Warbirds Of Prey
July 23, 2014, 08:51:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Deflection Shooting+Target Aircraft Armor Strength  (Read 11250 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« on: January 10, 2012, 12:15:29 PM »

Hi all,

We had a discussion awhile back where Hades supplied the tables for weapons effectiveness on the different rounds.

What I'm curious about, is how much damage effect a weapon has when it's employed from different aspect angles on the target aircraft. I might have missed it, but are those tables created from all rear aspect in convergence range settings?

The reason I ask is because I've noticed that with the BF-109 and FW-190 when shot from rear aspect within convergence can withstand alot more damage and not lose a wing or fuselage or worse when fired on from .50 caliber platforms. Shoot them from 45 aspect or greater, and the wings and fuselage come apart easier. Being shot heavily from the rear with .50s doesn't appear to damage enough to separate the wings or fuselage even after hit in the excess of what's listed in the table Hades provided.

Now if hit with cannons, they will separate quite a bit easier of course from any angle. I'm wondering how the damage modeling is on the BF-109 and FW-190 when hit with .50s from rear aspect, and why the wings or fuselage rarely separate from those rear aspect firing solutions. The damage they get is control cables, control surfaces, holes in the wings, engine damage and leaks, but nothing explodes or comes apart when fired on from the rear.

KV
Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
Anvilfolk
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2012, 05:12:42 PM »

I have heard from someone that the G's that they are pulling might have an influence in how easily they will snap. A cannon round that would not rip a wing of a plane going straight and level might tear it right off if he's pulling up. This might account for the fact that it seems that when you are hitting them from 45 degrees or more (they are pulling up), they will snap more often.

Could anyone confirm?
Logged



Original painting by Jim Laurier
CaptStubing
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 03:50:23 PM »

Reminds me of the endless .50 cal discussions over on the Ubi Forums for the last 10 years...   In terms of DMs of both the FW and the 109 they haven't changed since Oleg was running the show 4.09.  This does not account for Modded airplanes but I'm sure it's safe to assume the DMs are the same as their stock counter parts.  This goes for both sides by the way.

I would also add that I don't know if it is modeled in the game but Axis planes were up armored compared to their Allied counter parts as the War progressed.  Remember they turned away from a lot of the dog fighting stuff and went for Bombers and Ground Pounding.  FWs in particular were sporting Panzer Glass for windshields.  I would say generally speaking German planes were tougher because they had to be...

In terms of testing I don't think there is any deflection shots being taken.   Also I don't believe G loading on a plane and the DM modeling are linked together in terms of damage.  With the new G limitations added it's a funtion of G loading and weight.  Unfortunately the G limitations the game are poorly implemented.  In terms of a failure, I think it's just a matter of damage to an area and that area fails.  We as virtual pilots tend to give this DM much more fidelity than is actually in the game.  

Comparing .50 cals to 20-30mms is pointless.   They are not even close in terms of hitting power and destruction.  

Again the problem with flying on this server is that we are expecting an instant success or we might lose our kill to someone else.  I bet half the planes you damage with the .50cals don't make it home if left alone.






From the left :
 
3cm MK101/103 German
 3cm MK108 M-Geschoss Ausf. A ( German )
 3cm MK108 M-Geschoss Ausf. C ( German )
 20mm Hispano HE/Incendiary ( British )
 20mm Hispano Solid ( British )
 2cm MG151 HE ( German )
 2cm MG151 AP ( German )
 15mm MG151 HE ( German )
 15mm MG151 AP ( German )
 2cm MG-FF Incendiary ( German )
 2cm MG-FF HE/I ( German )
 2cm MG-FF HE ( German )
 .50 Ball ( USA )
 13mm MG13 AP ( German )
 13mm mg13 HE ( German )
 .303 Ball ( British )
 
And then two MG151 ( AP & HE ) linked.
  

« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 04:49:31 PM by CaptStubing » Logged

78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 05:16:31 PM »

I agree with all that, and thanks for the additional insight.

I'm still curious as to why when BF-109s and FW-190s do NOT hardly ever lose wings when hit with .50cals from rear aspect.

