0.50s a bit too stong?

[Moro]

Hi, i enjoy a lot the destructive effect on 0.50s, and the great sounds, but aren´t they a bit too strong? From what i see on YT videos like gun cameras from the era and from what i read also, it wasn´t like this and for instance MiGs could take a bit of damage and keep going.

In here they seem to be laser trayectory and nuke power, you can spray them from hundreds of yards away and it just takes a couple of rounds to instant set enemy planes on fire.

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

...and here we go again (vividly remembering the endless discussions in GB about the .50s being too weak).

Modeling and predicting gun damage is always a bit of a guess, so it's completely plausible the current implementation is off. However, as has been discussed ad nauseam, gun cameras are extremely biased so they're probably not the best source. If you have any actual non-anectodal evidence that something's wrong, please tell us, but I don't see any reason to change things based on YouTube videos.

[Sticks_n_Rudder]

the 50s are just fine.  Please dont try and talk the devs into nerfing them like in BOS. They are supposed to be this devastating. 

[Rei-sen]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

gun cameras are extremely biased

Don't agree with the topic starter about .50s, but...

How come? You literally have video evidence of various aircraft being shot with different weapons. That's a great reference to bring you in game results in alignment with. 

[FuriousMeow]

29 minutes ago, Rei-sen said:

Don't agree with the topic starter about .50s, but...

How come? You literally have video evidence of various aircraft being shot with different weapons. That's a great reference to bring you in game results in alignment with. 

Because you don't know how damaged the plane was prior to the gun cam showing a plane's final moments, you can't really see how many hits there are due to the incredibly low res and details of the footage, you can't get an idea of anything useful from them other than, yep,  the weapons do damage. There's so few of them too that they represent a rounding error percentage of aircraft shot down. 

They're neat to watch but that's the end of it, they are of no use to model anything off of.

The game B17 II The Mighty Eighth based their tracer effects on gun cam footage, which is why looked like glowing night crawlers were being flung forth from the weapon barrels, was truly awful.

 

Edited August 5 by FuriousMeow

[AEthelraedUnraed]

48 minutes ago, Rei-sen said:

How come? You literally have video evidence of various aircraft being shot with different weapons. That's a great reference to bring you in game results in alignment with. 

In addition to what FuriousMeow says about drawing conclusions from them, there's a major selection bias. The majority of guncam footage is basically unbearable to watch. They're of too low quality, suffer from major visual artifacts, the target is outside of the camera's field of view, they're simply too boring, etc. etc. All the guncam footage that was ever published is a small part of the total amount of footage. All the guncam footage that got uploaded to YouTube is a small part of that.

If you want to use guncam footage as a source, you need to dig into the archives and consider all footage that is available, much of which likely hasn't even been digitised yet. Not just the interesting parts that got uploaded to YouTube. And after all that, you can start to worry about FuriousMeow's points about the reliability of the footage itself.

[Gunfreak]

If there is a problem it's not with the .50 being too strong,  but the MIG15 being too delicate. The effects of the 50s seems very correct vs ww2 props, it matches both gun cam and a myriad of first hand accounts.

The problem with the 50s seeming too strong is only vs the 15. Which did indeed casue trouble for the USAF fighters and seem to be the primary reason USAF finally followed the navy and went with 20mm. First hand accounts describes having to put a full 1-2 second burst into the MIG15 to take it down(and remember the USAF over claimed to the extreme during Korea) so many of those migs "shot down" by 2 second bursts actually made it home. 

So instead of looking at the 50s. I would look at the damage modeling on the 15 specifically.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

20 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

First hand accounts describes having to put a full 1-2 second burst into the MIG15 to take it down(and remember the USAF over claimed to the extreme during Korea) so many of those migs "shot down" by 2 second bursts actually made it home. 

First hand accounts too are notoriously unreliable. First of all, is a "1-2 second burst" 1 second or 2 seconds? Also, a real-life second might, depending on the situation and your state of mind at the time, be remembered as half a second or 10 seconds. Next, what percentage of the bullets in this burst hit the target? Where did they hit it, and with what ammo type?

When dealing with real-life anecdotal data like this, one has to consider that basically every source is biased in some way. In most cases, we don't even know what the bias is.

Edited August 5 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Gunfreak]

5 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

First hand accounts too are notoriously unreliable. First of all, is a "1-2 second burst" 1 second or 2 seconds? Also, a real-life second might, depending on the situation and your state of mind at the time, be remembered as half a second or 10 seconds. Next, what percentage of the bullets in this burst hit the target? Where did they hit it, and with what ammo type?

When dealing with real-life anecdotal data like this, one has to consider that basically every source is biased in some way. In most cases, we don't even know what the bias is.

Single first hand accounts are not reliable. When many frist hand accounts say the same thing over and over. It is a pattern.

Many of these pilots had flown in ww2 and many were even aces. And noted how much more of a punishment the 15 took vs the German aircraft they had fought some 6-7 years earlier.

[FuriousMeow]

I never thought the GB .50s were weak, as long as you hit where you're supposed to hit the target went down quickly. 

My initial encounters in Korea had me thinking they were doing too much damage. Millisecond shots downing Il10s, one shot engine kills on La11s from dead 6, and other questionable ease of kills. I'm still not convinced it should be this easy. 

[Valis]

There's plenty of pilot testimony that the .50s lacked stopping power and/or the MiG-15 could absorb a lot of them....with all the caveats such testimony entails.

Still, if the .50s were as potent IRL as they are in-game they wouldn't have expedited Gun-Val.

I say this as primarily a F-51 & F-86 flyer - I'm regularly surprised just how easy MiG-15s light up - not at all what I expected.

[Moro]

I agree with the last three users. And as Gunfreak said, maybe is not the 0.50 being too strong, maybe it's MiG-15 structure too weak, no idea, because it can also be seen against tougher planes like Tu2 or il10. What i'm almost certain something is a bit off. Planes catching fire after a brief tap on the trigger is not what i would expect.

Check for instance this recent video from a very good dogfighter; and i can gather a lot of videos like this one from different users:

2:20 first burst misses, second tap on the trigger from far away and sets the target on fire 
3:50 first short burst insta fire; second one wing blown off
13:15 the best example, high speed snap shot maybe just a couple of bullets hit the 15 and inmediately catches fire
xx:xx and so on

 

[eszyman]

Remember the Jets also feature M3s with a much higher rate of fire.
Major complaint on GB is the thunderbolt is not nearly as feared as it should be with eight of those betty's bouncin...  This seem much more accurate to me, additionally they are incendiary rounds that like to catch things on fire.

[FuriousMeow]

The 47's problem wasn't the weapons, it could shred if ammo was on target. The problem was it's bizarre FM where if you so much as thought about pulling back on the stick it shook more than Michael J Fox (great guy and actor) then proceeded to stall out. 

One of my favorite planes is the P51B, only 4x .50s and I had no issues in GB downing planes. 

Edited August 6 by FuriousMeow

[Jaegermeister]

20 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

The 47's problem wasn't the weapons, it could shred if ammo was on target. The problem was it's bizarre FM where if you so much as thought about pulling back on the stick it shook more than Michael J Fox (great guy and actor) then proceeded to stall out. 

One of my favorite planes is the P51B, only 4x .50s and I had no issues in GB downing planes. 

The P-47 was always my favorite plane. What you wrote above is exactly the reason I never made a campaign for it after my initial attempt when Battle of Bodenplatte was newly released.

[FuriousMeow]

18 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

The P-47 was always my favorite plane. What you wrote above is exactly the reason I never made a campaign for it after my initial attempt when Battle of Bodenplatte was newly released.

So disappointing, I really hope the P47M results in a total overhaul of the Jug's FM because even with adding an 8" extension to my stick it still doesn't make sense.

Have this drawing next to my monitor:

[Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, FuriousMeow said:

The 47's problem wasn't the weapons, it could shred if ammo was on target. The problem was it's bizarre FM where if you so much as thought about pulling back on the stick it shook more than Michael J Fox (great guy and actor) then proceeded to stall out.

 

50 minutes ago, Jaegermeister said:

The P-47 was always my favorite plane. What you wrote above is exactly the reason I never made a campaign for it after my initial attempt when Battle of Bodenplatte was newly released.

 

29 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

So disappointing, I really hope the P47M results in a total overhaul of the Jug's FM because even with adding an 8" extension to my stick it still doesn't make sense.

Have this drawing next to my monitor:

I guess I'm not entirely convinced the P-47s FM is all that bad...the 86th has had great success with it online flying as a team, usually at higher altitudes. Really all it needs for good dogfighting performance are a low fuel load (50% or less) and generous usage of the flaps (~50%); 150 octane also helps a lot!

 

In all, it's a very heavy plane with high wing-loading and an older wing design - it isn't as agile as a Mustang, much less so a Spitfire. Maybe it should be more on par with something like the Tempest, but I really think the expectations from historical accounts are very skewed as IRL it had: tactical advantage flying at high altitude when flying escort missions against fighters that were preoccupied intercepting heavy bombers, great numerical superiority, great ground crew/maintenance support (compared to its opposition), team tactics that helped get the most out of it. 

 

It was never intended to be a dogfighter - though it can absolutely win a dogfight! To me, it's very to the Lightning and Typhoon: aka similar fighter-bomber types that are made for attack missions.

Edited August 6 by Drewm3i-VR

[FuriousMeow]

Getting off-topic a lot, I can make the '47 work but it just has a really weird response to elevator/back stick pressure.

In a team environment it can work because all you need to do is have one fly straight to attract attention and another to sweep behind and shoot. 

I've played the Jug across many air combat Sims, and the revamp of the Jug that was done sometime back made it really averse to any stick back pressure. The Jug isn't underpowered by any means, but the accelerated stalls followed quickly by a full wing stall with very little back pressure on the stick just isn't right. 

Edited August 6 by FuriousMeow

[Drewm3i-VR]

1 hour ago, FuriousMeow said:

Getting off-topic a lot, I can make the '47 work but it just has a really weird response to elevator/back stick pressure.

In a team environment it can work because all you need to do is have one fly straight to attract attention and another to sweep behind and shoot. 

I've played the Jug across many air combat Sims, and the revamp of the Jug that was done sometime back made it really averse to any stick back pressure. The Jug isn't underpowered by any means, but the accelerated stalls followed quickly by a full wing stall with very little back pressure on the stick just isn't right. 

You might be right about the stall characteristics, particularly with the elevator - the rest of the FM is close enough, I think.

Edited August 6 by Drewm3i-VR

[AEthelraedUnraed]

5 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Single first hand accounts are not reliable. When many frist hand accounts say the same thing over and over. It is a pattern.

That's a misconception. Taking more samples averages out your outliers, but it does absolutely nothing to remove your biases.

[JendaJND]

8 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

If there is a problem it's not with the .50 being too strong,  but the MIG15 being too delicate. The effects of the 50s seems very correct vs ww2 props, it matches both gun cam and a myriad of first hand accounts.

The problem with the 50s seeming too strong is only vs the 15. Which did indeed casue trouble for the USAF fighters and seem to be the primary reason USAF finally followed the navy and went with 20mm. First hand accounts describes having to put a full 1-2 second burst into the MIG15 to take it down(and remember the USAF over claimed to the extreme during Korea) so many of those migs "shot down" by 2 second bursts actually made it home. 

So instead of looking at the 50s. I would look at the damage modeling on the 15 specifically.

First hand accounts... 

Aka there is interview with usaf pilot from back then. He described something nice. One of his sabres sat behind mig-15 and missed EVERY SINGLE round due to not leading whatsoever. 

And i can guarantee you that this guy then went and complained how his guns did nothing to the mig while missing every single round.

There are outliners of migs comming back with tons of hits and so there are outliners of sabres comming back with massive holes after getting hit by 23s.  But the ones being hit with few rounds and burning down never lived to tell that story. 

Edited August 6 by JendaJND

[JendaJND]

7 hours ago, Valis said:

There's plenty of pilot testimony that the .50s lacked stopping power and/or the MiG-15 could absorb a lot of them....with all the caveats such testimony entails.

Still, if the .50s were as potent IRL as they are in-game they wouldn't have expedited Gun-Val.

I say this as primarily a F-51 & F-86 flyer - I'm regularly surprised just how easy MiG-15s light up - not at all what I expected.

At what altitude do they light up? Because irl they had issues with api at high altitudes. Lower, it worked fine. 

Noone is saying cannons aint better. But the us built Hispanos certainly werent better AA weaponry than .50 an/m-3... First proper USAF air to air fighter 20mms were M-39s. These had both better muzzle velocity and rate of fire than .50 an/m-3. The M-39 is basically result of gunval. Guess what, gunval sabres were about as effective as .50 cal equipped ones in shooting down migs. But the cannon was better for everything else and was more reliable in edge cases. The gas issues were sabre problems, not so much gun itself.

From tests of mig-15, they came to one conclusion. .50 cal was better AA weapon than any 15s gun, be it 23 or 37.

Talking about anecdotes or gun cams. There is also footage of migs being lit on fire within first split second of burst or whole wing being torn off.

Also .50 cals are only rounds i survived so far in korea with ability to get back.

 

I will rather have current DM where both sides guns shreds than whatever GB had for a long time where .50 AP was totally impotent and one 13mm gun with HE filler did more than 8x.50 AP.

Edited August 6 by JendaJND

[JendaJND]

Also, if we want to use guncams. There is one, very clear one with perfectly visible hits. First fuselage hit and its on fire. 

 

[Avimimus]

35 minutes ago, JendaJND said:

Also, if we want to use guncams. There is one, very clear one with perfectly visible hits. First fuselage hit and its on fire. 

 

I agree there are some perfectly visible hits. I do wonder how many hits might not be perfectly visible though?

At 126 rounds per second, and if we assume that the video is real time, that video shows firing something like 500 rounds (even with the pauses in fire)...

P.S. There is also considerable selection bias in which gun camera videos were preserved and which are shown as parts of documentaries etc. It is usually the ones which show dramatic effects such as a major fire. I'm sure there were lots of guncamera footage which showed 'blur' without obvious damage (even in cases where the aircraft attacked was shot down).

 

13 hours ago, Sticks_n_Rudder said:

the 50s are just fine.  Please dont try and talk the devs into nerfing them like in BOS. They are supposed to be this devastating. 

I think the test is: Try using them against a B-29.

 

[YoYo]

In my opinion, everything is fine. The 0.5-power weapon (Browning M2 kal. 0,50) was all about rate of fire and good concentration. I remember that, from WWII pilots' memoirs, American pilots often mentioned that even though it wasn't a cannon, it was capable of shooting off a wing or slicing through the fuselage. Again, a lot depended on the type of ammunition used, and you can load incendiary or armor-piercing ammunition.

One of the most frequently cited aces was George Preddy, who flew a Mustang. He emphasized that the key was to get very close to the target, usually within 200–300 meters or less. This allowed six Brownings to inflict massive damage.

As far as I'm concerned, the music plays, and everything is fine. 👍