PDA

View Full Version : So whats up with the .50 cals?



VBF-83_Hawk
01-31-2005, 02:26 PM
If the A6M series was so pron to exploding fuel tanks, why do I always get fuel leaks but no explosions?

Why are the .50 cal (red)tracers so dem that they can not be seen at 300 or so yards, as can be seen in real gun cam footage, but yet can be seen 4 miles away?

Can any part of a zeros, Kate, Val, Ki-43's wings or tail be hit with a .20 mm cannon from a C-Hog and not fall off? If not, why so in the game?

Why do I keep reading WWII pilots diaries or accounts of two small quick burst into a IJ aircraft and it falls apart, but yet it is not5 that way in the game?

Why do I hear these complaints in the game but not on the boards?

There seems to be a problem here but I dont have proof that there is. All I have is WWII gun cam footage and WWII pilots stories but somehow these guys lie and the books are false.

Where do game designers get the correct info from? I sure cant seem to find it.

Edumacate me folks!

VBF-83_Hawk
01-31-2005, 02:26 PM
If the A6M series was so pron to exploding fuel tanks, why do I always get fuel leaks but no explosions?

Why are the .50 cal (red)tracers so dem that they can not be seen at 300 or so yards, as can be seen in real gun cam footage, but yet can be seen 4 miles away?

Can any part of a zeros, Kate, Val, Ki-43's wings or tail be hit with a .20 mm cannon from a C-Hog and not fall off? If not, why so in the game?

Why do I keep reading WWII pilots diaries or accounts of two small quick burst into a IJ aircraft and it falls apart, but yet it is not5 that way in the game?

Why do I hear these complaints in the game but not on the boards?

There seems to be a problem here but I dont have proof that there is. All I have is WWII gun cam footage and WWII pilots stories but somehow these guys lie and the books are false.

Where do game designers get the correct info from? I sure cant seem to find it.

Edumacate me folks!

VVS-Manuc
01-31-2005, 02:35 PM
you want to say the cal .50's are undermodelled?

Chuck_Older
01-31-2005, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:

Where do game designers get the correct info from? I sure cant seem to find it.

Edumacate me folks! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where have you looked for the 'correct information'? Online?

Pardon me for saying, but from your post I have to guess your search begins and ends with the internet

This is a guess, but it could be so that real ballistic info from Military sources and testing labs, done by actual ballistics experts were used. While that is only my guess, I feel confident that Oleg Maddox and the 1C team did more than spend a day or two googling. That's not a jab at you, by the way.

oldschool1992
01-31-2005, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
you want to say the cal .50's are undermodelled? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

those are .50's? I thought they were .22's!

Chuck_Older
01-31-2005, 03:05 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

that's all fine to say , but where's the proof? That's an opinion you have, not the word from on High.

I'm flying the H81A-2 almost exclusively now, offline. I'm setting Soviet DB3s on fire in three places from a once second burst from two point-fifties and four .30 cals. I can't beleive the .50s are worse than the .30s in-game, and I know d@mn well that something's setting these Soviet bombers on fire.

That's my opinion, too, but at least I give more reason behind my arguments than, "oh, I thought they were .22s" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif See what I mean?

VW-IceFire
01-31-2005, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why do I keep reading WWII pilots diaries or accounts of two small quick burst into a IJ aircraft and it falls apart, but yet it is not5 that way in the game?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what a "quick burst" is. Watching the gun camera footage and taking it into the game says to me that its generally the same level of damage sustained by the real plane as by the one in-game.

I don't know how many Zeros I have exploded, Kates that I have torn to pieces, and Oscars that have fallen apart infront of me. Conversely, I've, anytime that I flew for the IJN or IJA have feared for my planes limited life fearing that any of the next few bullets would probably destroy or cripple the plane.

No, things are pretty much on with what I've read.

You may want to check your:
1) Aim (deflection shooting is a big one)
2) Convergence (set it to 200 meters if you fly .50cal equipped aircraft and see how you do, some pilots prefer longer range, some shorter)
3) Ping time/packet loss if its online

*Note on convergence: What you should do is pop up a QMB with some Rookie targets. Do your usual, start shooting when you normally feel its right to shoot, do it several times in that mission, record the track, and then keep a note of what distance (like 0.25km) you are firing at. I find, after having done this method, that I start firing at 300 meters and that the ideal machine gun convergence (which is extremely important for .50cal aircraft) for me is about 275m. But others have reported the same thing and found that 175m is the better convergence setting for them....find what works for you.

FliegerAas
01-31-2005, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
[...]
Why are the .50 cal (red)tracers so dem that they can not be seen at 300 or so yards, as can be seen in real gun cam footage, but yet can be seen 4 miles away?
[...]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the films are sensitive to infrared light and therefore the tracers look brighter on camera footage than they do in real life.

VBF-83_Hawk
01-31-2005, 04:29 PM
Some pretty good feed back here. Thanks

Chuck, do you know where to find it? Thanks for not jabbing at me but I am asking for that god info that Oleg does have. Why is it that sim desighners always find it? I am jealous.

Chuck again, I do have a recorded track, F4U -1A vs A6M2. Sure my gunnery sucked that time but when I did hit it, it did nothing untill the very end.

VW, your right a qucik burst could mean empting your guns! Even gun cam shows where guys are missing or "peppering" but those dont count. I personally am talking solid hits.

I have tried several gun convergence settings. Seldom can I get on the six of a zero in the F4U. MOst shots are deflection shots although most are solid hits. More than none I cause a fuel leak with the first burst so I know I am hitting it good. If I am causing fuel leaks then I would say there is a problem with the self sealing tanks. If the vapor is there at the leak then it should explode if hit with tracers right?

Good one on the sensitive film but I have seen color footage on the History Ch with the same results.

Good replies guys, I just the all mighty design god Oleg himself would explain it to us. Thats not an insult Oleg, you guys are good and I know I couldnt do it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-31-2005, 04:58 PM
You can setup other flights of "friendly" AI Zeros in QMB and get behind them or approach them from any angle and they let you shoot them up.

RACFrankenstein
01-31-2005, 05:13 PM
Good one on the sensitive film but I have seen color footage on the History Ch with the same results.

AFAIK, All films, colour included, are sensitive to IR light.

Gun can footage can be misleading. Just because it shows the plane disintegrating after a "short" burst doesn't mean it hasn't sustained significant damage before that. The gun cam shows the kill most times, not what led up to it.

VW-IceFire
01-31-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Some pretty good feed back here. Thanks

Chuck, do you know where to find it? Thanks for not jabbing at me but I am asking for that god info that Oleg does have. Why is it that sim desighners always find it? I am jealous.

Chuck again, I do have a recorded track, F4U -1A vs A6M2. Sure my gunnery sucked that time but when I did hit it, it did nothing untill the very end.

VW, your right a qucik burst could mean empting your guns! Even gun cam shows where guys are missing or "peppering" but those dont count. I personally am talking solid hits.

I have tried several gun convergence settings. Seldom can I get on the six of a zero in the F4U. MOst shots are deflection shots although most are solid hits. More than none I cause a fuel leak with the first burst so I know I am hitting it good. If I am causing fuel leaks then I would say there is a problem with the self sealing tanks. If the vapor is there at the leak then it should explode if hit with tracers right?

Good one on the sensitive film but I have seen color footage on the History Ch with the same results.

Good replies guys, I just the all mighty design god Oleg himself would explain it to us. Thats not an insult Oleg, you guys are good and I know I couldnt do it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg doesn't usually talk about the .50cal much anymore. Especially after the big fight over its dispersion just after AEP's release. Its a taboo subject it seems these days by the development team. Just so you know, the .50cals dispersion was tightened up...rightly or wrongly from what was a more shotgun like effect previously.

The trick with self sealing tanks is that they don't seal right away. So you can cause a leak and then the tank will seal again. The tracer or an API bullet isn't necessarily going to cause an explosion automatically either.

Anyways, I'm sure you are hitting the target but not quite hard enough. Most gun camera footage we do see is either from an off angle with several good hits or from dead six with a solid stream of say a second to two seconds of fire to cause crippling damage.

In an off angle hit...you have to lead the bullets and not just plant a stream of fire and expect the plane to get torn up by walking throug it. Most of the color stuff I've seen suggests that the Zeros were engaged from above and diving down while turning into the target...you don't turn with a Zero but you do turn enough to lead your fire...

What we lack is a more visceral response when we do hit the target. Its a more all or nothing sort of thing. But trust me when I say that a "short burst" in my book is definately all you need on the Zero. It just has to be achieved http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Keep working on the covergence...thats the key.

FliegerAas
01-31-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:

[...]
Good one on the sensitive film but I have seen color footage on the History Ch with the same results.
[...]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same effect there. I guess all old film material had this "problem".
I have seen red tracers in real life and they are not "that" bright. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The only thing I criticize about the .50s is the sound http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif . But this problem is valid for all weapons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Gibbage1
01-31-2005, 06:31 PM
.50 cal tracers had a VERY short burn time. Smewere around 300m. In IL2, the tracers last for about 900M.

US tracers were very small. Also, with 8 guns firing, it would create a MESS if Oleg added smoke to the tracers. Also the FPS would take a HUGE hit.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-31-2005, 06:37 PM
if you got a problem shooting down zero's with .50s your doing something wrong ,fact.

AVG_WarHawk
01-31-2005, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KGr.HH-Sunburst:
if you got a problem shooting down zero's with .50s your doing something wrong ,fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think this is what he's saying Sunburst, please read again.

Badsight.
01-31-2005, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Why do I hear these complaints in the game but not on the boards? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
because BS dont ride here like it does in a DF room

VBF-83_Hawk
01-31-2005, 10:33 PM
Still good replys, thanks again guys!!

Blackdog5555
02-01-2005, 12:12 AM
During the war there were test done on copies of Japanese fuel tanks out of Zeros. according to the report the full tanks would explode under a single fire of a Browning 50 cal. Since the tanks were placed next to the wing spar, wing root & this expansion would cause the spar to break and wing to fall off the zero. It didnt happen all the time but enough to do an investigation. Doesnt happen in the game, wing breakage on zeros isa bout the same as other planes. they flame easy but so do the 109s............
anyway, In this game you really cant talk abouts 50s vs 30s vs 20mm unless you know something about the developers DM. I have no clue about how the Developers set up DM in this game. I have a little knowledge on how DM are set up generally in other sims, but again i dont know how Oleg does it. All we are playing is a set of subprograms that use basic math formularies/ routines in the damge model. Bullets are most likely assigned a number value (eg 50s a 1; or 20s a 3) and probably assigns a number for the type of shell,eg. API or HE etc for another subprogram. and that number should decrease as expends energy as they travel, and hit boxes are assigned a damage number and break number whick counts and accumulates "hits". Its all very primitive to approximate the feel of shooting down a plane. So is it a DM issue or a gun issue? IRL 50s were set to converge usually at 200yd with a cluster hit of about a yard (36 inches). My feeling is there is still too much scatter with the 50s. I set comergance to 200 yards and wait for a 10%or less deflection. get close and have no problem bringing down planes. Put a short burst into the plane and peel off and the zero will usually crash a couple minutes later. Im basically happy with the fifties. sound is off (of course). One point, you would be surprised at how may people are poor at gunnery but think they are good. most people are lucky if they get a 4%-6% hit rate. They fire 300 rounds and only put 12-18 in the target. I think the 50 issue is more of DM issue IMO. personally, not a big issue. Lack of proper inertia modeling is a problem, LOL. cheers. I must be bored.....

RusskiyeVityazi
02-01-2005, 12:54 AM
Yet another topic about the laser beams.

Yes, they are overmodeled.

pourshot
02-01-2005, 02:06 AM
Aim between the engine and cockpit and you get KABOOM . My aim sucks and I dont have a problem killing zeros as long as I hit something important

jurinko
02-01-2005, 02:11 AM
I th√¬*nk that there is a general bug in FB, that from bigger distance the effect of projectiles goes down too much (partially true, but only the kinetic part should and not so much) while the HE or incendiary effect should remain the same. I saw footages where Zekes were set ablaze from rather big distances, it is not possible here. The leaking fuel should not care whether the .50 API came from 50 or 250m..

ImpStarDuece
02-01-2005, 03:12 AM
I predict this topic, via the special magic of the forum, will make 3 pages minimum. The secret code-words '.50', 'undermodelled', 'dispersion' and 'i read' have been uttered, Gibbage has chimed in and the flamers are circling.

Thus I spaketh and thus it is so


God help me, i'm actually getting nostalgic

VF-29_Sandman
02-01-2005, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I predict this topic, via the special magic of the forum, will make 3 pages minimum. The secret code-words '.50', 'undermodelled', 'dispersion' and 'i read' have been uttered, Gibbage has chimed in and the flamers are circling.

Thus I spaketh and thus it is so


God help me, i'm actually getting nostalgic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
ya ya might be on the money on this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

wing guns with 50 cal's DO need to be adjusted for what range u tend to open fire. then u'll have a serious meat cleaver for the zekes. if not, then fly 38's. i have mine set at 305 meters, and i'll rip up wing tanks on bombers from 750 meters out. looking at the 'bogey cam', the gun pattern is still very tight and hittin with enough force to flame an engine.