.50 Browning M2   12.7x99   4,5   46   21,739

That's taken from Hades table, saying for fighter sized aircraft approx 21 hits are required to bring it down. That is pretty accurate when firing on a target aircraft that is at any aspect angle besides 0, with very little angle off. Although, when firing from rear aspect they absorb over 3 times that many hits and still do NOT lose a wing, fuselage, or aircraft detonation.

Sure, they go down out of control by that time (usually 60 to 100 hits from .50cal API), because they lost more than one axis of motion from control cables/surface damage (ie ailerons AND rudder etc).

I wanna know why the difference is so great? That's the main point, and why doesn't it match the table anywhere close to what Hades posted? I can provide numerous videos and tracks by now of showing both BF-109s and FW-190s taking an average of 70 hits from the rear before they are rendered completely unflyable. Tracks and videos are at 305M convergence and 200M (approx wintip to wingtip with N-9 Sights) respectively, and at 1/4 speed you can see dense hits on various areas of the aircraft, so much that it rocks the aircraft in motion. You can see the wings being hit repeatedly in the same location and not separate when fired upon from the rear.

I've just started to database alot of the tracks I've taken and debriefing that went with it, so I can test what type of aircraft was hit, from what aspect and convergence, number of impacts etc, and what type of damage it did visibly. But I digress,that's something I mess with when bored.



Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
CaptStubing
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2012, 06:08:56 PM »

I agree with all that, and thanks for the additional insight.

I'm still curious as to why when BF-109s and FW-190s do NOT hardly ever lose wings when hit with .50cals from rear aspect.

.50 Browning M2   12.7x99   4,5   46   21,739

That's taken from Hades table, saying for fighter sized aircraft approx 21 hits are required to bring it down. That is pretty accurate when firing on a target aircraft that is at any aspect angle besides 0, with very little angle off. Although, when firing from rear aspect they absorb over 3 times that many hits and still do NOT lose a wing, fuselage, or aircraft detonation.

Sure, they go down out of control by that time (usually 60 to 100 hits from .50cal API), because they lost more than one axis of motion from control cables/surface damage (ie ailerons AND rudder etc).



I wanna know why the difference is so great? That's the main point, and why doesn't it match the table anywhere close to what Hades posted? I can provide numerous videos and tracks by now of showing both BF-109s and FW-190s taking an average of 70 hits from the rear before they are rendered completely unflyable. Tracks and videos are at 305M convergence and 200M (approx wintip to wingtip with N-9 Sights) respectively, and at 1/4 speed you can see dense hits on various areas of the aircraft, so much that it rocks the aircraft in motion. You can see the wings being hit repeatedly in the same location and not separate when fired upon from the rear.

I've just started to database alot of the tracks I've taken and debriefing that went with it, so I can test what type of aircraft was hit, from what aspect and convergence, number of impacts etc, and what type of damage it did visibly. But I digress,that's something I mess with when bored.

I honestly think it has to do with Dispersion....  You may be hitting a guy in a wing with your 70 or so hits but not in the same spot.   I recently latched on to an A-5 with my D-20 and got several hits but no major failure.  As I looked at it I never once him him in the same place over all.   I center punched his fus which he strugged off except for a major fuel leak and he caught my right bank of guns in the right wing as I started to over take him.  I don't think he ever took the full brunt of it in one area.   When I have dewinged a FW it was when I hit him in the same place with a really solid burst.  It does happed but not nearly as often as with 20s.

Try flying a 109 offline with AI with 50s you will quickly get a sense of just how hard they hit.   They do hit quite hard and make you combat ineffective in short order.   Again it's a matter of hitting in the same spot for a complete failure to occur.   





« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 06:12:52 PM by CaptStubing » Logged

VBF-12_Snake9
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 181

Flying under 616 Snake9 in CLOD


« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2012, 06:09:01 PM »

I think you are stating the anwser that you are looking for.  The simply fact is, that it takes much more to bring any plane down from the rear.  If you get a good "rake" from the engine to the pilot, or "rake" arcoss the wing, you are able to hit vital parts of the plane.  From direct rear or 6, most of what you will hit are control cables and such.  It sounds like you are anwsering your own question.   Huh?
Logged
78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2012, 06:21:18 PM »

Rear aspect also has deflection in elevation as the target jinks (showing surface area of wings etc from low angles), so it's not as if all rounds are passing through the wing direct trailing edge to leading edge. I just watch tracers disappear into the same panel or section of the aircraft or wing, and that's not counting the rounds that aren't marking (glowing). So it should be shredded with over 30 .50cal API impacts to the same area from 200M and closer. This is with six and eight shooter aircraft (P-47).
Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
CaptStubing
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2012, 06:29:32 PM »

Rear aspect also has deflection in elevation as the target jinks (showing surface area of wings etc from low angles), so it's not as if all rounds are passing through the wing direct trailing edge to leading edge. I just watch tracers disappear into the same panel or section of the aircraft or wing, and that's not counting the rounds that aren't marking (glowing). So it should be shredded with over 30 .50cal API impacts to the same area from 200M and closer. This is with six and eight shooter aircraft (P-47).

I'm not sure how you come up with your figures but a better way to measure the destructive force is to compare damage done against the hit points of a particuluar component.  They have values you need to overcome before something fails.  Their tests were used to come up with the destructive power for each weapon.    

Again the 50 cal does have this problem especially if you are shooting outside/inside of convergence.
Logged

78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2012, 09:58:23 PM »

Well hopefully we will find out that the armor is increased significantly from the rear, and that even when hit with over 20 rounds according to Hades table they rarely lose ability to fight, and to separate a wing from the rear with six shooters is extremely rare. Although from 1/4 or 1/2 deflection shooting wings and fuselages depart much easier, probably because it's not as heavily armored there etc. But I still think there is something wrong with damage effects from rear aspect when using six shooting platforms against 109s and 190s. The wings or fuselage should come apart under heavy hits, or especially repeated heavy hits. I shot a 109 the other day and he took 150 hits from rear quarter only, his entire aircraft was intact with big holes in everything etc he finally went down because the weight of all the .50 cal rounds rendered him too heavy to stay aloft...jk....he lost multiple control systems. I continue to shoot the targets this way just to see how much it takes to take a wing off or blow a tail off under continuous fire, or several heavy bursts.

I just wanna know why the damage is modeled this way, from this aspect angle for .50 cal strikes. This is the most common angle you engage a fighter, and this is where the armor behind the pilot is best, but we're not talking about 10 to 20 impacts to a surface area. We're talking 60 to 100+ impacts on average. When I get back from vacation next week, I'll post some footage of what we see, perhaps it's the way it supposed to be although it's in contrast to what we see from gun camera footage even where secondaries aren't the cause of aircraft destroyed; it's tearing them apart. 
Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
CaptStubing
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 10:15:49 AM »

I think the reason why the dead six shot is hardest to dewing is because you're not hitting the same spot where as a defensive manuever will give you better angles to hit the same spot.  Shooting a flat surface such as a wing would be difficult to do other than the leading or trailing edge.  

Either way I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with the 109s and or FW damage models.  Having been shot down by 47s and 51s I can assure you the 50s are quite effective.  I just think they are harder to shoot and get good instant kills as they spray quite a bit.  

I've had some really good results by dropping my convergence down really low and driving it up someones tail.   I've litterally chopped a 109 in half with 50 cals.  150m convergence works pretty well for me.
Logged

MadBlaster
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506



« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 10:38:06 AM »

if you come underneath 190,  you can light it on fire sometimes.
Logged
Rumba
Pilot Officer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2012, 04:37:34 PM »

if you come underneath 190,  you can light it on fire sometimes.
If you aim at the fuselage just behind the wing from low six a 190 will burn even with a hurricane albeit the 12 x .303cal at convergence
Logged

Kiss Principle.... keep it simple stupid
CaptStubing
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2012, 05:54:41 PM »

Not to mention if you chip the paint almost anywhere you reduce it's top speed by 25Kmh
Logged

CRO_Dino
Guest
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2012, 09:58:49 AM »

I would assume that's only applicable on the 190? Personally, I never noticed it on other planes.
Logged
CaptStubing
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2012, 11:11:45 AM »

I would assume that's only applicable on the 190? Personally, I never noticed it on other planes.

For sure FW190s.  You also get the magical loose all controls with 1 strike of 50 cal.   That's Elevators Ailerons and Rudder.   The other fun thing is the fuel bleed out on the 190.  Take a strike and your entire tank is emptied in a matter of minutes.  So much for self sealing tanks.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal