PDA

View Full Version : Someone has been whining over at Nildram.co.uk....



NorrisMcWhirter
09-06-2005, 12:49 PM
Hi,

Anyone want to own up?



The publication of this study has created much interest and comment. Unsurprisingly, the most vocal commentators have been those with criticisms of the methodology used. This section has therefore been added in order to describe and answer the criticisms.

There are four principal criticisms, which are mainly centred on the validity of the comparison between the .50 Browning and the rival cannon. In these tables, the Browning compares rather poorly and this is sometimes, of itself, taken to discredit the entire comparison on the grounds that the USAAF was the most successful air force, so its chosen armament had to be much better than this study suggests.

and



It is also worth pointing out that most successful attacks in WW2 took place at fairly short ranges at which different projectile ballistics would not have had a major effect on destructiveness. During 1940 the RAF rapidly dropped the harmonisation distance for their fighter guns from 370 to 230m, and were annoyed that the narrow gun bays in the Spitfire's wing prevented them from harmonising the 20mm cannon down to their preferred distance of 180m (at which they did most ammunition effectiveness testing). Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality €" it doesn't!

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

Ta,
Norris

NorrisMcWhirter
09-06-2005, 12:49 PM
Hi,

Anyone want to own up?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The publication of this study has created much interest and comment. Unsurprisingly, the most vocal commentators have been those with criticisms of the methodology used. This section has therefore been added in order to describe and answer the criticisms.

There are four principal criticisms, which are mainly centred on the validity of the comparison between the .50 Browning and the rival cannon. In these tables, the Browning compares rather poorly and this is sometimes, of itself, taken to discredit the entire comparison on the grounds that the USAAF was the most successful air force, so its chosen armament had to be much better than this study suggests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
It is also worth pointing out that most successful attacks in WW2 took place at fairly short ranges at which different projectile ballistics would not have had a major effect on destructiveness. During 1940 the RAF rapidly dropped the harmonisation distance for their fighter guns from 370 to 230m, and were annoyed that the narrow gun bays in the Spitfire's wing prevented them from harmonising the 20mm cannon down to their preferred distance of 180m (at which they did most ammunition effectiveness testing). Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality €" it doesn't! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Ta,
Norris

BBB_Hyperion
09-06-2005, 01:20 PM
Anthony keep up the good work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Popcorn Norris ?

vanjast
09-06-2005, 02:25 PM
Doesn't everybody know that the most effective shooting distance is 100m - 300m. If not I suspect that these people are not playing on 100% realism. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Hoarmurath
09-06-2005, 03:11 PM
Oh, you didn't knew? He used to be a regular user of these forums, and he still occasionally read what is posted here.

I don't know if he is also a regular user of other games forums. Maybe he follow also Targetware. But i know that people from TW are in contact with him.

NorrisMcWhirter
09-06-2005, 03:17 PM
Hmm. I think I know who you mean.

I found the last line particularly amusing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

PS: BBB - would you like a boiled sweet?

VW-IceFire
09-06-2005, 03:32 PM
Fantastic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Once I did the various conversions from yards to meters and started realizing the effective distances that real WWII pilots used to engage the enemy...things changed rapidly for me. This was a couple of years ago.

Although I don't like this convergence setting...set your convergence to about 190 or even 160 and you'll see as things melt infront of you. Unfortunately this is no good for the off angle BNZ attacks I usually make where the convergence has to be further out to make my attack effective.

I would recommend that pilots flying US planes almost exclusively to pull their convergence right in as far as they are comfortable with.

carguy_
09-07-2005, 03:39 AM
Immediately .50cal threads come to mind.Some guy shows a FW190 being engaged by a P51 and shot from 70-20m,so people whine and whine though they shoot from 350m.PFFFFT!.50cal reaches MG151/20 effectiveness from ranges up to 160m.If you ask me I fire from 130m and I get very good results with any gun above 9mm caliber.

Another thing,cannons lose too much of hit when distance is greater than 150m.In LW footages there is a bomber 200-400m away,a guy parks at his six and sprays with 2-3 shot bursts.
In the game no bomber will go down while hit with MG151/20 from distances greater than 150m.

SeaFireLIV
09-07-2005, 03:45 AM
Are people STILL not adjusting their convergence to fight? Sigh, you woulda thought they`d have learnt by now.

Monson74
09-07-2005, 03:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Are people STILL not adjusting their convergence to fight? Sigh, you woulda thought they`d have learnt by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's convergence? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Pirschjaeger
09-07-2005, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monson74:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Are people STILL not adjusting their convergence to fight? Sigh, you woulda thought they`d have learnt by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's convergence? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's your last thought before a collision. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz