PDA

View Full Version : De-sync .50 tracers in next patch



Pages : [1] 2

Obi_Kwiet
08-24-2005, 11:48 AM
Oleg, if it's not too much trouble, could you prevent the .50 tracers from firing out simulatniously in the next patch? It would make them much more useful and realistic.

Obi_Kwiet
08-24-2005, 11:48 AM
Oleg, if it's not too much trouble, could you prevent the .50 tracers from firing out simulatniously in the next patch? It would make them much more useful and realistic.

Loki-PF
08-24-2005, 12:18 PM
Yea, kinda like the P-40E (for the Eastern Front)

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p40e.jpg

FatBoyHK
08-24-2005, 12:27 PM
bump it until oleg see it

lrrp22
08-24-2005, 01:27 PM
I second that bump!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
bump it until oleg see it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Abbuzze
08-24-2005, 01:42 PM
Yes I think it´s unrealistic that MG´s are shooting that perfect without difference that they will all shot in the same moment.
Should be a point to fix in the next patch.

VF-29_Sandman
08-24-2005, 01:49 PM
i'll 3rd the motion

Scen
08-24-2005, 03:40 PM
Yes yes please.... De Sync the 50s on all the planes...

carguy_
08-24-2005, 04:13 PM
First legitimate issue about .50cal in a looong time.

Roast
08-24-2005, 04:17 PM
Bump !

Oh, and .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smiliegenerator/ablage/96/84.png

fordfan25
08-24-2005, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
First legitimate issue about .50cal in a looong time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as far as your conserned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Willey
08-24-2005, 04:47 PM
Interesting pic! Never noticed that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Bump! http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

Diablo310th
08-24-2005, 04:59 PM
bump bump bump...Oleg Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee

Ankanor
08-24-2005, 05:21 PM
Good luck Guys http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I never noticed it either

3.JG51_BigBear
08-24-2005, 05:41 PM
A de-sync would have a greateffect from inside the cockpit. I think it would make it easier to aim and keep a bead on a target.

AlmightyTallest
08-24-2005, 06:16 PM
I support that change. Please Oleg!

Wolf-Strike
08-24-2005, 06:18 PM
Please Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DangerForward
08-24-2005, 06:46 PM
I sent email with pictures of P40E versus P40Mod tracks a week or so ago, probably would help if others did the same...

lbhskier37
08-24-2005, 07:40 PM
So thats why deflection shooting isn't flaming zekes. If this gets fixed, its going to be a rough time flying a zero http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Kuna15
08-24-2005, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p40e.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ummm... this does not look like a tracer desync/sync issue to me. It looks like all package is desync(above, good)/sync(below, bad) on picture. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But then again I may be wrong.

Gibbage1
08-24-2005, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:

But then again I may be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong, be sure! Put down forum and keyboard and never pick up again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
08-25-2005, 06:59 AM
Bump diddly bump for this one.

Shouldn't all tracers be desynced...was there some sort of practice of syncing them in all guns somewhere?

Diablo310th
08-25-2005, 07:01 AM
In one of the 50's threads there are more pictures of the bundles of rounds from several other aircraft too. I think the P-47 and Stang were shown. Maybe these should be sent to Oleg too. Lets hope it's not too alte to get thsi fixed before the patch comes out. Maybe somebody that is on really good terms of comminication with Oleg could see if this was fixed.

Kuna15
08-25-2005, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:

But then again I may be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong, be sure! Put down forum and keyboard and never pick up again! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He he bad mood eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No really, what we see on the picture are not marks of tracers ONLY but all bullets that have hit the ground ain't they?
So the above bullet stream is desynchronised while below bullet stream is synchronised.

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

Monson74
08-25-2005, 07:10 AM
Bump be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BlakJakOfSpades
08-25-2005, 01:55 PM
hardcore bumpage

geetarman
08-25-2005, 02:46 PM
BAAAAAAAAAAaa ...bump!

jurinko
08-25-2005, 03:46 PM
never noticed that.. since I never fly the Russian-modded P-40. Its performance with M-105 engine should be worse than with Allison but here it is in contrary so thats why. That Soviets changed also the ammo belts, this I did not know for sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Obi_Kwiet
08-25-2005, 05:29 PM
Whoa! They're all coming out like that! No wonder I can never hit anything with the .50's except in a P-40. This is a legitimate issue. I doubt even with modern tech we could get MGs to fire so close together.

FatBoyHK
08-26-2005, 04:14 AM
bump!!!! Oleg I beg you to take a look

jds1978
08-26-2005, 05:09 AM
bumpty-bump-bump http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Diablo310th
08-26-2005, 06:52 AM
Oleg...please look into this problem. bumpity bump Oh also..please consider changing teh loadout to API-API-API-API-APT

Arm_slinger
08-26-2005, 11:58 AM
Theoretically, shouldn't they be synced, or very close to synced? If all the weapons on board the plane are the same, and have the same rate of fire, and the ammunition is linked the same (every 5th round a tracer), then wouldn't the bullets be like it is for the P40 E?

This is purely speculation. I don't know if this would be different in real life, or what would be needed to change the RoF's

BlakJakOfSpades
08-26-2005, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Theoretically, shouldn't they be synced, or very close to synced? If all the weapons on board the plane are the same, and have the same rate of fire, and the ammunition is linked the same (every 5th round a tracer), then wouldn't the bullets be like it is for the P40 E?

This is purely speculation. I don't know if this would be different in real life, or what would be needed to change the RoF's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

only theoretically, in reality they would all be slighty different just from manufacturing tolerances, let alone wear and other factors. the end result would be what we see in the p-40 field mod

Grey_Mouser67
08-26-2005, 08:47 PM
Errr....has anyone checked the Hispanos?

Take a look at the F4u-C...I'd hate to have the tempest that way...I haven't checked the Spit MkVc(4) yet...but I will.

Same problem I'm afraid...I've had Zekes fly between my shots numerous times...same with spits.

FatBoyHK
08-27-2005, 08:47 AM
bump!

Grey_Mouser67
08-27-2005, 09:03 AM
I checked em...of course the MG151/20's seem to be synced too...you just got more of em.

I had noticed instances when enemy aircraft seem to fly through my tracers unscathed...now I know why.

Hispano's on Spits and Corsairs suffer from the same thing....

As I think about what the modelling would be like if all the rounds on a HMG hit at once at convergence vs a stream, it isn't hard for me to imagine that the weapons might be toned down due to unrealistic structural damage...of course with dispersion, this effect would be minimized...and I think that is the primary reason weapons like HMG's are so much more effective at short range....nothing to do with balistics, but rather all the bullets hit together in one area at shorter range w/ short convergence due to less dispersion.

Hope this is addressed....seems as though BoBWov and CFSIII have unsynced guns I think....at least the tracers make it apear so.

Arm_slinger
08-27-2005, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BlakJakOfSpades:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Theoretically, shouldn't they be synced, or very close to synced? If all the weapons on board the plane are the same, and have the same rate of fire, and the ammunition is linked the same (every 5th round a tracer), then wouldn't the bullets be like it is for the P40 E?

This is purely speculation. I don't know if this would be different in real life, or what would be needed to change the RoF's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

only theoretically, in reality they would all be slighty different just from manufacturing tolerances, let alone wear and other factors. the end result would be what we see in the p-40 field mod </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I figured it would be that sort of thing that caused, it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now for the Spits, Beau and Corsair 1C to get de syncd

Obi_Kwiet
08-27-2005, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Theoretically, shouldn't they be synced, or very close to synced? If all the weapons on board the plane are the same, and have the same rate of fire, and the ammunition is linked the same (every 5th round a tracer), then wouldn't the bullets be like it is for the P40 E?

This is purely speculation. I don't know if this would be different in real life, or what would be needed to change the RoF's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It would take increadibly fine machinery to do that and it would need to be re-calibrated every time the guns were fired. Just look at gun-cam footage. It's not synced.

FatBoyHK
08-28-2005, 10:38 AM
bumpy!

Snuffly
08-28-2005, 12:15 PM
BUMPS!!!!!!

how about some smoke trails as well? ahhh *** it nvm

HelSqnProtos
08-29-2005, 03:11 AM
~S~

Another very important thread.

Don't expect alot gentlemen. But I FULLY support the desyncing of the .50s and the Hispanos.

I have had just about enough from the LW flyers tell us all we suck or were noobs or we can't shoot. Picture is worth a thousand words and this won doubly so. Good find. Well done.

I am quite interested to run this test with the Shvaks on the LA5 series in particular. It really seems to happen a lot there as well.

Tvrdi
08-29-2005, 03:29 AM
I dont see a prob..just spread ur rifle bullets all over the sky..ull hit somethin dont ya?

AnaK774
08-29-2005, 04:28 AM
theres definate difference in p40fieldmod, but if the engine and netcode is capable of desyncing without too high penalties to bandwidht usage, why not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Diablo310th
08-29-2005, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
I dont see a prob..just spread ur rifle bullets all over the sky..ull hit somethin dont ya? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see any problem with the 151/MG 20's either as a Red flyer nor the cockpit view of the FW.....but that doesn't make it right. I can be just as prejudiced if i want to be too.....just call me a JugWhiner.

Schlum66
08-29-2005, 06:37 AM
A friendly bump!

ECV56_Rolf
08-29-2005, 08:46 AM
I notice this effect since Oleg tried to diminish dispersion of .50s

Before the whole dispersion thread I learned how to shot with the original .50s, and I really disliked them after the correction, for me seems arcadish to see the tracers going 3 by 3 side by side.

But it could be that on fixing this, the whole dispersion complain will come back again.

Maybe it will be nice to test the dispersion on the only plane firing async, vs the other ones.
Just so that old evils don´t come back again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

DangerForward
08-29-2005, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
I notice this effect since Oleg tried to diminish dispersion of .50s

Before the whole dispersion thread I learned how to shot with the original .50s, and I really disliked them after the correction, for me seems arcadish to see the tracers going 3 by 3 side by side.

But it could be that on fixing this, the whole dispersion complain will come back again.

Maybe it will be nice to test the dispersion on the only plane firing async, vs the other ones.
Just so that old evils don´t come back again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking the same thing. Anyone got old versions of the software installed?

Snuffly
08-29-2005, 05:09 PM
bump*

carguy_
08-29-2005, 05:32 PM
Aaah just imagine all weapons firing like the .303 on Hurric`n. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Stachl
08-29-2005, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
~S~

Another very important thread.

Don't expect alot gentlemen. But I FULLY support the desyncing of the .50s and the Hispanos.

I have had just about enough from the LW flyers tell us all we suck or were noobs or we can't shoot. Picture is worth a thousand words and this won doubly so. Good find. Well done.

I am quite interested to run this test with the Shvaks on the LA5 series in particular. It really seems to happen a lot there as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif HelSqnProtos, as Grey_Mouser67 posted earlier "I checked em...of course the MG151/20's seem to be synced too...you just got more of em."

Maybe you need to de-sync your thinking a bit as you seem to be missing stuff 'in between'.

Grey_Mouser67
08-29-2005, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
I notice this effect since Oleg tried to diminish dispersion of .50s

Before the whole dispersion thread I learned how to shot with the original .50s, and I really disliked them after the correction, for me seems arcadish to see the tracers going 3 by 3 side by side.

But it could be that on fixing this, the whole dispersion complain will come back again.

Maybe it will be nice to test the dispersion on the only plane firing async, vs the other ones.
Just so that old evils don´t come back again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't think dispersion will come up again...right or wrong, HMG's behave close to the same...that argument would have looked a whole lot different if all guns were close relatively, but they weren't and now that has been changed.

This whole issue, when looked at at a little higher level, is about the effectiveness of HMG's in this game compared to real life and compared to other aircraft in the sim.

Many folks believe that the weapons systems using these HMG's are not as effective as they should be. The syncing/lack there of is one of several possible explanations and has merit. Real guns didn't operate like this. Each individual gun fired at a different rate depending on manufacturing and the ammo weight on the belt etc....the only aircraft that should be sync'd are those that fire through a propeller...and based on things that I've read, any gun firing through a propeller will fire at a rate less than that which the gun is rated for...never equal to or more and this depends on rpm's and spacing of propeller and how the interupter hits...it is that interrupter that slows the rate of fire...never speeds it up.

Anyways, the hit % is low on six gun fighters, the mode of failure is off, the Fw is tough as nails and shouldn't be best in class, the Dora acts like a radial engined aircraft, the actual strength of the round is in question and the control of the aircraft is under scrutiny due to excessive pitch and yaw oscillation combined with little control dampening relative to other aircraft. These things are relative to other aircraft in the game that six gun fighters compete against.

All these things together make the HMG's pretty ineffective and very, very aggrevating for those who enjoy flying and fighting with six gun planes.

On top of this, there are factions of people running around hijacking threads, insulting others and resorting to smut campaigns to continue to divert otherwise well thought out and represented ideas, thoughts and introspection.

Imagine what this game would be like if we just assumed that there was inherent error in the game and we sought to find reality and bring the game to the closest we can given the technology we have....Instead, a poster brings forward there is a problem and the torch&pitchfork gang shows up demanding evidence and proof...I suspect there are many more errors and inaccuracies than there are absolute accuracies...the only question is to what degree and whether we fix them because Oleg sure can't fix em all....

I assure you that FM's and DM's are at the very heart of this sim...and from a relative standpoint, these things must take priority compared to what color a knob is or whether the wheel turns backwards upon landing etc...

In real life, fighter pilots and Airforce officials liked the .50's...enough so they kept them around for Korea....we don't like them...see the difference??? That is where the rubber meets the road...I don't think any six gun pilot expects their weapons platform to perform like a fully loaded Fw...but we do expect one pass kills when we get on target and the ability to stay on target instead of bouncing around, and our tracer/bullet stream to not allow aircraft to pass inbetween unscathed, and for fires to start and for inline engines to act like inline engines...and did I mention that there is not a WWII airplane part made other than the thickest of pilot armor that can't be penetrated by a .50 cal bullet or 20...except for certain angles? That is why they were effective.

Real ace pilots averaged approximately 200-250 rounds per Luftwaffe kill. They averaged about a 10% hit rate and took about 20 hits on the average to bring down a FW or Bf...now imagine a P-51 Loaded out with 1800 rounds...do the math and you'll see that we're nowhere close to that...that is what the beef is. Sync is only a piece of the pie.

HelSqnProtos
08-30-2005, 12:38 AM
S~!

The "De Synching" (I feel uncomfortable using this term, we need a better more accurate one) of the guns on many planes in the sim should become a top priority. This appears to be a very legitimate issue, that has far reaching ramifications for gameplay.

Personally can do with a few less planes, and more fixing of known bugs in the fm,dm and gm, as well as exploits and cheats that have gone unchecked for almost a year.

Sturm_Williger
08-30-2005, 02:47 AM
Well, I'm mostly a blue flyer ( therefore a Luftwhiner by default http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), although pretty mediocre.

I've always found the .50 complaints incomprehensible because if I'm flying a .50 equipped plane, when I hit a target with them, the target breaks. ( emphasis on when ).

However, this issue as demonstrated obviously DOES make it harder to hit with the .50's, their damage potential irrelevant in this case.

It seems to follow logically that a great deal of ".50's are undermodelled" complaints are caused by ".50's not hitting" as targets fly through the bullet stream. ( Probably a lot of the people who have issues with the .50's are better pilots than me and can use deflection shooting properly - where this shortcoming will be most in evidence )

I add my support to the hope that this can and will be corrected so that there is a true "bullet stream"

Cajun76
08-30-2005, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
I dont see a prob..just spread ur rifle bullets all over the sky..ull hit somethin dont ya? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Since the MG 151/20 and Mk 108 have so much damage potential, wouldn't the definition of spray and pray be firing more than one at a time? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Bound to hit something, eh?

ECV56_Rolf
08-30-2005, 07:49 AM
Mr. Gray, I know very well the whole .50s pros and cons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I was only "remembering" everybody that this effect IS there since the disperssion issue was "solved".

I will be very happy with the desync, even if they disperse. With desync MGs, deflection shots becomes far easier.

I do believe that this complain wasn´t here before, because DM of 109s and 190s and japanese planes in general, were weak enough so as to need very few .50 rounds to do significant damage. Now that 190s seems to be made of brick, the .50s behavior are once more being checked. For the best I hope. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

P.D. Best regards to Phaphrd! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Dtools4fools
08-30-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In real life, fighter pilots and Airforce officials liked the .50's...enough so they kept them around for Korea....we don't like them...see the difference???

Real ace pilots averaged approximately 200-250 rounds per Luftwaffe kill. They averaged about a 10% hit rate and took about 20 hits on the average to bring down a FW or Bf.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, if the 0.50 cal was so loved and truly around until in the Korean war on the US side, then let me knwo:

- why ALL other nations went 20/30mm cannon after WWII?
- after/around Korea the US went for 20mm as well. Later Sabre changed from 0,50cal to 20mm as well.

Could it be, that for once, just once, the US kept the 0,50 cal actually for too long and therefore was the last one to catch up?

The 0,50cal did an adequate job, sure, but could it just be that the 20mm cannons were at the end of the day even better and that is why everybody went 20mm after the war, the US being the last of everybody?

Japanese pilots liked their planes light and manouverable (as the Americans like their 0,50 in your sample); this worked well in China, however the furhter developement of aircraft proved them wrong...

Similar the task of the fifty was adequate to down sinlge engine fighters.
If the Americans would have had to go up against B-17 like bombers they would probably have gone 20 much earlier.

And what is so badly wrong with the 0.50 in game needing "about 20 hits" to down a figher?
We know overresistance of 109 against 20mm and generally a bit too strong DM of FW for all weapons; however 0.50cal does kill 109 with average 24 hits, so not really off from what you say.
Sync or desync, its fine with me, change it to whatever it was in reality; it willnot change one thing: if you hit from 350 meters you will have trouble downing airplanes.
If you close in to 50-150 you will down them with whatever you got.
****
see Arnies tests (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5011059923/r/9321096033#9321096033)

If you do hit a single engine fighter squarely with your fifties it will go down. Close in, deliver a steady and accurate burst and it will go down.

Grey_Mouser67
08-30-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In real life, fighter pilots and Airforce officials liked the .50's...enough so they kept them around for Korea....we don't like them...see the difference???

Real ace pilots averaged approximately 200-250 rounds per Luftwaffe kill. They averaged about a 10% hit rate and took about 20 hits on the average to bring down a FW or Bf.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, if the 0.50 cal was so loved and truly around until in the Korean war on the US side, then let me knwo:


I challenge you to find a real life US pilot in WWII who disliked the .50 cal machine guns...now do the same thing in this sim...that was my point. Pilots were opinionated and didn't shy away from saying a particular thing was good or bad....the subjective, anecdotal evidence indicates there is a disparity from in game modelling and what pilots thought...that was the point I was making...I may not have communicated it well. I have never read, in ALL my reading, where a US pilot disliked the .50's. There was continual debate at higher levels and between England and the US about cannons vs. HMG's...and I think the real reasons why pilots liked them was because they were easier to hit with and US pilots in Europe didn't have to shoot down bombers and the bombers in the Pacific lit up like Zippo's with the .50's.

The point is, pilots liked them in real life...virtual pilots using them dislike them and blue virtual pilots spend most of their time and energy trying to keep them from being improved. Anyone who says they regularly shoot wings off in a Mustang is full of it without that extra power from clicking the unrealistic gunnery. Sure, I have shot wings off too...but of course I don't necessarily expect to get a lot of structural damage...I would expect more pilot kills, fires and control loss than structural...but ammo boxes did explode, fuel tanks did explode and at convergence, planes were chewed up in real life.

Now that I've laid out the challenge someone will surely find a pilot who said he didn't like them, but my point is made...real pilots really, really liked the weapons platforms on the Jug, Mustang etc...they did improve from 4 guns to six...but late model aircraft in Pacific like the Bearcat and FG Corsair were planned to go back to 4 guns.

And what is so badly wrong with the 0.50 in game needing "about 20 hits" to down a figher?
We know overresistance of 109 against 20mm and generally a bit too strong DM of FW for all weapons; however 0.50cal does kill 109 with average 24 hits, so not really off from what you say.
Sync or desync, its fine with me, change it to whatever it was in reality; it willnot change one thing: if you hit from 350 meters you will have trouble downing airplanes.
If you close in to 50-150 you will down them with whatever you got.
****
see Arnies tests (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5011059923/r/9321096033#9321096033)

If you do hit a single engine fighter squarely with your fifties it will go down. Close in, deliver a steady and accurate burst and it will go down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may not have made the point here as well...Personally, I think the .50's are within 10% of the correct strength...maybe a hair light but there are so many other variable acting on the total weapons package effectiveness that it is hard to tell. In game, for a comparable pilot it will take more like 400 rounds of firing to get the same impact...in real life that works out to approximately 2.5 seconds of firing time vs. 5 seconds of firing time...big difference. I think the issue is affected by syncing, but more affected by aircraft instability which destroys aim and lowers gunnery % making the weapons less effective.

The desyncing is an important aspect of gunnery...just last night, had a plane fly right through my bullet stream with out taking a hit...would not have happened if guns were properly desync'd...of course I wouldn't have taken him down either had I hit him...but as I dive on an aircraft and begin firing and I see flash after flash, I pull up and the plane flies off trailing a minor fuel leak...I know something is really, really wrong....that pass should have ended with a kill. Now I have to return again and maybe again after that...that puts a pilot at risk and at a huge disadvantage...that is what the beef is. Shouldn't be instant death, but it should be powerful and destructive to a single engined fighter.

Dtools4fools
08-30-2005, 12:01 PM
I don't mind desync guns if that's the way it was.
I don't mind less shake/more stable platforms if that's the way it was.

However to beef up the 0.50 because of other defincies fo the game would be the wrong solution.
And that I oppose.

I too had the impression of enemy planes flying throu my stream of bullets (was I flying the Corsair then?) but am actually not sure about it. It well could be that I just missed the bugger narrowly - I don't consider myself a good shooter.
That's why I usually close in as much as possible; Under 200m at max distance, but better closer. If I do hit at that distance I do real damage. With anything short of a Ki-43 the enemy plane is usually done. And even with the Ki-43 (o.50cal) it will suffer serious damage and it will be easy prey for next pass.

Now maybe I'm the only mediocre shot here.
Or could the the "not hitting" issue be an important one too?
As Sturm_Williger says: "I've always found the .50 complaints incomprehensible because if I'm flying a .50 equipped plane, when I hit a target with them, the target breaks. ( emphasis on when )"
Do we really hit when we *think" we hit?
I certainly do not all the time.

Now what makes us to miss is the question?
Sync and shake? Or bad aiming?
In my case rather the last. And I doubt that less shake and desync would have much positive effect.
If I hit the planes in front of me breaks. Even with sync and shake.

If you need a five second burst to down a plane with 0.50 cal I frankly think gunnery is quite wrong. The cases I do hit with 0.50, sync and shake (usually not too often... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif) I do not need a 5 second burst to down a fighter. That's an awful long time.

I agree fighter could fly between bullet stream in sync and this is not right if it was not like this.

Platypus_1.JaVA
08-30-2005, 12:03 PM
Is this a trolling trip or, is this guy serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Really, Let Oleg work on BoB in peace. It will be far better then anything we have right now in all aspects. FM/DM/GFX/Sounds... Well, let us just wait a bit. Yes?

