PDA

View Full Version : 1950 USAAF gunnery manual scans



PlaneEater
06-29-2004, 05:19 PM
Thanks go to Blutarski for these. The M2 .50s seem to have been changed for 2.02, but I thought these would be quite interesting for folks anyway.

First section is ballistic aspects of the various .50 BMG rounds, second is air-to-air gunnery.

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-01.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-02.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-03.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-04.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-05.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-06.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-07.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-1.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-2.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-3.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-4.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-5.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-6.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-7.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-8.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-9.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-10.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-11.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-12.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-13.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-14.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-15.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-16.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-17.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-18.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-19.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-20.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-21.jpg

Blutarski, feel free to expand upon those. You've gotten more of a chance to look into them.

PlaneEater
06-29-2004, 05:19 PM
Thanks go to Blutarski for these. The M2 .50s seem to have been changed for 2.02, but I thought these would be quite interesting for folks anyway.

First section is ballistic aspects of the various .50 BMG rounds, second is air-to-air gunnery.

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-01.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-02.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-03.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-04.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-05.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-06.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/B-07.jpg

http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-1.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-2.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-3.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-4.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-5.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-6.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-7.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-8.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-9.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-10.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-11.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-12.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-13.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-14.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-15.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-16.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-17.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-18.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-19.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-20.jpg
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-21.jpg

Blutarski, feel free to expand upon those. You've gotten more of a chance to look into them.

SkyChimp
06-29-2004, 06:06 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

LuftLuver
06-29-2004, 10:44 PM
PE thank you for taking the time to post this.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

β"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Άβ"Ά
"All your bases are belong to us."

PlaneEater
06-30-2004, 04:33 AM
No problem, Luft.

Right now, I'm waiting for Hoarmurath to come in here and try to tell me this stuff is overmodeled. Then we can finally ban his *** for trolling.

Hoarmurath
06-30-2004, 04:50 AM
tss, tss, tss, name calling again... you better read what you post... No, not the BS you write yourself, the manual...

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

Zmir88IAP
06-30-2004, 06:35 AM
4mil hm in 2.01 we have about... 35 mils?

I hope this Bug will not be "refixed" in the official 2.02-but i think they will http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I will save this leaked 2.02 to be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS: Thx for the great post!

Hoarmurath
06-30-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox :
Changes in US weapon wasn't for P-38 But for US MGs class of weapon. Sorry , but its not about dispercion but about recoil.... Users were crying for non-realistic and non-historical and finally they got it. Sorry I'm tired of some stupid people that even can't read with attention the docs that they sent me that to say that we are wrong when these docs just confirm what we model...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it is blatant here. The doc is right, it is your conclusion after reading it that is not. I suggest you take a closer look at this doc.

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

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox :
Changes in US weapon wasn't for P-38 But for US MGs class of weapon. Sorry , but its not about dispercion but about recoil.... Users were crying for non-realistic and non-historical and finally they got it. Sorry I'm tired of some stupid people that even can't read with attention the docs that they sent me that to say that we are wrong when these docs just confirm what we model...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it is blatant here. The doc is right, it is your conclusion after reading it that is not. I suggest you take a closer look at this doc.

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


..... What exactly do you mean?

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 09:34 AM
PlaneEater,

Nice of you to host & post this data. I imagined that it would make the issue clear, but apparently certain skeptics remain.

BLUTARSKI

Obi_Kwiet
06-30-2004, 09:51 AM
Blast! This is what we need! We need Oleg to explain to us how this is incorperated into the sim know or how it will be. Or what ever. Then we will be happy.

Hoarmurath
06-30-2004, 09:51 AM
I mean the mil values you take into account are for calibrated M2 on ground. It is not for a battery of four to eight M2 firing from a flying aircraft. There are a lot of factors you don't take into account, especially the recoil effects. If you check for differences between calibration accuracy and actual inflight accuracy, you will find a big difference. Ask Butch2k, he knows more than i do on the subject, he even gave us some results of testing done during the war while we were discussing about this dispersion issue in a french forum.

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

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I mean the mil values you take into account are for calibrated M2 on ground. It is not for a battery of four to eight M2 firing from a flying aircraft. There are a lot of factors you don't take into account, especially the recoil effects. If you check for differences between calibration accuracy and actual inflight accuracy, you will find a big difference. Ask Butch2k, he knows more than i do on the subject, he even gave us some results of testing done during the war while we were discussing about this dispersion issue in a french forum.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)


..... Where in the world did you get the impression that this 8-mil dispersion value came from "calibrated ground tests"? If the dispersion data posted in the pages above had come from a U S Army ground forces manual, you would have a valid argument. However, the manual in question was the FIGHTER GUNNERY manual of the U S Air Force, produced with the distilled knowledge of nearly two decades of overall peacetime and wartime experience with 50cal-armed prop fighters. If you read the manual text closely, the 8-mil dispersion value is clearly set in the context of aerial gunnery. Absolutely no mention is made of dispersion value being been artificially derived from static ground tests. Any sort of objective reading of the manual leads to this inescapable conclusion.

