50 cal Ballistics/Aircraft Damage Model Questions/Concerns

No one is claiming that data is perfect. Like you said, without getting ultra complex, we are making generalized statements. I posted that primarily to show more than one source of data supporting a 1-3 ratio in comparison to 20mm as a baseline. As for a 1-2 second burst, that is much shorter than what is currently modeled. Right now, you MIGHT kill a plane with that if you managed to land every round on target in that space that space of time. Memoirs do support the idea if short Bursts kill fighter and part of my opinion is also based on pilot accounts. However I would like to note that the average pilot accuracy during ww2 was measured at about 5 percent. Few of the rounds in a sustained burst would have hit. Gun cameras clearly show massive damage inflicted by relatively few strikes. One of the most common things I've seen is small fires being started by the incendiaries. You never see fire in dcs unless you kill the engine or blow a wing. Oddly enough though, nearly every belly landing starts a fire

Note: 6 fifties expend 4800 rpm. 2 seconds of fire would be 160 rounds. Even a perfect shot would not land all round one target due to dispersion. getting between 5-25 percent on target would be between 8 and 40 strikes. Reading memoirs and encounter reports makes it clear that most kills we're achieved via high speed bounces deflection shooting played a big part here. If it took 100+ strikes to get a kill, boom and zoom would have been nearly impossible because only a robot would hAve been able to get enough rounds on target.

I don't personally have any tracks (yet, though I will be recording them from now on to add) but it really does feel like the destructive potential of weapons like the .50 is very low indeed, when you watch gun camera footage from allied (.50 equipped) aircraft, you see them chew up enemy aircraft with pretty conservative amounts of ammo, heck, even the pilots talked about how powerful the .50 was and how lethal a burst from six of them could be.

I don't really see that reflected in DCS at all, I could pick either the Sabre or the Mustang, take on just about any enemy (that I can realistically hit) and fill them full of shots all over (not looking at the bullet holes on the model, actually observing where my shots land as I hit) with little effect compared to the aformentioned gun camera footage.

Perhaps there is some factor in the relationship between the ballistics and damage model that is simply not taken into account, the bullets may do the right amount of damage but perhaps not in a large enough area?

It feels like shooting a .45 at a piece of wood, in reality, it would hit the wood hard and put a pretty decent hole in it. DCS on the other hand is like using that same gun against that same wood but only putting a .45 size hole in it with no other damage around the hole.

From what I have seen, it is a collection of factors. Like you mentioned, the ballistics probably play roll. The damage model is a huge factor though. You never see planes catch fire unless mortal damage has occurred like a engine being killed or wing removed. Aside from the tracer the apit doesn't seen to actually have incendiary effects. The mechanical linkages for controls don't seem to be vulnerable. A lot of basic damage model stuff appears to have been neglected, yet we have some super complicated engine damage and other things.

I don't like such broad comparisons in context of "of how much it takes to down a fighter", because they tend to treat aircraft as monolithic target with hitpoints. In addition, there are different ammo types involved, which can make it look like comparing apples to oranges. I.e. even if it is possible to treat MG151/20 API round as upsized M2 round, what to do with Minengeschosspatrone, which is basically a small grenade (18g of PETN) designed to explode under the stressed skin of aircraft?

 

The only reasonable thing without going into very complex modelling, is comparing statistical data, i.e. pilot accounts or ammo spent per target downed. I have opinion, which is based on memoirs, that steady 1-2s burst with 6x.50 was enough for a kill. It is a lot of bullets, but such amount is "enough for a kill", and not necessary "needed for a kill".

 

 

 

Note that this site http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm belongs to the same Williams and it says:

 

In conclusion, while it is admitted that some elements of the calculations – especially concerning the relative weighting given to kinetic and chemical damage – are open to criticism, in practical terms the results stand up quite well. Changing the method of calculation affects some scores but has surprisingly little effect on the overall 'order of merit' of the destructiveness rankings. Where it does have an effect, it is generally to boost the scores of high-capacity HE shells while reducing those of lower-velocity AP cannon shells and AP bullets, which is validated by the Luftwaffe's decision to focus on chemical rather than kinetic energy in developing their aircraft weapons.

 

Their ducks might be in a row, but that row is still unordered and they acknowledge that.

Funny how differently one can read a text. I actually think they acknowledge the ducks are in a row but that the line may not be perfectly straight :)

I notice you selectively highlight this:

"Where it does have an effect, it is generally to boost the scores of high-capacity HE shells while reducing those of lower-velocity AP cannon shells and AP bullets, which is validated by the Luftwaffe's decision to focus on chemical rather than kinetic energy in developing their aircraft weapons."

While avoiding the main message that preceeds it:

"In conclusion, while it is admitted that some elements of the calculations – especially concerning the relative weighting given to kinetic and chemical damage – are open to criticism, in practical terms the results stand up quite well. Changing the method of calculation affects some scores but has surprisingly little effect on the overall 'order of merit' of the destructiveness rankings"

So some elements are open to criticism BUT the analysis stands up quite well and changing the method calculation has surprisingly little effect!

In addition how shall the developers use your criteria "I have opinion, which is based on memoirs, that steady 1-2s burst with 6x.50 was enough for a kill."?

Is it enough to close your eyes, get a 1-2 burst off to get a kill? How many of those bullets need to strike?

No one is contesting (at least not me) that cannon are better than HMG. I actually prefer to fly using German armament but if STATISTICALLY around 100 strikes of M2 are needed then this seems strange.

To get back on a constructive track, some sort of scoring system and relative destructive power between different loads needs to be implemented.

The best I've seen so far is a circa 3.5 ratio between 151/20 and M2 but I'm open to constructive input.

On the other hand maybe the damage model for 151/20 is off by the same margin? Will be interesting to see if there is the same scale factor for the 20 mm loadout and if STATISTICALLY significantly more than 5 rounds are needed to down a fighter sized target.

Then it will be a general problem and not just related to the M2 rounds.

Funny how differently one can read a text.

Indeed, it is funny.

I notice you selectively highlight this:

 

"Where it does have an effect, it is generally to boost the scores of high-capacity HE shells while reducing those of lower-velocity AP cannon shells and AP bullets, which is validated by the Luftwaffe's decision to focus on chemical rather than kinetic energy in developing their aircraft weapons."

 

While avoiding the main message that preceeds it:

 

"In conclusion, while it is admitted that some elements of the calculations – especially concerning the relative weighting given to kinetic and chemical damage – are open to criticism, in practical terms the results stand up quite well. Changing the method of calculation affects some scores but has surprisingly little effect on the overall 'order of merit' of the destructiveness rankings"

 

So some elements are open to criticism BUT the analysis stands up quite well and changing the method calculation has surprisingly little effect!

If I wanted to avoid it, I would simply skip that. :doh: I marked it red, because I wanted to highlight the part where the exception/biggest difference would be achieved (according to authors) by changing the method. "Little effect" isn't synonym for "boost". :smilewink:

In addition how shall the developers use your criteria "I have opinion, which is based on memoirs, that steady 1-2s burst with 6x.50 was enough for a kill."?

How they would use that is irrelevant. They didn't ask me, and I didn't tell them. You asked for an opinion, and you got one.

No one is contesting (at least not me) that cannon are better than HMG. I actually prefer to fly using German armament but if STATISTICALLY around 100 strikes of M2 are needed then this seems strange.

Nor do I. However, there is a problem with the reasoning chain in this thread. It is taken that X German shells of 20mm is required to down a fighter, and then this number is used to calculate the amount of .50 bullets required by using ratio validated in that book/site. The problems: 1) 20mm ammo type is unknown 2) power of shells, which has lots of explosives is understated in that book/site. This means, that one must be very careful with such conversions.

