PDA

View Full Version : My 50 cal rant



kalo456
03-28-2004, 11:06 PM
The 50 cal damage is way off. Tonight I flew on a full real server that had range icons. In a
P-51D I crept up on a 109, and hit him at 240meteres. I have my convergance set to 250M. This guy took half my ammo to just smoke! That is horrible. He should have been scrapmetal.
Even with the 8 .50's on the 47' you don't get the destructive results that pilots talked about.

Please Oleg and team, realize that something is wrong!

I know there is a thread on this topic somewhere, but again I just had to rant. I am shocked at the pea shooters masquerading as 50 calibres now!!!!

Kalo

kalo456
03-28-2004, 11:06 PM
The 50 cal damage is way off. Tonight I flew on a full real server that had range icons. In a
P-51D I crept up on a 109, and hit him at 240meteres. I have my convergance set to 250M. This guy took half my ammo to just smoke! That is horrible. He should have been scrapmetal.
Even with the 8 .50's on the 47' you don't get the destructive results that pilots talked about.

Please Oleg and team, realize that something is wrong!

I know there is a thread on this topic somewhere, but again I just had to rant. I am shocked at the pea shooters masquerading as 50 calibres now!!!!

Kalo

Fehler
03-28-2004, 11:28 PM
Actually, I have to disagree with you a little. The 50's do good damage (When I am on the receiving end of them) But I think the thing people are not realizing online is that a lot of times you see hits, but you arent really hitting. (Lag) Other times, you hit with one bullet and the guy goes up in smoke.

If anything could be reworked, the netcode should be. I hope that the dedicated server patch will help a lot with warping and lag related issues.

I also think we all got accustomed to seeing wings ripping off with the smallest bursts in 1.22. That doesnt happen with the same frequency as it used to, which I think is correct.

Some planes appear to be more immune than others to gunfire *Cough* Ki, P63 *Cough*. But the more I fly AEP, the better I like it.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

WWMaxGunz
03-29-2004, 10:34 AM
If the target just sat there while you emptied half your ammo into him then you should suspect that at his end not much was happenning.


Neal

mike_espo
03-29-2004, 10:53 AM
Im sure you were too far away to do real damage. I fly the fiat G.50 and with two 12.7mm I can get kills IF I get within 100m and hit them in the right place i.e. wingroot or engine with deflection. From dead 6 you won't get a kill. Practice and you will see how effective the 12.7mm or 50 cal is.

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-29-2004, 01:06 PM
The original poster is partially correct in that it takes a rediculous amount of .50 cal ammo now to do any significant types of damage. There are cases where a short second burst will do the required damage but a properly aimed and on convergence target shouldn't take more then 3-4 seconds of sustained fire and yet you can sit there for considerable time hitting your target to no effect.

I say partially correct because this happens with other guns as well. Most of the 20mm and 30mm cannons also seem to have problems these days...one La-7 I hammered away at with 2 MG151/20's while he was attempting to down a wingman absorbed my entire ammo load (admittedly I wasn't hitting the entire time) with nothing more than an oil leak and a fuel leak. Wings, control surfaces, and more importantly his engine power and manuverability were still intact. Its not specific to one plane...its all of them...its the new DM globals which need some tweaking. It shows up in more frequency with the .50 cal but its present, in different ways, for every other gun type as well.

One thing is for certain, several seconds on target with a HMG or a Cannon with multiple recorded hits (sometimes numbering in the 20's and 30's) should show significant degradation in an aircrafts ability to fly much less fight.

The two things I, however, cannot stress enough is that we aren't talking about a consistent thing either. The FB damage system is very effective in not being entirely predictable...that unpredictability gives it immense realism. That also means that its harder to suggest to everyone that something isn't quite right...its a frequency of events rather than a consistent thing. Consistently the .50cal and everything else is weaker...but not all of the time - sometimes you'll achieve total airframe failure in a small number of well placed hits. But its definately less frequent...

The other thing is that I have no specific knowledge, no specific proof, and no quantitative data that I can provide (others undoubtedly can). All I know is that things don't feel quite right and others are feeling the same way.

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

03-29-2004, 01:07 PM
A more likely explanation is:

Dumped the ammo - Yes
Into him - No

El Turo
03-29-2004, 01:42 PM
<gunstat = 1% or less?

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


Hehe.. actually, I see a significant difference in 50-cal effectiveness offline versus online due to the volume of fire being tracked/calculated I think. The whole idea behind 50-cals is that the volume of fire will take down the opponent and/or penetrate to a juicy component with the innards of your bandit.

Online (if I'm not mistaken), the volume of fire is reduced by as much as half, and the damage for each round is doubled. That's all well and nice, but it negates some of the concept behind high ROF weaponry, while incidentally giving a little bit more of an advantage to low ROF weapons that now do something close to double damge per hit (Ki84c clown wagon, anyone?).

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
Amidst morning clouds
Fork-tailed devil hunts its prey
Lightning strikes, süsse träume.

Luftcaca
03-29-2004, 02:27 PM
what what what????

the .50 currently does more damage than 20mm!!!

I can shot down 9 planes with a Brewster...of course it might be a lil different online but then again I think the .50 doesnt need any tune up...

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

VW-IceFire
03-29-2004, 09:13 PM
Two things about the Finish Brewster. Apparently the guns are slightly modified over the US ones and apparently they work better. The other thing is that their targets are usually lightly armored early Yak's.

What targets did you test?

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

PzKpfw
03-29-2004, 10:16 PM
I'm not haveing a problem with the .50's performance in ACE; except on the P-38 & P-47. Ie, I downed 4 Fw 190F-8 tonight in an P-51D & had a 5th smokeing so bad, it later crashed with the 6 x .50.

One kill was awsome I dove on an F-8 and caught him climbing, I put the pipper in front of his prop & walked the rounds right down the top of the engine, into the top of the canopy, the whole cockpit went up in flames, & the F crashed into the ground.


In another mission i drooped 4 Fw 190A8 with the P-51Cs 4 x .50, I then got 6 kills includeing D-9s & K-4s in the P-51D-20 w/o using the K14 controls.

I could not bring down 2 Fw 190 even with the the whole ammo load in the P-38's 4 x .50 even though the nose concentrated firepower, was more lethal according to the USSAF, then the wing mounted wpns, due to the lack of dispersion.

Personaly I have found the Spitfire Vs 4 x .303 _feel_ more lethal then the P-38s 4 x .50.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Mon March 29 2004 at 11:32 PM.]

Enofinu
04-06-2004, 09:18 AM
one thing is badly modelled in .50cals, and maybe with all hvy mg:s
they make HUGE holes in wings and fuselage with really little ammo, 9 hits in 109 wing and it has really huge holes in wing. and graphics model of DM tells that how badly damaged wing is.
so, for some few hits from hvy mg on wing and wing is almost cutted in pieces, cant be right.

it should only make bout 13,7-15mm holes in wing, nothing more if not hitted anything important inside wing structure. now they are like cannons http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif all KE is transferred to hitted location, no waste KE at all on penetration http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 10:22 AM
Well of course you wouldn't think so because your on the recieving end.lol

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

the .50 currently does more damage than 20mm!!!

I can shot down 9 planes with a Brewster...of course it might be a lil different online but then again I think the .50 doesnt need any tune up...

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 10:28 AM
Can anyone suggest a convergence for the P51D based on the current .50 modelling?
I have tried anywhere from 100m to 500m+ and I still have a big problem taking out other aircraft. 9 times out of 10 I can outfly my opponant, but actually knocking thier plane out of the fight is another story.
Someone told me that a convergence of 100m was best but when I tested it the groupings crossed each other and left a huge gap in the middle of my aiming point. Setting it to 500m+ causes a tighter pattern, but it seems harder to hit anything for some reason. I'm really confused.lol

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

crazyivan1970
04-06-2004, 10:35 AM
If you guys a little tired of those 50 caliber threads... you can safely drop this issue and start again after the patch...if you are not satisfied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

VF-10_Snacky
04-06-2004, 10:38 AM
Is it being addressed in the patch Ivan?? if so then great! can't wait

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

Luftcaca
04-06-2004, 11:51 AM
"What targets did you test?"

eum if that question was directed to me, there is the amswer:

Mig's, P-40's, Hurri's, I-153's, I-16's, Early Yak's (Yak 9's a couple of times too)Pe2, Pe3, Il4 and SB2

all the single seated fighters go down pretty easily, and thats kinda normal. SB2 is a flying lighter PRETTY easy to shoot down, with good cause
ONLY challenge: Pe2 and IL4, avoid em when flying B-239

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

VW-IceFire
04-06-2004, 12:44 PM
Someone pointed this out to me:

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/

Watch the "Fight for the Sky" video. Whats amazing is how close FB can look (the sparkle effect of the .50 cals on target) to the gun camera footage...what we don't often see is a 1-2 second burst followed by the plane falling apart...I've hammered FW190's and Bf 109's offline and online and rarely achieved some of these results.

What I often notice is that a target is hit for a short period and the pilot stops shooting because the plane, although externally intact, is quite visibly loosing power...the propeller seems to have stopped spinning under power (seen this more with AEP than before - definate improvement there) but the entire plane seems to be pitching to the right or left and downward...

There's probably 30-40 minutes of footage of straight guncamera stuff. The argument that we're being showed the exceptional stuff doesn't seem to do it for me with that much footage. The statistical probability seems much much lower (to me anyways) that we're seeing some above average results from the .50 cal.

So give it a watch, try and ignore the propoganda thats going on (the annoucer is doing quite a bit of that) and instead watch the onscreen results...there's plenty of 5-6 second footage as a target is initially engaged and then subsequently destroyed, shot down, etc.

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

Aaron_GT
04-06-2004, 01:50 PM
30 to 40 minutes from how many hundreds of hours?
There does seem to be a .50
dispersion issue/bug though.

Mad_Cat_1
04-06-2004, 01:50 PM
I can't find any pictures of the M3 .50 caliber machine guns used on American aircraft. I know that the M2 .50 caliber machine gun is a great weapon better than most machine guns, but I do not know much about the M3. Is it just a shortened M2?

VW-IceFire
04-06-2004, 02:10 PM
M3 to my recollection was used during the Korean war and it had a better rate of fire. Not used in WWII to my knowledge.

Yes out of how many thousands of hours for sure...but if you cut out the gun camera tape that didn't work, the times that they missed...etc. etc. what we see there, even if its good, can't be THAT good. It just seems rediculous to think that even with thousands of hours of guncamera footage that 30-40 minutes is going to be 100% exceptional.

I just flew some more QMB to see what its like...50 cal CAN produce those results. But you gotta be darned lucky. So to me, its probably a spread issue. Even if the spread was reduced by 25% it'd be a whole heck of alot better.

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

Enofinu
04-07-2004, 08:17 AM
how effective those .50cals should be?

they are almost as good as 20mm cannon now, or even better.
its way easier to bring down B17 with mustangs 50cals than with FW:s 20mm

just try it and u notice it.

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 08:35 AM
"M3 to my recollection was used during the Korean war and it had a better rate of fire. Not used in WWII to my knowledge.

AFAIK it got fitted to a few P51s very late
in the way only.

VW-IceFire
04-07-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
how effective those .50cals should be?

they are almost as good as 20mm cannon now, or even better.
its way easier to bring down B17 with mustangs 50cals than with FW:s 20mm

just try it and u notice it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are partially right and thats a portion of the overall problem. I've heard a rumor that this is largely to be fixed. I my little world a pair of 20mm cannons should be around the same effectiveness level of a 6 shooter .50cal aircraft. Its not an apples to apples comparison but an overall generalization. A FW190 with 4 20mm cannons should be way more effective and a Typhoon with 4 20mm cannons even more effective (increased weight and other attributes of a Hispano cannon). This is how I think things should be...

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

Gibbage1
04-07-2004, 02:12 PM
As for takin a B-17 down with .50's easier then 20MM, its possible. Depending on your aim. When your workin with 6 .50 cal your throwing out a lot more projectiles and higher velocity. The HMG's depend on pilot kills, engine kill, and controle kills were the 20MM needs to rip an aircraft appart.

I strafed 5 PBY Catalina's with a P-40 and killed 4 of them in the first pass due to pilot kills. For some reason, 20MM seem to explode on the surface of the aircraft and not penetrate through. And pilot armor seems to effectivly block the shrapnal thrwon out by the 20MM shell.

Also, I fly the P-39 and P-63 a lot and I have seen a 37MM shell explode on the canopy of a 109 with little to no effect. In reality, the pilot and most of the cockpit should have been blown off the aircraft. There seems to be something in the game that prevents cannon shells for getting PK's. Something 6 .50 cal's are great for.

Gib

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

Enofinu
04-07-2004, 02:45 PM
i had arcade on, attacked those 4 B17:s from above, hitted em for some 2-3 sec bursts all the time when dived down on them. 50cals just made fuel tanks/engines burn faster etc. why? is there more incendiary stuff inside 50cal ammo than in 20mm ammo?

Aaron_GT
04-07-2004, 03:34 PM
"As for takin a B-17 down with .50's easier then 20MM, its possible. Depending on your aim. When your workin with 6 .50 cal your throwing out a lot more projectiles and higher velocity. "

Actually the Hispano II has the same
muzzle velocity as the .50 M2. Most 20mm
cannon have a muzzle velocity of around
85% of that of the M2.

In terms of rate of fire some 20mm cannon
match that of the M2 (e.g Shvak, B20, Ho-5, and
the Hispano V and MG151/20 not far behind).

A P51D should put out about twice as many
rounds per second as a Hurricane IIc, but
the balance of fire power would be to the
Hurricane IIc. This seems to be the case
in the game. The Hurricane IIc should have
a little more destructive power than the
8 gun P47, if modelled correctly. Given
all the M2 .50 dispersion issues at the
moment it is hard to do a fair comparasion,
though.

Obi_Kwiet
04-07-2004, 03:56 PM
I don't think the problem is the power, it's the accuracy.

Enofinu
04-07-2004, 04:00 PM
and dont calculate the power of destruction only with so simple formula.
cannons have something what machineguns dont have, explosive ammunition. and it means alot.

Gibbage1
04-07-2004, 04:13 PM
The Hutticane 2C and the FW-190 are the exception in this game in firepower and they are not as common as the rest of the aircraft that are armed with 1 or two 20MM's. If you compair say a Yak-3 or a 109 G6 then ya, the P-51 will take down a bomber quicker because of how many bulletes your putting into the enemy. A lot more likley to hit something critical then a few 20MM hits. Thats what I am saying. Of corse a FW-190 A-8 or Hurricane IIc will have more firepower then a P-51B or C. But again, your increasing your odd of hitting something critical with lots of little MG's.

Also, MG's carry there velocity better over a longer distance with a flatter terjectory. So I find it easier to hit targets with MG's then cannon's.

The P-51 D spits out 75 rounds per second.

Hurricane IIc spits out 40 rounds per second.

Same for the Yak-3. About 40 rounds per second.

Sure the Hurricane IIc will do more damage, but your just more likly to hit something using the P-51 with almost twice the ammount of projectiles.

Again, I am not saying the .50 is better in any way, or it will do more damage. No. Im just saying, in this game, the way it seems damage is modeled, your more likly to get a pilot kill or cut a controle line using many .50's over a few 20MM.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Actually the Hispano II has the same
muzzle velocity as the .50 M2. Most 20mm
cannon have a muzzle velocity of around
85% of that of the M2.

In terms of rate of fire some 20mm cannon
match that of the M2 (e.g Shvak, B20, Ho-5, and
the Hispano V and MG151/20 not far behind).

A P51D should put out about twice as many
rounds per second as a Hurricane IIc, but
the balance of fire power would be to the
Hurricane IIc. This seems to be the case
in the game. The Hurricane IIc should have
a little more destructive power than the
8 gun P47, if modelled correctly. Given
all the M2 .50 dispersion issues at the
moment it is hard to do a fair comparasion,
though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

609IAP_Recon
04-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Ivan already posted on this above - why continue to discuss the obvious that there is an issue in the current version and would be best to wait for the patch to retest?

I think he spelled it out quite well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Salute!

JG50_Recon

----
http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com

johnnyig
04-08-2004, 12:52 PM
I fly the P40 alot, set convergence to 200 meters and POW everything (except maybe a p38) goes down in flames from a quick burst or two... line up on a 190 wing and saw it right off without any trouble. I hear people flying the p51 cant get the same results with its 6 .50's which to me sounds really strange since they should be a very similar arrangement, and carry more RPG then the p40.I think lag and aim are the big factors, I was once firing a quick burst at a fighter dead in front of me and looked like I was hitting then suddenly he was gone and my quick burst of 1-2 seconds had emptied the whole ammo load...so sometimes online is not the best way to test...

Aaron_GT
04-08-2004, 01:29 PM
Gibbage wrote:
"Sure the Hurricane IIc will do more damage, but your just more likly to hit something using the P-51 with almost twice the ammount of projectiles. "

I went through this at length with Tagert. What
you are saying is a fallacy. You are very, very
slightly more likely to hit (a few percent)
with almost twice the amount of projectiles. It
may seem to be counter intuitive, but a lot
of probability and statistics seems counter
intuitive, but it is actually true - you
aren't much more likely to hit at least once
(assuming you are firing in the right direction
of course!).

With twice as many rounds you'd expect to
land about twice as many hits, though.

As before, the easiest way to think about it
is rolling 40 dice and 70 dice. You are
pretty sure of getting at least one six with
40 or 70 dice, but you'd expect about 70/40
more sixes with 70 dice.

So basically you are slightly more likely to
get a single .50 hit than a single 20mm hit,
but a single .50 hit (or even a single 20mm
hit) isn't likely to be very effective.

Enofinu
04-08-2004, 01:31 PM
i wonder why Us get rid of 50cals as fighter weapon if it was so GOOD. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

PzKpfw
04-08-2004, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
i wonder why Us get rid of 50cals as fighter weapon if it was so GOOD. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


After Korea their wasn't much use for the .50 in the air, It had something to do with the appearence of heat seeking & radar guided missels http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, & the 20mm, no need for a .50 when you finaly have a 20mm cannon developed
with a higher ROF then the .50.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

VW-IceFire
04-08-2004, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
i wonder why Us get rid of 50cals as fighter weapon if it was so GOOD. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A bunch of things happened.

1) Korea showed that fast moving jet fighters were hard to hit under any conditions and the best possible method to shoot down another jet would be to employ the fastest firing cannon possible so that when contact was made it would be completely deadly. Thus the Vulcan Cannon which is a 20mm belt fed chain gun with an awesome fire rate.

2) American fighter doctrine changed from using guns to using short and medium range missiles to engage targets from a distance. The problem was that once targets were within that distance you still needed guns. Many Vietnam era fighters (i.e. the F4 Phantom) were refitted with guns fairly quickly...missiles weren't nearly as reliable. Thus the Vulcan cannon which as I mentioned before is ideal for hitting fast moving targets where fire times may be less than a second. In WWII, fire times were much higher and a totally different doctrine was in place for fighter combat.

Another case in point is that the .50 cal remains almost unchanged and is still used in the modern military by various ground vehicles.

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

Electric.Wizard
04-09-2004, 02:26 AM
Let's not forget the m2 love affair in WWII was primarily a USAAF thing. The US Navy, quite sensibly, concluded that 20mm cannons were the superior weapon, generally speaking.

Aaron_GT
04-09-2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, the navy was swapping to the 20mm
cannon at the end of the war. I think there
was some inertia, though, in terms of
changing. For anti-fighter operations the
.50, in sufficient numbers, was just enough
to be effective, and using one gun everywhere
(pretty much) kept supply lines simpler. For
the RAF using 20mm cannon everywhere was the
simpler option as the decision to go to 20mm
cannon had already been made prior to WW2.
The RAF experimented with various .50 weapons
from the 1920s but never really got far and
then essentially decided to largelt skip the
.50 all together (apart from on some Spits,
a few Beaus, Halifax flexible nose guns, and
a few Lanc tail turrets late on).

It's interesting to note what was happening
in the 1930s, though. For the three aircraft
designed as interceptors against any potential
bomber threat over the USA, two of them (P38
and P39) were designed around cannon (23mm
Madsen and the 37mm respectively) with only
the P40 using exclusively machine guns.

VF-10_Snacky
04-09-2004, 08:54 AM
Dont forget variants of the F6F and F4U in the Pacific both used 2x20mm with 4x.50. I believe toward the end of WWII the F4U was using 4x20mm exclusively.

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

Aaron_GT
04-09-2004, 10:55 AM
One reason why the USA stuck a bit longer
with the .50 might have been due to unreliability
of the 20mm cannon. The British took the Hispano
(which was designed for an engine block mount,
requiring this stiffness of mount, apparently)
and had lots of jamming problems pre war and
early in the war. These were later almost
entirely solved in the Hispano II. The USA
also took the Hispano from the French design
and did separate development, but solved
the jamming problems later in the war (about
the same development time, the UK just
started playing with the Hispano earlier).

Bastables
04-09-2004, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
i wonder why Us get rid of 50cals as fighter weapon if it was so GOOD. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


After Korea their wasn't much use for the .50 in the air, It had something to do with the appearence of heat seeking & radar guided missels http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, & the 20mm, no need for a .50 when you finaly have a 20mm cannon developed
with a higher ROF then the .50.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One should also note that by the time the USA had settled on the 2cm gun, non USA designer in the world moved to much larger calibres= 2,3cm, 2,7cm, and 3cm as standard fighter armament.

Gibbage1
04-09-2004, 10:57 PM
In Korea, the .50 cal gun was deemed "inadiquate". The aircraft targets drastically changed from small thin-skinned targets like Zero's and 109's to thick and armored targets like the Mig-15. Jets by design have thicker skins and more armor due to the stresses involved in faster flight and high-g manuvers. I have read many accounts from P-80 and F-86 pilots who emptied all 6 of there guns into a Mig-15 just to watch it fly away.

On the other hand, In WWII, the .50 cal guns were more then enough. Especially in the Pacific! Fact.

F4F-3 and 3A's had 4 .50 cal guns in the wing. Later in the -4 model, they added 2 more. Pilots called it "overkill" seeing as the Navy's first ace took down 4 medium "betty" bombers in 1 pass using "only" the 4 .50's in a -3. Later models of the F4F-5 (later named FM2 because they changed production facilities) reveted BACK to the 4x .50 cal guns. None of the pilots complained. Also with the less weight, they were a lot more manuverable. That was more important in the Pacific then firepower. A few models of F4U's had 4x 20MM but they did not see much service. There was no need.

Gib

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WhiskeyRiver
04-10-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
i wonder why Us get rid of 50cals as fighter weapon if it was so GOOD. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the M61 and M39 were more effective. Also, with the advent of radar ranging and lead computing gunsights engagement ranges increased.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint Eastwood

Luftcaca
04-14-2004, 11:37 AM
I'd like to mention this about the .50 caliber

I was flying Brester in my Finnish campaign and I thought the .50 was devastating. I could come home with 7 or 8 kills, chopping Yaks, blasting Migs and Polykarpovs

but now, in an other campaign, Im flying P-40M, and for some reason it seems like the .50 has less punch...??? I can shoot down "only" 3 or 4 109's and usually their not badly damaged as the russian planes were in my Finnish campaign

is there a reason for that?

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

clint-ruin
04-14-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftcaca:
I'd like to mention this about the .50 caliber

I was flying Brester in my Finnish campaign and I thought the .50 was devastating. I could come home with 7 or 8 kills, chopping Yaks, blasting Migs and Polykarpovs

but now, in an other campaign, Im flying P-40M, and for some reason it seems like the .50 has less punch...??? I can shoot down "only" 3 or 4 109's and usually their not badly damaged as the russian planes were in my Finnish campaign

is there a reason for that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Likely reasons:

Bf109s are actually tougher than they get credit for. The engine is capable of producing some very juicy instant explosions, but the actual structure itself is quite tough and it's a small target [at least at the nearest LOD!]. Fw-190s are also quite tough. Less so now than when they had a simple DM, but unless you hit the pilot or engine or rear fuel reserve they're not easy kills.

.50 cal gets fantastic penetration against many russian planes for some reason. The properties of deltawood have been mentioned [mocked :&gt;] for a while, but apparently it was quite fire resistant and held up to blast damage fairly well. Versus high mass/high speed firing MGs like the UB and Browning .50, that's not likely to do much for it.

Mig3 is an absolute powderkeg [almost tne entire wing and fuselage section can be set alight] so you shouldn't be surprised if you can kill a bunch of those. I-16 has been tuned downwards in damage resistance in 1.21 or 1.22 I believe, it was an easy kill before and it's even easier now.

You don't have nose mounted guns anymore and have to manage convergence issues more.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Luftcaca
04-14-2004, 12:20 PM
yes, Migs have always been easy to down, not a surprise there, as for the I-16's I remember they were a lot more resistant one of the patch changed the damage model dramatically.

I also thought about the .50 having an extraordinary penetration on wooden planes, amking it the most effective caliber agaisnt them.

But, as for the 109's, its well known, aim at the DB engine and watch the fireworks!
But yanno we've seen so many times a chopped-in-two 109 going down in flames, I was expecting to see it often with 6 X .50 browning MG.I mean, when I was flying Lagg3 s66 in my previous battle, they were ALWAYS going down that way or almost

Should we conclude that 6X.50 MG is less powerful that 1X ShVAK + 1X UB MG??

I think the P-40M should have more punch that the Lagg3 s66, and its an important issue to me, cuz of all the friendly AI kill stealin', you just cant afford to let go a smokin plane http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

clint-ruin
04-14-2004, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftcaca:
But, as for the 109's, its well known, aim at the DB engine and watch the fireworks!
But yanno we've seen so many times a chopped-in-two 109 going down in flames, I was expecting to see it often with 6 X .50 browning MG.I mean, when I was flying Lagg3 s66 in my previous battle, they were ALWAYS going down that way or almost

Should we conclude that 6X.50 MG is less powerful that 1X ShVAK + 1X UB MG??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the current dispersion 6 .50 cals are much less likely to strike exactly the same point on a DM than a UBS/ShVAK combo.

JTD has some concise single power rating tables for guns in FB here:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/tables.html

Total firepower of the P-40 is greater [6 x 70] but much less concentrated than the Lagg 3 S66 [1 x 75, 1 x 156], both as a result of gun placement and the dispersion of each round. You will do more damage to the same point on a structure with the Lagg. This is very critical for perceived hitting power in FB.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Luftcaca
04-14-2004, 02:19 PM
nice link!

thx

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/luftcaca.jpg

Formerly ''known'' as Gunther Aeroburst

bazzaah2
04-15-2004, 04:58 AM
maybe a dispersion issue (some other threads reference that wrt P38), but I have found that a well placed burst at approx. convergence to a 109 engine will as often as not produce lots of thick black smoke and flame. Seems harder to saw a wing off now though...

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Oak_Groove
04-20-2004, 09:54 PM
Keep in mind that the aircraft mounted M2 .50cal had a shorter barrel length (36 ins.) compared to the watercooled AA/ shipboard M2 .50cal or tripod/land vehicle mounted M2HB .50cal (both 45 ins.), thus resulting in decreased muzzle velocity and accuracy while firing the same round(s) (i.e. M1 .50cal Tracer, M1 .50cal AP). But i do agree that there is a general weapon/DM issue in FB/AEP, as well as too much dispersion for the M2.

XP2500 OC'ed 11x200
768MB TWINMOS DDR 400 3-3-2.5-11
A7N8X-D Rev. 2.0/Bios 1.7
SAPPHIRE R9700 Atlantis
2 x IBM IC35040 40GB
Syncmaster 957P
Win XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9.0b
nForce UDP 2.45 w/3.75 Audio
Catalyst 3.7

FliegerAas
04-21-2004, 02:46 PM
I hope the patch comes soon, correcting the DM's or weapons effectiveness.
I guess all weapons are a bit off by now.
Folowing picture shows MG131 hits on PE8 (unarmed) fired from 150 to 100m distance. I at least expected the engine to smoke!
(jeah, I know: .50 had higher muzzle velo, but from this distance that doesn't matter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

http://www.metalforum-austria.net/albums/album140/hit.jpg

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243

Blutarski2004
04-21-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oak_Groove:
Keep in mind that the aircraft mounted M2 .50cal had a shorter barrel length (36 ins.) compared to the watercooled AA/ shipboard M2 .50cal or tripod/land vehicle mounted M2HB .50cal (both 45 ins.), thus resulting in decreased muzzle velocity and accuracy while firing the same round(s) (i.e. M1 .50cal Tracer, M1 .50cal AP). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... True, but the difference in MV was less than 100fps. I can provide the exact values if desired

BLUTARSKI

clint-ruin
04-21-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FliegerAas:
I hope the patch comes soon, correcting the DM's or weapons effectiveness.
I guess all weapons are a bit off by now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi FliegerAas,

Here's my perspective on the DMs. 109G6 MG131 only vs Pe-8.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/how-to-do-it.jpg

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/how-to-do-it.zip

You have to make sure that you hit the component that you wish to damage. The shot you posted shows very few of those hits actually contacting the engine itself and lots of them going into the wing root / midwing / landing gear.

I usually find that the best way to take on bombers is to dive down on them so that you can walk the shots directly into the engine, rather than trying to punch through the landing gear/wing surface to get at it.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Enofinu
04-21-2004, 04:17 PM
Clint ruin, on Fliegers pic there is good hits on vital part of the plane, but still nothin happened. then penetration range is not sufficient and it sucks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

sure the engine should take some good damge on those hits.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin
04-21-2004, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
Clint ruin, on Fliegers pic there is good hits on vital part of the plane, but still nothin happened. then penetration range is not sufficient and it sucks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

sure the engine should take some good damge on those hits.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we are missing the vital step of "testing other weapons to see what they do" before stepping onto the "LW is hard done by" wagon.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/u-can-do-it-too.jpg

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/u-can-do-it-too.zip

^ 2x UBS

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/play-with-a-friend.jpg

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/play-with-a-friend.zip

^ 2x Browning .50 cal

UBS is the strongest of the three and needs the least hits, Browning is middle of the road, MG131 is the weakest.

I am sure this must be some kind of crazy coincidence .. but that's how the weapons stacked up in reality! Someone tell Oleg so he can fix that immediately ;&gt;

You should note where the engine is [shows up well on the Browning pic] as opposed to where the landing gear housing is. Though the perspective makes it very hard to judge, try and guess how many of those arrows actually intersect the engine itself in Fliegers picture, even if they hit the wing surface behind it. It is not good enough to hit the wing to the left of the engine, the wing to the right of the engine, or the landing gear below the engine. You have to hit the engine, or at least get shots in that vaguely intersect it if you wish to penetrate through the structure to get at it.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

FliegerAas
04-21-2004, 06:37 PM
Thanks @ clint http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243

DJDalton
04-22-2004, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FliegerAas:
Thanks @ clint http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The .50 caliber should be effective...IF its right on target and IN CLOSE. From 300 meters plus it should not result in killing anything but the Japanese aircraft.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

Blutarski2004
04-22-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FliegerAas:
Thanks @ clint http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The .50 caliber should be effective...IF its right on target and IN CLOSE. From 300 meters plus it should not result in killing anything but the Japanese aircraft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Upon what basis did you arrive at that particular conclusion?

BLUTARSKI

VW-IceFire
04-22-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FliegerAas:
Thanks @ clint http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Online unterwegs als "Hundsbube"
http://www.metalforum-austria.net/vbb/attachment.php?s=&postid=15243



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The .50 caliber should be effective...IF its right on target and IN CLOSE. From 300 meters plus it should not result in killing anything but the Japanese aircraft.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats a little to the extreme. P-38 pilots reported downing targets at I think it was twice that range. Thats a little rediculous...if you have sources then please do show http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

clint-ruin
04-22-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DJDalton:
The .50 caliber should be effective...IF its right on target and IN CLOSE. From 300 meters plus it should not result in killing anything but the Japanese aircraft.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Bluto I'm very curious as to which orifice this information is coming from. Without doing the math on this I'd be very unsurprised if the .50 cal still has more momentum at 300m than the MG131 has as soon as it leaves the gun.

The other thing I should mention is that the number of hits required on the engine to set it aflame is only half the story. You'll notice that even with very carefully controlled bursts from two engine cowl mounts, the .50 cal is going all over the place due to the massive dispersion. Even at .14 it was quite hard to get the shots to land near the reticle, I had to aim above the engine and count on the dispersion dropping every other round low.

By contrast the MG131 suffers the least dispersion and least recoil of all 3 guns tested. Recoil should probably be smaller than the others due to the crappy m/v but dispersion is quite the eyebrow raiser. It's pretty much pinpoint accurate to whatever distance convergence is set to.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Aaron_GT
04-23-2004, 01:19 AM
Actually the figures posted in another thread
suggested that the dispersion for the MG131
should be about 10 mils, about 20% more than
what the M2 should be according to the figure
that I think Blutarski posted (i.e. 8 mils for
a mounted M2). The 'base' dispersion is probably
about 5 mils for a bench mounted gun. Not all
mils are the same, though (see below).

It seems that the current fashion
is to quote the one standard deviation figure.
To get the dispersion for virtually 100% of the
rounds you need to triple that (or double for
95% confidence). Quoting at one standard
deviation makes more sense in terms of the
statistics, though.

My guess of 5 mils for the M2 base dispersion
is based on the 100% figure, extrapolated
from the modern XM312 which has a 1 standard
deviation dispersion of 1.5 mils. or 4.5 mils
for 100%, as WW2 figures seem to be quoted
often for 100% of dispersed rounds, or 80%.
With a normal distribution there is no cut off
for 100%, but 3 standard deviations isn't a
bad approximation.

Somewhere I have a link to an online normal distribution table. I'll dig that up, as it's
handy to all refer to it when talking about
this sort of stuff.

Blutarski2004
04-23-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Actually the figures posted in another thread
suggested that the dispersion for the MG131
should be about 10 mils, about 20% more than
what the M2 should be according to the figure
that I think Blutarski posted (i.e. 8 mils for
a mounted M2). The 'base' dispersion is probably
about 5 mils for a bench mounted gun. Not all
mils are the same, though (see below).

It seems that the current fashion
is to quote the one standard deviation figure.
To get the dispersion for virtually 100% of the
rounds you need to triple that (or double for
95% confidence). Quoting at one standard
deviation makes more sense in terms of the
statistics, though.

My guess of 5 mils for the M2 base dispersion
is based on the 100% figure, extrapolated
from the modern XM312 which has a 1 standard
deviation dispersion of 1.5 mils. or 4.5 mils
for 100%, as WW2 figures seem to be quoted
often for 100% of dispersed rounds, or 80%.
With a normal distribution there is no cut off
for 100%, but 3 standard deviations isn't a
bad approximation.

Somewhere I have a link to an online normal distribution table. I'll dig that up, as it's
handy to all refer to it when talking about
this sort of stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Just to clarify, the 8 mil dispersion value quoted for the 50cal M2 is a USAF value for 100 pct of shots from a gun rigidly mounted in a fighter a/c. The fighter gunnery manual from which this is quoted makes no dispersion distinctions between wing and nose mountings. Gun harmonization for all a/c mentioned in this manual assume the 8 mil dispersion figure.

In USAF practice, one mil equals the angle formed at the apex of an isosceles triangle, two of whose sides are 1000 units long and the third side 1 unit in length. Or, to put it another way, the angle subtended by 1 foot of arc at a 1000 foot radius.

The law of ballistic dispersion will produce the following bullet strike distribution with the 100 pct dispersion disc -

50 pct of bullets will strike within +/- 1 mil of the aim point (i.e., a circle about the aiming point of 2 mils diameter).

82 pct will strike within +/- 2 mils (4 mil diameter).

96 pct within +/- 3 mils (6 mil diameter).

100 pct within +/- 4 mils (8 mil diameter), excluding wild shots.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
04-23-2004, 06:55 AM
I'm re-posting this info as well, since it is related to 50cal MG performance -

The 50cal projectile has about 4.5x the mass of the 30cal. The 30cal has a rate of fire about 1.5x greater than the 50cal (1000-1200 rds per minute versus 720 rds per minute of the 50cal); therefore allow a 1.5x correction to the mass value of the 30cal.

I pulled out the following information re retained velocity from a 1948 US Army manual on ballistic performance of ammunition -

Range-----30cal------50cal------KE Ratio:
in yds----AP M2------AP M2------50cal MG vs
----------166 gr-----708 gr-----30 cal MG

000 yds---2775 fps---2835 fps---2.967
200 yds---2325 fps---2575 fps---3.487
400 yds---1925 fps---2350 fps---4.237
600 yds---1550 fps---2125 fps---5.344
800 yds---1250 fps---1900 fps---6.568

The KE ratio is my construct and represents the relationship between the total kinetic energies delivered within a given unit of time by a single 50cal M2 36-inch bbl HMG and a single 30cal M2 24-inch bbl MG at various air to air gunnery ranges. This was calculated on the basis of a static ratio of 708 versus 166 grains projectile weight, a fifty pct greater RoF for the 30cal MG, and the square of the ratio between the striking velocities of the two guns at various ranges. As can be seen, the ratio changes steadily in favor of the the 50cal as range increases. I have not factored in the better accuracy of the 50cal (8 mil versus 10 mil dispersion) which would further increase the ratio by a factor of up to 1.5 for any target whose average diameter was four mils or less.

If the calculations are taken further, it can be demonstrated that the kinetic energy of four x 50cal HMGs is essentially equal to that of twelve x 30cal MGs at the muzzle, is about 15 pct greater at 200 yds, and is 40 pct greater at 400 yds. Again, relative accuracy factors are excluded.

BLUTARSKI

Aaron_GT
04-24-2004, 01:49 AM
"..... Just to clarify, the 8 mil dispersion value quoted for the 50cal M2 is a USAF value for 100 pct of shots from a gun rigidly mounted in a fighter a/c."

100% is very close to 3 standard deviations,
although with the more detailed figures I could
make a more detailed estimate of the 1 standard
deviation mil measure.

So the XM312 has a dispersion of 1.5 mils by
the 1 standard deviation measure, the M2
about 2.5 from that information.