FatBoyHK
08-30-2005, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
I don't mind desync guns if that's the way it was.
I don't mind less shake/more stable platforms if that's the way it was.

However to beef up the 0.50 because of other defincies fo the game would be the wrong solution.
And that I oppose.

I too had the impression of enemy planes flying throu my stream of bullets (was I flying the Corsair then?) but am actually not sure about it. It well could be that I just missed the bugger narrowly - I don't consider myself a good shooter.
That's why I usually close in as much as possible; Under 200m at max distance, but better closer. If I do hit at that distance I do real damage. With anything short of a Ki-43 the enemy plane is usually done. And even with the Ki-43 (o.50cal) it will suffer serious damage and it will be easy prey for next pass.

Now maybe I'm the only mediocre shot here.
Or could the the "not hitting" issue be an important one too?
As Sturm_Williger says: "I've always found the .50 complaints incomprehensible because if I'm flying a .50 equipped plane, when I hit a target with them, the target breaks. ( emphasis on when )"
Do we really hit when we *think" we hit?
I certainly do not all the time.

Now what makes us to miss is the question?
Sync and shake? Or bad aiming?
In my case rather the last. And I doubt that less shake and desync would have much positive effect.
If I hit the planes in front of me breaks. Even with sync and shake.

If you need a five second burst to down a plane with 0.50 cal I frankly think gunnery is quite wrong. The cases I do hit with 0.50, sync and shake (usually not too often... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif) I do not need a 5 second burst to down a fighter. That's an awful long time.

I agree fighter could fly between bullet stream in sync and this is not right if it was not like this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

&lt;gunstat won't lie, it tell you exactly how many rounds are on target. For countless time, people just don't realize how serious this problem is, and just simply think it is becasue of our poor gunnery.

Dtools4fools
08-30-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">&lt;gunstat won't lie, it tell you exactly how many rounds are on target </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now that's one thing I like to do.

Can anyone point me how to get that stuff.
I know I have to enable arcade=1, yet I do not get hit counts and arrows and such?

What else I have to do?
Simple step by step if possible...
Do I need to download this gunstat somewhere?

Maybe my mediocre Il-2 flying career could still be good for something; I love testing...
Nobody shoots back at me....

****

FatBoyHK
08-30-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Is this a trolling trip or, is this guy serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Really, Let Oleg work on BoB in peace. It will be far better then anything we have right now in all aspects. FM/DM/GFX/Sounds... Well, let us just wait a bit. Yes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

considering the importance of the probelm (high), the simplicity of the solution (really simple), and the mileage of the PF still remaining (I bet most of us will still play PF for the majority of their online time even after BoB is released, due to planeset and harsh HW requirement), I think it should be fixed now.... don't you agree my reasoning?

FatBoyHK
08-30-2005, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">&lt;gunstat won't lie, it tell you exactly how many rounds are on target </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now that's one thing I like to do.

Can anyone point me how to get that stuff.
I know I have to enable arcade=1, yet I do not get hit counts and arrows and such?

What else I have to do?
Simple step by step if possible...
Do I need to download this gunstat somewhere?

Maybe my mediocre Il-2 flying career could still be good for something; I love testing...
Nobody shoots back at me....

**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a command provided by dedicated servers, hence it is not available in offline play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

quiet_man
08-30-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
...
Real ace pilots averaged approximately 200-250 rounds per Luftwaffe kill. They averaged about a 10% hit rate and took about 20 hits on the average to bring down a FW or Bf...now imagine a P-51 Loaded out with 1800 rounds...do the math and you'll see that we're nowhere close to that...that is what the beef is. Sync is only a piece of the pie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


1800/250=7.2 so american aces downed approximately 7.2 planes per flight?

Yeager shoot only two planes at his 5 kill flight. So 60% of LW planes crash just by approching. With ammo for 7.2 planes any real aces pilot should be able to down 18 enemy planes per flight with the P51. Seams there were no real aces in WWII flying P51?


Real ace pilots averaged approximately 3 rounds MK108 per allied kill. They averaged about a 33% hit rate and took about 1 hit on the average to bring down a P51 or Spit...now imagine a 109 Loaded out with 60 (how much do they have???) rounds...do the math and you'll see ... what???

downing 20 P51 per flight?
I love statistics

PS: did real aces use "gunstat"?

quiet_man

Kuna15
08-30-2005, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">&lt;gunstat won't lie, it tell you exactly how many rounds are on target </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now that's one thing I like to do.

Can anyone point me how to get that stuff.
I know I have to enable arcade=1, yet I do not get hit counts and arrows and such?

What else I have to do?
Simple step by step if possible...
Do I need to download this gunstat somewhere?

Maybe my mediocre Il-2 flying career could still be good for something; I love testing...
Nobody shoots back at me....

**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a command provided by dedicated servers, hence it is not available in offline play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the easiest way to do it.

Also another one is to select Multiplay once when in game, and select some COOP mission.(we don't have to be actually online) Player selects one aircraft and the rest of the planes will be flown by AI, but we can view our stats thru the console.

SlickStick
08-30-2005, 03:59 PM
Wow, this thread explains alot!!! I kept wondering why if I shot from dead six or close to it at convergence with .50s, the effects were so much more than doing the same shot from a deflection angle at the same convergence.

I hope this gets looked at, it truly effects gun performance on many aircraft. As others have alluded to, it's not just the .50s.

It would be interesting to see more zoomed-out overhead shots of planes firing and their sync/out-of-sync and dispersion patterns.

horseback
08-30-2005, 04:40 PM
De-synching may well cure the bouncing and jerking of the affected aircraft as well.

Gun recoil should be more of a constant rather than rhythmic application of backwards force.

Recoil appears to me to be modelled more greatly for aircraft with wing mounted guns than for aircraft with centrally mounted armament (in most cases), ignoring the weight to recoil force ratio.

It seems odd to me that a P-47 or P-38 firing much lighter guns should suffer a higher shake effect from recoil than a much lighter FW 190 with much heavier guns...

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
08-30-2005, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
...
Real ace pilots averaged approximately 200-250 rounds per Luftwaffe kill. They averaged about a 10% hit rate and took about 20 hits on the average to bring down a FW or Bf...now imagine a P-51 Loaded out with 1800 rounds...do the math and you'll see that we're nowhere close to that...that is what the beef is. Sync is only a piece of the pie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


1800/250=7.2 so american aces downed approximately 7.2 planes per flight?

Yeager shoot only two planes at his 5 kill flight. So 60% of LW planes crash just by approching. With ammo for 7.2 planes any real aces pilot should be able to down 18 enemy planes per flight with the P51. Seams there were no real aces in WWII flying P51?


Real ace pilots averaged approximately 3 rounds MK108 per allied kill. They averaged about a 33% hit rate and took about 1 hit on the average to bring down a P51 or Spit...now imagine a 109 Loaded out with 60 (how much do they have???) rounds...do the math and you'll see ... what???

downing 20 P51 per flight?
I love statistics

PS: did real aces use "gunstat"?

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most planes came back with lots of ammo...ever hear the phrase "whole 9 yards"? I believe this is the standard length of a .50 cal ammo belt....and if someone used it all up, it was a good thing they used the "whole nine yards". It was a rare event for a pilot to exhaust his whole ammo belt and of course these are averages...those that did exhaust their whole ammo belt on targets did often wind up with 4 and 5 kills....Most didn't do so, so by 1944 they dropped to the deck and destroyed anything that moved.

FatBoyHK
08-30-2005, 08:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:
1800/250=7.2 so american aces downed approximately 7.2 planes per flight?

Yeager shoot only two planes at his 5 kill flight. So 60% of LW planes crash just by approching. With ammo for 7.2 planes any real aces pilot should be able to down 18 enemy planes per flight with the P51. Seams there were no real aces in WWII flying P51?


Real ace pilots averaged approximately 3 rounds MK108 per allied kill. They averaged about a 33% hit rate and took about 1 hit on the average to bring down a P51 or Spit...now imagine a 109 Loaded out with 60 (how much do they have???) rounds...do the math and you'll see ... what???

downing 20 P51 per flight?
I love statistics

PS: did real aces use "gunstat"?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, given the opporunity, it is indeed possible. It is exactly why LW aces have semingly impossible kill figures, they have plenty of opporunity.

And, we won't need gunstat, if the graphic of this game is as clear as real life. we don't know icon either, we don't know speedbar either, no everything, just give me the plane. But you know, it is not possible now.

But, what is your point? your argument has nothing to do with the what we are talking about here.

Badsight.
08-30-2005, 10:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
Is this a trolling trip or, is this guy serious? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Really, Let Oleg work on BoB in peace. It will be far better then anything we have right now in all aspects. FM/DM/GFX/Sounds... Well, let us just wait a bit. Yes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>leave the .50cal guns in FB underperforming because the next sim will be better than FB ? is that a reason ?

theres good reason for this to be altered right now , its the reason that the .50 cals do so little

Dtools4fools
08-31-2005, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also another one is to select Multiplay once when in game, and select some COOP mission.(we don't have to be actually online) Player selects one aircraft and the rest of the planes will be flown by AI, but we can view our stats thru the console </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks for the info.
Have tried it out. It does count all hits?

Mustang rocks; 109 kills ("friendly" planes, dead six approach) with 17-34 hits so far.
Not much testing done yet but it seems:
- if you shoot from further away (300-400m) you need more hits. It looks like you hit a lot as every time you hit "parts" are flying away. However at the end total was around 25-34 hits.

- if you close in to 150 and less a hit with a burst is almost instant kill. 15 to slightly above 20 hits neede here so far.

I can see the "shotgun" effect on the water and agree that this should chage if it wasn't this shotgun like.

Will do more of this test shooting.

****

quiet_man
08-31-2005, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
But, what is your point? your argument has nothing to do with the what we are talking about here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my point is that "real aces need ~20 hits go figure" has no point. I can easily get below 20 by attacking 109s head on. So what was the distance and how did they aim to come to 20?

Why was P51 weapon load increased to 6?
Why did american pilots demand 20mm?
Why did german aces demand 20mm instead of 30mm?

.50 and 30mm were deadly but not easy to handle, the 20mm was the most balanced weapon, having better ROF than 30mm and more punch than .50

Much more interesting would be the question how the DM effects .50? For example we don't have exploding ammo boxes. Also the pre-patch 151 AP load was pretty uneffective compared the the HE version we have now. But quite good comparable to a bunch of .50
4*20mm AP or 8*.50 should do a load of damage
go figure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

quiet_man

horseback
08-31-2005, 02:47 PM
Bull.

Mustang weapon load was increased to 6 x .50 for quicker kills for the less skilled or more firing time for the truly gifted (a pilot could turn off the circuits for each pair of guns, allowing him to fight with 4 guns and still have some ammo in the remaining two to get home on).

The only American pilots who "demanded" 20mm cannon that I am aware of were based Stateside; prewar trained USN pilots with limited or no combat experience, who were trained to a much higher level of marksmanship than the general run of Navy pilots actually fighting the war. The theoretical advantages of hitting your target with heavier or HE rounds appealed to them more than the probablity that fewer rounds carried meant shorter firing times and fewer firing opportunities.

Combat Naval aviators complained bitterly about the reduction in total rounds and firing time caused by adding an extra set of .50s in the F4F-4 compared to the F4F-3; I can't picture them applauding a conversion to even fewer rounds and shorter firng time necessitated by a switch to 20mm cannon.

US fighers were primarily used to kill other fighters, and the M2 .50 was more than adequate for the task in actual practice in WWII (do NOT confuse the modelling of wing mounted .50s in this game with reality, please). Poles who joined the 56th FG after flying Spitfires with 20mm cannon were astounded by the hitting power of the P-47's 8x.50 armament, and seemed to find it more effective than the cannon/LMG mix they were used to. The cannon available to US fighters was slower firing, and more prone to stoppages and other problems, hence the reliance on the .50 cal until the Korean era.

German pilots apparently preferred the MG 151/20 over the 30mm cannons available for similar reasons American pilots preferred the Browning .50 cal: faster firing, more reliable, more rounds. It is my understanding that the 13mm HMGs that they had were not well thought of, and compared poorly to the M2 in actual practice; they were referred to as 'doorknockers' by their users.

DM modelling of .50 cal/12.7mm guns is a bit odd, IMHO, because when fired by ai gunners (but not pilots), a single burst from a single gun is crippling more often than not (at least to the player), while the player can get multiple hits with multiple guns to no discernable effect. Add in the bogus 'recoil' effect for wingmounted HMGs, and the player's armament is much less effective.

cheers

horseback

Cajun76
08-31-2005, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:

Why was P51 weapon load increased to 6?
Why did american pilots demand 20mm?

.50 and 30mm were deadly but not easy to handle, the 20mm was the most balanced weapon, having better ROF than 30mm and more punch than .50


quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why was Bearcat to have only 4 guns?
Have yet to hear large numbers of American pilots demanding 20mm.
Most praised the accuracy, high ROF and good ballistics of the .50.


Having said that, .50 (12.7mm) - 20mm armament was probably the ideal fighter armament when engaging other fighters in WWII. Smaller than that was generally ineffective, while larger usaully had low ROF, bad ballistics, low ammo load, or various combinations of all three.

AlmightyTallest
08-31-2005, 03:14 PM
Unsynching the .50 caliber and other weapons that were unsynchronized in in real life would be a great step forward for realism.

As to why the U.S. used .50 caliber for so long this is what I found awile back:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/jacobson.shtml

P-47 Pilot Lt. Col. Jacobson Combat report Dec. 5 1944

Although it's nothing really spectacular, he claims two kills, but what's interesting is that he mentions what type and how many rounds he expended. They appear to be entirely Armor Piercing Incindiary, either M-8 and/or M-20 rounds.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I claim two Fw 190s destroyed. "Ammunition expended: 632 rounds 50- caliber API [Armor Piercing Incendiary]."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.american-apex.com/americanapex/comparisons.asp

Above site shows superelevation in mils for the APIT M20 round, and it's tracer burnout range.

A Korean war pilot relates why .50cal API worked so well for them in WW2, but not in Korea.

http://www.afakansas.org/bleckley/jabara.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the .50-caliber wasn't heavy enough," said General Meyer. "It just wasn't good enough for a jet airplane.

"It made a particularly acute impression on our guys because most all of those fellows had shot down airplanes in World War II. You had gasoline engines and highly volatile aviation fuel in those airplanes so, in effect, the API (armor-piercing, incendiary) ammunition became a fuse for the bomb, which was the target airplane itself. So a couple of shots that hit in the right place on the Me-109 or Focke-Wulf would...ignite the fuel and explode the airplane.

"Here, they'd clobber the hell out of the target and it kept on going....Now that was a rather unpleasant surprise! But we were shooting at an airplane that had two uniquely different characteristics. The first was the jet engine itself. With those turbos behind, it provided some protection for the vital parts. The second was that the fuel, especially at high altitudes, would not tend to explode. And then, the whole thing was faster so the shooting problem was a lot more difficult."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Various compiled guncam footage from another forum of .50 cal striking targets, you'll notice that there aren't any explosive .50 cal rounds, but when an API round gets into the fuel and ignites, the wing tanks ignite causing severe damage.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/download.php?id=4205


Another video, this one of P-51's strafing a German airfield including parked ME262's.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/download.php?id=4168


There is info about the TM43 Manual having data about the special .50cal rounds, I'll see if I can locate it for viewing.

Another poster in an ammunition forum posted this about .50cal API ammo.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note that performance figures are almost always for the BALL round, which was a few grams heavier than the Incendiary or API rounds and had a little less initial velocity, but overall the BMG rounds are all very close in weight (~45 to ~49 grams), except the M23 "jet killer" incendiary which was down around 35 grams (of even more potent IM28). The M1 incendiary round carried 2.2 grams of IM11, the M8 API round carried between 1 and 1.5 grams of IM11 depending on the year (late war M8's used moly-steel penetrators to save tungston and thus had less room for IM11).

IM11 incendiary metal alloy was and is a very nasty substance (it is still used today). When the round strikes the target, usually on the next contact after passing through typical aluminum skinning, the alloy achieves sufficient heat through compression to ignite. Because the Barium Nitrate in the alloy is a very strong oxidizer, there is no need for external oxygen and the IM will all fire up at once, creating a low-order explosion (more like confined gunpowder than high explosives). Between this low-order explosion and the force of the penetrator (or "slug") comming in behind the round, the buring incendiary metal is spewed to the sides, perpendicular to the axis of flight, mostly on the near side as it passes through the structure.

IM11 burns at over 4000 degrees F, hot enough to liquify aluminum on contact. Furthermore, this heat plus the excess O2 from the degenerating Barium Nitrate will cause the target aluminum to burn. It is not necessary for the round to completely breach the target structure though impact damage. When the round strikes the spar of a FW wing for instance, which is aluminum, it will create a .5 inch hole from impact. It will also create a considerable region around the hole which is very hot from the impact/penetration and the IM11 incendiary, and this in turn is ripe to burn, and the spar will become soft for a good radius around that. The spar can easily collapse as a result of .50 API hits.

.50 rounds were not technically "high explosive", but the incendiary metal did "burst" and imparted significant additional damage even to metal structures. The high quality of .50 ammunition was one of the reasons the USA felt it was sufficent to the task and did not focus on replacing it with a larger gun during WWII. No other country was able to mass produce such an incendiary metal alloy. Britain did manage to produce a similar alloy for their DeWilde .303 rounds, but in much smaller amounts, and the DeWilde rounds were always in short supply.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A book sample:

Wolf, William. American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2003
ISBN 0-7643-1878-0
391 pages

http://stonebooks.com/archives/031123.shtml


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57"' Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, basically there wasn't a problem with killing aircraft with the .50 caliber because the U.S. was able to mass produce specialized Incindiary and Armor Piercing Incindiary .50 cal ammo for use in it's aircraft. Only in the Korean war because of the high altitude nature of the aircraft, and the jet engine and fuel used was the only limiting factor that caused the .50cal to go out of favor. It was more than adequate during WW2 though as can be seen in the examples above.

Grey_Mouser67
08-31-2005, 05:37 PM
Great post Allmighty!

Somewhere a long time ago, I read something that indicated marine pilots that flew the F4U C model with the 4 20mm's liked it for strafing and ground pounding but did not like them for air to air combat over the .50's due to slow firing rates...and I suppose the flammability of Japanese aircraft....although as you pointed out, fire was one of the top modes of failure in Luftwaffe aircraft as well.

Gibbage1
08-31-2005, 10:02 PM
Another good example. F4F-3 started the war with 4 guns. F4F-4 was an "upgrade" with 6 guns and the pilots hated it. Each gun had less ammo, and they wanted to go back to the 4 gun format with more ammo. The FM2 an upgrade to the F4F-4 went back to the 4 gun loadout.

P-51B had 4 guns. P-51D had 6. The ultimate P-51, the H went BACK to the 4 gun format.

Diablo310th
09-01-2005, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Unsynching the .50 caliber and other weapons that were unsynchronized in in real life would be a great step forward for realism.

As to why the U.S. used .50 caliber for so long this is what I found awile back:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/jacobson.shtml

P-47 Pilot Lt. Col. Jacobson Combat report Dec. 5 1944

Although it's nothing really spectacular, he claims two kills, but what's interesting is that he mentions what type and how many rounds he expended. They appear to be entirely Armor Piercing Incindiary, either M-8 and/or M-20 rounds.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I claim two Fw 190s destroyed. "Ammunition expended: 632 rounds 50- caliber API [Armor Piercing Incendiary]."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.american-apex.com/americanapex/comparisons.asp

Above site shows superelevation in mils for the APIT M20 round, and it's tracer burnout range.

A Korean war pilot relates why .50cal API worked so well for them in WW2, but not in Korea.

http://www.afakansas.org/bleckley/jabara.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the .50-caliber wasn't heavy enough," said General Meyer. "It just wasn't good enough for a jet airplane.

"It made a particularly acute impression on our guys because most all of those fellows had shot down airplanes in World War II. You had gasoline engines and highly volatile aviation fuel in those airplanes so, in effect, the API (armor-piercing, incendiary) ammunition became a fuse for the bomb, which was the target airplane itself. So a couple of shots that hit in the right place on the Me-109 or Focke-Wulf would...ignite the fuel and explode the airplane.

"Here, they'd clobber the hell out of the target and it kept on going....Now that was a rather unpleasant surprise! But we were shooting at an airplane that had two uniquely different characteristics. The first was the jet engine itself. With those turbos behind, it provided some protection for the vital parts. The second was that the fuel, especially at high altitudes, would not tend to explode. And then, the whole thing was faster so the shooting problem was a lot more difficult."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Various compiled guncam footage from another forum of .50 cal striking targets, you'll notice that there aren't any explosive .50 cal rounds, but when an API round gets into the fuel and ignites, the wing tanks ignite causing severe damage.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/download.php?id=4205


Another video, this one of P-51's strafing a German airfield including parked ME262's.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/download.php?id=4168


There is info about the TM43 Manual having data about the special .50cal rounds, I'll see if I can locate it for viewing.

Another poster in an ammunition forum posted this about .50cal API ammo.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note that performance figures are almost always for the BALL round, which was a few grams heavier than the Incendiary or API rounds and had a little less initial velocity, but overall the BMG rounds are all very close in weight (~45 to ~49 grams), except the M23 "jet killer" incendiary which was down around 35 grams (of even more potent IM28). The M1 incendiary round carried 2.2 grams of IM11, the M8 API round carried between 1 and 1.5 grams of IM11 depending on the year (late war M8's used moly-steel penetrators to save tungston and thus had less room for IM11).

IM11 incendiary metal alloy was and is a very nasty substance (it is still used today). When the round strikes the target, usually on the next contact after passing through typical aluminum skinning, the alloy achieves sufficient heat through compression to ignite. Because the Barium Nitrate in the alloy is a very strong oxidizer, there is no need for external oxygen and the IM will all fire up at once, creating a low-order explosion (more like confined gunpowder than high explosives). Between this low-order explosion and the force of the penetrator (or "slug") comming in behind the round, the buring incendiary metal is spewed to the sides, perpendicular to the axis of flight, mostly on the near side as it passes through the structure.

IM11 burns at over 4000 degrees F, hot enough to liquify aluminum on contact. Furthermore, this heat plus the excess O2 from the degenerating Barium Nitrate will cause the target aluminum to burn. It is not necessary for the round to completely breach the target structure though impact damage. When the round strikes the spar of a FW wing for instance, which is aluminum, it will create a .5 inch hole from impact. It will also create a considerable region around the hole which is very hot from the impact/penetration and the IM11 incendiary, and this in turn is ripe to burn, and the spar will become soft for a good radius around that. The spar can easily collapse as a result of .50 API hits.

.50 rounds were not technically "high explosive", but the incendiary metal did "burst" and imparted significant additional damage even to metal structures. The high quality of .50 ammunition was one of the reasons the USA felt it was sufficent to the task and did not focus on replacing it with a larger gun during WWII. No other country was able to mass produce such an incendiary metal alloy. Britain did manage to produce a similar alloy for their DeWilde .303 rounds, but in much smaller amounts, and the DeWilde rounds were always in short supply.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A book sample:

Wolf, William. American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2003
ISBN 0-7643-1878-0
391 pages

http://stonebooks.com/archives/031123.shtml


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57"' Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, basically there wasn't a problem with killing aircraft with the .50 caliber because the U.S. was able to mass produce specialized Incindiary and Armor Piercing Incindiary .50 cal ammo for use in it's aircraft. Only in the Korean war because of the high altitude nature of the aircraft, and the jet engine and fuel used was the only limiting factor that caused the .50cal to go out of favor. It was more than adequate during WW2 though as can be seen in the examples above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post Allmighty......further proof of the 4xAPI 1xAPT or APIT loadout. Oleg..please change US .50's to this loadout.

Dtools4fools
09-01-2005, 08:05 AM
To me it seems that the US stayed with 0.50cal too long (up to Korea) as:
- t was adequate for the realitevely fragile targets they where shooting at in WWII - Japanese and German fighters.
- they did not have to fight more rugged planes or even heavy bombers as the Germans and Japanese had; those went 20mm instead.

So they made a mistake. Similar to the Japanese whoes light and agile fighers and light long range bombers did a good job in China but that changed going up against an different opponent (American planes) later on. Didn't work anymore, the deficies became evident.

The pilot sums it up saying that the 0.50 punched al lot of whole in a jet plane, but did not do much "damage" - structural damage - to bring a plane down. That's exactly what the HE of cannon does. Mixed with AP in the ammo belt et voila, a very capable weapon.

Of course less ammo, but that issue I think depends very much on the capability of the pilot and how he uses his guns.

Thoughts:

With 6 fifites:

- if shooting from very close it delivers more punch as two more guns shooting.
But is it really needed? Guess no as 4 fifties would do a good enough job being very close. After all few hits are needed only anyway.

- longer range or deflection shooting: relatively little more lead in the air with 6 guns and therefore (little) more hits.
However you need longer bursts to "accumulate" the hits needed to down enemy plane. 4 gun loadout can shoot longer than 6.

Up close well aimed 4 guns can do good enough (heck even 2 fifties of ki-43 do a good job then!) job but long range and deflection longer 4 gun firing time helps.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have yet to hear large numbers of American pilots demanding 20mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kind of difficult to demand 20mm guns
- if you cannot compare as you don't have them.
- if you don't need them because your gun is effective in what you need it for.

Most people are old fashioned and tend to stuck with what worked for them.

Kind of reminds me of the autofocus systems on SLR cameras; first many said they would not want it as it is not accurate enough, not fast enough, etc. However those systems improved and there are a lot of other advantages and nowadays it is standard.

As for the "slow" firing rates: the later Hispanoes and 151 had ROF about the same as 0.50 cal.
So...
Less ammo, yes, but more deadly ammo as well. So if you hit you can do more damage with less round (4 0.50 vs 4 20mm). You need shorter burst. Problem is that if you miss, you miss "more". With each shot missed you wasted more of the total firepower you got compared to the fifty. The 4 fifties have less punch per bullet but the total firepower is spread over more bullets. Thus more forgiving if you miss. You are not wasting as much.

And to mention:

- *some* US pilots who had 20mm guns liked it; at least the P-38 drivers liked the nose armament of mix fifty and 20mm.
- Bearcat indeed had 4 fifties. Later models had 4 20mm however.

Guess the Germans did not like their 13mm so much becuase they had to go up against much stronger planes; like B-17's. Plus they could see what that 13mm did against those targets and at the same time what the 20mm did...

Mustang question: I remember reading about the Mustang that it's guns jammed in certain situations. If correctly these were early 6 gun Mustangs in China and the outer two would be the ones to jam frequently? The pilots thus preferred 4 guns.
Wrong; looked it up; the gun jamming was a general problem in the early Mustang during due to g-forces, later fixed. The other comment was that "the outer two guns shared the same ammunition tray. This meant meant when you were halfway through shooting you only had two guns".

****

FatBoyHK
09-01-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the "slow" firing rates: the later Hispanoes and 151 had ROF about the same as 0.50 cal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually you have 6 or 8 50cals in place of 2 cannons. With them all flying indivually (i.e. unsync) you have about 3 to 4 times better resultant ROF.....which make them much easier to hit targets with.

And this is exacly the reason why we want them desynced in this game.

quiet_man
09-01-2005, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
Why was Bearcat to have only 4 guns?
Have yet to hear large numbers of American pilots demanding 20mm.
Most praised the accuracy, high ROF and good ballistics of the .50.


Having said that, .50 (12.7mm) - 20mm armament was probably the ideal fighter armament when engaging other fighters in WWII. Smaller than that was generally ineffective, while larger usaully had low ROF, bad ballistics, low ammo load, or various combinations of all three. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what weapons had F8F-1B and F8F-2 versions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
what weapons had the Hellcat?

one reason the german 20mm were called the best WWII air to air weapon was the high rof

quiet

quiet_man
09-01-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Bull.

Mustang weapon load was increased to 6 x .50 for quicker kills for the less skilled or more firing time for the truly gifted (a pilot could turn off the circuits for each pair of guns, allowing him to fight with 4 guns and still have some ammo in the remaining two to get home on).

The only American pilots who "demanded" 20mm cannon that I am aware of were based Stateside; prewar trained USN pilots with limited or no combat experience, who were trained to a much higher level of marksmanship than the general run of Navy pilots actually fighting the war. The theoretical advantages of hitting your target with heavier or HE rounds appealed to them more than the probablity that fewer rounds carried meant shorter firing times and fewer firing opportunities.

Combat Naval aviators complained bitterly about the reduction in total rounds and firing time caused by adding an extra set of .50s in the F4F-4 compared to the F4F-3; I can't picture them applauding a conversion to even fewer rounds and shorter firng time necessitated by a switch to 20mm cannon.

US fighers were primarily used to kill other fighters, and the M2 .50 was more than adequate for the task in actual practice in WWII (do NOT confuse the modelling of wing mounted .50s in this game with reality, please). Poles who joined the 56th FG after flying Spitfires with 20mm cannon were astounded by the hitting power of the P-47's 8x.50 armament, and seemed to find it more effective than the cannon/LMG mix they were used to. The cannon available to US fighters was slower firing, and more prone to stoppages and other problems, hence the reliance on the .50 cal until the Korean era.

German pilots apparently preferred the MG 151/20 over the 30mm cannons available for similar reasons American pilots preferred the Browning .50 cal: faster firing, more reliable, more rounds. It is my understanding that the 13mm HMGs that they had were not well thought of, and compared poorly to the M2 in actual practice; they were referred to as 'doorknockers' by their users.

DM modelling of .50 cal/12.7mm guns is a bit odd, IMHO, because when fired by ai gunners (but not pilots), a single burst from a single gun is crippling more often than not (at least to the player), while the player can get multiple hits with multiple guns to no discernable effect. Add in the bogus 'recoil' effect for wingmounted HMGs, and the player's armament is much less effective.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

completely agreed
the .50 were a deadly weapon with according training
american & english 20mm had relative low rof for air to air
german 20mm had high rof, thats why german pilots liked them
I think 'doorknockers' were the 7.6mm MG, and this is completely correct name when compared to 151

anyone knows commends about the MG151?

quiet_man

quiet_man
09-01-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Unsynching the .50 caliber and other weapons that were unsynchronized in in real life would be a great step forward for realism.
...
So a couple of shots that hit in the right place on the Me-109 or Focke-Wulf would...ignite the fuel and explode the airplane.
...
IM11 burns at over 4000 degrees F, hot enough to liquify aluminum on contact. Furthermore, this heat plus the excess O2 from the degenerating Barium Nitrate will cause the target aluminum to burn. It is not necessary for the round to completely breach the target structure though impact damage. When the round strikes the spar of a FW wing for instance, which is aluminum, it will create a .5 inch hole from impact. It will also create a considerable region around the hole which is very hot from the impact/penetration and the IM11 incendiary, and this in turn is ripe to burn, and the spar will become soft for a good radius around that. The spar can easily collapse as a result of .50 API hits.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

also completely agreed
we simply have a gap between relative accurate modelling of shells and shortages at the damage modell

I find it to hard to ignite an target while it is "realitely" easy to shoot of the complete tail

and desync is heavily needed to improve the chance for doing the critical hit.

quiet_man

Wolf-Strike
09-01-2005, 06:03 PM
The shotgun effect we have now with 50's is pathetic.I always wondered why you were told in FB that in order to be effective with 50's you need to shoot at exact convergence.Lmao,this seemes absurd to me and now I see why we were told that.

6 50's was a powerful wall to fly a plane thru yet they sneak right by.There was a guy online lastnight flying the Mustang MK111.He had accumalated riduculous points with that plane and its 4 50'S.Well I got to see him in action acouple of times when he would shoot past me gunning for my target.He shot only when right up on a plane.No wasted spraying by him.Well thats just fine and dandy but realistic its not.

Oleg you cant let this slip by after seeing the shotgun pic example.I know you will do the right thing here...S~~

marcocomparato
09-01-2005, 07:17 PM
Im George Bush and I support this message.

Dtools4fools
09-02-2005, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the "slow" firing rates: the later Hispanoes and 151 had ROF about the same as 0.50 cal.



Usually you have 6 or 8 50cals in place of 2 cannons. With them all flying indivually (i.e. unsync) you have about 3 to 4 times better resultant ROF.....which make them much easier to hit targets with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually. But that was rather meant in comparison to the argument that some planes went back to four 0.50 cal layout (like Bearcat) or some pilots preferring 4 instead of 6 guns in their planes.
Point is you can put in 4 20mm as well with same ROF as 0.50 - if you have such a 20mm. A fine sample would be Bearcat. You got choice with 4x0.50 or 4x20. If that 20 has same ROF than the 0.50 you got much more firepower per burst but less firing time due to less ammo.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There was a guy online lastnight flying the Mustang MK111.He had accumalated riduculous points with that plane and its 4 50'S.Well I got to see him in action acouple of times when he would shoot past me gunning for my target.He shot only when right up on a plane.No wasted spraying by him.Well thats just fine and dandy but realistic its not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it not realistic?
From the ace pilot accounts I have read so far they were shooting at point blank distance.
Saburo Sakai saw 200-250m as out of range for his Zero. He usually closed in to around 50m
Knoke describes in his book firing ranges of 150m and less.
Rober Dehaven preferred "longer range" in his P-38 because of nose armament: " I saw many planes downed at point-blank range. However I would say between 200 and 250 yards was a good rangge if the attack position was good".
Thomas Furlow:" And you had to get very close. I'd imagine about 200 feet."

Personally I do not start shooting outside 200m anymore. But the closer the better. And yes, then those guns do real damage.

One question:

What is going to happen if we got desync 0.50 cal? How far apart will be the patter showed on those pics for what range? At what shooting range were those ground hit pattern pix made?

Marcus
****

Gibbage1
09-02-2005, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
You got choice with 4x0.50 or 4x20. If that 20 has same ROF than the 0.50 you got much more firepower per burst but less firing time due to less ammo.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You also have much much more weight. In the wings of all places!

There is an interview of a Russian P-39 ace of WWII and he said that two .50 cal's was MORE then enough in the P-39, and a lot of Russians removed the wing .50 cals. Who were they flying against? Flaming Zero's? No. 109's and 190's.

Again, F4F-3 had 4 guns, -4 had 6 guns. The Navy pilots REQUESTED the 4 guns back because it had no benifit, the 4 guns were more then enough and the added weight and loss of manuverability was not acceptable.

Gibbage1
09-02-2005, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools

One question:

What is going to happen if we got desync 0.50 cal? How far apart will be the patter showed on those pics for what range? At what shooting range were those ground hit pattern pix made?

Marcus
**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the pic. The two P-40's were at about the same altitude when the rounds were fired, and both were pulling about the same G's. Please do a quick QMB with both aircraft and see for yourself the benifits of unsync firing.

Badsight.
09-02-2005, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:

german 20mm had high rof, thats why german pilots liked them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ballistics are just as important for A2A kills are ROF

look at the Mig-15 , much greater hit power but poor poor ballistics made the weaker armed Saber F-86 the better A2A weapon

the reason for changing the .50 cal is twofold , its more accurate to RL operation de-synched
&
with the .50 cal synched it makes it perform weakly , whereas if it was de-synched the M2 .50 cal would be able to do damadge better

the shotgun operation we have now is holding the kill power of the M2 back greatly

fordfan25
09-02-2005, 04:51 PM
i would like to see all the wepons de-synced that were IRL out of sync. i saw a video the other day of a 109 firing its nose mounted guns and thay looked out of sync to me. but seeing as i fly the US planes most i am realing hopeing to get the .50's right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fordfan25
09-02-2005, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools

One question:

What is going to happen if we got desync 0.50 cal? How far apart will be the patter showed on those pics for what range? At what shooting range were those ground hit pattern pix made?

Marcus
**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look at the pic. The two P-40's were at about the same altitude when the rounds were fired, and both were pulling about the same G's. Please do a quick QMB with both aircraft and see for yourself the benifits of unsync firing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



hay GIBBAGE is that BF2 in your sig? if so how is it? hows the flight part of the game. much cheating?

Kuna15
09-02-2005, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Look at the pic. The two P-40's were at about the same altitude when the rounds were fired, and both were pulling about the same G's. Please do a quick QMB with both aircraft and see for yourself the benifits of unsync firing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gibbage are white flakes on ground (on the picture) represent only tracer bullets or all bullets that have hit the ground?

Loki-PF
09-02-2005, 08:04 PM
*ALL* Bullets

ECV56_Rolf
09-02-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the shotgun operation we have now is holding the kill power of the M2 back greatly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful...
Aiming is easier with desync, but vibration may become higher and obtaining a careful aimed shot as is now would not be posible anymore.

Deflection shots will be really great, but canon like kills will be no more.

pourshot
09-02-2005, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:

Be careful...
Aiming is easier with desync, but vibration may become higher and obtaining a careful aimed shot as is now would not be posible anymore.

Deflection shots will be really great, but canon like kills will be no more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think if you fly the p40 field mod and a standard p40e you will find that un-synced is much better for accuracy.

Loki-PF
09-02-2005, 11:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pourshot:
I think if you fly the p40 field mod and a standard p40e you will find that un-synced is much better for accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*AND* Lethality... I'm gonna gues he's never done the side by side taste test comparison in QMB yet.....

ECV56_Rolf
09-02-2005, 11:49 PM
Bad guess, and bad reading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
09-03-2005, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:

hay GIBBAGE is that BF2 in your sig? if so how is it? hows the flight part of the game. much cheating? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like it a lot. The FM and DM are a joke all around, but its not a flight sim, be sure! Its pure FPS with some tanks and aircraft. If your expecting a flight sim with some FPS in it then you will be disappointed.

One cool think I like about it is it keeps track of your stats! Also medals and stuff like that as you see in my sig. Once you reach a score (1000 for the first, 10,000 for the 2nd) you go up in rank and can unlock a new weapon you can now use. Some slight charactor development.

Again, its fun if you like FPS shooters. Dont expect a flight sim out of it but the aircraft and choppers are a lot of fun. The X-52 helps out a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
09-03-2005, 12:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the shotgun operation we have now is holding the kill power of the M2 back greatly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful...
Aiming is easier with desync, but vibration may become higher and obtaining a careful aimed shot as is now would not be posible anymore.

Deflection shots will be really great, but canon like kills will be no more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As others have said, try the P-40E Field mod then fly the standard US P-40E. If you did this simple test, you would not of posted what you did. You will find that ALL aspects of the M2 is much better in the Field mod INCLUDINg (and especially) the gun platform. With the P-40E your aircraft sways a LOT. Throwing off the aim quite a bit! You can not keep your stream on target but must fire in short birst's when the crosshairs swing back into position. With the P-40E Fieldmod, you can hold on target very very easy with only a slight bit of shake. There is no doubt that de-syncing the M2's will increase its lethality by 2x or more! EASY!

pourshot
09-03-2005, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
Bad guess, and bad reading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you figure?

Perhaps you could explan your point more clearly, I presume by the way you worded your comment that english is not your first language?

Dtools4fools
09-03-2005, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools

One question:

What is going to happen if we got desync 0.50 cal? How far apart will be the patter showed on those pics for what range? At what shooting range were those ground hit pattern pix made?

Marcus
****



Look at the pic. The two P-40's were at about the same altitude when the rounds were fired, and both were pulling about the same G's. Please do a quick QMB with both aircraft and see for yourself the benifits of unsync firing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maybe I did not make myself clear enough.
What I wanted to know was the RANGE from which we got these results.
I do not doubt about the benefits of unsync at all. I just wondered how those pattern compare at various ranges. Could it be that with desync it actually could become harder to hit at long ranger due to larger dispersion? Could it be that the MG's will do less damage and become less lethal if desynced is bullets a spread out more?
****

Grey_Mouser67
09-03-2005, 09:20 AM
I can't even think of the last time I flew the field Mod P-40...probably over year ago...

I took Gib up on his suggestion of flying it...I did....oh man...all M2 armed aircraft that aren't firing through a propeller hub need this...Jug, Mustang, P-40, Corsair, Hellcat, Wildcats, Brewester, Lightning...whatever else I forgot!

What a difference...the Field Mod P-40 has the feeling of a stable gun platform...everything that I imagined the Jug, Corsair, Lightning and Mustang to be.

Biggest difference was in snap shooting...more hits no doubt. There was a yaw effect if you held the guns down but the pitch was good and the guns were steady...If I held on a target, they got holes...lots of holes!

Eureka!

Oleg if you don't do anything else with HMG's....this fix is a must for gameplay sake and the effectiveness of the HMG's...I only hope that he can and will do it.

If you don't believe...just fly the Field Mod P-40 and you will.

Kuna15
09-03-2005, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loki-PF:
*ALL* Bullets </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks I have figured that... it would be odd if someone 'photoshoped' out all bullets except tracer ones.

Then I really can't understand why he posted this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">http://www.gibbageart.com/files/p40e.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ummm... this does not look like a tracer desync/sync issue to me. It looks like all package is desync(above, good)/sync(below, bad) on picture.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But then again I may be wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong, be sure! Put down forum and keyboard and never pick up again! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ECV56_Rolf
09-03-2005, 12:20 PM
First, I told to be careful about what is being asked.

Why, because I was afraid that the actual IL-2 engine will introduce vibrations on unsynched weapons.

But, I do some more testing and arrived to a curious conclusion. Only low calibers (7.9 or similar) vibrate. They vibrate being unsynched or not, if they are wing mounted. Canons and .50s don´t.

Spits and Hurri Mk IIB, are unsynched and vibrate while firing. P39 and Ju87B are synched and vibrate anyway.

So, it apeears that the game engine desires that some weapons fire simultaneously on both sides so not to have vibrations, other weapons could fire in any order that there will be no vibs, and the last group will vib anyway.

Canons won´t vib unless unsynched, .50s never vib, and low calibers always do when wing mounted.

After those I could see that my fears are not justified, that desynching won´t bring that kind of trouble, and that the P40E FM it´s not a rare and forgotten gem. Unless someone at 1C decides to introduce vibs to the .50s... (at least some will be OK, but God help us if it becomes proportional to the smaller machine guns vibs we now have!)

BTW it will be better that those people who are asking that canons be desynched, to CLEARLY specify that it is intended to desynch the inner canons vs the outer ones, not all canons unsynched.

Question:

Did someone cared to test the dispersion of the FM P40E? it is similar to the synched ones?

Asked this before... I don´t know how to evaluate this...


And... BTW... there is a curious thing about the P51D20, if you look at the tracers, one of the right wing tracers is unsynched with the others. All other .50s firing planes have the tracers go side by side.

p1ngu666
09-03-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ECV56_Rolf:
First, I told to be careful about what is being asked.

Why, because I was afraid that the actual IL-2 engine will introduce vibrations on unsynched weapons.

But, I do some more testing and arrived to a curious conclusion. Only low calibers (7.9 or similar) vibrate. They vibrate being unsynched or not, if they are wing mounted. Canons and .50s don´t.

Spits and Hurri Mk IIB, are unsynched and vibrate while firing. P39 and Ju87B are synched and vibrate anyway.

So, it apeears that the game engine desires that some weapons fire simultaneously on both sides so not to have vibrations, other weapons could fire in any order that there will be no vibs, and the last group will vib anyway.

Canons won´t vib unless unsynched, .50s never vib, and low calibers always do when wing mounted.

After those I could see that my fears are not justified, that desynching won´t bring that kind of trouble, and that the P40E FM it´s not a rare and forgotten gem. Unless someone at 1C decides to introduce vibs to the .50s... (at least some will be OK, but God help us if it becomes proportional to the smaller machine guns vibs we now have!)

BTW it will be better that those people who are asking that canons be desynched, to CLEARLY specify that it is intended to desynch the inner canons vs the outer ones, not all canons unsynched.

Question:

Did someone cared to test the dispersion of the FM P40E? it is similar to the synched ones?

Asked this before... I don´t know how to evaluate this...


And... BTW... there is a curious thing about the P51D20, if you look at the tracers, one of the right wing tracers is unsynched with the others. All other .50s firing planes have the tracers go side by side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

for planes like bue, desynced or even synced with alternate fire (inners, then outers) would help.
the gaps are even bigger for beu/hispano 20mm cos its about 10rounds per second, vs 13 for 50cal. also the beus have 120rounds, rather than the more likely 200,240,283 rounds..

it might be easier for them to randomize all guns rather than just the 50cals for example.

unsynced 50s would help alot with bomber gunnery, and the italian planes

quiet_man
09-04-2005, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:

german 20mm had high rof, thats why german pilots liked them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ballistics are just as important for A2A kills are ROF

look at the Mig-15 , much greater hit power but poor poor ballistics made the weaker armed Saber F-86 the better A2A weapon

the reason for changing the .50 cal is twofold , its more accurate to RL operation de-synched
&
with the .50 cal synched it makes it perform weakly , whereas if it was de-synched the M2 .50 cal would be able to do damadge better

the shotgun operation we have now is holding the kill power of the M2 back greatly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

can you give any references were you have this from?

As far as I know the USAAF did an analysis after lot of pilot complains and the result was an rush to 20mm. The first F-86 with 20mm reached Korea just when the fighting stopped.

what saved the US pilots was the lack of gunnery training of Korean pilots.

quiet_man

Gibbage1
09-04-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:

can you give any references were you have this from?

As far as I know the USAAF did an analysis after lot of pilot complains and the result was an rush to 20mm. The first F-86 with 20mm reached Korea just when the fighting stopped.

what saved the US pilots was the lack of gunnery training of Korean pilots.

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering the Korean pilots were mostly WWII Russian vets, you cant use that excuse. The 37MM and 23MM's used in the Mig's were low ROF and the dogfights were typically high turn and high deflection.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fk.html

If the Mig pilot scored a hit with his cannon's, it was almost guaranteed a kill. But the low ROF and bad ballistics made that difficult. If the Saber pilot scored a hit, the Mig would most likley disenguage and run home. The Saber pilot was a lot more likley to score a hit and send the target home licking its wounds. Not an air kill, but an air victory. In WWII and Korea, nobody stayed in the fight after they were hit. There life depended on it. There was no refly button in WWII.

