PDA

View Full Version : Wow. Even the Japs liked the M2 Browning!



Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 02:40 AM
Lol. Was doing a little research and I found this.

Late in the war, the Japanese Army had a good 30mm cannon in the Ho-155, sometimes erroneously referred to as Ho-105 or even Ho-151. It was a scaled-up derivative of the Ho-5, itself a derivative of the Browning. Late in the war, the Ho-155 appeared on bomber destroyer versions of some of the best Japanese Army fighters, such as the Ki-61 and Ki-84, but it seems to have seen little combat use. The gun compares favourably with the German MK 108. At the end of the war a lighter, shorter version was developed, the Ho-155-II, but this version never saw combat. It was a far cry from the early days of the war, when most Japanese Army fighters were armed with two rifle-calibre machineguns!

Lol. Take it for what you want. Not only was the Ho-103 a copy of the M2, so was a complete string of Japanese weapons!

I remember way back when people were discrediting X gun because it was a scaled up Y gun. The Ho-155 was considered one of the best high-cal canon's of WWII (compairable to the Mk-108 one author said) and it was scaled up from a .50 M2.

More on this gun.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/30_mm_ho155_browning.htm

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 02:40 AM
Lol. Was doing a little research and I found this.

Late in the war, the Japanese Army had a good 30mm cannon in the Ho-155, sometimes erroneously referred to as Ho-105 or even Ho-151. It was a scaled-up derivative of the Ho-5, itself a derivative of the Browning. Late in the war, the Ho-155 appeared on bomber destroyer versions of some of the best Japanese Army fighters, such as the Ki-61 and Ki-84, but it seems to have seen little combat use. The gun compares favourably with the German MK 108. At the end of the war a lighter, shorter version was developed, the Ho-155-II, but this version never saw combat. It was a far cry from the early days of the war, when most Japanese Army fighters were armed with two rifle-calibre machineguns!

Lol. Take it for what you want. Not only was the Ho-103 a copy of the M2, so was a complete string of Japanese weapons!

I remember way back when people were discrediting X gun because it was a scaled up Y gun. The Ho-155 was considered one of the best high-cal canon's of WWII (compairable to the Mk-108 one author said) and it was scaled up from a .50 M2.

More on this gun.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/30_mm_ho155_browning.htm

JG69_Koenig
07-13-2004, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I remember way back when people were discrediting X gun because it was a scaled up Y gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well these people are ignorants. It's no secret that it was common practice back then for armament manufacturers to inspire themselves from existing designs sometimes to the point where you could call it blatant rip-offs.

The best example for this has to be the Oerlikon. Itself inspired from the WWI German Becker design, it was built under license and further improved by about almost every manufacturer in the world : japanese type 99 and subsequent types, MG/FF series, Hispano HS404...

Not having a domestic modern armaments industry it made a lot of sense for the Japanese to reverse-engineer foreign designs, why would they bother reinventing the wheel ? It's hardly shocking when one thinks about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fascinating article by the way, thanks very much for sharing. ATM I'm having a hard time finding information on the net about the IJA in general. While there are plenty of very good sites on the US Armed Forces and the IJN in general, it's really hard to find even a general overview of the IJA, apart from the fact that they went to China and raped/murdered a lot there (I'm more interested in organisation, strategy and equipment...).

http://www.idiotenkoenig.net/img/sig.jpg http://www.idiotenkoenig.net/img/timbre-dora.gif

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 05:05 AM
I wonder where you read about somebody saying the M2 wasn't a good HMG... I remember having said your were a crappy gunner, but who ever said the M2 wasn't good?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

MEGILE
07-13-2004, 07:48 AM
Hoarmurath go nail your fingers together, this is a peaceful thread, quit trying to start a fight


Countdown to 1337 post count = P minus 174

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-13-2004, 08:00 AM
I guess Hoar is still a bit pissed off having being accused of being Anti-American or some BS like that, just because he thought (like I do) that 2.01 .50 werent so porked, or that maybe something in between 2.01 and 2.02 would have been more realistic than 2.02 laser beams. thats it.

Dont start a flame each time you can.

this goes for Gib, Hoar, Megile, and even myself.

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 01:03 PM
I also think they should not be laser beams. No aircraft mounted gun should! But to have all guns BUT the .50 cal be laser beams is just wrong. All HMG's should have a fair spread. There was no HUGE differance between them all.

Also Hoar was saying "there is no differance is spread between the M2 and other MG's" and has never fully accepted it. Even though Oleg said there is a differance is spread and all test's point to this.

But on a differant note, does anyone have any data on the Russuan N-37 N-40 or N-50? NOT the NS, but the N. Oleg told me they were very good guns in late-war WWII. Much better then the Mk-108.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
I guess Hoar is still a bit pissed off having being accused of being Anti-American or some BS like that, just because he thought (like I do) that 2.01 .50 werent so porked, or that maybe something in between 2.01 and 2.02 would have been more realistic than 2.02 laser beams. thats it.

Dont start a flame each time you can.

this goes for Gib, Hoar, Megile, and even myself.

------------------------------
http://www.checksix-fr.com Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-13-2004, 01:53 PM
Gibbage, I fully agree with you on the matter that .50 were much more subject to spread than the russian weapons (UBS, 1st laser beams..) , and that should be.

I think that the best thing would be to have something in between 2.01 and 2.02 for the .50 , and apply the same spread to UBS and germans heavy MG.

I Know Hoar for quite a long time, and I can affirm you that he is not a luftwhinner or a Anti-american guy. he just like FB to be as much close to reality than possible. I guess he would agree on saying that russian weapons (and some german) are too accurate-.

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

p1ngu666
07-13-2004, 02:16 PM
..and hes a troll http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
07-13-2004, 02:30 PM
Good article.

These things have wiped me out so many times online from all those guys flying Ki-84c's. Who knew they were Browning designed originally too. I didn't figure that a design could scale that far. Interesting information.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 03:06 PM
I never said he was anti-american. I dont think I said he was a Luftwhiner. I did say he was a troll. He is eather that, or very very dilusional. Like I said, I proved that there was a HUGE differance in spread between the M2 and all other HMG's and he refused to believe it. He even went so far as posting screenshots that show nothing what-so-ever as "proof". Even Oleg admits there is a big differance in spread. Oleg's issue is weather its historical or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
Gibbage, I fully agree with you on the matter that .50 were much more subject to spread than the russian weapons (UBS, 1st laser beams..) , and that should be.

I think that the best thing would be to have something in between 2.01 and 2.02 for the .50 , and apply the same spread to UBS and germans heavy MG.

I Know Hoar for quite a long time, and I can affirm you that he is not a luftwhinner or a Anti-american guy. he just like FB to be as much close to reality than possible. I guess he would agree on saying that russian weapons (and some german) are too accurate-.

------------------------------
http://www.checksix-fr.com Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 03:40 PM
Before this discussion about .50 beginned, i was thinking that russian HMG were the best, quite laser like, that the german 13mm was the worst, impossible to hit anything from range, and that the M2 was in between.

I was wrong, when i tested i saw that the german, russian and american HMG had much more similar characteristics than i thought. Whatever difference there is in dispersion is not that big when using same weapons with same arrangement (i did my testing by comparing buffalo, mig3 2*UB, bf109G6, ki84 Ia). just by looking at trajectories, it is hard to see any difference at all. By observing the impacts, you can see that the M2 have a slightly more dispersion (but i don't know if the stability of the plane is accounted for), but i also saw that this dispersion did not get worse over distance.
All HMG have the same max range, 1000m, after that bullets disappear.

So what make targeting easier with russian HMG and not with german ones? The tracers. it is really easy to follow your path of tracers with the russian HMG, easy to snipe your target from far. On the contrary, the smoke trail of 13mm (and of japanese 12.7mm as well) hide the path of tracers, making it very hard to adjust your targeting.

I still think that the M2 are one of the finest weapon in AEP 2.01, i was flying a P51C tonight in a cooperative game and bagged easily two Fw190A and two Ju88, not so bad for a plane that have only four "crappy" MG... And i didn't even get hit while attacking the bombers, as i found easy to hit them from a safe distance of over 400m.

When i see some people complaining that "they can't shot down german/japanese/italian/finnish/russian planes because of the dispersion of the .50", sorry, but i think that these people are complaining while they should be training, because i know a lot of people that have no problems getting kills, either online or offline.

And beside that, when i have a look at most guncam footage, what i see is very similar to what i obtain in 2.01, much more similar than what i obtained in 2.02... Take a look at the video of guncam footage of shipping attack that was posted in the topic about ships being cut in half by .50 for example, you can see that in combat the pattern of bullets actually covering an area (harmonisation?) and not laser like at all.

When the US gunnery manual was posted in ORR, i took a look at it, and observed that the values given for dispersion seemed to be given as references. Normal values of reference are those for a machine gun in firing test range, because you can't give accurate values of the same weapons in operation, there is too many variables that you would not be taking into account. The only fact that this dispersion value is not given as different for weapons mounted in wings or fuselage is a clear indication that it is refering to the MG only, not to the battery of MG in use. If you don't believe me check with an armorer, i was armorer in french armed forces, and we used M1919 12.7mm HMG.

Now you can call me an anti american/luftwhining troll if you like, but i will just continue to kick asses in HL with my P38J in 2.01 nonetheless.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 05:30 PM
Please find were I called you anti-american/luftwhiner. I cant remember calling you that. Just a troll.

You still dont say weather you were wrong about the differance in dispersion between the HMG's (M2 vs all others)? Is that long post an attempt to dodge the truth?

Also, were did I ever say the .50 cal has no power and cant shoot anything down? You keep saying that, but its not the issue. You also say I dont have aim. But I find aircraft easier to shoot down in 2.02 even though its a much tigher spread. People who cant shoot down AC in 2.02 have had aim and needed the spread of 2.01.

Do you still feel that in 2.01 there was no differance in dispersion between the US M2 and all other HMG's? Even though EVERYONE on the forums agrees there is a differance, and even Oleg agrees there is adifferance?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Now you can call me an anti american/luftwhining troll if you like, but i will just continue to kick asses in HL with my P38J in 2.01 nonetheless.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-13-2004, 06:40 PM
Gib..

I agree with you that there was slighlty more spread for .50 than russian UBS, but well, I still found it more realistic in 2.01 than 2.0 laser beams.

dont you agree on that ? dont you think what you have in 2.02 is far from what you see on guncam video..?


anyway, nothing tell us that 2.04 will include 2.02 or 2.01 dispersion model for .50

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 06:58 PM
I agree (for the 100th time) that the M2 should not be lasers. No aircraft mounted gun should be lasers. But why should the M2 be the ONLY HMG with spread? Again, I want the M2 spread lowered, and the spread of all other HMG's raised so its all level and not have the M2 gun singled out.

BTW. In guncam footage, you can use that as a good frame of referance. First, you dont know what range the targets in. 2nd, you dont know how or were the gun is converging. It could be the guns are set at 150M convergance, and the aircraft is at 300M. Meaning the bulletes are converging at 150M and then SPREADING till it hits the target 150M further. I am trying to find P-38 footage becase that would eliminate convergance as a factor for the spread you see on the Guncam. Do you not agree?

In WWII, a P-38 could place 75% of its rounds in an area the size of a 19" monitor at 300M. Thats history. In IL2, its more like 10 feet wide area. That diludes the power of the gun greatly so its spreading the damage all over the target and not concentrating it in a small area. Thats not historical. Far from it.

Yes, we all know a P-51 can shoot down bla bla bla. But that does not mean its historical. Nor is the sniper guns on VVS or German aircraft. The thruth lies somewhere in the middle.

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 06:59 PM
Question. Why is it so hard to accept the US .50 cal "laser beams" if people have been accepting the UBS and MG17 "laser beams" for well over 3 years now?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
Gib..

I agree with you that there was slighlty more spread for .50 than russian UBS, but well, I still found it more realistic in 2.01 than 2.0 laser beams.

dont you agree on that ? dont you think what you have in 2.02 is far from what you see on guncam video..?


anyway, nothing tell us that 2.04 will include 2.02 or 2.01 dispersion model for .50

------------------------------
http://www.checksix-fr.com Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LeadSpitter_
07-13-2004, 07:44 PM
Hoarmurath come to NYC and go to the intrepid aircraft carrier museum. I'd like to meet you in person

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-13-2004, 09:24 PM
Gib.. I was never happy with UBS, believe me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(see my VEF1 post on netwings)

now, about the P38 and the 19".. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

that was tested on the ground (I presume), and I guess it was not taking in account the vibration and the movement of an airframe flying at 300mph in the air.

as I said, I prefer to have 2 guns porked (UBS and MG17), and one looking realistic (.50) than 3 porked laser beams.

why you guys just do not ask/whine to tune others down..? I think it would be more interesting. who like those laser beams btw.

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-13-2004, 09:28 PM
EH, Lead, btw, im going to NYC around 23rd of August. any chance to catch you there..?

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Gibbage1
07-13-2004, 11:34 PM
If the other guns spread were raised to that of the current M2' then ALL guns would be wrong. The .50 cal M2 simply did NOT spray that much. The M2 sprays more them the Mk-108!!!!!!!! That should tell you something there. A short berral 30MM canon has less dispersion then a heavy MG with a much longer berral?

Again, again, again and AGAIN!!!! (3rd time I posted IN THIS THREAD ALONE!!!!!! Please read if for once!) I want the spread raided on all HMG's and the spread lowered on M2's and have all guns meet in the middle. Then ALL GUNS would be historicly accurate!

Please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop saying that I am trying to make the M2's into freakin laserbeams! I was using that AS AN EXAMPLE. I have asked to tune others dawn IF YOU SIMPLY READ MY POST!!!!! GAH! I even asked Oleg directly to tune the sniper guns down.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):

as I said, I prefer to have 2 guns porked (UBS and MG17), and one looking realistic (.50) than 3 porked laser beams.

why you guys just do not ask/whine to tune others down..? I think it would be more interesting. who like those laser beams btw.

------------------------------
http://www.checksix-fr.com Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 11:34 PM
Hey lead, you offer me the trip? if not, i'm afraid you will have to come here in France to meet me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Hoarmurath
07-13-2004, 11:51 PM
two points on the MK108.
First, this weapon have absolutely no accuracy, you can perfectly aim your first shot at a target, and yet see your shell go flying completely off your flight path. To hit something with a MK108, you have to fire in the general direction of target and hope one of your shells will hit.
Second, this weapon have very low kinetic energy, only 41000 joules at muzzle velocity, all its damage ability come from the explosives in it. As a comparison, a 37mm M4 shell deliver 115000 joules at muzzle velocity in kinetic energy alone.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Blutarski2004
07-14-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
When the US gunnery manual was posted in ORR, i took a look at it, and observed that the values given for dispersion seemed to be given as references. Normal values of reference are those for a machine gun in firing test range, because you can't give accurate values of the same weapons in operation, there is too many variables that you would not be taking into account. The only fact that this dispersion value is not given as different for weapons mounted in wings or fuselage is a clear indication that it is refering to the MG only, not to the battery of MG in use. If you don't believe me check with an armorer, i was armorer in french armed forces, and we used M1919 12.7mm HMG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The USAF fighter gunnery manual in question clearly shows that the 4mil/8mil dispersion characteristics were used to orient the gun harmonization of both nose-mounted and wing-mounted batteries. The same 4mil/8mil dispersion is employed within the manual in the calculation of expected rate of hitting in aerial gunnery. I find it difficult to believe that the manual would base its entire raison d'etre upon patently incorrect gun dispersion values. To assume such a thing, one is rquired to believe that the authors were incompetent.

Everywhere in the manual reference is made to aerial gunnery accuracy based upon 4mil/8mil dispersion. Nowhere in the manual is any mention whatsoever made that these dispersion values are the result of artificial static bench test firings. That is strictly an assumption on your part which finds no support or corroboration in the manual.

When you took an LMG to the range and fired full-auto bursts, what groupings were you getting at three hundred meters? According to your argument, a bench-mounted 50cal at 8mil dispersion would be producing 100 pct groups 2.4 meters (nearly eight feet) in diameter at that range. Such a shot grouping is approximately equivalent to a smoothbore musket firing spherical bullets from a standing position (and I have explicit 19th century controlled test data to corroborate that claim).

Have you considered the possibility that the USAF authors of this fighter gunnery manual had sufficient experience, expertise, and common sense to take into account the effects of airframe vibration?

As an aside, the manual also states that shooting in the guns during the harmonization process was conducted with the aircraft mounted upon wing jacks - permitting (as far as possible on the ground) free vibration of the wing structure during firing. They were not fired off their landing gear.

BLUTARSKI

Hoarmurath
07-14-2004, 10:36 AM
blutarski, the airframe vibration depend on many variables in flight. It depend on your speed, on your flight attitude, on the state of the body of air you are in, etc, etc...

The fuselage vibration is also very different from the wing vibration, the number of guns also is very important.

I saw nowhere is this manual that these values were what the pilot should obtain in aerial gunnery, and from my own experience of military gunnery manual, they are rather only given for the information of the pilot, and refer to the bench test value. That's quite usual, as it is the most accurate value obtainable... I wasn't in french armée de l'air, only in mechanized infantry, but i know that when a manual for an infantry weapon give a value of the inherent dispersion of a gun, it is the bench test value, so the soldier can take this variable into account.

It remember me a joke that was part of a Fernand Raynaud show... How long does it take for the barrel of a gun to cool down? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Blutarski2004
07-14-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
blutarski, the airframe vibration depend on many variables in flight. It depend on your speed, on your flight attitude, on the state of the body of air you are in, etc, etc...

The fuselage vibration is also very different from the wing vibration, the number of guns also is very important.

I saw nowhere is this manual that these values were what the pilot should obtain in aerial gunnery, and from my own experience of military gunnery manual, they are rather only given for the information of the pilot, and refer to the bench test value. That's quite usual, as it is the most accurate value obtainable... I wasn't in french armée de l'air, only in mechanized infantry, but i know that when a manual for an infantry weapon give a value of the inherent dispersion of a gun, it is the bench test value, so the soldier can take this variable into account.

It remember me a joke that was part of a Fernand Raynaud show... How long does it take for the barrel of a gun to cool down? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I still think that you are making assumptions unjustified by any evidence at hand. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

OK, I'll bite - how long does it take for the barrel of a gun to cool down?

BLUTARSKI

Korolov
07-14-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
OK, I'll bite - how long does it take for the barrel of a gun to cool down?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;Troll&gt;
It doesn't! You have to p*ss on it to cool it off. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
&lt;/Troll&gt;

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Hoarmurath
07-14-2004, 02:38 PM
No, no korolov, this is not the good answer... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

try to do better next time

si un francais lit ceci, qu'il les laisse chercher un peu, merci http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-14-2004, 02:40 PM
c noté (mais je ne connais pas la réponse, de tte façon)

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Korolov
07-14-2004, 04:31 PM
Darn, I guess that means I don't win a free cookie anyways? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
07-14-2004, 09:44 PM
My contribution!

- Its a game - calm down.

Oh, and imitation is the sincerest compliment.

[This message was edited by Waldo.Pepper on Thu July 15 2004 at 06:37 AM.]

Hoarmurath
07-15-2004, 07:57 AM
Ok, i should have known that nobody would find the answer... It is written in all gunnery manuals, you just had to read them!!! The time needed for a gun barrel to cool down is... SOME TIME.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Loki-PF
07-15-2004, 08:36 AM
Salute All!

Obviously I'm a new guy here. I've followed this topic with some interest since joining the board. Although I haven't made up my mind one way or the other on this subject at this point, I must ask the questions, what was it about American planes that made them uniquely subject to wing vibrations. Did other airframes with wing mounted batteries suffer from this malady as well? Was it because American Airframes were somehow weaker or more fragile than say Soviet or German airframes? Or is it some inherent unique inaccuracy flaw in the M2?

Nanuk66
07-15-2004, 09:01 AM
You do realise that it the same people every time 'discussing' this subject.
And id like to point out from a 3rd party perspective that none of you lot answer each others questions. That goes for both the Gib 'side' and the Hoar 'side'. One of you will moan why one doesnt answer a straight question and the next will ignore that question and moan about the other ignoring their question etc.

I think you should all meet up somewhere and do a reach-over-circle-jerk together and bring some of that 'ol fashioned love back in the room.

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

Aztek_Eagle
07-15-2004, 10:53 AM
ppl still wiht the 50 cal *****ing?

Blutarski2004
07-15-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Salute All!

Obviously I'm a new guy here. I've followed this topic with some interest since joining the board. Although I haven't made up my mind one way or the other on this subject at this point, I must ask the questions, what was it about American planes that made them uniquely subject to wing vibrations. Did other airframes with wing mounted batteries suffer from this malady as well? Was it because American Airframes were somehow weaker or more fragile than say Soviet or German airframes? Or is it some inherent unique inaccuracy flaw in the M2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Some people would have us believe that American industry was so incompetent that their fighter designs, which weighed twice as much as those of other nations, supposedly were unable to meet industry standards re wing vibration.

Other people would like us to believe that US industry was unable to produce a HMG with less than 4x the dispersion of any other HMG, including a Japanese wartime copy ofthe very same gun in question.

Of course, none of these individuals has produced any real evidence to support these conjectures.

Read on and enjoy all the 50cal threads. There are plenty of them.

BLUTARSKI

Atomic_Marten
07-15-2004, 03:10 PM
I don't wanna bother u all guys, but seems to me that we don't have so much difference between weapons of the same calibre (whether manufacturer is Browning, Breda-Safat or other).

And one more thing;(however I'm no rocket-scientist I'm just guessing so do not pay much attention to my observation) but seems to me that every wing-mounted cannon/MG equipped A/C in the IL-2 suffer from the same problem of airframe vibration/stress more than nose mounted ones (depends on many variables like ammo calibar but that one is general for all).

Since American and English planes are almost all exclusively wing armed (exception is B239), they suffer the most. For Fw series I dunno, I fly mostly U.S. (cobra). And I do not agree that U.S. A/C's were that bad like some ppl says. They are just fine in game (well I struggled with P-40's engine but I don't wanna whine over minor problems http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

And why shouldb't Japanese like Browning machine gunz? I love all machine guns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/heart.gif

And yes, I want to point out that I have no military knowledge at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif