1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-28-2008, 11:19 PM
Ctrl E Ctrl E is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 250
Default .50 cal?

am i the only one to find that the hitting power of the .50 cal is a bit soft? trying to shoot somebody down in a p-51 or f4u can be quite a struggle. i'm sure in reality it would not have been so. .50 cal is might large round. and 6 guns would have made quite a mess of an aircraft i would have thought.

anyway - just an observation. addicted to the game.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-28-2008, 11:30 PM
Kaptein_Damli Kaptein_Damli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 56
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ctrl E View Post
am i the only one to find that the hitting power of the .50 cal is a bit soft? trying to shoot somebody down in a p-51 or f4u can be quite a struggle. i'm sure in reality it would not have been so. .50 cal is might large round. and 6 guns would have made quite a mess of an aircraft i would have thought.

anyway - just an observation. addicted to the game.
I know how you feel. What matter is convergency. You should open fire from the range you have set convergence. If you have 250m as convergencesetting, all your shots will centre at 250m. If you fire from too far out, the bullet will not hit the center, but will hit the plane all more spread. Think of the damage if you are able to center all your six guns in on spot. ie engine or wing etc. Also, if you shoot from too far out, the time the bullets has before hitting target will be a factor. (Less damage on impact due to loss of speed). Also bullet drops because of gravity and speed. Try practise on convergenceshooting. Always aim a bit more ahead than you think you should aim. It also takes lots of time finding the right convergencesetting. Some like it at 150-200m, other likes to snipe and have it set on 350-400. Myself use 300m for .50 cal and 200m for smaller calibre. It´s all a matter of taste really.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2008, 07:04 AM
Feuerfalke Feuerfalke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,345
Default

I flew the P-51 a lot and I really like the 50s in the game. You usually have to aim a bit better than with most large-caliber-guns, but they are surely not undermodelled if used correctly.

(if at all the damage-model is undermodelled and of course the pilots are undermodelled. In RL if you shreddered a plane or got it smoking, it would retreat. In IL2 it fights back until it explodes and even if it turns and runs, some a$$hat will follow even wingless and burning wracks to get the final shot in and earn the 100 points.)

The circle of the P-51 is set to a FW-190 IIRC at 175 yards. As a yard is .9144 meters, you can set your convergence at 150-160meters. Now if the wingtips of a 190 touch the sides of the ring, with the fuselage in the center, you have a maximum kill chance and it mostly is a kill with a short burst at that range.

At ranges of 300m you can try sniping. In some very stable planes like the P-38 or a trimmed P-47 you can be lucky to get a Pilot-Kill or critical hit on controls or the engine, usually though, you see a lot of hits and small debris coming off, but do little damage.
The Cal50 bullets do their damage primarily through inertial energy, they lose effectiveness dramatically over that distance and they scatter a lot more. Convergence at 300m means that a lot less bullets actually hit the convergence-point than at 150m range.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2008, 02:40 PM
Ala13_Kokakolo Ala13_Kokakolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 83
Default

Also if you go fast (very fast) the impact is harder. These are boom and zoom planes.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2008, 05:37 PM
T}{OR's Avatar
T}{OR T}{OR is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 833
Default

Check my signature for 'MUSTANG' video.
__________________

LEVEL BOMBING MANUAL v2.0 | Dedicated Bomber Squadron
'MUSTANG' - compilation of online air victories
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-29-2008, 06:41 PM
Kwiatek's Avatar
Kwiatek Kwiatek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 367
Default

I think 0,50 cal are not undermodelled but i think pilot health is too good in game. Mostly attack from 0,50 cal from six o clock should heavy wounded or just killed pilot. No WW2 fighter have armour plate which could hold 0,50 bullet. In game you could shoting from 0,50 cal to e.x. Fw190 or 109 from six o clock and PK happend very rare. YOu could PK only from angle- deflection shoting in canopy. In WW2 P-51 and P-47 very often wounded or killed german pilots with such rear attacks. In game shoting from six o clock position is just wasting ammo should wounded or killed pilot but these doesn't happend :/
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-29-2008, 07:29 PM
mazex's Avatar
mazex mazex is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,342
Default

Not that I really want to fuel another .50 caliber discussion (that has raged for almost a decade on the Zoo), but while waiting for a "constant develompment update" every thing is allowed

I found an interesting text regarding the armor protection of fighters during world war 2:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...n/fgun-ar.html

An exerpt about penetration from .50:

"How effective was the armour? It's thickness varied from 8 mm to about 13 mm. The armour was certainly effective against rifle-calibre machineguns, but these weapons were increasingly replaced by far more powerful medium-calibre machineguns or by cannon. The American .50 AP M2 round, a projectile with a high muzzle velocity, was expected to penetrate 1 inch (24.5 mm) at 100 yards (91 mm) and the AP-I M8 round still 7/8 inch. However, such armour penetration figures are traditionally measured against a homogeneous "standard" plate, while the armour plate fitted to aircraft would be face-hardened plate of good quality, to achieve maximal protection for minimal weight. Also important was that before it could hit the armour, the projectile had to pass through the aircraft skin and maybe structural members, which would deflect it or slow it down and was likely to cause tumbling, which would considerable reduce armour penetration. In this way relatively thin plates could greatly increase the protection. Equipment in the aft fuselage could be carefully arrange so that the bullet would have to pass it first, before it could hit the pilot. Finally, typical firing distances were of the order of 300 yards. Most airforces seem to have felt that the armour of their fighters offered substantial protection against .50 and even 20 mm rounds."

/Mazex

Last edited by mazex; 04-29-2008 at 07:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2008, 08:23 PM
JG27CaptStubing JG27CaptStubing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 330
Default

There have been like over 10 zillion discussions over on at the zoo regarding the .50s.

Here is the deal in short. The .50s hit great and they do quite a bit of damage period.

The challenge with them is their accuracy in the game. Wheather it's right or wrong it really doesn't matter but the fact is they aren't very accurate far out. Set your convergence <200 meters and don't shoot until you are well with in that range. The 50s hit quite nice.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-29-2008, 08:34 PM
badatflyski badatflyski is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwiatek View Post
I think 0,50 cal are not undermodelled but i think pilot health is too good in game. Mostly attack from 0,50 cal from six o clock should heavy wounded or just killed pilot. No WW2 fighter have armour plate which could hold 0,50 bullet. In game you could shoting from 0,50 cal to e.x. Fw190 or 109 from six o clock and PK happend very rare. YOu could PK only from angle- deflection shoting in canopy. In WW2 P-51 and P-47 very often wounded or killed german pilots with such rear attacks. In game shoting from six o clock position is just wasting ammo should wounded or killed pilot but these doesn't happend :/


yeah right...the comeback of the return of the vengeance of the magic 0.50...killing pilots this time...
men, grass is really "green" this year in poland, can't wait to be in august to try it.
I hope they have the same in Varsaw

Kwiatek: have you ever seen the english dammage tests done a the 190 fuselage?...i'm sure you didn't, otherwise you will not write such things...


i read somewhere the 0.50 actually sunk the tirpitz, they cut it in half, but shhhhht, it's still something classified
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-29-2008, 09:19 PM
*Buzzsaw* *Buzzsaw* is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 467
Default

Salute

I think it is important to understand that 90% of a WWII fighter aircraft was completely unarmoured. 90% of it was simply a light framework of aluminum, covered with thin aluminum sheet. This offered minimal protection against bullets.

Most aircraft armour was designed to protect the pilot or fuel tanks. The limited areas which were armoured normally was as follows:

Cockpit (Pilot) armour

a) a thick glass plate served as a front windshield, normally around 50mm thick, this was only effective against gunfire from directly ahead against rifle calibre bullets, and could be penetrated at medium and short ranges by .50 cals. The side cockpit glass, (usually plexiglass) was completely unarmoured.

b) the pilot's seat, back and headrest was hardened steel, normally around 8mm thick, thicker in aircraft such as the P-47, proof against light MG fire, but not proof against .50 calibre or higher. The seat offered protection from gunfire from directly behind and below, but not against shots from the side or above. In some Soviet aircraft, the headrest was replaced with a thick bullet proof glass shield to allow for better visibility to the rear. But this glass shield was usually not as effective as steel for protection.

Gas tanks

a) Gas tanks were constructed of thin sheet metal. With the exception of certain early war fighters, primarily Japanese, most gas tanks had an inner bladder, the construction of which comprised two layers of rubber, with a liquid rubber substance between. When a bullet penetrated the gas tank bladder, the liquid rubber would ooze out into the hole and seal it. Only small holes could be sealed, larger ones could not. A tank hit by a 20mm round or multiple .50 calibre rounds would not seal. Since the many bullets were inciendary, and the gases in partially empty tanks were extremely prone to exploding on contact with flame or sparks, some tanks also had anti-fire systems which involved the replacement of the gasoline fumes in the tank with other inert gases, not prone to exploding. Again, it didn't really matter when a big enough hole was made in the tank, the leaking gas was extremely flammable. The standard .50 calibre round was Armour Piercing Inciendary, (the tip being comprised of phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, ie. when exposed to air) so when hit by these, fire was a huge possibility. Self sealing tanks are not really armour, they are just a passive protection.

Tanks located in the wings of aircraft had no additional armour, but tanks in the fuselage of aircraft such as the FW-190 or P-47 often had additional thin, steel plates protecting them. These were not proof against .50 calibre or larger rounds.

Aircraft such as the FW-190 and P-47 which used air cooled engines often had armouring around the oil coolers, (the oil coolers were smaller than radiators, and could be more easily protected) if you look at the picture of the FW-190 below, you can see the oil cooler, and the outer cowling ring around it was armoured face hardened steel which offered some protection to the side and rear. (but not to the front)



Radiators had no armour and were extremely vulnerable.

Some of the later model FW-190's used on the 'Sturmbock' Staffels were modified with additional armour plates on the sides of the cockpit below the glass, as well as a thicker windscreen and a heavier ring around the oil cooler at the front of the engine. None of these modified 190's is represented in the game, we have the normally armoured 190's.

Again, the areas above which I have mentioned are a small proportion of the overall aircraft, 90% of which is completely unprotected.

Anyone who has been in the army or reserves, and who has fired a high velocity large calibre round understands how powerful even a so called 'smaller' weapon such as a .50 calibre is. At 200 yards, the normal distance for air combat in WWII, a metal jacketed .50 calibre round will go through multiple cement blocks. Light aluminum is completely vulnerable to such firepower, the skin and framing of an aircraft would be penetrated easily. A accurated targeted burst would tear apart a wing structure easily.

Even steel jacketed light MG rounds are not to be dismissed when directed against the unarmoured sections of a fighter aircraft. Again, anyone who has fired a standard NATO 7.62mm load LMG will understand that this type of round will go through the wall of a house, and would quite easily pentrate aluminum sheet and the lighter wing structures.

Overall, I think Oleg has modelled this game on the lenient side, to allow player aircraft to survive gunfire which would do considerably more damage to the real life thing.

RE. Badatflyski comments: Post the entire test please, not just the cherry picked section so we understand exactly where the firing aircraft was located, the range the fire happened at, etc. etc. Of course, if the firing aircraft is at long range, and directly behind, the likelyhood of damage is going to be reduced. However, at normal combat ranges the .50 calibre was more than effective, including against 190's.

Please note the reports below, re. .50 cals and 190 pilot protection.







All reports courtesy Mike Williams. His site is located here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

It includes not just information re. Spitfires, but also many other aircraft, as well as many air to air combat reports. Also see his WWII Aircraft performance site here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Last edited by *Buzzsaw*; 04-29-2008 at 09:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.