PDA

View Full Version : Oleg please make time to improve .50 cal on us planes



VF17_CRH
09-09-2005, 05:18 PM
Found a site with ww2 pilots description of how the 50's work.

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/mad-rebel/mad-rebel1.asp

Combat in the "Jug." My 40 combat-mission experiences in the P-47 Thunderbolt had proved to me that the "Jug" could take and deliver extensive damage. After escort missions, it was easy to "get lost," go to the deck and use the plane's eight .50-caliber machine guns and ammo to their best advantage. A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing; it would leave a truck loaded with soldiers with nothing recognizable; it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire. A squirt of armor-piercing ammo drilled two- to three-foot holes at water lines to sink barges; it would destroy the front of a train engine and wipe out the rails; it would cut off a train's front wheels, topple radar towers and wipe out a parade ground of soldiers.

groundcrew.jpg - 11481 Bytes
With my ground crew (left to right): me€"Lt. John Oliphint, pilot; Bill Powell, armorer; Dellmar Hubbell, crew chief and "Red" Wallace, crew chief. These guys did a phenomenal job of keeping my Mad Rebel in combat-ready shape (photo courtesy of author).

Example: after an escort, I arranged to "get lost," went to treetop level to avoid flak and followed a railroad track between two cities. Gun-camera film shows 14 railroad engines destroyed before I ran out of ammunition on my way back to base. Another example: returning from a mission, I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam. He fired; I fired. Neither of us would move, and how we didn't crash still mystifies me. When he passed under me, he was dead€"plane shredded, on fire and going down. My Thunderbolt's left gun and ammo covers had been blown away, its left wheel and engine cowl had gone, there were numerous one-foot holes in both wings, the number seven and eight cylinders had been blown away, the prop blades had holes, the tail was shredded and pieces of my plane were coming off all over. I flew back to Manston and crash-landed. At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane before it was pulled to the scrapyard and I walked away. I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. My God was good to me.

LEXX_Luthor
09-09-2005, 05:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TEH MAD REBEL::
A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing;
:
:


:
:
Again, <span class="ev_code_yellow">I arranged to fly in the highest flight.</span> The entire area was reportedly packed with enemy equipment, and enemy vehicles clogged all routes to the northwest and our invasion beachhead. The target area was expected to have clear weather for only a few hours. This didn't pose a problem for my plans; fly in top cover where enemy planes might attack, haul my bombs to target, dump them and then get back to high-cover protection for the rest of the unit as they strafed all they wanted. <span class="ev_code_yellow">I wanted air kills</span>.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

badatflyski
09-09-2005, 05:37 PM
They didn't cut only planes in half, they cut also the german and the japanese 50000tons destroyers in half,yeah, it's true, thrust me i have proofs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, actually the tirpitz was not killed by a 5tons bomb with a earthquake-effect but by a single p47 with his 0.50 on a mach2 dive. That discussion is closed a long time ago.

THAT'S ARE MACHINE GUNS you could find on almost any willys jeep and NOT CANNONS WITH EXPLOSIFS BULLETS. Drop it now please...

ps:quote from your text :"I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam."...if this is not a good proof of b**ls**t that has been told by some pilots....

joeap
09-09-2005, 05:37 PM
Posts: 12 | Registered: Sun July 17 2005

n00b http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

VF17_CRH
09-09-2005, 05:43 PM
Yeah i guess you guys were actually there a real ww2 pilot. Or you just stay at a holiday inn last night http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

HayateAce
09-09-2005, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
some typical luftcrap....

Hmmm, believe a WWII fighter pilot, or some dweeb with a bee avatar.

What to do......

------------------------------------------
I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again.

VF17_CRH
09-09-2005, 06:33 PM
Why was this moved from olegs ready room to general?

Half the posts in there dont belong but you moved this one?

Ankanor
09-09-2005, 06:36 PM
and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I want to believe, I really do...

Stanger_361st
09-09-2005, 06:44 PM
Quote:I flew back to Manston and crash-landed. At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane before it was pulled to the scrapyard and I walked away. I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. My God was good to me.
unqoute.
423 holes.
Could that happen in this GAME. Never.

Von_Rat
09-09-2005, 07:25 PM
cough,,,,learn to shoot,,,,cough

Badsight.
09-09-2005, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by VF17_CRH:
Why was this moved from olegs ready room to general?

Half the posts in there dont belong but you moved this one? because this one is a disgrace

there is nothing wrong with the Hit Power of the M2 in FB

what holds it back is the same for all planes , syncronisation

only a couple of planes in FB have un-synched guns , one of them has the M2 .50 cal

fordfan25
09-09-2005, 08:10 PM
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 VF17_CRH:
Why was this moved from olegs ready room to general?

Half the posts in there dont belong but you moved this one? because this one is a disgrace

there is nothing wrong with the Hit Power of the M2 in FB

what holds it back is the same for all planes , syncronisation

only a couple of planes in FB have un-synched guns , one of them has the M2 .50 cal </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that and the unsteady wablie *spelling* FM. seen to much gun cam of fighters ingaged in combate to beleave that the why almost all planes in this game behave is correct. i agree the .50s are right per bullet for the most part. the exeption being the .... more than optomistic DM of just a few of its historical targets with the eception of its abilty to coase fires. but the way planes behave as well as the synced guns is whats makeing things tough. with 108's its not nearly as noticble because of the simple fact that even if you fire 20 shots and only 2 or 3 hit its still a cripple or kill.

fordfan25
09-09-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
cough,,,,learn to shoot,,,,cough

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

faustnik
09-09-2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by VF17_CRH:
Why was this moved from olegs ready room to general?

Half the posts in there dont belong but you moved this one?

CRH,

There where a lot of test done with the M2 during the war. The way to get 1C to change something is to collect those tests and compare them to results from the sim. Do in-sim tests in arcade mode and save all the tracks. If the in-sim tests don't match the historical test data, 1C might change it if you send them everything. It you follow those instructions, changes can be made. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG52_wunsch
09-09-2005, 08:30 PM
LOL

Cajun76
09-10-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:

THAT'S ARE MACHINE GUNS you could find on almost any willys jeep and NOT CANNONS WITH EXPLOSIFS BULLETS. Drop it now please...

ps:quote from your text :"I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam."...if this is not a good proof of b**ls**t that has been told by some pilots....

Besides the fact that there's a closing speed of probably at least 600mph, and your firing at each other guns blazing, it's easily possible to mis-identify a planes armament in a head-on profile, eh?

Now, there were some prototypes of Fw-190D with 2 x 20mm inboard and 2 x 30mm outboard, but you'll probably dismiss this as LW propaganda. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

And I had no idea how knowledgeable you were about cannons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I defer to your superior wisdom, sir. Since cannon fire explosive shells (everyone knows this), what are 20mm, aircraft-mounted projectile launchers called when they fire AP rounds?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



There were some HE ammo for .50's, do they qualify as cannon now? There were even HE rifle-caliber ammunition. I guess they qualify as cannon now, too?


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.

Excerpeted from a post by AlmightyTallest (he's done quite a bit of research in multiple forums on the subject): http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2231006943/r/2481015253#2481015253


Just because it's a HMG, dosen't mean it's not lethal.

SeaFireLIV
09-10-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by VF17_CRH:
Found a site with ww2 pilots description of how the 50's work.

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/mad-rebel/mad-rebel1.asp

Combat in the "Jug." My 40 combat-mission experiences in the P-47 Thunderbolt had proved to me that the "Jug" could take and deliver extensive damage. After escort missions, it was easy to "get lost," go to the deck and use the plane's eight .50-caliber machine guns and ammo to their best advantage. A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing; it would leave a truck loaded with soldiers with nothing recognizable; it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire. A squirt of armor-piercing ammo drilled two- to three-foot holes at water lines to sink barges; it would destroy the front of a train engine and wipe out the rails; it would cut off a train's front wheels, topple radar towers and wipe out a parade ground of soldiers.

groundcrew.jpg - 11481 Bytes
With my ground crew (left to right): me€"Lt. John Oliphint, pilot; Bill Powell, armorer; Dellmar Hubbell, crew chief and "Red" Wallace, crew chief. These guys did a phenomenal job of keeping my Mad Rebel in combat-ready shape (photo courtesy of author).