I too have seen the famous Butch2k 50cal dispersion data, and they are correct for the frame of reference in which they were presented - 50cal armament of bombers, both flexible and turret mounted. This is a completely different case from forward firing fixed gun fighter armament.

Why would you possibly imagine that any FIGHTER GUNNERY manual would rely upon incorrect ground-based dispersion data? It is totally illogical. Of course, if you wish to believe that the USAF chose to remain ignorant of the accuracy and dispersion issues involved in aerial gunnery for better than twenty years and simply published incorrect manual after incorrect manual, then I cannot help you. Believe what you wish.


BLUTARSKI

Hoarmurath
06-30-2004, 11:47 AM
I begin to feel like Oleg... No point discussing anything with you... You sent your doc to oleg, i know Butch2k did the same with what he had. Result, with all docs in hand, Oleg think you are wrong, but give up in face of the amount of whining.

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

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
No point discussing anything with you...

..... Why do you feel that way? Do you believe that I made up all these documents? Or do you just disbelieve them?


You sent your doc to oleg, i know Butch2k did the same with what he had. Result, with all docs in hand, Oleg think you are wrong, but give up in face of the amount of whining.

..... You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I formed my opinion on the basis of relevant historical evidence. If I have incorrectly interpreted anything, please show me where I have done so.



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

BLUTARSKI

butch2k
06-30-2004, 12:32 PM
Hoar was making reference to this extract i posted elsewhere. It comes from an Italian document based on German data, and has been translated by British intel.

----------------------------------
(...) As regards the dispersion of fire a distinction must be drawn between dispersion due to the gun and mounting (aircraft stationary on the ground) and dispersion due to the aircraft itself (aircraft in flight - proof by camera guns)

- The dispersion due to the gun is the smaller.
In Germany during acceptance tests with the aircraft stationary (2 jacks under the wings and one under the tail) each gun must at 100m range send 100% of its rounds into a square whose sides are 40cm long.
With reference to 50% of the rounds it has been shown in Germany, by experiments, that dispersion due to the gun does not exceed 1 to 2% i.e. at a range of 1000m 50% of the rounds lie within a circle of diameter 2-4 metres.

- Dispersion due to the aircraft itself is much greater.
This has been experimentally determined by installing in a fighter aircraft a camera gun (all errors of a ballistic nature are thus cancelled out) and choosing the simplest form of attack, i.e. prolonged burst, exactly on the tail of a bomber aircraft on a straight course. In this form of attack the operations of aiming are very simple, as it is sufficient to sight slowly and fire only when it is certain that the target is centered in the sight.

The leading aces of German Fighter Arm were chosen to carry out the experiments and camera gun test were carried out for ranges of 500m and 1000m.
The results were discouraging. The winner of the competition Oberst Galland (as he then was - now ace and Inspector General of the Fighter Arm) got the best score with an 8% dispersion i.e. only 50% of the rounds at ranges of 500 and 1000m lay within circles of diameter 8m and 16m respectively.

Such inaccuracy is inevitable in air gunnery, since it is bound up with the instability and uncontrollability of the platform represented by the aircraft, which in the test under consideration were the Me 109 and Me 110 i.e. two of the most manoeuvrable types of aircraft.
(...)
--------------------------------------

One things gunnery manuals from every country i have seen so far do not take into account is the inaccuracy caused by the aircraft moving through air. The later no being a perfect fluid but rather a turbulent one which is causing vibrations of varying intensity. Anyone having flown within aircraft has experienced it. While the vibrations could be considered as small they have a serious effect on accuracy. Most manual do not take it into account because it's of varying intensity and depends on a bunch of factors.

Fennec_P
06-30-2004, 01:10 PM
Semantics aside, it does serve to show that the dispersion was far too great prior to 2.02.

The effects of air turbulence are all nice and good, but gunnery tests in FB are only done on the ground. The values then should match what is explained in this docuement.

The difference is quite large. The last time I tested, the ground dispersion of the 50 cal was as much as 1.1 degrees, which converts into about 18-19 mils, correct me if I'm wrong. Thats over double the quoted 8 mil value.

