PDA

View Full Version : 303s really this bad??



nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 06:20 AM
Being English, I have a sort of affinity with the british planes in FB.. Climbing into a hurrican' makes me feel all warm inside.

Anyways, as the spitfire isnt out yet I like to take up the mk.IIB - with the 12 303s..

I find it hard to believe how useless this arament is.

Just 2 well aimed .50 cals can rip off wings and blow up zeros... but 12 303s don't do jack$hit!

I know they were rifle caliber etc etc. but they had to have been better than this! 8 did for He111s, stukas and 109s in BoB.. 12 won't even faze a Ju87 in FB.

In 1.21 last night i set the convergence real low.. 120 metres.. and came up behind a ju87 b2.. fired all of my ammo (being all accurate) and the bleedin' thing still flew off! I swear i heard the rear gunner laughing at me..

When the aforementioned BoB armament was first proposed.. It was to be sufficient to "destroy a bomber with a 2 second burst" .. I don't see this in FB.

8 303s converged at 250 yards could place a cone of fire into an area about 0.60m (2ft) diameter - at the rate of 8 thousand rounds a minute, a one seond burst hitting the target with a punishing 4.5kg 910lbs) of metal.

Methinks, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 06:20 AM
Being English, I have a sort of affinity with the british planes in FB.. Climbing into a hurrican' makes me feel all warm inside.

Anyways, as the spitfire isnt out yet I like to take up the mk.IIB - with the 12 303s..

I find it hard to believe how useless this arament is.

Just 2 well aimed .50 cals can rip off wings and blow up zeros... but 12 303s don't do jack$hit!

I know they were rifle caliber etc etc. but they had to have been better than this! 8 did for He111s, stukas and 109s in BoB.. 12 won't even faze a Ju87 in FB.

In 1.21 last night i set the convergence real low.. 120 metres.. and came up behind a ju87 b2.. fired all of my ammo (being all accurate) and the bleedin' thing still flew off! I swear i heard the rear gunner laughing at me..

When the aforementioned BoB armament was first proposed.. It was to be sufficient to "destroy a bomber with a 2 second burst" .. I don't see this in FB.

8 303s converged at 250 yards could place a cone of fire into an area about 0.60m (2ft) diameter - at the rate of 8 thousand rounds a minute, a one seond burst hitting the target with a punishing 4.5kg 910lbs) of metal.

Methinks, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

Extreme_One
01-09-2004, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:
Being English, I have a sort of affinity with the british planes in FB.. Climbing into a hurrican' makes me feel all warm inside.

Anyways, as the spitfire isnt out yet I like to take up the mk.IIB - with the 12 303s..

I find it hard to believe how useless this arament is.

Just 2 well aimed .50 cals can rip off wings and blow up zeros... but 12 303s do jack$hit!

I know they were rifle caliber etc etc. but they had to have been better than this! 8 did for He111s, stukas and 109s in BoB.. 12 won't even faze a Ju87 in FB.

In 1.21 last night i set the convergence real low.. 120 metres.. and came up behind a ju87 b2.. fired all of my ammo (being all accurate) and the bleedin' thing still flew off! I swear i heard the rear gunner laughing at me..

When the aforementioned BoB armament was first proposed.. It was to be sufficient to "destroy a bomber with a 2 second burst" .. I don't see this in FB.

8 303s converged at 250 yards could place a cone of fire into an area about 0.60m (2ft) diameter - at the rate of 8 thousand rounds a minute, a one seond burst hitting the target with a punishing 4.5kg 910lbs) of metal.

Methinks, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 303 is a pea-shooter! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The 303's were adequate in the early stages of the BoB, but with more metal skinned planes they were soon found to be almost redundant.
Many early planes were fabric covered.
Towards the end of BoB, experiments with Hispano cannons were already underway.
Hurris and Spits were given cannons soon after BoB .

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''

Download the USAAF campaign folder here (http://www.netwings.org/files/fb_missions/USAAF_campaign_folder_v1.21/USAAF_1_2.zip).

http://extremeone.4t.com/images/ex1_soon.jpg

p1ngu666
01-09-2004, 06:29 AM
it was armour that the germans installed, but i bet a ventilated plane was a handful to fly

Zayets
01-09-2004, 06:35 AM
when in doubt , pick Mk. IIC . Those hispanos rip off the wing of a B17 in a second . Too bad the ammo is so fast depleted on this model. I will very much like such a weapon on my Jug http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As for the 303's I had some success last night against a pair of MIG3's. They were liten up pretty fast.But against a bomber is suicide although some managed to take out Pe-8 with this crate.

Zayets out

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 06:38 AM
Yeah, i know about the installation of cannons.. hispanos were in deveopment since 1934.. early stages quite unreliable.. And i know the Colt Browning 303s used in BoB were pretty pants.. but they had to have shot something down! It aint possible to down a thing with them in FB.

Douglas Bader kept 8 303s on his mk.V spit. he didnt like cannons.. But hell, i can't imagine how he got 22 kills if all the 303s do is polish the enemy.

Zayets
01-09-2004, 06:42 AM
careful aiming I should say. Is like that he took out 22 bandits if you ask me.
I have noticed once shooting with the 303 that I can rip the wing off from say , i16.But this is a rare event , a t least in my case.I'm not a fighterjock

Zayets out

Slush69
01-09-2004, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Methinks, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, don't even get me started ...

