I read as well that a lots of the kills by the RAF during the Battle of Britain was credited to the DeWilde against bombers ammuntion. Is the ammo historically modeled in its effect here in this game ?

here in game, with never ending supplies of all kind of ammo ( a reason i dont like these totaly free editable gun loadouts.......), i see no reason to use ball ?!

if i want make holes in the target or even kill the pilot, a AP should be superiour over a ball ;)
and british test showed that the "DeWilde" Mk.VI incendiary was far superiour over the "normal" Mk.IV incendiary.

'The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.



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.) '


to repeat, when the GUI is working, such tests will be much more easier.

Let the game run, than we can test its features :D

I can't see why you want to reject ball ammo? It would pierce the wings and the fuselage, and kill any crew members who were in the way. Whilst the De Wilde had a splendid effect lighting up fuel tanks it was also aided by ball piercing the tanks and releasing fuel for the De Wilde to ignite.

Convincing argument, Brando.
I just used the aformentioned mission with the damage script and found that you deal more damage the more closer you are to your target, the more energy your projectiles have when they imapct in your target.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ghlight=damage

I agree we need a GUI where during quick mission one can select a loadout directly from a file.

We also need to be able to select convergence that are smaller than 100m which is unfortunately currently the lowest value possible.

Whot ? you ain't like that prop in front of you ?

Mind that there is a minimum angle of gun convergence: Thales might want to help you there.:rolleyes:

+1 on most of your points but ...

MkVII .303 rounds don't mushroom (I seriously anyone would want to use the Boer war vintage MkI round), The MKVII's are designed to tumble on impact. They have an aluminium (or wood or paper in some cases) insert under the copper jacket in the tip of the jacket and a heavy lead base.

On soft targets (ie the crew ) this leads to the round leaving a very nasty path through the body (wounds from a MkVII have been described as being something like a chainsaw), On harder targets it leads to very little penetration, though maximises the kinetic engergy transfered to the target.

Long and the short of it, you need to hit something vital to cause immediate damage to your target. if not it would have been a very long 20 minute flight back to base accross open water for the axis pilot.

Cheers!

I mind having 80m or 90 m. And vertical convergence can be made smaller more

Thanks for the correction my maths went skewd there :-P
But even so you can see that amount of rounds means significant damage.
Collinder springs to mind.
I have my sight settings at 200yds (182.88 m) in game and horizantal to what ever im going after, under 200yds is a big risk, not so much ingame but in RL debris is dangerous in that close.

Well that would be 10-25 hits out of a burst of 480 bullets. Not really a lot...
I wouldn't expect wings coming off and the such.
( From: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm "estimates for an average pilot's hit rate varying between two and five percent").
With only 10-20% of incendiaries causing fires don't expect too many fires either.

From reading about Hartmann, Knoke and Sakro it seems they shot well inside 200 yards, in real life.

As said I fly the Hayabusa in IL-2, attacks are never from dead 6 however - IL-2 rear gunners would kill you with the blink of an eye if you do that - and it's two 0.303 are effective if used properly - meaning to hit in the first place and from close distance in one particular area, with an angle.
I remember that even back then people where complaining about 0.303 not being effective enough.
I tried once the 8 gun hurricane against He 111 and Ju 88, what an awesome firepower that thing had compared to my little Hayabusa and no trouble in shooting down German twin engines.

Maybe we are expecting to many big bang explosions, wings coming off, fires all over the place.

Now how is it in CoD, if you shoot at 100m or less, not from dead 6, difficult to shoot down planes?

If I watch vids like this it seems 0.303 is effective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7NXr...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKBNl...eature=related