From the 2.02 screens, it looks like the new dispersion is about half that of 2.01, and would conform, more or less, to this information. I don't see why it would be changed back.

In fact, its a wonder the dispersion was so big in the first place. It was even worse in the original IL-2. Even with the guncam fottage, documents, and Oleg himself stating the dispersion to be the same as the Berezin.

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
One things gunnery manuals from every country i have seen so far do not take into account is the inaccuracy caused by the aircraft moving through air. The later no being a perfect fluid but rather a turbulent one which is causing vibrations of varying intensity. Anyone having flown within aircraft has experienced it. While the vibrations could be considered as small they have a serious effect on accuracy. Most manual do not take it into account because it's of varying intensity and depends on a bunch of factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hello Butch,

Nice to make your acquaintance. And thanks for clarifying which report Hoarmurath was referring to.

In fact, my above-posted fighter gunnery material does discuss the issue of aiming errors induced by the flight behavior of the firing aircraft. It is treated as separate and distinct from gun dispersion. Quoting from Fighter Gunnery manual p. 4-3:

QUOTE-
"At a 1,000-foot range, it is difficult for even an expert to hold his sight within 5 or 6 feet of the desired aiming point, and at 1,500-feet it is difficult to hold the sight within 8 or 9 feet. Therefore, since fighter aircraft present a relatively small target area, the pilot's ability to aim becomes a major limitation of effective range."
-UNQUOTE

The aiming error radius of 8 to 9 feet at 1500 feet (500 yards) range reasonably parallels the aiming error circle of 8 meters (26 feet) diameter at 500 meters (547 yards) given in the report which you quote.

Error in aim is a separate and distinct matter from the ballistic dispersion characteristics of the gun itself. As such, it will affect to one degree or another the gunnery performance of any aircraft of any nation, irrespective of type or armament. Natural gun dispersion (coupled with harmonization method) dictates the size and lethality of the hitting pattern when the point of aim actually chances upon the target.

The matter under so much discussion is that, for some reason, the FB modelled M2 50cal hmg has displayed very much greater ballistic dispersion that that exhibited by similar 12.7mm high velocity hmgs modelled in FB. This 50cal dispersion was consistent irrespective of the aircraft from which it was being fired. In order for this to make any sort of sense, one must accept that all American fighters mounting 50cal batteries were unusually unstable firing platforms, worse by an order of magnitude than all other contemporary fighter a/c modelled in the game. If else is the case, then all guns modelled in FB should display similarly exaggerated dispersion patterns - if that is in fact the method by which the game designer seeks to simulate the behavior.

I trust that you will agree that our data are by no means in conflict here.

BLUTARSKI

Bill_Door
06-30-2004, 02:51 PM
Something diferent than dispersion:

Did somebody noticed the table concerning the "continuos firing limits"?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
30 sec. cooling time between two 15 rounds burst if you would like to fire 10 times!
60 sec. cooling time between two 50 rounds burst if you would like to fire 2 times!

"the max. single burst which can be fired without danger of coockoff is 150 rounds. Therefore, if firing 100-round-burst, only one such burst may be fired.... Before firing another 100- or 150-round burst, the gun should be allowed to cool completely"
The manual don't describe how long this take.

This would be a total different aspect of the M2!
At least for me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

butch2k
06-30-2004, 03:01 PM
My main problem with il-2's gunnery modeling is the lack of accuracy loss caused by turbulences/vibration induced by the plane movement.

It's not so difficult to hold the Gunsight on a plane in Il-2 while it was really difficult in real life. That cause of dispersion is not accurately modelled in Il-2.
So far we have intrinsic dispersion, and recoil induced vibrations, with both of which i'm ok even if recoil might be slightly overdone but for reasons associated with the physical modelling i assume. But we are lacking proper modelling of the other cause of vibrations.
It's not only related to gunnery, for instance do you believe that a 109, P-51 or Yak will not suffer from heavy vibration when their wings has be perforated by a couple of 20mm ???

That's really one of thing i miss the most in the current game, i know it is very difficult to model for various reasons but it's a feature i'd like to see modelled in BoB.

As of now we have a bastard gunnery modelling that does not reflect the real thing and i seriously think it's pointless to put too much energy/efforts in it since the current game won't be able to properly model ballistics as it is. The engine lacks parts of the needed physics and as such you won't be able to get coherent results.
For instance ballistic properties of a single bullet change a lot when fired at ground level and at 6000 in thinner and colder air, energy retention could vary by 15-25% etc...

Oleg is doing his best with what he has at hands, but he won't be able to satisfy everyone with the current engine.

That was my 2 cents worth of comments on this matter.

butch2k
06-30-2004, 03:06 PM
"The initial long burst will heat the barrel to the maximum permissible temperature, and repeated firing after a minute delay with a reduced number of rounds per minute will maintain the barrel at the high temperature. Thus the initial burst of 50 to 75 rounds or a 50 to 75 rounds burst followed by firing 20 rounds for each succeeding minutes require a cooling time or cessation of fire for approximately 15 minutes before the long burst can be repeated.
If long bursts are not fired, approximately 25 rounds may be fired each minutes over long period"

That's another thing not currently modeled, but this apply to MG and Cannons of every country http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bill_Door
06-30-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
That's another thing not currently modeled, but this apply to MG and Cannons of every country http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess the heatbilding increases with the firing rate of the gun. So 20 mm should generate less heat than M2.
It is a pitty that this is not modeled. It would be fun not just to aim your guns but also to time your burst's.

But anyway, it is a surprisingly long time for cooling down if you take in acount that the manual is writen for M2's build into jets.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gifThere should be a lot of cool air around.

butch2k
06-30-2004, 03:40 PM
My quote is for M2 mounted on prop driven aircraft.
As cannons go :
"Do not exceed a maximum of 20 round bursts when firing 20mm cannon and limit your average burst to 10 rounds.
Do not exceed a maximum of 15 round bursts when firing 37mm cannon and limit your average burst to 5 rounds."

Bill_Door
06-30-2004, 03:44 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif someone should tell this the IL2 AI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/smileys-gun2.gif

butch2k
06-30-2004, 03:46 PM
Btw i have an original 1944 issue of this manual somewhere... I'll post a few scan when i manage to find. Since i haven't packed it up yet for my move, i suppose i'll find it sooner or later...

Hoarmurath
06-30-2004, 03:52 PM
I agree that the current modellisation of the guns is empiric. What i disagree with is that the M2 were undermodelled when compared to other HMGs in the game. When i tested them, i saw that they were all modelled the same way (i still don't understand why i have more difficulty to aim with german ones... oh well, my fault probably).

Beside that, if you look at the manual posted here, you can see that the maximum effective range is of 1200 feet. This correspond to approximately 350 meters. Most efficient range should be 600 feet, according to the same manual, so approximately 180 meters. That was close of what we have in 2.01
Many people i know who pilot US planes use 200 to 250 meters convergence for maximum efficiency. Personnally, i'm a P38 afficionados, and i use 200 meters, and as i said numerous times before, i have no problem shooting down anything with this setting.

These are the reasons why i think the M2 didn't really needed a change, and especially not a change from the way the other HMGs are modelled in the game.

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

BfHeFwMe
06-30-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bill_Door:
Something diferent than dispersion:

Did somebody noticed the table concerning the "continuos firing limits"?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
30 sec. cooling time between two 15 rounds burst if you would like to fire 10 times!
60 sec. cooling time between two 50 rounds burst if you would like to fire 2 times!

"the max. single burst which can be fired without danger of coockoff is 150 rounds. Therefore, if firing 100-round-burst, only one such burst may be fired.... Before firing another 100- or 150-round burst, the gun should be allowed to cool completely"
The manual don't describe how long this take.

This would be a total different aspect of the M2!
At least for me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would have to be clarified further, was it instruction limits to the armament ground testers as a limit 'without any air cooling effects'. By the context of the previous and following instruction blocks it appears so.

BfHeFwMe
06-30-2004, 04:33 PM
http://home.mindspring.com/~snakebitt/FG-8.jpg

Is my only question, to what degree?

Obi_Kwiet
06-30-2004, 04:36 PM
Ok, so if vibration is modled in US AC it sure as heck ain't modlesd on the other ones. Mabey the US AC are the only ones modled correctly. Anyway modle them all equally. It's worce too modle some right and some wrong. Do it one way all the way.

Ring-
06-30-2004, 05:11 PM
i would say those number are a bit off... allot of the guns fire from a open breach, this would allow cold air to run thre the gun to cool it...

if flying above 13,000ft it allready going to be preaty cold to begin with.

now add a 300+ MPH windchill to that..

i was "just this weekend" shooting 250 round belts at a time non-stop threw browning 1919's and 200 round belts to a MG34.

most guys wont even swap out the BBL. on the MGs for heat reason till they hit 800 rounds non stop..

DINGHAO
07-01-2004, 09:36 AM
But most of the barrel is exposed in the browning, whereas in most A/C mg mounts the majority of the barrel is in the wing or fuselage.

Makes a difference, perhaps.

http://users.rcn.com/chao.enteract/pics/dinghaosig.jpg

Blutarski2004
07-01-2004, 02:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I agree that the current modellisation of the guns is empiric. What i disagree with is that the M2 were undermodelled _when compared_ to other HMGs in the game. When i tested them, i saw that they were all modelled the same way (i still don't understand why i have more difficulty to aim with german ones... oh well, my fault probably).

Beside that, if you look at the manual posted here, you can see that the _maximum_ effective range is of 1200 feet. This correspond to approximately 350 meters. Most efficient range should be 600 feet, according to the same manual, so approximately 180 meters. That was close of what we have in 2.01
Many people i know who pilot US planes use 200 to 250 meters convergence for maximum efficiency. Personnally, i'm a P38 afficionados, and i use 200 meters, and as i said numerous times before, i have no problem shooting down anything with this setting.

These are the reasons why i think the M2 didn't really needed a change, and especially not a change from the way the other HMGs are modelled in the game.

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


..... So much nicer to discuss things with you when the flames are turned off.

I cannot explain why you and Gibbage seem to get different target results when conducting these 50cal tests. But I do not believe that Gibbage just made up his results from thin air. You and he ought to compare notes about what conditions were in effect when the tests were performed. Perhaps it has something to do with online versus offline or use of different patch versions.


Here is another interesting thing to consider. As far as aiming error due to erratic movement of turbulent air, I would be willing to bet that a/c with heavier wing loadings were better gun platforms than those with low wing loading. The question is what degree of difference there was.

BLUTARSKI

Zmir88IAP
07-01-2004, 04:04 PM
I discussed a bit with oleg about the .50s(its nice-hes very competent...and knows everything)-to keep it short-2 options:

1."I am" right: The dispersion of the .50s is nonsense. NO gun should have this.

2."Mr.Maddox" is right: "ALL THE OTHER GUNS SHOULD HAVE A MUCH HIGHER DISPERSION TOO"(like the .50s in 2.01)

If FB gets the option Nr.2 ive no Problem("same for all"-and easier aiming thenhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif-but now we have the "recoil"(or whatever) effect just on the .50(as oleg said). I asked him why he didnt change "all other guns"-or change the Brownings until he is able to change all at once...

Maybe we get an answer here? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Gibbage1
07-03-2004, 12:40 AM
Interesting. Its been proven that #1, .50 cals should have less dispersion (about half for wing mounted, more for nose mounted). I also think that a P-47 with 8 .50 cals should not be able to fire all its guns into a 9" pie tin 300M away. But a 5 foot by 5 foot dispersion 150M away is redicules. I forgot who, but they tested the .50 cal and came out with 18mil's in-game. The docs say 8-5mils. I saw we give the P-47 and P-51 8mils, and the nose mounted MG's 5mils. Also all other HMG's should come up from 1-2 mils to 4-5. Sniper accuracy from a HMG mounted in an aircraft was never possible in WWII http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif it is in IL2! At least with non-US guns. Lol.

I hope thats what Oleg will do. ITs hard to tell from his english. It SOUNDS like eather he will bring the .50 cal spread down from 2.01 and the rest of the HMG's up (This would be great) or he is brigning all other HMG spread up, and leaving the .50 cal M2 (this would be bad, because it would still be off and un-historical). We will see. Time will only tell.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zmir88IAP:
I discussed a bit with oleg about the .50s(its nice-hes very competent...and knows everything)-to keep it short-2 options:

1."I am" right: The dispersion of the .50s is nonsense. NO gun should have this.

2."Mr.Maddox" is right: "ALL THE OTHER GUNS SHOULD HAVE A MUCH HIGHER DISPERSION TOO"(like the .50s in 2.01)

If FB gets the option Nr.2 ive no Problem("same for all"-and easier aiming thenhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif-but now we have the "recoil"(or whatever) effect just on the .50(as oleg said). I asked him why he didnt change "all other guns"-or change the Brownings until he is able to change all at once...

Maybe we get an answer here? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

T_O_A_D
07-03-2004, 03:46 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Thanks for the manual!

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-03-2004, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Thanks for the manual!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RGR that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

PlaneEater
07-03-2004, 06:44 AM
Thank Blutarski.

Someone may also want to save and mirror those somewhere, as my Mindspring account has limited bandwidth and hosting those is probably going through it relatively quick.

PlaneEater
07-03-2004, 07:17 AM
Personally, I'm surprised Oleg hasn't said anything in here. He usually makes a quick remark when somebody finds manuals like these.

Jippo01
07-03-2004, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ring-:
i would say those number are a bit off... allot of the guns fire from a open breach, this would allow cold air to run thre the gun to cool it...

if flying above 13,000ft it allready going to be preaty cold to begin with.

now add a 300+ MPH windchill to that..

i was "just this weekend" shooting 250 round belts at a time non-stop threw browning 1919's and 200 round belts to a MG34.

most guys wont even swap out the BBL. on the MGs for heat reason till they hit 800 rounds non stop..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you are definately ruining the barrels of nice historical weapons there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was instructed to fire about 5 round bursts on an 12.7mm to avoid overheating the barrel in the army. Afer firing few hundred rounds we had a break, opened the breech and top cover on the weapon to allow it to cool down. After 10-15 minutes snow would boil into steam when placed on the barrel. Temperature was about -5C.

Overheating of weapons should be modelled, but there is limitations for PC games simulations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

WWMaxGunz
07-03-2004, 11:01 AM
I read Oleg's objections as follows:

1) The tests in the docs (including German, etc docs) are done using planes in braces.
2) Testing guns in FB doesn't have that. (wait for it!)
3) Older plane models in FB do not have suspensions affected by vibration, newer ones do.
4) Point 3 makes comparative tests done in FB. (wwwwaaaiiiiitttt for it!)
5) The problem is not dispersion by the gun but rather effects of recoil by the gun.

If you don't address those lines of reasoning then he sees no reason to continue discussion.

By earlier discussion at the start of the whole thing, recoil goes to mounts and frames.
They model these things either in the game at runtime or outside the game to get values
to apply in-game of which only end results are used. I guess it's the latter as other
conditions of flight do not affect the scatter of shots.

My answer to #3 is that the P-39 model is not exactly new, but maybe it was updated while
the others were not? Weird that the Japanese planes with the Ho also have the stiff
suspensions even if they are new models. In fact, when I look only at dates models were
released (can't say when something like shocks were introduced) then that whole line of
counter-arguement is hard to give credit to, but I am not privey to what goes on inside 1C.

Generally it should be understood that Oleg does not do everything. That is an understatement
on a very high order. He gets or has to check many things to everything but no way he has
time to get depth except for parts he has personal focus on. So when these things come up,
what does a manager do? If he is deeply involved in that part, he simply answers. The less
involved he is, the more he has to rely on what his people give him or his memories and notes
of when and what he did when that part was created and what he saw during periodic checks as
well as the testing and review feedbacks. Next to last thing is to interrupt a worker from
something that interruption will require a large loss of time for the worker to get back to
(with creative or intensely involved work, it is a real loss with extra fatigue) and the
absolute last thing is for an in-depth hunt-up-the-real-problem, data-tracking-excavation and
subsequent possibility of further code change entanglements or other loss of time. So if he
is irritaed to say the least about the issue, figure he's in head deep and does not appreciate
the interruption --- **** look at what Copperhead wrote after his 16-hour day and I can say
from my own experience that a big code push can easily go to 16 to 20 per day, 7 days a week
for months on end at work that makes driving a semi look like a vacation.

So ask all you want. 2.02 got a change and I'm guessing the beta and leaked feedback has not
been all that positive.

In the meantime, I suggest getting a DeviceLink straight and level AP going to fire very short
bursts over a static camera position so the tracers and plane are in view (fly high enough to
get 200+m range from plane at end of burst to directly over the camera) and other ways to get
in-flight compares where bad piloting can't be used to throw the whole thing out (good luck!)
which I'd say involves TRK files you can see the gunsight stability the whole time in while
firing at a wide bomber flown by rookies and use the arcade arrows to show the spread.

IOW, the whole not-proof-but-good-evidence should be easily and quickly viewable in less time
than it takes to eat a good lunch, say. And don't use the word proof. Proof to someone
trained in science or philosophy is a hell of a lot harder than the sim or written histories
will ever provide. If you have the training and remember then you know, otherwise it takes
a lot of time to learn and understand and WTH were you doing back in school you didn't learn?


And I really mean this: Good Luck On This and other honestly raised issues because I have to
live with the results too. People raising 'maybe, probably, must be' just to get their side
an edge they see and want (should be), I don't agree with and they should... have car trouble
or something to take up their time, maybe get a mysterious rash, I dunno.


Neal

heywooood
07-03-2004, 11:09 AM
Maxguns -

excellent- exactly.



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

Gibbage1
07-03-2004, 12:07 PM
P-39 is one of the oldest flyable aircraft in the game. Brewster was also added later. I think both have the rigid landing gears. I asked Oleg this and he did not reply. If do have the rigid landing gear, then that eliminates that excuse since they have the same spread as a P-47.

Also saying the US and German test's were done in a "brace" is rather false. They are in no way ancored to the ground. For the P-51, the tail is lifted and the wings are put up on jacks. Jacks just like you use to fix a flat tire on a car. And everyone knows those are NOT rigid and a car can roll off its jacks rather easy.

I was watching a program about the A-10. When they were testing the GAU gun, they put the aircraft in a rigid mount. That was an impressive structure and the wings were not even on. When the gun fired, every shot landed in about 1 foot by 1 foot pattern 500M away. Later you see video of the A-10 straifing a tank and shots were covering the tank from stem to stern. A rather nadty spread! But like I said, the rigid brace was a structure, not 2 wing jacks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
3) Older plane models in FB do not have suspensions affected by vibration, newer ones do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
07-03-2004, 09:36 PM
We say about the same thing except I don't say about the A-10.

Did you miss the part about the Japanese planes you used to test the Ho gun?
They aren't exactly old models. Do they have bouncy suspensions?

Yes, I think Oleg was told this reason and did not stop to think of which
planes unless FB has changed the P-39 model to the new suspension and made
the Japanese planes with the old suspension, and the Brewster... IOW, the
planes with the M2's all have the moving shocks suspension and the others
do not. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

Gib. Honestly, I think we've been snowed and buddy I have a shovel for snow
as well as fertilizer. I hope Oleg has time enough to get real with us is all.
The change IS possible and there is no need to be angry or upset that we ask.


Neal

Copperhead310th
07-04-2004, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I read Oleg's objections as follows:

1) The tests in the docs (including German, etc docs) are done using planes in braces.
2) Testing guns in FB doesn't have that. (wait for it!)
3) Older plane models in FB do not have suspensions affected by vibration, newer ones do.
4) Point 3 makes comparative tests done in FB. (wwwwaaaiiiiitttt for it!)
5) The problem is not dispersion by the gun but rather effects of recoil by the gun.

If you don't address those lines of reasoning then he sees no reason to continue discussion.

By earlier discussion at the start of the whole thing, recoil goes to mounts and frames.
They model these things either in the game at runtime or outside the game to get values
to apply in-game of which only end results are used. I guess it's the latter as other
conditions of flight do not affect the scatter of shots.

My answer to #3 is that the P-39 model is not exactly new, but maybe it was updated while
the others were not? Weird that the Japanese planes with the Ho also have the stiff
suspensions even if they are new models. In fact, when I look only at dates models were
released (can't say when something like shocks were introduced) then that whole line of
counter-arguement is hard to give credit to, but I am not privey to what goes on inside 1C.

Generally it should be understood that Oleg does not do everything. That is an understatement
on a very high order. He gets or has to check many things to everything but no way he has
time to get depth except for parts he has personal focus on. So when these things come up,
what does a manager do? If he is deeply involved in that part, he simply answers. The less
involved he is, the more he has to rely on what his people give him or his memories and notes
of when and what he did when that part was created and what he saw during periodic checks as
well as the testing and review feedbacks. Next to last thing is to interrupt a worker from
something that interruption will require a large loss of time for the worker to get back to
(with creative or intensely involved work, it is a real loss with extra fatigue) and the
absolute last thing is for an in-depth hunt-up-the-real-problem, data-tracking-excavation and
subsequent possibility of further code change entanglements or other loss of time. So if he
is irritaed to say the least about the issue, figure he's in head deep and does not appreciate
the interruption --- **** look at what Copperhead wrote after his 16-hour day and I can say
from my own experience that a big code push can easily go to 16 to 20 per day, 7 days a week
for months on end at work that makes driving a semi look like a vacation.

So ask all you want. 2.02 got a change and I'm guessing the beta and leaked feedback has not
been all that positive.

In the meantime, I suggest getting a DeviceLink straight and level AP going to fire very short
bursts over a static camera position so the tracers and plane are in view (fly high enough to
get 200+m range from plane at end of burst to directly over the camera) and other ways to get
in-flight compares where bad piloting can't be used to throw the whole thing out (good luck!)
which I'd say involves TRK files you can see the gunsight stability the whole time in while
firing at a wide bomber flown by rookies and use the arcade arrows to show the spread.

IOW, the whole not-proof-but-good-evidence should be easily and quickly viewable in less time
than it takes to eat a good lunch, say. And don't use the word proof. Proof to someone
trained in science or philosophy is a hell of a lot harder than the sim or written histories
will ever provide. If you have the training and remember then you know, otherwise it takes
a lot of time to learn and understand and WTH were you doing back in school you didn't learn?


And I really mean this: Good Luck On This and other honestly raised issues because I have to
live with the results too. People raising 'maybe, probably, must be' just to get their side
an edge they see and want (should be), I don't agree with and they should... have car trouble
or something to take up their time, maybe get a mysterious rash, I dunno.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

good post Max.
altho I don't think that anyone on Olegs staff
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif@ 1C are moving at 75 MPH down the interstate with 88,ooo lbs behind them when some scmuk in a $60.000 luxury car & more money than they got good sence, desides to jam on the breaks just to look at the freakin Nieman Marcus billbord offering 50% off.
Still they have a pretty stressful job over there @ 1C. And the FB/AEP fans are a very unforgiving task master. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

WWMaxGunz
07-04-2004, 02:24 PM
Well I ain't drove tractor-trailers though I have drove some good sized vans in screwey
traffic before. I've also motorcycled at night in cold winter rain with idiots playing
all kinds of games more than a few times, some even tried 'tag' for a while. Yes, it
is all stressful. I've done the coding thing for about 2 decades where for long periods
I had to eat, drink and even woke up from dreams writing solutions to problems. The
mental load of large code is incredible even when you are not being twisted around by
people who don't know what they are asking. And for every time you accomplish something,
it seems to prove that you can go 2 steps further in half the time when in reality every
twist you add makes the next one harder though as new twists get added. Well if you
had structured things right then it will accomodate some but when run speed is critical....

What would you say if you were told that on a timed delivery run that every time you got
a call on your cell; you had to pull into a truckstop, take out all the cargo and then
repack it all differently but you do get a ramp and forktruck? Then halfway down the
road that rule changes and now you have to "just" rotate every one of those 18 wheels?
You're coming up to the home stretch and you get asked if you could just overhaul the
engine first because that would seem like a good idea? Oh, and you still get paid only
for the run itself which money you really need and the run lasts for 6 months which did
seem like way more time than needed before this extra BS creeped in. Every bit of that
makes as much sense as the things that happen while coding big projects, and I'l raise
your forum whiners by an avaricious manic backed by rich buddies he has dirt on signing
the check. Had some good other ones as well including finding out my contract was to
guys with syndicate connections to put it lightly and I'd better make em happy! Forum
whiners? Hell, the tax man is the one we ALL have to sweat!


Neal

PlaneEater
07-06-2004, 10:29 AM
And-a-da-bump...

Blutarski2004
07-06-2004, 12:34 PM
Here's another fun monkey wrench into the works ... ;-)

Spoke with an old buddy of mine this weekend who was familiar with M250cal. He claims that M2 50cal aircraft mounts had vertical and horizontal set screws, whereby loosening or tightening them would enlarge or reduce dispersion.

The devil is in the details, eh?

BLUTARSKI

Gibbage1
07-06-2004, 04:47 PM
Im guessing they would loosen them for green pilots. I know. Maybe Oleg thinks we are ALL green pilots! Ya! Thats it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Here's another fun monkey wrench into the works ... ;-)

Spoke with an old buddy of mine this weekend who was familiar with M250cal. He claims that M2 50cal aircraft mounts had vertical and horizontal set screws, whereby loosening or tightening them would enlarge or reduce dispersion.

The devil is in the details, eh?

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DGC763
07-06-2004, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Here's another fun monkey wrench into the works ... ;-)

Spoke with an old buddy of mine this weekend who was familiar with M250cal. He claims that M2 50cal aircraft mounts had vertical and horizontal set screws, whereby loosening or tightening them would enlarge or reduce dispersion.

The devil is in the details, eh?

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah yes, but mounts on what aircraft? They are all not necessarily the same.

"Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." (III.31) Sun Tzu

WWMaxGunz
07-08-2004, 05:52 AM
I noticed at the end of the manual they also had mention of test firing against towed flag
targets. Now it may just be me, but I do feel that with the money and training the USAAF/USAF
spent that if there was some great discrepancy between actual results and estimated results
that the estimations would have been corrected or at least noted clearly in the manuals that
were not released to the public and so, again this is me, not exactly propaganda material.


Neal

Blutarski2004
07-08-2004, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I noticed at the end of the manual they also had mention of test firing against towed flag
targets. Now it may just be me, but I do feel that with the money and training the USAAF/USAF
spent that if there was some great discrepancy between actual results and estimated results
that the estimations would have been corrected or at least noted clearly in the manuals that
were not released to the public and so, again this is me, not exactly propaganda material.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... My belief exactly. To suggest otherwise would be foolish.

BLUTARSKI