JG54_Arnie
02-01-2005, 06:16 AM
Just remember that they are Machine Guns, not cannons. Use a convergence of 200 or around that and try to fire only at that distance and see how wonderfully effective these guns are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-01-2005, 08:12 AM
Remember that the game measures units in meters and not yards. So 200 yards is something like 180 meters (I think).

WWMaxGunz
02-01-2005, 08:23 AM
What Blackdog said -- people should be aware of the DM.

Sign of beginner/unaware is first thing "it is the guns" as if sim is not virtual reality
but there are real objects being really shot. Go and test the guns on wide range of planes,
then check other guns and try to remember how many you are using.

Another is "lasers" which was first all VVS guns labels. Lasers don't have drop. If there
were lasers then the beam would cross the sightline at converge and continue upward only.
Bullets cross the line, rise above and cross again coming down. The distance between the
crossings, the inner range and outer range and the rise above make great difference in the
effective ranges of the guns. If one gun fires 700 m/s at muzzle and another 850 m/s then
bet on it, there will be better shooting from the latter one especially farther out. If
the bullets on one are heavier then they will fly flatter for equal starting speed as they
carry speed better and all bullets fall the same over time -- the less time it takes to get
to any range, the less the faster ones fall. Simple physics. Why do some have problems
with that? German 13mm IS lighter bullet with lower start velocity. That is history. You
want best MG's in the sim? Those are UBS. Be glad they didn't put 4, 6 and 8 of THOSE on
VVS planes or you laser-50-babies would be whining MUCH louder!

Fehler
02-01-2005, 09:08 AM
Sometimes I think there is a difference between what people "Perceive" is happening versus what is "Actually" happening.

An online example of this could be taken from an incident last night on line. I was in a FW-190 A9 and being hammered by a P-51. He hit me so well in the first pass that my screen was nearly all red (In other words I had very limited stick movements). He was peppering me, but I know he was not shooting at convergence because of the tracer spread as it wizzed past me. I was yaw jinking as best I could and finally he got caught my engine on fire. He broke away as I neared my base and I dove to put out the fire and using trim and flaps was able to manage a landing. I am sure he was mad and cursed the .50, but in truth, he wasnt doing much damage because his convergence was wrong.

Later, another P-51 latched on to me after a bomb run. This guy had his convergence set right as I noticed his initial burst grouping was tighter as it wizzed past me. His next burst PKed me instantly.

More so than any other main gun, the .50 has to have proper convergence on target. This is very logical as they are non explosive, high velocity, one half inch bullets, designed to penetrate light armor.

If you can imagine shooting a piece of paper with a high velocity round, you will notice that the bullet goes through it clean and fast with little more than a hole for damage. The same applies for a .50 going through sheet aluminum. It is not until one passes through a critical componant like a spar that damage really occurs..... Unless.... You pass several through a relatively small area.

Peppering in a wide dispursion will not cause as much damage as fewer rounds in a smaller area. This is where there is such a huge disagreement on the amount of damage the .50 does.

Of course, online lag also comes into play.

VW-IceFire
02-01-2005, 10:05 AM
Fehler, excellent points and I agree totally.

I can and do take out aircraft with a single .50cal pass of 2 seconds. Includes FW190s and other aircraft.

IF you really want to learn the gun...I'd say take the P-51D-20, turn on the gyro gunsight, and start learning how to lead your fire and keep on target with the guns. The Mustangs .50cals are more tightly grouped than many other aircraft and the gyro makes deflection shooting easier.

Chuck_Older
02-01-2005, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RusskiyeVityazi:
Yet another topic about the laser beams.

Yes, they are overmodeled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You're making a fairly bland whine from those sour grapes, amigo</span>

LeadSpitter_
02-01-2005, 12:38 PM
Put it this way past .40 they cant even destroy oilbarrels. around .20-30 they can. If you dare even mention it the bandwagon cry for one plane bunch will bash you.

Why no talk about shvak the anti bomber anti tank which lost accuracy past 200m. the 108 cannon is so accurate at 500m and shvak at 1200m and 108 accurate up to .50 .60 with exploding power.

I find german 20mm to be incrediably weak this patch and that was my main choice of gun when flying german it seems almost useless now like its shooting rotten tomatos. Something changed that was not mentioned in the readme. Hopefully 3.05 will be much more enjoyable for all sides.

Hopefully oleg will bring il2sturmovik stalls to FB AEP PF for all planes none of this flipping around and instant catching recovery like we are flying on a wire with minimal. energy bleed! Also ammount of rudder that causes a stall really needs to be looked into some can use full 100 rudder violently others cant even use 25% without flipping into a massive stall like the p51 but 190 can flop around using full rudder anyspeed and instantly catches so do yaks laggs zekes spits 109s just about every plane in game.

The p40b use to do it and was changed so did the wildcat but now they dont.

I say bring those stall characteristics back to the game for all fms, harsh penalties for going over the edge not of the floping insta recover junk.

I doubt oleg will even look at this thread becuase it says .50 ps pls correct the p47 payload if you do look

centerline MAX 500lb or fuel tank

wing rack bomb 1000lb 500lb 250lb.

How about increasing the strenght of the smaller bombs which are so inaffective.

Also 2 1000lb fall so close its like dropping 1 of them and blast crator is the same unless dropping one wingtip facing the ground one in the air which spreads them out and does more damage. Individual bomb release is important even if you cant simulate the offcentered weight.

b25 and a20 need thier 5000lb payload limit with 50 fuel not just the 100 fuels payload limit of 2500-3000. It makes it pretty useless to fly bombers with the p47 p51 p38 which hold just as much payload. Seems the he111 has its max payload and so does the tb3 ju88 etc


the problem is fehler we shouldnt have to be using 150-200 convergence and a quarter or more ammo to just wound a 190, half the ammo will catch the rear fuselage on fire while shavak is dead accurate and has exploding power as far as 1.5 distance. Same with the 108 cannon which is accurate and has exploding power at .50 and much easier to aim.

try doing some .50 cal tests at .50 range 500m

The m2 can pierce 1.4 inch of armor or a cinderblock at that range imagine what it does to a fragile fighter even the "heavyweights"

Dont forget even with self sealing tanks if an incideary round hits the fuel tank its in flames, look at the .50 cal in north korea when the US changed to cannon. Why jet fuel is not as voliatile as gasoline and took many hits to down a later war jet with api armor piercing incideary.

brits russians and germans choose and prefered cannon for thier rolls intercepting medium and heavy bombers, Its much harder to get hits with cannon in a dogfight with a fighter then it is with 4 6 8 .50 cal which is more accurate further range which is a huge advantage of the browning and why it was used even tho it was such a heavy gun which added alot of uneeded weight.

the german 20mm was a fantastic cannon but in this game its shooting marshmellows as well.

Even look at the strenght of the 1 7.62 on the yak1b it can explode ac long ranges without firing shvak. This stuff needs major fixing. Same with japanese cannon which is so weak but so accurate such long range

NorrisMcWhirter
02-01-2005, 02:25 PM
Hi,

I spent most of last night flying QMB offline and assessing gun strength between different aircraft.

I'd fly 3 QMBs alone vs two enemy AI and try to form some sort of loose conclusion about the outcomes.

In short, I had no problems downing aircraft (109/190/110/Zero/Ki84) with the .50s when I got in at around 200m or less (convergence of 150m) - the target wouldn't explode (unless it was a Zero) but it would be going nowhere but down.

Then, I flew Yak1 and I16 vs 109E and F. I was surprised that just a hits to the wings or fuselage would incur so much damage (holes in wings/engine smoke/aircraft on fire). Few structural failures but lots of shot down 109s.

Then I flew the 109E and F vs Yak1. It took, relatively, a considerable number of hits to the Yaks to down them either with the 151/20 or the FFs. Whereas a few hits would mean large holes in 109s, 5-6 hits from the 20mm would mean 'mg' sized holes in Yaks and small fuel leaks. I never set a plane on fire but, more normally, shot the control surfaces off or had a pilot kill.

Spitfire vs Yak1: Spit outperformed Yak completely so easy to shoot down. Yaks took approximately 3-4 hits from Hispanos before going down. Not necessarily structural failures or fires but dead pilots and/or controls.

None of these tests would have suffered from lag and AI, even at ace, offers a reliable target if you can scare them into going in a straight line with a quick burst.

IMO, from this relatively unscientific test, I'd rate the LW 20mm as worst as they required a large number of hits, the .50s as being mediocre to good as they required a reasonable number of hits and the hispanos and vvs cannons as being devastating as they required few hits.

However, I'd rate the .50s as most effective at taking fighter targets down due to their spread offsetting inaccuracy, their hitting power at convergence after correction and rof giving the large amount of lead you can put into a target in a relatively short time on target.

Cheers,
Norris

LeadSpitter_
02-01-2005, 08:47 PM
Hey NorrisMcWhirter The middle guy suppost to be "The ugly" not angel eyes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
02-01-2005, 09:20 PM
Almost there. Almost there. Just a few more posts!

VF-29_Sandman
02-02-2005, 06:02 AM
i know 1 thing for sure...being on the receiving end of even 4x50 cal in even a 'strong' plane like a hellcat or corsair, they hurt it enough to make it rough to keep in the air let alone try to turn.

as far as the 190's go, the rudder/tail section always seemed to have had titanium 'armor' there even in v 2.01/2. hit em in the wings, and their practically done for. but if u hit a 190 in the center fusalage gas tank within about 200 meters, he wont feel a thing..last thing he'll see is a fireball in his cockpit as his ship turns into a mini sun. been there, seen it.

50 cal's need precision aiming. especially with p-38's. if u hit the right spot from the get go, he isnt goin anywhere but down. wing guns MUST be zero'd for where u'd most likely open fire. i'd highly suggest, for optimum results when shooting with 50 cal wing guns, to make every effort in waiting until the wingtips of the bogey at the very least touch both sides of the gunsite reticule. u would be roughly 328 feet from the bogey in question. using the metric converter, 100 meters is 328.083 feet. if u miss at this range having the guns zero'd in at 100 meters, u need: a: flying lessons, b: new glasses, or c: a new stick.

in the so-called 'super-uber 50's' days, i had my guns zero'd at 185 meters (606.9535 feet), and at that range, the 'titanium armored' 190's were gettin ripped apart with 2 second bursts. it isnt what u hit, its where u hit. ur mission is to make the gomer into part of terra firma. if his wings still provide lift, he's gonna stay up even with a fusalage that looks like swiss cheese. hit the wings, he's headin to 'lawn dart city'.

just a side-note: with a p-38 scoring hits at 700 meters, i seen a nice trail of leaking gas from a a-20. wings were pretty beat up, gas just pourin out. next burst, flame on..engine on fire.

VW-IceFire
02-02-2005, 08:05 AM
If you fire from dead six with any gun you are going to spend alot of time shooting at the target. The FW190 is a small and tough fighter so its no wonder that some people have trouble with this.

Most of the gun camera footage you see of FW190s falling apart are always done from an angle offset from dead six. Do this and you can make the FW190s explode or fall apart very easily....case in point, Ki-84 that stalled up above me last night. I lit both fuel tanks on fire with the 4 .303s of the Spitfire...it was a full on 90 degree deflection shot on relatively unmoving target. Two fuel tanks in the wings and the engine totally on fire. So angle factors in quite a bit.

I think there's quite a bit of personal bias sneaking in here and there. Flying for either side is relatively the same experience...the ShVAK being inaccurate (IRL) is news to me but then I know less on this cannon. All I've seen is that the MG151/20, the ShVAK, and the Hispano are all very similar in the end run (or should be) and I'd have to disagree with Leadspitter that this patch the MG151/20 seems to have benefitted rather than lost. Tell me that its not working to the 4 Yak-1s that I downed on a single sortie on UK-Dedicated (before the other 6 got me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Russian_Ivan
02-02-2005, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Remember that the game measures units in meters and not yards. So 200 yards is something like 180 meters (I think). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usefull for calculations:

http://www.google.com/search?q=200+yards+in+meters

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
02-02-2005, 08:47 AM
I was right on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I just spent about 15 minutes and turned on Arcade mode for the first time. See what it was all about. Did some tests, almost all involving the so called industructable Yak-9 and then a variety of aircraft...Ki-61 with MG151/20, Bf-109G-6, FW190A-6. My feelings on 3.04 DM model?

Yak VS 109: it takes about the same time on target to achieve a kill, Yak's wings stay on a bit longer but the tail section is just as likely to detatch. Shooting the 13mm from dead six is unlikely to kill the engine as it seems to be protected from there (this is consistent with an interview that Oleg did suggesting the Klimov was decently protected from lower calibre weapons. The MG151/20 seems to really mess Yak's up by doing damage to everything. It doesn't specifically blast out like the Hispano but I killed a good portion of my Yaks by essentially depriving them of any lift. The AI couldn't keep the plane airborne. Or the wing just snapped off...either way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ki-61 did as much damage as any other MG151/20 equipped plane. FW190 definately had an advantage and destroyed the Yak's very quickly.

Engine damage to the Yak appears to be achiveable from a top 6 view...you have to place the 13mm or 20mm into that engine block from up above. The 109 has not got the same advantage and a UBS can damage the 109s engine from dead six. Wing and tail separation is virtually identical.

