Ammo Belts Loadout/Exploit Dicussion

[335th_GRAthos]

Just to better understand the "historicaly correct" meaning, who was deciding the kind of ammo to be loaded on the belt in real life?????

The ministry, the squadron commander, the wing commander, the pilot, etc. etc. ?

We put so much pressure to Maddox to make the ammo belt player-adjusted. I am speechless to see that now we go back to them to ask them to take the feature out.... LOL


~S~

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Just to better understand the "historicaly correct" meaning, who was deciding the kind of ammo to be loaded on the belt in real life?????

The ministry, the squadron commander, the wing commander, the pilot, etc. etc. ?


~S~

A good question, I gather it was also decided upon supply.

That could lead to an even bigger importance in supply destroying/protecting during online wars, if your supplies are destroyed you lose your mine shells

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

We put so much pressure to Maddox to make the ammo belt player-adjusted. I am speechless to see that now we go back to them to ask them to take the feature out.... LOL


~S~

I am not talking about removing the feature, but it would be nice to have historical setups for historical servers/ online wars. How is this enforced!!!! Perhaps you can't have more than X ammo type in belt?

[bw_wolverine]

I think players should be free to select their own ammo belts. The feed back you get on their effectiveness is vague enough that it will take a LOT of collecting data from your flights to determine which combination is most effective (especially since there are SO MANY different possible combinations).

If you want everyone on your server flying with completely historically accurate everything, then make sure you only open your server to people who are willing to play that way. Without doing that, how are you going to ensure people are historically accurate in their flight procedure? Fuel at take-off (I think 109s have a lot more time over England currently than they should?)? All that stuff. There are so many things being done on the servers that aren't 'historical'. Otherwise, you're not limiting the belts for historical accuracy. You're just limiting the belts to eliminate some perceived 'wrong' advantage.

Just like when you're flying, you've got to pick your battles. I don't think this is one.

I can assure you that when I'm being hit by a 109, I'm more bothered by the fact that I'm getting shot at all than by whatever bullets happen to be perforating me.

[ATAG_Dutch]

As I just said in the poll, I don't think it should be an issue. The info available on 'historical loadout' is woolly at best.

I'm sure you'll all have read this artical, but I'll post the link anyway.

'The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary.

Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)'


'The 20mm cannon did not entirely rely on the M-Geschoss. There was still a requirement for some tracer rounds, so lighter 117 g projectiles were developed (by fitting the 134 g HE-T with a light-alloy instead of brass fuze), loaded down to around 585 m/s (1,920 fps) to match the recoil characteristics of the M-Geschoss. The effectiveness of the M-Geschoss was somewhat reduced by the fast-acting fuze, which detonated instantly rather than inside the target's structure, although this was probably more of a problem against bombers than fighters. The British rated the M-Geschoss as about equal with the 20mm Hispano round, which contained much less HE but had a heavier shell fired at a higher velocity and could penetrate more deeply. Delayed-action fuzes for the German shells were introduced in 1941. AP shells were also developed later and were not available during the Battle of Britain.'

I also think that trying to introduce server limitations would be opening the proverbial can of worms, resulting in lengthy debates/arguments which simply reduce everyone's enjoyment.


http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

Agree with most of your post, but I think the fuel consumption is pretty accurate. I inquired long ago when I was able to make 4 round trips from Calais to London, but was advised it was due to operational procedure differences, but the number of miles travelled was consistent with historical consumption. In RL, planes were started up, idling on the tarmac while checked out, taxied to position, waited for entire flight to get ready, took off, formed up, climbed to altitude, waited for rendevous with bombers, flew weaving escort patterns, and still reached London with 5-15 minutes operational time before needing to head home. The early parts of that flight could consume 30-45 minutes of fuel before the 109s had even started out towards England.

I agree some things need to be left for the players themselves to decide, not every thing can be ultra-historical. If people weren't putting themselves in the crosshairs of the enemy plane, you wouldn't even know what they're loaded with.

Ah, gotcha. That's why I left the '?' in there. I wasn't sure what was the case, but I had a suspicion (which turns out to be half true).

What you're saying goes exactly with what I was getting at. Historical operating procedure ended up limiting the 109s over England significantly in a way that absolutely impacted their effectiveness - but there is no evidence that people are playing it that way. So now people would have to talk about fuel limit restrictions on servers, etc. etc. etc. in order to accurately model the 'historical' situation.

It all gets very crazy very quickly if you go down that rabbit hole

If there are any 109 pilots out there who actually only take 50% fuel or less to simulate not having much fuel over England, then I tip my cap to them.

[TomcatViP]

C'mon guys no 109 pilot hve ever downed 3 bomber in a row even with that big mk108 !!!

We hve super high hit rate (what I monstrated some time ago) hence if the ammo belt is tweaked it get to the point of laughable results. I prey for a turn back toward more modest behavior !

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

If there are any 109 pilots out there who actually only take 50% fuel or less to simulate not having much fuel over England, then I tip my cap to them.

Unfortunately, I am afraid a lot, (at the server I play most of the time) I suspect they do, what is the motivation of flying all the way back home when you can be nice and light dogfighting at 500m altitude [historically correct? Noooooo!] and there is no threat to spend the rest of the war at the prison camp in England (or in Canada)? LOL
(@Krupi: Just do not get the idea to start a new poll !!!!!!!!! )

For the Bf109-E4 the max allowable take off weight, if I remember well, means around 60% fuel.

Agree with you Wolverine, in any case they definitively do not do it in order "to simulate not having much fuel over England"...

~S~

PS. Tomcat, I have a better score: Yesterday in my E1, I killed the four bombardiers out of the five Blenheims en route to France... my aiming is crap; I was going for the pilots ROFL!
To be a bit more serious though, for the memoirs of German pilots I have read, they used to take a long time to get into position for the attack and got well out of range before initiating the next attack. In real life you only have one life and take no risks. In this game, if my plane gets hit or I die, there is always re-fly...
This explains the "un-historical" success rate.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

Unfortunately, I am afraid a lot, (at the server I play most of the time) I suspect they do, what is the motivation of flying all the way back home when you can be nice and light dogfighting at 500m altitude [historically correct? Noooooo!] and there is no threat to spend the rest of the war at the prison camp in England (or in Canada)? LOL
(@Krupi: Just do not get the idea to start a new poll !!!!!!!!! )

For the Bf109-E4 the max allowable take off weight, if I remember well, means around 60% fuel.

Agree with you Wolverine, in any case they definitively do not do it in order "to simulate not having much fuel over England"...

~S~

cheeky gi...

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

if its server set then online wars could use this to determine what ammo is available i.e. if a supply convoy is destroyed you have less of a certain ammo .

I like this idea from the other thread.