F4U .50 cal machine gun damage and the Zero model

[Kreutzberg]

The F4U has been my first warbird. Lots of fun, but it seems to take a lot of hits to actually bring down an enemy aircraft. Even against relatively low skill AI, I can only ever get two before running out of ammo, firing only at quite close range to save ammo. Some of that is surely my own lack of aerial gunnery skill, of course, but it does seem like the damage thrown by the Corsair's .50 caliber guns is a bit weak (especially because I usually go down to a single burst of enemy fire).

The topic of .50 caliber damage has been discussed before. Here's a somewhat recent and fairly thorough discussion: 

My question is how the new Zero model will hold up. It should be a little easier to bring one of them down than the FW190s we have now. Hopefully, that can "feel" a bit better.

 

 

[razo+r]

Just as a sidenote, firing from very close range can be quite ineffective, as you potentially waste all bullets of 3 out of 6 guns or even waste everything as you'll be hitting rather sturdy sections of the plane instead of where it matters.

But yes, as YoYo said in your linked discussion, the Zero should go down quicker than an FW-190.

[Saxman]

People always complain about .50cal lethality, when it's really about not knowing how wing-mounted .50cal work.

Most important of all: Make sure you're shooting in convergence range. This is actually easy to do with the Corsair:

The Mark 8 sight reticle is calibrated so you can use the middle and outer rings to range a target if you know its wingspan. For a 30-foot wingspan (approximately the size of a single-engine fighter) the target will be at 400 yards when his wingtips are touching opposite sides of the 50mil (middle) ring. At 200 yards his wingtips will be touching the 100mil (outer) ring. Obviously if you're not dead six you're going to need to give it a bit of windage, but once you get used to it it's not too difficult.

I THINK during the Gunnery Training the Corsair's guns are centered at 300m (330+ yards).* The 190's wingspan is 34ft. So you'll be at convergence range when his wingtips reach half way between the middle and outer rings. To simplify things, shooting him anywhere between 200-400 yards is close enough for hand grenades. The A6M5 wingspan is about 36ft, so you can comfortably use the same estimate (any single-engine WW2 fighter will be "close enough" to 30ft span you can use the same range estimation).

CONVERGENCE MATTERS. The Browning.50cal is basically just throwing lumps of metal at the target. That's it. It's reliant almost entirely on kinetic impact to cause damage.** If you're firing outside your convergence range all you're going to do is scatter your fire across the target. Unless you have a golden BB that hits something important just right, you're just poking holes. To cause REAL damage you need to concentrate a whole bunch of BBs into a small point to amplify the energy of the impact. IE a single .50cal round won't break a wing spar. But putting a couple dozen into the same spot on it all at once is another matter. This applies both if you're too far away and too close. So if your sight picture looks like this:

You're TOO DAMN CLOSE, and none of your bullets are going to be hitting in the same spot (they're going to miss center of pass entirely and go up the wings. You can best see how it works here:

As you can see, there's a range at which you have your tightest concentration of fire. That's where the damage is done.

You can change your convergence range when setting your loadout.*

The second, is to be aware of your combat mix. The Corsair has two different mixes of ammunition for air-to-air: Combat Mix and Combat Mix Late. These mixes are grouped in five round patterns. I believe Combat Mix consists of 2 ball rounds, an armor-piercing round, an incendiary round, and a tracer. Each of these types of munitions have different properties. Late Mix is four Armor Piercing Incendiaries, followed by a tracer. Late Mix is going to cause considerably more damage.

Finally, remember that the Fw-190A is a considerably more ruggedly-built fighter than the Zero. It has good armor for the pilot and other critical systems, as well as self-sealing fuel tanks. This is, naturally, going to be much more resilient than the Zero which has none of this. However, a good one-second burst in convergence range, especially with the Late Mix, will really mess him up.

* - Currently you can set convergence at ranges between 300 - 500 meters. THIS IS INCORRECT, and I've already started a thread on the wishlist to get it changed. It is on average at considerably longer distances than the US centered their guns, which tended to be between 200-400 yards (yards, not meters!). However, we also have accounts of some Marine squadrons setting their guns as close as 100 yards! PLEASE, M3, can we get these ranges adjusted?

** It's a bit more complicated than that. You have ball, which is just an inert lump of metal. Armor-piercing are hardened inert lumps of metal designed to punch through armor. Tracers are nominally inert lumps of metal trailing an incendiary component that makes them visible and can, under the right circumstances, start a fire. Incendiaries have a small charge designed to light things on fire, though their explosive power isn't remotely comparable to a cannon shell. Finally, you have API, or armor-piercing incendiaries, which combine the properties of AP and Incendiary into one package. By the end of the War, the US was almost entirely using API for air-to-air combat loads.

Edited July 8 by Saxman

[Gunfreak]

The Corsair .50  cals, specifically with the latest war combat mix is extremely effective.

Here I kill a 109 with just a few hits.

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/-unwbKjD_s8?si=wGKJoZQkXE5chMho

They can even kill the Japanese tanks

 

[Saxman]

8 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Here I kill a 109 with just a few hits.

The real important consideration here is you were shooting in convergence.

9 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

They can even kill the Japanese tanks

To be fair, those Japanese tanks were basically made of tissue paper. Shermans were doing to them what Tigers were doing to Shermans.

[Gunfreak]

34 minutes ago, Saxman said:

The real important consideration here is you were shooting in convergence.

To be fair, those Japanese tanks were basically made of tissue paper. Shermans were doing to them what Tigers were doing to Shermans.

The problem isn't the convergence but DCS lacklustre damage modeling. Much of the systems that could be shot apart aren't there. First hand accounts are quite clear, just a few hits to a German wing from .50 cals would usually make the wing fall off. A second long burst would eat its way into the aircraft until the bullets hit the fuel tanks and blew the aircraft apart.

Stuff like that can't be done in DCS. 

In this case it's not so much the convergence being correct. But that the late war combat mix for the Corsair has more correct damage potential than the .50 cals in the P51 and P47. My bullets sliced through the aircraft and hit the fuel tanks. The ED .50 cals seem to be lacking in penetraton. 

 

And just because .50 cals should be able to disable Japanese tanks, doesn't mean that would be simulated in DCS. Many things aren't simulated in DCS. 

Shermans would be overkill. The humble 37mm on the M3/5 Stewart, Lee or Greyhound would be more then enough in most cases. HE mortar rounds did the trick too. 

And I wouldn't be surprised if some Gurkha used a Kukri once to slice open a Japanese light tank.

[Kreutzberg]

2 hours ago, Saxman said:

The real important consideration here is you were shooting in convergence.

Thanks for that detailed explanation! I agree that convergence is very important to the whole story (it appears that the convergence setting also affects elevation so that the guns are zeroed for that distance in both horizontal convergence and elevation). One useful feature will be the ability to change and check convergence on the ground, which Magnitude 3 has already confirmed is coming. 

[Saxman]

16 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

The problem isn't the convergence but DCS lacklustre damage modeling. Much of the systems that could be shot apart aren't there. First hand accounts are quite clear, just a few hits to a German wing from .50 cals would usually make the wing fall off. A second long burst would eat its way into the aircraft until the bullets hit the fuel tanks and blew the aircraft apart.

Stuff like that can't be done in DCS. 

In this case it's not so much the convergence being correct. But that the late war combat mix for the Corsair has more correct damage potential than the .50 cals in the P51 and P47. My bullets sliced through the aircraft and hit the fuel tanks. The ED .50 cals seem to be lacking in penetraton. 

I think it's absolutely a major factor.

There's a YouTube channel I watch regularly, and EVERY time he flies a Mustang or P-47 I see the same sequence of events:

1. Pulls up well inside convergence range, often even closer than 100 yards.
2. Makes a snapshot.
3. A couple rounds plink off the target's wing on either side of the fuselage.
4. Complains about .50cal being "underpowered."

His response when someone else suggested he's firing out of convergence was an indignant, "I used my rudder to walk the rounds across the target," which doesn't address the issue, and if anything only makes it worse by scattering his hits even further.

[PawlaczGMD]

 

The .50 cal is actually very good. Yes, you need a little bit of a time on target, and you don't want to be far from convergence. But you have a lot of ammo that is fast and heavy, and thus doesn't slow down much. If you get  a solid half second burst on target, you have to be very unlucky to not do major damage. The 50 is probably the easiest to get hits with on a defending target. It's a skill issue.  

[Kreutzberg]

Building on the topics described here, I noticed that I felt much closer than 400 yards when the 50 mil circle covers the wingtips. I set up something in the mission editor, and at 200 yards, the FW190 wingspan (34.5 feet) doesn't even quite cover the whole 50 mil circle. Doing the math, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards, so 50 mils at 200 yards should be right at 30 feet.  The reticle probably isn't quite perfectly sized yet, but the 50 mil inner circle is more like 200 yards and the 100 mil outer circle is more like 100 yards.

All that highlights the need for some shorter convergence settings. As it stands now, something like a 150-200 meter convergence would be ideal. 150 meters is right about 500 feet as well.

If the reticle gets a bit more accurate, I imagine 200 meters would be best, as that's very close to 200 yards.  

[PawlaczGMD]

15 minutes ago, Kreutzberg said:

Building on the topics described here, I noticed that I felt much closer than 400 yards when the 50 mil circle covers the wingtips. I set up something in the mission editor, and at 200 yards, the FW190 wingspan (34.5 feet) doesn't even quite cover the whole 50 mil circle. Doing the math, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards, so 50 mils at 200 yards should be right at 30 feet.  The reticle probably isn't quite perfectly sized yet, but the 50 mil inner circle is more like 200 yards and the 100 mil outer circle is more like 100 yards.

All that highlights the need for some shorter convergence settings. As it stands now, something like a 150-200 meter convergence would be ideal. 150 meters is right about 500 feet as well.

If the reticle gets a bit more accurate, I imagine 200 meters would be best, as that's very close to 200 yards.  

I am actually doubtful about many reticles' size in DCS. Spitfire one notably.

[Saxman]

2 hours ago, Kreutzberg said:

Building on the topics described here, I noticed that I felt much closer than 400 yards when the 50 mil circle covers the wingtips. I set up something in the mission editor, and at 200 yards, the FW190 wingspan (34.5 feet) doesn't even quite cover the whole 50 mil circle. Doing the math, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards, so 50 mils at 200 yards should be right at 30 feet.  The reticle probably isn't quite perfectly sized yet, but the 50 mil inner circle is more like 200 yards and the 100 mil outer circle is more like 100 yards.

All that highlights the need for some shorter convergence settings. As it stands now, something like a 150-200 meter convergence would be ideal. 150 meters is right about 500 feet as well.

If the reticle gets a bit more accurate, I imagine 200 meters would be best, as that's very close to 200 yards.  

Do I have my numbers mixed up? I could have sworn the 50mil ring was 400 yards, but it's been a long time since I've done anything with this.

And while I agree with bringing in the ranges (at least one account has Marine Corsairs with guns centered at 100 yards) the measurements should be done in yards, not meters, since that's what was actually used.

[Kreutzberg]

50 minutes ago, Saxman said:

And while I agree with bringing in the ranges (at least one account has Marine Corsairs with guns centered at 100 yards) the measurements should be done in yards, not meters, since that's what was actually used.

Definitely! I'm not sure DCS can do anything other than meters, but it would definitely be better to use the correct units.  

[Saxman]

2 hours ago, Kreutzberg said:

Definitely! I'm not sure DCS can do anything other than meters, but it would definitely be better to use the correct units.  

They can set the display name to whatever.

So they could set the actual convergence range to 182.88m, but for the display name show 200 yards.

[Katj]

The Anton can really take a beating in DCS. I'm not exactly sure how it compares to the real thing but by all accounts it was way more rugged than the Zero. The latter had a tendency to burst into flames rather easily, in part because of the non-self sealing wing fuel tanks. Meanwhile the A8 doesn't have fuel in the wings, and the fuselage tanks are self sealing.

Anyway, the way to quickly bring down the Anton with 50s in DCS is to shoot at the engine and/or cockpit, which requires some deflection shooting. Just peppering the tail or wings does very little for the most part.

 

[PawlaczGMD]

7 hours ago, Katj said:

The Anton can really take a beating in DCS. I'm not exactly sure how it compares to the real thing but by all accounts it was way more rugged than the Zero. The latter had a tendency to burst into flames rather easily, in part because of the non-self sealing wing fuel tanks. Meanwhile the A8 doesn't have fuel in the wings, and the fuselage tanks are self sealing.

Anyway, the way to quickly bring down the Anton with 50s in DCS is to shoot at the engine and/or cockpit, which requires some deflection shooting. Just peppering the tail or wings does very little for the most part.

 

This is true regardless of the weapon used. The Spitfire can also dump a lot of 20 mm into the Anton and not kill it.

[Gunfreak]

8 hours ago, Katj said:

The Anton can really take a beating in DCS. I'm not exactly sure how it compares to the real thing but by all accounts it was way more rugged than the Zero. The latter had a tendency to burst into flames rather easily, in part because of the non-self sealing wing fuel tanks. Meanwhile the A8 doesn't have fuel in the wings, and the fuselage tanks are self sealing.

Anyway, the way to quickly bring down the Anton with 50s in DCS is to shoot at the engine and/or cockpit, which requires some deflection shooting. Just peppering the tail or wings does very little for the most part.

 

Except once the bullets go though the tail it mostly empty space. Until the bullets hit the fuel tanks, the pilot, and then after the pilot the engine. No amount of self sealing fuel tanks or armor plating will stopp 100+ armor piercing and incendiary .50 cal. 

Those .50 regularly exploded 109s and fw190. This is impossible in DCS

 So is ammo detonation, can't be done in DCS. 

This of course goes doubly for the 20mm Hispano 

[Qcumber]

42 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Those .50 regularly exploded 109s and fw190. This is impossible in DCS

That's quite a bold statement. To clarify did you mean that .50 cals would regularly cause 109s and 190s to explode in real life? And they don't in DCS? 

[Gunfreak]

12 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

That's quite a bold statement. To clarify did you mean that .50 cals would regularly cause 109s and 190s to explode in real life? And they don't in DCS? 

Yes. Read any account about American in p47s and P51s from 43 to 44. Many descriptions of 109 and 190s blowing up. A second long bust of .50 would eat through the aircraft until it hit something that goes boom.  The .50 cals would also simply shot of wings  either through hitting ammo in the wings or simply causing so much structural damage on the wing roots that the wing fell off.  

1 second burst from 6  .50 cals is 1.6 million joules, that's 1.5 dynamite going off in energy. Without adding the energy from the incendiary effects. It's not a perfect analogy. But tells you some of the energy involved. 1 million joules of also a 1 ton car hitting a wall while going 100kmh. It's enormous amount of energy going into an aircraft that is mostly thin skin with a few plates to protect the pilot, ammo and fuel. And those plates would buckle and warp after a few hits. Saving the pilot or fuel tanks from a few stray bullets. They were never made to withstand dozens of hits.  

And again double that for the 20mm Hispano. 

Edited July 11 by Gunfreak

[Qcumber]

18 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes. Read any account about American in p47s and P51s from 43 to 44. Many descriptions of 109 and 190s blowing up. A second long bust of .50 would eat through the aircraft until it hit something that goes boom.  The .50 cals would also simply shot of wings  either through hitting ammo in the wings or simply causing so much structural damage on the wing roots that the wing fell off.  

1 second burst from 6  .50 cals is 1.6 million joules, that's 1.5 dynamite going off in energy. Without adding the energy from the incendiary effects. It's not a perfect analogy. But tells you some of the energy involved. 1 million joules of also a 1 ton car hitting a wall while going 100kmh. It's enormous amount of energy going into an aircraft that is mostly thin skin with a few plates to protect the pilot, ammo and fuel. And those plates would buckle and warp after a few hits. Saving the pilot or fuel tanks from a few stray bullets. They were never made to withstand dozens of hits.  

And again double that for the 20mm Hispano. 

That is a lot of energy. However it must be focussed. As long as there is a convergence of rounds on vital areas then this should be effective. But a focussed burst on a wing panel would just create a big hole with lots of wasted energy. Hit a control surface, a fuel tank, the engine (and the pilot obviously) then this is different. 

In DCS i have not seen any 190s "explode" but plenty go down in flames. I find that 6 x .50s from a P-51 is more effective than 2 x 20mm Hispanos and 4 x 0.303s from a Spitfire. However that might mean that I am better at flying a Mustang. 

[Saxman]

44 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

That is a lot of energy. However it must be focussed. As long as there is a convergence of rounds on vital areas then this should be effective. But a focussed burst on a wing panel would just create a big hole with lots of wasted energy. Hit a control surface, a fuel tank, the engine (and the pilot obviously) then this is different. 

This is the key. That energy doesn't do you much good if you're scattering it all over the aircraft, and not getting it properly concentrated.

[Katj]

20 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Except once the bullets go though the tail it mostly empty space. Until the bullets hit the fuel tanks, the pilot, and then after the pilot the engine. No amount of self sealing fuel tanks or armor plating will stopp 100+ armor piercing and incendiary .50 cal. 

Those .50 regularly exploded 109s and fw190. This is impossible in DCS

 So is ammo detonation, can't be done in DCS. 

This of course goes doubly for the 20mm Hispano 

Well, there is stuff behind the pilot that is likely to soak up some .50 caliber bullets. But regardless, I'm just saying that the Anton is sturdier than the Zero, not that it's immune to .50 cal.

In DCS you need deflection to bring it down quickly. But a good burst in the front half of the fuselage is likely to turn it into a fireball.

19 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

1 second burst from 6  .50 cals is 1.6 million joules, that's 1.5 dynamite going off in energy. Without adding the energy from the incendiary effects. It's not a perfect analogy. But tells you some of the energy involved. 1 million joules of also a 1 ton car hitting a wall while going 100kmh. It's enormous amount of energy going into an aircraft that is mostly thin skin with a few plates to protect the pilot, ammo and fuel. And those plates would buckle and warp after a few hits. Saving the pilot or fuel tanks from a few stray bullets. They were never made to withstand dozens of hits.  

And again double that for the 20mm Hispano. 

Put another way it's enough energy to heat up the Anton about 1 degree celsius. Where that energy goes is very important.

[PawlaczGMD]

On 7/11/2025 at 2:01 PM, Gunfreak said:

Except once the bullets go though the tail it mostly empty space. Until the bullets hit the fuel tanks, the pilot, and then after the pilot the engine. No amount of self sealing fuel tanks or armor plating will stopp 100+ armor piercing and incendiary .50 cal. 

Those .50 regularly exploded 109s and fw190. This is impossible in DCS

 So is ammo detonation, can't be done in DCS. 

This of course goes doubly for the 20mm Hispano 

That's hugely exaggerated. Resonable .50 armor penetration at usual distances is around 0.5 inches of steel, and not every round is AP. After going through aircraft skin and fuel tanks, tumbling, it is not going to penetrate the armor seat, let alone go into the engine when shooting from behind.  And regarding energy dumped into the target, it is not directly proportional to damage done, and penetrating shots do not dump all their energy into the target. 

 

I think we are missing some structural damage and ammo explosions in DCS, as well as better damage visuals, but .50 is already quite effective.

[Saxman]

18 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Resonable .50 armor penetration at usual distances is around 0.5 inches of steel, and not every round is AP.

*Laughs in Late War Mix.*

API-API-API-API-APIT

[Gunfreak]

9 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

That's hugely exaggerated. Resonable .50 armor penetration at usual distances is around 0.5 inches of steel, and not every round is AP. After going through aircraft skin and fuel tanks, tumbling, it is not going to penetrate the armor seat, let alone go into the engine when shooting from behind.  And regarding energy dumped into the target, it is not directly proportional to damage done, and penetrating shots do not dump all their energy into the target. 

 

I think we are missing some structural damage and ammo explosions in DCS, as well as better damage visuals, but .50 is already quite effective.

We aren't talking 1 ans 1 bullet, 80 bullets every second. First ten bullets go so far, the next go so far etc etc. If you fire a 2 second burst. Then yes by the 160th bullet it will have past any armor, the pilot and continued on.