State of the Air War in AE

[Commander Stormwolf]

all guns drop ROF firing through the prop..

some pilots prefer lower ROF (Thatch)

doesn't matter really.. historically the Ki-61 and Ki-100
both used the Ho-5 with 250 rounds on the nose

historical ki-84 used 4x20mm with 150 rounds

and in either format that is still a lot less fire time
than Hellcat (40 seconds)

and remember Ki-44 only had 200 rounds per gun
for its Ho-103..

more velocity means bullet gets to the target faster
and more ammo means more chances to hit

so if you want to hit targets easily you need
lots of ammo, with a high velocity gun

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


doesn't matter really..

Hehehehe. Sure.

[LoBaron]

The advantages you talk about are only relevant on deflection shooting. Of all kills in WWII, only a fraction
was achieved with high deflection.

The majority was from 6´o clock situations where the defending pilot did not even realize he was being
shot at until too late.

The average burst lenght for these kills was probably between 3-10 seconds, so even in worst case allowed for several kills
of average enemy planes, with the exception of heavy bombers or very tough fighters.

Aeronautical genius.

[Commander Stormwolf]

heavy bombers or very tough fighters

the entire USAAF

[Commander Stormwolf]

between 3-10 seconds

so an A6M2 had enough ammo for 1 burst - I agree for once

[LoBaron]

*click*

[Commander Stormwolf]

http://www.bestoldgames.net/eng/old-gam ... acific.php

click the download button [;)]

"play IJN historical mission *slaughter of the lambs* " [:D]

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The advantages you talk about are only relevant on deflection shooting. Of all kills in WWII, only a fraction
was achieved with high deflection.

The majority was from 6´o clock situations where the defending pilot did not even realize he was being
shot at until too late.

The average burst lenght for these kills was probably between 3-10 seconds, so even in worst case allowed for several kills
of average enemy planes, with the exception of heavy bombers or very tough fighters.

Aeronautical genius.

Many here probably play(or "fly") WW2 flight sims as well. Funny thing is that playing Il-2 online in games with little to no helps on(such as exterior views and such), I'd say that 90% of the planes that I shoot down never knew what hit them. I've even recorded hundreds of flights and counted them, and on the average it could be even higher than that. That 90% is either completely surprised(most common), about to engage someone else(and looking away/not paying attention to surroundings) or already engaged and turning, chasing or in a zooming climb(after a bounce or while doing a high yo-yo).

Even 2 seconds is a long time in air combat with the relative speeds so the available shooting time isnt/wasnt often more than a second or 2. It was also rather rare to be engaged in multiple aerial battles in one sortie, so usually having ammo for just one encounter was enough.

If we're back to IRL again, there are plenty of USAAF fighter sortie reports printed and published in the Internet. One example is HERE Vast majority of the kills are "I saw an Fw 190 below, bounced him, shot a 2-3 second burst, saw parts disintegrate, disengaged, enemy seen falling beneath clouds trailing smoke". Longer than 10-15 sec pursuits are very rare and I've found maybe 2 or 3 proper "dogfights" so far. In the West Front 1 on 1 duels seemed to never happen. [;)] (We probably all know the East Front was different.)


EDIT:

*click*

[;)]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

*click*

Yep.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

... shot a 2-3 second burst, saw parts disintegrate, disengaged, enemy seen falling beneath clouds trailing smoke".

Consistent with my understanding as well ...

[LoBaron]

That a very cool link, Erkki. [:)]

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

That a very cool link, Erkki. [:)]

Take it with a grain of salt - that site isnt known for its objectivity. You will not find a single sentence or graph where something Allied(plane, pilot, gun, engine) performed worse than the axis Axis counterparts its compared to. [;)]

The reports are still real though.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Uh *click* ? [&:]

[Dan Nichols]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ? [&:]

Green button? [8|]

[zuluhour]

Guten Abend fraulien

[Commander Stormwolf]

Another example of High Rate of Fire.. and low ammo

Type 96 25mm AA Gun... [8|]

*the gunner waits until the enemy plane enters his full circle before opening fire for 3 seconds* [8|]

[aoffen]

It appears the consensus (if there is one) is that the air combat model works well enough when "normal" numbers of aircraft are engaged but breaks down when the later war mega engagements take place. It also seems to me, that there are other systems outside the air combat model which actually allow these mega engagements to take place. Things such as the ability of Japan to produce vast quantities of airframes and the availability of generic supply are two, but the most obvious factor to me is the max requirement for 250 AV support and unlimited stacking at level 9 airfields.

If you look at the Grey/Rader AAR they were able to generate those huge co-ordinated strikes and break the combat system by stacking literally thousands of aircraft at the same base. The a-historical concentration of forces possible at these mega bases is a significant contributing factor to the problem. A code change that removed or at least modified the 250 AV max requirement and the unlimited stacking would probably force a change to player behaviour and help bring engagement numbers back to an area of historical plausibility and back within the parameters of the air combat model. I know this got mentioned somewhere already, but the more I think about it, the more I see it as the low hanging fruit. Increased co-ordination penalties are another area of possibility but what do people think of the stacking issue?

Regards
Andrew

[btbw]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


Another example of High Rate of Fire.. and low ammo

Type 96 25mm AA Gun... [8|]

*the gunner waits until the enemy plane enters his full circle before opening fire for 3 seconds* [8|]

LOL
Man, you really must read something about war history. 25mm AA gun never had problem with ROF (practical), but with train/elevation speed, gunsight, jams on high angles, low muzzle power/stoppage ability and zero fire control ability.
I even dont know why USN removed perfect (by your ROF) 20mm oerlikon from ships?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Uh *click* ? [&:]

Where you been? [:)]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

That a very cool link, Erkki. [:)]

Take it with a grain of salt - that site isnt known for its objectivity. You will not find a single sentence or graph where something Allied(plane, pilot, gun, engine) performed worse than the axis Axis counterparts its compared to. [;)]

The reports are still real though.

I will, thanks. I was referring to the reports anyway, did not find any charts up to now. But there I always allow for bias. I am lurking
the IL-2 forums for more than 10 years now and there the battles of words over different climb rates are epic.
Won´t participate though. One discussion platform with one or the other irrational individuum is enough. [;)]

You are correct on the even shorter burst lenghts btw, I allowed for inexperienced pray and spray guys to flow into statistics, but
probably overdid.

Did you try Cliffs of Dover btw? As a long time vet of IL-2 as well, I bought it and shelved it for lack of content. FM and graphics are
superb, or at least have the potential to be superb after patch 153, and the model detail is the best I have ever seen.
Still it has nothing to do with a complete simulator yet. Also, I am still hoping for a decent AI as I am an offline player.

The follow up release, Battle for Moscow is supposed to bring the content that CoD severely lacked, but TBH I will wait until
I can assess if this is really true. It is currently nowhere near where IL-2 was in the end - though I was no fan of the 1946 addon with
the jet fighter sci-fi flight model.