PDA

View Full Version : accuracy of defensive MGs on German planes?



XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:03 PM
Back when I played SWOTL in the early 90s I did some research on secondary armament. According to that, the manually operated MGs on German bombers were fairly ineffective. By contrast, powered turrents with dual MGs on US/UK planes were relatively better. Wondered what others thought and how they think this is reflected in the game? Any historical stats?

Matt

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:03 PM
Back when I played SWOTL in the early 90s I did some research on secondary armament. According to that, the manually operated MGs on German bombers were fairly ineffective. By contrast, powered turrents with dual MGs on US/UK planes were relatively better. Wondered what others thought and how they think this is reflected in the game? Any historical stats?

Matt

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:01 PM
mmanger wrote:
- Back when I played SWOTL in the early 90s I did some
- research on secondary armament. According to that,
- the manually operated MGs on German bombers were
- fairly ineffective. By contrast, powered turrents
- with dual MGs on US/UK planes were relatively
- better. Wondered what others thought and how they
- think this is reflected in the game? Any historical
- stats?
-
- Matt

Powered turrets were more accurate: tighter shot groupings, easier to aim in a slip stream, better quality sighting, better visibility, better recoil compensation.

Stats are tricky to come by, but there are some.

Two examples, from US 8th Army ground tests on various gun positions on B-17's and B-24's. Dispersion based on 12 rounds fired at a range of 600 yards. Dispersion in actual (feet) and arc (Mils- 3600 mils in a 360 degree circle).

Boeing B-17:

Ball Turret: 15 ft/8.3 Mils
Sperry upper turret: 21 ft/11.7 Mils
Bendix chin turret: 23 ft/12.6 Mils
Waist K-6 mounts (closed windows): 26 ft/14.3 Mils
Side nose guns: 34 ft/18.7 Mils
Tail turret: 45 ft/25.0 Mils
Tail turret (early Stinger type): 61 ft/33.4 Mils

Consolidated B-24:

Ball turret: 15 ft/8.3 Mils
Martin upper turret: 20 ft/11.2 Mils
Emerson nose turret: 23 ft/12.9 Mils
Waist K-6 mounts (closed windows): 23 ft/12.9 Mils
Motor Products tail turret: 35 ft/19.3 Mils
Motor Products nose turret: 35 ft/19.3 Mils
Waist (open windows): 63 ft/35.6 Mils


Although only data for 2 types, what this does show nicely is the variation in groupings for hand held pivot types (ie. Waist open windows), hand held ball mounts (side nose guns, Waist K-6 mounts) and a selection of powered turret types.

If you draw comparisons between the hand held defensive positions on the B-17's and the B-24s and those on German types you can see why they had a poor reputation, in terms of defensive firepower.

Another handicap on early German designs was the use of the MG-15. While a good weapon, it was fed from 75 round saddle magazines- 3-4 seconds firing and you had to reload.

It was not all bad news though. Powered turrets were very heavy, and added lots of drag (esp. the nose mounted ones like the B-24J had) so performance and load could be increased by omitting them from a design.

A good book on the subject is Gunner by Donald Nijboer, an examination of defensive armanent postions on WW2 aircraft. Hope this helps! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"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

Message Edited on 11/06/03 04:27PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 11/06/0305:47PM by NegativeGee

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 06:08 PM
mmanger wrote:
- Back when I played SWOTL in the early 90s I did some
- research on secondary armament. According to that,
- the manually operated MGs on German bombers were
- fairly ineffective. By contrast, powered turrents
- with dual MGs on US/UK planes were relatively
- better. Wondered what others thought and how they
- think this is reflected in the game? Any historical
- stats?
-
- Matt
-
-



Well in this game it is quite true, Heinkel and Stuka B-2 defensive gunners are fairly crappy.. Stuka D-3 with Twin MG81 can do some damage to most russian planes.. But with MG15 in Ju-88 and Stuka B-2 you cant really hurt soviet planes trying to shoot you down. I think this is because It really does not seem to be a MG with firerate of 1200 RPM.. When I look at it, it seems even my Mg151/20 has higher ROF than Heinkel defensive gunners.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Then again German bombers, like JU-88 and Heinkel 111 were 1930' designs, and was quite enough on early days of the war.. by 1943 with allied superiority there was not much need for german bombers, since air superiority had been lost.. and most of all Germany did not have active heavy bombers, only light and medium bombers..Germans concentrated on speed rather than defensive fire on bomber designs.. Ofcourse there are exceptions, like Focke-Wulf Condor.. it had MG131 and MG151/20 defensive gunners (13mm and 20 mm) .. Still I do think german MG17 and MG15 in this game is greatly undermodelled, meaning no matter how much you put lead to enemy fighters' engines, you can barely get them to smoke.. Ofcourse Heinkel can't be compared to Bomber like B-17 with Twin M-2s.. but then again Real Heinkel H-6 would have twin MGs on some installations, which we dont have in the game (only a single MG)..


____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:33 AM
I'd love to see the traverse speeds and average time to acquire targets with guns was. They seemed awful fast in the sim as did the ground AA.


Neal