To get back on a constructive track, some sort of scoring system and relative destructive power between different loads needs to be implemented.

 

The best I've seen so far is a circa 3.5 ratio between 151/20 and M2 but I'm open to constructive input.

Then begin differentiating ammo types. Stop using just 151/20, because there is huge difference what different 20mm shells for that gun can do. If it is API or HEI-T, then maybe 3.5 ratio is OK, but if it is Minengeschosspatron, which has x8 more explosives than 20mm HEI-T, then such ratio is hardly believable, because it not just about larger caliber anymore, but about lots of explosives too. As I said before, Minengeschosspatrone was designed to penetrate the skin and then explode causing damage to skin and internal structure. If target is of stressed skin/monocoque design, skin carries lots of structural load and punching large holes in it can be fatal.

If you want to figure out how many rounds were needed on average to down a German fighter with .50 cals, look at some gun camera footage.

Count the number of tracer rounds you see going into the plane, average it out throughout 10 or so tracks (make sure you choose good tracks where you can clearly see the tracers and when the plane goes down), then multiply by 5 (they used 1 tracers every five rounds, meaning if you see 10 tracers there were probably ~50 rounds fired).

It will give you a rough estimate.

...keeping the dispersion/harmonization pattern in mind, and guesstimating how many percent of the rounds fired actually hit the target - ref the patterns posted above.

Not easy.

Personally I think the number of rounds required to make it very likely that the aircraft is out of the fight, due to actual damage, is low. Then there's the psychological factor. A pilot which knows his aircraft has been hit, but not how badly, is rather likely to head for home. Would you gamble your life on that round through the wing not having hit the spar and continue manoeuvring? That one is taken out of the equation on your average MP server though, along with a lot of other factors which would normally oppose the development of the Never Ending Furball.

Cheers,

/Fred

Of course, all of this depends on where you hit and 18 hits on the wing will not do, but on the other hand 18 in the engine, radiator, fuel tanks and pilot etc will.

 

So statistically, looking at tracks it seems reasonable that the average should land up in the twenties and not the hundreds :music_whistling:

More to the point, ONE .50 in the pilot or engine is likely to be sufficient. The engine may perhaps require two or three, but the point is that "18 hits" is a good estimate of hits required because that's the amount it'll likely take (everywhere else) on the airframe to ensure one of them hits a vital target.

If you get extremely unlucky, I could see getting as many as 50-70 hits without downing the target, assuming your rounds are hitting from high deflection and punching clean holes through the wing top-to-bottom without destroying load-bearing members on the way through. The likelihood of this is low, however.

On the other hand maybe the damage model for 151/20 is off by the same margin? Will be interesting to see if there is the same scale factor for the 20 mm loadout and if STATISTICALLY significantly more than 5 rounds are needed to down a fighter sized target.

 

Then it will be a general problem and not just related to the M2 rounds.

I think it may actually be off by the same magnitude: I have found it generally takes the FW190 about 15-30 hits of 20mm to destroy my Mustang. Oddly, he almost never actually hits me with 13mm. I suspect this is because the super-gunner AI puts the aim point for the 20mm right on me, and the 13mm, with different ballistics, zip right by harmlessly.

That said... I'm counting based on the numbers in parenthesis in the post-mission report. Are those actually the number of hits, or is it some kind of "hit points of damage done" thing?

I think it may actually be off by the same magnitude: I have found it generally takes the FW190 about 15-30 hits of 20mm to destroy my Mustang. Oddly, he almost never actually hits me with 13mm. I suspect this is because the super-gunner AI puts the aim point for the 20mm right on me, and the 13mm, with different ballistics, zip right by harmlessly.

 

That said... I'm counting based on the numbers in parenthesis in the post-mission report. Are those actually the number of hits, or is it some kind of "hit points of damage done" thing?

I am fairly certain from the testing ive done so far with my modified APIT that the explosive factor counts as a certain number of hits or something. Regular AP though only counts for one. For example, when I was killing 190s with them it was saying 90 hits but i was killing them in like half second bursts. 15-30 hits of 20mm is way too high, meaning that the 20mm are also suffering from this issue.

More to the point, ONE .50 in the pilot or engine is likely to be sufficient. The engine may perhaps require two or three, but the point is that "18 hits" is a good estimate of hits required because that's the amount it'll likely take (everywhere else) on the airframe to ensure one of them hits a vital target.

 

If you get extremely unlucky, I could see getting as many as 50-70 hits without downing the target, assuming your rounds are hitting from high deflection and punching clean holes through the wing top-to-bottom without destroying load-bearing members on the way through. The likelihood of this is low, however.

Completely agree. It may take one or it may take a lot. It all depends on where you hit. However, the question is how should it look if you start collecting statistics? Right now it seems that the average amount of 50-cal needed are in the order of 100 instead of 20.

So IMHO a (min, average max) distribution of what it should take to down the Fw-190 should look something like (1, 20, 50) rather than (20, 100,200) with the "1" being the head shot you mentioned.

I think it may actually be off by the same magnitude: I have found it generally takes the FW190 about 15-30 hits of 20mm to destroy my Mustang. Oddly, he almost never actually hits me with 13mm. I suspect this is because the super-gunner AI puts the aim point for the 20mm right on me, and the 13mm, with different ballistics, zip right by harmlessly.

Interesting and plausible observation and yes, I'm not sure I've seen 13 mm hits in the statistics, only 20 mm but OTOH I usually chicken out via the escape button after a few hits because I have been more interested in dealing out punishment than receiving it so far but maybe I should let the AI hose me down to get some 20 mm statistics as well. OTOH the fw-190 AI seems rather reluctant to fire even though they are in a favourable position......

If the P-51 can absorb on average 15-30 20 mm shells then I think we need to redesignate the P-51 from Flugzeug to Panzerkampfwagen :smilewink:

I am fairly certain from the testing ive done so far with my modified APIT that the explosive factor counts as a certain number of hits or something. Regular AP though only counts for one. For example, when I was killing 190s with them it was saying 90 hits but i was killing them in like half second bursts. 15-30 hits of 20mm is way too high, meaning that the 20mm are also suffering from this issue.

So based on the statistics, it looks like the current damage model is off by about the same margin both for HMG and cannon, i.e by a factor of 5 which at least would make it "balanced".

However it for sure looks like this could do with a workover if thing are to be more realistic and that is if I understood it correct the intentions with the DCS WW2 modules? In addition why does it always have to end catastrophically with wings falling off and the rest burning intensely with exterior showing the hallmarks of having been hit by a missile fragmentation warhead?

Whatever happened to engine seizure due to AP in the engine block, engine seizure due to radiator shot, pure structural failure like tail aileron, rudder or stabilizer falling off, no visible damage only non-manouvering due to dead pilot? Huge explosion due to lucky shot etc. etc.

What is the developers view on this? Anyone?

Completely agree. It may take one or it may take a lot. It all depends on where you hit. However, the question is how should it look if you start collecting statistics? Right now it seems that the average amount of 50-cal needed are in the order of 100 instead of 20.

 

So IMHO a (min, average max) distribution of what it should take to down the Fw-190 should look something like (1, 20, 50) rather than (20, 100,200) with the "1" being the head shot you mentioned.

 

 

 

Interesting and plausible observation and yes, I'm not sure I've seen 13 mm hits in the statistics, only 20 mm but OTOH I usually chicken out via the escape button after a few hits because I have been more interested in dealing out punishment than receiving it so far but maybe I should let the AI hose me down to get some 20 mm statistics as well. OTOH the fw-190 AI seems rather reluctant to fire even though they are in a favourable position......

 

If the P-51 can absorb on average 15-30 20 mm shells then I think we need to redesignate the P-51 from Flugzeug to Panzerkampfwagen :smilewink:

 

 

 

So based on the statistics, it looks like the current damage model is off by about the same margin both for HMG and cannon, i.e by a factor of 5 which at least would make it "balanced".

 

However it for sure looks like this could do with a workover if thing are to be more realistic and that is if I understood it correct the intentions with the DCS WW2 modules? In addition why does it always have to end catastrophically with wings falling off and the rest burning intensely with exterior showing the hallmarks of having been hit by a missile fragmentation warhead?

 

Whatever happened to engine seizure due to AP in the engine block, engine seizure due to radiator shot, pure structural failure like tail aileron, rudder or stabilizer falling off, no visible damage only non-manouvering due to dead pilot? Huge explosion due to lucky shot etc. etc.

 

What is the developers view on this? Anyone?

I Agree entirely, and would like to add a few things based on what you said,

While the difference mathematically between the currents 20mm and 50 cal is proportional, overall effectiveness is not. There is a certain threshold over which a weapons system is not longer tactically useful when compared to other systems. If the 20mm were kill in 5 hits on average, and the 50cal in 20-30, then both guns would be able to kill targets in short enough bursts to be effective. 20mm, has the advantage, but 50cal is still within the range of effectiveness.

As it is now, 20mm is still powerful enough to be useful, but the 50 is not relatively speaking. any primarily 50cal armed plane will have to sit in the saddle behind a bandit for a unreasonable amount of time, meaning that the likelihood that another bandit shows up forces him onto the defense more likely. It also means that the defender will get more chances to evade, or scissors, or simply escape by shrugging off damage in a climb or flat out run. By extension it makes Gun's D a much more effective defense, as snaprolling all over the place or jinking really hard makes it nearly impossible to get enough rounds on target to get a kill. Even worse, BnZ is now rendered neigh on impossible without multiple passes, all of which must land significant numbers of strikes, which means the defender can more easily sucker the attacker into a Co-E situation before the Attacker can finish him off.

In other words, it disproportionately alters the entire tactical situation between two aircraft in a very unrealistic manner.

However it for sure looks like this could do with a workover if thing are to be more realistic and that is if I understood it correct the intentions with the DCS WW2 modules? In addition why does it always have to end catastrophically with wings falling off and the rest burning intensely with exterior showing the hallmarks of having been hit by a missile fragmentation warhead?

 

Whatever happened to engine seizure due to AP in the engine block, engine seizure due to radiator shot, pure structural failure like tail aileron, rudder or stabilizer falling off, no visible damage only non-manouvering due to dead pilot? Huge explosion due to lucky shot etc. etc.

 

What is the developers view on this? Anyone?

I've seen the enemy go down with a burning engine (but wings and all intact) a number of times... and on a rare occasion, I *have* killed the AI pilot (at least, I think so- I broke off my attack due to closure rate, he seemed to be flying perfectly controlled, if un-evasive, and while I came around for re-attack, did a nice, graceful arc into terrain), but the vast majority of kills *do* seem to be the "hey, his wing snapped clean off!" type.

This may, however, be simply to overzealousness on our part as marksmen: for all we know, the enemy plane is done for already, but since destroying the engine or killing the pilot may not have quickly identifiable symptoms, we just keep shooting until something more obviously fatal (like, say, a wing departing company?) happens to it.

I Agree entirely, and would like to add a few things based on what you said,

 

While the difference mathematically between the currents 20mm and 50 cal is proportional, overall effectiveness is not. There is a certain threshold over which a weapons system is not longer tactically useful when compared to other systems. If the 20mm were kill in 5 hits on average, and the 50cal in 20-30, then both guns would be able to kill targets in short enough bursts to be effective. 20mm, has the advantage, but 50cal is still within the range of effectiveness.

As it is now, 20mm is still powerful enough to be useful, but the 50 is not relatively speaking. any primarily 50cal armed plane will have to sit in the saddle behind a bandit for a unreasonable amount of time, meaning that the likelihood that another bandit shows up forces him onto the defense more likely. It also means that the defender will get more chances to evade, or scissors, or simply escape by shrugging off damage in a climb or flat out run. By extension it makes Gun's D a much more effective defense, as snaprolling all over the place or jinking really hard makes it nearly impossible to get enough rounds on target to get a kill. Even worse, BnZ is now rendered neigh on impossible without multiple passes, all of which must land significant numbers of strikes, which means the defender can more easily sucker the attacker into a Co-E situation before the Attacker can finish him off.

In other words, it disproportionately alters the entire tactical situation between two aircraft in a very unrealistic manner.

This.

Also, the reason I *really* rather wish they had not included the EZ42 sight on the FW190: if they're going to fudge fuel quality to "balance" the P-51 and FW190, why didn't they leave the (historically rare) gyro sights off the FW, so that the higher damage weapons (FW) and more accurate weapons (Mustang w/ K14) were balanced? Consider that the allies estimated that the gyro sight made weapons roughly twice as effective, and the 20mm is 2-3 times as effective as the .50.... seems like a fair trade to me.

I hope there will at some point at least be a server option to force players to use only the fixed reticle (for that matter, this should be an option for Mustang as well).

I've seen the enemy go down with a burning engine (but wings and all intact) a number of times... and on a rare occasion, I *have* killed the AI pilot (at least, I think so- I broke off my attack due to closure rate, he seemed to be flying perfectly controlled, if un-evasive, and while I came around for re-attack, did a nice, graceful arc into terrain), but the vast majority of kills *do* seem to be the "hey, his wing snapped clean off!" type.

 

This may, however, be simply to overzealousness on our part as marksmen: for all we know, the enemy plane is done for already, but since destroying the engine or killing the pilot may not have quickly identifiable symptoms, we just keep shooting until something more obviously fatal (like, say, a wing departing company?) happens to it.

During the tests I did, I noted that on a few occasions the engine was the cause of the kill. However, while I dont have the exact numbers, the engine failure either resulted in an obvious kill (ie:fire) or happened just before something else important bought the farm. For example, in one case the engine began to overspeed, but just after this the entire tail section came off. In my next set of tests (yes they are still coming.) I will be counting any sort of engine failure like an over speed as a assumed kill in order to account for this. Even with engine non-immediately-fatal engine issues being counted as kills, it is evident from my tests and from anecdotes provided by others in this thread that we are several orders of magnitude over the desired damage threshold for human flown planes. As has already been stated by myself and several others here, that is about 4 times what we should be seeing statistically.

With regards to human marksmanship and damage being evident, that is also part of the problem. If you watch gun cams, even when there is no fire or wings being shot off, it is evident that damage is being done as evinced by metal flying off, smoke, and the very noticeable impact flashes caused by the tracers. Some of these effects exist in game. Others do not, and as others have said, the visual model isnt very representative sometimes.

My biggest beef visually is the lack of tracer flashes. I have seen these not only in gun camera, but in real life from the real thing. They are extremely visible. Right now in DCS, all we have to show hits are smoke poofs. These poofs are not very consistent, and should be in conjunction with the flashes. For example, in the tracks i posted earlier for the ai, you will notice I hit the 190 in one of my burst 90 something times in a SINGLE burst of fire, and yet the smoke poofs make it look like I was missing most of the time. For the longest time I thought I was missing my target, I learned otherwise by chance, and it was only then I realized to just trusting my gut and holding the trigger down was better than short burst and looking for evidence of hits.

P.S. I agree with the stuff you said, Im just quoting you so my comments make sense in context :)

I dont know that I agree with all that... I have seen A-10s go down with 1 shot from a MANPAD... it shouldnt be consistant.... 1 bullet can bring an aircraft down, doesnt mean it always should.

 

That said, I appreciate these threads, but complaints without tracks as reference dont help me at all either. If you believe strongly in something you need to reference tracks from the sim for us to review and see exactly what you do.

^^this!

to say it should only take x bullets to down a plane is stupid....its really only about aiming...if you aim correctly, you can down both AI fw190/p51 as well as human p51 really really quickly(1 short burst)...and sometimes if your aiming is poor of course you can throw hundreds of bullets at it and it will continue to fly...

No one is saying they should always only take X hits to kill. We're saying that the average should be lower than it is. With good shooting, they should go down in around 20 hits. As it is now, I have never seen it go down with less than 60-ish. Considering the amount of FW190s I've shot up (including some that were just about perfect 20 degree deflection shots against practically unmaneuvering targets at exactly 0.3 km (IE, harmonization range) that hit right around the junction of fuselage and wing, I would expect that at some point, I'd have seen both the minimums and maximums it can take before going down. I've seen some maximums (almost 200), but the minimum seems to be around 60.

^^this!

 

to say it should only take x bullets to down a plane is stupid....its really only about aiming...if you aim correctly, you can down both AI fw190/p51 as well as human p51 really really quickly(1 short burst)...and sometimes if your aiming is poor of course you can throw hundreds of bullets at it and it will continue to fly...

Just out of curiosity... where do you aim when you want to take out a plane with a quick burst? Do you use the gyro sight for the Mustang?

And also: would you have some tips for aiming with the Dora? Seems like I'm having quite a bit of trouble hitting anything on the Mustang even if I'm close and my crosshair is right on him. With the Mustang, I don't have that much trouble hitting anything, but Doras are quite the bullet sponges sometimes.

I had a weird experience today. In dogs of war server I pulled in behind a dora, and fired a 3 second burst, and to my shock the Dora pretty much exploded. The guy said he was kicked straight to the map.

Now if I could only learn how to do it again lol

Just out of curiosity... where do you aim when you want to take out a plane with a quick burst? Do you use the gyro sight for the Mustang?

 

And also: would you have some tips for aiming with the Dora? Seems like I'm having quite a bit of trouble hitting anything on the Mustang even if I'm close and my crosshair is right on him. With the Mustang, I don't have that much trouble hitting anything, but Doras are quite the bullet sponges sometimes.

i used the gyro gunsight for quite a while in the pony and liked it...after i felt confident with it, i decided to go with the fixed gunsight, and never looked back.less to worry about, and once you get the feel and the eye for how much lead you have to pull in any given situation, its at least as deadly as the gyro gunsight.

i aim at the cockpit/pilot.

with the dora its yet a different story for me.i myself face big trouble yet to hit anything which is aware of my approach....will take quite some training to get as proficient with it as with the p51.

but for example, the dora now really quickly loses its wings if you hit only a few bullets on it(1sec burst enough).so no, the 50.cal is not underpowered, if you hit relevant parts of the planes.

I think that damage model is not realistic....not only by disconected visual damage, but also by incomplete overal damage calculate.

Now at dcs world i can damage my airplane (p51 or fw190) in a dive at high speed (+VNE) but if on high speed dive and pull the stick back i never lost my wing.

I think that to a WW2 planes a detailed damage model its too important as a detailed flight model. I did fly il2 too many years ....and its part of fun feel the damage and the troubles by lost some surface controls , damaged cables or extra drag by holes at wings and try to goes home and land safely.

I hope that a betther visual damage model and correct overal damage calculate be planned for a DCW 2.0.0

Pulling out of a dive can EASILY dewing a mustang if you arent careful. They snap clean off for me around 8G

Pulling out of a dive can EASILY dewing a mustang if you arent careful. They snap clean off for me around 8G

Oh yes, I am chief in the ways of the dewinged pony:P It's still confusing when you rip them off and strangely, they're on fire when it happens. More believable damage visuals really are needed.

How did you count the exact number of hits?

maybe he has tracks of this and can slow down the footage to count the hits.