Heinkels of steel?
 

Because of the performance issues before I mostly flew cross country. Now a new world is opening up after the patch with fps most of the time above 30... Even the "Intercept bombers over London" mission :)

Therefore I'm not sure if it's since the patch - but shooting down a He 111 in a Spitfire (have not tried the Hurri but I guess it's the same) just feels way too hard?

On realistic gunnery I set the convergence to 150 yards and to shot down a He 111 I have to spend like 60+ seconds of perfectly aimed bursts at optimum distance before downing them (having unlimited ammo as it is impossible otherwise). Sure the .303 was not that effective against the bombers but when placing four 15 second bursts in a row right in the left engine and it keeps on running one starts to wonder how exaggerated the kill claims where if this is realistic ;)

Is it only me or does anyone else have the problem? There are hit animations all over those He 111:s and there is debris flying around but they just keep going...

When shooting at engines, it is best to use armor piercing ammo, and not the standard lead-slugs that Il-2 COD puts in the spitfire.

I agree with Mazex. Endlessly pounding the Heinkels with almost no effect (with armor piercing). Same for the Stuka's. And i'm shure i must have hit the gunner massively, but he just keeps shooting.

They did prefer to attack from 12 oc...

In reality even AP bullets were pretty ineffective against Bombers.

The LW realised this and eventually phased them out. They understood before the RAF that the best way to bring down bombers was explosions within the superstructure. High explosive and stressed aluminium don't mix well.

The HE 111 was very tough to bring down with early RAF ammo. There are dozens of stories about RAF pilots lining up behind the same bomber and emptying ammo belts, and they would keep going.

Big glass cockpit up front.
Attack from their 12 OC and see how ineffective your bullets are.

I think it is all right to have it difficult to bring down. It was so in real life me thinks.

From accounts i've read it seems accurate- the RAF was desperate to get reliable cannons to equip their fighters as they realised relatively small calibre machine guns were inadequate.
The RAF trained squadrons to attack bombers in sequence- that's why prewar films of RAF planes show formations of fighters 'peeling off' and then forming a long chain, one behind the other. The rapid defeat of France that allowed the Luftwaffe to have airfields close enough for their single engined fighters to provide bomber escort was something the RAF wasn't really prepared for (it was probably at the bottom of their tactical files marked 'Worst case scenario!').
When the RAF got to use these tactics against unescorted bombers they were very effective, as demonstrated when the Luftwaffe sent bombers to attack north England beyond fighter escort.
It takes a lot of .303's to shoot down a fast all-metal bomber, but only one to kill a pilot. As they say in 'Shawn of the dead'- AIM FOR THE HEAD ;)

This is the best thing for me. Sitting on the arse of a Heinkel and filling it full of lead and it still keeps going despite the damage. Just like the history books say. Having said that fill the wing between the engine and the fuselage with incendary bullets and that fuel tank'll blow like Guy Fawkes. I can't wait for a butcher bird in this sim.

Not of steel. 400+ rounds hit, fired by me in the Spitfire Ia, all 'realism' options on... just today as a matter of fact, with default load-out and convergence:

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...CloD-He111.jpg

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...CloD-He111.jpg

Problem of Battle of Britain in weak weapon. This is early stage of war. Thats why in 1942-1945 fighters fly with 30mm cannons or several 20-mm autocannons. Thats why i hate Battle of Britain. I want eastern front with USSR, or at least pacific war - late japan planes have very powerful weapon too.

Re-belt your Spittie with 4 guns AP and 4 guns DeWilde @ 200-250 yds convergence and actually shoot at convergence. If you get a decent hit ratio, (I.E. you can hit the broad side of a barn) you'll take down a couple of 111's before you run out of ammo.

Lesson learned? He 111= big plane / .303= small bullet

Exactly my experience so far, i've had Heinkels blow up like that and i was even using the default ammo belt. I've also had the same happen when attacking Blenheims just with the machine guns on the 110 while my gunner was reloading my cannons.

In both of these cases, the way it happened is that i placed a good burst and started a fuel leak on the target, following it up with a second burst a few seconds later. This is so close to what we've been reading in the books, the damage model is insane in this sim: first you start the leak, give it a couple of seconds to vaporise and if you shoot at it again you can ignite the entire fuel tank.

