0.50s a bit too stong?

[Slow_Horse]

General average table. Green — 4‑engine  bomber  , black — 1‑engine attack aircraft, blue — 2‑engine bomber, red — single‑engine fighter.

Edited August 20 by Slow_Horse

[Slow_Horse]

It was precisely based on the results of these field tests that the MiG‑15 (as a means of combating heavy bombers) was armed with the most effective weapons — 23‑mm and 37‑mm cannons. 

This was confirmed in the skies over Korea.

Edited August 20 by Slow_Horse

[MajorMagee]

Worth reading if you haven't already.

Looking At Shot Up Planes That Made It Back To Base

Planes with holes in the wings and fuselage survived. The areas with no damage on returning planes (like the engines and cockpit) were the spots where a single hit was fatal.

Edited August 20 by MajorMagee

[Dash,Polder]

When was the last time you ignited a fuel drum on the back end of a tank in Great Battles with .50's?  I've already done it several times in Korea.  It won't stop or disable a tank but it forces it to eject the burning fuel drums.  So they're not just more effective on aircraft alone, but all around more so.  I've blown jeeps over the sides of bridges with sheer concentrated hitting power in this game, that's impossible to do in great battles, completely different physics not just guns.

The .50's aren't the only guns that can hit, been tapped by a Yak lately?

[Mark_Krieger]

23 hours ago, Slow_Horse said:

General average table. Green — 4‑engine  bomber  , black — 1‑engine attack aircraft, blue — 2‑engine bomber, red — single‑engine fighter.

This is very interesting. Was the 12.7 the API munition and machineguns the same that USAF used? In this case, 138 bullets as average to take down a 4 engine bomber differs a lot of what we see in game. Sure that the better accuracy of virtual pilots has some effect because probably we hit more at the engines, but anyway it seems that B-29s in game are way to vulnerable to 12.7 munition.

[Slow_Horse]

3 часа назад, Mark_Krieger сказал:

Это очень интересно. Были ли 12,7-мм боеприпасы и пулеметы такими же, как те, что использовались ВВС США? 

The UB‑12.7 machine gun, armor‑piercing bullets B‑32 and high‑explosive incendiary bullets MDZ‑3. Comparable. https://dzen.ru/a/X9DaZv2QWFhk6aYa?ysclid=mt2seal3ry394441380

Edited August 21 by Slow_Horse

[JG14_Jagr]

On 8/17/2026 at 12:56 PM, Red_Dragon said:

Also, the ease with which the M2 destroys the B-29 is just mind-boggling. Guys who praise the .50 cal... I get you, and you're right — the .50 cal is a powerful weapon, and it was unfairly weak in Il-2 Great Battles. But right now, you are trying to ignore some really strange things happening in Korea. Just my $.02

Is that a problem with the .50 or is it a problem with how the B29 damage model works?

[Kongo]

On 8/21/2026 at 8:45 AM, Mark_Krieger said:

This is very interesting. Was the 12.7 the API munition and machineguns the same that USAF used? In this case, 138 bullets as average to take down a 4 engine bomber differs a lot of what we see in game. Sure that the better accuracy of virtual pilots has some effect because probably we hit more at the engines, but anyway it seems that B-29s in game are way to vulnerable to 12.7 munition.

I think one thing that would make shooting a bit harder are tracer round drop. Iirc tracer rounds fall shorter than non tracer and im not sure this is modeled in il2

Edited August 22 by Kongo

[JG14_Jagr]

9 hours ago, Kongo said:

I think one thing that would make shooting a bit harder are tracer round drop. Iirc tracer rounds fall shorter than non tracer and im not sure this is modeled in il2

The ballistics of the M2/M3 firing different bullet types is roughly identical out to 800 meters.  Between 800-1000 the pyro material in a tracer burns off completely and the bullet ballistics change.  However, the M2/M3 .50 delivers 2-3 MOA accuracy under ideal circumstances.  So at 800M the impact cone of fire is roughly 2-3 feet in diameter. That's from a fixed firing point, showing the capability of the gun.  It does not included the deviation induced by the weapon moving due to recoil or movement of the vehicle it is mounted in.  So the tracer accuracy drop off had no impact until at least 800M and depending on the movement of the firing aircraft it still could have been withing the target cone of a 33 foot wingspan plane.  Also, and probably more important, the typical engagement range for Sabre's firing on Mig15's in Korea was between 120 and 300 Meters.  So, the ballistics would only impact shots taken at roughly 3X the typical engagement range.

Edited August 22 by JG14_Jagr

[Gutholz]

On 8/7/2026 at 7:51 PM, JG14_Jagr said:

The problem these talks run into is that people use anecdotal soties as truth and video as evidence. 

Yes. Any historic guncam footage is anecdotal and some of its problems in using it to judge the effects of weapons have already been mentioned. (we do not know if the targeted plane had been damaged previously, without any references the distance is unknown, how many bullets did really hit and where and from what angle, only the "best" footage is published or wide spread)

But people are doing the same mistake with ingame footage if they just pick random gameplay footage from youtube. If you want to show something then set up a controlled enviroment and post the results. Setup an AI that flies in a straight line and shot it from known distances and angles. Enable icons so you excactly see the distance etc. Switch camera view to the targeted plane and watch in slow motion where excactly the bullets impact. Repeat the experiment a few times.

