Warbirds Of Prey
October 25, 2014, 10:05:07 PM *
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 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Deflection Shooting+Target Aircraft Armor Strength  (Read 11748 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
78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #2 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
VBF-12_Snake9
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 181

Flying under 616 Snake9 in CLOD


« Reply #3 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 #4 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
78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #5 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
MadBlaster
Group Captain
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506



« Reply #6 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 #7 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
CRO_Dino
Guest
« Reply #8 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
Centermass
Flight Lieutenant
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 66



« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2012, 11:22:23 AM »

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.

Any plane can lose any number of controls with 1 hit. I've had late model mustangs bleed out, though it is rare.

This is about damage model from the 6 oclock and why the 190 and 109 seem to take soo much more damage from this position rather than others.

I've taken 109's tail off with just 11 hits at 90 degrees off. I've managed to hit other 109s with 40 to 50 rounds and they are still trying to fight. I know the shots where I've taken tails off of 109s were way under convergence.
Logged
78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2012, 03:52:46 PM »

Well I should hope that you did some damage with 4 20mm cannons hahaha.


But seriously, the BF-109 damage model is porked pretty bad in more than one area. Shooting them from rear aspect with the proper gun solution, and they absorb rounds like crazy but will rarely lose wing or fuselage. Now take it to say 1/4 or 1/2 deflection and the tail or wing will saw off pretty easy...Problem is, 109 pilots KNOW that, and that's why I laugh my tail off at the defensive maneuvers...you rarely see attempts to convert back neutral or offensive because these guys know if they show deflection aspect angles it's all over...so they just 'wiggle' in front of you absorbing as many .50 cal rounds as they can, or are forced down to multiple flight control surface failures (or on fire, which is my personal favorite).

Additionally, BF-109s can crash above 200mph and still survive, rendering the victor with only a probable kill...I mean the whole aircraft will break apart and catch on fire...tail gone, wings gone, cockpit on fire etc..totally not mission capable, but the pilot doesn't die or fuselage explodes...you only receive a probable kill (+100pts). This really should be corrected to the way it was previously, if an aircraft is forced down and broke up, it's shot down.
Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
Finvar
Flying Officer
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2012, 06:37:11 AM »

...Shooting them from rear aspect with the proper gun solution, and they absorb rounds like crazy but will rarely lose wing or fuselage. Now take it to say 1/4 or 1/2 deflection and the tail or wing will saw off pretty easy...

True, but when shooting at dead six the target area of a say a wing is just the thickness of that wing, and the bullet spread area, even at optimum convergence, is usually larger than the thickness of a wing. So not all your rounds are going to hit. Probably just a small percent of them, with most missing going above and below the wing. Some may even just clip the top and bottom surfaces of the wing without doing much, if any, damage. Tho that's probably not modelled in the dm.

So as an example, if you imagine the .50 cal bullet spread area equals a 1m circle. Shooting at dead six the damage along the rear edge of a wing would be, at maximum, the diameter of that circle. ie 1m. And that's only if the shot is perfect. A little higher or lower equals less of the edge being hit and by less rounds. So from a 200 round burst, with a 5% hit rate, maybe only 10 rounds actually hit the edge of the wing.
Of course there's penetration to take into account. But as far as I'm aware in il2 not all rounds have the same amount of penetration, or even the same damage effect. I once saw a 4.09 version of the .50 cal class file, and from memory the penetration and damage effects were set every 4 bullets. I think they were something like - bullet 2 & 3 had more penetration than 1 & 4, and bullet 2 also has more damage effect than 1, 3 & 4. And bullets 1 & 4 had a setting of 0 for both, but whether or not that means they had 0 penetration and damage effect I don't know, maybe it's just the lowest setting.
But then apparently the bullet settings have been changed in UP, so maybe each bullet has the same effect now. But if they don't that would mean that the wing edge would be affected even less by some of the rounds that do hit it.
As for a deflection shot, again at optimum convergence - the whole surface of the wing is vulnerable to the whole 1m circle of the bullet spread area. So more rounds can hit and therefore more damage can be delivered to that area.
Plus the way the dm works, it's probably somewhere in the middle of the wing that needs to be hit to make it break.

~S~
Fin
Logged

78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2012, 09:10:43 AM »

Hi Finvar,

Rgr that brotha man, I'm familiar with surface area, bullet penetration and energy, and dispersion of rounds at convergence.

Of course, you can slow down your tracks, and look at the impacts and gun solution from any angle, and watch your tracer arc and points of impact, how dense or dispersed they are.

What I'm reporting is dense hits to the trailing edge surface of the wings, and fuselage. We're talking about 'repeated' dense strikes to the same area and it's not enough to separate the wing with .50 cals from rear aspect (only very rarely, which I have a few tracks of).

Not only that, but remember that the wing mating to the fuselage isn't a 0 aspect angle, when the aircraft is flying straight and level, there is an angle of attack on the wing, so that a good minimum of 15deg deflection angle is showing from the rear, it isn't as if you're shooting at a razor blade, it's like shooting at a razor blade that is tilted at a low angle of attack showing its surface area.

Furthermore, we've all seen numerous gun camera videos of BF-109s being shot from the rear, and it looks like what we see in game when it comes to strikes on the aircraft...it looks like someone set off a string of fire crackers along the whole rear portion of the target airframe from wingtip to wingtip. The only problem is, that in IL2 UP3, the strikes from 50s don't do nearly as much damage as we see in the gun camera footage for a few reasons.