Didn't test the FW190s but memory serves that the FW190 engine is much tougher. The fuel tank on the back is not. This is one thing I've noticed, the Yak's fuel tanks are difficult to puncture more than a little bit. Where's the fuel tank located? This may be a strategy thing in the making.

Oh and shot some Yaks with a .50cal for fun (since that is the topic). Total devastation...pilot kills, wing being sawed off, and engine damage from dead six possible. The .50cal is defiantely superior to the German 13mm cowl guns...of course I was benefitting from 6 wing guns instead of 2 syncronized cowl guns. The 6 .50cal is almost as effective as the 4 20mm on the FW190...but not quite and the .50cal as has been mentioned is more of a AP sort of thing...while the MG151/20 really messed the target up with damage to all sections.

I did once experience, with a 109 I was shooting, an instance where there was an arrow through the pilot and the cartoon letters told me that I had PKed the pilot but he was still good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
02-02-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Hey NorrisMcWhirter The middle guy suppost to be "The ugly" not angel eyes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I know - I only watched it the other night. Consider it artistic licence although there isn't much art in that lash-up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

VBF-83_Hawk
02-02-2005, 03:12 PM
Icefire,

That is why I did not want to come in here and whine....porkrd guns porked guns.

I have noticed about the same with PTO planes as you have with what you said. Below is a copy of what I posted in our squad forum. It was not a whine, but a post to try and learn the damage model in order to better attack a target.

"I really started getting upset last night on how hard it was to get damage on the A6Ms from the six o'clock position. This is where the damage should be at its best. The target is smaller, with less surface to hit but when you do hit it from this position, the angle of the target surface gets more damage from the bullets ripping along the wing's skin surface rather than straight through it. You also do more wing spar damage when you hit the side of the spar instead of the top. However, snap shots should allow one to get a better shot at a wing tank explosion and a pilot kill although one would think the ripping of the tank skin from a six o'clock possition would be better. This just doesnt seem to happen in PF......

.....and is how I have been flying for the last six years or so in these flight sims. The more you have to slow down to take a shot, the more you allow yourself to become "Zeke Bait". There are times when I will slow down to get a sure shot but these sure shots have been getting me killed latley. I slow down enough to get that sure kill shot but over shoot what should have been a dead con.

Also, if I get close enough to get a sure kill, say .35 or closer, I end up colliding or miss the wiggle waggle SOB and use up my ammo. I hate that spary and pray stuff.

I also hate hitting a con which should kill it, maintaining my speed, just so the slow guy finishes him off. This is good when flying as a team but not when its a free for all.

Last night after all you guys with jobs whent to bed, I went back to the F4F vs Zeke server. I flew the F4F and P-40 and decided to pay attention on how I got my kills. With no external views (they were DISABLED) I could sneek in and get many kills. I dove in on the cons blind spots and come up from below with my first shots. These deflection shots caused more control damage hits and I could see the con not moving as much. Dead six shots were ok if I was withen .25. The best shots were when the con would pull up and back exposing his top. This seemed to get the pilot wounds. However, The only exploding hits were from a dead six at or closer then .25. I payed close attention to dead six shots at .35 to .40. These shots just pissed off the pilot and allowed him to turn tight and ruin any chance I had at killing him with the first shots."

I did some &lt;gunsta checks in other servers and when I knew I should have caused damage and did'nt, may hit rate was 9% or better. At a range of .25 and closer, dead 6 shots would explode the A6M with only a few rounds. I killed three zeros with 61 rounds. In order to do this I had to expose the weakness of the F4U. In an honest dogfight, in order to stay alive, my hit % remained about the same but the distances were further away.....about .35 to .45, in which damage was minimal. Now, flying the F4F was different, the damage results were the same but using the better agile F4F, I was able to slow down more and stick with the con more in order to get that closer distance for the kill.

What ya think?

Chuck_Older
02-02-2005, 03:24 PM
But this:

"I really started getting upset last night on how hard it was to get damage on the A6Ms from the six o'clock position. This is where the damage should be at its best. The target is smaller, with less surface to hit but when you do hit it from this position, the angle of the target surface gets more damage from the bullets ripping along the wing's skin surface rather than straight through it. You also do more wing spar damage when you hit the side of the spar instead of the top."

How do you know this? Are you that familiar with A6M construction? Or is this what seems logical to you? I've made a couple wing spar sections...I wouldn't say that it's definite that I would hurt it more by damaging the side instead of the top, or vice versa. For one thing, there's lightening holes (not for lightning bolts, lol, it's to reduce weight) in a lot of this stuff, and for another, I don't know what goes through or into these holes, if anything, if they are simply open, or if the inside edges of the holes are rolled, just pressed out, reinforced...I just don't know

Ripping along the surface of a wing skin...well, that aluminum is thin, and also, it's an airfoil..it's not flat. Without a magic bullet type of thing, the bullet will not tend to tear along the edge without a mitigating circumstance, like for instance, hitting the top of a wing spar? I can't say, not being a ballsitics expert, but I can say from what I know of airfoil shape and theory, that the bullet will eventually plunge in, most of the time.

If you took a 4'x8' sheet of aluminum at .125" thick, and tore a gouge in it's center one foot long by 1" wide, would that be as damaging as drilling two dozen holes in it, each .5" in diameter, in a 2'x2' area? I can argue it both ways, but my gut says the holes are more damaging to a wing, because what goes in...either comes out, or hits something else, and a tear in a wing skin only? Not a big deal to my way of thinking

I go to bed around midnight, and then get up at 5 am to go to my job, BTW

VBF-83_Hawk
02-02-2005, 04:05 PM
Its basicly a figure of speach Chuck. I figure the smart guys can fill in the blanks. If a single round makes a hole, would not the same single round creat more dmages at an angle? WOuld the damage "hole" "length wise" not be bigger than a normal "round hole". Multiply this by all of the hits on the way in at a slant angle to the material both internal and external compared to a 90 degree hit that only has a chance of hitting the two wing skins, top and bottom, and what "might" be in between. If the thikness of the wing is 6 inches then you can only dmage what is in that 6 inches. But if the cord of the wing is 5 feet, you have a greater chance at dmaging more objects in that area the round will travil. Thats what I mean by "ripping" at an angle rather than straight in from the top.

Danmmmnn my explainations suck!

JG54_Arnie
02-02-2005, 04:07 PM
I think your squadmate should focus on deflection shots, as slowing down to get a sure kill is defenitely suicide when engaging zero's. Plus from my experience deflectionshots on Zero's tend to set them on fire, lose wings a lot easier than when on their direct 6, regardless of his theorie.. It just not as easily a sure kill but that doesnt matter, as long as you yourself stay alive to give it another try. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
02-02-2005, 08:20 PM
I follow you Hawk on virtually all of that and I understand where you are coming from. I'm not sure what the actual real life answer is but let me "game the game" for a moment and suggest that you focus, as you have, on making those deflection angle shots.

What I don't follow is why you have to play to any disadvantage to get your position on target. I'm always attacking my targets from off angles. I learned, maybe because of the way this sim works (and maybe the way it really was, I don't know, I'm not qualified to actually say, just suggest), to attack targets from angles. Even a 10 degree deflection shot is better than dead six.

So I, like a good number of USN pilots apparently, spent alot of time practicing my deflection shooting. And I think I'm pretty good at it and maybe thats what sometimes gives me an edge and notice problems with guns less than others. I really don't know. Anyways, nothing pleases me more, when attacking a 109 say, with a .50cal armed aircraft, than to be able to lead just infront of him enough so that my rounds are hitting that engine from a 10 to 20 degree angle. When it comes to flying that 109, the same holds true...I want those 20mm cannon rounds to be landing on his wing root or on his engine block.

How I do this is high speed passes, from above generally, and not from behind. So I never really have to slow down to hit my target...I think thats more condusive to the dead six shooting. I don't know how you do it, but a slight adjustment of your tactics and your feel of the plane may give you you're advantage back. Maybe in the end thats more realistic...

Keep working at it. Some of hits history, some of its present day tactics, some of its player style, and some of its experience. Sounds like you and many others are willing to work on what they can do make their abilities better and I say kudos to that. I think the game does a decent job overall and you just need to work to gain what you want to have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
02-02-2005, 09:12 PM
I love deflection shots and is where I use to rule in other sims. What I can not get use to in here is the distance. I make pretty good shots but it looks like my deflection shots beyond .40 is a waist of time. I guess I do cause damage but since I B&Z, the slower furballer usualy finishes them off and gets the credit. During squad missions or coops, I usually fair pretty good getting 3 to 5 kills in a sortie with deflection shots. However, even deflection shots dont give me those exploding tanks you guys refer to. MOst of the time all I get is maybe some control damage or that fuel leak. Thats when the "other guys" usually finish them off. The other guys end up getting slow, get my kills, but the get killed while I stay alive and go home.


Are the icons in meters or k/meters?
Are gun convergence meters or k/meters?

VW-IceFire
02-02-2005, 09:32 PM
Icons are in kilometers and the gun convergence is in meters. Of course, conversion is rediculously simple.

If you set your guns to converge at 250 meters then look for 0.25. Converge at 300 meters? Its 0.30. No worries http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Honestly, with the .50cal, you want to have your guns set at 250 meters or less. I understand that WWII pilots would often set their convergence to 200 yards which offhand is 180 meters. So you may even want to try that...but you have to set what works best for you and the aircraft you fly. I fly Spitfires and FW190s more often...so I want my cannons to converge a little further ahead of me.

LeadSpitter_
02-03-2005, 01:15 AM
The thing is people here just think the .50 cal is a troop machine gun and should be like .303 strenght which is very undermodeled as well. 8-12 of them do hardly anything to emils.

Its a light/mid anti armor weapon with many ammo types API, Explosive etc. Unlike the mg42 which was an anti troop weapon machine gun with a much higher rof

Its advantage and why it was used till the koreanwar was its stopping power against fighters, longer range and accuracy then cannon.
Even with self sealing tanks an incediary round will ignite wwii fuel tanks.

Does anyone here have concrete proof to show me differently? I would be interested to see.

tigertalon
02-03-2005, 04:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:

Where do game designers get the correct info from? I sure cant seem to find it.

Edumacate me folks! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where have you looked for the 'correct information'? Online?

Pardon me for saying, but from your post I have to guess your search begins and ends with the internet

This is a guess, but it could be so that real ballistic info from Military sources and testing labs, done by actual ballistics experts were used. While that is only my guess, I feel confident that Oleg Maddox and the 1C team did more than spend a day or two googling. That's not a jab at you, by the way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with you, but nevertheless, even the best can make big mistakes, like 1C in this sim with Mg151/20...

Bearcat99
02-03-2005, 05:59 AM
Keep in mind that IRL there was no such thing as packet loss. You cannot accurately assess the guns in this sim online. Especially in a DF server. However Fehler was spot on about convergence.. I have set 109s,Zeroes and even 190s on fire (though not as often with the 190s) with a short 1-2 second burst.. depending on the angle and rnage. At or close to convergence in either direction the .50s pack a punch.

FliegerAas
02-03-2005, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
Its basicly a figure of speach Chuck. I figure the smart guys can fill in the blanks. If a single round makes a hole, would not the same single round creat more dmages at an angle? WOuld the damage "hole" "length wise" not be bigger than a normal "round hole". Multiply this by all of the hits on the way in at a slant angle to the material both internal and external compared to a 90 degree hit that only has a chance of hitting the two wing skins, top and bottom, and what "might" be in between. If the thikness of the wing is 6 inches then you can only dmage what is in that 6 inches. But if the cord of the wing is 5 feet, you have a greater chance at dmaging more objects in that area the round will travil. Thats what I mean by "ripping" at an angle rather than straight in from the top.

Danmmmnn my explainations suck! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

6 o clock is not necessarily a good position because the bullets hit at a VERY flat angle and most of them should ricochet. Leadspitter said that the M2 can pierce 1,4 inch of armor. OK, but the question is at what angle? A fighter does not stand still. It's a fast moving target and bullets seldom hit at a 90 degree angle. M2 is a good weapon but it's "just" a HMG.
P.S. I fired tank mounted M2, so I'm not talking of something I have completely no Idea of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VBF-83_Hawk
02-03-2005, 03:31 PM
"...most of them should ricochet..." Off aluminum skin? Your kidding right?

WWMaxGunz
02-03-2005, 03:36 PM
1.4 INCH ARMOR???

That's over 35mm... armor not just mild steel!

I for one would ***really*** like to see where that came from,
even straight on at 1 ft range!

HayateAce
02-03-2005, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
1.4 INCH ARMOR???

That's over 35mm... armor not just mild steel!

I for one would ***really*** like to see where that came from,
even straight on at 1 ft range! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

QUARTER INCH (1/4") dude. As in Sdkfz 250 and 251 series German halftracks. Happened all the time.

You need one of these:

http://www.radicalbender.com/images/abm/lovehinajumpto.jpg

FliegerAas
02-03-2005, 03:53 PM
1/4 sounds better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Chuck_Older
02-03-2005, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VBF-83_Hawk:
"...most of them should ricochet..." Off aluminum skin? Your kidding right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever skip a rock on a lake?