[Moro]

"We also plan to further adjust the incendiary effect of bullets and shells, because the current effect of ordinary armor-piercing incendiary bullets can still be somewhat overstated compared with dedicated incendiary ammunition. In addition, we will refine the incendiary effect of HEF-I (high-explosive fragmentation incendiary) shells".

From latest dev blog. It seems i wasn't that wrong after all, good to hear devs are taking ammo effect under consideration. Ppl getting 10 kills in a mission with 0.50s it's more on the arcade side, than simulation. S!
 

[Leifr]

3 hours ago, Moro said:

"We also plan to further adjust the incendiary effect of bullets and shells, because the current effect of ordinary armor-piercing incendiary bullets can still be somewhat overstated compared with dedicated incendiary ammunition. In addition, we will refine the incendiary effect of HEF-I (high-explosive fragmentation incendiary) shells".

From latest dev blog. It seems i wasn't that wrong after all, good to hear devs are taking ammo effect under consideration. Ppl getting 10 kills in a mission with 0.50s it's more on the arcade side, than simulation. S!
 

I wouldn't get too excited yet, it also mentions shells too. Personally, I think this refers to the visual effect of the rounds rather than the physical effect since it follows directly on from a quote regarding the visual perception of shallow waters. Besides, there's nothing wrong with fifties, even Gavrick said they're modelled inline with expectations. 🥰

Edited September 24 by Leifr

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, Leifr said:

I wouldn't get too excited yet, it also mentions shells too. Personally, I think this refers to the visual effect of the rounds rather than the physical effect since it follows directly on from a quote regarding the visual perception of shallow waters. Besides, there's nothing wrong with fifties, even Gavrick said they're modelled inline with expectations. 🥰

It's in a ragtag list of improvements, so I wouldn't read to much into it being mentioned after visual changes to the water.

That said, only changes to the incendiary part of API are mentioned. Overall I don't think it should make a huge difference.

[Cpt.Stall_McAugerin]

On 8/5/2026 at 2:13 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

...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.

    Honestly, ballistics in  simulations  can be quite simple, and often "over thought"   I helped a mod team  design a ballistic system as I have a life long experience in long range shooting,  ammo manufacturing, and building custom precision rifles..     Its all about the FPE ( foot pounds energy)  That is what makes a projectile lethal..  Velocity/Weight begets Energy  , yadda yadda ..   While you are absolutely correct about the damage side of the issue..   The ballistic side absolutely can be modelled to be VERY close to  the particular 50BMG projectile they are using..    Algorithms can calculate the FPE  by the distance the virtual projectile has travelled..    You can set the resolution in the algorithm to calculate every 50 meters, 100 meters,  whatever the author chooses. 

       There will always be arguments on these topics though..    Flight Sims, First Person Shooters..  Its always a hot topic.. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

13 hours ago, Cpt.Stall_McAugerin said:

    Honestly, ballistics in  simulations  can be quite simple, and often "over thought"   I helped a mod team  design a ballistic system as I have a life long experience in long range shooting,  ammo manufacturing, and building custom precision rifles..     Its all about the FPE ( foot pounds energy)  That is what makes a projectile lethal..  Velocity/Weight begets Energy  , yadda yadda ..   While you are absolutely correct about the damage side of the issue..   The ballistic side absolutely can be modelled to be VERY close to  the particular 50BMG projectile they are using..    Algorithms can calculate the FPE  by the distance the virtual projectile has travelled..    You can set the resolution in the algorithm to calculate every 50 meters, 100 meters,  whatever the author chooses. 

       There will always be arguments on these topics though..    Flight Sims, First Person Shooters..  Its always a hot topic.. 

I think you may have missed part of my argument. The point I make, is that every once in a while, someone turns up who just "feels" that [insert weapon] is too [weak/strong]. Usually accompanied by some anecdotal evidence like cherrypicked guncam footage or a quote of a WW2 ace.

That's not any evidence at all. If you want to show that IL2's implementation is wrong, you'd need scientifically gathered data (testing ranges, statistics, etc), or if those are lacking, use calculations taking into account the projectile's energy, explosive force (in case of shells), etc. to extend in-game measurements to data that is available.

[Dash,Polder]

20 hours ago, Cpt.Stall_McAugerin said:

    Honestly, ballistics in  simulations  can be quite simple, and often "over thought"   I helped a mod team  design a ballistic system as I have a life long experience in long range shooting,  ammo manufacturing, and building custom precision rifles..     Its all about the FPE ( foot pounds energy)  That is what makes a projectile lethal..  Velocity/Weight begets Energy  , yadda yadda ..   While you are absolutely correct about the damage side of the issue..   The ballistic side absolutely can be modelled to be VERY close to  the particular 50BMG projectile they are using..    Algorithms can calculate the FPE  by the distance the virtual projectile has travelled..    You can set the resolution in the algorithm to calculate every 50 meters, 100 meters,  whatever the author chooses. 

