Cannons 109E firing rate

[JG53Frankyboy]

according to Saburo Sakai to hit anything with the canons (the Zero canons are very simiular to the 109E canons) was VERY difficult. He got his most kills with the MGs only...

one of the "funny" things about the BoB is for me, that the LW had the better weapons to kill bombers but their main targets were fighters and in the RAF it was otherway round.

[SNAFU]

The success of the Bf109 depended on the surprise and positional advantage. Some JG leader on escort duty was reported to have waited 15 minutes for the chance to dive on steady targets before he ordered to engage, because he wanted his 109s to make kills and no just to drive off the interceptors. They experienced that they had only one chance to shoot down a Hurricane or a Spit, and that was the first bounce out of a favourable position. In that time the Hurricanes caused havoc amongst the bombers and the JG leader a few friends less.

What we are used to from 1946, to get scores with high deflection shots on evading targets, was reserved for some few virtuoso pilots like Marseille methinks. Well, on the other side the pilots back then, didn´t have endless hours of combat experience as we have. Anyhow I think hits as you described or in the situation a matter of luck and maybe only your AP rounds hit, so you simply don´t see the impact at all.

[drewpee]

In my own experience I found it easier to hit things in IL2. I could bring down a tough target like a FW-190 or a P-47 by wrecking control surfaces. In COD I struggle to bring down a target. I do have more success destroying targets in a Spitfire than a BF109 but I prefer to fly the BF109.
It's harder to use historical reference's for tactics and AC design because no one really knows what parts of the game are accurate and whats not. For me I think my flying skills have improved but the ability to quickly dispense of an opponent has not.

[robtek]

drewpee, that is the difference between sim-light, sim and real life.

In a sim-light you need instant success, i.e. wings ripped off, huge explosions

In a sim you get more authentic damage, most of the time a delayed kill.

In real life pilots with even minor damage would have extended and returned home, not fought to the end if avoidable.

[Varrattu]

“In Pursuit” by Johan Kylander:
Learning how to play a computer game should be an easy matter. Most games ARE easy to master once you’ve figured out what makes them tick, but the massively multiplayer online air combat game is a striking exception because it isn’t predictable. There are simply too many factors to consider at any turn: beyond certain automated functions the action is totally unscripted, unregulated and unpredictable because every action or piece of the
environment is that of another human being - and it all happens in real time.

This Work-of-Art “In Pursuit” by Johan Kylander is a MUST READ:

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&...Pzfe3Q&cad=rja

Regards Varrattu

[drewpee]

Originally Posted by robtek

drewpee, that is the difference between sim-light, sim and real life.

In a sim-light you need instant success, i.e. wings ripped off, huge explosions

In a sim you get more authentic damage, most of the time a delayed kill.

In real life pilots with even minor damage would have extended and returned home, not fought to the end if avoidable.

Sorry I think you miss my point. Not being a Computer programing WW2 fighter pilot most of what we talk about is just assumptions based on our own experience. None of us have flown a actuarial bf109 and a Spitfire in battle. Therefor I for one have no idea how quickly an AC can be brought down.

To say COD is newer so there for is more realistic is incorrect. Sorry to dampen debate.

I agree that IL2 was far too "explosive" in terms of ripping wings off and explosions.

So Clod is definitely an improvement.

And yes, one can still rip off wings but my guess is this occurs when the shooter achieves to be within the limits of certain parameters (like distance, certain spot on the wing hit, certain amount of bullets hitting this certain spot) which then triggers a wing-away-sequence. Ever seen the neat cut line of the wing and the stump remaining on the plane when this occurs? So imho a simplified algorithm kicks in here.

On the other hand you can see planes flying with swiss cheese wings around without little effect to their aerodynamic.

Or those 3/4 wing 109ers ...

[TomcatViP]

I landed back a Hurri without a wing. I think it can happen with all planes in game.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by drewpee

In my own experience I found it easier to hit things in IL2. I could bring down a tough target like a FW-190 or a P-47 by wrecking control surfaces. In COD I struggle to bring down a target. I do have more success destroying targets in a Spitfire than a BF109 but I prefer to fly the BF109.
It's harder to use historical reference's for tactics and AC design because no one really knows what parts of the game are accurate and whats not. For me I think my flying skills have improved but the ability to quickly dispense of an opponent has not.

well.

the other day was flying with comms with a mate, and he shreaded me to pieces, i ahd no controls, bleeding, my wings ahd holes bigger than head and fuel was leaking badly. i was as good as dead. why am i telling this?

My mate was complaining on how he could not kill me and how we wasted all of his ammo to do no damage too me.

i believe the kill eficience, and the fast dispense of an enemy is the smae as off old il2, yet, due to the new complexety of damage model, the game will not jump wings and tails off as often becouse it has new ways of "killing players".

be sure, if yo usee the 20mm shells hitting the target he is not fighting back, and if he is we will be a broken wing bird.

cheers, and good hunting