Example: after an escort, I arranged to "get lost," went to treetop level to avoid flak and followed a railroad track between two cities. Gun-camera film shows 14 railroad engines destroyed before I ran out of ammunition on my way back to base. Another example: returning from a mission, I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam. He fired; I fired. Neither of us would move, and how we didn't crash still mystifies me. When he passed under me, he was dead€"plane shredded, on fire and going down. My Thunderbolt's left gun and ammo covers had been blown away, its left wheel and engine cowl had gone, there were numerous one-foot holes in both wings, the number seven and eight cylinders had been blown away, the prop blades had holes, the tail was shredded and pieces of my plane were coming off all over. I flew back to Manston and crash-landed. At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane before it was pulled to the scrapyard and I walked away. I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. My God was good to me.

I know you`re excited by what you read, But no one can alter the 0.50s (or any other armament) simply on ONE pilot`s recollection.

Surely you must understand that MULTIPLE evidence is required. evidences that can be checked and crossed checked. Why do you think that our Ploice forces require evidence from EVERYONE at a crime scene? This is because one person`s report can often br biased, clouded, mistaken or multiple or reasons.

It is a great mistake to take ONE ACCOUNT and treat it as gospel. This is how silly and stupid mistakes are made. You need accurate accounts and evidence from many sources from both friend and enemy too- NOT JUST WHAT YOU LIKE THE SOUND OF. It is right that Oleg should not consider this and it be moved.

tigertalon
09-10-2005, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by VF17_CRH:
At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane

LOL this one gets the cake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Assuming planes were merging with only 360kph each (so 720 kph overal) this is 200meters per second. Assuming that Fw pilot opened fire as soon as 1km away, he had 5 seconds to fire. Taking average rate of fire for Fw190D 4 barrels as 10 rounds/gun/second, so 40rounds/second, in 5 seconds he fired around 200 shells/bullets. Now if ALL of them would hit, you are still nowhere near 423. If it was some kind of mystery 190D wiht 4 20mms (which it wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) , you still get around 300 shells fired...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It amazes me over and over again, how so many people read all kinds of BS and blindly believe it without using just a single brain cell that would tell them it's impossible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

PBNA-Boosher
09-10-2005, 09:03 AM
Learn to shoot where your bullets intersect dude.

It's generally a good idea to find out how to aim too.

Abbuzze
09-10-2005, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
Quote:I flew back to Manston and crash-landed. At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane before it was pulled to the scrapyard and I walked away. I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. My God was good to me.
unqoute.
423 holes.
Could that happen in this GAME. Never.

LOOL! Are you sure...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/p47_acd2.jpg
or
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/p47_acd1.jpg
This is made with a HurricaneIIB.

AND he said holes... not 7.62 nor 13mm or 20mm holes he just said holes...

tigertalon
09-10-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/p47_acd2.jpg
or
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/p47_acd1.jpg
This is made with a HurricaneIIB.

AND he said holes... not 7.62 nor 13mm or 20mm holes he just said holes...

No matter how hard I try, I can find only one hole on the pic above...

jimDG
09-10-2005, 10:15 AM
this is exactly the story that I had in mind in my posts in this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1281044253/p/1

I read it in some historical aviation magazine that I lost a long time ago, and I couldn't find it on the net (so - thankshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(but I couldnt be bothered to continue to argue about numbers - everyone can do the maths by themselves and make their own mind)

I think the solution is simple -
1) model the 4 (or 3) MG cluster as one MG with a high rate of fire ("desync the MGs" as others put it)
2) In the long run - the damage model should not only take into account the number of hits on a particular plane piece, but also the direction of hits. Five .50 cal hits on a wing leading edge (all hitting the spar) do considerably more damage than five hits across the wing (one or none hitting the spar). And is still one and the same piece of virtual airplane.
Or maybe this is taken into account already?
Ideally the DM of non-explosive rounds should only work on a virtual frame/structure of an airplane - if a round passes through the skin but hits no structural elements - then it does no real damage.. This would probably be a computational nightmare, though...

Cajun76
09-10-2005, 10:18 AM
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 VF17_CRH:
At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane

LOL this one gets the cake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Assuming planes were merging with only 360kph each (so 720 kph overal) this is 200meters per second. Assuming that Fw pilot opened fire as soon as 1km away, he had 5 seconds to fire. Taking average rate of fire for Fw190D 4 barrels as 10 rounds/gun/second, so 40rounds/second, in 5 seconds he fired around 200 shells/bullets. Now if ALL of them would hit, you are still nowhere near 423. If it was some kind of mystery 190D wiht 4 20mms (which it wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) , you still get around 300 shells fired...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It amazes me over and over again, how so many people read all kinds of BS and blindly believe it without using just a single brain cell that would tell them it's impossible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that no Fw-190D ever had more than 2 x 20mm and the fuselage MG's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

And actually, the .50's do that kind of damge described offline, but onwhine, packet loss and synchronized wing guns take a big bite out of thier punch.

And one bullet can make more than just one hole, eh? I give more credence to the folks actually there than any armchair expert around here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The thing we really need is de-synch of guns that were not synched in real life.

csThor
09-10-2005, 10:31 AM
The only Doras which had more than the common 2x MG 131 + 2x MG 151/20 and which have been used in combat can be counted with two hands. And that's still a rather generous guess.

Obviously the narrative genes run strong in this gentleman (who told the story). He should have gone the way of a novel writer - in fictious stories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

faustnik
09-10-2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:


So you're saying that no Fw-190D ever had more than 2 x 20mm and the fuselage MG's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif



Cajun,

The D-11s had 2 x Mg151 and 2 x Mk108 with no fusalage MGs. Around 20 reached combat units.

Stanger_361st
09-10-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<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 VF17_CRH:
At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane

LOL this one gets the cake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Assuming planes were merging with only 360kph each (so 720 kph overal) this is 200meters per second. Assuming that Fw pilot opened fire as soon as 1km away, he had 5 seconds to fire. Taking average rate of fire for Fw190D 4 barrels as 10 rounds/gun/second, so 40rounds/second, in 5 seconds he fired around 200 shells/bullets. Now if ALL of them would hit, you are still nowhere near 423. If it was some kind of mystery 190D wiht 4 20mms (which it wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) , you still get around 300 shells fired...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It amazes me over and over again, how so many people read all kinds of BS and blindly believe it without using just a single brain cell that would tell them it's impossible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you're saying that no Fw-190D ever had more than 2 x 20mm and the fuselage MG's? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

And actually, the .50's do that kind of damge described offline, but onwhine, packet loss and synchronized wing guns take a big bite out of thier punch.

And one bullet can make more than just one hole, eh? I give more credence to the folks actually there than any armchair expert around here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The thing we really need is de-synch of guns that were not synched in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off still impresive amount of hits in picture even thoug not quite 432. Also I do not think he took 432 hits from headon. Could have been from total mission. Ground fire or flack. He did not go into detail where 432 holes came from. My point was taken from other thread about the tail fuselage coming off easier now.

Pilot stories can be sometimes not 100% accurate but still some points can be look at especially if more than one say the same thing.

CUJO_1970
09-10-2005, 12:18 PM
People often confuse "holes" with actual bullet/cannon hits.

Probably, if anyone really did take the time to actually count all 400+ "holes" and then record it, the majority were likely the result of fragmenting cannon rounds.

His comment about the Dora having four cannons likely comes from the fact that the D-9 at the time was mostly an unknown entity to them, and up to that point most A-series Focke-Wulfs were armed with four cannons.

x__CRASH__x
09-10-2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF17_CRH:
Why was this moved from olegs ready room to general?

Half the posts in there dont belong but you moved this one?