Bullets can bounce off water, and even human skin if the conditions are right

Take the extreme example- the bullet hits at 179*, if you assume that 90* is perpendicular to the skin. Could the bullet glance off? Sure. Must it? No

Aaron_GT
02-04-2005, 05:23 AM
LeadSpitter wrote:
"8-12 of them do hardly anything to emils."

Even 4 seem to chew up all the other 109s with ease. Is the 109E special in this regard? If so it suggests a DM issue with the 109E, not a problem with the guns. If I get a good position at convergence on a target the 50 cal seems very effective.

Online it is harder to down things but then I am getting REALLY bad frame rates online since 3.03 which makes lining up for a shot much harder and so I end up firing when somewhere near the target as it almost a slideshow by that point. Firing the 50 cal when not in the right position makes it pretty ineffective as a lucky hit won't down a plane as it will with the MK108 etc. With the MGs (.303s as well) you can get in a good position and a short burst can be devastating. Or you can end up in a series of bad positions and use up all your ammo. Back when the 50 cal was supposed to be totally porked I still found that if I set up a 'friendly' Ju52 and set convergence to 150m and came in at a moderate pace of closure from dead six I could saw the Ju52s tail right off with one or two one second bursts about half the time, which is pretty decent. Given that in real life pilots scored very few kills per sortie on average we shouldn't expect to necessarily become aces (5 victories) every sortie.

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2005, 06:15 PM
When the 50's were shotguns it was easy to kill anything up close, inside 200m.
You couldn't aim for specific points because if you got super close because the
spread of guns along the wings kept you from getting guns together, but 100m to
200m maximum the bullets went everywhere and aim was not a concern. Nor was
the target jinking slightly as by the time he moved much you were still onto
him. Just stay pointed somewhere near the middle hold fire till he blows.

Now at least you can miss or watch the majority of tracers go right over or
under a wing. Or you can pick a spot and get most shots near or on it for a
time if you're not so close the spread from gun sets to sight is a factor.

VBF-83_Hawk
02-05-2005, 02:00 AM
OK, I have really been paying attention for the past few nights. Here is waht I found:

F4F
6 .50 cals
convergnece 750 feet, 250 yards, 228.6 meters,
F4F vs Zeke server

six shot kills
Anything at or closer to .35
BOOM DEAD 2 second burst

Anything at or beyond .38
Just pisses them off


Snap SHots

Anything withen .35
Looses valuable parts, no explosions, almost always a fuel leak.

So it looks like the "Magic" number for the .50s are .228 metrs.

Even straffing AAA guns, the best kills comes from a como setting of 228 meters convergence.

No mater the convergance, anything beyond 450 meters is like shooting rubber.


I did read where P-47s inboard guns were set to 750 feet (250 yards) This would send 80 rounds per second to a four and a half foot bullseye. ENough to bring down "ANY" fighter.


Thanks for the input guys, all was very helpfull!

Oh yeah, I did freaquent gunstats in anouther server (forget which one) and came up with the following.

Almost all shots that I thought I should have damaged the target.

6% to 12% hits on the. One time I brought down 3 A6Ms with 61 rounds. Thats an average of 30 rounds per aircraft. I expended some 2,000 rounds starting at a distance of 500 meters untill explosion. Aircraft almost always exploded at 230 meters or closer.

ImpStarDuece
02-05-2005, 03:56 AM
YES! Validation! 3 whole pages and its just warming up.


Die topic. Die!

VF-29_Sandman
02-05-2005, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
YES! Validation! 3 whole pages and its just warming up.


Die topic. Die! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
u called the #'s right at least

whitetornado_1
02-05-2005, 08:39 PM
I just tried the QMB and put up a few Zekes
and a 109s and went at them.When you fill
up your sight and let them have a burst
from nose to tail they do flame and fall
the Zekes and the 109's don't get far either.The 50's a pretty good.Try a
Hurricane IIb and see how hard it hits.
50's are much better.

439th_Wtornado

WWMaxGunz
02-05-2005, 11:39 PM
50's are much better than 8 .303's?
Ahhh, but how many 50's?

And Hayate there ... HTF is it jumping when the guy writes 1,4 inches?
Do you know that in parts of the world 1,4 is the same as US 1.4?

VW-IceFire
02-06-2005, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
50's are much better than 8 .303's?
Ahhh, but how many 50's?

And Hayate there ... HTF is it jumping when the guy writes 1,4 inches?
Do you know that in parts of the world 1,4 is the same as US 1.4? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 4 .50cal on a P-51B/C are easily twice or three times as effective as the 12 .303 on a Hurricane IIB.

WWMaxGunz
02-06-2005, 12:41 PM
Even under 150m?

Well really I do remember that 109 seat armor is supposed to be 303-proof but not 12+mm proof and even then the range counts.

I don't know how you figure 12 .303's at close range because they just tear wings to bits.

VW-IceFire
02-06-2005, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Even under 150m?

Well really I do remember that 109 seat armor is supposed to be 303-proof but not 12+mm proof and even then the range counts.

I don't know how you figure 12 .303's at close range because they just tear wings to bits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, even under 150m. The convergence still matters and your aim has to be better with 4 guns rather than 12 guns.

I find the .303's rather useless all around actually. Although they make a good psychological weapon (i.e. on the Spitfire) to get the pilot to do something silly and then hammer them with something more substantial.

Atomic_Marten
02-06-2005, 05:21 PM
Hm.
What I find really annoying with 12,7mms is the fact that I'm simply inexperienced with that weapon. But to say that it is ineffective, I think it is exaggeration. And not a small one.(I do not know what is the right way to model that weapon in game; and for that matter if that is even effective as it was in RL, but I know that in game it is effective if I manage to hit vulnerable areas, then especially).

In one of my more 'memorable' online fights, I have hit Me109F with good burst from distance. He tried to climb and rely on his energy advantage but I have managed to close in on below 400m, and with one good burst from P40s 6pack, Me109 exploded (I have hit fuel tank, I presume).

Also close related to the 0.50cal issue is 20mm MG151.

I can tell similar online stories about that weapon also, but difference is that I'm used to the MG151 so I can aim and hit better with that weapon.

Also must say that in my subjective point of view I found MG151 tobe easier to use when compared to the .50s.(tracers mostly but also trajectory, dispersion makes it easier IMHO).

To summarize; if not used in BnZ tactic (when you can aim at larger area of selected target, and of course engine and fuel tank area..), 12,7s are tough and need lot of experience in order to be used effectively. On the contrary to some of the other weapons in game. IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2005, 05:54 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/yeagarcombatreport.jpg
Look at rounds fired can anyone do this in game against human opponents? I was a looking at alot of other combat reports as well and rounds fired are very low for 2-3 enemy destroyed compaired to the thousands fired it takes in game at 200 convergence.

Interviewer: What did you set your guns' convergence at?

Chuck Yeager: Oh, 350, 300, 250. So you had to comb.

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2005, 06:10 PM
Does anyone know what german squad had purple noses and brown camo

HayateAce
02-06-2005, 06:25 PM
"I did not black out during this engagement due to the efficiency of the G suit."

Gee, I guess that's not enough proof.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

LeadSpitter_
02-06-2005, 08:56 PM
yup they been around since 43, most of the wasps used them as well when ferring ac. I just wonder how much sourced documented data it takes to convince oleg. I can care less what the trolls think.

JG54_Arnie
02-07-2005, 01:33 AM
But guys in the war would bail out in panic or fear when hit a lot sooner than an online player does. That he needs a 3 second burst to split open a 109 tells me that the .50's in this game are overmoddeled really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hetzer_II
02-07-2005, 02:06 AM
"But guys in the war would bail out in panic or fear when hit a lot sooner than an online player does. That he needs a 3 second burst to split open a 109 tells me that the .50's in this game are overmoddeled really."

Yeah, thats one of the main problems... Yesterday we had an P63 above the base, which was smoking black and soon began to catch fire... what this beast does? He kept on attacking us... he got 4 planes in 5 aproaches before he finaly exploded in air....

Who would do that in RL?
And even though this bird took 4 30mm hits from my a9.. and? nothing.... it was still attacking...

Greets

Aaron_GT
02-07-2005, 02:18 AM
Ice Fire wrote:
"The 4 .50cal on a P-51B/C are easily twice or three times as effective as the 12 .303 on a Hurricane IIB."

The RAF reckoned that a .50 was worth about 3 .303s against lightly armoured aircraft, so that would mean 4 .50s and 12 .303s should be about the same sort of performance. I suppose presence of effective armour in certain locations would blunt the effectiveness of the .303. Also I am not sure if the De Wilde ammunition was taken into account in the RAF figures or if it is modelled in IL2.

Equally the USN reckoned the 20mm cannon was worth about 3 .50s, so the Hurricane IIC should have about 3 times the firepower of the P51B, or about 3 times the power of the Hurricane IIB. Is this modelled correctly?

Mind you it is hard to say what makes something 3 times as effective...

WWMaxGunz
02-07-2005, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
"But guys in the war would bail out in panic or fear when hit a lot sooner than an online player does. That he needs a 3 second burst to split open a 109 tells me that the .50's in this game are overmoddeled really."

Yeah, thats one of the main problems... Yesterday we had an P63 above the base, which was smoking black and soon began to catch fire... what this beast does? He kept on attacking us... he got 4 planes in 5 aproaches before he finaly exploded in air....

Who would do that in RL?
And even though this bird took 4 30mm hits from my a9.. and? nothing.... it was still attacking...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be more real if for certain damages and fire that the player pilot would bail
out automatic. Or at least that once a plane starts really burning, it doesn't have
so long before exploding or the cockpit filling with flames which is what should force
the pilot out or kill him.

Hetzer_II
02-07-2005, 04:50 AM
"It would be more real if for certain damages and fire that the player pilot would bail
out automatic."

That was exactly was i though yesterday and if you ask:
Yes im for it!

Aaron_GT
02-07-2005, 07:00 AM
Sounds like a good feature to me. Perhaps it could be an optional one like the parachute option in PF?

Airmail109
02-07-2005, 07:31 AM
huh where did my post go? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

VW-IceFire
02-07-2005, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Ice Fire wrote:
"The 4 .50cal on a P-51B/C are easily twice or three times as effective as the 12 .303 on a Hurricane IIB."

The RAF reckoned that a .50 was worth about 3 .303s against lightly armoured aircraft, so that would mean 4 .50s and 12 .303s should be about the same sort of performance. I suppose presence of effective armour in certain locations would blunt the effectiveness of the .303. Also I am not sure if the De Wilde ammunition was taken into account in the RAF figures or if it is modelled in IL2.

Equally the USN reckoned the 20mm cannon was worth about 3 .50s, so the Hurricane IIC should have about 3 times the firepower of the P51B, or about 3 times the power of the Hurricane IIB. Is this modelled correctly?

Mind you it is hard to say what makes something 3 times as effective... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd say the .50cal to 20mm relationship is correct but that the .303 relationship maybe is not.

I think the trouble is that some more vulnerable sections such as radiators and the possibility of ammo explosions and the like prevent the .303 from doing what it possibly could. From a high degree of deflection, the .303 works just as well as .50cal but from a 10 degree or less deflection shot they are fairly useless.

Rather have the cannons overall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In a multiplayer environment I managed to down 5 109s using the gyro gunsight and a P-51D-20. It was quite a feat but it was done and I still had ammo left (unfortunately a glancing shot to my wing forced me to RTB). So its doable and the 109s took less than 2 seconds apiece to cripple.

LeadSpitter_
02-07-2005, 08:55 AM
but get a tool that shows you shotsfired to get 5 109s sure anyone can do it against dumb ai but human players is a different story.

The thing im concerned about is not thier .20m range effectiveness I think its done well but the m2 had an advantage over cannon with accuracy and stopping poawer longer distances. In here cannon is more accurate longer ranges which is against everything I read. wwii and korean war. Same with the spitfire and hurricane with 8-12 .303s. Cannon was prefered by russian german british japanese for ground and anti bomber, sure it was used in the dogfight too very close range and these ac needed mg as well for the dogfight that had longer range accuracy.

Ive seen german vets say it, russian british as well as american. Sure cannon was much more devastating but was accurate only very close range 100-200m

VW-IceFire
02-07-2005, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
but get a tool that shows you shotsfired to get 5 109s sure anyone can do it against dumb ai but human players is a different story.

The thing im concerned about is not thier .20m range effectiveness I think its done well but the m2 had an advantage over cannon with accuracy and stopping poawer longer distances. In here cannon is more accurate longer ranges which is against everything I read. wwii and korean war. Same with the spitfire and hurricane with 8-12 .303s. Cannon was prefered by russian german british japanese for ground and anti bomber, sure it was used in the dogfight too very close range and these ac needed mg as well for the dogfight that had longer range accuracy.

Ive seen german vets say it, russian british as well as american. Sure cannon was much more devastating but was accurate only very close range 100-200m <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uhhh this was against human players. Five Bf 109s (G-6A/S, G-10, and K-4s) shot down by me in a P-51D-20 on UK-Dedicated. Not the most hardcore of servers but it was done...(and I prefer to fly there).

As for the rest, I have no idea.

I would figure there would be some tradeoffs of the .50cal to the 20mm in terms of range. The 20mm still has the explosive hit at range while the .50cal is still just kinetic - just that the kinetic drops a bit slower on the smaller bullet.

BTW: The Hispano 20mm still has the "feature" in that it doesn't travel more than a few hundred meters (I think its 800M or around there) before it disappears. NOTE: the tracer doesn't burn out, it just disappears). So its the shortest ranged of the 20mm cannons and the .50cal is far superior to it in this case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
02-07-2005, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:

Yeah, thats one of the main problems... Yesterday we had an P63 above the base, which was smoking black and soon began to catch fire... what this beast does? He kept on attacking us... he got 4 planes in 5 aproaches before he finaly exploded in air....

Who would do that in RL?
And even though this bird took 4 30mm hits from my a9.. and? nothing.... it was still attacking...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

I've watched numerous 109s and 110s in full flames stay and fight for several minutes. Especially the 110.

Need about 5 - 8 seconds of flames and then the message "Pilot wounded" NEEDS to appear.

Willey
02-07-2005, 11:47 AM
Kirsche!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-08-2005, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The thing im concerned about is not thier .20m range effectiveness I think its done well but the m2 had an advantage over cannon with accuracy and stopping poawer longer distances. In here cannon is more accurate longer ranges which is against everything I read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to know what and where you read this.
Effective ranges of weapons generally increase with bore. That is cannon vs MG's.

LeadSpitter_
02-08-2005, 04:56 PM
I already posted all the authors to you in a previous thread wwmaxguns if you remember.

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2005, 03:37 AM
Not due to ROF? You would say the Browning .50 should have more long range accuracy
than say, the Hispano 20mm AP? And more stopping power? Or should the MG-FF be considered
as a fair representative of 20mm?

You have the mass of the shell, the muzzle velocity, the frontal area and the shape-drag
coefficient. 20mm is much heavier per frontal area so it doesn't have to be as efficient
about drag to have the same trajectory from equal muzzle velocity, not even close efficience.
They are much heavier so they don't have to hit at nearly the same speed for the same punch.
The faster any projectile is the higher the loss rate of speed which drops with loss of speed.
But more weight and better shape both affect the loss...

Effective ranges for WWII 20mm AA and ground guns are longer than any WWII HMG I know of.
Penetration for the AP 20's is higher than M2, HE not being designed for armor penetration.

Modern jets fire explosive cannon so I can't go there about trajectory and penetration
but considering the longer ranges... even with lighter HE shells the difference in
trajectory and time of flight can't be much inferior if at all compared to the modern
.50 cal or they would still be using those at least mixed.

You wouldn't have any ranged ballistics tables for the M2, would you? We have some that
should do for the 151/20. Maybe Hispano tables can be found. Maybe, possibly, ShVAK.

Do you really think that the M2 is going to hit harder at 400m? Even with ROF included?

Average 20mm threw out twice the projectile mass per second at muzzle with higher mass
per square frontal area than M2. That's a LOT of ballistic efficiency difference for the
M2 to have to become harder hitting at any range.

EDIT:ADD
Look, it's a good gun for the caliber but UBS is better. Put enough of them on a plane
and you have effective armament out to ranges where flight time versus maneuvering targets
becomes a main problem. Even farther if the target doesn't dodge much and is "soft".
They fire fast and in groups IRL you can hose a column of fire and bring that onto a target
if it doesn't evade in a way that one or two slower firing cannon cannot do. That's going
to affect what a fighter pilot considers as effective range.
BUT that does not make the M2 bullet anywhere near on par with the average 20mm.

Aaron_GT
02-10-2005, 05:43 AM
I posted some things around a year or so ago on relative chances of hit with different numbers of guns. If you compare 8 .50s to 4 20mm cannon, though, the difference is trivial. I then did a rough analysis of the number of rounds hitting (which tends to be proportional to the number of guns firing) and the relative power of each round. For 4 20mm cannon relative to 8 .50s the 20mm cannon set up is 1.5 to 2 times the power from an average statistical point of view.

I didn't do an analysis of small numbers of 20mm cannon versus a small (4 or less) .50s. There the figures are going to be a lot closer as the increase in the number of guns really will make a difference on the chances of landing at least one hit or the total destructive power landed on the target.

Obviously my model was very much simplified as it ignored things like hits on critical components, and other detailed things. Doing that would mean rewriting half the DM code of IL2!

msalama
02-10-2005, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I feel confident that Oleg Maddox and the 1C team did more than spend a day or two googling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(OK, no unfounded shouting follows, 1st off)

Spot on Chuck, and this statement probably holds true in other areas of the game as well.

(And this, BTW, is _exactly_ why I've been so critical about some of the complaints here. Not to mention that Oleg Maddox is/was originally an aviation engineer by profession - unlike, I'm afraid, many of the participants here...)

LeadSpitter_
02-10-2005, 11:30 AM
The problem is many cannons shvak 108 30mm 50mm on the me262u4 are more accurate longer ranges with 1 burst exploding ability compaired to .50 cal. 20mm is extremely weak as well 3-4 second bursts past .20 range. Also look how much recoil and dispurtion .303 and browning m2 have compaired to the german 20mm which has absolutely non what so ever like shvak which is why they are so accurate.

Part of the problem is oleg may have the correct values for the recoil but he has the wrong firing orders of the gun, for example he has the brownings fire all at once same with the .303s which is wrong.

These guns fired all at once but in 2 guns synced so two browning m2 fire then next two then next two which increased the rof. So we should have a recoil effect for 2 brownings firing not 4 6 8 at one time. Same goes for the .303s which is why they have so much dispursion and shake.

In fb weather its 2 4 6 8 brownings they all have the same effect in strenght, ki43c for example with only 2.

So we have no advantage in fire power from 4 to 8 nor increased rof in the p47 compaired to the 4 in the p51b which made 8 much more devastating.

read some books on the M-16 MGMC which was a variant of the M3 halftrack intended for air defense with the Maxson turret with 4 .50 caliber machine guns was mounted on the M3 chassis.

The .50 cals advantage was accuracy and stopping power at longer ranges then cannon which is a huge advantage in a dogfight.

Oleg had them done pretty well previous version and they get dubbed immediate lazers but thats the advantage they had.

Cannon should tear apart any fighter or bomber in a couple hits but at close ranges only. Look at the cannon on the p63 p39s for example how hard it is to get hits on ac longer rangers then 108 shvaks and german 20mm. I agree with the germans that the 20mm is marshmellowed but so are the zekes 20mm cannon.

Look at the accuracy of the ki84c cannon accuracy at range and 1 hit stopping power this holds the hugest advantage and should not just like shvak 108 cannon 30mm 20mm hispano.

Use arcademode=1 with 500 convergence for cannon and test offline the accuracy on ai. When it comes down to it in this game many cannon have advantage in accuracy long range, 1 burst exploding power at these further ranges, and not much recoil at all, cannon does not seem to slow ac down when holding the button down either even .303s and .50 cal slowed an aircraft down alot when holding the trigger down. Read about 190 tactics and me262 attacks about how much cannon bleed off airspeed as well as p40s p51 firing m2s.

If im wrong show me the proof and I'd be happy to admit im wrong.


Why do i think this? read this book

Flying Guns World War II

faustnik
02-10-2005, 11:41 AM
Leadspitter,

Are you saying that a lighter round will have better accuracy than a heavier round fired at the same velocity? Where in "Flying Guns of World War II" does it say that?

You can't compare the Mk108 and the Hispano. The Hispano is a high velocity weapon, the Mk108 is a low velocity weapon. The Mk108 relies on chemical energy for damage effect, the Hispano primarily on kinetic energy. The Hispano will have superior accuracy at longer ranges but, the Mk108 will retain its damage potential better (if the Mk108 can manage to hit anything past 300 yards).

LeadSpitter_
02-10-2005, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Leadspitter,

Are you saying that a lighter round will have better accuracy than a heavier round fired at the same velocity? Where in "Flying Guns of World War II" does it say that?

You can't compare the Mk108 and the Hispano. The Hispano is a high velocity weapon, the Mk108 is a low velocity weapon. The Mk108 relies on chemical energy for damage effect, the Hispano primarily on kinetic energy. The Hispano will have superior accuracy at longer ranges but, the Mk108 will retain its damage potential better (if the Mk108 can manage to hit anything past 300 yards). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely the heavier round will have a much greater decline in shot arc then the lighter round.


Said here:

The greater curve of the trajectories and slower rates of fire required greater skill, especially with the MG 151/20 which had a ROF of 700-750 compaired to the Browning .50 M2 which had a ROF of 750-850.

Now multiple 4 6 or 8 to the rof opposed to the mg151. Japanese pilots often complained about how the american browning was able to fire such longer ranges then thier german mg151s. This lead to a copy of the browning m2 not to replace the mg151 but to give the japanenese the ability to fire at longer ranges.



The MK 108 was put into service because the fight against Allied heavy bombers required a 30 mm cannon that was compact and light enough to be installed in single-engined fighters. The MK 108 used the APIB operating principle of the Oerlikon guns. It was less than half the weight and bulk of the MK 103, and much cheaper to produce, but it also had a much lower ballistic performance. Fighters could carry two or even four MK 108s. This gun had a heavy punch, but because it was a short-range weapon fighter pilots had to get close to their targets, normally opening fire at 300 m. Its use required strong nerves and better training than German pilots received during these last phases of the war.

Some effort was made to increase the rate of fire late in the war, and a 850 rpm version was apparently perfected, although too late to be adopted.

So basically we have the 850 round version in game and not the 600-650 rpm version which was used.

In game the shvak and 108 are much to accurate long ranges 108s at .50 range and shvak past 1.00 range.

At 100-200meters loosing all accuracy, firing on a large still bomber germans usually started firing at 300 meters even tho it recommends 100meters and shows to lead b17s by 5 lenghts when firing at 300 meters in the german aircraft gunnery handbook which is where some of BBB_Hyperion charts in the mg151 thread are from.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/50m2API.gif

Explosive: 13 grains (0.84 gm) Comp A-4
Incendiary composition: 13.1 grains (0.85 gm) #136

This cartridge is identified by green bullet tip identification paint. The projectile consists of a brass jacket surrounding a steel body and tungsten core with incendiary and high explosive charges.

Type Classification: STD. Type Classification Date: FEB-1942 (for U.S. Army)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMMUNITION EFFECTS
The .50 caliber round is optimized for penetration at long ranges (about 875 yards, or 800 meters). For hard targets, .50 caliber penetration is affected by obliquity and range.

faustnik
02-10-2005, 12:30 PM
The heavier round is more stable over a long range and more accurate.

Leadspitter which page of "Flying Guns of World War II" is this quote from: "The greater curve of the trajectories and slower rates of fire required greater skill, especially with the MG 151/20 which had a ROF of 700-750 compaired to the Browning .50 M2 which had a ROF of 750-850." ?

I'm not sure if you are talking accuracy or damage potential or both? I agree the low velocity Mk108 and Ho-155 should have poor accuracy at long range but, they would still have great damage potential even at long range.

Oh, what makes you think the Mk108 fires at 850rpm in PF?

LeadSpitter_
02-10-2005, 12:42 PM
The heavier round is more stable over a long range and more accurate.

show me some proof of this other then just a statement please I strongly disagree with you on everything I have ever read. Lower ROF wwii cannon accurate longer ranges then the browning m2 I dont think you could find any proof of that unless you write your own book with no test sources.


Oh, what makes you think the Mk108 fires at 850rpm in PF?

I remember many threads on this being added to the 108 cannon and many of the people saying it was used in combat etc..,

However Im not sure if its been added only oleg can tell us what he uses, I will have to make a timed tests to see how fast it runs out of ammo in game compaired to 600-650rpm documentation. So for this Im not sure. Maybe robban75 or bbb_hyperion can take some tests as well to see.


Im also not debating that the 108 cannon should be more destructive if getting strikes long distance compaired to the m2 rounds at longer ranges, it common knowledge its more destructive. Its like a co2 catridge full of matchtips vs a grenade which the 108 cannon explosion is equivlent to.

faustnik
02-10-2005, 12:52 PM
"Other things being equal, the bigger the calibre, the longer the range and the shorter the flight time to any given range."

-from Tony Williams on basic ballistics (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm)

LeadSpitter_
02-10-2005, 01:00 PM
a quote proof with no rof kenetic e ballistics compairison anything of importance?

Im not here to argue with you faustnik hopefully oleg will read this thread and take a look and make a final decision.

faustnik
02-10-2005, 01:38 PM
No, I didn't think you were arguing with me Leadspitter. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying and you are answering my questions. I think you are a little off base on a couple issues but, I agree with some of your points on accuracy.

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2005, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

Absolutely the heavier round will have a much greater decline in shot arc then the lighter round.

Said here:

The greater curve of the trajectories and slower rates of fire required greater skill, especially with the MG 151/20 which had a ROF of 700-750 compaired to the Browning .50 M2 which had a ROF of 750-850.

Now multiple 4 6 or 8 to the rof opposed to the mg151. Japanese pilots often complained about how the american browning was able to fire such longer ranges then thier german mg151s. This lead to a copy of the browning m2 not to replace the mg151 but to give the japanenese the ability to fire at longer ranges.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Trajectory curve in effective range out to 366m (400 yards) of M2 vs trajectory
curve of 151/20 couldn't be primarily at matter for the M2 having 870 m/s muzzle velocity
vs 151/20 Ap at 710 m/s, HE at 705 m/s and MG at 775 m/s but much less mass?

I would point you to Tony Williams page on ballistics, but you wouldn't get it right
anyway. No, the lighter the round the more speed is lost due to drag. It is called
lack of inertia compared to the heavier round.

Japanese pilots observations were affected by many factors, much including Rate Of Fire
which you quote. It helps get hits. It is no way proof of superior trajectoy or the
carrying power of lighter bullets!

Next time I'm having a party, can I get some of what you got?

EDIT: oh wait... only if it's temporary!

LeadSpitter_
02-10-2005, 04:58 PM
alright good to hear fraustnik, from what you said I took it as you saying shvak 108 103 20mm cannon should be more accurate longer ranges then the browning or .303 even with a slower rof.

maybe I missunderstood you, I agree with you on the larger explosive cannon rounds should be much more leathal if getting hits longer range and causing much more damage.

what do you disagree with?

faustnik
02-10-2005, 05:10 PM
I disagree with the idea that lighter caliber rounds are more accurate over longer distances.
Why would you think that a lighter round would be more accurate? Heavier equals greater inertia and stability.

Why are you bringing ROF (rate of fire) into a discussion on accuracy? ROF has nothing to do with accuracy.

VW-IceFire
02-10-2005, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I disagree with the idea that lighter caliber rounds are more accurate over longer distances.
Why would you think that a lighter round would be more accurate? Heavier equals greater inertia and stability.

Why are you bringing ROF (rate of fire) into a discussion on accuracy? ROF has nothing to do with accuracy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well ROF might heat up the barrel quicker or shake the plane more? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'd love to see some guys barrels melt for overuse of their guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
02-11-2005, 06:01 AM
Leadspitter wrote:
"So we have no advantage in fire power from 4 to 8 nor increased rof in the p47 compaired to the 4 in the p51b which made 8 much more devastating."

Over a number of trials you will tend to have about twice as many hits from an 8 gun installation as you do from a 4 gun installation. With all guns firing at once, rather than in sequence, you will tend to get a more 'clumpy' distribution (hit or not hit) with FB using 8 guns that would be the case in reality, though.

In real life going from 4 guns to 8 increases your chance to hit at least once only very slightly but will more or less double the number of hits you can expect (convergence etc plays a part).

I'd have to do the maths to find out how much a difference firing together rather than in sequence would make.

Aaron_GT
02-11-2005, 06:04 AM
Leadspitter wrote:
"Cannon should tear apart any fighter or bomber in a couple hits but at close ranges only. Look at the cannon on the p63 p39s for example how hard it is to get hits on ac longer rangers then 108 shvaks and german 20mm. I agree with the germans that the 20mm is marshmellowed but so are the zekes 20mm cannon."

The cannon in the P39 and P63 are low velocity and very low rate of fire. The fact that it is hard to hit things with this is what is to be expected. The likes of a Hispano have an ROF only a bit less than the 50 cal and almost identical muzzle velocity to the 50 cal.

Aaron_GT
02-11-2005, 06:10 AM
Leadspitter wrote:
"Absolutely the heavier round will have a much greater decline in shot arc then the lighter round."

All other things being equal the heavier round will have a flatter trajectory.

The acceleration due to gravity is constant no matter what the mass of the round. (In other words weight is proportional to mass). However air resistance is a factor. This is related to the size of the shot so if you had two rounds with the same size but higher mass the one with higher mass would (muzzle velocities being equal) would have higher energy. Having more energy it would lose a smaller proportion of this energy to air resistance and have a flatter trajectory.

In reality more massive rounds tend to be bigger, but the mass tends to scale as the cube of the critical dimension (calibre) whereas air resistance scales as a factor of the surface area which only scales as the square of the critical dimension. Thus larger rounds have more mass compared to air resistance (thus more energy at the same muzzle velocity) and a flatter trajectory.

In the case of the Hispano round the rounds are a little shorter than you would expect, and some are less massive than that as they are not solid.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2005, 06:27 AM
Faustnik, when you define accuracy as "getting hits at longer ranges" then you can call a
lot of things as proof of accuracy.

Higher ROF means having less room between the shots, it's easier to stream fire onto target
or fire a stream and let the target fly through that. Not so easy with a very few slower
firing cannon as a bunch of faster firing MG's IRL. And maybe some people define that as
accuracy. Seems to be the case when quotes involving that are being used to back a point!

faustnik
02-11-2005, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Faustnik, when you define accuracy as "getting hits at longer ranges" then you can call a
lot of things as proof of accuracy.

Higher ROF means having less room between the shots, it's easier to stream fire onto target
or fire a stream and let the target fly through that. Not so easy with a very few slower
firing cannon as a bunch of faster firing MG's IRL. And maybe some people define that as
accuracy. Seems to be the case when quotes involving that are being used to back a point! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I understand what you're saying Neal. So "accuracy" would be defined in some cases as "probability of scoring a hit"? I was thinking more in single round terms.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2005, 12:40 PM
I didn't say it was right!

Just some people use their own meanings reading, interpreting, writing....
Really, we all do to some extent. Then ya gotta realize what's up!

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 12:06 AM
Aaron_GT, i ment to write "accurately" close ranges in your cut and paste.

Badsight.
02-12-2005, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Some effort was made to increase the rate of fire late in the war, and a 850 rpm version was apparently perfected, although too late to be adopted.

So basically we have the 850 round version in game and not the 600-650 rpm version which was used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>we do not

the Mk-108 was developed to have a ROF of 960 (or 990) RPM , not 850 , later in WW2

the Mk-108 in FB does not fire at 960 RPM

please stop making things up

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 02:56 AM
badsight i think you need to reread the thread or maybe your just to sleepy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dont seem to be the one making things up here.

http://buy.overstock.com/images/products/muze/books/1840372273.jpg

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Some effort was made to increase the rate of fire late in the war, and a 850 rpm version was apparently perfected, although too late to be adopted.

So basically we have the 850 round version in game and not the 600-650 rpm version which was used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>we do not

the Mk-108 was developed to have a ROF of 960 (or 990) RPM , not 850 , later in WW2

the Mk-108 in FB does not fire at 960 RPM

please stop making things up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...

I also said I dont know which we have in game 800-850 or 600-650 rpm version.

I guess I will have to take a test of firing for 5 seconds with a timer and see &gt;gunstat then multiple by 12

WWMaxGunz
02-12-2005, 06:10 AM
Just see the time to fire all the rounds. No need for gunstat.

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 06:17 AM
Its more complicated then that and without gunstat how would you figure out the ROF we have in game by just holding trigger down and by the time it runsout?

Kurfurst__
02-12-2005, 06:54 AM
Some people think here flat trajectory also means good dispersion (accuracy). It does not. It`s a contradictionary requirement.

High MV guns have longer barrel, and more powerful charges. This means a lot heavier recoil -&gt; more shaking of the airframe, plus, the longer barrel of the gun is more prone to vibration during the burst, decreasing accuracy more.

For dispersion, the ideal gun is low recoil and lower MV., has short barrel, preferably APIB, and not gas operated, with low ROF. German testing showed exactly that, the gun with the LEAST dispersion was...

... the MG FF! The 30mm, ultra high velocity MK 103 had TWICE the dispersion.

The Hispano and .50 Browning are bad from this POV, have long barrels and heavy recoil for their caliber.

Of course, dispersion (how tight the pattern is) is just one element of Chance to Hit. That is also effected by flight time and flat trajectory, in which high MV guns counter their disadvantage of poorer dispersion.
But _when aimed right,_ you can except higher percantage of hits from MK 108 than from a hispano at the same distance. Aiming rigth however, is not easy.

Atzebrueck
02-12-2005, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Its more complicated then that and without gunstat how would you figure out the ROF we have in game by just holding trigger down and by the time it runsout? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109 carries 65 rounds for its MK108. Record a track. Note the time, you start and stop firing.

ROF=65/(t2-t1) [ROF]=rounds/second

Or fly a QMB mission at 1/4 speed and use a stop watch.
ROF=65*4/t [ROF]=rounds/second

Multiply the result with 60 and you'll get rounds per minute.

The third and best variant is to fly in a coopmission with unlimited ammunition and use a stopwatch to count the time during which you are firing. The unlimited ammunition supply enables you to fire very long bursts which leads to very precise results.

ROF=(fired rounds, being logged in the eventlog.lst)/t

You'll see that the MK108 is modeled with a rate of fire of ~600-650 shots per minute.

LeadSpitter_
02-12-2005, 07:33 AM
so now you think a shorter barrel is more accurate then a longer barrel and you think a longer barrel swings around making the shot less accurate, creating more recoil and dispurtion. What the hell are you people smoking?? becuase i would like some.

Look at boresiting videos of p40s p51 p47s p38s and see the fixed guns stay absolutely no sway in the barrel etc perfectly still. I never seen such BS in my life.

look at the german 88mm and the barrel length which was what made it the most accurate aaa of the war, accurateness long range as well as on german armor from fixed positions but not on the move becuase of the weight and very loose suspension on german armor.

maybe that is something you can understand and agree with.

Aaron_GT
02-12-2005, 04:02 PM
LeadSpitter,

The vibration enough to spread out shot may not be visible on film. A 50 cal barrel is about 1m long (roughly) and the likely M2 replacement has a dispersion figure of 1.5 mils. I would guess the M2 itself (as opposed to all the other disperson effects of mount or wing flex and so on) in a P40 etc had twice that dispersion. If half the dispersion is due to the barrel moving and the it sill represents a movement of the barrel of no more than +- 1mm. Would this be visible on WW2 stock films?

Long barrels also tend to allow other positive factors for accuracy, not least higher muzzle velocity, which also reduces time of flight to the target which means less deflection lead needed. The thing to look at is the mils of dispersion. If you are lobbing a heavy shell with a high explosive content from a small plane with a high ROF at bombers then the almost mortar-style MK108 makes a lot of sense, though.

What you really want to avoid is the ROF being anywhere near a resonant frequency of the barrel. Short barrels will tend to have high resonant frequencies. Think of tuning forks. Also with a short barrel you can afford to make the barrel very stiff without making it too heavy.

faustnik
02-12-2005, 04:25 PM
I don't think M2 barrel is long enough for barrel flex to much of an issue. Especially at aircraft engagement ranges. Has this been mentioned in print before?

WWMaxGunz
02-12-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Its more complicated then that and without gunstat how would you figure out the ROF we have in game by just holding trigger down and by the time it runsout? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However many shots are in the magazine divided by however many seconds to fire them off?
Could even make a track and run back at 1/4 speed or maybe check time accurately using
devicelink program, if you let go on the last shot and can check trigger status.
Either way, error will be divided by all shots loaded, not just a few seconds worth.

WWMaxGunz
02-12-2005, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Some people think here flat trajectory also means good dispersion (accuracy). It does not. It`s a contradictionary requirement.

High MV guns have longer barrel, and more powerful charges. This means a lot heavier recoil -&gt; more shaking of the airframe, plus, the longer barrel of the gun is more prone to vibration during the burst, decreasing accuracy more.

For dispersion, the ideal gun is low recoil and lower MV., has short barrel, preferably APIB, and not gas operated, with low ROF. German testing showed exactly that, the gun with the LEAST dispersion was...

... the MG FF! The 30mm, ultra high velocity MK 103 had TWICE the dispersion.

The Hispano and .50 Browning are bad from this POV, have long barrels and heavy recoil for their caliber.

Of course, dispersion (how tight the pattern is) is just one element of Chance to Hit. That is also effected by flight time and flat trajectory, in which high MV guns counter their disadvantage of poorer dispersion.
But _when aimed right,_ you can except higher percantage of hits from MK 108 than from a hispano at the same distance. Aiming rigth however, is not easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are making assumptions about thickness and bracing of the barrel, mounting of the
weapon and weight of the weapon. Browning M2 is criticised on one gunnery site for
being heavier than counterparts without saying; heavier barrel vibrates less and heavier
weapon recoils less violently. I can't say definite about the mounts on all those
planes that had them, the mounts can more than make the difference but the gunnery
site that calls efficiency as weight of shots divided by weight of weapon (Russian
system) doesn't mention the mounts at all!

WWMaxGunz
02-12-2005, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
LeadSpitter,

The vibration enough to spread out shot may not be visible on film. A 50 cal barrel is about 1m long (roughly) and the likely M2 replacement has a dispersion figure of 1.5 mils. I would guess the M2 itself (as opposed to all the other disperson effects of mount or wing flex and so on) in a P40 etc had twice that dispersion. If half the dispersion is due to the barrel moving and the it sill represents a movement of the barrel of no more than +- 1mm. Would this be visible on WW2 stock films?

Long barrels also tend to allow other positive factors for accuracy, not least higher muzzle velocity, which also reduces time of flight to the target which means less deflection lead needed. The thing to look at is the mils of dispersion. If you are lobbing a heavy shell with a high explosive content from a small plane with a high ROF at bombers then the almost mortar-style MK108 makes a lot of sense, though.

What you really want to avoid is the ROF being anywhere near a resonant frequency of the barrel. Short barrels will tend to have high resonant frequencies. Think of tuning forks. Also with a short barrel you can afford to make the barrel very stiff without making it too heavy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

USAAF gunnery documents posted here gave 8 mils for M2's in P-80's I think it was. That
is 8 feet wide at 1000 feet for a certain large percentage of all the shots and all the
guns, my memory fails me the exact percent. I have read from P-47 pilot accounts that
the shots all passed through a circle 4 feet diameter at convergence, but that is what
they were told and what they saw was likely close enough or they would have written so.

Some of these things like barrel vibration while the shot is travelling inside... it is
not a random thing, the end result has a certain consistancy. 1.5 mils you show is for
an entire gun mounted very solidly, no?

There is a modern version used as a long range sniper rifle as well. Not M2 but how is
the barrel on that? You don't want to be 1 mil off with long range versus human target.
I can't recall ever seeing even a picture of a short barrel long range target rifle.

Jippo01
02-13-2005, 08:47 AM
I had to drop in again on one of these. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Few things:
- Shorter barrel is more accurate, even on single fire barrel moves like a waterhose let loose from the recoil and vibration. Movement is fractions of mm, but they will cause significant differences in accuracy over distance. Shorter barrels move less and have less time to move.
- Heavier barrel is more accurate. See above, more mass to dampen the recoil vibrations.
- Weapons with fixed barrels are more accurate then recoil operated weapons with moving barrels. Movement requires tolerances, tolerances worsen accuracy. (M2 is recoil operated.)
- Accuracy of a given weapon depends on many things, not alone on the caliber, action, manufacturer, or some other factor.
- Larger caliber equals longer range and flatter trajectory all other things remaining equal. (Modern MBT sabot round runs basically flat up until 1500m [1 mile], they are of +120mm caliber.)
- At no point or range will .50 caliber come even close to the kinetic energy 20mm AP round. Infact .50BMG has about half the kinetic energy of 14.5mm HMG round at any given distance, not to mention any cannon.
- Performance values of cannon seem to be often given for HE ammunition, and ballistic performance of HE and AP rounds is usually very different.
- HE and AP rounds have different muzzle velocities and different trajectories compared with each other.
- Mounting is a definite part of weapon accuracy and can cause much more dispersion than the gun.
- Fuselage mounted guns can have significantly worse accuracy than the same weapon wing mounted, depending on the mounting.


Many of these things have been already discussed in the thread, but I thought I just collect them in one place since they are facts. Maybe some discussion can be based on them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeadSpitter_
02-13-2005, 09:52 AM
figures last 6 posts german german german german http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I disagree with you jippo extremely. you guys seem to think the brownings were just ductaped on the plane and had no secure mounting system.

As I said in another post of something you guys may get through your heads look at the 88 cannon, most accurate aaa battery due to its long barrel for percision altitude aiming, read some books on the 88 and why it was the most lethal aiming aaa and tank weapon. Then look at some of the snub nosed short barrel aaa and tank weapons and thier accuracy.

ask any ballistics and weapons expert, there are plenty of newsgroups and even manufacturor newsgroups which will tell you the same thing Im telling you.

sorry jippo your a great modeler and all but you are wrong. Speak to any surviving german pilots and american pilots who did testing on both ac, even gunther rall has said this and you all immediatly say hes wrong like kurfurst says in another post like he knows more then he did.

sickening. Show me charts that show differently in arc of shot and decline in trajectory. I havent seen any yet

LeadSpitter_
02-13-2005, 11:47 AM
Not to mention .50 cal sniper rifles with extended barrels for higher accuracy at range.

maybe something else to make you understand the mg42 with a sawed off barrel with your thinking being more accurate then the long barrel from fixed position.

CLOSE THAT BOOK AND NEVER OPEN AGAIN AS THE MAN WOULD SAY.

Jippo01
02-13-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I disagree with you jippo extremely. you guys seem to think the brownings were just ductaped on the plane and had no secure mounting system.

As I said in another post of something you guys may get through your heads look at the 88 cannon, most accurate aaa battery due to its long barrel for percision altitude aiming, read some books on the 88 and why it was the most lethal aiming aaa and tank weapon. Then look at some of the snub nosed short barrel aaa and tank weapons and thier accuracy.

ask any ballistics and weapons expert, there are plenty of newsgroups and even manufacturor newsgroups which will tell you the same thing Im telling you.

sorry jippo your a great modeler and all but you are wrong. Speak to any surviving german pilots and american pilots who did testing on both ac, even gunther rall has said this and you all immediatly say hes wrong like kurfurst says in another post like he knows more then he did.

sickening. Show me charts that show differently in arc of shot and decline in trajectory. I havent seen any yet <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing but physics and knowledge about weapons in my post. There isn't anything partial in the facts. I will shortly go through them to show this point:

- Barrel flexing in recoil is known fact. For high power cartridges a minimum length is required to give the powder time to burn, but e.g. doubling of the barrel length leads to nothing but reduced performance. Effects of flexing can be reduced by allowing the barrel to float freely (that means that it doesn't touch anything - i.e. vibrates alone = in a similar fashion on every shot) Google "free float".

- Fixed barrel is more accurate then a moving one. This is pretty basic small arms stuff. For the reason mentioned. Also the author of your book Mr. Williams mentioned that Russian UBS was likely to be more accurate than M2HB for this very reason.

- Accuracy depends on many things, well I suppose nobody disagrees with that.

- Larger equals longer range and flatter trajectory. Well this was already explained, the frontal area of projectile grows in ^2 and mass in ^3. Less mass slows down faster because of that, and faster it slows down the deeper the dropping curve.

- About hitting power, do the math: Ek=1/2mv^2. You will find the figures you need from Williams' site. Also refer to point above about long distance performance, .50 AP and 20mm AP are very similar projectiles, it is only that 20mm AP starts at lots higher KE and also retains it better.

- if you don't believe that HE and AP rounds have different muzzle vels and trajectories I can provide you the projectile weights and mv's.

- mounting is indeed very important part of the accuracy. E.g. Finnish Fiat G.50's had extremely bad accuracy before their mounts were fixed. Note that these guns were fuselage mounted, I have not heard of such complaints on e.g. wingmounted guns on Brewster which was considered as an accurate platform (while taking the instability in account).


So no bias in the facts. If you have trouble believing the physics stuff, check out this ballistic calculator by Norma:

http://www.norma.cc/sida/eng/index.html

Choose "ballistic".

Play around to see what adding projectile weight does if you keep other factors the same.


-jippo

faustnik
02-13-2005, 03:18 PM
Jippo,

I agree with you about a larger projectile having a flatter trajectory with equal velocity. The MgFF and Type 99 had significantly lower velocity than the M2. So, all things are are not equal.

My initial posts questioning Leadspitter were about the basic physics of a single round but, if we expand the discussion to mounting and practical use, the American .50 M2 systems really shines in fighter combat. Six .50s have a flat trajectory, high ROF, and excellent AP ability at combat ranges of 100 to 400 meters. The flat trajectory and ROF result in a higher hit probability than with the slower firing cannons. If I were to chose a WW2 weapons system for fighter combat, without a doubt, I would chose the American multi-M2 layout.

The accuracy of a single round would be far less important than weight of fire and spread of fire in fighter combat. We talk about the importance of convergence in getting one pass kills in the sim, but, I think it was far less important IRL. A sigle .50 round could cause significant damage to any fighter, a hundred spread over the plane would doubtless damage something vital.

LeadSpitter_
02-13-2005, 04:34 PM
since when is the mg151/20 equal rof of one m2 browning .50 cal? the brownings should be much more accurate and dont forgetits mounted and fixed not to move at all. Read some books about russian and korean aces and thier cannon and effective range vs sabre pilots with the 6 brownings the huge difference was jet fuel had much higher ignition rates then high octane fuels of wwii even in self sealing tanks.

Im sure you understand what im saying about the longer barrel with .50 cal sniper rifle or the longer barrel of the 88 which im sure you will agree on it being the most accurate and best aaa gun and tank gun of wwii without a doubt.

faustnik
02-13-2005, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
since when is the mg151/20 equal rof of one m2 browning .50 cal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Huh? Who said that?

LeadSpitter_
02-14-2005, 02:07 AM
lol a hunting rifle caculator as wwii ballistics test man oh man what about completely different firing mechanisms, barrel lenghts, ammo feeding etc come on jippo i thought you knew more then that.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2005, 04:36 AM
MaxGunz wrote:
"USAAF gunnery documents posted here gave 8 mils for M2's in P-80's I think it was. "

I've seen those figures. That's going to be a combination of factors (mount, recoil operation, ammunition variation, barrel variation), and I was trying to guess at what the barrel flex contribution might be.

With regard to snipers rifles 0.5 mils is typical for a bolt action type.

Jippo01's comments are spot on. I think Jipp01 has actually fired a 20mm cannon too.

Kurfurst__
02-14-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
so now you think a shorter barrel is more accurate then a longer barrel and you think a longer barrel swings around making the shot less accurate, creating more recoil and dispurtion. What the hell are you people smoking?? becuase i would like some. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you read German report dealing with the accuracy of aircraft armament? No? Its stated there, from the leading experts of German armament industry.

Explain me why live fire test from installed guns showed the short/low MV MG FF having a disperison of 1 mil vs. 2 mil of the long barreled/ultra highMV MK103....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Look at boresiting videos of p40s p51 p47s p38s and see the fixed guns stay absolutely no sway in the barrel etc perfectly still. I never seen such BS in my life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you couldnt see it. Did you see the bullets leaving the barrel? No? So then the gun didnt even fire.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
look at the german 88mm and the barrel length which was what made it the most accurate aaa of the war, accurateness long range as well as on german armor from fixed positions but not on the move becuase of the weight and very loose suspension on german armor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem again you dont get the difference between a single shot AA gun/,50 sniper rifle, and a cannon firing at full auto... barrel vibration is no problem with single shot weapons, but it is with large caliber automatic weapons.

Kurfurst__
02-14-2005, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You are making assumptions about thickness and bracing of the barrel, mounting of the
weapon and weight of the weapon. Browning M2 is criticised on one gunnery site for
being heavier than counterparts without saying; heavier barrel vibrates less and heavier
weapon recoils less violently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not making assumptions here, the weight of the Browning comes from its system, the gun itself being just a scaled up rifle caliber infantry MG of WW1, and recoil operation needs WEIGHT in the system - not in the barrel - to cope with the energy... M2 brownings moutned in US planes in either fixed or flexible were all the 'light' air cooled barrel types, not the Browning HB (Heavy Barrel) used by ground troops.

But if you really insist, I can look up barrel weights of the M2 and other guns, maybe you would be surprised.

Aaron_GT
02-14-2005, 04:52 AM
"or the longer barrel of the 88 which im sure you will agree on it being the most accurate and best aaa gun and tank gun of wwii"

There's a huge difference between a tank cannon firing one shot every few seconds and a heavy machine gun light enough to carry in a plane that fires several shots a second!

Kurfurst__
02-14-2005, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
since when is the mg151/20 equal rof of one m2 browning .50 cal? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes ROF isnt equal, 750-800/min (HE/AP) for the MG 151/20, 650-750 for th M2, as per their own respecitive manuals.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the brownings should be much more accurate and dont forgetits mounted and fixed not to move at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Light structure wings are more flexible than a solidly bolted gun on a piece of 800 kg of metal (engine), wouldn`t you agree?
Just gaze out of the window and look at how much a wing of an airliner flexes during flight.. yes it`s not a Mustang wing, but gives you an idea..


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Read some books about russian and korean aces and thier cannon and effective range vs sabre pilots with the 6 brownings the huge difference was jet fuel had much higher ignition rates then high octane fuels of wwii even in self sealing tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Low MV/Low ROF Russian 37mm cannon mounted in Mig 15? Definietely a BIG negative factor in effective range, but here we are talking about accuracy/dispersion. Different things... You CAN have longer effective range (effected by MV, trajectory, Rate of Fire, AND dispersion) yet having not-so-good dispersion at the same time... roger?

Did the MK 108 have much better accuracy then the MK 103? Definietely YES.
Did the MK 108 have much longer effective range then the MK 103? Definietely NO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Im sure you understand what im saying about the longer barrel with .50 cal sniper rifle or the longer barrel of the 88 which im sure you will agree on it being the most accurate and best aaa gun and tank gun of wwii without a doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of the 88mm L/56 gun of the Tiger, when the 50% longer barreled (and thus ultra-sexy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 88mm/L71 gun appeared on the Tiger II and others, the crews noted the new gun altough more powerful etc., was less accurate then the old one with almost 200 m/sec lower MV. One additional reason to that is that with increased MV comes increased barrel wear, and worn barrels don`t improve accuracy.. Plus rifled shells compensate for their 'stupid' shape with rotation around their axis, this stabilisation is what keeps them on path, but also which is the thing that creates dispersion over range. Higher MV will lead to faster spinning, more forces, more dispersion over range..

Atomic_Marten
02-14-2005, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
since when is the mg151/20 equal rof of one m2 browning .50 cal? the brownings should be much more accurate and dont forgetits mounted and fixed not to move at all. Read some books about russian and korean aces and thier cannon and effective range vs sabre pilots with the 6 brownings the huge difference was jet fuel had much higher ignition rates then high octane fuels of wwii even in self sealing tanks.

Im sure you understand what im saying about the longer barrel with .50 cal sniper rifle or the longer barrel of the 88 which im sure you will agree on it being the most accurate and best aaa gun and tank gun of wwii without a doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If what you say about fixed guns is true, and I believe so (I found it to be very unlikely that guns were mounted without fixation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), then I agree that .50s can be more accurate than they actually are in game.

Especially in the terms of dispersion. Also must say that .50s are good weapon, I still think that 12,7mms are the best fighter weapon in the WW2.

That is my opinion as newbie on the issue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


..................
587 rounds of .50s to destroy 5 Me109s? In game I'd say, close to impossible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Jippo01
02-14-2005, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
lol a hunting rifle caculator as wwii ballistics test man oh man what about completely different firing mechanisms, barrel lenghts, ammo feeding etc come on jippo i thought you knew more then that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There are three parts in ballistics (terms may not be spot on, straight translations from my language): internal ballistics, external ballistics and terminal ballistics. Internal ballistics concentrate on the events happening while the projectile is in the barrel, external ballistics concentrate on what happens to projectile while in flight, and terminal ballistics on what happens after impact on target.

Type of action, barrel length and firing mechanisms that are different in different types of weapons are part of internal ballistics, and affect inherent accuracy of the weapon platform (accuracy is described e.g. in mils), but do not affect trajectory of the projectile per se.

We are talking about external ballistics when we talk about trajectories. Trajectories are the function of three major components: speed (=muzzle velocity), air resistance (= ballistic co-efficient) and projectile weight. There are factors like air temperature and moisture, irregularities in the projectile etc. that also affect the trajectory, but their effect can be neglected in trajectory calculations since their effect is really miniscule.

Knowing these three values allows you to calculate ANY trajectory of any type of projectile, be it a bullet, arrow or cannonball.


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
But if you really insist, I can look up barrel weights of the M2 and other guns, maybe you would be surprised. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does little good unless you can also find the actual dispersion due to barrel movement
alone.

MG barrels are not made to be whippy springs. There is some flex of vibration but I have
yet to see that quantified for any gun. How much is a matter. Surely a longer barrel
will have more than a shorter barrel the same thickness but how much? 1mm flex on a 1m
barrel would have 1 mil (1 in 1000) unless the flex was always in the same general way,
then you have to talk about how wide the variance in the flex is since sighting in is
done by firing. If the dispersion due to flex is very small then it's a moot point which
hey, all target rifles have barrels so look at the accuracy of long barrel target rifles
fired in still air conditions from bench rest or machine mounts. If it is vibration of
automatic fire then find dispersion of the gun and dispersion due to barrel vibration
must be no more than that.

Personally I think that the perfection of the shape of the bullet matters more. Also
the rifling, some guns had better solution as witness the early M-16 rifle compared to
the A1 model just on rifling. Those have thin barrels and yet I've hit popups at 300m
cleanly (not bounced off dirt) firing single shots braced with A1's. How much angle
was that? Not much at all.

Blutarski2004
02-14-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
There are three parts in ballistics (terms may not be spot on, straight translations from my language): internal ballistics, external ballistics and terminal ballistics. Internal ballistics concentrate on the events happening while the projectile is in the barrel, external ballistics concentrate on what happens to projectile while in flight, and terminal ballistics on what happens after impact on target.

Type of action, barrel length and firing mechanisms that are different in different types of weapons are part of internal ballistics, and affect inherent accuracy of the weapon platform (accuracy is described e.g. in mils), but do not affect trajectory of the projectile per se.

We are talking about external ballistics when we talk about trajectories. Trajectories are the function of three major components: speed (=muzzle velocity), air resistance (= ballistic co-efficient) and projectile weight. There are factors like air temperature and moisture, irregularities in the projectile etc. that also affect the trajectory, but their effect can be neglected in trajectory calculations since their effect is really miniscule.

Knowing these three values allows you to calculate ANY trajectory of any type of projectile, be it a bullet, arrow or cannonball.

-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi Jippo,

Been a long time. You are about 99 percent in what you say above. My only difference is as follows: assuming that we are talking about standard atmospheric conditions, the three essential pieces of data required to compute a trajectory are -

1. Initial velocity (MV)

2. Ballistic co-efficient (not only the simple cross-sectional density, but also correctd for the projectile form).

3. Angle of departure.

Weight, as an influence, is accounted for within the calculation of the ballistic co-efficient.


Blutarski

Jippo01
02-14-2005, 01:54 PM
Hi Blutarski, you're right about the angle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Of course! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

Blutarski2004
02-14-2005, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Light structure wings are more flexible than a solidly bolted gun on a piece of 800 kg of metal (engine), wouldn`t you agree?
Just gaze out of the window and look at how much a wing of an airliner flexes during flight.. yes it`s not a Mustang wing, but gives you an idea..


..... Wing flex is, of course, a function of G Load.


Kurf - Low MV/Low ROF Russian 37mm cannon mounted in Mig 15? Definietely a BIG negative factor in _effective range_, but here we are talking about _accuracy/dispersion_. Different things... You CAN have longer effective range (effected by MV, trajectory, Rate of Fire, AND dispersion) yet having not-so-good dispersion at the same time... roger?


.... Agreed. Add gun mounting to the list of influences. In terms of air-to-air gunnery the most desirable traits are flat trajectory, short time of flight, hitting energy. All these are obtained through a high MV. So long as the gun battery produces a sufficiently lethal zone of fire at reasonable shooting ranges, any gun to gun differences in dispersion are of lesser consequence.



Kurf - Speaking of the 88mm L/56 gun of the Tiger, when the _50% longer barreled_ (and thus ultra-sexy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 88mm/L71 gun appeared on the Tiger II and others, the crews noted the new gun altough more powerful etc., was _less accurate_ then the old one with almost 200 m/sec lower MV.


..... For a given gun and projectile, muzzle energy increase as the square of the initial velocity. The influence of muzzle energy upon the firing weapon is a major contributor to dispersion. All that having been said, it is worth noting that the 88/L71 and the German 75/L70 were deadly accurate guns at ranges up to 2500 meters.



Kurf - One additional reason to that is that with increased MV comes increased barrel wear, and worn barrels don`t improve accuracy.


..... Agreed. High MV and barrel wear are related. The effective life of a gun barrel is in inverse proportion to the MV of its projectile. Battlefield accuracy, however, depends upon whether or not the barrels are changed at proper intervals. In naval applications, a main battery gun tube was usually replaced at approx 50 pct of its official calcucated life (usually expressed in "efc" - effective full charges).


Kurf - Plus rifled shells compensate for their 'stupid' shape with rotation around their axis, this stabilisation is what keeps them on path, but also which is the thing that creates dispersion over range.

..... Projectile rotation does influence trajectory. Its effect is termed "drift". It is reasonably predictable and gunsights are adjusted to take it into account.



Kurf - Higher MV will lead to faster spinning, more forces, more dispersion over range..


..... For a given rifled gun tube with a given type of rifling and a given type of twist - yes. However, the relationshi between different MV's, different rifling profiles, and different twist values will complicate any comparisons made among different guns. Not debating, just elaborating.



Blutarski

Blutarski2004
02-14-2005, 02:20 PM
Two other issues to think about -

(1) Cyclic vibration of the MG itself. Speaking strictly in terms of dispersion, optimal MG accuracy is obtained by allowing a small degree of play in the mounting. A rigidly mounted MG will actually produce a greater dispersion, as will an excessively loose mounting. Counter-intuitive, perhaps, but true. I believe that a similar effect can be seen in target rifles, which are almost always fitted with "free floating" barrels.

(2) Projectile drop is a big enemy of shooting accuracy. Even though a slow projectile might display less dispersion, the degree of drop of its trajectory from the sight line makes it less accurate in terms of quickly and easily delivering fire upon a given target than a higher velocity weapon. See below.

(3) Correct judgements about relative accuracy cannot arbitrarily be made on the basis of projectile caliber or weight alone. It is not unknown for a smaller projectile to be more accurate than a larger one, if it is fired at a higher valocity and/or has a better ballistic co-efficient. A good case in point can be found by search the Ubi archives back to those thrilling 50 caliber debates of yesteryear and finding the trajectory comparisons run between the MG151/20 M-Geschoss and the 50cal AP. The 50cal AP was a MUCH more accurate (in a real world combat sense) and longer ranging round.

WWMaxGunz
02-14-2005, 09:43 PM
Thinwall Mine Shells are very low density compared to the others... a comparison of
projectiles should also include 20mm AP and fragment HE.

I would like to know what Russian 37mm was slow MV? M4 in P-39's was US 37mm but
I look at NS-37 and I see HEIT MV as 900 m/s and AP as 880 m/s with masses of .735
and .760 kg.
US M4 has 612 m/s and .604 kg HET only.

If there is a slow Russian 37mm on the MiG-15 then was it used on WWII VVS aircraft?

Aaron_GT
02-15-2005, 01:19 AM
Neal, it was the NS-37 in the Mig-15 AFAIK. Kurfurst was simply wrong about it having low muzzle velocity.

Aaron_GT
02-15-2005, 01:23 AM
Neal,

With regard to possible barrel flex, firing single shots might give a barrel time to settle down. However if you are firing 750 rpm then modes of vibration might be set up that might lead to flex, especially since AFAIK the barrel is not fixed in the M2. In designing the gun you'd want to ensure that the ROF is not such that it sets up any resonances in the barrel by ensuring the length/ROF/stiffness avoid this. It wouldn't be that hard to create a rig to place a barrel in and simply vibrate it to find the resonant frequencies to avoid. In aircraft the barrel wasn't the M2HB barrel so I am not sure what difference that would make.

Badsight.
02-15-2005, 02:14 AM
the Mig-15 sure had one nassty 37mm cannon

but

look at the 23mm they put on it , specifically the NS version . it replaces the VYA 23mm from the Sturmovik & the VYA had a MV of 880m/s whereas its replacement was only 690 m/s

so the Mig pilots had to put up with really different bullet speeds of their large & small cannon wich sux big time for those snap shots , & its funny that the smaller shell firing cannon had such lousy ballistics compared to that 37mm cannon , that is one bad mo-fo 37mm , it must have been deadly when it connected

its funny tho because ome American pilots had the experience of having 23mm shells pass over them while the 37mm shells flew under them , which doesnt seem right when you consider their different shell speeds

Early production MiG-15s had NS-23 guns with about half the rate of fire of the NR-23 . Late-production MiG-15s and the MiG-15bis had one 37mm N-37 cannon with 40 rounds and two 23mm NR-23 cannon with 80 rounds each .

http://server3.uploadit.org/files/clippa-Mig15gunbay.jpg

conversely the Saber had the M3 browning .50cal . The M3 Browning fired at 1200 rpm with 300 rounds per gun (1800 rounds total) , so the Sabre could fire 6x 120 rounds per second for 13 seconds

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Neal,

With regard to possible barrel flex, firing single shots might give a barrel time to settle down. However if you are firing 750 rpm then modes of vibration might be set up that might lead to flex, especially since AFAIK the barrel is not fixed in the M2. In designing the gun you'd want to ensure that the ROF is not such that it sets up any resonances in the barrel by ensuring the length/ROF/stiffness avoid this. It wouldn't be that hard to create a rig to place a barrel in and simply vibrate it to find the resonant frequencies to avoid. In aircraft the barrel wasn't the M2HB barrel so I am not sure what difference that would make. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH I might change the shape of the barrel to detune resonances out. It is easier to make
a dull sounding violin than a clear one if ya know what I mean. I've seen it before in made
things and it is something they teach engineers since way back. Only **** manufacturers
(and there are many examples but not long running and reliable product lines) don't check
and refine something that would affect function strongly.

If the resonance were right though, could it always end up with the shot coming from closely
the same place in the harmonic, straight shot? LOL, that would be high design and easy to
make wrong so I think not. (My old VW Type-3's had tuned exhaust that the sound inside would
assist in sucking burned gasses from cylinders at the good rpms. Design using resonance.)

Besides, we have historic documents showing total dispersion in different setups.

WWMaxGunz
02-15-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
its funny tho because ome American pilots had the experience of having 23mm shells pass over them while the 37mm shells flew _under_ them , which doesnt seem right when you consider their different shell speeds
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post and for the above I'd suggest that the 23mm was aimed upwards more than the 37mm
to lob for range on sight. If you were fired on inside the sight zero then the 37's would
be flying lower and flatter than the 23's. About then, who's gonna be cool enough to figure
"they must be =this= far back since the shells are -that- far apart? Not me, buddy!

chaikanut
02-16-2005, 07:17 PM
Maybe I am the only one but I liked the 50cals before any patches. They had a nice shotgun like spread and could hit well beyond convergence and at different roll angles. Now, if I am even slightly more tilted, my bullets fly wide above his wings.

crazyivan1970
02-17-2005, 10:11 AM
Will this 50 caliber issue ever die? I have an impression that some of you guys not really sure what you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HelSqnProtos
02-17-2005, 10:14 AM
Rgr that Ivan, this thing needs to be gone, 50s are fine, its just farting into the wind at this point. Please excuse my language fellow pilots but this horse BEATEN to death.