Long bursts more effective than multiple short ones?

[Woke Up Dead]

I get the impression that in this game a long, on-target burst will do more damage than multiple short ones even if the sum of the short ones lands as many bullets as the long one. For example, I think I'm more likely to de-wing a plane if I hit it with 9 bullets at once on the wing, rather than three bullets at a time in three bursts on the same spot.

Am I right about this, or am I just imagining things? And if I'm right, is this realistic? Seems that two bullets on the spot ten seconds apart should do the same damage as two bullets on the same spot milliseconds apart.

[swiss]

probably a question for TD.

[MaxGunz]

It depends on if they hit the same 3D part that was not yet totally destroyed and then if that part or the next in line is critical.

Long bursts should be more prone to jamming guns and are a great way to waste ammo. Try flying a Yak1 for a while.

[IceFire]

Define long and short.

Against fighters I find that I will aim with intention of hitting, fire a short burst and if I see a hit then I will follow up with the same firing solution. If I miss then I reposition slightly, fire again and again look for a hit. It sounds like a lot but you can do this all in a second or two. Tap, check, tap, check until you connect and then you fire for a couple of seconds.

If you aren't killing the target in 2-3 seconds then you may not be connecting very well (especially with multi gun fighters like a P-47) and you need to re-aim for better effect.

The exception is bombers where you theoretically can be firing for a longer period of time and hitting frequently as bombers are less able to avoid and more able to take punishment.

That's about technique.

What you may be talking about is if there is anything different done to the damage in terms of game/sim world. So far as I know... no. If you hit then it counts the damage done to the piece that you hit. If you shoot in a short burst and then another short burst you may not hit the same area and therefore would need to do more damage to the target aircraft. A short but continuous stream is better because you're more likely to hit the same area with 2, 3, 4... or more, bullets and more likely to cause that part to fail which in IL-2 land means a fire, or structural detachment, etc.

There's also netcode to think about. You're likely to loose a few bullets every time you shoot. This is especially noticeable with slow firing 37mm cannons (as an example) where sometimes you'll hit with no effect. With a stream you're more likely to have your hits recorded. It may be a small percentage lost but it can happen.

So there's some intersection between technique and netcode to be wary of is basically what I'm saying

(Sorry for the essay)

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

It depends on if they hit the same 3D part that was not yet totally destroyed and then if that part or the next in line is critical.

Long bursts should be more prone to jamming guns and are a great way to waste ammo. Try flying a Yak1 for a while.

I do play in the old Yaks a lot, that's where I made my observations. I get so paranoid about running out of ammo that I fire stingy short bursts even when practicing on unarmed DC-3s. It's when I relax and squeeze the trigger a little longer that I get better results.

Another example: if I keep hitting enemy fighters with short bursts then they might lose controls or engines or get a PK or be full of holes, but they'll be in one piece. But sometimes I can get them to explode if, and only if I put a medium to long burst into them.

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Define long and short.

Short: as short as possible, the quickest squeeze my finger can make.

Long: at least one second, one "scoobydoo" and a bit more.

Originally Posted by IceFire

What you may be talking about is if there is anything different done to the damage in terms of game/sim world. So far as I know... no. If you hit then it counts the damage done to the piece that you hit. If you shoot in a short burst and then another short burst you may not hit the same area and therefore would need to do more damage to the target aircraft. A short but continuous stream is better because you're more likely to hit the same area with 2, 3, 4... or more, bullets and more likely to cause that part to fail which in IL-2 land means a fire, or structural detachment, etc.

I think this is what I'm talking about, this makes sense. Thanks.

[Laurwin]

In real life,when using explisive charge munitions 20mm shell e.g.
In this case a rapid fire burst may be more efective.

Short delay between shell ignitions at target maximizes shrapnel effect

[MaxGunz]

If you hit the right part, usually just behind the stick, it doesn't take much though the seat back may take it all. Just in front of the stick is good too, and a bit in front of that.

If you're trying to burn through the tail from six then you will need a lot of hits as the tail gear mountings tend to be really tough. TU engine pods are similar as the gear is behind the engines.

Solution is to shoot deflection if you want to shoot from behind. Aim for the cockpit, nose, and wing root.

1/4 second is a good short burst.

[Fergal69]

I find being on an angle, so 30 degrees from horizontal, rather than flying horizontal when attacking a plane seems to give a better hit ratio.

don;t suppose there is any logic to this, but it works for me.

[MaxGunz]

That's as good, maybe better than hits from the side. Do you fire from far enough out that you have to aim a bit low or does the lesser bullet drop help with lead?