes to snipe and have it set on 350-400. Myself use 300m for .50 cal and 200m for smaller calibre. It´s all a matter of taste really. ;)

[Feuerfalke]

I flew the P-51 a lot and I really like the 50s in the game. You usually have to aim a bit better than with most large-caliber-guns, but they are surely not undermodelled if used correctly.

(if at all the damage-model is undermodelled and of course the pilots are undermodelled. In RL if you shreddered a plane or got it smoking, it would retreat. In IL2 it fights back until it explodes and even if it turns and runs, some a$$hat will follow even wingless and burning wracks to get the final shot in and earn the 100 points.)

The circle of the P-51 is set to a FW-190 IIRC at 175 yards. As a yard is .9144 meters, you can set your convergence at 150-160meters. Now if the wingtips of a 190 touch the sides of the ring, with the fuselage in the center, you have a maximum kill chance and it mostly is a kill with a short burst at that range.

At ranges of 300m you can try sniping. In some very stable planes like the P-38 or a trimmed P-47 you can be lucky to get a Pilot-Kill or critical hit on controls or the engine, usually though, you see a lot of hits and small debris coming off, but do little damage.
The Cal50 bullets do their damage primarily through inertial energy, they lose effectiveness dramatically over that distance and they scatter a lot more. Convergence at 300m means that a lot less bullets actually hit the convergence-point than at 150m range.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Also if you go fast (very fast) the impact is harder. These are boom and zoom planes.

[T}{OR]

Check my signature for 'MUSTANG' video.

[Kwiatek]

I think 0,50 cal are not undermodelled but i think pilot health is too good in game. Mostly attack from 0,50 cal from six o clock should heavy wounded or just killed pilot. No WW2 fighter have armour plate which could hold 0,50 bullet. In game you could shoting from 0,50 cal to e.x. Fw190 or 109 from six o clock and PK happend very rare. YOu could PK only from angle- deflection shoting in canopy. In WW2 P-51 and P-47 very often wounded or killed german pilots with such rear attacks. In game shoting from six o clock position is just wasting ammo should wounded or killed pilot but these doesn't happend :/

[mazex]

Not that I really want to fuel another .50 caliber discussion (that has raged for almost a decade on the Zoo), but while waiting for a "constant develompment update" every thing is allowed ;)

I found an interesting text regarding the armor protection of fighters during world war 2:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ar.html

An exerpt about penetration from .50:

"How effective was the armour? It's thickness varied from 8 mm to about 13 mm. The armour was certainly effective against rifle-calibre machineguns, but these weapons were increasingly replaced by far more powerful medium-calibre machineguns or by cannon. The American .50 AP M2 round, a projectile with a high muzzle velocity, was expected to penetrate 1 inch (24.5 mm) at 100 yards (91 mm) and the AP-I M8 round still 7/8 inch. However, such armour penetration figures are traditionally measured against a homogeneous "standard" plate, while the armour plate fitted to aircraft would be face-hardened plate of good quality, to achieve maximal protection for minimal weight. Also important was that before it could hit the armour, the projectile had to pass through the aircraft skin and maybe structural members, which would deflect it or slow it down and was likely to cause tumbling, which would considerable reduce armour penetration. In this way relatively thin plates could greatly increase the protection. Equipment in the aft fuselage could be carefully arrange so that the bullet would have to pass it first, before it could hit the pilot. Finally, typical firing distances were of the order of 300 yards. Most airforces seem to have felt that the armour of their fighters offered substantial protection against .50 and even 20 mm rounds."

/Mazex

[JG27CaptStubing]

There have been like over 10 zillion discussions over on at the zoo regarding the .50s.

Here is the deal in short. The .50s hit great and they do quite a bit of damage period.

The challenge with them is their accuracy in the game. Wheather it's right or wrong it really doesn't matter but the fact is they aren't very accurate far out. Set your convergence <200 meters and don't shoot until you are well with in that range. The 50s hit quite nice.

[badatflyski]

I think 0,50 cal are not undermodelled but i think pilot health is too good in game. Mostly attack from 0,50 cal from six o clock should heavy wounded or just killed pilot. No WW2 fighter have armour plate which could hold 0,50 bullet. In game you could shoting from 0,50 cal to e.x. Fw190 or 109 from six o clock and PK happend very rare. YOu could PK only from angle- deflection shoting in canopy. In WW2 P-51 and P-47 very often wounded or killed german pilots with such rear attacks. In game shoting from six o clock position is just wasting ammo should wounded or killed pilot but these doesn't happend :/


:roll:
yeah right...the comeback of the return of the vengeance of the magic 0.50...killing pilots this time...
men, grass is really "green" this year in poland, can't wait to be in august to try it.
I hope they have the same in Varsaw:cool:

Kwiatek: have you ever seen the english dammage tests done a the 190 fuselage?...i'm sure you didn't, otherwise you will not write such things...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/FW190/190vunerabilityAdj.jpg

i read somewhere the 0.50 actually sunk the tirpitz, they cut it in half, but shhhhht, it's still something classified:cool:

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

I think it is important to understand that 90% of a WWII fighter aircraft was completely unarmoured. 90% of it was simply a light framework of aluminum, covered with thin aluminum sheet. This offered minimal protection against bullets.

Most aircraft armour was designed to protect the pilot or fuel tanks. The limited areas which were armoured normally was as follows:

Cockpit (Pilot) armour

a) a thick glass plate served as a front windshield, normally around 50mm thick, this was only effective against gunfire from directly ahead against rifle calibre bullets, and could be penetrated at medium and short ranges by .50 cals. The side cockpit glass, (usually plexiglass) was completely unarmoured.

b) the pilot's seat, back and headrest was hardened steel, normally around 8mm thick, thicker in aircraft such as the P-47, proof against light MG fire, but not proof against .50 calibre or higher. The seat offered protection from gunfire from directly behind and below, but not against shots from the side or above. In some Soviet aircraft, the headrest was replaced with a thick bullet proof glass shield to allow for better visibility to the rear. But this glass shield was usually not as effective as steel for protection.

Gas tanks

a) Gas tanks were constructed of thin sheet metal. With the exception of certain early war fighters, primarily Japanese, most gas tanks had an inner bladder, the construction of which comprised two layers of rubber, with a liquid rubber substance between. When a bullet penetrated the gas tank bladder, the liquid rubber would ooze out into the hole and seal it. Only small holes could be sealed, larger ones could not. A tank hit by a 20mm round or multiple .50 calibre rounds would not seal. Since the many bullets were inciendary, and the gases in partially empty tanks were extremely prone to exploding on contact with flame or sparks, some tanks also had anti-fire systems which involved the replacement of the gasoline fumes in the tank with other inert gases, not prone to exploding. Again, it didn't really matter when a big enough hole was made in the tank, the leaking gas was extremely flammable. The standard .50 calibre round was Armour Piercing Inciendary, (the tip being comprised of phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, ie. when exposed to air) so when hit by these, fire was a huge possibility. Self sealing tanks are not really armour, they are just a passive protection.

Tanks located in the wings of aircraft had no additional armour, but tanks in the fuselage of aircraft such as the FW-190 or P-47 often had additional thin, steel plates protecting them. These were not proof against .50 calibre or larger rounds.

Aircraft such as the FW-190 and P-47 which used air cooled engines often had armouring around the oil coolers, (the oil coolers were smaller than radiators, and could be more easily protected) if you look at the picture of the FW-190 below, you can see the oil cooler, and the outer cowling ring around it was armoured face hardened steel which offered some protection to the side and rear. (but not to the front)

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/fw190engine090701bg_5.JPG

Radiators had no armour and were extremely vulnerable.

Some of the later model FW-190's used on the 'Sturmbock' Staffels were modified with additional armour plates on the sides of the cockpit below the glass, as well as a thicker windscreen and a heavier ring around the oil cooler at the front of the engine. None of these modified 190's is represented in the game, we have the normally armoured 190's.

Again, the areas above which I have mentioned are a small proportion of the overall aircraft, 90% of which is completely unprotected.

Anyone who has been in the army or reserves, and who has fired a high velocity large calibre round understands how powerful even a so called 'smaller' weapon such as a .50 calibre is. At 200 yards, the normal distance for air combat in WWII, a metal jacketed .50 calibre round will go through multiple cement blocks. Light aluminum is completely vulnerable to such firepower, the skin and framing of an aircraft would be penetrated easily. A accurated targeted burst would tear apart a wing structure easily.

Even steel jacketed light MG rounds are not to be dismissed when directed against the unarmoured sections of a fighter aircraft. Again, anyone who has fired a standard NATO 7.62mm load LMG will understand that this type of round will go through the wall of a house, and would quite easily pentrate aluminum sheet and the lighter wing structures.

Overall, I think Oleg has modelled this game on the lenient side, to allow player aircraft to survive gunfire which would do considerably more damage to the real life thing.

RE. Badatflyski comments: Post the entire test please, not just the cherry picked section so we understand exactly where the firing aircraft was located, the range the fire happened at, etc. etc. Of course, if the firing aircraft is at long range, and directly behind, the likelyhood of damage is going to be reduced. However, at normal combat ranges the .50 calibre was more than effective, including against 190's.

Please note the reports below, re. .50 cals and 190 pilot protection.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-woods-22march45.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-schlegel-24april44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-gentile-29march44.jpg

All reports courtesy Mike Williams. His site is located here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

It includes not just information re. Spitfires, but also many other aircraft, as well as many air to air combat reports. Also see his WWII Aircraft performance site here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[Viking]

Not to mention the effect of the .50 on Tiger tanks. Also “claimed” ; off course!

Viking

[*Buzzsaw*]

Not to mention the effect of the .50 on Tiger tanks. Also “claimed” ; off course!

Viking

Of course you're right Viking, all those claims by USAAF or British pilots using .50 cal ammo are false... no Luftwaffe planes were ever shot down by Allied pilots, the Germans were just too polite to hurt the feelings of all those useless Allies, so they bailed out or crashed themselves into the ground. ;)

More observations of 'polite' Germans, this time by P-47 pilots:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-gabreski-3sept43.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-gabreski-22feb44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-gabreski-27march44a.jpg

Hundreds more reports, all courtesy Mike Williams sites:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

Note that all these reports were classified, not available for publication till the late '50's or '60's, were not released at all during the war, so obviously were not written for propaganda purposes, but simply as combat reports.

[Kira]

He's just saying that you can't use pilot acounts as proof.

[*Buzzsaw*]

He's just saying that you can't use pilot acounts as proof.

Salute Kira

Well, he's wrong. The USAAF, RAF, Luftwaffe, VVS, Regia Aeronautica, and Imperial Japanese Army and Navy all used pilots reports as the basis of awarding kills.

The USAAF and RAF also had the benefit of guncam footage to back those reports up.

Pilots from all sides overclaimed during the war but pilot reports were still the best source for accurate assessment of enemy losses.

There are over 300 pilots reports in the links I gave:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

If you take the time to read them, you might come to the understanding that there is a clear consistency in the reporting. No doubt some of the reports might be optimistic, but to suggest that all of them are false or unreliable is clearly nonsense, especially considering most of them were backed up with guncam footage, and confirmation from wingmen.

They all indicate the effectiveness of the .50 calibre.

[Ctrl E]

wow -didn't mean to trigger such a discussion. gives us something to do i while we wait for SOW i guess.

i would have thought a single .50 cal round fired square into the 6 of an aircraft would punch through the pilot's seat (and chest) and smash half way through the engine block - thus killing the pilot and the engine. of course in real life the round would bounce around a bit and fly off at odd angles.

i still reckon the current .50 cal round is a bit weak.

this is getting a bit like an episode of CSI.

[IceFire]

wow -didn't mean to trigger such a discussion. gives us something to do i while we wait for SOW i guess.

i would have thought a single .50 cal round fired square into the 6 of an aircraft would punch through the pilot's seat (and chest) and smash half way through the engine block - thus killing the pilot and the engine. of course in real life the round would bounce around a bit and fly off at odd angles.

i still reckon the current .50 cal round is a bit weak.

this is getting a bit like an episode of CSI.

If you're new to the community then this is just another day, another .50cal thread :)

Lots of topics posted on it since we got the weapon in the first place. Between that and the German MG151/20 cannon. I used to think it weak and then I adjusted my convergence, thought about my shooting, and then I solved most of my problems. Rapid strikes in the same location will do it...cut apart near anything. It may be a tad bit weak but the debate on that will go on endlessly so I stopped worrying and made sure I was effective with it.

With a little practice its a fine weapon. You can go home with 3-5 fighter kills with it if you're good. Not easy to do that given what happens in combat but its possible.

[BadAim]

wow -didn't mean to trigger such a discussion. gives us something to do i while we wait for SOW i guess.

i would have thought a single .50 cal round fired square into the 6 of an aircraft would punch through the pilot's seat (and chest) and smash half way through the engine block - thus killing the pilot and the engine. of course in real life the round would bounce around a bit and fly off at odd angles.

i still reckon the current .50 cal round is a bit weak.

this is getting a bit like an episode of CSI.

Yeah, the .50 is incredibly powerful for a machine gun round, but it's not that powerful, especially against large and heavily built aircraft. I've had skilled pilots dismantle my Zero in short order with no trouble, but they lack punch for larger and more heavily constructed planes. Nothing, but nothing can replace good gunnery.

[Jughead]

I've noticed the 50's on the bombers are quite a bit more powerful than than the ones on the fighters. I get hit with one bullet from a bomber and my plane is useless. Not the case at all when they come from fighters.

[robtek]

@jughead

well, that is so because usually when you attack a bomber you and the bullets have opposite flight-paths, not so when the guy on your six is firing at you.

afaik

[*Buzzsaw*]

I've noticed the 50's on the bombers are quite a bit more powerful than than the ones on the fighters. I get hit with one bullet from a bomber and my plane is useless. Not the case at all when they come from fighters.

Even more the case in regards to the light MG's firing from bombers. They are amazingly deadly...

The ability of all AI gunners in IL-2 to place a 'magic' bullet in exactly the right spot is a little overdone to put it mildly.

Unfortunately Oleg has not simulated the effects of G forces on AI gunners in IL-2, so for example you get situations whereby a enemy bomber which has had its wing cut off, and which is spinning towards earth at high speeds, yet can still kill you with an AI gunner firing from the rear position, even though in real life that gunner would be so thrown around by G forces that he couldn't even hang on to the gun, let alone take an aimed shot.

Also, rear gunners were very vulnerable to being killed by fire, yet in 1 on 1 duels with fighters, you can put hundreds of rounds into a gunner's position, but your chances of a kill are very small and in most situations, a duel between a fighter equipped with 4 cannon, and a rear gunner equipped with a single LMG, sees the Fighter lose.

Hopefully we don't see the same thing in BoB, AI gunners should be basically prohibited from firing when a Bomber or attack aircraft is performing high G maneuvers, and the overall accuracy of them should be toned down considerably.

Historically bomber gunners fired from aircraft which flew straight and level, yet even in those situations, accuracy was very poor. Bombers depended on massed firepower from the hundreds of guns in bomber formation. If you program the types of formations seen in the real Battle of Britain or Battle of Germany in the IL-2 game, its almost suicide for a fighter to attack.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Between that and the German MG151/20 cannon. I used to think it weak

...the MG151/20 weak>>>????

Don't think so, ever since Oleg adjusted the ammo load to include the maximum number of Minen shells after a storm of complaints from the Luftwaffe side, the MG151/20 is now the most powerful 20mm gun in the game, even though the experts rate the Hispano as being superior.

[Kira]

...the MG151/20 weak>>>????

Don't think so, ever since Oleg adjusted the ammo load to include the maximum number of Minen shells after a storm of complaints from the Luftwaffe side, the MG151/20 is now the most powerful 20mm gun in the game, even though the experts rate the Hispano as being superior.


Sounds like you hold a bit of a grudge against blue.

[Kwiatek]

0,50 cal effectivness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVH8dI-ZTbA&fmt=18

[Baron]

Got fed up with the weak (relativly) armement of early jap planes the other week and just to prove a point i swiched sides and climbed into a F4F.

Got 6 Zero kills in one sortie, of wich 2 simply exploded, the rest lost theire wing/wings or started burning..and had ammo to spear at the end of the mission.


50 cals are just fine.


In the ETO its a bit harder, as it should be, but the 50`s are just fine

[DKoor]

There have been like over 10 zillion discussions over on at the zoo regarding the .50s.

Here is the deal in short. The .50s hit great and they do quite a bit of damage period.

The challenge with them is their accuracy in the game. Wheather it's right or wrong it really doesn't matter but the fact is they aren't very accurate far out. Set your convergence <200 meters and don't shoot until you are well with in that range. The 50s hit quite nice.Man says it right. +1


Although I disagree about convergence since with using P-51 as a classic high speed BnZ machine, I like my conv to be higher but not much higher. But this is a personal preference anyway... someone may enjoy and do better with one conv someone else with another... it's one of those random things in game :) .

And yes .50s indeed hit very, very hard.

[IceFire]

...the MG151/20 weak>>>????

Don't think so, ever since Oleg adjusted the ammo load to include the maximum number of Minen shells after a storm of complaints from the Luftwaffe side, the MG151/20 is now the most powerful 20mm gun in the game, even though the experts rate the Hispano as being superior.

I know...thats what I meant.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Got fed up with the weak (relativly) armement of early jap planes the other week and just to prove a point i swiched sides and climbed into a F4F.

Got 6 Zero kills in one sortie, of wich 2 simply exploded, the rest lost theire wing/wings or started burning..and had ammo to spear at the end of the mission.


50 cals are just fine.


In the ETO its a bit harder, as it should be, but the 50`s are just fine

Using early Jap planes as an example is completely useless.

You can set them on fire with two LMG's. Anything can set them on fire.

The USN did a complete study of the .50 calibre versus the 20mm Hispano, which included all manner of damage tests.

Their conclusion: Three .50 cals do the equivalent of one 20mm in damage.

The question we have to ask, in the game, does an aircraft with six wingmount 50 cals, such as a Mustang D, do the same damage as an aircraft with two 20mm in the wings, such as a Spitfire. I know that most of the time, I don't bother firing the LMG's in the Spitfire wing, I save them for defence after I run out of 20mm's. And I find the Spitfire's guns far more effective than a Mustang D's.

[Brain32]

And if you really read all those pilot accunts you posted here, none of them was dead six shot, the most usual line being "...I observed strikes over fuselage and cockpit...".
Well ofcourse the .50 could penetrate plexiglass, especially at deflections you see comonly described in those pilot accounts, that's hardly an achievement.

What happens in-game though is another thing, dead six pilot kills, controls shot off/jammed, not to mention what kind of skin damage can 50 cal make in-game, it's pretty funny that it does not matter if 20mm or 50cal hit you in the wing, you will often loose 100kmh+ and struggle to keep a level flight after only one or very few 50cal hits.
All this adjusted by Oleg and Co after years and years of crusade for the super powered 50cal, point convergence, box convergence, sync them, unsync them, make them smell funny..., seriously I believe Oleg starts considering a vacation every time he sees yet ANOTHER "My 50cal's can't explode Tiger tanks!!!" thread.

One could write a book about il2sturmovik game called:
"Exploding a Triptiz with a single bullet: A dream of a 50cal."


Yeah just keep throwing pilot accounts and spread some more BS, maybe in SoW too late 109's will struggle to manouver with P47, Tempests will fly like light aerobatic planes and any idiot will be able to win the teh war before his wife comes home.
Well atleast it will sell great :)

[KG26_Alpha]

Testing the new moderator are we ???

:)

Seriously though this thread is redundant.

[Bearcat]

I flew the P-51 a lot and I really like the 50s in the game. You usually have to aim a bit better than with most large-caliber-guns, but they are surely not undermodelled if used correctly.

(if at all the damage-model is undermodelled and of course the pilots are undermodelled. In RL if you shreddered a plane or got it smoking, it would retreat. In IL2 it fights back until it explodes and even if it turns and runs, some a$$hat will follow even wingless and burning wracks to get the final shot in and earn the 100 points.)

The circle of the P-51 is set to a FW-190 IIRC at 175 yards. As a yard is .9144 meters, you can set your convergence at 150-160meters. Now if the wingtips of a 190 touch the sides of the ring, with the fuselage in the center, you have a maximum kill chance and it mostly is a kill with a short burst at that range.

At ranges of 300m you can try sniping. In some very stable planes like the P-38 or a trimmed P-47 you can be lucky to get a Pilot-Kill or critical hit on controls or the engine, usually though, you see a lot of hits and small debris coming off, but do little damage.
The Cal50 bullets do their damage primarily through inertial energy, they lose effectiveness dramatically over that distance and they scatter a lot more. Convergence at 300m means that a lot less bullets actually hit the convergence-point than at 150m range.

I think you mean the pilot & damage are a bit over modelled yes? I agree too... IRL no pilot would fly around in a burning plane unless he couldnt get out... and of course if he couldnt get out he couldnt fly around and still try to shoot you down either... like the AI in this sim often do..



I think 0,50 cal are not undermodelled but i think pilot health is too good in game. Mostly attack from 0,50 cal from six o clock should heavy wounded or just killed pilot. No WW2 fighter have armour plate which could hold 0,50 bullet. In game you could shoting from 0,50 cal to e.x. Fw190 or 109 from six o clock and PK happend very rare. YOu could PK only from angle- deflection shoting in canopy. In WW2 P-51 and P-47 very often wounded or killed german pilots with such rear attacks. In game shoting from six o clock position is just wasting ammo should wounded or killed pilot but these doesn't happend :/

Exacty .. hey Kwaitek are you the pilot formerly known as Kwaitos that was an UberKiller in the FB.o P-47 a few years back?



There have been like over 10 zillion discussions over on at the zoo regarding the .50s.
Here is the deal in short. The .50s hit great and they do quite a bit of damage period.
The challenge with them is their accuracy in the game. Wheather it's right or wrong it really doesn't matter but the fact is they aren't very accurate far out. Set your convergence <200 meters and don't shoot until you are well with in that range. The 50s hit quite nice.

Rgr that.. not only that but stick settings are veryh important with the 50s depending on the plane.. the P-40 is a much more stable platform than the P-51 or the Corsair.... and therefore it gives the apperarance of having different .50s.. If you increase the deadzone I& fitlering on your controls you will find a bit more accuracy .. especially in the P-51.

[Golf Pro]

The trouble with 0.50's is a lot to do with AI FM. When you get hit by them yourself, while rarely fatal in the first burst, they generally have sufficient effect to curtail effective manoeuvring of your plane.

However, the AI generally control their planes just as well even with quite extensive damage, which leads to the rather tedious process of chipping away at them until they fall out of the sky.

The only solutions to this are either to become an expert in one type of 0.50-armed plane so that you can pull off the kind of convergence/deflection shots that will get you a quick kill, or to switch to a cannon-armed plane, and not worry so much about expertise, as you can get first-burst-fatal shots in with less precise shooting.

I prefer to do the latter, and am therefore in the "0,50s are lame" camp.

[mondo]

I don't agree. Getting your convergance right and getting some personal discipline to fire only at that convergence isn't that hard.

I think the real problem is managing peoples expectations. People see gun cam and think why can't I do that? Then you go back to the gun cam and look at just how close the planes were to each other. That never seems to be taken up by any forum discussions on the .50 topics, all 50 bazillion of them.

And if you really read all those pilot accunts you posted here, none of them was dead six shot, the most usual line being "...I observed strikes over fuselage and cockpit...".
Well ofcourse the .50 could penetrate plexiglass, especially at deflections you see comonly described in those pilot accounts, that's hardly an achievement.


I think thats part of the problem. People sit behind the dead 6 of a 190 at 500m, shoot 1000 rounds and see 50 strikes and expect miracles. The British did those tests on the 190 and showed that at a distance firing on a dead 6 at the 190 won't do particularly much unless you get lucky. More to the point, as you say, I don't think I've ever seen gun cam footage of a fighter destroying another fighter with .50's at 500m on its dead 6, more like 100m to 150m.

[Thunderbolt56]

Testing the new moderator are we ???

:)

Seriously though this thread is redundant.



lmao...ya think?

[*Buzzsaw*]

The Cal50 bullets do their damage primarily through inertial energy, they lose effectiveness dramatically over that distance and they scatter a lot more. Convergence at 300m means that a lot less bullets actually hit the convergence-point than at 150m range.

The .50s hit great and they do quite a bit of damage period.
The challenge with them is their accuracy in the game. Wheather it's right or wrong it really doesn't matter but the fact is they aren't very accurate far out.

We have people admitting the .50 calibre is not accurate at range, here is the first example of why the modelling is wrong.

Anyone who has bothered in the slightest to look at ballistics and how slug design affects it will understand that the .50 calibre round has excellent accuracy characteristics over distance.

There are two main reasons for this.

Aerodynamics in a projectile shape require a tapered, sharp pointed tip, and a 'boat tail', or tapered rear, with the taper starting at about the mid point of the round and extending to the rear, for maximum efficiency. The .50 calibre round satisfies both of these criteria.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/M2Round.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/50_bmg_12.7x99.PNG

That is in contrast to rounds such as the MG151/20 or Mk 108 whose ballistic aerodynamics are very poor. Both of these have rounds with flat noses, and no boattailing to the rear. The Mk 108 is the second from the left below in the first photo, and the MG151/20 (20 X 82) is the fourth from the left in the second photo.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30mm%201.jpg

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm1.jpg

Rounds with poor shape will lose speed much faster, and diverge from their path more often.

The other major factor in ballistic efficiency is muzzle velocity. The .50 calibre round has a muzzle velocity of 880 meters per second compared to the MG151/20 at 725 m/s and the abysmal Mk 108 at 505 m/s. The Mk 108 will suffer a bullet drop nearly twice as far as the .50 in the same distance.

All of these factors combine to give the .50 cal a much better accuracy at range than these other two weapons. So to find that the .50's are less accurate at range in the game has to raise questions.

[Brain32]

Actually, atleast on western front, 50cal IS the most accurate weapon and has the greatest range, for example after 800m mk108 round dissapears, this does not happen with 50cal all the way to 1800m.
What does happen though, they are not that powerfull at greater distances, that's probably because...====NEWSFLASH====...physics affects the super holy mighty planet destroyer a.k.a. 50cal too and it too looses hitting power as it travels.

The only thing you might have on in-game 50's is tracer visibility, they are really hard to see comparing to other bullets/shells, but all those fairy tales in effort to really make them planet destroyers are hilarious :D

[DKoor]

Actually, atleast on western front, 50cal IS the most accurate weapon and has the greatest range, for example after 800m mk108 round dissapears, this does not happen with 50cal all the way to 1800m.
What does happen though, they are not that powerfull at greater distances, that's probably because...====NEWSFLASH====...physics affects the super holy mighty planet destroyer a.k.a. 50cal too and it too looses hitting power as it travels.

The only thing you might have on in-game 50's is tracer visibility, they are really hard to see comparing to other bullets/shells, but all those fairy tales in effort to really make them planet destroyers are hilarious :D+1

[DKoor]

I don't agree. Getting your convergance right and getting some personal discipline to fire only at that convergence isn't that hard.

I think the real problem is managing peoples expectations. People see gun cam and think why can't I do that? Then you go back to the gun cam and look at just how close the planes were to each other. That never seems to be taken up by any forum discussions on the .50 topics, all 50 bazillion of them.



I think thats part of the problem. People sit behind the dead 6 of a 190 at 500m, shoot 1000 rounds and see 50 strikes and expect miracles. The British did those tests on the 190 and showed that at a distance firing on a dead 6 at the 190 won't do particularly much unless you get lucky. More to the point, as you say, I don't think I've ever seen gun cam footage of a fighter destroying another fighter with .50's at 500m on its dead 6, more like 100m to 150m.
+1


In game we can rip the **** out of any aerial target at 200m with .50cals.

Dead 6.

[WeedEater]

.50's either preform miracles or end up making you wish you had cannons as your victim slowly coaxes his crate home. An example happened to me not to long ago. I was in a P-51D when a FW-190 bounced me. The Focke-Wolf pilot came out of the dive and pulled into a screaming near vertical climb. He was about 450m away from my gunsight when I fired a short burst in desperation. Luck would have it that he lost a wing. For any plane, the trick is convergence. Also, you can try shoot in a way that your bullets will slice through like a buzzsaw (enemy is flying level, you fly with 90 degree bank). A big plus is that you got more ammo.

[T}{OR]

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/9146/barettm82a11mp6.jpg

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3036/m107usarmyimage03gp6.jpg

:D

[Mysticpuma]

I posted this a while back on the Ubi Forums. Basically the only way to get the .50 Cal to work is:

"To be honest I have also been in the "The .50's are porked" Brigade, but then I started watching my tracks back.

At times when I was sure I'd waited for the correct moment to open fire, when the enemy was filling the gunsight, I'd open fire and watch as my multiple hits did barely any damage and the 190 and 109 would turn onto me until I was dead!

How could this be, "the .50's are porked!" I'd shout, and , well, no they aren't!

I watched my tracks back and was amazed to see my bullets converging about 40-50 metres short of the target, and while 2-3 would hit (giving speckled debris), most of them had spread out way before hitting my intended target and gone either side. However, my initial burst, while inflicting little damage, had alerted the pilot of the EA...and he was off before I could actually take him down.

This is where you need (if you want the best from the .50-cals) to spend a little time, to make a lot of difference.