Overall, the He111s did have a reputation of returning home with hundreds of .303 bullet holes so i would advise aiming for the cockpit from head-on, or at the very least come in slightly from the sides. This also yields much improved results against any type of target, as you stand a good chance of scoring hits in the cockpit and killing the crew...i've had sorties in the G.50 where i scored 3-4 kills, each with a burst so short that i didn't even get the chance to see tracers. You just come in from the side, hose them down and see them nose down and dive into the drink.

Finally, if you want to compare with or get an easier experience, go against some Dorniers. I routinely fly the low level intercept mission and i can easily get 3-4 kills by the time my magazine is empty without any fancy work at all, i just come in from dead six and blast them until point blank range, walk the tracers from engine to cockpit to other engine, loop over them and come back for the next one.

I think the biggest problem is the anti-bomber tactics that most pilots are using. The worst spot to be by far is the 6 O' Clock, and it seems that's the most common place guys are firing from. Head-on is obviously quite effective as you get a good look at the crew, however I'm really not a fan due to the fact that you are whizzing by and it takes quite a bit longer to get back in position for your next pass, especially if you plan on going head on again. My preferred way to attack is high, and from the 3-4 O' Clock angle, or the 8-9 O' Clock angle, but being high is of extreme importance. Come in straight as an arrow, much faster than they are going, keep your nose pointed out far in front of the bomber, but in his flight path so only small adjustments are required on the way in, hammer the piss out of it as close to your convergence as possible, and as soon as you stop firing your focus is now on your next pass. At this point you want to continue your same heading but also regaining all of your altitude, and once you've got what most would consider an unneccessarily large altitude advantage, you turn around and repeat.

In terms of potential damage I think this system is as good as the head-on, possibly better, but what's most important is you get a lot more passes over the course of a mission.

I remember one of those old 'Friday Bomber Nights' on '46 where one of the maps was a Battle of Britain style He-111 attack and I was able to bring down 3 of them in the battle, in a Hurricane Mk.1, and gloriously make it back home. Gun convergence is very crucial as many have mentioned, I like it around 125m or 150m for .303's. Happy shooting.

You might be interested in reading this.

http://www.findonvillage.com/0617_th...ugust_1940.htm

You realise that the little 303s shot down a lot of planes in the BoB? We just need to learn how best to use the weapons.

Reading Steve Bungay's book again "The Most Dangerous Enemy" and an excellent section from a Hurricane pilot who indicated that over 200 yards the .303 was highly ineffective at bringing down the Heinkel and even harder for the Ju88. He went even further to state that the Polish squadrons (who were more experienced fighter pilots) were attacking head on.

So agree with your statement Triggaar. Bringing down a bomber is about finding a weak spot and getting the convergence right.

I have read this.

I liken the shoot down issue to hollywood sex and real sex.

What you think should happen, and what actually does?

The two are rarely similar........

I frankly have little trouble bringing down the Heinkel. I fly right in, aim for the cockpit and usually kill the pilot.

Or i set me convergence quite close, come in from the side and nail the engine or the wing closest.

Try it.

Dont turn the .303 into a 125mm smoothbore.

If you think the Heinkels are bad, try downing a Stuka.

I've managed to down the Heinkels with limited ammo in a Hurri with default loadout (bomber intercept mission) reasonably easily on occasions, but those bloody Stukas in the Hawkinge mission - deary me! After about 5 attempts I finally managed to wear one out. Not very spectacular mind.

I think it's down to hitting them in the right place. I think.:confused::grin:

hey steven, can u someone else post a screen shot as to what a heinkel look like in spit and hurri's gun sight at the range of around 125 to 150m? thanks a bunch!!

B3+BK of 2./KG 54 "Totenkopf" (probably W.Nr. 2497), shot down near Dunkirk in May 1940...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v9...faro/He111.jpg

Attacking a large bomber like a He111 successfully from dead astern would be highly unlikely in reality simply due to the prop wash and slipstream of the larger aircraft, you would be bouncing around all over the place and unable to draw a bead.

