Jawn...
 

Not to mention the effect of the .50 on Tiger tanks. Also “claimed” ; off course!

Viking

Of course you're right Viking, all those claims by USAAF or British pilots using .50 cal ammo are false... no Luftwaffe planes were ever shot down by Allied pilots, the Germans were just too polite to hurt the feelings of all those useless Allies, so they bailed out or crashed themselves into the ground. ;)

More observations of 'polite' Germans, this time by P-47 pilots:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ki-3sept43.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ki-22feb44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...27march44a.jpg

Hundreds more reports, all courtesy Mike Williams sites:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

Note that all these reports were classified, not available for publication till the late '50's or '60's, were not released at all during the war, so obviously were not written for propaganda purposes, but simply as combat reports.

He's just saying that you can't use pilot acounts as proof.

Salute Kira

Well, he's wrong. The USAAF, RAF, Luftwaffe, VVS, Regia Aeronautica, and Imperial Japanese Army and Navy all used pilots reports as the basis of awarding kills.

The USAAF and RAF also had the benefit of guncam footage to back those reports up.

Pilots from all sides overclaimed during the war but pilot reports were still the best source for accurate assessment of enemy losses.

There are over 300 pilots reports in the links I gave:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...r-reports.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...t-reports.html

If you take the time to read them, you might come to the understanding that there is a clear consistency in the reporting. No doubt some of the reports might be optimistic, but to suggest that all of them are false or unreliable is clearly nonsense, especially considering most of them were backed up with guncam footage, and confirmation from wingmen.

They all indicate the effectiveness of the .50 calibre.

wow -didn't mean to trigger such a discussion. gives us something to do i while we wait for SOW i guess.

i would have thought a single .50 cal round fired square into the 6 of an aircraft would punch through the pilot's seat (and chest) and smash half way through the engine block - thus killing the pilot and the engine. of course in real life the round would bounce around a bit and fly off at odd angles.

i still reckon the current .50 cal round is a bit weak.

this is getting a bit like an episode of CSI.

If you're new to the community then this is just another day, another .50cal thread :)

Lots of topics posted on it since we got the weapon in the first place. Between that and the German MG151/20 cannon. I used to think it weak and then I adjusted my convergence, thought about my shooting, and then I solved most of my problems. Rapid strikes in the same location will do it...cut apart near anything. It may be a tad bit weak but the debate on that will go on endlessly so I stopped worrying and made sure I was effective with it.

With a little practice its a fine weapon. You can go home with 3-5 fighter kills with it if you're good. Not easy to do that given what happens in combat but its possible.

Yeah, the .50 is incredibly powerful for a machine gun round, but it's not that powerful, especially against large and heavily built aircraft. I've had skilled pilots dismantle my Zero in short order with no trouble, but they lack punch for larger and more heavily constructed planes. Nothing, but nothing can replace good gunnery.

I've noticed the 50's on the bombers are quite a bit more powerful than than the ones on the fighters. I get hit with one bullet from a bomber and my plane is useless. Not the case at all when they come from fighters.

@jughead

well, that is so because usually when you attack a bomber you and the bullets have opposite flight-paths, not so when the guy on your six is firing at you.

afaik

Even more the case in regards to the light MG's firing from bombers. They are amazingly deadly...

The ability of all AI gunners in IL-2 to place a 'magic' bullet in exactly the right spot is a little overdone to put it mildly.

Unfortunately Oleg has not simulated the effects of G forces on AI gunners in IL-2, so for example you get situations whereby a enemy bomber which has had its wing cut off, and which is spinning towards earth at high speeds, yet can still kill you with an AI gunner firing from the rear position, even though in real life that gunner would be so thrown around by G forces that he couldn't even hang on to the gun, let alone take an aimed shot.

Also, rear gunners were very vulnerable to being killed by fire, yet in 1 on 1 duels with fighters, you can put hundreds of rounds into a gunner's position, but your chances of a kill are very small and in most situations, a duel between a fighter equipped with 4 cannon, and a rear gunner equipped with a single LMG, sees the Fighter lose.

Hopefully we don't see the same thing in BoB, AI gunners should be basically prohibited from firing when a Bomber or attack aircraft is performing high G maneuvers, and the overall accuracy of them should be toned down considerably.

Historically bomber gunners fired from aircraft which flew straight and level, yet even in those situations, accuracy was very poor. Bombers depended on massed firepower from the hundreds of guns in bomber formation. If you program the types of formations seen in the real Battle of Britain or Battle of Germany in the IL-2 game, its almost suicide for a fighter to attack.