       There will always be arguments on these topics though..    Flight Sims, First Person Shooters..  Its always a hot topic.. 

Problem isn't as simple in the air, each bullet has a completely different starting point since the aircraft is in motion, and it isn't helping the target is also in motion.  That make the calculations anything but simple.

[Cpt.Stall_McAugerin]

   I  think the calculations in air combat would not be as hard on the  sim engine as it is in an FPS game....  The  author chooses the resolution on the calculation.  Back when I helped design a FPS shooter ballistic system  it just couldn't be done..   Packets would have been  way too large for the connectivity of the late 90's early 2000's  .   2026 is a different story.. but I just dont know enough about the  programming side..    My knowledge is strictly ballistics . Within an FPS shooter, the amount of projectiles flying around is incredible, then calculating for every single round, well,  seems a bit impossible,  but their isnt nearly as much going on in a flight sim, by comparison. 

 

  The one portion of your opinion that i agree with 100%?    IN the air, it is different..  You have varying degrees of wind resistance, like firing a machine gun , during a hurricane I would imagine..    So your  Foot pounds energy on target would havbe to vary quite a bit as well...  Hmmmmm..    pretty complex topic really.   They would hasve  to simplify the  airspeed , and resistence..    Yep,  sounds like a HUGE headache.. 

[AntonWurger]

In either way, there is an issue here with the 0.50 or the b-29, or both...
A P-61 expended all it's ammo to shot down a b-29 (450 -20mm Hispano's)
Pg3->
https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/splash1.pdf

[FuriousMeow]

54 minutes ago, AntonWurger said:

In either way, there is an issue here with the 0.50 or the b-29, or both...
A P-61 expended all it's ammo to shot down a b-29 (450 -20mm Hispano's)
Pg3->
https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/splash1.pdf

That's really not much evidence of anything, more anecdotal than proof something is amiss. There's nothing to show how much hit the B29, and what was damaged. This is just like using guncam as evidence.

I feel something is off, but I have no proof it is - also I've seen a .50 AP fired at a solid anvil and break a huge chunk off it so they are very lethal.

I do think there has been an improvement with the latest patch - there isnt a guarantee black smoke then fire every burst against aircraft.

Edited October 2 by FuriousMeow

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 10/2/2026 at 2:17 AM, Cpt.Stall_McAugerin said:

   I  think the calculations in air combat would not be as hard on the  sim engine as it is in an FPS game....

I disagree for several reasons:

1. FPS shooters usually have individual weapons, often firing in single- or triple-round configurations. Aircraft have up to six machine guns firing simultaneously.
2. Shooters tend to be relatively close combat, so most projectiles can be deleted from the game world within 50m or so when they hit something. In a flight sim, the firing distance is rarely less than 100m and might be up to 1000m or so against ground targets. If they miss, projectiles might finally hit the ground many km later. All projectiles need to be tracked for the entire distance.
3. Similarly, they are active for more frames. With a muzzle velocity of 960m/s (M16) and a physics framerate of 50Hz, every target within 960/50=19.2m (slightly shorter because of deceleration) gets hit instantly and you don't even need to track the bullet. Even at a range of 100m (huge, for FPS standards) a bullet is only active for 6 frames or so. In comparison, an aircraft bullet can easily be active for hundreds of frames. Given the large proportion of bullets that miss, that's the case for the vast majority of the projectiles you fire.
4. Speeds are much higher, since the aircraft's speed gets added to the projectile's. Higher speeds mean more noticeably nonlinear effects (e.g. deceleration from air friction).
5. Points 2 and 3 together mean that you need to integrate over a much longer path between frames, and that any inaccuracies or simplifications in your calculations have a greater effect because of the longer range (barring long-range sniping, but that's rarely more than one active bullet at a time in an FPS).
6. You're not just dealing with the kinetic energy (what you call "foot pounds energy") of the projectile, but also that of the opponent. If you're flying a Sabre at 200m/s (720kph) and fire your guns (890m/s muzzle velocity) in a head-on pass against a MiG also flying 200m/s, the effective speed with which the bullet hits the enemy equals 890+200+200=1290m/s. That's 1290^2/890^2 = 2.1 times the energy.

15 hours ago, AntonWurger said:

In either way, there is an issue here with the 0.50 or the b-29, or both...
A P-61 expended all it's ammo to shot down a b-29 (450 -20mm Hispano's)
Pg3->
https://www.flightjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/splash1.pdf

As pointed out, it's anecdotal evidence. At least part of the rounds were fired into the hull, where they usually don't do that much harm. Also, the B-29's port wing was on fire and in IL2:K that's when the crew bails out - so in terms of the game, it was actually shot down.

I do think something's off with the B-29's survivability, but my guess is that that's more to do with (lack of) damage control and an over-eagerness to bail out, than with the actual damage itself.