I hope that real effects like prop wash will in future be modelled, as it stands you can fly right behind any aircraft and be stable as a rock.

Formation flying would also benefit from this effect, it would enforce correct positional changes rather than just drifting across easily as there is no prop wash from lead aircraft to worry about.

Reminds me of that "baddies" comedy sketch, some truth there me thinks..

So we either need to go head on, or get in close.

Now all I need to do is work out how to change my armourment and convergence :oops:

I use combine ammo like incendiary, Armor piercing, HE, and tracer I have better results than using just one type.

I have brought down a bomber in just one pass shotting it from its 12 into the pilot's cockpit. As people said above, bombers really are tough and many returned to their bases with hundreds of bullets.
When attacking from their six I always hit their wings or engines, try to focus in just one bomber because unless they are too damaged it's hard to bring down more than one or two in one mission.

By the way I just started to use the complex engine management. I have to say it's almost a completely new experience. Simply awesome.

Is this working in quick missions yet? Or just FMB at the moment?

I cant seem to find HE, can find al the others but not HE :/?

Anyone having trouble with taking down bombers should try the quick bomber intercept missions but change the number of planes to one each side (i.e. you and the bomber). Just practice until you can knock him down every time.

Doesn't take long to get the strategy right which really just consists of sweeping bursts from the sides or below/above. I generally focus on an intercept point that will have me at about 4-5 o'clock and just bear in nice and steady. Keep your speed up to make it harder for the gunners.

If I find myself at six and lined up on an engine I'll generally let loose too. If you see smoke or anything leaking then concentrate on that spot. It won't take long before you can pretty much guarantee a kill, at least in the Rotol Hurricane on the Dornier, haven't played against the Heinkel as much yet.

You can see how critical the convergence is (which I don't think you can change in QMB yet). If you are pretty close you can be lined up perfectly on an engine and the shots actually go either side of it without a single hit - you can do more damage at 300 than 50!

Very effective indeed! :) Always gratifying to see that "pilot killed" text pop up after a nice head-on pass.

I've also managed to cause catastrophic damage by putting a 2 to 4 sec burst at convergence range on the engine nacelle/wing root area.

Flying on near-full real though... I'm sometimes lucky to bring down one or two in the quick mission. Other times I tend to go home empty handed

I also have to ask.. since I primarily fly the Hurricane, which of the available bullets is HE? De Wilde? I would like to optimize my loadout for bomber busting.

I didn't think the loadout changes were working in quick missions.

I watched once the top gunner got sprayed with bullets, and he didn't get hurt, but bottom gunner or even bombardier seemed dead after this. (could be one or both was dead before this, but seem strange)

.303 B MkIV incendiary is the Dixon/De Wildes.

As far as I can recall, there were no HE .303 rounds. Dixon/De Wilde rounds were incendiary.

Thanks for all the advice here! I actually fire at 150 yards just like my convergence, but I'm for sure going to try a mix of incendiary and AP at the wing root!

And for sure there are many records of pilots emptying all their ammo with no result, at the other hand there are a lot of "I fired a short burst and saw the left landing gear falling down" etc.... Never happens to me ;)

Then of course the Polish head on is attractive :) Will try that too. This sim has so much potential now that the fps is decent. Eagerly awaiting my 2600k / GTX580 rig to throw some hardware at the problem also!

I seem to get the best results with loading with incendiary tracers, rest all AP with 2 guns fitted with De Wilde @150m conv. So ok then :D half AP/ half incendiary. However, I do feel a bit annoyed about the whole .303 effect on the planes.
For 1 everyone states that if you sit on the six of say a Me 109 and fire that there is nothing of importance in the tail and everything gets blocked by the armour behind the seat of the pilot. Firstly, so what then of the AP rounds? Are they not supposed to pass straight through the armour, the fuel tanks the pilot and hit the engine? X4 in my case. I thing all of the default load outs have at least 1 AP load. Isn’t the tail also considered to be of some importance?
Secondly, everyone then states that the .303 is so ineffective. I guess if you shoot the plane with 1 bullet, then yes in retrospect the effects could be minimal. However, you have 8 very high rate of fire guns firing all at once. The effect on the plane would by more like ripping paper than punching a hundred wholes into it one at a time with a couple of seconds in between.
In combat, planes losing their wings were more an effect of being torn off due to the sudden force of the bullet impact and the fact that the wing is already under strain from the wind flow rather than the struts being individually severed by bullet fire. If you see the amount of cartridges that come out of a fellow Hurri firing, it seems it would be more effective to just fly in front of the enemy plane and have it banged up by the incoming cartridges :)
BUT.... the last mission in the British campaign: Seeing tracers fly out in the night sky to the enemy plane, the glow of bullet impacts, then the ensuing fire and fire ball upon crashing .... Amazing!