Set up a mission off-line, and to make it easier you can create a single mission with a friendly aircraft flying in a straight line and you are a separate flight (so it doesn't manoeuvre with you) . Now sneak up on the friendly plane as it flies straight and level and imagining it's an enemy plane get to the point where you would normally shoot. Ok, unleash your guns and then stop the mission and play back the track (of course you can play against an enemy for realism!).

So watch the track and as you fire pause the playback. Hit the F2 key and go outside the plane to the point here the bullets are converging (not hitting the plane (unless you are spot-on with your attempt)).

So now you can see where they are converging you can then start to work out of you need to set your convergence further or shorter than you have it now.
For example your convergence is 300m for both Cannons and MG. You look at the paused track and see that the bullets are crossing approx. 100-metres ahead of the EA (or friendly drone as you created that mission ;) ). So now go back to your arming screen and decrease the convergence to 200m and replay the mission. Trial and error will get you to your sweet spot and then you will see what the .50-cal can do.

So what did I do after reviewing my tracks? Well I was set at 300 and 275 but now I have changed my settings to 200MG and 200C (even though they are all 50's!).

My first three sorties out were a revelation.
Destroyed were 3x190's and 1x109 on my first sortie.Second Sortie 2x190 1x190 and 1xJU-88 (head-on PK attack) and the Third Sortie 2x109's and another JU-88 along with 2x109's damaged while attacking a friendly.

All I'd say is set your convergence, watch your tracks and then post that the .50's are porked.....they're not...and I used to believe they were.

Now Armour Piercing incendiary in the load-outs on the Extra Ammunition as a sub-setting would be the best addition to the P-47 series since it was introduced...but the only reason I mention it is because this is a wish list for 4.09....so .50's porked....Nah!

Hope that helps, cheers, MP.

[Kwiatek]

I usually use 175m convergence for 0,50cal and still it hasn't impact for hiting to target from six o clock (expecially Fw190 but 109 also). If i hit from some delfection is big difference but shoting from rear to fuselage is mostly wasting ammo. 0,50 cal should easly penetrate fusalage and plate armour with suche angle ( 90 deg=0 deg) and wounded or kill pilot.

[Kwiatek]

Exacty .. hey Kwaitek are you the pilot formerly known as Kwaitos that was an UberKiller in the FB.o P-47 a few years back?




I fly in HL as 303_Kwiatek and nick Kwiatos i use only in some forums.
I flew a lot P-47 before 4.XX patch when it had good firepower and accurate roll rate at high speed - it was real Fw190 and Bf109 killer these times. As i remember 1 pass 1 enemy shot down. Now i dont fly it too much. Im nervous with its curenlty moddeled roll rate and 0,50 cal effectivness. Now im rather taking P-51 with much more chance to hit target then in P47. Many players can hear you engine and break off before you have chance to shot so in P-51 you have more chance to aim target then with poor manouverbility P-47 even if it has 2 guns more. Before 4.XX Fw190 and 109 pilots have hard days but now they could just laught when P-51 or P-47 try to shot them.

[6S.Manu]

I fly in HL as 303_Kwiatek and nick Kwiatos i use only in some forums.
I flew a lot P-47 before 4.XX patch when it had good firepower and accurate roll rate at high speed - it was real Fw190 and Bf109 killer these times. As i remember 1 pass 1 enemy shot down. Now i dont fly it too much. Im nervous with its curenlty moddeled roll rate and 0,50 cal effectivness. Now im rather taking P-51 with much more chance to hit target then in P47. Many players can hear you engine and break off before you have chance to shot so in P-51 you have more chance to aim target then with poor manouverbility P-47 even if it has 2 guns more. Before 4.XX Fw190 and 109 pilots have hard days but now they could just laught when P-51 or P-47 try to shot them.

Yes.. above all when your screen turns black or a single burst cut your controls.. if you are lucky you'll lose only 100Km/h of top speed... but all depends on pilot's accuracy.

Anyway everybody have the sound engine problem and 190 and late 109 aren't good to "have more chance to aim target" more than a P51.

[Monguse]

Convergence of the 50's in the Mustang 250 yards or 228.6 m convergence.

http://www.warwingsart.com/history/50Cal/P51_50Cal_convergence.jpg

Why use any less when historically 250 yards was more than acceptable in the field?

[Monguse]

oops

[Monguse]

some weird - triple post