CRH,

There where a lot of test done with the M2 during the war. The way to get 1C to change something is to collect those tests and compare them to results from the sim. Do in-sim tests in arcade mode and save all the tracks. If the in-sim tests don't match the historical test data, 1C might change it if you send them everything. It you follow those instructions, changes can be made. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The over-inflated account of a self-congratulatory fighter pilot is hardly the proof anyone needs to keep this sim real. If you have real proof, then follow the the procedures for change. FB cannot be, and shall not be manipulated by the assumptions of a few. Aim for realism, not bias.

jimDG
09-10-2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VF17_CRH:
Why was this moved from olegs ready room to general?

Half the posts in there dont belong but you moved this one?

CRH,

There where a lot of test done with the M2 during the war. The way to get 1C to change something is to collect those tests and compare them to results from the sim. Do in-sim tests in arcade mode and save all the tracks. If the in-sim tests don't match the historical test data, 1C might change it if you send them everything. It you follow those instructions, changes can be made. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The over-inflated account of a self-congratulatory fighter pilot is hardly the proof anyone needs to keep this sim real. If you have real proof, then follow the the procedures for change. FB cannot be, and shall not be manipulated by the assumptions of a few. Aim for realism, not bias. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you please post the account of AT LEAST ONE pilot who says that 4x2 .50 cals were inadequate for their job and that they didn't cut LW fuselages in pieces and that they were a poorer fighter-downing tools than the FW190 weapons? P-LLLLL-EEEAASE....?

x__CRASH__x
09-10-2005, 01:06 PM
Oh, you mean a fighter pilot's account that doesn't inflate his own ego?

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

jimDG
09-10-2005, 01:08 PM
Well.. if fighter pilot accounts are no good (LW, RAF, USAAf etc.) , please post some evidence that supports YOUR point of view (that you consider to be acceptable as evidence).

x__CRASH__x
09-10-2005, 01:19 PM
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.

geetarman
09-10-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatflyski:
some typical luftcrap....

Hmmm, believe a WWII fighter pilot, or some dweeb with a bee avatar.

What to do......


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
------------------------------------------
I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stanger_361st
09-10-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.

I think pilot accounts has some weight but not total. If a lot of pilots say the same thing then lets look at it. What pisses me off is the disrespect we have with any pilot flying any plane and calling them inflated egos and morons. German, British, Japanes,American and whatever flyers all should have the respect they deserve.
Salute to all who flew and gave it all.

SeaFireLIV
09-10-2005, 02:10 PM
THE POINT IS:

To make use of ALL evidence:

1. ALL PILOT RECOLLECTIONS should be looked into and considered.

2.ALL RESEARCH ENGINEERING DATA.
CIRCUMSTANCES/ SITUATION/ THEATRE/ ENVIRONMENTS should be looked int and considered.

All these things shuld be used to create an accurate simulation. Not just one source. So pilot recollections are still every important - easily as important as technical data.

NOTHING shuld be ignored. The Human element often helps us see where the mechanical excelld or failed in the field.

BUT NEVER USE JUST ONE SOURCE AS THE ALL ENCOMPASSING EVIDENCE.

I can`t say it clearer than this.

x__CRASH__x
09-10-2005, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Stanger_361st:
What pisses me off is the disrespect we have with any pilot flying any plane and calling them inflated egos and morons. German, British, Japanes,American and whatever flyers all should have the respect they deserve.
Salute to all who flew and gave it all.
I never called them morons. That is something you have obviously read into my statement. But a good attempt to discredit with bias. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, and a good smoke job at the end there too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Art-J
09-10-2005, 02:21 PM
When I recall the old infamous ".50s vs Tiger tanks" thread and the report posted over there (comparison of armour kills around Falaise pocket claimed by the pilots on one hand, and real number of destroyed vehicles, counted by allied soldiers investigating battlefield afterwards - HUGE difference between them! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif) I can see that pilots reports can be very inaccurate as well. So in the duel: "armchair experts" vs. "veterans" I say: round draw! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The truth usually lies somewhere between.
I'm not used to believe every word "armchairs" say, because form my own experience I know that hobbyists can be mistaken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. But after some reading, I've noticed that RL combat men accounts have to be taken with caution too.
Examples? Remember: Tom Lamphier believed till his last days he killed Yamamoto, even after post-war investigations proved this was not so simple. Admiral Halsey believed till his last days he did the right thing moving TF38 fleet carriers from the exit of San Bernardino Strait to Cape Engano (seamen from sunken "Gambier Bay" and other Sprague's CVEs might differ on this opinion I guess...).

Ah, whatever... Let's get back on topic, shall we? The opinions: ".50s should be stronger 'cause my grand-father/mother[...blah blah blah...]/nephew-in-law said so" are as old and boring as all .50 threads up to date, and they ain't solve NOTHING http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif (without being backed up by more info).
In the meantime, the synchronisation issue in the game seems to be something worth discussing. I smell a chance for possible fix here, If only we try to do some serious talking about possible programmer's solution to this problem.

Cheers - Art

FritzGryphon
09-10-2005, 02:44 PM
I remember a quote from a pilot account, that made me laugh. Something like this, from an interview.

"I made a short burst, and he immediately blew up"

"How long of a burst?"

"Oh, about 6 or 7 seconds. Then he spiralled into the ground and crashed".

Pilot accounts are usually like this. Incredibly vague, and exaggerated to make it sound more impressive than it really was. A 7 second burst is not short, and how would the plane spiral and crash if it had blown up?

Things like 'blew up', 'short burst', 'burning', 'saw strikes', 'out of control', 'pieces came off'.. etc, don't mean anything unless specifics are given. Even then, there's no way to verify the accuracy of the account.

----

When specifics are given, you have to wonder how the pilot would even remember these things.

One account tells of a P-47 pilot expending all his ammo, shooting at a FW-190. He "saw strikes all over the plane" and estimated that he hit with 5% of his bullets. The FW-190 flew on, unaffected. It was the only plane he attacked that day.

Now of course this is ridiculous, as 5% of the P-47 ammo load is over 300 hits. Surely he must have been mistaken (or, the FW-190 is severely undermodeled in PF!)

Badsight.
09-10-2005, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Things like 'blew up', 'short burst', 'saw strikes', 'out of control', 'pieces came off'.. etc, don't mean anything unless specifics are given. Even then, there's no way to verify the accuracy of the account.
Pilot accounts , while nice to read , have NO PLACE in deciding performance of planes in FB

HayateAce
09-10-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
with bias.

You champion realism yet fly the klown09, which has one of the most egregious FMs in the series?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

x__CRASH__x
09-10-2005, 03:15 PM
ANd you've flown the 109? You know how it performed? All I have ever read from you, Hayate, is unsubstantiated BS because you "think" it ought to be one way or the other.

So really, you can stuff it.

SeaFireLIV
09-10-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

Pilot accounts , while nice to read , have NO PLACE in deciding performance of planes in FB

NO, Badsight. Pilot accounts should be considered. If there are enough sources (both friend and enemy) that repeatedly point to an event occuring multiple times. Then that must be taken into account EVEN over technical data. Sometimes machines do not perform as written on paper when out in the field... Machines are NOT in a vacuum when they are involved in combat.

This is where the human element comes. Too much reliance on just the technical can lead to a sterile and dead flight sim. And a good flight sim should always provide some of the Human and natural element effects on machines (especially if it uses AI).

F19_Olli72
09-10-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
When specifics are given, you have to wonder how the pilot would even remember these things.


Im not commenting on the pilot in your example as im not familiar with it, but:

Besides combatreports, some pilots also kept a private diary. In the case of Heinz Knoke and many other books/autobiographies of aces, most of the info is taken from those diaries.

So not all specifics are vague memories 50 years later.

FritzGryphon
09-10-2005, 03:50 PM
So not all specifics are vague memories 50 years later.

Oh, I agree. But still, I don't see how they could remember things like number of hits, or locations, even right after the fact.

For example, shoot down a plane in PF, fly the rest of your mission, land. Then and try to write an accurate kill report, with number of hits scored, where, and what happened to the target. Then, watch a track of it. Your estimation will probably be way off.

carguy_
09-10-2005, 04:10 PM
Another USAAF hero thinking his flying/gunnery skills aren`t to blame.

The issue is resolved.We know what is wrong with .50cal.Just unsych it,period.

BTW pilot accounts matter little to me since you USAAF fans stated that:

1.A guy in a Liberator tail turret ran out of ammo,reached for his .38 revolver ans shot a 109 down.

2..50cal penetrates Tiger tank armor.

jimDG
09-10-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.

I think pilots are best placed to make observations on what results different armaments have on airplanes, when shot at..um..with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
One can then go back and say - does this observation tie up with the engineering specs?

Here is the maths, one more time (a slightly different version than in the "other" thread)

RTF 151 - 500 RPM (for ease of computation)
RTF 4x.50 cal - 4000 RPM ( " ")

wing width - 1 meter.
wing/spar thicknes- 10 cm.

20mm HE hits needed to break a wing - one, anywhere.
.50 hits needed to break a wing - 4x, on the wing spar, within 20 cm of each other
(this I made up - and I think it's reasonable)


Setting 1:
- I sit on the ground, I hold either a)1x mg151 in my hands , or b) 4x .50 cals. 300 meters away there's a huge poster pane with a full sized picture of a parked fw190, taken from the tail (6 o'clock shot). I start shooting at the ground beneath it, and move the gun upwards; I let go off the triger 0.5 seconds latter, at which point the gun has ended up pointing 50 meters above the ground (I move it this way, cause I cant shoothttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A) I hold a MK151 - that has shot 250 rounds, 50meters/250 rounds = 20 cm separation between the holes left in the poster. Wing - 50% chance of being missed (residing in a gap between the holes, as it's 10cm thick)
B) I hold 4x .50 cals - those have shot 2000 rounds, in 0.5 secs, there is a 2.5 cm distance between holes in the vertical direction and 20 cm in the horizontal (4 barrels, 20 cm apart)
Result - wing (spar) is hit by 4 bullets.

Setting 2:
Same as 1, but now the poster has a picture of a FW190 that sits on its tail, and the nose is pointing skywards, and the cockpit is pointing towards me (90 deg deflection shot)
A)mk151- wing is now 1 meter wide, 5x 20mm rounds hit it, its blown off
b)4x. 50 cal - wing spar is still 10cm wide, wing is peppered with 36 holes (that do no structural damage), and 4 rounds still hit the spar (40 holes in total). Wing breaks.

Now, had I been aiming at the fuselage, results would have been quite different in both settings. All structural elements are now in the direction of shooting, or in the direction of spray movement, so .50 cals would do nothing (wouldnt go across a structural elemnent).

But at 300m, its easier to put a line of holes across something a few meters wide (wings), and tougher across a something half a meter wide (fuselage), and my left-to-right aim is not so good. So I stick with the 4x .50 cals., because I can aim them "across" a wing easier, and because they work in both settings.
mk151 works in both settings only when aimed at at the fuselage, and that target is 20 times smaller (left-to-right) than the wings.

If I have 2xmk151 (one in wing, one above engine), now that is almost _equivalent_ to 4x .50 cals. hole separation is now in the order of 10cm in the vertical direction and the spar is hit in setting 1. But _equivalent_ is not "better".

So, does this tie up with the story? Yes, because the story is about a 0 deflection shot where the .50 cals are better (setting 1).. assuming both pilots are equally bad shots.

This thought experiment is all there is to RPM, caliber, and damage - In 99% of cases, shooting at a tagret results in a line of holes across it - either because the targets is moving across a burst, or the gun is moving, or both. And whether or not something gets hit depends on hole separation (i.e. RPM) and how wide it is so that the line goes across it - given the same shooting scenarios/conditions. So, the caliber should be enough to damage what's supposed to get hit, and thats all there is to it.
If you are gonna go for damaging the smallest crucial elements (spars/structure), you go for high RPM, lowest possible damaging caliber. If you go for the bigger stuff (bombers structure, engines, fuel tanks etc) - raise the caliber at the expense of total RPM and you get the same result.
Total mass of rounds per second has nothing to do with it, as that ignores the case where the caliber is too low to damage anything even if it hits (like the .303), or the RPM is too low to actually hit the target at any angle (like the mk108 and fighters at 90 deg deflection).
A bomber-destroying armament is not as good against fighters as a fighter-destroying armament - and v.v.

HOWEVER - going for the smallest possible cricial element gives you an extra bonus - structural elements (spars etc.) are easier to "cross" (as opposed to "T") with a line of fire - they may be narrow, but they are long.

Hoarmurath
09-10-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by jimDG:
- In 99% of cases, shooting at a tagret results in a line of holes across it -

In hollywood movies, yes, in real life, no. guns dispersion prevent any "line" of hits on target. you can check pics of damaged aircrafts, you will certainly not find 99% showing "lines" of hits, rather 99% showing hits spread over an area.

Kuna15
09-10-2005, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
For example, shoot down a plane in PF, fly the rest of your mission, land. Then and try to write an accurate kill report, with number of hits scored, where, and what happened to the target. Then, watch a track of it. Your estimation will probably be way off.

Well said.

Dtools4fools
09-10-2005, 08:07 PM
Regarding pilot reports I think they do have some importance however a quite limited one.

What is equally important is however how WE look at those reports. Two people can come to two very diferent conclusions reading the same report.

I remember the Steinhoff comment about the P-38 being very dangerous if above.

One group goes, Yeah, P-38 must be better than 109, even an ace like Steinhoff feared it. Group two goes, wait a moment, he said "if above" - many plane can pose a treat if above. Above is just not a place where you want a enemy plane to be.

Aircraft performance is difficult to judge by pilot accounts as not all performed same and often the reports lack detail. I remember Knoke mentioning that his wingman was falling behind and could not keep up with his speed. He however could and finally got the Mossie. But he does not mention even if his wingman was in the same 109 type or anymore details. Neither would he know what version of Mossie he did shot down.

So what can we learn from this? Not much really...

However we can get "hints" from pilots accounts. "Hints" I would call if Saburo Sakai mentions several times that enmey plane was out of range but then he closed in and opened fire from 150 feet. So we can learn that he usually shot from very close.
If we read than many other pilots reports we might be able to see some pattern that give us an rough idea about what range weapons were effective.

To judge turn and such is very difficult as well as it depended much on pilot skill and experience in one particular aircraft type.
****

jimDG
09-10-2005, 08:41 PM
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 jimDG:
- In 99% of cases, shooting at a tagret results in a line of holes across it -

In hollywood movies, yes, in real life, no. guns dispersion prevent any "line" of hits on target. you can check pics of damaged aircrafts, you will certainly not find 99% showing "lines" of hits, rather 99% showing hits spread over an area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

do I really have to answer ?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thats why it says there - four .50 rounds 20 cm appart horizontally to hit a spar.
Deflection of each round at 300m is..how much? 5cm radius? So the holes from each gun form an uneven zig-zag line (when connected) which is maximum 10 cm wide. add 4 guns, close to each other - problem solved.
I do not say its a straight line, or that such a thing is needed

and yes, the dispertion is in the vertical direction as well (it's circular) so, statisticaly spacing would sometimes be less than 2.5 cm (vertically), sometimes more.

As for pics of damaged aircraft - damaged by what armamament combination ? At what range? (different dispertion is the case at different ranges and rounds/calibers - but the .50 round is the best ballisticaly of all - with the least dispertion compared to other rounds). The twisted metal doesnt record what downed it?

If a line of bullets did pass across a wing (close enough holes to do damage) - then the wing/spar would break accros that line. It's hard to have a picture of a wing WITH a line accros it?! It would be two pieces then, if such a line had "formed", and the bullet holes would be on the edge of the 2 pieces. If it didn't - then the range was too big (or smth else) - the wing didnt become 2 pieces, aircraft was downed by smth else (or flew back to base) - and any picture of such a wing would not show anything resembling a line across it , you are right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its like saying - look, here I have a piece of paper that has never been cut by scissors, as there is not cut across it. And now I cut it in two with scissors, and .. magic.. I have two pieces that show they have never been cut by scissors, as there are no cuts across them.

And besides, the MGs and cannons (in the game) do form a line (of dust clouds) when you shoot at the ground, even in a vertical dive, and even more so when you strafe

Dtools4fools
09-10-2005, 09:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.



I think pilots are best placed to make observations on what results different armaments have on airplanes, when shot at..um..with Smile.
One can then go back and say - does this observation tie up with the engineering specs?

Here is the maths, one more time (a slightly different version than in the "other" thread)

RTF 151 - 500 RPM (for ease of computation)
RTF 4x.50 cal - 4000 RPM ( " ")

wing width - 1 meter.
wing/spar thicknes- 10 cm.

20mm HE hits needed to break a wing - one, anywhere.
.50 hits needed to break a wing - 4x, on the wing spar, within 20 cm of each other
(this I made up - and I think it's reasonable)


Setting 1:
- I sit on the ground, I hold either a)1x mg151 in my hands , or b) 4x .50 cals. 300 meters away there's a huge poster pane with a full sized picture of a parked fw190, taken from the tail (6 o'clock shot). I start shooting at the ground beneath it, and move the gun upwards; I let go off the triger 0.5 seconds latter, at which point the gun has ended up pointing 50 meters above the ground (I move it this way, cause I cant shootSmile

A) I hold a MK151 - that has shot 250 rounds, 50meters/250 rounds = 20 cm separation between the holes left in the poster. Wing - 50% chance of being missed (residing in a gap between the holes, as it's 10cm thick)
B) I hold 4x .50 cals - those have shot 2000 rounds, in 0.5 secs, there is a 2.5 cm distance between holes in the vertical direction and 20 cm in the horizontal (4 barrels, 20 cm apart)
Result - wing (spar) is hit by 4 bullets.

Setting 2:
Same as 1, but now the poster has a picture of a FW190 that sits on its tail, and the nose is pointing skywards, and the cockpit is pointing towards me (90 deg deflection shot)
A)mk151- wing is now 1 meter wide, 5x 20mm rounds hit it, its blown off
b)4x. 50 cal - wing spar is still 10cm wide, wing is peppered with 36 holes (that do no structural damage), and 4 rounds still hit the spar (40 holes in total). Wing breaks.

Now, had I been aiming at the fuselage, results would have been quite different in both settings. All structural elements are now in the direction of shooting, or in the direction of spray movement, so .50 cals would do nothing (wouldnt go across a structural elemnent).

But at 300m, its easier to put a line of holes across something a few meters wide (wings), and tougher across a something half a meter wide (fuselage), and my left-to-right aim is not so good. So I stick with the 4x .50 cals., because I can aim them "across" a wing easier, and because they work in both settings.
mk151 works in both settings only when aimed at at the fuselage, and that target is 20 times smaller (left-to-right) than the wings.

If I have 2xmk151 (one in wing, one above engine), now that is almost _equivalent_ to 4x .50 cals. hole separation is now in the order of 10cm in the vertical direction and the spar is hit in setting 1. But _equivalent_ is not "better".

So, does this tie up with the story? Yes, because the story is about a 0 deflection shot where the .50 cals are better (setting 1).. assuming both pilots are equally bad shots.

This thought experiment is all there is to RPM, caliber, and damage - In 99% of cases, shooting at a tagret results in a line of holes across it - either because the targets is moving across a burst, or the gun is moving, or both. And whether or not something gets hit depends on hole separation (i.e. RPM) and how wide it is so that the line goes across it - given the same shooting scenarios/conditions. So, the caliber should be enough to damage what's supposed to get hit, and thats all there is to it.
If you are gonna go for damaging the smallest crucial elements (spars/structure), you go for high RPM, lowest possible damaging caliber. If you go for the bigger stuff (bombers structure, engines, fuel tanks etc) - raise the caliber at the expense of total RPM and you get the same result.
Total mass of rounds per second has nothing to do with it, as that ignores the case where the caliber is too low to damage anything even if it hits (like the .303), or the RPM is too low to actually hit the target at any angle (like the mk108 and fighters at 90 deg deflection).
A bomber-destroying armament is not as good against fighters as a fighter-destroying armament - and v.v.

HOWEVER - going for the smallest possible cricial element gives you an extra bonus - structural elements (spars etc.) are easier to "cross" (as opposed to "T") with a line of fire - they may be narrow, but they are long.


Uhh...

you fire a burst of 0.5 seconds? And your MG151 shoots 250 rounds in that time? And your 4x0.50 even 2000 rounds?

Check your math...

Your mix up RPMinute and RPSecond...

Even if you get a five second burst (instead of 0.5 seconds; or did you min 0.5 minutes? doubt it as you usually do not get 30 sec burst on target...)

- 4 (dunno why you chose 4vs1 as well)x50 will get 13x4x5 or 260 bullets in total. Will give you a hit every 0.19m

- 1 MG 151/20 is 12x1x5 or 60 shells in total. Will give you a hit every 0.83m

So you will not blow off many wings this way...
Maybe back to aiming? And maths?

Or...
It's late at night...
And strong beer tasted good?


Cheers!

****

VFA-25_Peckens
09-10-2005, 09:26 PM
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 VF17_CRH:
At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane

LOL this one gets the cake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Assuming planes were merging with only 360kph each (so 720 kph overal) this is 200meters per second. Assuming that Fw pilot opened fire as soon as 1km away, he had 5 seconds to fire. Taking average rate of fire for Fw190D 4 barrels as 10 rounds/gun/second, so 40rounds/second, in 5 seconds he fired around 200 shells/bullets. Now if ALL of them would hit, you are still nowhere near 423. If it was some kind of mystery 190D wiht 4 20mms (which it wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) , you still get around 300 shells fired...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It amazes me over and over again, how so many people read all kinds of BS and blindly believe it without using just a single brain cell that would tell them it's impossible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ever think the bullets might pass through the plane doubling the bullet count maybe even tripling the hole count it?

jimDG
09-10-2005, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.



I think pilots are best placed to make observations on what results different armaments have on airplanes, when shot at..um..with Smile.
One can then go back and say - does this observation tie up with the engineering specs?

Here is the maths, one more time (a slightly different version than in the "other" thread)

RTF 151 - 500 RPM (for ease of computation)
RTF 4x.50 cal - 4000 RPM ( " ")

wing width - 1 meter.
wing/spar thicknes- 10 cm.

20mm HE hits needed to break a wing - one, anywhere.
.50 hits needed to break a wing - 4x, on the wing spar, within 20 cm of each other
(this I made up - and I think it's reasonable)


Setting 1:
- I sit on the ground, I hold either a)1x mg151 in my hands , or b) 4x .50 cals. 300 meters away there's a huge poster pane with a full sized picture of a parked fw190, taken from the tail (6 o'clock shot). I start shooting at the ground beneath it, and move the gun upwards; I let go off the triger 0.5 seconds latter, at which point the gun has ended up pointing 50 meters above the ground (I move it this way, cause I cant shootSmile

A) I hold a MK151 - that has shot 250 rounds, 50meters/250 rounds = 20 cm separation between the holes left in the poster. Wing - 50% chance of being missed (residing in a gap between the holes, as it's 10cm thick)
B) I hold 4x .50 cals - those have shot 2000 rounds, in 0.5 secs, there is a 2.5 cm distance between holes in the vertical direction and 20 cm in the horizontal (4 barrels, 20 cm apart)
Result - wing (spar) is hit by 4 bullets.

Setting 2:
Same as 1, but now the poster has a picture of a FW190 that sits on its tail, and the nose is pointing skywards, and the cockpit is pointing towards me (90 deg deflection shot)
A)mk151- wing is now 1 meter wide, 5x 20mm rounds hit it, its blown off
b)4x. 50 cal - wing spar is still 10cm wide, wing is peppered with 36 holes (that do no structural damage), and 4 rounds still hit the spar (40 holes in total). Wing breaks.

Now, had I been aiming at the fuselage, results would have been quite different in both settings. All structural elements are now in the direction of shooting, or in the direction of spray movement, so .50 cals would do nothing (wouldnt go across a structural elemnent).

But at 300m, its easier to put a line of holes across something a few meters wide (wings), and tougher across a something half a meter wide (fuselage), and my left-to-right aim is not so good. So I stick with the 4x .50 cals., because I can aim them "across" a wing easier, and because they work in both settings.
mk151 works in both settings only when aimed at at the fuselage, and that target is 20 times smaller (left-to-right) than the wings.

If I have 2xmk151 (one in wing, one above engine), now that is almost _equivalent_ to 4x .50 cals. hole separation is now in the order of 10cm in the vertical direction and the spar is hit in setting 1. But _equivalent_ is not "better".

So, does this tie up with the story? Yes, because the story is about a 0 deflection shot where the .50 cals are better (setting 1).. assuming both pilots are equally bad shots.

This thought experiment is all there is to RPM, caliber, and damage - In 99% of cases, shooting at a tagret results in a line of holes across it - either because the targets is moving across a burst, or the gun is moving, or both. And whether or not something gets hit depends on hole separation (i.e. RPM) and how wide it is so that the line goes across it - given the same shooting scenarios/conditions. So, the caliber should be enough to damage what's supposed to get hit, and thats all there is to it.
If you are gonna go for damaging the smallest crucial elements (spars/structure), you go for high RPM, lowest possible damaging caliber. If you go for the bigger stuff (bombers structure, engines, fuel tanks etc) - raise the caliber at the expense of total RPM and you get the same result.
Total mass of rounds per second has nothing to do with it, as that ignores the case where the caliber is too low to damage anything even if it hits (like the .303), or the RPM is too low to actually hit the target at any angle (like the mk108 and fighters at 90 deg deflection).
A bomber-destroying armament is not as good against fighters as a fighter-destroying armament - and v.v.

HOWEVER - going for the smallest possible cricial element gives you an extra bonus - structural elements (spars etc.) are easier to "cross" (as opposed to "T") with a line of fire - they may be narrow, but they are long.


Uhh...

you fire a burst of 0.5 seconds? And your MG151 shoots 250 rounds in that time? And your 4x0.50 even 2000 rounds?

Check your math...

Your mix up RPMinute and RPSecond...

Even if you get a five second burst (instead of 0.5 seconds; or did you min 0.5 minutes? doubt it as you usually do not get 30 sec burst on target...)

- 4 (dunno why you chose 4vs1 as well)x50 will get 13x4x5 or 260 bullets in total. Will give you a hit every 0.19m

- 1 MG 151/20 is 12x1x5 or 60 shells in total. Will give you a hit every 0.83m

So you will not blow off many wings this way...
Maybe back to aiming? And maths?

Or...
It's late at night...
And strong beer tasted good?


Cheers!

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


ouh.. caught me there. Make it a 6 seconds burst that starts at the ground and ends 5 meters above it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif that fixes it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I picked numbers that were border line, to show the border line. At bigger ranges - neither mg151 nor .50 cals would connect. That isnt a surprise..

I chose half an aircraft p-47 vs fw190 (4x .50 cal vs. 1x 20mm and 1x 12mm). But I didnt bother including the single 12 mm in the example - one (or less) 12mm hits in a spar doesnt break it.
-1x20mm+ 1x12mm hits and a single 20 mm hit both blow a wing.
So it's the 20 mm gun that determines things.

Dtools4fools
09-10-2005, 09:37 PM
ouh.. caught me there. Make it a 6 seconds burst that starts at the ground and ends 5 meters above it. Smile that fixes it Wink


OK, let's twist and turn those numbers until they fit for what we like... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

But will Oleg listen to us then??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

****

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 01:51 AM
Could you please post the account of AT LEAST ONE pilot who says that 4x2 .50 cals were inadequate for their job

If 4 .50s were good enough, then why did the P47 have 8, and the P51 get upgraded from 4 to 6? If 4 were enough then the USAAF would have saved the weight in the aircraft and stayed at 4.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 01:59 AM
Oh, I agree. But still, I don't see how they could remember things like number of hits, or locations, even right after the fact.[q/uote]

Indeed, Fritz. Some pyschologists spend quite a bit of time staging 'crimes' in front of an audience and then questioning the audience about what happened. Sometimes the reports from different audience members are shockingly different. This is used to help inform the police about how to treat eyewitness testimony.

[quote]For example, shoot down a plane in PF, fly the rest of your mission, land. Then and try to write an accurate kill report, with number of hits scored, where, and what happened to the target. Then, watch a track of it. Your estimation will probably be way off.

I've seen reports of online missions which I've been part of before, and barely recognised them from the descriptions, which could be partly my recollections, the report writer's recollections, or just the way the report was written. I'm sure some head-to-heads could be set up and each participant charged with writing a report and we could see how well they match up.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 02:10 AM
JimDG wrote:

Deflection of each round at 300m is..how much? 5cm radius?

The typical deflection USAAF report is 8 mils from an M2 mounted on a flying aircraft. So at 300m this means most of the rounds will hit at the aim point +- 4 mils or at 300m 0.004*300*100cm, or 120cm radius. So your estimate of 5cm is more than an order of magnitude out.

F19_Olli72
09-11-2005, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could you please post the account of AT LEAST ONE pilot who says that 4x2 .50 cals were inadequate for their job

If 4 .50s were good enough, then why did the P47 have 8, and the P51 get upgraded from 4 to 6? If 4 were enough then the USAAF would have saved the weight in the aircraft and stayed at 4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well if 4 was NOT enough then why would they come up whith the 'Superbolt'?

"Some Thunderbolts were modified to a "Superbolt" configuration to improve their performance in air combat. The Superbolts had half their guns and some armor removed, featured engine modifications to allow them to burn higher-octane fuel, and featured a highly polished finish. "

http://www.vectorsite.net/avp47.html

Also the russians had confidence in the guns, Golodnikov mentions they removed all but two in their P-40s and that was adequate.

Abbuzze
09-11-2005, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:


Well if 4 was NOT enough then why would they come up whith the 'Superbolt'?

"Some Thunderbolts were modified to a "Superbolt" configuration to improve their performance in air combat. The Superbolts had half their guns and some armor removed, featured engine modifications to allow them to burn higher-octane fuel, and featured a highly polished finish. "

http://www.vectorsite.net/avp47.html

Also the russians had confidence in the guns, Golodnikov mentions they removed all but two in their P-40s and that was adequate.

Thats the point, the number of the guns are not that important, if you know how to aim and hit.
German pilots also just used the 20mm in the nose cause it was enough to destroy a plane.

About the MG´s they say that it didn´t make a difference at the target, but then the mechanics would have to rearm them. And the pilots tried to avoid this waste of time and work.

tigertalon
09-11-2005, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by VFA-25_Peckens:
<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 VF17_CRH:
At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane

LOL this one gets the cake! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Assuming planes were merging with only 360kph each (so 720 kph overal) this is 200meters per second. Assuming that Fw pilot opened fire as soon as 1km away, he had 5 seconds to fire. Taking average rate of fire for Fw190D 4 barrels as 10 rounds/gun/second, so 40rounds/second, in 5 seconds he fired around 200 shells/bullets. Now if ALL of them would hit, you are still nowhere near 423. If it was some kind of mystery 190D wiht 4 20mms (which it wasn't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) , you still get around 300 shells fired...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

It amazes me over and over again, how so many people read all kinds of BS and blindly believe it without using just a single brain cell that would tell them it's impossible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ever think the bullets might pass through the plane doubling the bullet count maybe even tripling the hole count it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like you didn't understand sarcasm. Even if EVERY bullet would make TRIPPLE hole, you would get 600 holes.

Now, in the above calculation I assumed that pilot had 100 (!!!) hit percentage from 1000m range (!!!). Real luftwaffe research revealed, that around 2% of ammo fired towards aerial target actually hit. We are all roomexperts in shooting compared to average ww2 fighter pilot. And now show me a roompilot, capable of achieving JUST 50% hit percentage with D9 when merging with P47, opening fire at 1000m. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Even if Fw190 would be sitting directly on P47s 6 oclock, 100 meters away, it would still be very hard to land 423 hits on a target since that would mean hit percentage around 30% if he expanded whole ammo supply - let alone in a headon pass shooting from 1000m. Rare online experts are capable of something like that - I repeat: only 30%.

Yes I agree with other posters, it might have been from shrapnels or from ground fire or from idunnowhat, but certainly not from Fw190D headon pass (as one might assume after reading the article).

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 04:19 AM
Well if 4 was NOT enough then why would they come up whith the 'Superbolt'?

Due to a desire to increase the performance of a few planes at the expense of the effectiveness of the armament. The general trend, through the war, was for more .50s not less, however, and I'd trust the general trend rather than a few oddities.


Also the russians had confidence in the guns, Golodnikov mentions they removed all but two in their P-40s and that was adequate.

He talks of removing the 4 .30s from early P40s to boost performance, and notes that the ability to shoot down planes is not significantly impaired. This talks more of rifle calibre guns being relatively ineffective, or at least not effective enough to warrant the extra weight.

Monson74
09-11-2005, 04:25 AM
Fact 1: God punctured the Heavens with an M2 to start the flood.

Fact 2: Luke Skywalker disabled the Death Star with a short burst of .50 fire.

Fact 3: Hiroshima was destroyed by M2 fire - 2 tracers & 7 APIs.

Fact 4: The Dambuster Raid was conducted solely with M2s - no artificial chemicals added.

Fact 5: The USAAF tested the M2 on the Moon which explains the way it looks today.

Fact 6: The Mistel is just a pathetic attempt by the Luftwaffe to counter the M2 almighty.

Fact 7: The Lissbon Earthquake in 1755 was caused by M2 fire from an English Barque.

All of the above can be proven by genuine documents & many survivers are ready to stand forward & tell the truth.

Art-J
09-11-2005, 05:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif That's the good one, Monson. Amen, brother, amen! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F19_Olli72
09-11-2005, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well if 4 was NOT enough then why would they come up whith the 'Superbolt'?

Due to a desire to increase the performance of a few planes at the expense of the effectiveness of the armament. The general trend, through the war, was for more .50s not less, however, and I'd trust the general trend rather than a few oddities.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ill just quote you:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If 4 were enough then the USAAF would have saved the weight in the aircraft and stayed at 4.
I showed you that that is exactly what they did, but now you change your mind and dismiss it as "a few oddeties"? Were talking if four .50s were adequate, not if they could blow up tanks. I see now that there isnt any proof in the world to change your opinion. But you're of course free to have it.

Obviously four .50s were enough for those who flew the 'Superbolts' anyway. Thats good enough for me .


Also the russians had confidence in the guns, Golodnikov mentions they removed all but two in their P-40s and that was adequate.

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
He talks of removing the 4 .30s from early P40s to boost performance, and notes that the ability to shoot down planes is not significantly impaired. This talks more of rifle calibre guns being relatively ineffective, or at least not effective enough to warrant the extra weight.

You havent really read Golodnikov interviews have you? Heres a direct quote:

"A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were"

Specially i dont see how the words "more than enough", can be interpreted other than...."more than enough"?

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

jimDG
09-11-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
JimDG wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Deflection of each round at 300m is..how much? 5cm radius?

The typical deflection USAAF report is 8 mils from an M2 mounted on a flying aircraft. So at 300m this means most of the rounds will hit at the aim point +- 4 mils or at 300m 0.004*300*100cm, or 120cm radius. So your estimate of 5cm is more than an order of magnitude out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit that I am wrong in my "line image".
In this case vertical separation of holes is still the same (some move up, other also move up by the same amount) but horizontal is 120 cm.
So IF a .50 round can break a spar by itself, or 4 holes can break a spar when within 120 cm of each other - only then would there be a difference between .50 and 151 damage.(in favour of 4x .50)

Anyone has data on this?!

Anyway, my point was to illustrate that with higher RPM/lower cal. you can get the same ammount of (vital or nonvital) damage from all angles, and that's what the main difference is.

ps. I did tweak the numbers (secs/meters) but I tweaked them for both cases, not selectively for just the .50 cals. Now, of course, a selective tweak is proposed (number of .50 cal holes needed to make a spar break), and so I ask for data, if anyone has it..

jimDG
09-11-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Monson74:
Fact 1: God punctured the Heavens with an M2 to start the flood.


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

No, no , no and no, you've gotten it all wrong: the M2 _is_ God!

jugent
09-11-2005, 07:42 AM
There are more urgent ammo-damage fixes to be solved.
All HE-shells gives more damage if they are fired at short range, as if kinetic energy has a significant influence on the damage of HE.

I think that the 0.50 was overpowered before, or the 20 mm was underpowered.

Dtools4fools
09-11-2005, 08:39 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">3. "The shorter flight time of the .50 bullets, plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely."

The first part of this criticism is undoubtedly correct, but the second part does not follow. The relative lack of effectiveness of the .50 bullets mean that it is necessary (on average) to score many more hits to shoot down a plane than with cannon armament. These two factors probably more or less cancel each other out. </pre>


<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality €" it doesn't! </pre>

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">"the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon". It is worth pointing out that for as long as the battery of .50s proved adequate against the targets usually encountered, there were strong arguments in favour of retaining the weapon, as the standardisation of production, supply, maintenance and training provided great logistic benefits by comparison with the plethora of different weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese in particular </pre> from this page (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

The fellow has some good points.

I see it as:

- albeit the 0.50cal armament of US fighters was heavier, they could take the extra wieght due to heavy build of their fighters and lots of engine power.

- 0.50 was good enough in what it had to do.

- lots of ammo and guns is good for strafing; or long escort flights.

- with lots of ammo a Pilot can rather take a chance and shoot in deflection/long range. If he does not hit (or only a few hits) he did not waste so much ammo in comparison of total ammo available to him.

Cannon armament has the advantage of
- delivering more punch in shorter period of time
- being more destructive on target with strong structure (such as B-17)

Talks of the 4x0.50 cal armament being any sort of "proof" for "whatever" is questionable.

That SuperMegaBolt seems to me optimized for aircombat. Less aromour, polish to be faster, less weight to enhance performance. 4 0.50cal will be good enough against Me-109 and Fw. It was rather a scrifice in firepower to improve performance.

I doubt that those Superbolts were designed to perfom better in gound attack...They at least would not had taken the armor out. Nor would polishing have been neccessary...

****

Dtools4fools
09-11-2005, 09:10 AM
roughly:
1 30mm hit needs
x(4)-5 20mm hits
x3-(4) 0.50cal hits
to do similar damage

if:
4 30mm hits to down 4-mot then
20 20mm hits needed or
70 0,50 cal hits needed

Assuming ace at work on a good day, hit percentage is 10%:

6x 0.50cal: 700 bullets required, ROF (per sec) 6x13=88 700/88= 8 sec burst required
4x MG151/20mm: 200 bullets required, FOR (per sec) 4x12=48 200/48= 4.15 sec burst required

Time on target is almost half for 20mm. Important if you go up against heavily armed bombers who do shoot back.

If 2xMG151 total ammo is about is about 750 shells while 6x0.50 is 2400 bullets both could theoretically shoot down 3-4 (4.4 vs 3.7) 4-mots btw.

At the end of the day the 1 20mm equals 3 fifites seems to be correct. Its just how the power is deal out: over shorter period of time for cannon.
Over longer time for fifties.
Both has advatages and disadvatages.
*****

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 09:13 AM
I showed you that that is exactly what they did, but now you change your mind and dismiss it as "a few oddeties"?

Ok, I'll try again. The P-47 variant you refer to was not the standard fit. In general the armament of USAAF aircraft throughout WW2 increased the number of 50 calibre weapons except for a few instances. If 4 50 calibre guns were entirely sufficient in combat conditions there would have been no need to increase to 6 from P51B to P51C.

In the case of the P40B in VVS service 2 50 calibre weapons might have been sufficient in 1942, and the 4 .30 weapons not much more than ballast, but if two 50 calibre weapons were effective in all instances then the USAAF would have armed all P47s with 2 and not 8.

The fact that the standard P47 fit was 8 suggests that if a plane existed sufficiently powerful to carry 8 and have decent performance then it was felt that 8 were a useful fit. More guns gives the ability to put more rounds on target in a given time, thus meaning that a target can be sufficiently damaged and put out of the fight even by a snapshot. However if the performance of the plane carrying the guns is too sluggish to perform adequately in combat then removing weight by removing guns might give it chance to be in a position to take any shot at all. The class of P47s with fewer than 9 guns (some had 6 rather than 4 or 8) represents a compromise between effectiveness of armament and some aspect of performance. An extreme example of this is some of the high altitude interceptors proposed in early 1940s (and never put into production) armed with only a pair of 50 calibre machine guns. It was recognised this was a weak armament, but the threat of very high altitude interdiction over the USA was seen as sufficient to warrant exploration of it. Similarly some very high altitude Mosquito tests were done with versions armed with only 4 .303 guns. In theory such guns could shoot down a bomber during WW2, but could not be considered a very effective armament for it, although at least the very high altitude bombers in employment by the Axis tended to have few defensive guns so sitting on the 6 of a bomber for long bursts was at least an option.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 09:19 AM
3. "The shorter flight time of the .50 bullets, plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely."

If you are talking, say, 4 cannon and 8 MGs then the chance of scoring at least one hit is pretty much the same. Having more guns (above 4) tends to increase the number of hits you can expect in line with the number of guns, but the chance of at least one hit very much more slowly. Most of the time Tony William's is right, but the statistics of what he says above is a bit off unless he is talking about moving from 2 cannon to 6 M2s, in which case he does have a valid point.

F19_Olli72
09-11-2005, 09:41 AM
Well to a certain point i agree. But thats not what im trying to say. Of course 6 or 8 guns is better and more powerful than 4. But the reasons they added the extra guns isnt nessecarily that that four were inadeqate. Just simple as 6 or 8 is more = more is better.

But thats not to say four .50s were totally inadequate. Just think of how long it took for P-51s to get the extra two. Mid 1944? And for instance 332nd FG (and im sure a lot of other squadrons) got majority of their kills in P-51C's (& B's). In fact it wouldnt be that far off from suggesting that majority of total Mustang kills were achieved in B & C models?

Im not claiming its a superweapon though some might interpret it like that. But i thought we discussed if four .50s were adequate for aircombat.

edgflyer
09-11-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.

How many times have things gone beyond what the engineering specs say that it could? All the time and I am not going to give examples because there are to many. My view is just un-synce the guns oh please oh please

VF17_CRH
09-11-2005, 01:03 PM
[quote]quote:
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
My point is: Do you want this sim to be based off of pilot accounts, which are their opinions based on limited observation, or off of researched engineering data?

I'll take the latter, thank you.[/quote

4.01 patch FM was tested with 40 real pilots?
Anyone here fly a ww2 bird in real life?
I would tend to believe someone thats been there and done that than a Engineer with a slide rule anyday.

Kocur_
09-11-2005, 01:48 PM
ps. I did tweak the numbers (secs/meters) but I tweaked them for both cases, not selectively for just the .50 cals.

Hmm... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You certainly tweaked them in both cases: you tweaked M2 to have ROF 200rpm more, and tweaked MG151/20 to have ROF 250rpm less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1.JaVA_Razer
09-11-2005, 01:57 PM
I would to but as said in the beginning off line the .50's do about what they should but on line I can't seem to hit a thing....


So I say unsync them. That alone will do A LOT. Either that or make the M2's more powerfull ON LINE. Why? To counter the loss of bullets/hits due to the sync/packet loss which WAS NOT there in real life. They may come across as stupid/blatant to some but by doing this we get rid of the sync problems. but as always It might just be easier to unsync them.....

BTW about the P47 getting 8 .50's....
they where not designed as pure airfighters now where they? They where designed to do ground attack and bomber interseption this is why they got the 8 .50cals I believe.

I can score a figher kill with the 4 .50's also that they have (2 per wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) and i don't need a lot to do that but off course 8 is better then 4 and if you have the overhead concerning engine power why not?
you do more damage per second
You can down more planes (theoreticly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
You have overhead , simple as that. Now my final statement is lets all just drop it and let the .50's be Unsynced. This will fix 85% of all complaints I reckon

Aaron_GT
09-11-2005, 02:47 PM
So I say unsync them. That alone will do A LOT.

I think that is critical, and historically supportable.


they where not designed as pure airfighters now where they?

They were designed as bomber interceptors at high altitude (with longer legs than the likes of the Spitfire, which was also designed as a bomber interceptor). Bomber interceptors would still have to fight through escorts. They were not designed for ground attack, even though they proved to be very good at it.

Cajun76
09-11-2005, 04:33 PM
Thank you Aaron, I was starting to hyper-ventilate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The P-47 was never envisioned to do groundpounding. The plane was (in simple terms) built around the engine, ducting and turbo charger arrangement. It was designed as pure, high alt A2A all the way. It's a testemant to the ruggedness and inherent versatility of the design that it could do so well in the ground attack role, while still retaining it's native abilities up high. It's a bit ironic that the P-47 got the range it needed to reach Berlin with the addition of another internal tank added to it's ability to carry drop tanks) at the same time they were being handed over to the Ninth and the Italian campaign (Fifteenth?) for medium bomber escort and ground pounding.

I disagree with making the .50 more powerful online, because that still dosen't address the accuracy problem, especially at high deflection. De-synch (of wing guns that weren't) is the Holy Grail right now imho. If we can get that fixed, we won't need more powerful guns to make up for the pulse fire effect.

Dtools4fools
09-11-2005, 05:17 PM
But i thought we discussed if four .50s were adequate for aircombat


For what they had to do it certainly did the job. heck, ne 109 armament with only one cannon and two MG's was good enough for aircombat. If they didn't have to go up against B-17's... Even that could be done but more firerpower was certainly better for that job.
But for fighter vs fighter aircombat 4x .050cal will do fine. And it does as well in PF (at least for me).
****

Grey_Mouser67
09-11-2005, 06:40 PM
I find the 20mm Me109 armament...even when coupled with the LMG's to be a very effective weapons package...the 4 .50HMG package should be more effective at and around convergence than even the armament of a Bf109F-4, G-2 etc... in game, it is nowhere close...that is a good way to think about the issue...and I'm talking about Kinetic energy aspect...many in the community have agreed that 1 20mm is about 3 .50 cal HMG's...I'd expect a Hispano to be a bit more and the German Mauser to be a bit less.

Zjoek
09-12-2005, 01:02 AM
In my humble experience, the 50's are allright. The problem is, that one lucky 30mm hit can blow up a plane, but you'll need a good burst to down a fighter with 50's (1-2 seconds). If you haven't killed the fighter by then he's surely smoking. Or: he'll be out of power in a while.

Now, historically most pilots weren't aware that they were about to be shot down, so the pilots had more time to line up and get a good burst in. But alas, in "Airquake" (lol@ that term...) players are constantly aware of each other. I think that's the difference, as a few hits now and then accomplish almost nothing. So wait till you saddle up proper and pump him full of lead. It'll work I think ^_^

Dtools4fools
09-12-2005, 07:56 AM
I find the 20mm Me109 armament...even when coupled with the LMG's to be a very effective weapons package...the 4 .50HMG package should be more effective at and around convergence than even the armament of a Bf109F-4, G-2 etc... in game, it is nowhere close...that is a good way to think about the issue...and I'm talking about Kinetic energy aspect...many in the community have agreed that 1 20mm is about 3 .50 cal HMG's...I'd expect a Hispano to be a bit more and the German Mauser to be a bit less.


Well, should be about even I think as the "peashooters" do count too...

However that is the difference of cannon and MG: with fast firing cannon and few hits needed you can deal out a blow in a very short burst.
But you cannot "spray" the target reall, accurate shooting needed.
With MG you got more bullets in air, hit more often but need more hits. At the end similar effectivness; but you have to aim equally, if you "spray" than you will need a LONGER burst (and you MG's SEEM weaker).

Bear in mind as well that nose armament means several hits in one small place which is more effective than the same number of hits in two places (except if you shoot at convergence range which moost of the time is not the case).
****