Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[Zorin]

Can you give an estimate on when the new revised damage model for the ships and other naval crafts will be introduced?

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by Korn

I thought ballistics are based on the weapon used, not the plane.

TD is 6DoF our of limits? This is one of the best features of mods imo...

TD says that not change balistics, damage or fms for the aircraft but i known they changed. The poor P-40 in 4.09 in 4.10.1 is a superb machine with that new .50s. They are better than cannons, cripple engine with a single burst and frequently. Easy to hit, easy to damage. Second Tony Willians machine guns are inferior than cannons but known they decide to turn them more deadly because some whinners. Can i have this AP bullet properly modeled in my aircraft too? The cannons are almost imposible to hit at high speeds except the spitfire cannons (where you aim they hit) and this .50 (ok they are fast and easy to hit but this new armor piercing is ridiculous, too good)

Before the F-4 was much superior than P-40 like in reality, now the P-40 is kicking F-4 ass. The P-40 was not a aircraft i feared before now yes. I am curious to see 4.10.1 compare, but we do not have it until now.

[nearmiss]

I've always been amazed at how so many people like those P40s. I remember doing a campaign years ago in New Guinea flying P40s.

Those darn things climbed like a rock, but that had the most incredible roll rate.

I read somewhere they put Merlins in P40s, which were the same as the ones in the P51-D. That might be a good combination, since the P40s were just lumbering louts. IMO

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

I've always been amazed at how so many people like those P40s. I remember doing a campaign years ago in New Guinea flying P40s.

Those darn things climbed like a rock, but that had the most incredible roll rate.

I read somewhere they put Merlins in P40s, which were the same as the ones in the P51-D. That might be a good combination, since the P40s were just lumbering louts. IMO

You are saying about the old P-40? Old P-40 are poor. This new ones are too good. My opinion... No problem, i ll just have to fight the P-40 as i fight thes spits. I usualy subestimate the P-40 but now they are not as they are before, i ll take more care next time. Before i usualy did a rope a dope easily in the P-40 now its not a good manouver against him.
Next pacth problaby the hurricane ll behave the same way. It always this way... I ll be prepared.

[ElAurens]

The P40 has never been able to compete against a well flown BF 109 F in this sim.

NEVER.

It still cannot. It is slow in the climb and does not have the power for sustained low speed turning, even though it is a good turner, for a short while anyway. It does have a good rate of roll, which is historically correct, and it is good in the dive, which again is historically accurate.

It has a stout airframe, which again the real aircraft had.

It has a glass jaw engine which is not in line with the historical record.

Sorry if you don't like the AP loadout for the M2 Browning, but hey, that's what the USAAF typically loaded, so again historically accurate. If you think that six of them hitting in convergance won't hurt then you have no clue sir.

And if you doubt the effectiveness of the P40 than I suggest you do some research into the 325th. Fighter Squadron, USAAF, "The Checkertail Clan".

Nearmiss, the Merlin engined P40s were really little better than the Allison engined ones, as they did not have the two stage supercharger like the Spitfire and later, the P51 had.

[Ernst]

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."

[Sven]

It has a glass jaw engine which is not in line with the historical record.

A lot of inline-engined planes suffer from this, then again although the P40 triggers the grey smoke in the same fast way as the 109 for example, it still runs much longer from my experience online, but that is just an observation.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."

I read but in IL2 actually the .50 are more effective than 20mm and this is not the case. Few hits of .50 are doing much damage. I personally hit two 30 mm shells in a spitfire and she continued to fly normally.

A snapshot of cannons do not disable a plane or rip wings easily now. Another day i take a snapshot of .50 and ripped my wings. Next mission, a snapshot from more than 400m and my engine out.

So the .50 was effective but should be less effective than cannos and actually they are more effective than 20mm since they are disabling engines and taking controls too easy. I think it is necessary a good tracking shot at point blank range to .50 be really effective, acctualy single snapshot are too efective frequently.

The conclusion is: .50 are less efective than cannos, period.

p.s.: easy to use "ad hominen" argument when you are lacking of it.

[Ernst]

Well i see one of the tracks where i was fighting the p-40 and changed my idea of their performance but not about the .50 effectiveness.

I was in a g6, with two gondolas and forget to drop the droptanks. Hehe... Ok maybe i missed the p-40 performance and continues to be crap, as it should be (Why? BFs fucked the Tommys in north africa) like before.

But my comments about .50 i maintain. They are too much effective now since frequently i see disabling engines and controls with snapshots. I guess the p-40 hit 2 bullets in ac in this track (engine down).