TAGERT.
09-04-2005, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Considering the Korean pilots were mostly WWII Russian vets, you cant use that excuse. The 37MM and 23MM's used in the Mig's were low ROF and the dogfights were typically high turn and high deflection.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fk.html

If the Mig pilot scored a hit with his cannon's, it was almost guaranteed a kill. But the low ROF and bad ballistics made that difficult. If the Saber pilot scored a hit, the Mig would most likley disenguage and run home. The Saber pilot was a lot more likley to score a hit and send the target home licking its wounds. Not an air kill, but an air victory. In WWII and Korea, nobody stayed in the fight after they were hit. There life depended on it. There was no refly button in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! And the big myth is those cannons were for fighter vs fighter.. not true.. they were there to engage the bombers, that is why they had a mix. Now before some ***** get offended and tells me you can shoot down a figher with cannons.. Well no duh! What Im talking about is the purpose of them in the first place.

Kocur_
09-04-2005, 03:33 PM
2 x NS-23 (23mm, 550rpm, 200g, 690ms) + 1 NS-37 (37mm, 250rpm, 735g, 900ms) on MiG -15, and

2 x NR-23 (23mm, 850rpm, 200g, 690ms) + 1 NS-37 (37mm, 400rpm, 735g, 690ms) on MiG-15bis.

Set of that kind was standarised armament of early soviet jet fighters. Clearly optimised for killing bombers. Guns on MiG-15bis were pretty much improved. Those two 23mm cannons were had ROF high enough to be serious threat for fighters in dogfight.

There were some VVS "volunteers" among MiGs pilots, but vast majority of them were Koreans and Chinese.

A plane hit and damaged is very much less than destroyed. Damaged one may bring its pilot back home to fight another day, destroyed will probably put its pilot out of action, one way or another.

Multiple M2s were enough in WW2 against small planes, but thats all, i.e. 20mm cannons were much better solution. Against popular belief WW2 .50s, i.e. M2 did not have any large margin of advantage in ROF vs. 20mm cannons. That was so until like 1940/41 when almost all aerial 20mm's were Oerlikon FF(/M) derivatives. But advatage of 200rpm over British Hispano Mk.II, 50-150 over MG151/20 (or none over ShVAK) meant nothing considering 20mm's were firing projectiles at least twice heavier and, whats most important: filled with explosive. It takes ~3,3 to 3,6 M2's to balance 1 BH Mk.II statistically. One can only wish M3 made it into WW2 (1100rpm). Better ballistics of .50 BMG didnt matter much at typical distances of firing, i.e. rarely over 300m. Im saying that, so we would not expect any quantum leap in M2's effectiveness when (if) they get un-synced in all US fighters.

Gibbage1
09-04-2005, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Multiple M2s were enough in WW2 against small planes, but thats all, i.e. 20mm cannons were much better solution.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree. 20MM was more powerfull and almost as high RPM wise, but a lot heavier. Also the ballistics were not as good. Multiple HMG platform was much better suited for A to A vs fighters. 20MM+ was much better suited for bomber busting. Also, with the HMG platform you have multiple guns ranging from 6-8 were cannon platforms are limited to 1 or 2 in most cases (only a few aircraft in WWII had 4 cannons. FW-190 being one, and some limited production runs of Spitfire, Hurricane, and US Navy aircraft). 6 HMG's have about the same hitting power as 2 cannon's, but is much more likley to HIT the target due to its much greater rate of fire (6x 750RPM vx 2X 700RPM). In WWII, you only needed to hit since the fighters in general were rather weak. Only armor being for the pilots back! Jets were much tougher then prop WWII fighters. That changed everything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Against popular belief WW2 .50s, i.e. M2 did not have any large margin of advantage in ROF vs. 20mm cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gun for gun, yes. But there was no 6-8 cannon fighters flying in WWII. Again, MOST fighters (109, Spitfire, Yak, LA, Zero) had just 1-2 20MM cannons were US aircraft had 6-8 HMG's. That makes the differance. So in reality the P-51 and P-47 had 3-4x the ROF combined then other fighters. Thats more chances to hit and a lot easier to hit small dodging aircraft.

Gibbage1
09-04-2005, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im saying that, so we would not expect any quantum leap in M2's effectiveness when (if) they get un-synced in all US fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you have YET to fly the P-40E Field Mod vs P-40E. Till you do, please dont come back. Read above from the meny meny many people who DID test it and came back with "OMG! WHAT A DIFFERANCE!".

Your talking from pure asumptions and thats just ignorant considering how easy it is to test.

HeinzBar
09-04-2005, 04:03 PM
S!,
I know this is a discussion about the .50, but has anyone tested the other MGs in the game? With the exception of the P40 FldMod's M2s, how do the RAF, LW, and VVS heavy MGs perform in regards to sync?

I apologize if this has been asked earlier. I didn't see it when I did a quick search.

HB

Loki-PF
09-04-2005, 04:15 PM
Salute HeinzBar!

Yes Gibs talked about other aircraft earlier in this thread... Specifically VVS and RAF types but also some of the Luftwaffe as well

Gibbage1
09-04-2005, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:

I apologize if this has been asked earlier. I didn't see it when I did a quick search.

HB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested a lot of the guns in IL2 and found all but a few to be synced. The few includes the .303's found on the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the .50 cal M2's on the P-40E Fieldmod. All other guns seem to be synced. I also found that even though all other guns are synced, they all still seem to have a tigher spacing between bullets then the M2's by about 50%. I did not try early war aircraft like the G-50 or P-11 but I think they all use the same gun code as the Hurrican's .303's or US .30 cal.

So basically almost all aircraft in IL2 have synced guns but a rare few. I think what happened is at one point all guns were not synced, and Oleg synced them to save bandwidth? But forgot to sync a few aircraft/guns.

Grey_Mouser67
09-04-2005, 05:23 PM
I did the test where I flew Field Mod P-40 and posted about it...I'd add though, that there was a pretty significant difference in the pitch of the P-40 vs Mustang, Lightning and Jug.

By that I mean it was a very stable gun platform so just syncing the gun but not addressing the pitch and control dampening will only alleviate part of the problem...

An additional comment on the Korea thing...US had a radar guided gunsight...very accurate. Airbattles often took place at 25-35,000 ft. and Jet fuel is basically like diesel fuel or Kerosine...not nearly as flammable as gasoline...combined with the simplicity and reliability of the jet engine, the HMG configuration was no longer as desirable as it once was...but be sure the N Korean configuration was worse! US pilots managed about 10:1 kill ratio being highly outnumbered and starting most conflicts at an altitude disadvantage and rules of engagement allowed the Mig's an escape route every mission...the Mig could outclimb the Sabre and had a much, much higher service ceiling...but the Sabre could out roll it, out dive it and and out turn it...so the rest is history so they say.

There is nothing on a single engined fighter that a .50 API can not penatrate and set on fire! Except certain pilot armor at certain angles....be sure

Loki-PF
09-04-2005, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
There is nothing on a single engined fighter that a .50 API can not penatrate and set on fire! Except certain pilot armor at certain angles....be sure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People often forget that the M2 started its service ~WWI timeframe *AND IS STILL IN MILITARY SERVICE TODAY* for good reason.

Next time your walking downtown, take a second and stop and look around you. Nothing your eyes fall on would keep you safe from an M2. Not a building, not a metal post, not even a couple of brick walls

http://home.mchsi.com/~mack_rc51/M2.jpg

Badsight.
09-04-2005, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
but the Sabre could out roll it, out dive it and and out turn it...so the rest is history so they say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> the out-turning part isnt true , especially at lower speeds , mostly the mig pilots didnt wear G-Suits which greatly hindered them in the high speed fight

but thats off topic , look here at this Saber pic , those classic Jets were not as bad as the 60's & 70's fighters under the skin , but they still had lots to hit - much moreso than some WW2 props

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/6564/Saber_wo_skin.jpg

btw the pic there is of F-86F carrying four Oerlikon 20mm cannon

now IIRC the Saber carried up into the air 1200 rounds , thats 200 rounds per gun

thats around 16 seconds of firing time the Saber pilot had compared to the 9 seconds of trigger time the Mig pilot had with his 23mm cannon

Hetzer_II
09-04-2005, 11:57 PM
Loki i dont believe that this hole is made bye a 12,7mm.. it looks like the 20mm wholes our apc´s are making ;-)

but on the other hand i can tell you that such a brickwall will not give you real shelter even when its a 7,62 bullet...

Monson74
09-05-2005, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:

I apologize if this has been asked earlier. I didn't see it when I did a quick search.

HB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested a lot of the guns in IL2 and found all but a few to be synced. The few includes the .303's found on the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the .50 cal M2's on the P-40E Fieldmod. All other guns seem to be synced. I also found that even though all other guns are synced, they all still seem to have a tigher spacing between bullets then the M2's by about 50%. I did not try early war aircraft like the G-50 or P-11 but I think they all use the same gun code as the Hurrican's .303's or US .30 cal.

So basically almost all aircraft in IL2 have synced guns but a rare few. I think what happened is at one point all guns were not synced, and Oleg synced them to save bandwidth? But forgot to sync a few aircraft/guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if the Field Mod doesn't cause lag when firing we should be fine. Btw - do any of you remember the old days when FB came out & we had these Hurri IIb vs 109E-4 furballs? I don't think there was a problem with all those 12x303s firing online. I really wish Oleg would take a look at this - it's not a problem when shooting from dead six but deflection shooting is very difficult with the .50 shotgun.

VW-IceFire
09-05-2005, 08:11 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 Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HeinzBar:

I apologize if this has been asked earlier. I didn't see it when I did a quick search.

HB </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested a lot of the guns in IL2 and found all but a few to be synced. The few includes the .303's found on the Hurricane and Spitfire, and the .50 cal M2's on the P-40E Fieldmod. All other guns seem to be synced. I also found that even though all other guns are synced, they all still seem to have a tigher spacing between bullets then the M2's by about 50%. I did not try early war aircraft like the G-50 or P-11 but I think they all use the same gun code as the Hurrican's .303's or US .30 cal.

So basically almost all aircraft in IL2 have synced guns but a rare few. I think what happened is at one point all guns were not synced, and Oleg synced them to save bandwidth? But forgot to sync a few aircraft/guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But if the Field Mod doesn't cause lag when firing we should be fine. Btw - do any of you remember the old days when FB came out & we had these Hurri IIb vs 109E-4 furballs? I don't think there was a problem with all those 12x303s firing online. I really wish Oleg would take a look at this - it's not a problem when shooting from dead six but deflection shooting is very difficult with the .50 shotgun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Old days? We still run scenarios like that...its great fun. Hurricane IIb's are pretty much an even match for the 109E (the Hurricane I is a bit too slow) and its anyones game.

Kocur_
09-05-2005, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would disagree. 20MM was more powerfull and almost as high RPM wise, but a lot heavier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M2 - 29kg, BH. Mk. II - 50kg, MG151/20 -, ShVAK-42kg.

6 x 29kg = 174kg
2 x 50kg = 100kg
2 x 42kg = 84kg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">6 HMG's have about the same hitting power as 2 cannon's, but is much more likley to HIT the target due to its much greater rate of fire (6x 750RPM vx 2X 700RPM). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Again, MOST fighters (109, Spitfire, Yak, LA, Zero) had just 1-2 20MM cannons were US aircraft had 6-8 HMG's. That makes the differance. So in reality the P-51 and P-47 had 3-4x the ROF combined then other fighters. Thats more chances to hit and a lot easier to hit small dodging aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those minimal differences in each gun ROF, I wrote about above, would make any effect only after some time of firing. Some amount of first shots in a burst would be almost synched, no matter how different was ROF of each gun. So for some time it would be 6 x ~45g vs 2 x 100-130g with explosive inside, and denser stream of .50 projectiles would form after some time of firing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In WWII, you only needed to hit since the fighters in general were rather weak. Only armor being for the pilots back! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you dont hit pilot, engine, fuel tank above fuel level or ammo, your hits, even single or few of them, should cause considerable damage to any other part of the plane. M2 projectiles dont provide that, due to lack explosive.


Check Tony Williams tables. According to him armament of Spitfire with 2 x 20mm + 4 7,69 is as powerful as 8 x M2 of P-47. Armament of Spit with E wing makes it even more visible: 2 x 20mm + 2 x M2 gives 520 points, while 8 x M2 give 480 pts. And thats 8 x 29 = 232kg vs 2 x 50 + 2 x 29 = 158kg! For weight of eight M2 one could have four 20mm cannons easy, and that would give 768 (MG151/210) to 800points (BH Mk.II). In fact four ShVAKS or MG151/20 would weight 168kg, and thats a bit less than 6 x M2. Such sets would give 572 points (4 x ShVAK) to 768 points (4 x MG151/20) vs 360 points by 6 x M2€s.

Again: 6 or 8 M2s were enough. It was good WW2 fighter armament, but surely worse than one including 20mm cannons. Problem is there was no 20mm cannon in US service when decisions on basic US WW2 fighters armament were being made, so they made best choice they could. Seems that later on it was too late because of inertia of industry/logistics plus technical problems and it was not worth or, again: necessary, to replace part of M2 with 20mm€s.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jets were much tougher then prop WWII fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? How come? Something as soft as a small bird can cause jet engine failure when passing through it. Am I to think that multiple 43g-47g projectiles cant? Jet fuel may be less flammable than gas, but its not Diesel fuel, API would ignite it easy.
As I said before: I think 6 €" 8 x M2 was enough inWW2. And yet they were disappointment in Korea. Its because in Korea there were much smaller windows of hitting opportunity because of higher speed of fighting planes, which caused higher angular speeds of the targets. It was simply more difficult to hit target as many times as it would statistically guarantee hitting something vital. If MiGs were so much tougher than WW2 fighters how could B-29 kill any of them? Note: conditions of defensive bomber firing were not much changed compared to WW2 conditions: it was shorter time of firing but it was still firing at target closing in at similar angular speeds as in WW2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Im saying that, so we would not expect any quantum leap in M2's effectiveness when (if) they get un-synced in all US fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again, you have YET to fly the P-40E Field Mod vs P-40E. Till you do, please dont come back. Read above from the meny meny many people who DID test it and came back with "OMG! WHAT A DIFFERANCE!".

Your talking from pure asumptions and thats just ignorant considering how easy it is to test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you assume I didnt do something that simple? I hope its not another case of "you disagree with me so you are ignorant and stupid" attitude I sometimes encounter around here. I wrote above being affraid, that some ppl may be disappointed not seeing six or eight M2 unsunched getting to be equal to four 20mm cannons, which could result in new thread €œit was supposed to be so good€. If you find P-40E field€s 6 x m2 effectiveness not only improvement as I do, but a €œquantum leap€ too, Im just happy for you.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">US had a radar guided gunsight </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was radar range finder for gyro gunsight, so pilot didnt have to input range manually, by sourrunding target with dots using, say, handle on the throttle.

Aaron_GT
09-05-2005, 10:14 AM
Gibbage wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> (only a few aircraft in WWII had 4 cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

4 20mm cannons formed the basis of RAF fighter armament from mid-1941 onwards apart from Spitfires (which only saw limited employment of a 4 20mm cannon armament).

The effectiveness of the primary 2 20mm cannon armament is borne out by the large number of aircraft employed by fighter aircraft intended to attack other fighters. e.g. Fw190D, numerous Soviet types, Spitfires (used offensively from 1941 when the LW day bomber threat vanished). It wouldn't have been hard to have theoretically fitted the Spitfire with 4 .50s instead of 2 20mm and 4 .303 or 2 20mm and 2 50 cal, but it was felt that the 2 20mm cannon should form the basis of it, with the initial hope that it would be 4 20mm cannon.

4 20mm cannon is more effective than 2 20mm cannon when used against fighters, but the concern is the offsetting of weight of 4 20mm cannon and ammunition against the need to manoeuver well. The same goes for any armament.

One thing to remember is that whilst ROF increases with the number of guns the chances of hitting (scoring some hits) does not increase linearly with the number of guns. There are diminishing returns. 4 guns gives you almost the same chance to hit at least once as 8 guns, but with a 50 cal you may have to hit 3 times as often to do the same level of damage. The total number of hits tends to scale with the total ROF (assuming firing at convergence). Given the increases in chances to hit and the average number of hits that can be scored 2 20mm cannon falls between 4 and 6 50s in terms of effectiveness. It outstrips it in terms of gun efficiency as the total weight of guns and ammunition is lower. When there is a chance of one or more guns jamming, though, it is better to have more guns, although better not to have guns that jam in the first place.

quiet_man
09-05-2005, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:

can you give any references were you have this from?

As far as I know the USAAF did an analysis after lot of pilot complains and the result was an rush to 20mm. The first F-86 with 20mm reached Korea just when the fighting stopped.

what saved the US pilots was the lack of gunnery training of Korean pilots.

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering the Korean pilots were mostly WWII Russian vets, you cant use that excuse. The 37MM and 23MM's used in the Mig's were low ROF and the dogfights were typically high turn and high deflection.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fk.html

If the Mig pilot scored a hit with his cannon's, it was almost guaranteed a kill. But the low ROF and bad ballistics made that difficult. If the Saber pilot scored a hit, the Mig would most likley disenguage and run home. The Saber pilot was a lot more likley to score a hit and send the target home licking its wounds. Not an air kill, but an air victory. In WWII and Korea, nobody stayed in the fight after they were hit. There life depended on it. There was no refly button in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read parts of the analysis the USAAF did at Korea to investigate pilot reports of .50cal being inadequate. The site you give shortens but still confirms the content

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the .50 projectile was inadequate against the sturdy and well-armoured MiG-15 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
USAAF analyses notes that the new jet fighter engines had significant less critical parts than WWII piston engines. As example a F-86 (or P-80, can't remeber) is noted that got multiple hits by light flak. Hull and engine were penetrated and 50% of the blades were shoot of. Still it produced enough trust for the plane to limb back to base and land.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it mixed guns that were a poor ballistics match </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
many US pilots reported that when they were shoot they saw two streams of shells, one above and one below their plane. The Mig-15 gunsight had two marks, one for the two 23 and one for the 37mm cannon. The USAAF analysis concludes that the Korean pilots because of lack of gunnery training aimed between the marks. A major reason for the low loses at US fighters.

The report lead to the rush for 20mm

about russian vets, read this:
http://home.att.net/~historyworld/VF-781.html
the russian migs still relied on their old swarm tactics. The american pilots won this fight because of better training, 20mm weapons and a bit of luck.

quiet_man

pourshot
09-06-2005, 12:45 AM
When you want to talk about up gunned sabre's this is the grand dady 2x30mm Aden cannons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/ca26170704bg_31.jpg

Gibbage1
09-06-2005, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would disagree. 20MM was more powerfull and almost as high RPM wise, but a lot heavier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M2 - 29kg, BH. Mk. II - 50kg, MG151/20 -, ShVAK-42kg.

6 x 29kg = 174kg
2 x 50kg = 100kg
2 x 42kg = 84kg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice. But US did not have the MG151/20 or ShVAK as an optional armorment. Your also forgetting the ammo and size of the gun. Hispano was a rather big and heavy gun. You could not fit 2 Hispano's in the same area as 3 M2's.

Also your ignoring the other 7.7MM or 12.7MM guns included with the typical mixed armorment of the day like the FW-190 D9, 109, Spitfire, Yak and so on.

2x Hispano @ 50KG each. 100KG.
2x M2 @ 29KG each. 58KG. Total weight in GUNS alone is 158KG. Not that far off from 174KG and a lot more firing time. Honestly I hate the Spitfire's loadout. The Hispano's run dry VERY quickly and all your left is just 2 .50's to tickle the enemy with. You dont want that to happen on a long escort. 6 .50's will do just fine, and have more trigger time and more chances to hit. Making it a better option in my openion then 2 20MM and 2 .50's.

Also with a mixed loadout you must also consider the logistics of having to supply two differant guns and not just 1 gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Those minimal differences in each gun ROF, I wrote about above, would make any effect only after some time of firing. Some amount of first shots in a burst would be almost synched, no matter how different was ROF of each gun. So for some time it would be 6 x ~45g vs 2 x 100-130g with explosive inside, and denser stream of .50 projectiles would form after some time of firing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets do some math.

6x45g = 270G x 800RPM = 216000G a min / 60 = 3600G of projectiles a second.

2x130G = 260G x 600RPM = 156000G a min / 60 = 2600G of projectiles a second. In pure grams, the 6x loadout has more power and a lot more chances to hit.

6x800RPM = 4800RPM / 60 = 80 rounds per second.

2x600RPM = 1200RPM / 60 = 20 rounds per sexond.

BIG differance. Also consider the M2 has much better ballistics (flatter arc) and retains more energy longer. That means you can kill at further range.

With all that, 6 .50's beat 2 Hispano's. Add 2 .50's to the 2 Hispano's and things look more even, BUT!!!! The 2 Hispano's and 2 .50's have differant ballistics. So your generally not going to hit with both sets of guns at the same time! Just one or the other unless your dead 6 at convergance. Thats not very often.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you dont hit pilot, engine, fuel tank above fuel level or ammo, your hits, even single or few of them, should cause considerable damage to any other part of the plane. M2 projectiles dont provide that, due to lack explosive.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your joking right? A .50 going through the engine will kill it. A .50 going through a pilot will kill it. All it takes is a single well placed .50 to kill an aircraft. Since your firing so many of them in a small area, your chances of that is very high. Watch some guncam footage. An API going through the fuel tank is fatel and tended to explode targets. You saying you NEED a 20MM to kill an engine or pilot is rather ignorant of the power of the gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Check Tony Williams tables. According to him armament of Spitfire with 2 x 20mm + 4 7,69 is as powerful as 8 x M2 of P-47. Armament of Spit with E wing makes it even more visible: 2 x 20mm + 2 x M2 gives 520 points, while 8 x M2 give 480 pts. And thats 8 x 29 = 232kg vs 2 x 50 + 2 x 29 = 158kg! For weight of eight M2 one could have four 20mm cannons easy, and that would give 768 (MG151/210) to 800points (BH Mk.II). In fact four ShVAKS or MG151/20 would weight 168kg, and thats a bit less than 6 x M2. Such sets would give 572 points (4 x ShVAK) to 768 points (4 x MG151/20) vs 360 points by 6 x M2€s.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Giving a guns power an arbitrary number is just stupid since there are more factors in a guns performance then MV, ROF and projectile weight. Again, 6x 50's will put up a lot more projectiles and increase your chance to hit. All you need to do is hit in order to win since NO PILOT will contenue fighting once hit. Yes, a cannon will do more damage when it hits, but we are talking FRAGILE ALUMINUM AIRCRAFT! Not flying tanks. These fragile aircraft are flown by fragile human pilots that also dont take well to hits of any kind. Even 7.62's took down aircraft in WWII.

Now, if you would like to compair arbitrary numbers that have no relevence, go here.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html

P-51. Output per second was 75 rounds, or a weight of 3.64kg per second. Muzzle power was 1374 kW.

Yak-3. Muzzle power was 473 kW for the ShVAK and 230 kW for the UBS, a total of 703 kW.

109E. The muzzle power of the MG-FF guns was 418 kW, and that of the MG 17 guns 114 kW; a total of 532 kW.

Spit XIVE. Total output was 3.81kg per second. Muzzle power was 1006 kW for the two cannon, and 458 kW for the two machineguns. Total 1464 kW.

P-47D. Output per second was 100 rounds, or a weight of 4.85kg per second. Muzzle power was 1835 kW.

As you see, the HMG armorment was at the top of the firepower list for the average fighter. 4 20MM's was not average so dont bother post those numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jets were much tougher then prop WWII fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Really? How come? Something as soft as a small bird can cause jet engine failure when passing through it. Am I to think that multiple 43g-47g projectiles cant? Jet fuel may be less flammable than gas, but its not Diesel fuel, API would ignite it easy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jets delt with much greater speed, temperatures and stress then WWII fighters and the aircraft was built much much stronger in general. Yes, one of todays engines can be killed by a bird, but in Korea they did not use many axial flow jets. They used centrafugal flow jets that was a single very very solid peace of metal. Not small blades. They used thicker aluminum, more steel, aircraft were more heavy, and the fuel harder to burn. ALL OF THOSE FACOTRS added to the increased durability of jets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As I said before: I think 6 €" 8 x M2 was enough inWW2. And yet they were disappointment in Korea. Its because in Korea there were much smaller windows of hitting opportunity because of higher speed of fighting planes, which caused higher angular speeds of the targets. It was simply more difficult to hit target as many times as it would statistically guarantee hitting something vital. If MiGs were so much tougher than WW2 fighters how could B-29 kill any of them? Note: conditions of defensive bomber firing were not much changed compared to WW2 conditions: it was shorter time of firing but it was still firing at target closing in at similar angular speeds as in WW2.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Apache chopper is designed to take 20MM hits and survive, yet a Iraqi farmer with a rifle shot one down. How? The magic bullet. Yes, B-29 gunners did kill jets. That proves nothing. Bomber busting was always risking because when your travling at the target at a high rate of speed, you increasing the power of the projectile being shot at you and many other factors. But the fact is the US stopped B-29 bombing because they were being shot down a lot by the Mig's. The Luftwaffe never stopped the Allied bombing. What changed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Why do you assume I didnt do something that simple?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple. If you did do the test, you would see the differance it makes in both the stability of the gun platform and the ammount of damage the guns do now that you can hit with them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I hope its not another case of "you disagree with me so you are ignorant and stupid"
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not say that. I said that I can tell you did not do the test. If that is so, saying there would be no differance is pure asumptions and thats ignorance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wrote above being affraid, that some ppl may be disappointed not seeing six or eight M2 unsunched getting to be equal to four 20mm cannons </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, thats ignorance. Nobody said that 6 .50's or even 8 equal for 20MM. All I EVER said even remotly close to that was 6 .50's was a better fighter platform then TWO 20MM's, not 4.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
, which could result in new thread €œit was supposed to be so good€. If you find P-40E field€s 6 x m2 effectiveness not only improvement as I do, but a €œquantum leap€ too, Im just happy for you.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont feel they are a quantum leap. Thats something you added. I do find they are a big improvement over the synced in every way. Doing this will help solv the constant problem of people complaining that the .50's have no hitting power. They do! People are just missing a great deal of time since the enemy is slipping between shots and also the gunsight wandering off target due to recoil.

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nice. But US did not have the MG151/20 or ShVAK as an optional armorment. Your also forgetting the ammo and size of the gun. Hispano was a rather big and heavy gun. You could not fit 2 Hispano's in the same area as 3 M2's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit undermined by the existence of:

1. Hurricanes for the Netherlands, supplied with 4 .50s. In RAF service the Hurricane was upgunned to 4 20mm cannon.

2. Mustang IA - 4 20mm cannon

3. Bearcat - 4 .50s changed to 4 20mm cannon

4. F4U1C - 6 M2s in previous F4Us changed to 4 20mm cannon

5. F86F - 6 M3s changed to 4 20mm cannon.

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BIG differance. Also consider the M2 has much better ballistics (flatter arc) and retains more energy longer. That means you can kill at further range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not really - you have a chance of hitting the target at longer range. At long range the kinetic energy will be much reduced and the effects of each hit will be much reduced.

The thing is, if the 50 cal was obviously superior it begs the question why the majority of airforces (including the US ones) moved away from it.

Gibbage1
09-06-2005, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nice. But US did not have the MG151/20 or ShVAK as an optional armorment. Your also forgetting the ammo and size of the gun. Hispano was a rather big and heavy gun. You could not fit 2 Hispano's in the same area as 3 M2's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit undermined by the existence of:

1. Hurricanes for the Netherlands, supplied with 4 .50s. In RAF service the Hurricane was upgunned to 4 20mm cannon.

2. Mustang IA - 4 20mm cannon

3. Bearcat - 4 .50s changed to 4 20mm cannon

4. F4U1C - 6 M2s in previous F4Us changed to 4 20mm cannon

5. F86F - 6 M3s changed to 4 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. They were able to fit in those situations, but the Hispano still took up a LOT more room. A lot of the time the berral was patruding put quite a bit (except the later Hispano) were the .50 cal was compleatly enclosed. Also a lot of the time the Hispano's would require big blisters on the wings to acomidate for the bigger gun.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/LockheedP-38_11.jpg

P-38 is agood example of this. 4 .50 cal's and 1 Hispano 20MM. The .50 cal's are very small compaired to the Hispano. About half the size. The Hispano runs down the nose almost into the cockpit!

Also think of capacity. All the Hispano armed US aircraft was limited to about 120RPG. Some early spits limited to 60RPG. Thats not a lot of trigger time. US aircraft ranged around 200-250RPG.

Gibbage1
09-06-2005, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

The thing is, if the 50 cal was obviously superior it begs the question why the majority of airforces (including the US ones) moved away from it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did they move away from it? Korea. In fact, late in WWII the US was moving from 6 .50 cal into 4 .50 cal. Why is that if they were not effective?

F4F-3 started out pre-war with 4 .50 cal. F4F-4 introduced 6 .50 cal later on. After that the FM-2 braught back the 4 .50 cal loadout. Why? US pilots asked for it.

P-51H. The ultimate P-51 fighter. It had 4 .50 cals. A-36 had 4 20MM, but the later P-51's went to 4 and 6 .50 cal loadouts. Why?

F8F Bearcat. The ultimate piston engine aircraft. 4 .50 cal loadout standard.

Only 200 F4U-1C's were made. Why?

Very few 4 canon fighters were made in WWII. FW-190's often even had the outer 20MM's removed. Even 4 Hispano Spitfires often had 2 Hispano's removed. Why? It was overkill and overweight when shooting at fighters.

Yak's and 109's had ONE 20MM and still managed to rack up the kills.

My point is aircraft in WWII were generally weak. A short birst from both the 20MM and .50 cal would take them down easy. Im saying that 6 .50's was better then 2 20MM's due to its ability to hit, not its power of hitting even though the two LOADOUTS (Not guns) are equal for the most part.

Also a mixed loadout was generally not good because of the differant ballistics. Why did the Spitfire have .303's and .50 cal's? In case the 20MM's ran out. Only having 60-120 rounds then that was an issue. Having 200-250 rounds of .50 cal it was NOT an issue. Both loadout was more then capable of knocking any fighter down in WWII.

Gib

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When did they move away from it? Korea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During WW2 - the USN certainly did, and the USAAF also used 20mm cannon during this period in a number of aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In fact, late in WWII the US was moving from 6 .50 cal into 4 .50 cal. Why is that if they were not effective? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's due to an issue of weight and relative aircraft performance, not gun performance. If you look at the P51B and P51D it seems the move was in the opposite direction. Also your case is somewhat undermined by some F6Fs being offered in a 2 20mm, 4 50 configuration.

The A-36 did not have 4 20mm (that was the Mustang IA, which is not the same as the A-36). The A-36 had 6 50 cals, although very often the two chin guns were removed to make it 4 50s.

The Bearcat's WW2 service was brief, but it was uprated to 4 20mm cannon in the -1B and -2 versions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even 4 Hispano Spitfires often had 2 Hispano's removed. Why? It was overkill and overweight when shooting at fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire Vc needed an extra boost in terms of performance to be competitive in the desert and 20mm ammunition was in short supply, so the reasons you suggest aren't entirely true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Very few 4 canon fighters were made in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of single engined types we have

Hurricane IIC - approx 4,700
Typhoon - approx 3500
Tempest - approx 900 during WW2
F8F-1B - approx 100
F4U1C - approx 200
Fw190A - approx 10,000

Total - approx 18,500

The Fw190A figures are based on half having a 4 20mm fit. Some had less,
some more, some 30mm cannon.

Many twin engined types carried a 4 20mm fit (or basic 4 20mm fit)
including the Mosquito, P61, Beaufighter.

JG53Frankyboy
09-06-2005, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
.......... All the Hispano armed US aircraft was limited to about 120RPG. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not very precise today ?!
ore is the F4U-1c no US aircraft ?

first "it was impossible to mount 2 Hispanos in the space of 6 .50cal Brwonings" and now that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HellToupee
09-06-2005, 05:06 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitv.html

look for part about 4 20mms, says no noticeable differences between it and other types.

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Im saying that 6 .50's was better then 2 20MM's due to its ability to hit, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is some greater chance of hitting with 6 .50s over 2 20mm. 2 20mm cannon is on the lower end of what is required to have a good chance of hitting. Anything above 4 guns firing in the 600-800rpm range does little to increase your chances of A hit, but simply increases the number of hits you will make.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Also a mixed loadout was generally not good because of the differant ballistics. Why did the Spitfire have .303's and .50 cal's? In case the 20MM's ran out. Only having 60-120 rounds then that was an issue. Having 200-250 rounds of .50 cal it was NOT an issue. Both loadout was more then capable of knocking any fighter down in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a series of factors here. Initially the Hispano II was limited to 60 round drums which meant that only 2 20mm cannon could feasibly be fitted in a Spitfire. Jamming was rarer than 1940 trials but still an issue, and so additional armament was required, hence the selection of an additional 4 .303s. .50s were actually preferred, but the UK had plenty of .303s and ammunition from 8 gun planes and it was expedient to reuse them. With the Vc it was hoped to swap to 4 20mm cannon but in the theatres the Spitfire V was operating (e.g. North Africa, requiring the trop version with lower performance, or on the channel run against the fast Fw190) additional performance was required. For some reason the 4 20mm cannon armament for the Spitfire didn't gain popularity again until after WW2.

Oops - and add the Meteor to the 4 20mm cannon twin engined list, although it was originally intended to be used as a fighter versus other fighters and be armed with 6 20mm cannon. Some versions of Spiteful were also slated to use 6 20mm cannon against fighters.

JG53Frankyboy
09-06-2005, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In terms of single engined types we have

Hurricane IIC - approx 4,700
Typhoon - approx 3500
Tempest - approx 900 during WW2
F8F-1B - approx 100
F4U1C - approx 200
Fw190A - approx 10,000

Total - approx 18,500

The Fw190A figures are based on half having a 4 20mm fit. Some had less,
some more, some 30mm cannon.

Many twin engined types carried a 4 20mm fit (or basic 4 20mm fit)
including the Mosquito, P61, Beaufighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

pls let me ad
J2M3
Ki-44-IIc
Ki-84-Ib
N1K1-J
N1K2-J

not many, but every one counts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">look for part about 4 20mms, says no noticeable differences between it and other types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point I was making about the reduction to 2 20mm cannon in the Spitfire Vc (trops) is that a reduction to 2 cannon did help, and given the speed loss of the trop mods over the standard V this was enough to warrant leaving 2 cannon at home. But 4 cannon didn't make it slower than any other armament fit apart from a reduced one.

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">not many, but every one counts </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks - Japanese planes are a bit of a mystery to me!

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only having 60-120 rounds then that was an issue. Having 200-250 rounds of .50 cal it was NOT an issue. Both loadout was more then capable of knocking any fighter down in WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you have to fire twice as many rounds per gun to score a kill then 120 rounds of 20mm cannon (standard fit for a Spit IX, more in a Tempest V) is equivalent in terms of number of enemies downed to 250 rounds of 50 cal. Having more seconds of firing allows you to bracket the target more, or perhaps take more speculative shots, but having more destructive power per second (as opposed to total, over time) allows you more chances of damaging or destroying a plane in a shapshot. The point of having 4 20mm cannon on a fighter to be used against other fighters is to increase the chances to hit over 2 20mm cannon (there's a step up from 2 to 4 guns that is not really seen moving from 4 to 6 or 8) and to increase the destructive power per second such that snapshots can be sufficient to destroy the enemy fighter. If you look at combat reports from P51 pilots it seems that with 4 or 6 50s often they were having to put 2 second bursts in to down an enemy. This means that sufficient skill in terms of dogfighting AND gunnery is required to hold on target for that long. With 4 20mm cannon you can mainly concentrate on the gunnery aspect as you may not need to follow the target for more than 1/2 a second.

JG53Frankyboy
09-06-2005, 05:31 AM
thats a good point.

airwarfare, in special fighter vs fighter , becames faster and faster. the chance to hit a enemy plane becomes shorter and shorter. so, it was important to bring as much destruction as possible in a ahort time to the target.
it was the same reason why the RAF brought 8 .303 MGs to thier fighters eraly in the war - all is relative http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

it was sure also the reason for the 8 .50cal of the P-47.

just in pacific airwar the japanese planes were so vulnerable, even the late ones ( fpr example the N1K2-J had no pilot reararmour !), that 4 .50cal were enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dtools4fools
09-06-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My point is aircraft in WWII were generally weak. A short birst from both the 20MM and .50 cal would take them down easy. Im saying that 6 .50's was better then 2 20MM's due to its ability to hit, not its power of hitting even though the two LOADOUTS (Not guns) are equal for the most part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Difference:
0.50cal: you are more likely to score a hit due to higher ROF and more guns. However do not forget that you need MORE hits as each hit is less devestating than 20mm.

20mm: Lower ROF, less bullets in the air. Less likely to score a hit. However you need much less hits to down plane as each hit is much more devestating than 0.50cal.

Limits of 0.50cal: good for fragile planes; not good against heavy bombers or other stronger planes (Korea jets).

Limits of 20mm: ???

How is the total weight of guns and ammo btw. How much is the weight of 6x0.50cal plus ammo compared to as 2 (or 4) 20mm. Ideally MG151 as this is maybe the best overall perfomer. Best 20mm agaisnt best 0.50...

Wonder if the US would have stayed with 0.50cal if the would have had a good 20mm available?

*****

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 10:42 AM
The USAAF had looked at using cannon for bomber interceptors prior to WW2, and the 4 20mm cannon armament for the RAF actually comes from a pre war specification (1937 from memory) although that also allowed 12 .303s as an alternative. (This spec was the basis for the Tornado / Typhoon / Tempest / Fury line).

The P38 was originally designed around a 23mm cannon, and the P39 around a 37mm cannon, both as interceptors. The 37mm cannon isn't the ideal anti-fighter weapon as the ROF is very slow.

The British chose 4 20mm cannon for use in anti bomber interceptors too, but it also proved to be very good against fighters due to its ability to be able to put out a lot of destruction (about three times that of a P51B in the same time span) allowing very effective snapshots. Given that the Battle of Britain happened before the 4 cannon planes were in service it didn't see that much anti bomber use.

For the US's part they'd already started uprating from rifle calibres in the early 1930s, in mixed .30 and .50 pairs, typically, and they had a decent domestic 50 calibre gun, whereas the RAF didn't. By the later 1930s some US aircraft had more than one .50. The Battle of Britain made it clear that some of those planes were still too lightly armed for service in Europe so the way forward with the least resistance was to continue to support cannon armament in those planes which already had them (P38, P39) and expand the number of guns (.30 and .50) in those planes which had those. This meant lesser redesign time and use of existing manufacturing. The USA was ramping up the military very quickly and so best use of existing tooling to support a rapid expansion made most sense. So the USA ending up with braces of 50 cals made logistical sense. Once the die was cast in terms of using mostly the 50 cal then it meant that unless the gun was totally failing it made no sense to upset supply lines by introducing new ammunition types even if the efficiency per gun was not the best. I.e. the military efficiency of the overall solution was the important thing, not the efficiency per gun.

Kocur_
09-06-2005, 12:10 PM
Gibbage1!
Lets begin with where we agree: we both say 6-8 M2 was good WW2 armament. I would add to that sentence, that with 20mm cannon it would be better, you, IIUC would not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nice. But US did not have the MG151/20 or ShVAK as an optional armorment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I belive I mentioned lack of 20mm ready to use in US service in early 1940's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your also forgetting the ammo and size of the gun. Hispano was a rather big and heavy gun. You could not fit 2 Hispano's in the same area as 3 M2's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

P-51-NA (NA-91),i.e. RAF's Mustang IA was armed with four Hispanos. And it was in that original, thinner than P-51D, wing. Not even any bulges!
http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/5955/colorphotop51a037qt.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/2425/p51mustangia2ri.gif (http://imageshack.us)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2x Hispano @ 50KG each. 100KG.
2x M2 @ 29KG each. 58KG. Total weight in GUNS alone is 158KG. Not that far off from 174KG and a lot more firing time. Honestly I hate the Spitfire's loadout. The Hispano's run dry VERY quickly and all your left is just 2 .50's to tickle the enemy with. You dont want that to happen on a long escort. 6 .50's will do just fine, and have more trigger time and more chances to hit. Making it a better option in my openion then 2 20MM and 2 .50's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. US fighters with multiple M2's had firing times from ~20s (all guns in P-51 B/C/D, P-40) to ~30s (P-47, USN fighters). Hispano with 120rds firing time would be 12s, with 200rds - 20s. Still I personally would choose 20mm cannon for its shorter time required to inflict serious damage on target, as been mentioned above. And still tony Williams rates P-51D armament at 360 pts, and Spit E at 520 pts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also with a mixed loadout you must also consider the logistics of having to supply two differant guns and not just 1 gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True again. It was one of major factors for choosing multiple M2's I guess (though having no alternative was more important...). OTOH USAAF had P-38 and P-61, USN had Helldivers and some F-6F-5 with Hispanos, not to mention that all earlier types were armed with mix of .30 and .50 guns. Was it really a serious problem? All AF's of WW2 dealt with it succesfully. Not to mention land forces possible ammo confusion, which didnt really affect them. US Army had 11,43mmx x 23, 7,62mm x 63, 7,62mm x 33 and 12,7mm x 99 for its small weapons. First three types of ammo were often in one squad (M1911A1 or smg, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine). Did it lower US Army effectiveness in the field?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets do some math.

6x45g = 270G x 800RPM = 216000G a min / 60 = 3600G of projectiles a second.

2x130G = 260G x 600RPM = 156000G a min / 60 = 2600G of projectiles a second. In pure grams, the 6x loadout has more power and a lot more chances to hit.

6x800RPM = 4800RPM / 60 = 80 rounds per second.

2x600RPM = 1200RPM / 60 = 20 rounds per sexond.

BIG differance. Also consider the M2 has much better ballistics (flatter arc) and retains more energy longer. That means you can kill at further range.

With all that, 6 .50's beat 2 Hispano's. Add 2 .50's to the 2 Hispano's and things look more even, BUT!!!! The 2 Hispano's and 2 .50's have differant ballistics. So your generally not going to hit with both sets of guns at the same time! Just one or the other unless your dead 6 at convergance. Thats not very often.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you limited discussion to Hispano, I will stick to ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif M2 did not have better ballistics than Hispano. MV of both was around 860-870m/s. So argument of flater ballistic curve is not valid, neither for accuracy of each of the two discussed weapons nor for supposed problems with different trajectories if those were mixed. Also "energy retention" would be better for 20mm x 110 because its simply heavier. More generally speaking: having guns of different ballistics, which btw depends most on MV and ballistic coefficient (the better the larger caliber generally), would be a problem at larger distances. But at 100-300m that doesnt matter much. Height of ballistic curve at that distances is lower than height of the target for most of aerial guns of different calibers. To make real problems with different ballistics for WW2 fighters gunnery it takes mixing guns like MG at ~750-850m/s with cannons of MV ~500-600m/s (MG131 vs MK108 or Japanese Type 97 vs Type 99-1 in Zero). Also lets not mix accuracy data from bench tests with real use: pilots error of sighting will always be greater than inaccuracy of a gun itself. We are not talking here about smooth bore XVIII century muskets ("Average shooter misses twice of three shots aiming at two-floor building at 200 meters" - from French Mle 1777/ANIX infantry musket official manual http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Giving a guns power an arbitrary number is just stupid since there are more factors in a guns performance then MV, ROF and projectile weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh 100% agreed!
So why:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lets do some math.

6x45g = 270G x 800RPM = 216000G a min / 60 = 3600G of projectiles a second.

2x130G = 260G x 600RPM = 156000G a min / 60 = 2600G of projectiles a second. In pure grams, the 6x loadout has more power and a lot more chances to hit.

6x800RPM = 4800RPM / 60 = 80 rounds per second.

2x600RPM = 1200RPM / 60 = 20 rounds per sexond. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
and
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P-51. Output per second was 75 rounds, or a weight of 3.64kg per second. Muzzle power was 1374 kW.

Yak-3. Muzzle power was 473 kW for the ShVAK and 230 kW for the UBS, a total of 703 kW.

109E. The muzzle power of the MG-FF guns was 418 kW, and that of the MG 17 guns 114 kW; a total of 532 kW.

Spit XIVE. Total output was 3.81kg per second. Muzzle power was 1006 kW for the two cannon, and 458 kW for the two machineguns. Total 1464 kW.

P-47D. Output per second was 100 rounds, or a weight of 4.85kg per second. Muzzle power was 1835 kW.

As you see, the HMG armorment was at the top of the firepower list for the average fighter. 4 20MM's was not average so dont bother post those numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In both examples only ROF, MV and weight were taken under consideration. In both of them an important factor, other than ROF, weight of projectile or MV is neglected, that is presence of explosive in 20mm shells!! You can not neglect that! Every hit of any 20mm HE projectile would cause damage far exeeding damage done by four .50 projectiles (to use your own calculation of 80 vs 20) or by any reasonable number of those, by sole blast. To that you have to add damage done by fragments. To my own surprise I learned recently that even those very light fragments produced by Minengeschoss thin walls had energy enough to damage B-24 fuselage longerons. Damage by classical 20mm HE fragments would be far more serious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
quote:

If you dont hit pilot, engine, fuel tank above fuel level or ammo, your hits, even single or few of them, should cause considerable damage to any other part of the plane. M2 projectiles dont provide that, due to lack explosive.



Your joking right? A .50 going through the engine will kill it. A .50 going through a pilot will kill it. All it takes is a single well placed .50 to kill an aircraft. Since your firing so many of them in a small area, your chances of that is very high. Watch some guncam footage. An API going through the fuel tank is fatel and tended to explode targets. You saying you NEED a 20MM to kill an engine or pilot is rather ignorant of the power of the gun.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Misunderstanding: I do say that single .50 would damage those vital, fragile parts. BUT single .50 (or 4 of them) would not cause as much damage to OTHER parts of a plane as a single 20mm HE would.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jets delt with much greater speed, temperatures and stress then WWII fighters and the aircraft was built much much stronger in general. Yes, one of todays engines can be killed by a bird, but in Korea they did not use many axial flow jets. They used centrafugal flow jets that was a single very very solid peace of metal. Not small blades. They used thicker aluminum, more steel, aircraft were more heavy, and the fuel harder to burn. ALL OF THOSE FACOTRS added to the increased durability of jets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed on MiG-15's RD-45F engine (or MiG-15bis' VK-1), a licence (SIC!) copy of RR Nene. I wouldnt call axial flow jet engines rare in Korea: Sabre was powered by onehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also I cant fully agree with "much greater speed, temperatures and stress". Speed were indeed higher, but temperature barrier shows closer to Ma=2 than 1. Also damage inflicted to a plane operating at such adverse conditions should be more serious respectively.
MiG-15 empty weight is 3382kg (t/o 4806kg). Not that far from Fw-190 or most of US WW2 fighters. But I can agree that first swept wings jets were tougher than WW2 fighters, yet still I think, that shorter window of hitting oportunity was reason for general diasppointment with .50 in Korea.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Apache chopper is designed to take 20MM hits and survive, yet a Iraqi farmer with a rifle shot one down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont belive in everything from Saddam propaganda. That AH-64 landed on a field and later destroyed by USAF bombs had emergency landing after avionics failure. And in fact AH-64 is protected against 12,7mm not 20mm really. Even 7,62mm x 39 damaged AH-64 supposingly "armour" glass of cocpit on number of occasions in 1991.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the fact is the US stopped B-29 bombing because they were being shot down a lot by the Mig's. The Luftwaffe never stopped the Allied bombing. What changed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Apart from heavy MiG cannons - level of determination was changed. So after losses that would not affect WW2 bombing policy, B-29 tactics were changed to night bombing. From june 1950 until february 1951 B-29 met no resistance in air and operated freely. In fact there was moment when they ran out of targets other than tactical. Losses of B-29 by MiG's werent as bad as in popular belief, example: 12 april 1951 - 48 B-29 vs ~70 MiG-15. 3 B-29 killed, 7 seriously damaged. 9 MiGs killed, 6 probables, 6 damaged - quite typical outcome of B-29 vs MiG-15 "meetings".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, thats ignorance. Nobody said that 6 .50's or even 8 equal for 20MM. All I EVER said even remotly close to that was 6 .50's was a better fighter platform then TWO 20MM's, not 4.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, nobody said anything like that here. But Ive seen previously ideas of that kind posted, "supported" by single examples of catastrophic kills, like one on that guncam posted recently with Fw-190A explodiong under P-47 fire. And I agree: such idea would be a case of ignorance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When did they move away from it? Korea. In fact, late in WWII the US was moving from 6 .50 cal into 4 .50 cal. Why is that if they were not effective?

F4F-3 started out pre-war with 4 .50 cal. F4F-4 introduced 6 .50 cal later on. After that the FM-2 braught back the 4 .50 cal loadout. Why? US pilots asked for it.

P-51H. The ultimate P-51 fighter. It had 4 .50 cals. A-36 had 4 20MM, but the later P-51's went to 4 and 6 .50 cal loadouts. Why?

F8F Bearcat. The ultimate piston engine aircraft. 4 .50 cal loadout standard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no "moving from 6 .50 cal into 4 .50 cal.". So called "light Mustangs", i.e. prototypes built according to British norms of structural strenght rather than US ones, were armed with 4 M2's. But when it came to practical use, the serial built "light Mustang", i.e. P-51H was armed with six of them, not four!
Original Bearcat (G-58) design met 1943 USN requirements for minimal fighter armament (FM-2). It was time when everybody were still impressed with F4F3 effectiveness, but that was effectiveness agaist very fragile early WW2 Japanese planes. When it came to meeting heavier built and protected Japanese late war planes, USN decided to introduce two Hispanos on part of F6F5. My guess is USN would prefer four Hispanos even for F8F1 but OTOH they were on hurry to introduce Bearcat ASAP and any change in design would cause delay. They were bit late anyway...Btw. as much as everyone was enthusiastic about Bearcat performance, its armament was considered inadequate (1944 Joint Fighter Conference). Lets also not forget .50 AN/M3 with ROF of 1100rpm. Four of those were almost as good as six M2's (5,5 to 6). And still USA(A)F early post WW2 standard was six .50's (F-84, F-86).

US and 20mm Hispano, a sad story...:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm
Seems that 26 november 1926 was a VERY BAD day for US guns designing history... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

p1ngu666
09-06-2005, 02:23 PM
jet combat was often at very high alts, and lack of oxygen ment stuff wouldnt burn..

Gibbage1
09-06-2005, 03:26 PM
You guys simply dont understand what I am trying to say. You dont need to kill the enemy fighter to accomplish your mission. Just drive him away! Your thinking in turms of online and that does not represent any way what a WWII fighter would do. I have taken Mk-108 hits and still stayed to fly and die. In WWII if you take hits you turn tail and run! The P-51 and P-47's job was to drive away the enemy from the bomber formations. The enemy flew small light aircraft. All they had to do was hit! You had a better chance of doing that with multiple .50's and you also had a lot more trigger time for long escort missions when you would face many apponents.

I still stick to my original statement that 6 .50 cal's IN REAL LIFE AND IN WWII is better then just 2 20MM's for many reasons other then shell for shell comparison.

Gib

P.S. Lets get back on subject here. Oleg. Can we un-sync the guns?

Kocur_
09-06-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You dont need to kill the enemy fighter to accomplish your mission. Just drive him away! (...)In WWII if you take hits you turn tail and run! The P-51 and P-47's job was to drive away the enemy from the bomber formations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed! For long range escort mission, with high probability of many engagements, and driving away enemy fighters from bombers as No1 priority, long firing time of multiple M2s must've been highly appreciated and very useful.



...they definately should get un-synched!

horseback
09-06-2005, 03:50 PM
A few points:

The P-51/Mustang Mk Ia was armed to RAF requirements, I believe. I also believe that the British provided the cannon. The Mustang reverted to MGs in the A-36 and P-51A models intended exclusively for the USAAF.

The F4U-1C was not a popular mount. The cannon were unreliable at high alts and in high G maneuvering combat (ineveitable against Japanese a/c). Only 200 were built, against how many thousands of F4U-1Ds?

The Mk IIc Hurricane was at the end of its useful development as a fighter. The IIb was lighter and more maneuverable, but still only marginal as a figher by early 1941. The cannon extended its usefulness against solitary bombers, as an intruder, or for ground attack.

The RAF didn't switch to .50s for a number of reasons, possibly even including that it never occured to them. In any case, they lacked the capability to make a switch from manufacturing .303 Brownings to .50 Brownings in the middle of a fight for survival. US capacity for making the M2 was inadequate for the US militaries' demands until 1944, at which time the excess was freed up enough to allow the British to change the 'e' wing armament, getting rid of four .303s to allow two .50 MGs.

In-game, kinetic energy damage for light or heavy MGs seems poorly modelled to me, at least for the player (as opposed by the one shot - one kill of the ai gunner). A cannons' HE rounds are great for blowing off aluminum paneling or tearing big holes in fuel or cooling tanks, but their blast usually didn't have the same effect on heavy structural members like wingspars that the solid AP rounds had.

Finally, there's the arguement that you can do more damage with cannon in a shorter amount of time. My response is that you darned well better do that damage, because you have a lot less time to do it in. Heavier rounds do not make you a better shot, and shorter firing times do not lend themselves to correcting your aim. Most of the time, you can't tell if you're leading your target too much or too little, too high or too low if you're not hitting it. Machine guns give you more shots to adjust with, and more chance to defend yourself on the way home.

If a Spitfire ran out of ammo, he nipped back across the Channel. If a Soviet pilot ran out of ammo, he could make it back to his lines relatively quickly. If a German ran out of ammo, he could literally dive for home. The US pilot, on the other hand, often had a two hour trip over enemy territory before he was safe. That extra few seconds of firing time had a psychological value too.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You guys simply dont understand what I am trying to say. You dont need to kill the enemy fighter to accomplish your mission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we understand totally! However if you have, say, 1/2 second on target with a number of M2 50s there may not be enough time to dish out sufficient damage enough times to make this a certainty. Certainly with 2 20mm cannon this is probably also the case. This is why, all other things being equal, 4 20mm cannon was a preferred fighter armament for many nations as WW2 progressed as it meant that a very short time on target might mean a kill in terms of getting the plane out of the fight, even if only through damage rather than destruction. Some planes (e.g. Fw190D) that were anticipated to be engaged against fighters had less than 4 20mm cannon, though, as it was required to save the weight to get performance high enough to engage the enemy at all. When performance was sufficient, 4 20mm cannon was generally preferred, though.

2 20mm lies between 4 and 6 50s in terms of effectiveness, but is lighter than either in terms of total installation, so would seem to be at least preferable to 4 50s. It's debatable if 2 20mm are preferable to 6 50s. An Fw190D9's 2 20mm and 2 13mm (even though the MG131 is relatively weak) probably trump 6 50s, partly due to the concentration on the centreline.

I must take issue with what you said about the ballistics of the 20mm Hispano, though, Kocur. The ballistics of the 50 are better. All other things being equal you'd expect the Hispano to be better, but the Hispano round is relatively short and so has a higher frontal area to mass than the 50 and its trajectory will fall first. However given a good guns solution at a sensible firing range (200m) the difference is small so mixed 20mm/50 cal armaments (such as in the P38, some F6F, Spit IXe, P61, Beaufighter Mk. 21 etc) is fine.

One thing I did never understand is why the RAF continued to put 4 .303s in the Mosquito FB.VI. Mind you, I am also unclear as to why, in a nightfighter, the USAAF didn't ask to try out one of the 2 or 4 20mm cannon Boulton Paul turrets in the P61. Imagine a P61 packing 8 20mm cannon, 4 in the ultimate, traversable Shrage Musik set up.

Aaron_GT
09-06-2005, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The cannon were unreliable at high alts and in high G maneuvering combat </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This affected 50 cals too - hence heaters in bombers, and the problems in the P51B, so it certainly wasn't unique to cannon armed planes. Perhaps the cannon got a bad rap undeservedly when they seemed to do well in several other US planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RAF didn't switch to .50s for a number of reasons, possibly even including that it never occured to them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly did occur to them as the first trials of 50s in RAF planes occured in the 1920s. The Vickers 50 was tried as well as the M1921 50 cal. The Vickers was rejected, although the round was subsequently used by the Italians and Japanese.

What you say about the manufacturing is basically the same point I was making - the RAF was keen on the weapon as a replacement for .303s but was unable to put into place manufacture or obtain them. As the war progressed they started appearing on more RAF planes. A few appeared relatively early on in flexible mounts, e.g. Lancaster belly turrets. Sometimes a 20mm was substituted here, although more often in jury rigged setups.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My response is that you darned well better do that damage, because you have a lot less time to do it in. Heavier rounds do not make you a better shot, and shorter firing times do not lend themselves to correcting your aim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are over egging the pudding a bit here. The most difficult part of air combat was getting into a position where a shot was possible. Very often pilots came back with only the test burst having been fired, and no rounds fired at the enemy at all. A long firing time is great, but not at the expense of short-term destructive power. Of course a balance has to be struck but most airforces felt that it was more important to be able to quickly damage or destroy a plane in the brief opportunities that presented themselves than provide longer firing times.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If a Spitfire ran out of ammo, he nipped back across the Channel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. If you were on a Rhubarb with your squadron you certainly couldn't do that, and the trip back might still be quite some time over enemy territory at cruise speed, even more so if slipper tanks were being used.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That extra few seconds of firing time had a psychological value too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is a VERY important factor. Much as I think the 4 20mm cannon armament is the king of WW2 fighter armaments if they'd made a version of a Spitfire with 4 of the drum fed Hispanos and told me to fly to Berlin and back with only 6 seconds of firing time I'd run a mile (or more!). An extreme example as the firing time in the Vc was double that, of course, but I take your point.

Kocur_
09-06-2005, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I must take issue with what you said about the ballistics of the 20mm Hispano, though, Kocur. The ballistics of the 50 are better. All other things being equal you'd expect the Hispano to be better, but the Hispano round is relatively short and so has a higher frontal area to mass than the 50 and its trajectory will fall first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH ballistic coefficient by Siacci method would be lower for Hispano due to larger caliber, not much though.

On weight and energy loading per frontal area:

BH Mk.II:
0,130kg
Ekm=~50kJ
crossection area = 314mm^2
So:
130 / 314 = 0,41g/mm^2
50.000/314=159J/mm^2

M2
0,045kg
Ekm=~17kJ
crossection area = 126mm^2
So:
45 / 126 = 35g/mm^2
17.000/126=134J/mm^2

So both weight and muzzle energy loading of 20mm x 110 look better to me than those of 12,7mm x 99.

But agreed that shorter 20mm projectile would lose more speed per distance than long .50. I dont think I ever saw ballistic curves of both compared.

Still we agree that at typical distances of aerial WW2 firing differencies in ballistics of those two weapons are too small to cause any problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing I did never understand is why the RAF continued to put 4 .303s in the Mosquito FB.VI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No idea here eitherhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Especially that in later NF Mosqiutos they dropped those .303s and nobody missed them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Imagine a P61 packing 8 20mm cannon, 4 in the ultimate, traversable Shrage Musik set up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A monster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Common for both above night fighters is that set of 4 Hispanos was very much enough (some part of P-61 series had no turret). I read a P-61 pilot relation on a sortie when he downed two Tonys: twice he used phrases "short burst" and "ball of fire"...

Buzzsaw-
09-06-2005, 08:23 PM
Salute

Someone made a comment that .50 calibre armament was only useful against fragile aircraft.

This is far from being the case.

The combat reports of pilots flying .50 calibre armed Fighters versus enemy bombers or large transport aircraft shows that these type of aircraft were easily brought down with the .50 calibre round.

Certainly it is true that against bombers such as the B-17 or B-29, a .50 calibre would have some difficultly, but against the range of aircraft being flown by the Axis .50 calibre aircraft were very successful.

There are many accounts by both USAAF pilots or RAF pilots describing how quickly larger enemy aircraft were destroyed by a few bursts or even a single burst.

Here is one example, this being a RAF Kittyhawk pilot flying in the Desert. This aircraft, (a P-40F) was armed with six .50 calibres. The Pilot, Flight Lieutenant James Edwards describes an interception of a Me-323 Transport aircraft. (this is the huge transport we have in the game)

"Flying through the smoke at approximately 500 feet, I saw a large aircraft directly in front. At approximately 250 yards, I fired a long burst and the Me-323 folded up like a stack of cards and fell in the sea."

This is only one example, I could quote dozens of similar accounts of combats against Heinkels, Junkers, Focke-Wulf Kondors, etc.

The .50 calibre had no problem in destroying any single engined Fighter created in WWII. The ballistics of the round were such that at 100 yards or less, it was capable of penetrating any of the pilot armour that equipped these aircraft, or any of the aluminium structural components. Several rounds hitting in the same general location could easily cause structural failure.

If anyone has had the opportunity to look at WWII aircraft in a state of disassembly, it is immediately clear that these types of structures are not heavy enough to sustain the kinetic forces generated during the impact of this type of weapon.

horseback
09-06-2005, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An Fw190D9's 2 20mm and 2 13mm (even though the MG131 is relatively weak) probably trump 6 50s, partly due to the concentration on the centreline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I might point out that all four of those weapons have to fire through the prop arc of three very fat propellor blades. On the other hand, I defer to the superior concentration of firepower at a wider range variance...

BUT they lose on firing time, especially when one considers how pathetic the MG 131 was.

By the bye, if a Squadron of Spits made contact with the enemy and the furball lasted for any length of time, aircraft RTB'd in ones and twos. It is highly unlikely that a wingman would run out of ammo before his leader, so my money is on the leader saying something along the lines of "Bugger this--I'm out of cannon rounds. Let's go home," rather than "I'm down to the Brownings, old chap. Let's see if we can bag you a Hun too. You take the lead, and I'll fly your wing."

cheers

horseback

Gibbage1
09-06-2005, 09:27 PM
Real quickly on the point of Ballistics. The M2 .50 cal had much better ballistics then the Hispano. Its not about MV. Its about shell aerodynamics and its ability to keep its MV over distance. Hispano shells were much bigger, had to push much more air out of the way, and with HE was much less dense since it was filled with a light explosive compount and not a solid round. The proof of this is convergance charts for mixed armorment aircraft. The cannon's were pointed up more then the HMG's to meet the convergance since they arced more. This was a slight problem from dead 6, but a BIG problem on deflection shooting. Also since the cannon round lost energy faster, not only would the ballistic arc be differant, but the time to target would also be differant further spoiling deflection shooting.

M2 simply had a much flatter arc over longer range and kept its KE better then cannon rounds.

faustnik
09-06-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Real quickly on the point of Ballistics. The M2 .50 cal had much better ballistics then the Hispano. Its not about MV. Its about shell aerodynamics and its ability to keep its MV over distance. Hispano shells were much bigger, had to push much more air out of the way, and with HE was much less dense since it was filled with a light explosive compount and not a solid round. The proof of this is convergance charts for mixed armorment aircraft. The cannon's were pointed up more then the HMG's to meet the convergance since they arced more. This was a slight problem from dead 6, but a BIG problem on deflection shooting. Also since the cannon round lost energy faster, not only would the ballistic arc be differant, but the time to target would also be differant further spoiling deflection shooting.

M2 simply had a much flatter arc over longer range and kept its KE better then cannon rounds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be somewhat true for HE rounds but, the Hispano also fired a heavy AP round. Heavy rounds fired at equal velocity to lighter rounds have longer range.

faustnik
09-06-2005, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An Fw190D9's 2 20mm and 2 13mm (even though the MG131 is relatively weak) probably trump 6 50s, partly due to the concentration on the centreline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I might point out that all four of those weapons have to fire through the prop arc of three very fat propellor blades. On the other hand, I defer to the superior concentration of firepower at a wider range variance...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mg151 was electrically primed and maintained a high ROF when synchronized. The Mg131 was a much weaker weapon than the .50 cal. The general rule is the 1 x 20mm = 3 x .50cal. in hitting power but, the chances of scoring a hit with thress fifties would be greater. So, the Dora probably had a very slight advantage, maybe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Badsight.
09-06-2005, 11:14 PM
if Maddox Games altered all guns to synched apart from a couple , they must mean for guns in FB to be synched

Kocur_
09-06-2005, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Real quickly on the point of Ballistics. The M2 .50 cal had much better ballistics then the Hispano. Its not about MV. Its about shell aerodynamics and its ability to keep its MV over distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flatness of trajectory depends the MOST on MV. Ballistic coefficient, which describes mostly aerodynamical properties is another factor, the lower , the better. For 12,7 c (by Siacci) would be around 1,6. I do not know the value for Hispano, but it probably be close: OOH it has larger caliber (which loweres c), on the other- HE has the fuse on top, which spoils aerodynamics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">HE was much less dense since it was filled with a light explosive compount and not a solid round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive never seen any other value for Hispano projectiles than 130g. It would be not a bit of problem to design classic HE projectile of the same weight as AP round. So until I see data of Hispano HE lighter than 130g, my above comparison of BH Mk.II and M2 weight and energy loading stands.

As I said before I've never seen ballistic curve of Hispano. If anyone has it, please post it and one of M2 too (let them be at the same angle of shooting). I will be convinced and glad to learn somethng new.

Anyway whatever were differencies in ballistics of both weapons, they would not matter at WW2 aerial gunnery distances and size of targets.

FatBoyHK
09-07-2005, 12:29 AM
Guys, we have gone WAAAAAY off-topic.... the relative performance of 20mm and 50cals has nothing to do with whether 50cals should be desynced or not.... Oleg would not spend his time on this thread if he see all these unrelated stuff.

Gibbage1
09-07-2005, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
Guys, we have gone WAAAAAY off-topic.... the relative performance of 20mm and 50cals has nothing to do with whether 50cals should be desynced or not.... Oleg would not spend his time on this thread if he see all these unrelated stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude. The first 7 pages is nothing but unsynced. Oleg is ignoring this thread and thats a fact.

TooCooL34
09-07-2005, 02:46 AM
I don't care desync gun is more rethal or not.
But I hope it's desynced cause it looks way cool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Abbuzze
09-07-2005, 03:40 AM
Just a short remark, we don´t have to overestimate the homogeneous armament. Same for the balistic of a weapon.

Different kind of ammo have a different balistic.
For example tracer bullets are a bad indicator for hitting a plane. If they make it into target, probably most of the other bullets will miss.
So mixing different guns is not such a problem.

Aaron_GT
09-07-2005, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Flying through the smoke at approximately 500 feet, I saw a large aircraft directly in front. At approximately 250 yards, I fired a long burst and the Me-323 folded up like a stack of cards and fell in the sea." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read a combat report of a Mosquito NF II (I think it was a II anyway) from No. 23 squadron (from memory) attacking an Me 323. The report indicates that it took only a short burst. Some combat reports from Mosquitos also indicate that sometimes it took long bursts to down enemy aircraft, so it's hard to generalise from single reports. Mostly the Mosquito reports I've read emphasise the shortness of the bursts required.

DangerForward
09-07-2005, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
Guys, we have gone WAAAAAY off-topic.... the relative performance of 20mm and 50cals has nothing to do with whether 50cals should be desynced or not.... Oleg would not spend his time on this thread if he see all these unrelated stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude. The first 7 pages is nothing but unsynced. Oleg is ignoring this thread and thats a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's probably true that he doesn't read these threads. Everyone who believes that the 50s should be unsynched should send tracks and the bug report to the email address in the bug thread. Even if it doesn't get fixed in the next patch don't give up. I have a feeling that fixing this will require a campaign similar to the MG151 bug.

Monson74
09-07-2005, 06:00 AM
Fiffies unsynced then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Diablo310th
09-07-2005, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Gib

P.S. Lets get back on subject here. Oleg. Can we un-sync the guns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree Gibbage..and Oleg, while your'e at it...can you change teh loadout to API-API-API-API-APT? I'm sure someone has sent this to Oleg...but jsut in case will someone confirm this has been reported?

Abbuzze
09-07-2005, 08:29 AM
What make some of you believe that Oleg isn´t reading in this forum, cause you get no post: Yes I read and understand this thread??

What do you expect?

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

Dtools4fools
09-07-2005, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Posted Tue September 06 2005 19:23
Salute

Someone made a comment that .50 calibre armament was only useful against fragile aircraft.

This is far from being the case.

The combat reports of pilots flying .50 calibre armed Fighters versus enemy bombers or large transport aircraft shows that these type of aircraft were easily brought down with the .50 calibre round.

Certainly it is true that against bombers such as the B-17 or B-29, a .50 calibre would have some difficultly, but against the range of aircraft being flown by the Axis .50 calibre aircraft were very successful.

There are many accounts by both USAAF pilots or RAF pilots describing how quickly larger enemy aircraft were destroyed by a few bursts or even a single burst.

Here is one example, this being a RAF Kittyhawk pilot flying in the Desert. This aircraft, (a P-40F) was armed with six .50 calibres. The Pilot, Flight Lieutenant James Edwards describes an interception of a Me-323 Transport aircraft. (this is the huge transport we have in the game) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That might have been me; I wrote:

"-it was adequate for the realitevely fragile targets they where shooting at in WWII - Japanese and German fighters.
- they did not have to fight more rugged planes or even heavy bombers as the Germans and Japanese had; those went 20mm instead."

Myabe I wasn't accurate enough;

You can include Me 323 and He 111, Fw 200 and the such in to the "relatively fragile" category. Big does not automatically mean sturdy.

Rugged planes are B-17, P-47, Il-2 and the such.
****

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 09:11 AM
B-17 wasn't sturdy. It was just big. That's why so many were lost.

Loki-PF
09-07-2005, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
B-17 wasn't sturdy. It was just big. That's why so many were lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FW wasn't fast. Just small. That's why so many were lost.

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
B-17 wasn't sturdy. It was just big. That's why so many were lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've posted more than a few inaccurate statements on this board, but this time you really have showed your lack of research. Or maybe just another case of "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." (Josef Goebbels)

In any case, the damage reports and the photographs showing the damage a B-17 could survive have been posted on this board more than a few times, and don't need to be repeated.

Any cursory study of the aircraft would understand that it was extremely heavily built, even for a 4 engined bomber. That was the reason it didn't carry much of a bomb load, so much weight was taken up with the structure and armouring. A Focke-Wulf Condor by comparison, WAS extremely weakly built. (it started life as an airliner)

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 10:18 AM
I didn't said it wasn't armored, it was to some extent. But the plane wasn't armored everywhere, and its structure wasn't certainly not as sturdy as you seem to believe. I have also seen many pics showing a B17 that made it back. Usually, in non vital part, tail assembly, wing, rear fuselage.

The Wellington was sturdy, the mosquito was sturdy. The B17 was mostly big. Of course, the bigger the plane, the more damage it can sustain.

And where did i say that B17 was as fragile as fw200?

You know, there is a world of nuances between "fragile" and "sturdy".

faustnik
09-07-2005, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
B-17 wasn't sturdy. It was just big. That's why so many were lost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've posted more than a few inaccurate statements on this board, but this time you really have showed your lack of research. Or maybe just another case of "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." (Josef Goebbels)

In any case, the damage reports and the photographs showing the damage a B-17 could survive have been posted on this board more than a few times, and don't need to be repeated.

Any cursory study of the aircraft would understand that it was extremely heavily built, even for a 4 engined bomber. That was the reason it didn't carry much of a bomb load, so much weight was taken up with the structure and armouring. A Focke-Wulf Condor by comparison, WAS extremely weakly built. (it started life as an airliner) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Shooting down a B-17 even in an Fw190, the most heavily armed general use fighter of the war, was a BIG deal for a LW. The B-17 was a very sturdy, well build aircraft that was very difficult to shoot down.

p1ngu666
09-07-2005, 10:31 AM
b17 is like a tin can, very little armour actully, a tough structure, YES.

the il2, hs129 and fw190 sturmbock or whatever, probably the only really armoured aircraft.

the il2 and hs129 are actully pretty fragile in PF. id say the stuka is easily stronger.. atleast if its a AI plane. ai stukas are what i fear most in coops, sniper rear gunner, tough planes aswell.

horseback
09-07-2005, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You know, there is a world of nuances between "fragile" and "sturdy". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. Which is why non-native speakers (or writers) of English should avoid 'nuance.' It doesn't translate well, and in your particular case, is often interpreted as demeaning or derisive.

cheers

horseback

Kuna15
09-07-2005, 10:34 AM
I am also inclined to believe that B-17 wasn't called fortress without reason... I have saw a numerous of Lufwaffe gun cameras of Bf-109s and FW-190 attacking B-17 FF, and some of German fighters were even equipped with 30mm cannons.

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 10:55 AM
Salute

Pingu is correct. The B-17 didn't have 'armour', any more than any WWII aircraft did. It had some pilot protection, but as far as the wings, fuselage, etc, most of its strength was derived from the size and heaviness of the structures which comprised them.

The IL-2, HS-129 and Sturmbocks also did not have 'armouring' of wings or most of the fuselage. Armour was primarily focused on protecting the pilot and vital components of the engine, such as the oil cooler on the Sturmbock. But a hit on a wing would do the same damage to a Sturmbock as it would do to a normal 190. (by the way, there are no Sturmbocks in the game, it is doubtful anyone would fly them on the dogfight servers anyway, they would only be popular for COOPs with lots of heavy bombers)

By the way Hoarmuth:

Many of the B-17, (and B-24) losses were due to flak. In fact, after July of '44, most of the losses were due to flak. When an 88mm or 128mm shell explodes nearby, (or directly hits) it takes an extremely sturdy aircraft to survive. When you have over a million Germans manning AAA, and cities like Berlin being defended by 500+ flak guns, it is easy to understand why flak was so dangerous to the USAAF heavy bombers. In fact, Hitler at one point in late '44, comparing the success of the flak arm to the Fighter arm, had to be convinced not to scrap the Fighters entirely and put all his resources into Flak. (which would have been shortsighted, since many flak damaged bombers which would have made it back to Britain were subsequently shot down by Fighters after they were unable to remain in formation due to engine damage etc.)

tigertalon
09-07-2005, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
B-17 wasn't called fortress without reason... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> and that's exactly why
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">some of German fighters were even equipped with 30mm cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to other viermots B17 was probably the hardest to shoot down (apart from B29 - but mostly because of its speed and altitude). Planes like Me323 and Fw200 had a light construction. 323 was developed from a glider Me321, and Fw200 from passenger airliner (like somebody mentioned).

Me323 was known to have very weak wings which folded up after some .50 hits (if the plane was loaded up). Quite some of them were shot down above mediteranean sea, when trying to supply german and italian units in africa. Even B25s with ".50 nose" went hunting them down.

Aaron_GT
09-07-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am also inclined to believe that B-17 wasn't called fortress without reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The name has nothing to do with toughness of the plane. It was so called because it was initially envisaged as a roving anti-shipping reconnaisance bomber in coastal waters, thus fulfilling the role that offshore fortresses had done in times past.

JG53Frankyboy
09-07-2005, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Gib

P.S. Lets get back on subject here. Oleg. Can we un-sync the guns? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree Gibbage..and Oleg, while your'e at it...can you change teh loadout to API-API-API-API-APT? ........ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, that would be realy nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

Me323 was known to have very weak wings which folded up after some .50 hits (if the plane was loaded up).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone should tell Oleg. The Me323 is one of the hardest aircraft in the game to shoot down.

Dtools4fools
09-07-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Someone should tell Oleg. The Me323 is one of the hardest aircraft in the game to shoot down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Any testing done? Data to back up this statement?
****

tigertalon
09-07-2005, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

Me323 was known to have very weak wings which folded up after some .50 hits (if the plane was loaded up).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone should tell Oleg. The Me323 is one of the hardest aircraft in the game to shoot down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will try to dig sth up.

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
By the way Hoarmuth:

Many of the B-17, (and B-24) losses were due to flak. In fact, after July of '44, most of the losses were due to flak. When an 88mm or 128mm shell explodes nearby, (or directly hits) it takes an extremely sturdy aircraft to survive. When you have over a million Germans manning AAA, and cities like Berlin being defended by 500+ flak guns, it is easy to understand why flak was so dangerous to the USAAF heavy bombers. In fact, Hitler at one point in late '44, comparing the success of the flak arm to the Fighter arm, had to be convinced not to scrap the Fighters entirely and put all his resources into Flak. (which would have been shortsighted, since many flak damaged bombers which would have made it back to Britain were subsequently shot down by Fighters after they were unable to remain in formation due to engine damage etc.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this one, much funny. Fw190 having problems to shoot down B17? Only flak was effective? I wonder why they did go through all the pain to give them escort... Oh no, let me guess, the escort where here to shoot down the flak shells?

I have eric Mombeek book about the Jg4, and they had no problem shooting down the viermots. Their only problem was shooting them down before the escort jumped on them. In fact, sturmbocks were not good dogfighters, for sure. But they had no problem shooting down bombers.

faustnik
09-07-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

I have eric Mombeek book about the Jg4, and they had no problem shooting down the viermots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem shooting down heavies??? If you think it was easy, maybe you should read that book again.

Loki-PF
09-07-2005, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
By the way Hoarmuth:

Many of the B-17, (and B-24) losses were due to flak. In fact, after July of '44, most of the losses were due to flak. When an 88mm or 128mm shell explodes nearby, (or directly hits) it takes an extremely sturdy aircraft to survive. When you have over a million Germans manning AAA, and cities like Berlin being defended by 500+ flak guns, it is easy to understand why flak was so dangerous to the USAAF heavy bombers. In fact, Hitler at one point in late '44, comparing the success of the flak arm to the Fighter arm, had to be convinced not to scrap the Fighters entirely and put all his resources into Flak. (which would have been shortsighted, since many flak damaged bombers which would have made it back to Britain were subsequently shot down by Fighters after they were unable to remain in formation due to engine damage etc.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this one, much funny. Fw190 having problems to shoot down B17? Only flak was effective? I wonder why they did go through all the pain to give them escort... Oh no, let me guess, the escort where here to shoot down the flak shells?

I have eric Mombeek book about the Jg4, and they had no problem shooting down the viermots. Their only problem was shooting them down before the escort jumped on them. In fact, sturmbocks were not good dogfighters, for sure. But they had no problem shooting down bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Hoarmurath, besides you r opinion on B-17's....Do you believe that the 50's should be De-synced so that they are more historical?

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loki-PF:
So Hoarmurath, besides you r opinion on B-17's....Do you believe that the 50's should be De-synced so that they are more historical? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure that the last thing you want is an historical M2.

Concerning the downing of bombers, their main problem wasn't their sturdiness, but their defensive fire. That's why they developped armored fighters, and used tactics to break bombers formations. Bombers that found themselves alone were easy targets.

tigertalon
09-07-2005, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I have eric Mombeek book about the Jg4, and they had no problem shooting down the viermots. Their only problem was shooting them down before the escort jumped on them. In fact, sturmbocks were not good dogfighters, for sure. But they had no problem shooting down bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When german fighters engaged viermots that flew in a defensive formation, kill/loss ratio was roughly 1v1. Which is still a great succsess for fighters - bomber crew was lost (kia or pow), while german fighter pilot had a chance to survive and fight again, plus 4 engined bomber was much more expensive to produce than single engine fighter.

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
When german fighters engaged viermots that flew in a defensive formation, kill/loss ratio was roughly 1v1. Which is still a great succsess for fighters - bomber crew was lost (kia or pow), while german fighter pilot had a chance to survive and fight again, plus 4 engined bomber was much more expensive to produce than single engine fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The keywords here are "defensive formation". It is not the sturdiness of the US bombers that protected them, but their defensive armament when they were in defensive formation.

Kocur_
09-07-2005, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by tigertalon:

Me323 was known to have very weak wings which folded up after some .50 hits (if the plane was loaded up).



Someone should tell Oleg. The Me323 is one of the hardest aircraft in the game to shoot down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Important phrase here is "if the plane was loaded up". Its wings were designed to take stress of entire plane and its load. If the plane was loaded, wings were taking stresses leaving almost no margin of strucural strenght above current streses. So if part of strenght of the structure was "removed" by damage, suddenly stress was bigger than "new" lowered strenght...and CRACK! If Gigant was empty, margin of strenght to-be-removed before it breakes was larger and it must have taken more damage to destroy the structure.

The same, i.e. relation between strenght and stresses carried by the structure is valid for every plane. If wing of a fighter was damaged X-heavily in a 1g flight it would take it, but if the same damage was inflicted in a moment when it flew at, say 5g - it would break.
Designing planes is always compromise between strenght and mass. Sometimes balance was moved too much for lightness, which resulted in unacceptably low strenght, good example is Yak-3 - light and agile but with Vne ~700kmh TAS.

My homeland example: P.11c stress limit was 14g, far more than pilot could pull, so he could dive and pull up as sharply as he could - nothing would break. In France Polish pilots tried the same with Cr-714, a fighter built around sport plane design. Results varied from loss of cowling to loss of wings. Cr-714 strenght margin was simply much smaller.

NACA norms of bulding airframes were much harder than in most countries - they required larger margins of structural strenght over stress. In result US planes airframes were usually heavier than other countries planes of similar size and purpose, but were structurally stronger too. Great example is "light Mustangs" story. Those were bulit according not to US, but British norms. So their strenght was similar to Spitfire, rather than P-51D, and airframes were considerably lighter.

Lets not mix protection of vital parts like pilot, fuel tanks, etc., and structural strenght of the airframe itself. Il-2 had very well protected its vital parts, enclosed in that armour shell, but structural strenght of rest of the airframe was far not enough, so Il-2 losses for entire WW2 were one per 18,5 sorties.

Kuna15
09-07-2005, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am also inclined to believe that B-17 wasn't called fortress without reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The name has nothing to do with toughness of the plane. It was so called because it was initially envisaged as a roving anti-shipping reconnaisance bomber in coastal waters, thus fulfilling the role that offshore fortresses had done in times past. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is really what everyone in ww2 and later had in mind when they refer to 'em as "Flying Fortress".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
B-17 wasn't called fortress without reason... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> and that's exactly why
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">some of German fighters were even equipped with 30mm cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mate I think with or without B-17s German fighters would eventually had their 30mms installed for general anti bomber purposes. Against B-17s, B-24s, Ilyushins...etc. you name it.

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 02:16 PM
Salute Kocur

Some excellent information, as usual. And certainly it was the case, that the Me-323 I mentioned which had been shot down by a Canadian pilot, was loaded and coming into Tunisia to land.

However, the B-17's which flew over Germany were close to being fully loaded, with bombs etc. As you mention, NACA and the U.S. aircraft industry was more conservative in insisting on a margin of safety in structural strength.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

My homeland example: P.11c stress limit was 14g, far more than pilot could pull, so he could dive and pull up as sharply as he could - nothing would break.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no question that the P-11 was an amazing design. Unfortunately for the Poles, the war happened 5 years too late. Yet despite that, the P-11's had an excellent record against the Luftwaffe in 1939. I don't have the exact figures, but if memory is correct, they had nearly 2-1 ratio of kills to losses, mostly against Stukas and a few Me-110's. The 109's were apparently too fast to catch and the Medium bombers were too high for the P-11's to be able to climb and intercept.

So those Polish Fighter pilots had to make the trip to France, then Britain to continue their war with the Luftwaffe... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...as well as some who continued in USAAF Thunderbolts, below is the Polish contingent for the 56th Fighter Group with Gabreski, the #1 US European Ace:

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/56-10.jpg

An amazing story, hopefully some day someone will do a Polish "Dark Blue Sky". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

And for the original topic of the thread:

Yes, we need to have de-synced guns. The current situation is artificial, and non-historical, and imposes another handicap on the effectiveness of the .50 calibre.

tigertalon
09-07-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
The keywords here are "defensive formation". It is not the sturdiness of the US bombers that protected them, but their defensive armament when they were in defensive formation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, remember that B17, that was alone and survived the attack of 18 (!!!) Ki43s (which all ran out of ammo), shooting 3 of them down? Ok, I know Ki43 has only two mgs, nevertheless IMO out of WW2 bombers B17 had greatest chance to survive such an attack.

Yes, B17s got slaughtered when they unescorted encountered german fighters, and this is because 1v1 is still great loss. Look at it from german perspective: attacking german pilot had equal chance of destroying the bomber or he will be shot down himself. So, yes, it was a hell of a hard job to shoot down a viermot with a fighter. One of proofs for that is that Germans awarded their pilots if they "only" forced a bomber to leave its formation - herrauschuss.

Yes, B17 defensive armament was very dangerous in formation, where many bombers covered each other. But B17 was also quite armoured and protected, IMO claiming that it had better chances of surviving just because it was big is a bit of ignorance.

For example: G4M Mitsubishi "Betty" bomber was with its dimensions (span 25m, lenght 20m) almost as long as Liberator (span 33m, lenth 20.5m), being much bigger in length and span that both B25 (20.6m/16.1m) and B26 (19.8m/17m). Does that make it more survivable than both above?

tigertalon
09-07-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
Mate I think with or without B-17s German fighters would eventually had their 30mms installed for general anti bomber purposes. Against B-17s, B-24s, Ilyushins...etc. you name it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I just used B17 as an example. Nevertheless quad engined bombers were the main reason for introduction of 108. For dogfighting and other targets 151/20 was more than enough and preffered by pilots. (despite bad ballistic and accuracy of 108 mortar you still have good chances of hitting a target of a viermot size, if you compare it with chances of hitting fighter with 151/20)

(http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif ah and btw, nice new sig and avatar)

Aaron_GT
09-07-2005, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And that is really what everyone in ww2 and later had in mind when they refer to 'em as "Flying Fortress". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it was named the Flying Fortress prior to WW2 what people in WW2 had in mind is irrelevant with regard to the genesis of the name. The name was derived from its intended role, although in the end if fulfilled a different one on the whole.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But B17 was also quite armoured </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not aware of any armour on any part of a B17 apart from possibly self sealing tanks and maybe the ball turret. Some of the crew wore armour, though. A friend of mine took it upon himself to obtain the complete helmet (essentially similar to the infantry helmet) and the flak vest - a vest from neck to groin made of horizontal metal strips. There is a story (validity unclear) of a B17 tail gunner wearing such a vest being hit by a 20mm shell, being propelled forwards to the waist gun positions and surviving.

Monson74
09-07-2005, 02:56 PM
But it would be nice if the .50s got unsynced http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

p1ngu666
09-07-2005, 02:56 PM
the IJN insisted on 2 engines, and very long range, so there where comprimises. it was reasonably strong from some things ive read, but light up fast.

Gibbage1
09-07-2005, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Concerning the downing of bombers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shut up about the downing of bombers. If you want to talk about that, start a new thread. This one is about the syncing of .50 cal's. Stop trolling it away from the subject.

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

Concerning the downing of bombers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shut up about the downing of bombers. If you want to talk about that, start a new thread. This one is about the syncing of .50 cal's. Stop trolling it away from the subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was on the subject on the line above the one you quoted. But if you want to talk about .50 only, no problem. So, when do you start threatening Oleg to stop all work on your current 3D projects until you have them changed?

Gibbage1
09-07-2005, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

I was on the subject on the line above the one you quoted. But if you want to talk about .50 only, no problem. So, when do you start threatening Oleg to stop all work on your current 3D projects until you have them changed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice attempt at trolling! To bad that troll wont work since Oleg is no longer accepting models for IL2. And also I am not the one who forced Oleg to change the .50's.

Do you think the guns should be de-synced to match with historical data and lessed recoil roll? Simple question even you can answer. Although I doubt your here to really "contribute" anything to this topic other then insults and trollings.

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Nice attempt at trolling! To bad that troll wont work since Oleg is no longer accepting models for IL2. And also I am not the one who forced Oleg to change the .50's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No more blackmailing to get something changed when you lack RL data then? too bad. And you were certainly the one calling to arms the community because Oleg wouldn't change the .50 according to your wishes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Do you think the guns should be de-synced to match with historical data and lessed recoil roll? Simple question even you can answer. Although I doubt your here to really "contribute" anything to this topic other then insults and trollings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to have them desynced, why not just send an email at pf@1c.ru? Do you really need my approbation? But it is nice to see you interested in historical accuracy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Grey_Mouser67
09-07-2005, 04:42 PM
Here I thought the flying fortress got its name from a member of the press who upon seeing it said..." it looks like a flying fortress"

Silly me...usually I try not to engage in this level of post but I couldn't resist.


Back to topic...
.50's are modelled wrong...the syncronization is wrong...it is obvious and objective and is really not much of a debate...anyone who wants to needs to find another place I think.

The question in my mind is how big of a problem is this...I personally think it is pretty big, pretty important and worthy of Oleg's attention...and that is the debate in my mind.

I am really wondering why this thread is even so long...the hmg's are wrong...the amount of damage HMG's do is a good debate, and most except the trolls in the world think they should be be better...

Well maybe I'll say it this way...when discussing the issue there usually two replies...one goes like this... "if you sit on someones six or shoot accurately at convergence the .50's are very accurate. If you only knew the damage that was occurring inside the plane"...those kinds of comments usually come from Luftwaffe pilots who frequently get shot down by six gun fighters and don't like being shot down.

Then there is the post that goes like this..I've made a few myself...I snuck up behind the KI (insert Fw if you want) delivered a full burst at convergence and the enemy, trailing fuel, split S and planted 30mm round up by behind in less than 30 seconds...is that how the Mustang got its good reputation?" Those kinds of comments come from HMG weilding red pilots who rarely see their enemy go down but occassionally read the "enemy aircraft destroyed" message 10 minutes later...they also know that the USAAF pilots in WWII didn't have the benefit of that message and all those kills they racked up were a result of a plane crashing and being seen or from conclusive gun cam footage....I imagine if we relied on gun cam footage for kills, the score for red pilots would even be worse!

The HMG's aren't accurate, there are many reasons, but it affects gameplay and needs correcting...hopefully Oleg will come through so I can read many more posts of the first kind. Because FM's, DM's and weapons affect gameplay so heavily I suspect he will address it and do the best he can with the information he has at hand...

JG5_UnKle
09-07-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I suspect he will address it and do the best he can with the information he has at hand... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt it, he said already the M2 is unhistorical because of the whining. No changes have been made to the M2 in 4.02 according to Oleg.

Best bet is to e-mail him, not post it here - 10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is.

Hoarmurath
09-07-2005, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Best bet is to e-mail him, not post it here - 10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Kuna15
09-07-2005, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
(http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif ah and btw, nice new sig and avatar) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks mate... it was pain to find some suitable LA-5 shot. Don't know why there is so few LA-5 artwork on net. Not to mention some that I with my newbie PShop skills can edit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And that is really what everyone in ww2 and later had in mind when they refer to 'em as "Flying Fortress". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it was named the Flying Fortress prior to WW2 what people in WW2 had in mind is irrelevant with regard to the genesis of the name. The name was derived from its intended role, although in the end if fulfilled a different one on the whole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course... also interesting thing is that it looks kinda tradition in USA forces to add "fortress" adjective to the names of some of it's distinguished bombers.
http://www.historylink.org/db_images/boeingb-29s_2.jpg

------------------------------------------------

BTW I have found this article on http://www.warbirdalley.com/b17.htm

"History: The B-17, arguably World War II's most famous heavy bomber, first flew on July 28, 1935, before a crowd of reporters eager to see Boeing's new bomber take wing. It was dubbed the "Flying Fortress" by the members of the press in attendance because of its (at least for the time) heavy defensive armament. The prototype crashed in October, but because of its impressive speed and handling the US Army Air Corps (USAAC) decided to continue testing anyway. They ordered 13 YB-17s for further evaluation, a decision that would prove momentous in years to come."

And also; http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/B_17-Flying-Fortress

"Operational history
The name "Flying Fortress" was coined by Richard Williams, a reporter for the Seattle Times who gave this name to the Model 299 when it was rolled out showing off its machine gun installations. Boeing was quick to see the value of the title and had it copyrighted for use. Among the combat aircrews that flew bombers in World War II, noted aviation writer Martin Caidin reported that the B-17 was referred to as the "Queen of the Bombers." A machine gun is a fully-automatic firearm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession. ... Martin Caidin (1927-1997) was an American author and an authority on aeronautics and aviation. ... "
------------------------------------------------


Do you have more info about B-17s nickname, since these sites don't mention that B-17 get it's nick after coastal fortresses..?

HayateAce
09-07-2005, 06:08 PM
No changes to M2 in 4.02?

What a joke this former sim is turning into.

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 07:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

I doubt it, he said already the M2 is unhistorical because of the whining. No changes have been made to the M2 in 4.02 according to Oleg.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has said the Mk108 is also ahistorical, also due to whining... So what's your point?

In any case, we are not asking for changes to the effectiveness or hitting power of the .50 calibre, we are simply asking that all .50 calibre weapons fire unsyncronized, as they did historically, and they do in the P-40M Field Mod.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Perhaps you'd like to amend your statement? How about: "From the perspective of a dyed in the wool Luftwaffle, opposed to any historical accuracy for the M2 .50 calibre, this thread is 10 pages of pointless arguments..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Best bet is to e-mail him, not post it here - 10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how Hoarmurath is complaining about this, when he is responsible for many of the pointless posts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzsaw-
09-07-2005, 07:36 PM
Salute

Let's be clear what this thread is about:

We are not asking for changes to the effectiveness of the .50 calibre in so far as hitting power or accuracy is concerned.

We are asking that all guns which do not fire through the propellor, be de-syncronized, as they were historically.

Firestorm07
09-07-2005, 08:36 PM
This explains why I've always felt more comfortable firing the 303's than the 50 cals.

Were they indeed historically unsynced???

Gibbage1
09-07-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Best bet is to e-mail him, not post it here - 10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny how Hoarmurath is complaining about this, when he is responsible for many of the pointless posts... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its ironic that his response turned it into an 11! page pointless debate. Lol. 2 of those 11 pages full of Hoar's debating how tough the B-17 is.

Gibbage1
09-07-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Firestorm07:
This explains why I've always felt more comfortable firing the 303's than the 50 cals.

Were they indeed historically unsynced??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. No guns with the POSSIBLE exception of the MG-151/20 with its electronic firing would ever fire in patterns like they do in IL2. Each gun due to its mecanic gas/spring operation had differant firing rates. M2 ranged + or - 100RPM on guns from even the same production line. With this differance if firing rates, there was no way guns would be synced like they are in IL2.

We also know that the synced guns is not a limitation of the IL2 engine since not only does the P-40E Field mod not fire synced, but the 12 gun Hurricane IIB also fires unsynced! So its very much possible in IL2 to fire guns unsynced. Its there, its programmed, and it works. It also causes no lag in servers full of Hurricane IIB's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So no excuses.

P.S. I have E-mailed Oleg and got no response back. Also, I did not start this thread or this debate. Im just contributing to it with my own brand of zeal and effort.

Ivan. Can you talk to the Big O? I think he has a filter on his E-mail that deletes all E-mails with the words "Gibbage" and ".50 cal" or "M2" in it. =) He still replies to all my other messages.

VW-IceFire
09-07-2005, 09:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Firestorm07:
This explains why I've always felt more comfortable firing the 303's than the 50 cals.

Were they indeed historically unsynced??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed. Combat reports will sometimes show that of two cannons fired from a Spitfire, one cannon fired 58 shells of 120 and the other cannon fired 63 shells of 120. They don't fire at exactly the same rates or in any sort of syncronized pattern.

Even the Pearl Harbour movie had this part more or less correct about the Spitfires cannons.

Badsight.
09-07-2005, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Someone should tell Oleg. The Me323 is one of the hardest aircraft in the game to shoot down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>oh man no way

the single tuffest 4 or more engine plane in FB is the B-17

the Me-323 wings just pop off

trust me , i fly a bomber kill coop more than any other single mission

if i dont go online i at LEAST have a few sorties bringing down bombers

323s are just an extra 200 points more than a equally easy Pe-3

even the B-29 feels eaiser to bring down that the B-17s ! ! !

EDIT : i forgot to add the tuffest allied bomber was probably a British plane , not american

the Wellington

Badsight.
09-07-2005, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

I doubt it, he said already the M2 is unhistorical because of the whining. No changes have been made to the M2 in 4.02 according to Oleg.

Best bet is to e-mail him, not post it here - 10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>seriously tho , Maddox Games synched all guns in one of the AEP patches

a couple seem to have been left out for rerasons unknowen

i SERIOUSLY doubt Maddox Games will de-synch just the M2

& if they wont do it for all , it aint going to happen for one

ECV56_Rolf
09-07-2005, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Firestorm07:
This explains why I've always felt more comfortable firing the 303's than the 50 cals.

Were they indeed historically unsynced??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed. Combat reports will sometimes show that of two cannons fired from a Spitfire, one cannon fired 58 shells of 120 and the other cannon fired 63 shells of 120. They don't fire at exactly the same rates or in any sort of syncronized pattern.

Even the Pearl Harbour movie had this part more or less correct about the Spitfires cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is true, and it is modelled that way, we will have very funny shaking planes as the sim is modeled right now.

Here is some of the planes that are shaking right now in the sim:

Hurricane MKIIB (The worst)(unsynched)
B25J (!) (Sync)
I153P (all guns) (sync)
I16 Type 18 (sync)
IL2 (when firing MGs)
All Spits when firing unsynched MGs.

The B25 was a big surprise. Now, some .50s planes shake a bit, but not so much as the planes mentioned.

All canons give some kind of movement.

Then... if.50s are desynched, hope that they not reintroduce the shaking, at least not on your favorite plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
09-08-2005, 05:23 AM
Kuna15, maybe the allusion to coastal defence fortresses (Fort Boyard from TV is an example of one of these) was a USAAC 1930s spin on the phrase coined by a reporter to remind people of the intended purpose as a coastal waters defence aircraft. Mind you, that stated purpose was, to a certain extent, cover during an isolationist period for a long range bomber.

Aaron_GT
09-08-2005, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We are asking that all guns which do not fire through the propellor, be de-syncronized, as they were historically. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it seems a perfectly reasonable request if technically feasible, and given the P40 field mod, it seems to be possible.

Diablo310th
09-08-2005, 06:20 AM
Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now.

JG53Frankyboy
09-08-2005, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test it.
use a stopwatch and fire a P-40E and than a P-40E fieldmod empty....

Kocur_
09-08-2005, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again: the only synched guns IRL were guns shooting through prop disk. And those guns ROF was lowered by that.
Guns mounted in wings (away from prop) were NOT SYNCHED IRL - not with prop, neither with eachother.


In the game we have wing guns "synched" with EACHOTHER, but not as if they were synched mechanically, but as if all of them fired at the same ROF exactly, which does not happen IRL.
That is bogus, but no reason to think their ROF is lowered.

Monson74
09-08-2005, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test it.
use a stopwatch and fire a P-40E and than a P-40E fieldmod empty.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the E & the Field Mod did not have the same amount of ammo. Please educate me if I'm wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG5_UnKle
09-08-2005, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Oleg has said the Mk108 is also ahistorical, also due to whining... So what's your point?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this was a .50Cal thread - so what's your agenda, oh sorry I mean what's your point? This has nothing to do with the Mk-108 or your blatant BIAS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
In any case, we are not asking for changes to the effectiveness or hitting power of the .50 calibre, we are simply asking that all .50 calibre weapons fire unsyncronized, as they did historically, and they do in the P-40M Field Mod.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So What? I never said you were, wrong way to do it, I'm simply stating that a 10 page thread war, although amusing is not really the way to get things changed. Here is a hint:

Make a Track

Email it to Oleg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
10 pages of pointless arguments is all this is.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Hmmm... Perhaps you'd like to amend your statement? How about: "From the perspective of a dyed in the wool Luftwaffle, opposed to any historical accuracy for the M2 .50 calibre, this thread is 10 pages of pointless arguments..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I think the statement is fine as it is, oh wait, make that 11 pages of pointless whining.

I don't have a problem with de-syncing the .50 Cals. As it stands at the moment it is too easy to fly between packets in a 90 degree deflection shot and that isn't on.

If that makes me a dyed in the wool luftwhiner then well, insults are something I'll leave to you Buzzsaw as obviously anyone with JG in front of their username is a biased lufwhiner.

You crack me up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-08-2005, 07:04 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 JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

test it.
use a stopwatch and fire a P-40E and than a P-40E fieldmod empty.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the E & the Field Mod did not have the same amount of ammo. Please educate me if I'm wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/P40.html

but the firetimes should be checked again - if anyone want to !

Diablo310th
09-08-2005, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again: the only synched guns IRL were guns shooting through prop disk. And those guns ROF was lowered by that.
Guns mounted in wings (away from prop) were NOT SYNCHED IRL - not with prop, neither with eachother.


In the game we have wing guns "synched" with EACHOTHER, but not as if they were synched mechanically, but as if all of them fired at the same ROF exactly, which does not happen IRL.
That is bogus, but no reason to think their ROF is lowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur...I wasn't saying it was different...it was jsut a thought...geez take a chill pill and read. I didn't test it to see...did u? Who knows if the synching code also reduces ROF or jsut synchs the firing of guns? If wing guns were not historically synched and are in this game maybe ROF is effected too by the code.

Kocur_
09-08-2005, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again: the only synched guns IRL were guns shooting through prop disk. And those guns ROF was lowered by that.
Guns mounted in wings (away from prop) were NOT SYNCHED IRL - not with prop, neither with eachother.


In the game we have wing guns "synched" with EACHOTHER, but not as if they were synched mechanically, but as if all of them fired at the same ROF exactly, which does not happen IRL.
That is bogus, but no reason to think their ROF is lowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur...I wasn't saying it was different...it was jsut a thought...geez take a chill pill and read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw "just a thought" followed by a question, so I shared my opinion. Doest it seem like I need a chill pill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif?

Diablo310th
09-08-2005, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just a thought...usually synched guns fire at a slower ROF. If Oleg de-synchs teh .50's...will that increase ROF also? Meaning maybe the ROF is also wrong with the synched guns now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again: the only synched guns IRL were guns shooting through prop disk. And those guns ROF was lowered by that.
Guns mounted in wings (away from prop) were NOT SYNCHED IRL - not with prop, neither with eachother.


In the game we have wing guns "synched" with EACHOTHER, but not as if they were synched mechanically, but as if all of them fired at the same ROF exactly, which does not happen IRL.
That is bogus, but no reason to think their ROF is lowered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur...I wasn't saying it was different...it was jsut a thought...geez take a chill pill and read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw "just a thought" followed by a question, so I shared my opinion. Doest it seem like I need a chill pill http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur...sorry..I misinterpreted your comment. My apologies sir. ~S~

Kocur_
09-08-2005, 09:48 AM
Oh, no reason to apologize!NPhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

So it seems we all agree that guns not synched with prop should be modelled like guns of "P-40E field mod.". And that is closer to RL because there are minimal differencies in ROF between guns of the same type caused by things like: differenies in amount of propellant in cases, in strenght of springs, guns mechanism parts wear, quantity and density of grease depending on temperature, etc. Values of ROF we see for any guns are actually their average ROF.

In case of M2s I've see numbers between 750-850rpm as its ROF. That might make no-, or unnoticeable difference in case of 6 or 8 guns only at first shot(s). 750rps means a projectile leaving muzzle every 0,080s, for 850rpm its 0,075s. Lets say first shots of all guns were at the same time exactly. So there will be ~4,35 meters of distance between second projectile shot by fast and slow gun. The difference between 11th. shots would be 0,05sec and 43,5m. So in case of multiple guns of ROF between 750 and 850rpm the longer is the burst, the more its stream of bullets and less salvos.

Looks like its time to go to 1c with it.

Choctaw111
09-08-2005, 09:51 AM
Since all of bullets are modelled including the ones that you cannot see (tracerless) it would make very little difference. HOWEVER, it will add much more realism to the sim. Seeing the tracers synced together really takes away from the overall fun of firing the guns and shooting stuff down. The tracers should come out at a seemingly random pattern. When you look at it it really isn't random at all but rather all of the guns have a slightly different rate of fire so all of the tracrs will not all fire at the same time. This is demonstrated in the Bf110G2 with the 20mm cannon. When you first fire them the tracers are synced but as you continue to fire the tracers become less synced and come out at different times. AS you continue to fire the tracers will gradually sync themselves again. This is kind of hard to explain without a chart but you should all understand the concept here.

Monson74
09-08-2005, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/P40.html

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr that - maybe the Russians just oiled their guns more than the Americans did -&gt; faster ROF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyways, Kocur & Choctaw summed it all up pretty well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Bump for the desynced fiffies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

quiet_man
09-08-2005, 10:54 AM
now the P-40 fieldmod is in fact a bit to perfect unsyc!? I wonder what realistic values would be?

Was there an variation on the guns starting firing? Or was it only from different ROF?
How did the triggers work?

If unsync would come only from different ROF, then they would start sync. Would the effect be visible at all at short burst or only at long?

quiet_man

Diablo310th
09-08-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by quiet_man:
now the P-40 fieldmod is in fact a bit to perfect unsyc!? I wonder what realistic values would be?

Was there an variation on the guns starting firing? Or was it only from different ROF?
How did the triggers work?

If unsync would come only from different ROF, then they would start sync. Would the effect be visible at all at short burst or only at long?

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's actually a good question quiet_man. I'm not sure the game engine will allow that kind of modelling of the rounds tho. An interesting thought tho.

Kocur_
09-08-2005, 12:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">now the P-40 fieldmod is in fact a bit to perfect unsyc!? I wonder what realistic values would be?

Was there an variation on the guns starting firing? Or was it only from different ROF?
How did the triggers work?

now the P-40 fieldmod is in fact a bit to perfect unsyc!? I wonder what realistic values would be?

Was there an variation on the guns starting firing? Or was it only from different ROF?
How did the triggers work?

If unsync would come only from different ROF, then they would start sync. Would the effect be visible at all at short burst or only at long?

quiet_man </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In most of planes, and AFAIK all US ones, there was electric triggering system, with selenoid attached to each gun. When pilot pushed button, circuit was closed and selenoid acted like mans finger. Such system would by accurate by nature, unlike mechanical or hydraulic one. So unless some delay between guns was implemented on purpose in the triggering system, my guess would be that all guns were "started" at the same moment.

Another factor is gun itself. AFAIK M2 used in WW2 planes was firing from closed bolt, i.e. bolt was in forward position, with round in chamber. So when trigger was pushed, selenoid would cause only movement of hammer. That also minimises delay between each gun. If they were fired from open bolt (and there are modern versions of M2 like that, there are even conversion kits), selenoid would release bolt, which had to travel forwards. In that case even first shots of all guns would occur in different moments, i.e. 1/2 of all difference of their relative ROF in a second.

So my guess is: 1. if there was no some way of differing moments of triggering all selenoids after trigger button was pushed, and 2. WW2 aerial M2's were firing from closed bolt, than all 4, 6 or 8 guns would fire their first shots in each burst at the very-close-to-the-same moment. So first shots in a burst would be close to being salvos, and with every another shot, differnces in each gun ROF would make projectiles pattern more and more a stream. After trigger was released it all would be reseted, because all guns would stop firnig being chambered, locked and cocked.

slowest
faster
fastest

gun1----------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7----------8----------9----------10----------11----------12
gun1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------8---------9---------10---------11---------12---------13
gun1--------2--------3--------4--------5--------6--------7--------8--------9--------10--------11--------12--------13--------14

horseback
09-08-2005, 12:52 PM
My Navy electronics career began in 1975, when a number of electronic and electrical systems dating back to the late 1940s were still in operation, and from that experience, I can tell you this:

Each circuit and each gun would have a certain amount of 'hesitation' before firing, varying according to each solenoid's response time (which by modern standards, would have a wide 'spread' from unit to unit), the gun's mechanical wear, and so on. With each gun firing at a minimum rate of 12+ rounds per second, a variance range of .05 seconds for six guns would get you pretty close to a constant stream effect almost immediately.

cheers

horseback

Kuna15
09-08-2005, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Even the Pearl Harbour movie had this part more or less correct about the Spitfires cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kocur_
09-08-2005, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Each circuit and each gun would have a certain amount of 'hesitation' before firing, varying according to each solenoid's response time (which by modern standards, would have a wide 'spread' from unit to unit), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what we are looking for to dismiss my "if" no.1.

Do you have any data on spread of reaction time of 1940's selenoids? 0,05s is rather much. Time between two shots in M2 at 850rpm and and M2 at 750rpm is 0,069s and that is for rather large mechanical device.

My point is I'd like P-40E field mod firing pattern to be historical. Its already there, so its would be rather easy to implement it to all other planes. Dont think we could succefully suggest creating any brand new modelling of that.
If we cant support claim that P-40E field mod is historical, Oleg might dismiss our plea for de-synching all guns, calling it as unhistorical as current status.

Sorry for being advocatus diaboli http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

p1ngu666
09-08-2005, 02:18 PM
setting a delay might be easier than getting it random

gun1 0
gun2 .3
gun3 .1
gun4 .2
gun5 .4
gun6 .5

(change amount of delay for most realistic)

ofcourse u need to set up it right, and not just increase delay for each gun going from left to right, then ud just slew the plane.

ofcourse, such a lookup table or similer could be used for all planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tvrdi
09-08-2005, 02:51 PM
you are talking about de-sync....yeah, Im for the fix ...but please....wer dealing with lasers coming from the red side....we had from the beginning real physic with bullets and shells....think of that..

horseback
09-08-2005, 03:24 PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"In engineering, a solenoid is a mechanical device that converts energy into linear motion. Solenoids can be constructed to use electricity, compressed air (pneumatic solenoids), or pressurized fluids (hydraulic solenoids).

Electric solenoids consist of an inductive coil wound around a movable steel or iron slug. The coil is shaped such that the slug can be moved in and out of the center, altering the coil's inductance and thereby becoming an electromagnet. The force applied to the slug is proportional to the change in inductance of the coil with respect to the change in position of the slug, and the current flowing through the coil. The force applied to the slug will always move the slug in a direction that increases the coil's inductance."

In essence, the solenoids in question are electromechanical devices subjected to extremes of heat and cold, vibration, loose or tarnished contacts (did I ever tell the story of how I saved the US Navy over $10,000 by applying a little Brasso to a set of high power, high frequency cable N connectors?), not to mention the tender ministries of the odd kolkhoznik and his spiritual brethren in the USAAF and RAF...

Actually, with a group of six solenoids (some new, some old) in an aircraft seeing regular combat use, the solenoids alone would account for maybe half the variance I suggested and the rest would come from the guns themselves, with factors like lubrication, wear, and even the pull on the ammo belts making themselves felt.

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
09-08-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">setting a delay might be easier than getting it random

gun1 0
gun2 .3
gun3 .1
gun4 .2
gun5 .4
gun6 .5

(change amount of delay for most realistic)

ofcourse u need to set up it right, and not just increase delay for each gun going from left to right, then ud just slew the plane.

ofcourse, such a lookup table or similer could be used for all planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt! But OTOH that would be something new to work on. My guess is, it would be easier to copy&paste part of P-40E field mod code to other planes guns modelhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I never thought about selenoids different time of response. That could be IT. I wonder if there are any specs on 1940's selenoids...But that not to make any new model, but to support comunity claim that, the way P-40E field mod fires, i.e. stream rather than salvos since first bullets of a burst, is historically correct.

p1ngu666
09-08-2005, 05:03 PM
kocur your probably right, but im sure oleg and co will do whatever is easiest to unsync the guns.

if we have truely random rof or preset rof like my sugestion, the end result is the same, more stream, less shotgun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

startin each gun with a different bullet in the belt would also help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Monson74
09-09-2005, 01:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

startin each gun with a different bullet in the belt would also help http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now THAT would just be incredibly kewl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gibbage1
09-09-2005, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
you are talking about de-sync....yeah, Im for the fix ...but please....wer dealing with lasers coming from the red side....we had from the beginning real physic with bullets and shells....think of that.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I call BS. As a red pilot, I must deal with bullet arc also. Even at 300M from dead 6 I still need to fire with the crosshairs slightly above target. Also, FYI, M2's vanish at 900M.

If they are lasers as you say, show me a track of you hitting targets at 800M. Should be easy for lasers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Scen
09-09-2005, 10:44 AM
Throwing around words like lasers is silly when I can hit targets with the 20mm at 600-700m. Try that with a .50

Good luck with that

Scendore

HayateAce
09-10-2005, 03:13 PM
Aye!

For fixing the .50s.

Tvrdi
09-10-2005, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Throwing around words like lasers is silly when I can hit targets with the 20mm at 600-700m. Try that with a .50

Good luck with that

Scendore </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there was a test while ago wher soembody posted a track file proving that Lw shells arent lasers and VVS testing proved that shells from the vvs planes were lasers...

you can spread the .50 all over the sky and youll hit something (usualy smoked somebodys engine)....

Gibbage1
09-10-2005, 05:17 PM
Lets see. MG13 is low velocity. BIG arc. Only 2 guns. Very hard to hit. VVS UBS was high velicity, flat arc, and easier to hit but stull only 2 guns per aircraft. M2's high velicity, flat arc, and many many guns. Much greater chance to hit. But if you take a P-39 with 2 M2's vs a Yak with 2 UBS you will find they are equal in distance shooting. 109's and 190's just have sucky MG's so its VERY hard. Stop crying in your milk because the Luftwaffe had sucky MG's and the US and VVS had much better ones. Its not lasers, just better guns. Duh!

BTW, why dont you do your own test instead of pulling the ignorant "Well I read a post were" thing hay? BTW, this thread is not about weak Luftwaffe MG weapons or emaginary US Lasers. If you want to debate that, start a new thread. If you want to talk about de-syncing the .50's, feel free to post again, but with something more on-topic.

ECV56_Rolf
09-10-2005, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
Throwing around words like lasers is silly when I can hit targets with the 20mm at 600-700m. Try that with a .50

Good luck with that

Scendore </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there was a test while ago wher soembody posted a track file proving that Lw shells arent lasers and VVS testing proved that shells from the vvs planes were lasers...

you can spread the .50 all over the sky and youll hit something (usualy smoked somebodys engine).... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to start a new thread on the 109 MGs, there is a funny thing with them. Just get a look while they fire, and then pick say a I16 and see how it fires too.

Stanger_361st
09-10-2005, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lets see. MG13 is low velocity. BIG arc. Only 2 guns. Very hard to hit. VVS UBS was high velicity, flat arc, and easier to hit but stull only 2 guns per aircraft. M2's high velicity, flat arc, and many many guns. Much greater chance to hit. But if you take a P-39 with 2 M2's vs a Yak with 2 UBS you will find they are equal in distance shooting. 109's and 190's just have sucky MG's so its VERY hard. Stop crying in your milk because the Luftwaffe had sucky MG's and the US and VVS had much better ones. Its not lasers, just better guns. Duh!

BTW, why dont you do your own test instead of pulling the ignorant "Well I read a post were" thing hay? BTW, this thread is not about weak Luftwaffe MG weapons or emaginary US Lasers. If you want to debate that, start a new thread. If you want to talk about de-syncing the .50's, feel free to post again, but with something more on-topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say do I get a amen.

AMEN http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

iron_guantlet
09-10-2005, 07:17 PM
look at real guncam footage,the proof is there!
.50's were not sycned on P-51 and P-47.

Badsight.
09-10-2005, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
there was a test while ago wher soembody posted a track file proving that Lw shells arent lasers and VVS testing proved that shells from the vvs planes were lasers...

you can spread the .50 all over the sky and youll hit something (usualy smoked somebodys engine).... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>why do you even bother looking in this thread ?

no proof , & way off topic

Grey_Mouser67
09-10-2005, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iron_guantlet:
look at real guncam footage,the proof is there!
.50's were not sycned on P-51 and P-47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes it is there...and free firing HMG's don't all fire at the exact same rate anyways...they are machines and subject to a small amount of variation...and if I recall correctly, the speed of fire increases as the belt gets shorter and I'd also expect the rate of fire to decrease under G load.

Without mechanical interupters to sync the guns they did and should fire a stream of lead as opposed to waves of lead.