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

Zayets
01-09-2004, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slush69:
Oh, don't even get me started ...

cheers/slush
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not start? I'm pretty bored. Besides , is too quiet here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zayets out

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 07:06 AM
Excuse my idiom.



Hamlet, Act 1, scene IV

SCENE IV. The platform.

Enter HAMLET, HORATIO, and MARCELLUS
HAMLET
The air bites shrewdly; it is very cold.

HORATIO
It is a nipping and an eager air.

HAMLET
What hour now?

HORATIO
I think it lacks of twelve.

HAMLET
No, it is struck.

HORATIO
Indeed? I heard it not: then it draws near the season
Wherein the spirit held his wont to walk.

A flourish of trumpets, and ordnance shot off, within

What does this mean, my lord?

HAMLET
The king doth wake to-night and takes his rouse,
Keeps wassail, and the swaggering up-spring reels;
And, as he drains his draughts of Rhenish down,
The kettle-drum and trumpet thus bray out
The triumph of his pledge.

HORATIO
Is it a custom?

HAMLET
Ay, marry, is't:
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour'd in the breach than the observance.
This heavy-headed revel east and west
Makes us traduced and tax'd of other nations:
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase
Soil our addition; and indeed it takes
From our achievements, though perform'd at height,
The pith and marrow of our attribute.
So, oft it chances in particular men,
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As, in their birth--wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin--
By the o'ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit that too much o'er-leavens
The form of plausive manners, that these men,
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being nature's livery, or fortune's star,--
Their virtues else--be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo--
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault: the dram of eale
Doth all the noble substance of a doubt
To his own scandal.

HORATIO
Look, my lord, it comes!

Enter Ghost

HAMLET
Angels and ministers of grace defend us!
Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd,
Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell,
Be thy intents wicked or charitable,
Thou comest in such a questionable shape
That I will speak to thee: I'll call thee Hamlet,
King, father, royal Dane: O, answer me!
Let me not burst in ignorance; but tell
Why thy canonized bones, hearsed in death,
Have burst their cerements; why the sepulchre,
Wherein we saw thee quietly inurn'd,
Hath oped his ponderous and marble jaws,
To cast thee up again. What may this mean,
That thou, dead corse, again in complete steel
Revisit'st thus the glimpses of the moon,
Making night hideous; and we fools of nature
So horridly to shake our disposition
With thoughts beyond the reaches of our souls?
Say, why is this? wherefore? what should we do?

Ghost beckons HAMLET

HORATIO
It beckons you to go away with it,
As if it some impartment did desire
To you alone.

MARCELLUS
Look, with what courteous action
It waves you to a more removed ground:
But do not go with it.

HORATIO
No, by no means.

HAMLET
It will not speak; then I will follow it.

HORATIO
Do not, my lord.

HAMLET
Why, what should be the fear?
I do not set my life in a pin's fee;
And for my soul, what can it do to that,
Being a thing immortal as itself?
It waves me forth again: I'll follow it.

HORATIO
What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord,
Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff
That beetles o'er his base into the sea,
And there assume some other horrible form,
Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason
And draw you into madness? think of it:
The very place puts toys of desperation,
Without more motive, into every brain
That looks so many fathoms to the sea
And hears it roar beneath.

HAMLET
It waves me still.
Go on; I'll follow thee.

MARCELLUS
You shall not go, my lord.

HAMLET
Hold off your hands.

HORATIO
Be ruled; you shall not go.

HAMLET
My fate cries out,
And makes each petty artery in this body
As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve.
Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen.
By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!
I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.

Exeunt Ghost and HAMLET

HORATIO
He waxes desperate with imagination.

MARCELLUS
Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.

HORATIO
Have after. To what issue will this come?

MARCELLUS
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. &lt;-----------------------------------------

HORATIO
Heaven will direct it.

MARCELLUS
Nay, let's follow him.

Exeunt

SpinSpinSugar
01-09-2004, 07:10 AM
Thread in ORR on this too. I guess with the way ammo is modelled in FB loads of .303s don't have quite the impact they did in real life. It's the gun that won the Battle of Britain, after all. Hopefully the Battle of Britain game will reflect this! Downing bombers with them in FB is... tricky.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=867105221

Friendly_flyer
01-09-2004, 07:20 AM
I find the .303s quite good, actually. I too have a thing for quaint British aircrafts, and occasionally make myself some quick-missions using Hurricane I and some early Emils and Bf 110s for opponents.

The eight .303s do wonders on the Emils, as long at I don't fire at them directly from behind. 8 MGs send out a _lot_ of bullets, and although they are to weak to make any proper structural damage, the engine and cables seem to have a hard time digesting them the .303s. The 110s too go down in flames most satisfyingly. Getting He 111s fall down requires a bit of luck, but is far from impossible. The trick is to hit vulnerable parts from an oblique angle.

But the 20mm Hispanos do make life a lot simpler http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fly friendly!

