Actually, the .50 was nothing specatacular even against fighters. What made them effective, the number of them. 6-8 such machineguns were more than enough, but the cost was lots of weight.

I took tail gunner shots from an Il-2 (apparently 12,7 mm bullets) on my Fw-190 A6 wing. The left wingtip/emblem area looked very, very ugly - bullet holes and large dark splotches. With such damage, fighting is pretty much out of the question, but the plane is far from unflyable, and landing requires just a bit more caution than usually, so that the plane doesn't roll left when you least expect it! My wheels touched down roughly at 45% of standard grass runway length, and the plane came to full stop at 96%, give or take a few percent. I'd say that's good enough for a damaged plane. In lab conditions, the landing distance needed is naturally shorter.

Or maybe there were no faults at all, and they were very musical people. I haven't come across a Focke Wulf - Lied, though ;)

A typical FW190 discussion from years ago, there's been plenty of them around over the years.

Lol post#107 from this old discussion on FW190 refers to old DM discussions around that time.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...-series-Forums

That's the "heavy damage" texture.

That's my experience, too.

But, the issue is how much damage is required to trigger the wing heavy damage texture, not just for the FW-190, but also for other planes of equivalent size and construction.

I think that the .30/.303 cal/7.62 mm MG is way to effective in inflicting airframe damage in the game, and that the .50 cal/12.7 mm MG is somewhat too effective. The 20 & 30 mm cannons seem about right in terms of the damage they inflict.

soviet 12.7 is underpowered currently. For 20mm, some are good (Hispano, MG-151, some are vastly overpowered (ShVAK), some are a bit weak (certain japanese guns)

Presumably, they all use some sort of calculation for weight of fire, based on bullet mass, muzzle velocity & ballistic coefficient. While there might be other elements of how a bullet inflicts damage based on terminal ballistics (e.g., likelihood of tumbling or shattering on impact), that seems like the best way to do it.

My point wasn't that some heavy MG are comparatively over- or underpowered, its that I think there's a good argument to be made that ALL HMG are a bit overpowered in their ability to inflict airframe damage.

When I posted about 190 wings having their ammo exploded, got curious and checked available guncams videos to see what was over there.

This one:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKbQqTeGcL4

look at 1:25, and 1:27

You could see a clear explosion on the wing. It just doesn't break, it exploded.

I find just one more with an exploding wing. All the other guncams were with smoking planes. IF there are someone over there that could post some more examples will be nice.

That video, along with others, has been done to death in the past regarding FW wings exploding.

But would it mean all aircraft with wing ammo are classed the same damage wise.

Or just the Fw190 !!

03:10
04:18

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyeltf58BaU

Funny, or those videos got some cut and paste, or I'm getting some deja vu on those broken wings.

They always break on the same place. It looks like some repetitive damage on an arcade game.

I will look for videos from the german guncams, but they look really worst than the american ones.

Also, the idea was to see .50's breaking wings.

My point, is that they may, if they hit the ammo rack.

Gun cam is only a tiny portion of the actual fight.

We wont know the whole story about the kills we see.

Modelling the game from gun cam would not be a good idea.