I have been playing SF2:Vietnam the past week or so and I was wondering how accurate are the damage models in the game?

For example when I put a burst of 20mm cannon fire into Mig-17 and it goes down with pieces flying off of it. Afterwords I check the post mission reports and find that it was only hit by 6 of 200 shells. Would that few number of hits do that much damage. On two other occasions I have literally sawed off the tail of a Mig-17 with an M61A1 in a damage effect that looked more reminiscent of a continuous rod warhead than a cannon burst.

Now I have seen gun film of Israeli kills of Migs in which they explode but those were likely due to 30mm cannon fire which has a much heavier shell. Am I just used to playing WWII games with lighter guns like IL-2 where I have to absolutely pour fire into a burning aircraft to get it to break up or is there something odd about how damage is depicted in Strike Fighters?

It doesn't take much to tear up a delicate jet engine.

pfunk

Remember that even 20mm cannon shells are explosive, not solid slugs. In IL-2, if you hit a plane with the 20mm from a Bf-109 or a later Spitfire, it doesn't take many hits to destroy your target either. Now the .303 machine guns on the Hurricane, well you can just about unload them on a plane and it might not go down.

Your right about that. I am just remembering all the bombers that I have blasted in a P-51 or P-47 who, though their engines catch on fire and they lose altitude, I still have to follow it down and pour fire into it to cause a structural break up.

If you hit a Mig 17 with the .50 from a Sabre you will see they don´t fall so easily.
I have seen videos in youtube showing the effect of a 20 mm cannon (single shot) and I can hardly believe that a jet fighter can survive that.
The Vulcan cannon will down probably everything it hits (high velocity shell extreme rate of fire)
The weapons in this game are more advanced that WW2 weapons , with much more punch and hitting more fragile targets.

I really have to agree with everyone else on the damage modeling now. I just got SF2:Europe yesterday and I took a Mirage IIIC up against Mig-21s. When I got a Mig-21 in my sights and gave it a burst of 30mm I felt like I was looking at Israeli gun camera footage with the way the Mig disintegrated.

I love flying the Mirage. The cannon is powerful, but you gotta make every shot count since it holds so few shells. Makes for some intersting split-second decisions. Now put me in the F-15 with a Vulcan cannon and 1000 rnds, and I'll just spray 'n' pray every chance I get.

That IIIC is a little hotrod. Nice, as long as you can keep it in a straight line. The '71 model is even better with that hot engine in it.

Anyone know what engine is supposed to be in that one, anyway? Is it is the Atar 9C?

pfunk

I have not gotten an F-15 gun kill yet. Last time I flew it in a fighter sweep my flight and I killed everything with AIM-9L's and AIM-7F's so fast there were no targets left to use a gun on. The AIM-9L is quit a change from the 9B.

I was surprised that the F-22 only has less ammo for its cannon than an F-16 despite being bigger than the F-15. I guess the F-15 and its 940 round ammo drum is just a product of the post Vietnam era and its F-4 lesson.

Yeah, supposedly the AIM-9L was a real game-changer when it was first used in the Falklands War. I don't really know how accurate it's depiction in SF2 is, but some of the shots you can take(and make) with it are really mind-bending.

The later 'winders and Sparrows even turn the F-4 into a usable air-to-air weapon again.

The thirdwire manual says it has the Atar 9C yes

it has more thrust in its data.ini