Petter B√¬łckman
Norway

Aimosika
01-09-2004, 07:42 AM
Well downing 6 DB-3 bombers in five minutes with only 4 .303s in his Fokker D-XXI, Finnish ace Jorma Sarvanto did quite a job http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2004, 07:46 AM
`
Nixon the .303 never would have ripped off wings or blowen up planes like the .50cals can do in FB



you know the idea behind small caliber MGs on a A/C ?

to spray the Bandit & make him clear off home ... they wernt set in Hurri's & Spit's for bomber killing

IRL if you got sprayed by ANY caliber machine gun you were in serious trouble & were LIKELY to take damadge , not UNLIKLY

so they set small MGs for their spraying ability

they will get kills in FB , but not without determination ! ! ! ! ! ! !

i could say what i have managed to shoot down with the Hurri IIb (my fav Hurri) but really it was a kills of attrition

i smoked the motors of Bandits & they eventually crash landed due to no more power

BTW the JU-87 was a HUGH A/C .... itwas a literal bullet sponge for .303s unless you hit them where it hurts

this is hard to do repeatedly online , hit after hit , i dont care how great the general public thinks any particular player is ... online reduces the accuracy capable of being achieved

people can brag but really online can eliminate your accuracy from room to room depending on host

offline shooting "freindly" JU-87s is the way to truly find the weak spots

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 08:23 AM
I guess you could always shoot at friendly Ju87s online.. but they wouldn't be very friendly for long http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I know the 303s can#t compare with the heavier guns but they should do more damage than at present..

If you see guncamera footage of 303s in action you'll see how different real life guns performed.

SeaFireLIV
01-09-2004, 08:34 AM
I`ve routinely taken wings off Stukas without running outta ammo and I did take the wing off a bomber, not a HE111, the other one- can`t remember name.
I find you need to do a sustained burst at one point of the wing with ALL guns.

For other kills I usually aim for the engine cockpit area, the lack of jump makes aimimng quite easy.

SeaFireLIV...
Slowly mutating into a Hurricane Ordnance Whiner...

http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/ijolly.jpg

The I16 has character- No matter what!

Arm_slinger
01-09-2004, 08:40 AM
Love the sig Sea fire http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Didnt the .303's use API ammo as well?

A.K.Davis
01-09-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Love the sig Sea fire http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Didnt the .303's use API ammo as well?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and they set stuff on fire quite nicely in game. Easiest way to kill a Stuka is to hit the wingroot fuel tanks. It won't be an insta-kill(tm), but the Stuka will not return home.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

horseback
01-09-2004, 10:41 AM
I seem to recall that a chart was recently posted on this forum comparing various aircraft guns, and the weight of fire from .303s in a second was less than half that of a 12.7mm or .50 cal MG (with a similar rate of fire). If the individual bullet bounces off or is deflected or spent by the time it hits something important, it's going to be next to useless, until an awful lot of individual bullets are thrown at the target. Cannon and heavy MG rounds are much heavier, and deliver a heavier kinetic force on contact.

With the exception of Bader (who was notably bloody minded, even for an Englishman), leading RAF fighter pilots were desperate for the Hispano cannon to be made reliable.

Even Malan, a notable marksman, noted that you had to get within 100 yds to take out an Emil with a two or three second burst. Judging that distance to a much larger bomber, and getting two seconds to shoot before the gunners got you would naturally be problematical. Bader probably loved getting in that close, and would no doubt spit on the b@stards when he ran out of ammo (and get kills in the process-the man was unreal), but it was beyond the skills of mere mortals.

I think the .303s are pretty well modelled in FB; some of the more skilled pilots seem to enjoy success with them, but the majority of us will not. One thought, though. If the outer guns in the six and eight gunned .50 cal American fighters are modelled with the outer guns' convergences set with the cannon settings, does the same principle apply with the outer six .303s in the Hurri IIb?

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 10:51 AM
^ You mention rate of fire.. One of the reasons why the RAF chose 303s over 50 cals was the superior ROF.. therefore, the comparison you made is somewhat useless.. The 50s are heavier but faster firing.. remember.. the 303s installed in the RAF fighters wre not the old vickers 303s but brand new colt manufactured things..

horseback
01-09-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:
^ You mention rate of fire.. One of the reasons why the RAF chose 303s over 50 cals was the superior ROF.. therefore, the comparison you made is somewhat useless.. The 50s are heavier but faster firing.. remember.. the 303s installed in the RAF fighters wre not the old vickers 303s but brand new colt manufactured things..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weight of fire is still the critical factor...postwar studies showed that the average equivalent of 4.4 lbs of metal had to hit an aircraft to knock it down throughout the war. A higher rate of fire improves your chances of hitting your target (he can't fly between the rounds as easily), but the kinetic damage is what takes him out.

You will note that I said similar, not the same, and the Browning design was essentially the same for both guns. Four .50s actually deliver more weight in the same time than six .303s with considerably greater kinetic force.

By the way, thanks for the "Hamlet" scene; I've now met my daily culture quotient for the weekend before Friday lunch (actually, as a Yank, I may have overdosed).

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

LilHorse
01-09-2004, 11:49 AM
All good info. Horseback. But I still think that the .303s in FB are lacking a bit in punch. In Patrick Bishop's book Fighter Boys: Saving Britain-1940, he gives accounts of Hurricane pilots talking about the change in tactics to head-on attacks against the German bombers (111s, D0-17s). The pilots said that a good burst into the cockpit of the bombers would cause "the nose to crumple up quite satisfiyingly". And plenty of bombers were shot down at other angles during the BoB as well. Maybe they weren't ripped apart a la .50cal or 20mm but they were certainly flamed and flight controls destroyed. 8 to 12 .303s could do a lot of damage. I'm not sure we get that in the games present form. Maybe Oleg's BoB will be a bit better in this regard.

horseback
01-09-2004, 12:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
All good info. Horseback. But I still think that the .303s in FB are lacking a bit in punch. In Patrick Bishop's book Fighter Boys: Saving Britain-1940, he gives accounts of Hurricane pilots talking about the change in tactics to head-on attacks against the German bombers (111s, D0-17s). The pilots said that a good burst into the cockpit of the bombers would cause "the nose to crumple up quite satisfiyingly". And plenty of bombers were shot down at other angles during the BoB as well. Maybe they weren't ripped apart a la .50cal or 20mm but they were certainly flamed and flight controls destroyed. 8 to 12 .303s could do a lot of damage. I'm not sure we get that in the games present form. Maybe Oleg's BoB will be a bit better in this regard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German bombers (and the Heinkel in particular) had a lot of glass in their noses. Perspex doesn't offer a lot of resistance even to small caliber rounds (and for heaven's sake, don't go suggesting that to Oleg, or he'll 'fix' it), and dead or wounded pilots have deleterious effect on aircraft performance. A headon pass is vastly preferable to hanging back on their six, with two or three MG 17s potting away at you.

Again, marksmanship is the key to success with this gun, and we also have to factor in AI gunners who are apparently superior to those encountered in RL. Still, I agree that small caliber guns in the game are treated like birdshot. But all small caliber guns (except for the &*@#% AIs') are treated that way, so we'll have to deal with what is, not what should be.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Aimosika
01-09-2004, 01:38 PM
Are you absolutely ignoring this:
--------------------------------------
Immediately another enemy escadrille was spotted. It was recorded to comprise 6 twin-engined bombers. (This was the 6. DBAP intercepted by Sovelius.) They also at first flew over the town and turned back at Siilinj√¬§rvi about 15 km to N. Now unfortunately wind had rosen and scattered the mist. The enemy approached at an altitude of 1000 m, dropped 54 HE bombs and fired with machine guns. 35 houses were damaged, but only one person was killed – by heart attack. ( Three ore lethal air raids followed later in January and February: 42 people were killed, hundreds wounded, 200 houses damaged or destroyed.) It was a terror raid, pure and simple.

The Fokker pilots at Utti kept their flying gear on and waited for the returning bombers. Lt. Sarvanto ordered his ground crew to keep his "FR-97", "white 2" warm (see profile in page bottom).

Message was received at 11:50 - '7 bombers flying south following the northern railway!'. The pilots of 4./LLv 24 climbed in their fighters, warmed up the engines and turned their radios on. Lieutenant Jorma Sarvanto listened to the radio traffic, soon he and his wingman (constituting one patrol) were ordered to take off. After take-off the wingman found that he had an engine problem (snow had clogged the engine air intake during take off) and he had to return. Lt. Sarvanto continued alone at the optimum rate of climb, direction N to meet the enemy.

The second pair (Lt. Sovelius and Sgt. Ikonen) took off after noticing that Lieutenant Sarvanto had to go alone, but Sarvanto had a good head start. Now the clouds had disappeared from the sky at Utti, and Sarvanto discovered the handsome formation of DB bomber bellies lit by dim sun shining through the haze. He counted seven silver coloured DB-3 bombers. To the left - a wedge of three, to the right - four abreast, all no farther than one plane length from each other. There was no fighter escort.

Sarvanto continued climbing, turning south by a right curve. For a moment he was within the range and sector of the bomber nose gunners, but remained unnoticed due to sun glare. When he was at the same altitude of 3000 m with the bombers, he was about 500m behind them. Sarvanto pursued the enemy at full power. He decided to attack the leftmost wing bomber, although the third from left was closest to him, to avoid getting into cross-fire from the rear gunners. At a distance of 300 m his plane vibrated unpleasantly - he had flown in a bomber gunner MG salvo.

The fighter pilot kept on approaching the bombers. At a distance of 20 (twenty) meters he aimed at the fuselage of his victim, the left wing bomber, and pressed the trigger briefly. The tracers hit the target. Next, he shifted his aim at the rear gunner of the tail bomber, and killed him. Lt. Sarvanto then carefully aimed at the right engine of the first bomber and fired a brief burst. The bomber's engine caught fire. He repeated the same maneuvre at the tail bomber with similar result. Two burning DB-3 bombers were leaving the formation.

Jorma Sarvanto cheered aloud and attacked the right wing of the formation while the bomber rear gunners blazed at his Fokker. He fired at each engine of the nearest bomber, making them smoke and forcing the bomber to leave the formation. Then he engaged the other bombers at a very close range. Each victim caught fire after two to three brief bursts of MG fire. Sarvanto glanced back - the latest smoking bomber was now in flames and diving to the ground.

