Heinkels of steel?

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by winny

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.