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 Thursday at 07:12 AM 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 Thursday at 07:36 AM 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 Thursday at 09:54 AM 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 Friday at 10:09 AM 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 Saturday at 09:48 AM 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 Saturday at 07:22 PM 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.