1. The rear aspect damage effects on BF-109s from .50 cals isn't effective enough to separate wings even after very heavy condensed strike patterns to the same area of a wing or fuselage.

2. No secondary detonations (ie fuel tanks or ammo magazines in the wings)

3. The amount of rounds to effectively end a fight, is so high and so contrary to what's been posted in a table, there seems to be no direct answer for it other than a poor test model was used, or it was done intentionally to dumb down these gun platforms (most six shooters).

I've got a few tracks from last week from P-40E's showing what I'm talking about, and I'll post them to my youtube channel.
Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
Finvar
Flying Officer
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2012, 03:30:47 PM »

Of course, you can slow down your tracks, and look at the impacts and gun solution from any angle, and watch your tracer arc and points of impact, how dense or dispersed they are.
The problem is that what you see visually in game, and in tracks, is not necessarily what the game sees.
Have you tried setting Arcade=1 in conf.ini? Which will show silly looking arrows where bullets hit, as if the plane was attacked by a tribe of Red Indians. So when you watch the tracks you can see where the rounds actually hit, the angle they hit at and how many.

...dense hits to the trailing edge surface of the wings, and fuselage. ...'repeated' dense strikes to the same area and it's not enough to separate the wing with .50 cals from rear aspect...
Maybe it's just down to how the game deals with bullet penetration. In real life repeated strikes to the same area, eg. trailing edge of a wing at dead six, would eat away at the wing, and eventually reach the leading edge if enough bullets were fired.
Maybe in il2 when a bullet hits the exact spot hit by a previous bullet it doesn't penetrate any further than the first bullet.
As an example, if you imagine a bullet fired at an object, then a second bullet fired at the exact same spot the first bullet hit, from the same distance, angle, etc....
In real life if the first bullet penetrated by 30%, the second bullet, meeting no resistance in the hole made by the first, would penetrate a further 30%, totalling 60% penetration at that one area of the object.
And maybe in il2 each bullet has its penetration value set from a planes surface. So regardless of how many bullets hit that exact same area it will only ever result in the same penetration as the first bullet.
So maybe that's why repeated strikes to the same area of the trailing edge of a wing tends to only damage the trailing edge of the wing, and no further. And once the full amount of damage has been delivered to the trailing edge further bullets have little or no effect.
And as for separating the wing, when it happens from dead six, it's most likely not the bullets hitting the trailing edge that does it, but the bullets that hit the top or bottom surface, when the wing is "a razor blade that is tilted at a low angle of attack showing its surface area."

This game gets better and better as the years go by, but, it is still far from realistic.

~S~
Finvar
Logged

78thFG_KV
Wing Commander
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150



« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2012, 10:22:36 PM »

I think before you throw around the "the DM is Porked" comment you should fly the 109 a little more.  Having flown both planes for around 10 years now I can assure you there is nothing porked in terms of the DM with either the FW or the 109.  The 109s while hey may stay in tact do go down much easier than you suspect. 
I've had plenty of flight time and combat time in all the 109 models that are available on the server. I've been shot by pretty much every Allied aircraft in the server as well when flying in 109s so I'm pretty familiar with the damage it takes from .50s from all angles. I've had all the leaks, loss of various control surface systems etc. I'm not talking about being hit from cannons, just the 50s. I could turn my tail to an attacking Allied aircraft that was wielding 50s and take pretty much everything they had and still keep flying most of the time. Sure, I might have had the engine seize, catch fire etc and not make it back to home plate, but that's not the point.

Shooting the target aircraft down isn't the point, the point is exactly what I've already posted.

Quote
Again I really believe the problem with the 50s in the game has nothing to do with DMs from a dead six or hitting power.  It comes down to where you hit. The 50s spray quite a bit.  Having shot a M2 in real life I can assure you from a mount they don't really spray.  They do have some dispersion along the longatudinal line but that is to be expected from an MG. They aren't tack drivers  In the game IMO they are much worse.
Real life? Is there a fake one? Haha, just kidding. Yes yes, of course; I'm also familiar with the M2 and have plenty of trigger time. I'm well versed in its ballistics as well. That's not the issue. Also, you can't compare shooting from a tripod mounted M2 from a fixed stable position against an aircraft bouncing around in the air in 3 planes of motion.

None of this really matters though. It's simply that from rear aspect, BF-109s absorb or withstand far more strikes from .50s than they should without losing a wing, fuselage break, or aircraft detonation; even by comparison to the table that Hades posted which suggests that from rear aspect within convergence it takes an average of 20 rounds to finish a fighter sized target aircraft...and that's completely inaccurate.  

Quote
We are so driven to get a catastrophic failure so we get the kill message in this game.  In truth that guy won't make it home.  I can't tell you how many times a tiny nick from a 50 can completly disable you.  I think part of what you're experiencing online goes both ways. I can't tell you how many times I've litterally pasted a 51 with 40 cannons and 2 .50s and they seem to only leak fuel.  I have come to realize the grass is always greener. Until you fly both sides it's difficult to understand.  Remember too this is a game with LAG and while the game may present you with visual cues they may or may not be accurate.

None of this has anything to do with what I'm discussing. Getting kills isn't the problem. But just to comment, I've flown both "sides" and I have zero problems bringing aircraft down when armed with cannons...it's child's play by comparison.
Logged


To the man I aim, not the aircraft.

UP3 ACM Videos
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   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