ubi.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  1C:Maddox Games  Hop To Forums  IL2 Maddox General Discussion    50 cal superiority over German armaments?
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Aaron_GT
IL2 Moderator
Posted Hide Post
quote:
The B-20 fires a VERY light 20mm projectile at 95 grams [which is in part how they get the high RoF and light gun weight]. Just on a W/D^2 basis, its ballistics are actually inferior to the M2 projectile.


The trade off is that in a WW2 scenario if the ballistics are ok to 300 to 400 yards. Your chance of hitting (other than sheer luck) a moving target when you are yourself moving beyond those ranges with typical WW2 sights (or at least before the K14 and similar) beyond that are minimal so it's pointless to design a gun that has good ballistics beyond that range unless it is a side effect of some good property up to that range.

Basically if you want to produce an effective 20mm cannon with a lifetime limited to roughly the anticipated airframe lifetime in an intensive war with accuracy sufficient only to the typical eyes-only engagement distance then the B-20 makes sense. The Russian design ethic seems to have been largely to create things which would have a lifetime equal to the anticipated service lifetime and only a small margin on top, rather than overengineering things. Given the typical attrition of things in Soviet service this was often quite short. If it stopped working, then you'd replace it with a newly manufactured item, the idea being that the overall total use of materials would be less. It's a very utilitarian outlook.

When radar ranging started coming into play then decent ballstics beyond that range became worthwhile, but that only just started becoming an issue right at the end of WW2 (e.g. Village Inn, although that was more a blind-firing aid that a distance aid) and some of the projected US, UK, and German designs that were not implemented in WW2 and fed into post war developments.

Actually at the end of WW2 it was envisaged that missiles would soon take over in air-to-air combat, missiles would be used instead of interceptors, and that improved V2-style aircraft or 'disposable' bombers would take over from short range bombers. (The curvature of the earth prior to satellites led to a practical control limit of a similar range to the various radio bombing aids of WW2).

The B-47 is a product of this sort of thinking - a subsonic swept-wing plane designed for fuel efficient flight for long range to provide the long range capability that 'expendable bombers' could not provide. In the event the developments weren't quite as envisaged in 1947/48.
 
Posts: 6139 | Registered: Fri December 19 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Hottie1961
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
quote:
An observation I have made watching a large amount gun camera footage: If the target aircraft is unaware there is an aircraft about to fire on him and the assailant is within range the .50's and the cannons both work about equally as well. Irregardless of weapon type , a three second burst was usually the minimuim necessary to effect the desired result.


Based on combat reports from 4 cannon RAF fighters a three second burst was the length typically used to down a bomber not a fighter.

quote:
As soon as the melee starts and the fighters are pulling high " G " manuvers, dives and climbs. In an effort to present as little a target, for as short a time as possible.When a " snap shot " is about all the opportunity presented. I think Dr. Hallion is correct. There is more lead in the air converging on the target with the .50's. Plus the added advantage of having more rounds per gun with the M2.


If you compare a four gun plane (typical for an RAF 4 cannon plane, or the number of cannon on a Fw190A8) then the chance of hitting with 4 guns is almost the same as with eight. It may sound counterintuitive but it is true. The number of hits will be roughly proportional to the total ROF but you need more HMG its to do the same amount of damage.

If you have a single 30mm cannon (109K) then your chance of hitting IS very much lower. The is a law of diminishing returns and once you get to about four guns the returns on chances to hit are minimal, you just increase the number of hits. I suspect this was well understood in WW2 as 4 cannon seems to have been the favoured number in general.

In fact the USAAF originally wanted cannon armament but failed to produce a fully debugged 20mm weapon until the end of WW2, and in the meantime the HMG was the best choice especially logistically. The USAAF pre war was actually tending towards a 23mm weapon which would have been very effective like the Vya.


Hits by .50`s from a p47 were nasty, but I would hate to be hit by a typical Hartmann or Gunther Rahl burst, of which the result was you being out of the war.

.50's started showing its drawbacks in Korea, where Mig 15's armaments of 2 x 23mm + 1 x 37mm really scared the West.
 
Posts: 3 | Registered: Thu July 03 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Friendly_flyer
Picture of Friendly_flyer
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I agree. I think it would be very interesting.


I just did a very quick and informal test. The setup was very simple. Using the QMB, I put up a single Ju 88 as target and Mustang Mk.III and Spitfire Mk.IXe as fighters, three runs each. In all instances I climbed a bit as the planes closed, swung around and dove on the target. Each fighter was allowed a single attack run.

The results are obviously flawed in that the two planes are not the same. However, I’m not one of those who have had problems with wobbly Mustangs, so if anything the difference in gun platform favours the Mustang, but I don't think the disparity is big enough to influence the results.

The Mustand downed 1 out of the three, the Spitfire downed 1 and mauled another very badly (though it was stil flying). After just three rund it’s too early to name a winner, but I feel the 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50ies has the upper hand. To me (being a lousy shot) the canons give good results. I am positively surprised by the .50ies though, and they are a joy to shoot with.


Fly friendly!



Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF

Petter Bøckman
Norway
 
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Fri October 24 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Blutarski2004
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
quote:
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I agree. I think it would be very interesting.


I just did a very quick and informal test. The setup was very simple. Using the QMB, I put up a single Ju 88 as target and Mustang Mk.III and Spitfire Mk.IXe as fighters, three runs each. In all instances I climbed a bit as the planes closed, swung around and dove on the target. Each fighter was allowed a single attack run.

The results are obviously flawed in that the two planes are not the same. However, I’m not one of those who have had problems with wobbly Mustangs, so if anything the difference in gun platform favours the Mustang, but I don't think the disparity is big enough to influence the results.

The Mustang downed 1 out of the three, the Spitfire downed 1 and mauled another very badly (though it was stil flying). After just three rund it’s too early to name a winner, but I feel the 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50ies has the upper hand. To me (being a lousy shot) the canons give good results. I am positively surprised by the .50ies though, and they are a joy to shoot with.



..... I did a terrible lot of research on the M2 50cal HMG in air-to-air applications during the great "50cal Debate" a few years ago - about 30+ pages of primary source data ended up in Oleg's hands. I'm of the opinion that he's modelled its ballistics well and whatever the problems with the damage modelling of this or that virtual airframe it'll shoot down most SE fighters with about 15-30 hits - which is, again IMO, spot on. About the only thing missing is an improved incendiary effect to represent the use of API ammunition in 1944/1945.

The M2 is NOT a 20mm in lethality, but its a straight-shooting gun and a rack of them should be quite sufficient to deal with fighters and TE bombers, especially if you hit a target within your convergence zone.


BLUTARSKI
 
Posts: 2225 | Registered: Tue January 06 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Kurfurst__
Picture of Kurfurst__
Posted Hide Post
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.



Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! - Click on the picture to enter the site!
'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.'
 
Posts: 3453 | Registered: Tue March 16 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
JSG72
Picture of JSG72
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.


Unless, not all rounds in the belt were incendiaries?
AP. round bursts tank and leaking fuel is ignited by the following incendiary round? Wink2



The only real plane I have ever flown in.
 
Posts: 1297 | Registered: Wed March 24 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Blutarski2004
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.



..... Kurfurst, even if the fuel tank were completely impervious, there is still a network of fuel feed lines, injector lines, and oil lines, that remain vulnerable.

Broken fuel line

Fuel hitting hot engine block or manifold vaporizes

Incendiary round ignites vapor

Ergo, fire.

Just as the engine of a bomber bursts into flame when hit.


Byron


BLUTARSKI
 
Posts: 2225 | Registered: Tue January 06 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Gibbage1
Posted Hide Post
Incendiary's are rather.... "weak" in IL2.....




Or non-existent.
 
Posts: 3722 | Registered: Sat December 22 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
chunkydora
Posted Hide Post
I'm so proud of myself!

I started a thread that has run for 5 pages!


------------------------------------------
"Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..."
 
Posts: 138 | Registered: Sat May 31 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
JtD
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Or non-existent.




Can you come up with something new for once?
 
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Mon January 28 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Kurfurst__
Picture of Kurfurst__
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.



..... Kurfurst, even if the fuel tank were completely impervious, there is still a network of fuel feed lines, injector lines, and oil lines, that remain vulnerable.

Broken fuel line

Fuel hitting hot engine block or manifold vaporizes

Incendiary round ignites vapor

Ergo, fire.

Just as the engine of a bomber bursts into flame when hit.


Byron



... like I said, it effects every single guns from 7.7mm to 37mm all the same. It effects others guns, not just the .50 cal Browning. So why the Browning-specicific whining about it? In any case, incendinaries were not giving 100% results in real life either, as noted, only a fraction of the hits *in the right place* actually started fires. And just how many German bombers came back in 1940 riddled by 1000 hits, de Wilde and all that? Quite a few, and those are literal flying fuel tanks compared to fighters.



Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! - Click on the picture to enter the site!
'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.'
 
Posts: 3453 | Registered: Tue March 16 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Blutarski2004
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
quote:
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.



..... Kurfurst, even if the fuel tank were completely impervious, there is still a network of fuel feed lines, injector lines, and oil lines, that remain vulnerable.

Broken fuel line

Fuel hitting hot engine block or manifold vaporizes

Incendiary round ignites vapor

Ergo, fire.

Just as the engine of a bomber bursts into flame when hit.


Byron



... like I said, it effects every single guns from 7.7mm to 37mm all the same. It effects others guns, not just the .50 cal Browning. So why the Browning-specicific whining about it? In any case, incendinaries were not giving 100% results in real life either, as noted, only a fraction of the hits *in the right place* actually started fires. And just how many German bombers came back in 1940 riddled by 1000 hits, de Wilde and all that? Quite a few, and those are literal flying fuel tanks compared to fighters.



..... Why am I being "Browning-specific"? Check the title of the thread.

And who's "whining"? I've spent 90 pct of my bandwidth here praising Oleg overall for a job well-done on modelling the 50cal.


BLUTARSKI
 
Posts: 2225 | Registered: Tue January 06 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Kurfurst__
Picture of Kurfurst__
Posted Hide Post
I was under the impression that your comments are specific to the lack of .50 API issue. Maybe my perception was wrong.

I am sure BOBSOW will improve matters a lot. Or at least we can discuss how 111s should literally melt unde de Wilde ammo. Big Grin Wink



Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! - Click on the picture to enter the site!
'Taktik ohne Technik ist hilflos. Technik ohne Taktik ist ziellos.'
 
Posts: 3453 | Registered: Tue March 16 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Blutarski2004
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I was under the impression that your comments are specific to the lack of .50 API issue. Maybe my perception was wrong.

I am sure BOBSOW will improve matters a lot. Or at least we can discuss how 111s should literally melt unde de Wilde ammo. Big Grin Wink



..... K, if incendiary ammunition is ignored by IL2 for all kinetic energy weapons, then that explains why 50cal API appears to be absent from the M2 ammunition mix. I have not investigated the issue from that overal perspective.

Does anyone have any information re the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of British .303 incendiary ammunition in BoB? It would be an interesting subject to investigate.


BLUTARSKI
 
Posts: 2225 | Registered: Tue January 06 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
VW-IceFire
Picture of VW-IceFire
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I was under the impression that your comments are specific to the lack of .50 API issue. Maybe my perception was wrong.

I am sure BOBSOW will improve matters a lot. Or at least we can discuss how 111s should literally melt unde de Wilde ammo. Big Grin Wink



..... K, if incendiary ammunition is ignored by IL2 for all kinetic energy weapons, then that explains why 50cal API appears to be absent from the M2 ammunition mix. I have not investigated the issue from that overal perspective.

Does anyone have any information re the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of British .303 incendiary ammunition in BoB? It would be an interesting subject to investigate.

I don't think incendiary ammunition is ignored...its just that the .50cal has a single API round in its belt and that is on the tracer. So unless the tracer round hits...your hitting with AP and the mysterious HE (no idea why there is a .50cal HE round in the belting but there is).

Destructively the .50cal seems to be quite fine to me...it just doesn't start as many fires as the .303.



Find my missions at Flying Legends and Mission4Today.com.
 
Posts: 12627 | Registered: Mon February 03 2003Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Monguse
Picture of Monguse
Posted Hide Post
We do not have the correct belting in IL2. What we have is
APIT - AP - HE - AP

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2830

I just hope the API-API-API-API-APIT belting makes it before 4.09 is actually delivered.



12th AF, 57th BW MTO Skins
 
Posts: 682 | Registered: Sun August 15 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
JtD
Posted Hide Post
The HE round is pretty effective in starting fires.
 
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Mon January 28 2002Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
TinyTim
Picture of TinyTim
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.


I have to disagree. 8 light machineguns on SpitI or HurriI light german bombers even He111 up like roman candle. Now try to consistently set he111 on fire with .50cals (or any other HMG for that matter). Also extensive testing that I have done, comparing heavy versus light machinegunes shows, that light machineguns are way, way better at lighting fuel tanks up.

Fire (after crew killed etc) is the most likely reason for a plane to go down when hit by light machineguns (like it was a case in RL).

However, with HMG, majority of planes destroyed will go down due to structural failure (unlike RL, where fire was, again, most common result).

Bottom line: Yes, lack of incendiary power is proliferated thru all heavy machineguns, but not to other kinds of weapons.


No one in sane mind ever turns when he has any other option.
~ DKoor
 
Posts: 555 | Registered: Thu December 06 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

ubi.com    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  1C:Maddox Games  Hop To Forums  IL2 Maddox General Discussion    50 cal superiority over German armaments?

Terms of Use