Now Sarvanto decided to destroy every one of the DB-3 formation. Some burning bombers made a slow half-roll before diving down, another pulled up before diving down. All the time they were flying south, the sun shone red through the haze low in southern horizon unless dimmed by smoke from a burning enemy plane.

Bomber no.6 was much more resistant to his bullets. The Fokker wing guns were out of ammo by now, but finally the DB-3 caught fire, and Finnish pilot could engage the last bomber. He already had eliminated the rear gunner, so he could fly close to the target. He aimed at one engine and pressed the trigger. Not a single shot. Sarvanto pulled the loading lever and retried shooting, but again in vain. He had spent his ammunition. There was nothing to do but leave the bomber alone and return to the base.

Columns of black smoke hung in the air and burning bomber wrecks could be seen on the ground. Sarvanto checked his instruments, there was no damage to vital parts, but his radio was dead and the Fokker's wings resembled Swiss cheese When preparing for landing he found that the hydraulic pump for the landing flaps did not work, but he landed successfully despite that...

Luutnantti Sarvanto felt very satisified as he parked his Fokker, but he did not quite get out of the cockpit before his cheering ground crew grabbed him and threw him in the air. The flight lasted 25 minutes and the actual battle 5 minutes, during which he shot down 6 DB-3 bombers belonging to the 6th DBAP of the Soviet Air Force. Two Soviet airmen bailed out and were taken prisoners, but the sources do not mention their names. The mechanics counted 23 hits from the bomber rear gunners in FR-97, some of them near the cockpit, necessitating several weeks' repairs at the State Aircraft Factory.
----------------------------------
Or being absolutely Boring?

All your question being aswered, and how close to fire in real life... Ignored. Well, maybe I post next year another http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
01-09-2004, 03:38 PM
Gentlemen.

The .303 British cartridge dates to 1888. It is really .311" in diameter. With the 174grain bullet that ws stndardized in WW1 and carried on till the end of the round in the middle 50's, it had a muzzle velocity of around 2400 fps. It is , in short, an infantry weapon. A very large number of hits will be necessary to bring down an aircraft with it. Hence the feeling of throwing stones at your enemy...

Rifle calibre weapons for aircraft were in effect obsolete by the late 1930's.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

BlitzPig_EL

pourshot
01-09-2004, 03:57 PM
I was in a server the other nite that allowed only early war plane sets so I gave the 8 gun hurrie a try.After getting a handfull of kills I looked at my avg hits per kill and it was around 210 hits for every fighter downed,But only one burst into flames the rest I had to let them go so I would not be a target myself,It was much later that I got the kills maybe as they landed.Oh and all kills were against the 109E.So I would say the .303 is just a little to weak as it is now.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

BfHeFwMe
01-09-2004, 05:15 PM
Don't confuse real ballistics with what you see in game. Sure trajectory and visuals are pretty accurate, but beyond that how does it keep score? From my observations it's a simple on and off for hitting effects.

Park an aircraft within X meters of a destroyable object and fire, that object is destroyed. Now park it 1 meter beyond X and you can fire guns all day and nothings going to happen.

You want to be effective with mg's, than you'd better figure out what distance damage effects are activated within. You'll get the visuals either way, so you can't rely on that to claim some damage should have occured.

Better be close, within spitting distance or your just wasting lead and your time. Damage is either on or off, no way it can calculate lost velocity and variable damage rates real time for multiple guns, may be a few years from now with 8 Ghz CPU's.

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:
Being English, I have a sort of affinity with the british planes in FB.. Climbing into a hurrican' makes me feel all warm inside.

Anyways, as the spitfire isnt out yet I like to take up the mk.IIB - with the 12 303s..

I find it hard to believe how useless this arament is.

Just 2 well aimed .50 cals can rip off wings and blow up zeros... but 12 303s don't do jack$hit!

I know they were rifle caliber etc etc. but they had to have been better than this! 8 did for He111s, stukas and 109s in BoB.. 12 won't even faze a Ju87 in FB.

In 1.21 last night i set the convergence real low.. 120 metres.. and came up behind a ju87 b2.. fired all of my ammo (being all accurate) and the bleedin' thing still flew off! I swear i heard the rear gunner laughing at me..

When the aforementioned BoB armament was first proposed.. It was to be sufficient to "destroy a bomber with a 2 second burst" .. I don't see this in FB.

8 303s converged at 250 yards could place a cone of fire into an area about 0.60m (2ft) diameter - at the rate of 8 thousand rounds a minute, a one seond burst hitting the target with a punishing 4.5kg 910lbs) of metal.

Methinks, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is what 12 .303 guns do against the so called "indestructable" Yaks as some LW players like to call them.

---------------------------------------

Here is a Yak9 short slide, I flew in a Hurricane MKIIb with the puny .303 machine guns.
I made short pod shot attacks at pretty close range since at longer range the .303 guns are not so effective.

The first 2 pics are after the first pass.
As you can see it has 4 fuel leaks and it's engine is damaged pretty bad but still running but it's in no shape to perform any combat so technically it's a kill already.