Nothing wrong with the guns, just have to learn how to use them! All my flying for the last few days has been practice against bombers. With the ammo loadout described in the above post set at 150 you can knock anything out of the sky with the rotol.

Even sitting on six of a Heinkel or Dornier (when you've got the gunner) works well if you land enough hits. I've ripped the entire tail off several times and getting the elevator is also good news.

Jip, if I don't fly straight into the 111's straight on (dope), I can usually take out about 3 before my ammo runs out with the above mentioned loadout.
When chasing 111's, they aren't really that slow, so I can understand getting stuck behind their sixes. I usually try to start my attack from a bit above, but I rarely get a fatal hit in the few seconds until I'm right behind the bomber. In that case, wait till you are at your convergence setting (at 150m I can start to see the components I want to hit) away and try to aim for the engines in the wings (which is not all that easy from straight behind.... the tail is somewhat in the way). Some might hit the aileron and some might hit the fuel tank though, so it’s a good area to aim. Try not to fire blindly(usually into the tail) if you get too close, rather wait till you're slow enough to maintain the 150m distance or go around for a second pass). I also just read in the IL 46 plane guide that the plane should be able to fly with only one engine operational, so you’ll have to target both theoretically. Try to use your sidewinders only if need be.

The AP rounds were designed for Infantry use. The main reason they are so rubbish against aircraft armour is that they had to hit the armour tip first. The superstructure of the aircraft would 'tumble' the bullets making them spin end over end. The chances of the armour being penetrated were very, very small.

They were designed to be fired directly at armour (tanks etc).

The 8 x .303 should be a good 109 killer because all the vital parts are contained within a much smaller space. (stating the obvious!)

Got it, makes sense. Thanks!
Although, it would be great if you can post a link that describes this in more historical accurate detail (not being sarcastic). The reason why I ask then is if so, they aren't just making perfectly round holes in the surface of the plane and they aren't just "passing through the empty tail section without hitting anything of importance". In my opinion and based on what you have said there should be a far more drastic effect on the tail (especially fighters and Stuka) when hit from the dead six position. Currently what I'm seeing is the rudder or elevators might fall off, but that's about it.

Just to put it a bit into retrospect, this dumb video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7J2rbUFyJ8 shows a 7.62 (.308) mini gun that fires at 3000 rounds per minute. I would certainly think that this baby would saw with ease through the tail section of a ME 109.
Now, if you look at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm you’ll see that the Hurricane and Spitfire equipped with .303s had a firing rate of 9600 rounds per minute. That’s more than 3 of these mini guns. Cleary they would do a lot more structural damage then what is being depicted.
Interestingly enough, in the article they also say that the Germans moved away from AP to HE for the reason of causing large structural damage which was more affective then targeting components. Clearly structural damage is being down played a lot more to what was actually happening.

All I can say is, bullets do stange things! They would go through aluminium pretty easily and may even stay 'tip first', but there's a lot of stuff within the structure that is more substantial and as soon as a bullet hits these things you can forget about it penetrating armour. The flip side is that AP will go straight through the tail section leaving just small holes at entry and exit, so unless you hit something vital all you're really doing is letting some fresh air in :

I'm basing what I said on 2 things, my understanding of WWII Ammo / ballistics
and a test that has been mentioned on here before where the RAF fired LW and RAF AP rounds at a Blenheim rear gunners armoured plate from 180m away. Only 6% of the RAF AP actually penetrated the armour (4mm) and only 1% of the German equivilent (7.92mm) penetrated the armour. (Remember that this is the rear gunner in a Blenheim, the chances of hitting and penetrating the pilots armour from six o'clock is virtually zero).

The armour on most LW bombers was substantially thicker.


An indicator of the ineffectivness of AP is that the LW stopped using them for Air to Air. They knew the best way to bring aircraft down was HE and fragmentation.

I accept the inefficiency of the .303 rounds and should be pretty useless against internal armour fitted at an angle. Just also do realise that the 1% of the rounds fired at the bomber would mean that of the 160 rounds of one second firing, that 1.6 bullets would at least penetrate.

Anyway, again back to the structural damage and this is in regards to the fighters. If the bullets are hitting internal structures from the dead six positions, than surely the must be damaged? These are the things that hold the aluminium up in the first place. Also, at 160 bullets a second you are going to let in a lot of air in no time as well. If let’s say the .303 bullet makes a 7 millimetre hole in diameter and we times that with 160, a second’s worth of fire would open up a meter’s worth of area.
With regards to 111 bombers, the article states that some returned home with up to 200 bullet holes in them. With a large exclamation on how big this number is. However, that is little more than a second’s worth of firing. Again I state the sheer volume of rounds that is being fired. (Look at what the 1/3 of the volume mini gun does to the derelict car in the video)

The armour that they were penetrating was 4mm. He-111's armour for example was 12mm or 3 times thicker.

I believe that the 8x .303 were actually pretty effective against fighters, main reason being that all the vital stuff (as I said earlier) was concentrated in a much smaller space. You need to also remember that in RL there were only usually 2 guns loaded with AP, the rest were ball ammo (good at killing people, not aircraft) and incendiaries with maybe 1 gun loaded with tracer.

The mini gun comparison only works with RoF, obviously the bullets all get fired from the same place so the concentration of fire is better, and you can independantly aim a mini gun. You're basically aiming the plane with the .303's, the wings are vibrating madly the guns are spaced out over 20 feet the target is moving and possibly firing back. it's almost impossible to hit the exact same spot with a 2 second burst so you'd just end up with lots of holes as opposed to one big hole. Also the loss of velocity associated with tumbling bullets is huge. The ammo in a mini gun is also a lot more modern (most of the RAF .303 rounds in use at the start of the battle were WW1/ 1920's designs)

If you want to put a big hole in a plane then use HE.

You could always try 111 squadrons head on tactics!

Fair enough in regards to the 111 armour. Not that the entire plane is covered in 12mm armour but let’s leave it at that.
However, I disagree completely in regards to accuracy issue and what you have said about vibration etc. In game, with the exact convergence distance, you can almost fire on a dime with the .303's. Also to get the 1 meter area you'd obviously won't be firing through the same 8 holes. Yes, the independent firing and recoil of the guns would have an effect on accuracy, but not 10 meters variation on 150 meters, surely?
A two second burst as you say would open 2 meters of fuselage if the bullets were to pass through, the same amount on the other side as well. The plane is aimed straight at the other plane, why wouldn't a comparison be legit at the correct convergence? Have I mentioned that it spits out 3 times more than that mini gun per second? If only a third hit where they were actually aimed at, that is still a mini gun chewing away at the planes structure. Question, how must structure is there in the tail section of a Me 109 then?
Also, 1920 designed rifle bullets are still actually pretty effective. Firing from 150 meters away, the tumble effect would be minimal as the intended engagement range is about 400 meters for .303 rifles.

I'm not arguing for or against what you say, I'm just saying what I know.

Also I'm only talking about RL, I have no idea what the internal stucture of the 109 in CoD is.

As for wing vibration, a movement of 1 degree would have a noticeable effect at 150m.

In RL if you parked on a bombers six trying to make a big hole you'd end up dead. I don't know where you got the info that bullets can have 'minimal' tumble. As soon as the bullet is knocked of off its axis it will tumble, drag sees to that. A tumbling AP round is still bad news, but it's not AP anymore.

There is however still the chance that an AP round could get through the pilots armour from behind, it happened. In theory you could saw the back off a bomber with .303s, in practice it just didn't happen very often.
I've never read of it happening.

I had 3 he 111 instant kills in the bomber intercept mission with realistic gunnery set. By "instant kills", I mean that either a wing was blown off or an engine fire was started that caused the crew to bail. I set convergence 4 guns 300, and 4 guns 295. I don't think the type of ammo really matters much.

I think there are two factors at play. Accuracy and luck. Even when hitting the right spots on the wing or motor, you still need a bit of luck. Aiming to hit the leading edges of the wings seems to be the most effective.

A bigger issue is the fact that the damn he 111's are doing barrel rolls as a defensive maneuver. As far as I'm concerned, they should be very difficult to take down without cannons.

I think there is possibly something slightly amiss with damage modelling. Yesterday during an online battle I managed to ignite the fuel tank of a player 109. He was burning, full on flames and smoke... leaving a huge trail of black smoke behind him. I thought that was it, he is shot down.. but nope. I chase him with no ammo to take screen shots. We chase around for ages, with him still fully on fire until he eventually shoots me down!

We spoke in game and he doesn't know how he was still alive also.

Here is a screenshot after being on flames for some time (5 mins or thereabouts).

In regards to the .303s against bombers, in order for them to work like described by previous posters (sawing off parts of the structure by sheer number of rounds alone) you would need to have a perfectly controllable concentration pattern. Such a thing doesn't really exist.

Well, i was a relatively good shot during my time as a conscript in the local armed forces and it's still impossible to put two consecutive rounds through the same exact part of a stationary target a mere 100 meters away, and that's when firing
a) modern rifles with gas regulators that significantly decrease recoil
b) in single shot configuration that further helps with recoil in contrast to full automatic
c) modern ammo
d) from a comfortable, stable, prone position in a controlled environment with no risk to life and limb

No enemy firing back, no vibrating gun platform, better guns and ammo, smaller distances and it's still impossible to hit the exact same spot twice or manage to carefully put rounds one next to the other as if "stitching" the target, unless you just happen to have a one in a million lucky shot. If we could there would be no need for specialised sniper rifles, but it's impossible to put rounds on specific parts of any target with absolute accuracy without using telescopic gunsights and as stable a firing platform as possible with a very low rate of fire.

What happens with the .303s is a hail of rounds where the slightest deviation from optimal conditions hurts the intended concentration of lead on the target...rounds leave the barrel mere tenths of a degree apart and on the way to the target they end up separated by a few meters and you can have 10 rounds fired in a single burst impacting all over the place, from the tail all along the fuselage and even passing over the nose and missing completely. Multiply that by 8 rapid firing guns and you get a lot of swiss cheese unless you hit something vital which for most intents and purposes is human flesh, due to the tumbling effect making the rounds ineffective against metal after the initial hit.

I think the .303s are pretty accurate. I don't even try to aim for fuel tanks or engines anymore, i just come in from the sides, above or head-on and aim for those big sections of plexiglass that every Luftwaffe bomber has where the crew sits. I usually get anywhere between one (if i'm forgetting to target the crew) and three (if i conserve my ammo only for cockpit shots) bomber kills before i run out of ammo.

convergence with 200 is pushing it for machine guns for me. I like 100 or 150.

Yes, He's are better if you come in from the front. You could spend days shooting from the rear and nothing.


Also diving from on top and spraying the engines / wing root helps but front is best.

Oh and the grip/group of machine guns = firing rate of a minigun. No dice. Stop spreading mis information.


1) If anyone read that Robert Shaw book, he goes into detail (and with a chart) why auto cannons / machine guns were surpassed by Gatling cannon types.

2) I know a chopper gunship pilot who served when they had hueys, before they got the cobras. They tried the 8-10-12 7.62 mm combos with m-60's and other 7.62 machine guns. Then they found out one 7.62mm minigun really waxed the floor and put more rounds on the spot than any of the machine gun combinations.

3) its no mystery why the vulcan quickly became gun of choice for the American fighter / attack planes.

4) the Airforce realized the same thing the army did in #2 when they were developing the spooky . . . and the minigun became weapon of choice.

Ok once again:
1. The loss of energy from tumble effect on 150 meters is negligible if you consider that the cartridge was designed for 400 meter engagements. Your shooting at aluminium skin, how much energy do you need to puncture it anyway? If the tumble effect was so great, wouldn’t it cause and even greater entry hole?

2. Even with ball, the bullet would make a 7 mil entry hole. Ball designed in 1920 is still the same that you get today. If you want to add explosive ammo to the mix (which were available back then as well... just like modern ammo now) that would make an even greater entry hole.
3. This isn't an assault rifle you sling over your shoulder. Even a “modern” assault rifle fires at only 600 rounds per minute. I’m talking about a combined rate of fire of 9600 rounds per minute.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi....303_Mk_II.jpg

It’s a serious bit of kit which is mounted, meaning stable platform.

4. it’s pretty hard to find any figures on the dispersion for the gun, but I found a reference saying 1 meter per 100 meters. So that is 8 guns filling an area of 1.5 meters with 160 rounds per second on 150 meters.
The point I’m making is that the damage model focus too much on the components that make up the airframe and too little attention is paid to the structural damage incurred. If you lose 2 meters of fuselage area on a 9 meter plane, surely that would be a bad thing?

I'm never said it was better that a mini gun. Also, I would think some considerations such as space used, the weight of the guns, separate ammo feeds, the mounting requirements and the fact that you do not need a convergence angle played a significant factor as well in the judgement.
The facts are still that the mini gun fires 3000 rounds per minute and 8 .303's 9600 rounds per minute. How is this misinformation or even hard to understand? Ok, but I'm done on this subject.

Well done, you've made your point, ignored everyone elses, and reality, then decided to go. waste of time. The Brownings do have a theoretical RPM of 9600, but they only have 16 seconds worth of fire so they can''t actually fire 9600 rounds at anything.
They fire roughly 2 kg of ammo per second, that's 32kg in total, against an aircraft that weighs around 9000 kg.

Mr winny 9600 round per minute still makes 160 a second. Yes this is also in theory since I don't have 9600 bullets to divide into equal portions to prove it to you. So in regards to all the arguments I presented, you come up with 32kg compared to 9000kg? Sorry, I’m not even going to comment on how irrelevant this remark is.
Anyway, if you fit the plane all with tracers, this will give you more of an indication of the rate of fire (which is still a bit low considering what is supposed to be spewed)

The fact that you think weight of fire is irrelevant just proves that you're only interested in what you think about this. Why is it irrelevant?
My knowledge on the this subject is good.

I'm well aware that the RoF of the 8 x .303 is 160 per second, I'm also well aware that the grouping from a moving platform into a moving target would not be tight or as you put it hitting a 'dime'. There are simply too many variables. Also as I said earlier I'm talking RL.

So, why did the RAF change over to cannons, why did the LW remove AP from thier ammo belts? Why didn't every german bomber that was hit with a good burst not fall appart? Because it's not as simple as you're trying to make out.

What exactly is your point? That you should be sawing aircraft in half?

So one, you seem unable to comprehend anything for yourself. Yes there may and are probably valid points to why, but you haven't presented any. I'll try to refrain from becoming personal hereafter, please also try to do the same.
Yes certain portions of the bombers have become armoured (very small areas though), yes the RAF and LW wanted to make more damage per round or even shoot down the plane in one shot. This doesn’t mean that nothing was happening with the plane whilst under fire from machine guns. The shift had probably more to do with planes having only one or two opportunities to make passes on enemy planes due to fighter cover and bomber formation defensive fire and having to down these planes within these limited opportunities rather than what is currently modelled in COD, namely if it’s not on a vital area, nothing happens.
I compared a mini gun's rate of fire (in real life) with the rate of fire of the Hurricanes and Spitfires (also in real life). I’ve also tried to show that at 1.5 meter variance on 150m is almost of no importance if compared to the sheer volume of bullets being fired. I'm trying to show people that they blatantly except that a mini gun of the same calibre would basically destroy a soft skin target in seconds, but when it comes to WW2, a platform that had 3 times the rate of fire, it is dubbed as inefficient and the game is modelled after this assumption. Why not simulate what the bullet does and then come up with the effect on the plane? Yes, it is not as good as HE, but it is not supposed to be useless, far from the contrary. Some people, me included can easily see the error in this from firing 6 to 7 second burst accurately on the surface of the plane and basically nothing happens. That would account for almost 1/4 of the ammo load and there should be a tare of 7 meters on the enemy plane. Instead, we are told that nothing of importance was hit and as a result had no effect. Well BS to that.
Why is the 32kg vs 9000kg not relevant? (Isn't it 26 seconds, I forget). Firstly those 32 kg worth of bullets if put one next to each other would cover an considerate area. If fired at a wing and none of the planes components were damaged and only skin was removed on both sides, which would leave no surface for lift almost. Secondly, that 32 kg is travelling at subsonic speed while the bomber is doing maybe 300mph. Anyway, it’s not a wrestling contest between the force of the bullets and the force of the bomber to knock the plane out of the air; those bullets penetrate the skin of the plane. Thirdly, the plane is somewhat in motion and I would think that tears would easily form where massive holes or even perforation appear in the surface of the plane due to air pressure against the weakened surface.
I actually do appreciate your opinion on this subject.

First of all check how many bullets do actually hit. Then think how small and low powered the bullet is without HE shell. Plus the WW2 .303 bullets were not as effective as modern ones, and as the bullets and guns themself might not be perfecly manufactured the bullets made a sort of shotgun effect, and everyone knows that shotgun is not great gun for sniping. After that think how small the target you can hit is when firing from dead 6. Also as it has been said there is not much to damage exept the skin in the rear part of the plane.

What I´m trying to say is that you shoot a 2second burst, maybe 25% of the bullets hit the target. The bullets might or might not hit anything vital or just fly straigth throught the plane. After most of the bullets have been wasted missing compitely or on tearing just the skin of the plane and not the structure itself will land in the armored parts or parts that might not be vital for flying the plane. Your radio, pneumatics, hydraulics, gunsight, engine parts, parts of control surfaces, lots of internal damage, pilot wounded etc might be missing but the plane is still flying. Think how many times have you been damaged and you have not even noticed you have been hit. This happened also in IRL as many pilots flew home just to notice that a bullet has missed their head just a few centimeters. So even if you can not see the damage does not mean that it is not there. The plane might fly for minutes, or fly for hours but still be damaged beyond repair or crash at landing or under high G load because of the damage.

EDIT: And Fredfetish: Basicly just try to hit something important and the planes start to fall. I understand what you are thinking and going after and you are mainly right, but you don´t take all the effects and things to considerations

EDIT2 Oh and this game is now much much more realistic as the planes do not always disinigrate or blow up but die slowly. Of course I have been able to blow quite many HE111´s with hits in the fueltanks but mainly I move over to the next target after I see smoke or pilot killed.

What am I failing to comprehend? Now you're just being rude.

Ok, so why is the car in the video you posted still recognisable as a car? It's not been cut in half, the roof is still on. Have you got a collander at home, it's full of holes but still remains strong. I'm not saying nothing would happen, the crew would testify to that, but history tells me that it was very difficult to bring down Bombers by firing into the fuselage. Engines and wings are a different story.

I do believe all the points I've made are valid. Tumbling rounds, movement, lack of HE, ballistics, historical evidence etc, and the fact that a 9000kg machine can easily absorb 32kg's worth of bullets (providing nothing critical is hit). In theory it would be possible to hit the same small spot and 'cut' through something structurally, but the airframe is a very small percentage of the actual aircraft and the chances of hitting one spot that would make the whole section fail are very small. The airframe is designed to deal with supporting 9000kgs upto 3 or 4 g (if not more) it's strong.

EDIT: I'm not even sure what I'm arguing against. What is the point you're making? (No sarcasm here, just a genuine question)

I agree, now I can play the sim again and not worry about it, thank you.

Edit: I forgot to mention Pyrres who also helped convence me. Thanks!

Historical records prove it was very hard.

Then look at B-17's taking multiple 20mm and even 30mm rounds still flying home.