PDA

View Full Version : Please help me become more effective with the 50 cals !



ViFF101
08-31-2005, 12:14 PM
This is not another 50 cal whine.

Even if they were working like they should, I would probably still suck. Just trying to get some pointers from people who fly online.

What convergance settings work best ?
Should I fire only when sure I hit or does spraying work ?

Thanks

ViFF101
08-31-2005, 12:14 PM
This is not another 50 cal whine.

Even if they were working like they should, I would probably still suck. Just trying to get some pointers from people who fly online.

What convergance settings work best ?
Should I fire only when sure I hit or does spraying work ?

Thanks

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-31-2005, 12:25 PM
I set my convergence to 400 or 500m and always try to take those FW's headon (they salivate at the opportunity and will usually hold steady). I'll get a good stable solution and fire from way out. I get a pk about 25% of the time and will break hard after a feint if not. It works for me.

As far as spraying vs short bracketing. I rarely spray unless trying to wipe a baddie off a friendly. I treat all my weapons similarly. I usually take short decisive bursts and 'open-up' if I have a close static shot. Even with .50's I can maintain close to 10% hit air %. Not great by any means, but workable.

TB

NorrisMcWhirter
08-31-2005, 12:32 PM
Hi,

Don't shoot from dead 6 with them; try to get a decent angle so you can rake the length of the enemy plane. You'll almost certainly cause a fire, kill the pilot or destroy controls/engine.

I use convergence of 250m with .50s but have disabled planes at 600m even at that.

Aim at wing roots if you do attack from dead 6.

Ta,
Norris

vanjast
08-31-2005, 12:51 PM
On any plane my convergence is 150m, this gives you and effective range of 250m, beyond which your bullets cause very little damage.
I only fire when the wingspan is about the same size as the outer ring of my sight, and closer. At this range, a single burst causes extensive damage, if not a nice little explosion.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
08-31-2005, 02:57 PM
Like other guys said, fire from close range only. I use my convergence at 140m and do not fire on fighters more than 200m away. This will get you results. On P47 I use sth like 120 and 180m. If you can get those bullets to the target, they work just fine (as Arnie's test prooved).

Many american pilots I meet online open fire when 500 m away from me, firing continuously, correcting lead. Pure waste of ammo.

p1ngu666
08-31-2005, 03:03 PM
i use 250 and on p47 250/350

if u can hit it, shoot it imo

not sure with the headon with 190, as the engine is like a rock, and i cant think of a tuff engined 50cal armed plane (ingame, not irl)

SithSpeeder
08-31-2005, 03:31 PM
It depends. If your ride and style is boom and zoom or turn and burn. Also, what will your targets be? Mostly fighters that B n Z or T n B? Or mostly bombers?

If you turn and burn and you are going mostly against fighters, I think closer is better (less than 250m...maybe even 150m). That gives you and effective swath out to double the range. Getting in close should be your Modus Operandi.

If you B n Z, and going mostly against fighters that T n B, you have to get some hits on them from further out. I would push it to 350m or perhaps a bit more. This will slow them down in their turning a bit. Then get in close for the finishing kill.

For bombers, kick it out to at least 500m. Even so, try not to camp on a bomber's six because of the tail gunners. But if you have no choice, you can typically hang out of their range, zoom in your sights, and get some hits.

Your options are obviously better with 8 guns for varying range. With 4 guns, you need to get in closer for any hope of effectiveness (51B, for example).

I spray like Thunderbolt does...when trying to scare someone off a friendly's tail.

I don't think there is any "right" answer. Lately, I have been going with 340m on my 51D.

But I have no where NEAR as good a hit percentage as 10%--that's fantastic IMO.

* _54th_Speeder *

vanjast
08-31-2005, 03:55 PM
Another exercise you can do is..
with your plane still on the ground, record yourself shooting at fresh air.

Play back the track, but view your a/c from the front and gradually move away from the a/c.
Note the dispersion pattern and from here you can optimise your convergence range.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
08-31-2005, 03:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
never use a convergance you can't score with.

MAILMAN------
08-31-2005, 04:58 PM
I have mine set at 274.32 m (300 yds) for historical reasons. US aircraft boresight their wing mounted .50 mg to a convergence at 900 Feet. I try to fly it as historical as possible even if others do not. That is the enjoyment I get.

Chuck_Older
08-31-2005, 05:04 PM
Pretty sure you could get a crew Cheif to boresight the guns to a different range if you asked nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF-29_Sandman
08-31-2005, 05:31 PM
or use p-38's that have 4x50 and 1x20mm all in the nose. wicked firepower

ViFF101
09-06-2005, 02:05 PM
Thanks for the replies folks.

I've changed my convergance down to 180 meters and I'm getting much better results http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks again !

jimDG
09-06-2005, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ViFF101:
This is not another 50 cal whine.

Even if they were working like they should, I would probably still suck. Just trying to get some pointers from people who fly online.

What convergance settings work best ?
Should I fire only when sure I hit or does spraying work ?

Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I once read a war story of a p-47 vs. fw 190 head-on. The p-47 came out of it with gaping wholes in the wings and a few shot-through cylinders. The fw 190 was cut into shreads and fell out of the sky in pieces.
The author (the p-47 pilot) commented that 4 brownings in each wing would cut wing spars like butter.
It makes sense - my view on this is that he got 1 or 2 20mm HE hits in the wings of his p-47 (due to the slower firing rate of the 20mm), and quite a few 12mm hits in his engine.

Not the case in the game, when it comes to cutting enemy fuselages with .50s

HayateAce
09-06-2005, 05:10 PM
ViFF101,

You must wait for patch 4.02 for any hope of .50cal effectiveness. Wait and see.

Simple.

Current US ammo loadout:

http://www.airgunexpress.com/NEWJPEGS/401-08-6310-E.jpg

stelr
09-06-2005, 07:07 PM
Viff101,

Are you the same Viff from the old Warbirds 101 Red Sqdn, Israel?

Enforcer572005
09-06-2005, 08:31 PM
i set my cnvergnce to 300m, but i think im gonna reduce it some to see the effect.

thats a great pic of the soldier in the ckpt of the mig-21. I wonder if he checked to see if the ejection seat was armed. Idve been a bit weary of booby traps. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

partic_3
09-06-2005, 08:50 PM
It is odd reading these forums sometimes. You start to think some people are playing a different game. I am playing a BOE offline campaign flying a p47. I have scored 3 and 4 kills in some sorties. That includes one 4 x fw190A9 kill sortie. My convergence is now at 500m as I like to be able to take pot shots to clear my wingman's tail etc. and if you set convergence at 150 or so you can't hit anything at longer range. I really don't have a problem with the .50s.
I am not saying that what you are seeing is untrue. It's just.. odd.

PS: obviously I am using limited ammo, normal weapon effectiveness etc...

stelr
09-06-2005, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
i set my cnvergnce to 300m, but i think im gonna reduce it some to see the effect.

thats a great pic of the soldier in the ckpt of the mig-21. I wonder if he checked to see if the ejection seat was armed. Idve been a bit weary of booby traps. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know for a fact that this ******* didn't check the ejection seat...and, in fact, only after walking out "off the road" to get to the aircraft pile did he realize that the area was still mined. Needless to say that I...errr...he tiptoed out of there following his path in. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

vanjast
09-07-2005, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

I once read a war story of a p-47 vs. fw 190 head-on. The p-47 came out of it with gaping wholes in the wings and a few shot-through cylinders. The fw 190 was cut into shreads and fell out of the sky in pieces.
The author (the p-47 pilot) commented that 4 brownings in each wing would cut wing spars like butter.
It makes sense - my view on this is that he got 1 or 2 20mm HE hits in the wings of his p-47 (due to the slower firing rate of the 20mm), and quite a few 12mm hits in his engine.

Not the case in the game, when it comes to cutting enemy fuselages with .50s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The p47 is a monster of a plane and the FW190 is a teeny weeny one. It'll be hard for the 190 to down the P47 like this, when it's rate-of-fire (ROF)is less than the 8x .50s. It also depends on the accuracy of the pilot, which this time the allied pilot was more accurate or lucky.

In the game I (FW190) never intentionally take a P51 or P47 head-on as I know the ROF is more damaging to me. I just roll away and use a different tactic to gain the advantage.

I don't think there's anything (or that much) wrong with the modelling in the game. It's still pretty good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

jimDG
09-07-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vanjast:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

I once read a war story of a p-47 vs. fw 190 head-on. The p-47 came out of it with gaping wholes in the wings and a few shot-through cylinders. The fw 190 was cut into shreads and fell out of the sky in pieces.
The author (the p-47 pilot) commented that 4 brownings in each wing would cut wing spars like butter.
It makes sense - my view on this is that he got 1 or 2 20mm HE hits in the wings of his p-47 (due to the slower firing rate of the 20mm), and quite a few 12mm hits in his engine.

Not the case in the game, when it comes to cutting enemy fuselages with .50s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The p47 is a monster of a plane and the FW190 is a teeny weeny one. It'll be hard for the 190 to down the P47 like this, when it's rate-of-fire (ROF)is less than the 8x .50s. It also depends on the accuracy of the pilot, which this time the allied pilot was more accurate or lucky.

In the game I (FW190) never intentionally take a P51 or P47 head-on as I know the ROF is more damaging to me. I just roll away and use a different tactic to gain the advantage.

I don't think there's anything (or that much) wrong with the modelling in the game. It's still pretty good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm, maybe I should try more.. at the moment there is a distinct lack of cut fuselages when I play in..uh.. english speaking airplanes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. the damage I *can* (with my ability or lack of it) deal in a fw190A is higher..

OldMan____
09-07-2005, 08:43 AM
No sense in a few statements there.


MG151/20 firerate is same class as .50. A 20 mm shell is 2-3 times stronger than a .50 (as certified by several sources in war). If we consider gertman 13mm as about 80% effectiveness of american .50 we would have P47 with 8 .50 and a FW with equivalent firepower of 13.6 .50 guns. Completely different firepower level!! FW190 was armed to shred B17 from sky! P47 never intended to face something so hard.



An event such as the described one mostly probably happened because of skill of pilots and mainly LUCK!!!

pettera
09-07-2005, 09:02 AM
Head on passes are really not a very wise strategy. It is a chicken game not a realistic way of getting kills. Try it offline and you are dead. At least ace AI are experts on it. Online it is different but still to risky. It is a 50/50 situation that no sane real pilot would ever engage in. Always go for situations where you have the upper hand. I use 150m convergence and try to use my amo more conservatively.

Somebody on this forum said FW pilots occasonally used head on attacks and relied on heavy armamement AND good forward protection (big engine).

Petter

jimDG
09-07-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
No sense in a few statements there.


MG151/20 firerate is same class as .50. A 20 mm shell is 2-3 times stronger than a .50 (as certified by several sources in war). If we consider gertman 13mm as about 80% effectiveness of american .50 we would have P47 with 8 .50 and a FW with equivalent firepower of 13.6 .50 guns. Completely different firepower level!! FW190 was armed to shred B17 from sky! P47 never intended to face something so hard.



An event such as the described one mostly probably happened because of skill of pilots and mainly LUCK!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's one thing to blow skin aluminuim off with a 20mm HE, another to have all the structure puncured by a line of .50 cal AP.

What the p-47 had was (effectively) one .50 cal MG in each wing with a firing rate of 4000-5000 RPM. This is what makes the difference - it "saws".
+ the .50 round has little circular error deflection (or whatever its called) - i.e. rounds still go in one and the same direction/line at longer ranges and dont deviate much from it.

Toilet paper with a line of little tiny holes across it is easier to rip off than toilet paper with just one big hole in the middle. To put it another way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'ts a different story against a bomber - a bomber has a larger and heavier structure. So shooting at a bomber with .50 is like shooting at a fighter with 5mm rounds (or less) - they are not really gonna make holes in the spars and the heavier structural elements - just puncture the skin and some ribs. So - for bombers you just have to use higher calibers, and if the "line" firing rate is not high enough (or there is no convergance or convergance does not form a "line" of damage) - then use even larger calibers and/or shoot at engines, tanks etc and forget about damaging the structure to a (self) breaking point. Unless you have a lucky 20m AP hit in a spar - this kind of luck dependes solely on RPM, and is not gonna happen very often with just 2 mg151s (positioned not so close together - so they dont make a "line" at most ranges) and only 1 in 4 rounds being AP.
B17s did come back home with 2 meter holes in the wings - just like the authors p-47 (on a smaller scale), when it comes to higher cal HE. HE is not very effective on structures, because it lack the rpm (due to high cal) to actually hit the vital structure elements.

Thats it - it depends on what critical element in an enemy plane you want to shoot at. The armament strategy would differ - depending on relative sizes of target and atacker, and on whether you want to go for individual vital elements or the whole structure. High RPM, low cal "shreads out of the sky" IF it is of enough caliber for the given structure size
Low RPM high cal "blows out of the sky" regardless of structure size _IF_ you can hit vital elements (structure or engines) with low RPM.

That the described engagement was head-on actually helps the p-47 - a wing spar is just a line in the air at any angle - you can't aim at it very well. You shoot perpendicularly across it instead (if you have high RPM and AP).
The FW190 has 2 spars in each wing, but it's the forward spar that takes the strain at high speeds - if its broken - the wing folds back on the rear spar and rips off.

Or so I imagine it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F19_Ob
09-07-2005, 09:34 AM
There are several reasons for setting convergence differently , perhaps special type of enemy plane or setting convergence after the most common planes to counter or groundtargets, but also personal preferences.

A good allroundsetting could be 200-300m wich gives an ok hitpattern at even 500-600m. beyond that most doesn't fire anyway.
Ammotype may be a factor too.

One example:
A very slow fighter cant catch a fast fighter and often finds himself shooting after an enemy on long ranges (lets say 400m).
Here a convergence of 100m is pretty useless because the guns converge is at 100m and then starts to sepparate and most bullets will go on either side of the bandit. However a skilled pilot still may be able to use this convergence by rolling level and fire when enemy turns.
This way the bullets will spread along the enemys flightpath and not on both sides of him.
For an inexperienced shooter it's usually a waste of ammo though.
So with a slow fighter I would recommend a convergence at about 250 to 300m wich gives hitting possibility at 500-600m aswell.
For me this is a convergence wich works well for many planes and especially the best for shooting at both short and long ranges.

Some only fire when close but that way they miss many opportunities wich is especially important when flying planes with more disadvantages compared to the opposition.

Hitting a plane at convergence distance is optimal but airbattles seldom are optimal and mostly the enemy refuses to stay still at convergence distance. Therefore hitting at all is the key. even a few mg hits may damage an opponent.
So practising deflectionshooting in quickmissionbuilder on different ranges is more important than the convergence.

With cannons a long convergence like 300-400m or even 500m is ok.
Although grouped hits may do greater damage the issue often is trying to get a hit at all and cannon shells wich are spread out may be more effective in acheiving a single hit. that single cannonhit are more likely to damage a fighter than a mg hit.

Some planes have very fastfiring guns and cannons and may score hits at long distances.
The il-2 is one of them and I commonly start shooting at 700-600m and often hit on 400-500m with high deflection. With these guns and cannons its possible to hit at 800m now and then from behind but the cannons go further than 1000m although it's unlikely to hit on these extreeme ranges.
Yaks and LaGG3 and migs and the polikarpov fighters have fastfiring guns aswell but only a fraction of the ammolad (especially yaks) of the il-2 wich makes a big difference in shootinghabits.

In an il-2 it actually makes sense to fire all ammo at a distant fighter if nescessary because it cant maneuver with any fighter more than evading a few times and also cant correct the aim as precisely as a fighter. So when an il-2 fires, a huge quantity of ammo goes, wich it has.
In one online engagement I shot down 3 fighters in an il-2 doubleseater and almost a 4th before the ammo was gone.
A fighter on the otherhand cant or shouldn't waste its tiny load on a plane too far away and be left without ammo.
-------------------------------------------

I fly many different planes and that really messes up ones perfect aim. to begin with I would recomment to fly a few planes only to get the deflection habit working properly.
I often practise deflectionshooting to remember the feeling of the right moment to fire.
Since I fly many types I have learned a middle way by firing earlier than I think is nescessary and continue firing longer to make sure the enemy must pass my bulletstream, but it wastes more ammo.

well a few thoughts.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
09-07-2005, 09:51 AM
My above post was not exclusively about fiftycals so I add it here.

I prefer 250-350m because its an allround good setting for most machineguns and give an ok hitpattern at 500-600m aswell, and with its less lethality, compared to cannons this convergence enables firing at all ranges with good efficency (I think).

On p47's there ofcourse is the opportunity of a mixed convergence setting half of it to 200m (in the cannon collumn) and machineguns to 400.
So this way there are two convergencepoints and one get a fairly good spread at longrange and one tight one at 200m.

FlatSpinMan
09-07-2005, 10:00 AM
Good points, F19_Ob. i prefer the longer convergance ranges,too. At 150 or similar I run out of time or fire once, get thrown off target by the recoil,then it's too late. A hit at 400m will often slow them at least and then you can finish them off or leave them to get out of the fight.


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

Dtools4fools
09-07-2005, 10:05 AM
To me gun convergence depends a bit on what kind of planes I'm going up against.

If it's bombers in formation a convergence of 300 seem to do fine; you still hit OK up to 500m.

If it's fighters I prefer 150 setting as I do only shoot at 200m and less. It's deadly then with any armament.

****

OldMan___
09-07-2005, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan____:
No sense in a few statements there.


MG151/20 firerate is same class as .50. A 20 mm shell is 2-3 times stronger than a .50 (as certified by several sources in war). If we consider gertman 13mm as about 80% effectiveness of american .50 we would have P47 with 8 .50 and a FW with equivalent firepower of 13.6 .50 guns. Completely different firepower level!! FW190 was armed to shred B17 from sky! P47 never intended to face something so hard.



An event such as the described one mostly probably happened because of skill of pilots and mainly LUCK!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's one thing to blow skin aluminuim off with a 20mm HE, another to have all the structure puncured by a line of .50 cal AP.

What the p-47 had was (effectively) one .50 cal MG in each wing with a firing rate of 4000-5000 RPM. This is what makes the difference - it "saws".
+ the .50 round has little circular error deflection (or whatever its called) - i.e. rounds still go in one and the same direction/line at longer ranges and dont deviate much from it.

Toilet paper with a line of little tiny holes across it is easier to rip off than toilet paper with just one big hole in the middle. To put it another way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I'ts a different story against a bomber - a bomber has a larger and heavier structure. So shooting at a bomber with .50 is like shooting at a fighter with 5mm rounds (or less) - they are not really gonna make holes in the spars and the heavier structural elements - just puncture the skin and some ribs. So - for bombers you just have to use higher calibers, and if the "line" firing rate is not high enough (or there is no convergance or convergance does not form a "line" of damage) - then use even larger calibers and/or shoot at engines, tanks etc and forget about damaging the structure to a (self) breaking point. Unless you have a lucky 20m AP hit in a spar - this kind of luck dependes solely on RPM, and is not gonna happen very often with just 2 mg151s (positioned not so close together - so they dont make a "line" at most ranges) and only 1 in 4 rounds being AP.
B17s did come back home with 2 meter holes in the wings - just like the authors p-47 (on a smaller scale), when it comes to higher cal HE. HE is not very effective on structures, because it lack the rpm (due to high cal) to actually hit the vital structure elements.

Thats it - it depends on what critical element in an enemy plane you want to shoot at. The armament strategy would differ - depending on relative sizes of target and atacker, and on whether you want to go for individual vital elements or the whole structure. High RPM, low cal "shreads out of the sky" IF it is of enough caliber for the given structure size
Low RPM high cal "blows out of the sky" regardless of structure size _IF_ you can hit vital elements (structure or engines) with low RPM.

That the described engagement was head-on actually helps the p-47 - a wing spar is just a line in the air at any angle - you can't aim at it very well. You shoot perpendicularly across it instead (if you have high RPM and AP).
The FW190 has 2 spars in each wing, but it's the forward spar that takes the strain at high speeds - if its broken - the wing folds back on the rear spar and rips off.

Or so I imagine it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must know that this " SAW" thing is BULL @#%#@%. Make your calculation, lets suppose a gun fires 10 rounds per second (close to .50) and bullet speed is 800m per second. That menas that each bullet will be 80 meters apart from each other!!! You will NEVER saw anything that way! Your only chance is a direct hit on same plane as wing.. quite impossible to do twice at same spot.

Your 8 guns dont make same effcet as one gun with 8 times rpm becaus ethey are separeted side by side and each one will fire at a slighty different path. Don't start with sci-fi thinking because world does not work this way.



A FW190 has about 2/3 the chance of hitting same target as the P47 (but p47 is much bigger so both have relatively same chances). But for each 20mm bullet that hits, it will be enough!!

Please guys, use some math before writing such things.

1.JaVA_Razer
09-07-2005, 02:19 PM
Oldman your forgetting that the target moves also I reckon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So it IS possible but not the saw thing. It's more like making a seeve of a spar/plane's structure. This CAN be done with AP rounds. Make enough holes (randomly not even in a straight line) and the spar will bend under G loads and just break appart. Thats what he means I think

OldMan___
09-07-2005, 02:46 PM
Yes, but there is no such saw effect. You break a spar with 2 or 3 lucky bullets or with a single big one (like a 20mm)

Xiolablu3
09-07-2005, 04:34 PM
Actually head on attacks versus bombers were favoured more and more as the war went on.

There was a much greater chance of getting shot down (still not much of a chance granted) if slowly attacking from the rear than a slashing attack with big cannons from the front.

Saying that have you seen that guncam footage from BF110G's attacking B17's? He comes in REALLY slowly from behind raking the B17 from end to end with his cannon and then flies past at about 20 feet from the plane. Brave man. (Its NOT the one with the out of action gunners which we have all seen though, its a different clip. It was posted here recently tho)

The Russians didnt mind headon fighter vs fighter attacks but the Germans avoided them wherever possible. I have seen interview where Russian and German pilots talk about this very subject.

I'm not sure about the Western Allies.

jimDG
09-07-2005, 05:10 PM
if my crosshair is 2 pixels lower than the fw190 comming straight at me, and i move it up by 0.5 meters in the course of 1 sec (at the range where the targets is - say 300m-100m)- now that's 100 bullets across a distance of 0.5 meters, per wing - enough for 20 of them to hit a 10cm wide spar (in each spar), 20cm apart from each other sideways (maximum.. which is the distance between the 1st and 4th barrel). That spar is folding back immediately, I say, like swiss cheese.

So it all depends on my own angular velocity (in rad/s) across the target, and how far it is doesn't it? For zero deflection shots you can have a very precise and well aimed burst - starting at the bottom of the target and ending on the top, in the course of 1 sec.

Auto guns make puncture lines. The higher the RPM, the lower the angular speed of the gun, and the closer the target - the closer the induvidual holes will be, forming a rough puncture line. If that hole distance is less than the width of the structural elements (ribs spars, etc) - then they get hit, and the structure cease to do its function (bear loads), and rips itself into pieces.
(as Java_razer also points out).

But as people say elsewhere - thats not how the .50 cal in the game shoot - they all shoot together in burst of 4 bulets (i.e they are sinc-ed), so there is no line formed. Either a group of 4 bullets hits, or it misses alltogether. there is no "toilet paper rip line".

OldMan____
09-07-2005, 06:16 PM
From where did you got this numbers? Move 0.5 meters up?


At 300 meters away if both planes are approaching each other at 450 kph they will cross in about 1 second... that gives 90 degrees per second of angular change (considering that they dont crash and one passes just above the other). At this very same time each of your guns will make little bit more than 10 shots. So you have to pull up almost 10 degrees in 1/10 of a second to make a second shot hit near the previous one. Quite near the "impossible" classification unless by luck.


The 8 guns helped a lot in making more bullets hit. But you wont have lines of holes in an airplane moving head on on you. That is Hollywood! The lines of bullets will be sees on terrestrial vehicles or planes when they are approached from behind! Head on is too much speed to make a line of holes (considering a low angle approach). And hiting 2 or 3 times in the same are of front section of a wing in this time frame is near impossible since the planes are NOT flying exaclty same plane (otherwise they would crash!). Since the 8 guns were not synced.. you would never get 4 hits from same round group at the spar unless at perfectly 0 degrees angle (when both planes would probably crash, since we know in real life 0.8 second is not quite enough to make such heavy bird change direction enough). If the 4 guns are perfectly desynced, that is enough time to have a 2,33 degrees change on target... at 300 meters that is 12 meters apart!! Quite larger than a 10 cm wing spar.

You may make lots of hits in engine block since no one arguees that you can track lots of shots in a such larger area.


A head-on attack on a FW that dewinged it is most probably:
1- luck
2- Hit at ammo storage at wing
3- a faulty construction that collapsed with a single hit.

Anyway.. since 20 mm are 3 times stronger than .50, the P47 would need to be able to hit 3 times more bullets to compensate for it. It for sure can hit mure bullets than a FW in same time frame.. but hardly 3 times (putting luck and pilot skill aside).


This situation probably killed both planes a lot of times and final results were probably balanced at end.