The last 3 pics are after my second pass, again a short pod shot attack and this time the plane was completely useless.
The pilot was still alive because he was still looking around and trying to get control back over the plane but he was unable to do so.
It looked like some control surfaces where not working anymore and the left wing lost all lift dragging it further down towards the ground into a nice wide spiral dive until it crashed leaving a hole in the ground.

http://www.cappadocian.demon.nl/IL2.html

NegativeGee
01-09-2004, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElAurens:
Gentlemen.

The .303 British cartridge dates to 1888. It is really .311" in diameter. With the 174grain bullet that ws stndardized in WW1 and carried on till the end of the round in the middle 50's, it had a muzzle velocity of around 2400 fps. It is , in short, an infantry weapon. A _very large_ number of hits will be necessary to bring down an aircraft with it. Hence the feeling of throwing stones at your enemy...

Rifle calibre weapons for aircraft were in effect obsolete by the late 1930's.

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/forum/images/avatars/Curtiss_logo.gif

__BlitzPig_EL__<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

While rifle calibre weapons were okay in a first half of the 1930's, developments were afoot at that time that heralded their obceslence as the weapon of choice for an interceptor.

Aircraft performance was increasing dramatically, with the accompanying (general) increase in structural strength, and armour was being installed in increasing quantity. In general, a rifle calibre round was only effective against the vunerable parts of the plane: crew, fuel tankage, engines and controls, so newer aircraft became more and more resistant to the small calibres.

Its only with heavy machine guns and cannon that planes of the era became vunerable to major structural damage. These weapons (esp. cannons) made all of a plane (there are some expections like the IL-2) susceptable to damage that could bring it down, as opposed to the critical areas that the .303's needed to hit to be most effective.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Wetwilly87
01-09-2004, 05:56 PM
Well the reason why the He111 and the Ju-87B are so hard to take down with the .303's is because they are 1941 models of these planes. The Germans learned their leason from the Battle of Britain and they put more armor on the planes, so thats why its so hard to take down these planes. I was like you once, I thought the .303's were the most undermodeled guns in the game. But their really quite good, just because they cant rip wings off a plane, doesnt mean they cant take the plane down, if the plane your shooting at is smoking, chances are hes going to catch fire, or run our of fuel and crash. Now they say the .303's could rip off wings of Stukas in the Battle of Britain, well I have to see it to believe it. Now the real pea-shooters in the game are the MG17's, thats an undermodeled gun.

http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/images/re2005bookreviewbg_1.jpg "The beautiful fighter of the war"

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 06:01 PM
oops in my original post i wrote "910 lbs" that should be "10 lbs"

I don't deny the relatively low performance with the 303s but I think they need to be better..

Let me ask you this.. if you were a fighter pilot, and were given the choice between 2x.50 cals or 12 (!) .303s in your plane.. which would you choose?? (don't gimme **** about weight : performance ratios .. we're talking firepower here)

^realistically, honestly.


In FB the former would serve you better (waaaay better).

And that's jus' silly.

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nixon-fiend.:
oops in my original post i wrote "910 lbs" that should be "10 lbs"

I don't deny the relatively low performance with the 303s but I think they need to be better..

Let me ask you this.. if you were a fighter pilot, and were given the choice between 2x.50 cals or 12 (!) .303s in your plane.. which would you choose?? (don't gimme **** about weight : performance ratios .. we're talking firepower here)

^realistically, honestly.


In FB the former would serve you better (waaaay better).

And that's jus' silly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Either way is fine for me, I don't have a problem with the .303 guns, they even kill "indestructable" aircraft with little effort. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nixon-fiend.
01-09-2004, 06:08 PM
Yeah, the germans added armour i'm sure.. a centimetre or two of metal.. Not frickin' forcefields. But that's how it seems in the game..

"Achtung, Fritz! ze hurrican are attckin"

"Ja ja activate ze 303 repeller-tron"

*buzz buzz, bang bang, bounce bounce*

blabla0001
01-09-2004, 06:12 PM
Early war German planes are shot down very easy with the .303 machine guns.

Especially the Emils.

And this is what 2 one second bursts with 12 .303 machine guns do to a Yak9:

http://www.cappadocian.demon.nl///IL2screen5.jpg

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Fri January 09 2004 at 05:24 PM.]

p1ngu666
01-09-2004, 06:29 PM
they need a bit of a boost tbh
p11 is worse, wonder how on earth those polish pilots shot anything down with those guns.

Kamui_X99
01-09-2004, 06:35 PM
Well, i might not be qualified to answer here, but i'd like to comment on 0.303'' Browning perfomance.

According to my evaluations, the 0.303'' Browning fired an 11,70g bullet with an muzzle velocity of 745m/sec at a rate of 1140 SPM. Ballistic Energy should be 8,72N

You'll find in WW2 references, that an german MG34 with 7,92mm Mauser Spitzgeschoss could penetrate 6mm@90‚? steel plate on ranges of 300m. The ballistic energy was 9,66N The german 7,92mm MG17 had an energy of 9,92N

It seems reasonable that the 0.303'' Browning then does about 5mm@90‚? on 300m. From what i read the only plane armoring was made around the cockpit to protect the pilot, not to protect the whole plane as an IL-2 or HS-129

NegativeGee
01-09-2004, 06:48 PM
If you take a Hurricane I against early war and late 1930's planes, like the TB-3, SB-2, Blenheim, Li-2, Ju-52, these are not hard to down using the .303's. Sure, you won't blow wings off, but fuel tanks and engines are easy enough to set on fire, and the pilots/crew are fairly easily put out of action.

Its not the best comparison to use the 1941 He-111's/Ju-87's as, has already been pointed out, these were improved versions after the BoB experience.

Maybe if FB had a 1940 model He-111/Ju 87 as used in the BoB a better comparison could be made to the accounts of the RAF pilots who flew against them.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

pourshot
01-09-2004, 08:22 PM
I still think that my 210 bullets per kill avg is to many.No 109E should last with that many hits and we know how easy it is to kill normaly

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

Davea011
01-09-2004, 08:51 PM
Having never flown any of the Hurricanes before, I had to give it a whirl after reading this thread. I didn't know the first thing about any of them so I opted for the IIB, as that was the earliest one. I fired up the QMB and took on an Emil.

Test data may not be valid here. I tapped him on the nose at the merge and started his engine smoking. (I love that glass jaw...unless I'm the one flying it, of course.) I proceeded to maneuver onto his six and light him up. Bear in mind, I'm no ace, and not much of a fighter pilot at that. (I've spent probably 90% of my time on this game flying ground attack.) I'm used to planes with big cannons and limited ammo, and I found myself shooting the same way -- short taps on the fire button and bursts of no longer than half a second or so unless I simply couldn't miss. I tapped him two or three times and he started flying screwy. I gave him some room and he augered in.

Next, I tried a Yak-1. He got on MY six; I exploited the AI's inability to hit turning targets and dragged him around until he ran out of ammo, then started up on him. It took considerably more fire to bring him down. He went into a steep, diving turn; I'd thought I'd nailed the pilot, but he was making constant corrections right up until impact. His plane looked pretty good...no visible holes in anything except the engine cowling.

Third up was a Stuka. I really tore this guy up. As I tend to do when attacking aircraft with tailgunners, I parked a long burst on the fuselage at long range. I think this killed the gunner but I'm not sure, but he certainly didn't bother me after that. I gave him a few light bursts, one long burst (about two seconds) at close range and he started smoking badly from the starboard wing root. He caught fire about thirty seconds later, flew some crazy aerobatics, and pancaked.

The most interesting, and last, test combat was against an He-111. It went down far easier than I thought it would. My first long-range burst took out the dorsal gunner. I sprayed the fuselage a bit to try to take out the other gunners (it didn't work), gave the starboard engine a few short bursts to try to take it out (it kept running), then tapped him one more time as I was breaking off to avoid defensive fire. His PORT wing, which I'd barely touched, started smoking badly. It caught fire about a minute later. Shortly after that, the starboard wing started smoking, then caught fire as well. He exploded about a minute after that. The crew bailed (the only AC out of the four that managed this); just for grins, I gave one of the parachuting crewmembers a burst as I flew by. The API rounds did, in fact, burst on him. Life's tough sometimes.

Two observations: scoring hits was VERY easy. Scoring a large amount of hits in one burst wasn't as easy, but was still far easier than doing the same with cannon fire. Replaying the track with the Emil, my initial burst, short as it was, looked as if it just couldn't miss, there were so many tracers incoming. Also, one decent burst of half a second or so, with five or six flashes on the AC, generated multiple fuel leaks. Another good hit would start a fire.

The impression I get here is that this armament isn't any good for the spectacular fiery explosions and wing snippings cannon shooters expect, but "softer" kills aren't just possible, they aren't particularly difficult. As I said, one burst is going to turn those wings into a seive. I don't know what the effect on flying is, but there'll be numerous fuel leaks. That may be enough right there. A bit more fire and you'll see a smoking wing root. At this point, he's already dead and flying on borrowed time -- further shooting is unnecessary. I wouldn't enjoy this in a campaign setting as such a wounded AC seems to be the victim of choice for the kill-poaching squadmates, but one-on-one or in a coop setting, this is good enough.

BTW, I saved all the tracks in case anyone would like to look at them. Unfortunately, I have no way to host them, though.

Next up, when I get the time: Sturmoviks and Giants. Now THIS ought to be interesting...

HangerQueen
01-09-2004, 10:19 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:

With the exception of Bader (who was notably bloody minded, even for an Englishman), leading RAF fighter pilots were desperate for the Hispano cannon to be made reliable.

If he was more bloody minded than the average Englishman, he must have been a right pain in the fundament to work with. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It's wot won us the war! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Edit: Hi Davea, I've tried taking out a Me323 with the Il2 I. It's damn difficult. If you attack from above or tail-chase, you get three 20mm - armed uber-gunners shooting at you. Try attacking from below or using rockets. Better still, try the Il23M.


"Well, paint me yellow and use me for target practice!"

Davea011
01-09-2004, 11:39 PM
HangarQueen --

I've played around with Giants on QMB. I've read that they were easy prey to fighter attacks. My experience in FB is that fighters are easy prey to them. I've only tried a few aircraft, but the only one that worked for me thus far was the P-39, of all things. I found that accurate long range sniping with the 37mm is possible on the Giants because they're so...well...giant. That, and the midmounted engine tends to limit the abuse that it takes. I haven't tried BnZ or rockets yet. That's next.

I was actually referring to taking on Il-2's and Giants with the Hurricane. I think I can manage an early war Sturmovik; the Giant, probably not, but it doesn't cost me anything for trying and if I pull it off, what a track that would make.

LeadSpitter_
01-10-2004, 12:35 AM
.50s cant rip off wings with 2 hits, but I know what you mean with the .303s, and have seen lancaster guncam of 4 of them burst a bf110 in flames in 2 second burst, I also seen blenhiem and some nightfighter the british used that looks like a hurricane with a 4 .303 turrent which also downs 109s in short bursts so I to me they are definatly to weak in FB and need to be strenghtened 8 and 12 should cause some serious damage in a 2 second burst.

And its not a convergence issue

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

DaBallz
01-10-2004, 04:02 AM
muzzel velocity of the .303 British was
20% slower than an American .50 cal and
the projectile weight was 1/4 that of the
.50.
A .50 cal. hit on a Bf-109 wing spar could indeed
tear a wing off. But that is an unlikely scenario.
Truth is with 4X the projetile weight and 5X the muzzel energy of the .303 the .50 was far more destructive.

With 12 guns you get the shotgun effect. 12 guns and a higher rate of fire ammount to many damaging hits and planes that may never fly again.

The .30 US (.30-06) was more powerful than the .303, but little more effective. Both were inadequate for air to air use.

Da

Vipez-
01-10-2004, 06:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimosika:
Well downing 6 DB-3 bombers in five minutes with only 4 .303s in his Fokker D-XXI, Finnish ace Jorma Sarvanto did quite a job http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/sarvan/sarvan.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)


The difference is DB-3 along with SB-3s in real life was one of most flamable bombers in the world. Shooting on the wings and the engine (where the fuel tanks were ) usually set the whole bomber on fire. It's the DB-3 damage model we have in game (DB-3 is imo stronger than B-17 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) which is wrong.. Wooden russian bombers and fighters did catch fire really easily in real life, it just does not happen in the game..

from Oleg's object viewer:
" The main problem was the armament weak 7.69 machineguns were just not enough to bring down well-armored German planes. Heres a typical example. In January of 1942 three Hurricane IIBs of 191st IAP followed a reconnaissance Ju-88 for almost 10 minutes. All three planes depleted their ammunition and literally filled the Ju-88 with holes, but the German still flew on."

I do agree .303s are bit too weak concerning shooting some fighters, but then again so are german 20mm are too weak...303s are definately not bomber killers. You have to think about game balance too, making .303s stronger means MG151/20 should also become stronger (I think it still lacks some power).. IRL Hurricane pilots did not have easy time downing Ju-88s and other armored bombers.. Atleast .50s are now as strong as they should http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

blabla0001
01-10-2004, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
I do agree .303s are bit too weak concerning shooting some fighters, but then again so are german 20mm are too weak...303s are definately not bomber killers. You have to think about game balance too, making .303s stronger means MG151/20 should also become stronger (I think it still lacks some power).. IRL Hurricane pilots did not have easy time downing Ju-88s and other armored bombers.. Atleast .50s are now as strong as they should http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see nothing wrong with the .303 or the german 20mm here on my system.
Even your so called "indestructable" Yaks go down withing 2 seconds of .303 fire.

With the German 20mm I only need 1 second to shoot down a Yak, and that's any Yak.

Vipez-
01-10-2004, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:

I see nothing wrong with the .303 or the german 20mm here on my system.
Even your so called "indestructable" Yaks go down withing 2 seconds of .303 fire.

With the German 20mm I only need 1 second to shoot down a Yak, and that's any Yak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit, i haven't tested .303s in the latest patch yet.. but seems like some people expect the .303s to down every bomber with couple of hits..

Btw. you are damn good pilot if you allways shoot down Yaks in one second. Maybe AI rookies you mean? They tend to crash with one hit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

blabla0001
01-10-2004, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:

I see nothing wrong with the .303 or the german 20mm here on my system.
Even your so called "indestructable" Yaks go down withing 2 seconds of .303 fire.

With the German 20mm I only need 1 second to shoot down a Yak, and that's any Yak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit, i haven't tested .303s in the latest patch yet.. but seems like some people expect the .303s to down every bomber with couple of hits..

Btw. you are damn good pilot if you allways shoot down Yaks in one second. Maybe AI rookies you mean? They tend to crash with one hit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like you missed my other posts about the subject.
And I am sure that even a rookie AI doesn't manage to loose a Wing and get's a smoking engine at altitude because he is a rookie.

It's pretty simple really, I gain alt, (very easy in a G2 btw, that thing can climb like a space shuttle) swing around and look for a nice Yak to shoot down, spot one, dive down and shoot it down in the first pass with the 2 MG's and the 20mm.

I am starting to think that you guys like to complain more then root out the actual problem.

Tully__
01-10-2004, 06:59 AM
I haven't flown for two & a half weeks so my gunnery is a bit off, but in response to this thread I took up a Hurri IIB v. Stuka and took about 6 seconds of accumulated bursts to get his engine smoking badly. About 15 seconds later (as I lined him up again) he burst into flame and exploded mid-air.

While they seem to require some fairly decent gunnery, the .303's do OK I think.

=================================================

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)


Salut
Tully