PDA

View Full Version : 2x .50 cal, or 4x .303 cal?



GregGal
02-24-2008, 02:25 PM
Wat do you guys think? Which is more efficient? Earlier Spitfire IXs had 4x .303 cals in addition to their 2 cannons, but later versions were equipped with 2x .50 cals. This latter seems weaker to me..maybe I'm wrong..

VW-IceFire
02-24-2008, 02:28 PM
2x .50cal is definitely more efficient in both weight and weight of fire.

Xiolablu3
02-24-2008, 03:42 PM
The 2x.50 eqquiped SPitfire is an amazing sniping platform.

Set your 50 convergeance for 400m and your cannon to 300m. If hes far out of range trying to run, you can gain some nice hits with the 50's at 500m and even more.

The .303's help me with my aiming for the cannon, but they arent really an effective weapon for hitting power like the 2x.50's. You need a lucky hit to take out his controls or set him on fire and thats pretty rare vs German planes.

I'd take the 2x50's every time.

Tater-SW-
02-24-2008, 03:42 PM
Maybe not in il-2, though, since the .50s shoot mostly ball ammo and the HE is less powerful (used to compute fire) than API.

Choctaw111
02-24-2008, 05:41 PM
I have always had better luck with the 2 fifties, not so much with the 4 .303's. That's just my preference. The the 50's just seem to do more damage. At least in this sim.

mbfRoy
02-24-2008, 06:02 PM
At point blank range .303's are a lot more effective for me (I'm thinking SpitV early vs 109F) than 50 cals.

DustyBarrels77
02-24-2008, 06:33 PM
Not to bite into this hook, but The reason I fly german is because they can survive alot of passes from both mg ac, even those with 8 .50s which should be 1 sec torn apart in flames opposition but brit and russian cannon they can take a good beating from without snapped cables. the 109 one of the historical weakest ac dms that should be in game.. And to get kills takes a single 1 sec burst against the opposition.

I hate to say it but the spitfire to me seems like the weakest dm close to the zeke then the americants aircraft. While the hurri yak lagg 109s tempest mig 190s seem to take massive hits and still flying with half deadpilots and is rare to get clipped cables in. The americants to me 1 hit anywhere if not dewinged or exploded to nothing will get all its cables snapped at once. I cant remember the last time that happened to me in any other ac types except the japanese zekes and ki43s, then the ki84 george raiden etc take some astonishing ammount of hits when flying them and able to get off the 1 sec burst which is all you need to explode dewing and get all cables on the allied trashheeps. It gets boring flying german because you always can do very well, same for ruskie brit and japanese but the americants doing well is 1-3 kills at most before rtbing if that. Just my 2 cents i would like it to be tougher for all side more like the close fight of brit vs german and russian vs german.

zekes vs wildcats for example was flying with 2 other zekes med alt, 3000-5000m had a large ammount of corsairs and hellcats attack our group 6-7 and the 3 of us downed all of them within 5 minutes just tnbing against smart teamwork players trying thier best to use E just dont work that way for them in this game.

Im no chart major or stat taker but just seems to me the lightweight turn and burners are not bleeding off enough e in amazingly tight manuevers which is the problem.

HuninMunin
02-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
190s seem to take massive hits and still flying with half deadpilots and is rare to get clipped cables in.

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

Patriot_Act
02-24-2008, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
190s seem to take massive hits and still flying with half deadpilots and is rare to get clipped cables in.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life, and in terms of kinetic energy and range a single .50 is equal to 4 .303 british
or 3 .30 cal US (30-06) per shot.
Because the rate of fire is higher it clouds the comparison
a bit, but the 2X .50 cal is far more powerful than 4X .303s.

Then you got to factor in the shotgun effect.
I would tend to prefer the 4 or 8 .303s in a tight turning contest.

But this is a lot less clear than the .50 cal vs 20mm ranting I was just reading.

In this case the .50s clearly take the nod.

P.A.

GregGal
02-25-2008, 02:03 AM
I see your points...but what about the +100 rounds/gun on the IXc? For such ammo wasters like me it's a big advantage! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
02-25-2008, 05:19 AM
The 50 cals seem to have a trajectory that better matches the 20mm cannon.

PA - why only 4 .303s yet 3 .30 cal?

Patriot_Act
02-25-2008, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The 50 cals seem to have a trajectory that better matches the 20mm cannon.

PA - why only 4 .303s yet 3 .30 cal?

.30 US (.30-06) is far more powerful than the
.303 British service round. About 30% more
kinetic energy and a much flatter trajectory.

.303 British was already well past the point of obsolecence in 1914.
Why the Brits hung on to it for so long
I can not understand.

P.A.

anarchy52
02-25-2008, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by DustyBarrels77:
the 109 one of the historical weakest ac dms that should be in game..

I hate to say it but the spitfire to me seems like the weakest dm close to the zeke then the americants aircraft.

I do not understand why people think 109 should have a weak DM. 109 already has one of the weakest DMs in the game, especially regarding the engine. Why should it be weaker then any other watercooled inline engined monoplane of similar construction.

Spitfire has 2 damage states: a) dangerous, b) dewinged
Unlike its german oposition, it is still very capable after several 20mm hits to the wing.

Aaron_GT
02-25-2008, 04:00 PM
Looking up the references you are mostly right although the difference seems to be more like 20%, but that's averaging over the various quoted muzzle energies. 30% could be right for military loadings. So 3 .30 cal rounds would be 3.6 to 4 .303 rounds as you say. So, I've learned something.

In terms of sticking with the .303 the British and the USA were probably in the same boat. The British had originally intended to move to .276 in 1914, but having to fight a war meant not changing anything, and post war it was left with a lot of 303 ammunition meaning more intertia. The USA ended up with a lot of 30-06 ammunition and didn't get very far with its potential move to .276 either (i.e. the first versions of the Garand, with bigger ammunition capacity). I suspect if either nation had moved to .276 then the .50 would have become a standard aircraft gun much sooner.

jarink
02-25-2008, 08:13 PM
Another factor in favor of the .50 cals is range. The .50 has a much longer effective range than the .303.

WOLFMondo
02-26-2008, 02:26 AM
The 303's are pointless. If I had my way I'd remove the 303's and just have the two 20mm's.

Fork-N-spoon
03-02-2008, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
<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 50 cals seem to have a trajectory that better matches the 20mm cannon.

PA - why only 4 .303s yet 3 .30 cal?

.30 US (.30-06) is far more powerful than the
.303 British service round. About 30% more
kinetic energy and a much flatter trajectory.

.303 British was already well past the point of obsolecence in 1914.
Why the Brits hung on to it for so long
I can not understand.

P.A. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The obvious reason to me is because they already had a lot of them produced. Retooling to make a new firearm is expensive as well. There is little difference between the bolt action Springfield and the Enfield. Sure the Springfield is better, but it's not significantly better. The only clear advantage I can see is that the Springfield uses rimless cartridges. Anybody familiar with shooting and reloading an Enfield while in a hurry, knows how easy it is to jam the magazine with rimmed .303 rounds. I've had it happen to me a few times. I'm speaking about using stripper clips. The Enfields have no way to quickly adjust for windage either. Under combat conditions, and other than the jamming problem, I'd say that the Enfield is better. It holds five more rounds, and the way it's made lends itself to muddy conditions. Americans have always made precision weapons, and while they do shine at the target range, in the muddy conditions of up close battle, it takes away any advantage, and they jam more easily when fouled by dirt.

I've owned several Enfields and Springfields and I am speaking from experience.

mortoma
03-02-2008, 03:18 PM
In game the four .303s seem deadlier to me. People in here have turned this into a debate on "real life" effectiveness. The original poster seems to want to know what works best in the game. If I understood correctly, that is. The game and RL are two different worlds. Shouldn't be, but are. So let's keep the discussion on track. RL is irrelevant in this topic.

mortoma
03-02-2008, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
2x .50cal is definitely more efficient in both weight and weight of fire. In the real world, yes. But in the game??

Skoshi Tiger
03-03-2008, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The only clear advantage I can see is that the Springfield uses rimless cartridges. Anybody familiar with shooting and reloading an Enfield while in a hurry, knows how easy it is to jam the magazine with rimmed .303 rounds. I've had it happen to me a few times. I'm speaking about using stripper clips. The Enfields have no way to quickly adjust for windage either. Under combat conditions, and other than the jamming problem, I'd say that the Enfield is better. It holds five more rounds, and the way it's made lends itself to muddy conditions. Americans have always made precision weapons, and while they do shine at the target range, in the muddy conditions of up close battle, it takes away any advantage, and they jam more easily when fouled by dirt.

I've owned several Enfields and Springfields and I am speaking from experience.

I've never used a Springfield, but have had a bit of experience with the SMLE's. Under field conditions I've never had a jam, though I rarely put in more than 1 five round charger clip at a time.

The only time I've been able to jam one was when I put in the second clip and the rim on the last round went behind the previous one thus causing the jam.

I think the problem is related to individual guns, but I seam to remeber reading somewhere that the service men used to load their gun fire off six rounds, (leaving four in reserve) then top the gun up with a five round clip. (so if that was a common practice, there must have been an issue with it)

I probably don't need to mention that care must be taken loading the rounds into the charger clips.

Back to the sim, By the time WWII came around I think all 30 cal weapons would be considered a bit light for Air combat, Thats why the original spitfires and Hurricanes needed 8 of them to do the job required. The four on the latter model spitfires were a backup weapon for the 20mm cannons.

discovery_il_2
03-03-2008, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by GregGal:
I see your points...but what about the +100 rounds/gun on the IXc? For such ammo wasters like me it's a big advantage! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dude from my expiriance its for the best to line up with the target and fire a burst of ammo it do not matter what ammo you are caring http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Viper2005_
03-03-2008, 01:33 AM
Equal efficiency according to this website:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Patriot_Act
03-03-2008, 11:33 AM
That's some fuzzy math they are using.
They claim 4X the power (ballistics tables say 6X)
abut a higher rate of fire.
How do you get the same GUN EFFICIENCY?

Sumptin wong there.

Both Brownings, different ammunition.
The .303 cal gun weighs 1/2 that of the .50.
To add to that quandry the 7.92x57 (8mm Mauser)
is far more powerful as a .303 (about the same ballistics as a .30-06) and has the same rate of fire.
Yet it has a lower gun efficiency.

Garbage web site with an agenda to make British stuff look good.

P.A.

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2008, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
2x .50cal is definitely more efficient in both weight and weight of fire. In the real world, yes. But in the game?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in game depends on target.............agaisnt planes that burn easy , the .303 is good.
vs a Zero, i would use the .303 , vs a Fw190 the .50 .

Kurfurst__
03-03-2008, 04:42 PM
Its simple. .303, .30cal, 7,92mm, 7,62mm rounds simply lack penetrative power. By 1941 most, if not all combat aircraft were armored effectively against rifle caliber rounds. .303s could simply not penetrate the armor protecting the pilot, hell they couldnt even go through the aluminium bulkheads the Germans were fitted to the rear of the 109s, behind fuel tanks; self sealing tanks could seal up 18-20 hits from small caliber rounds, but only a couple ofth considerably larger ~12,7-13mm rounds. The latter also worked reasonably well against armor plates in aircraft.

To put it short, the rifle caliber MGs were quite simply ineffective in their task. You could only hope hitting something vital with them, there was always a chance of that happening, during the same time, you could be mortally wounded by gunners or critically hit. Hence why everybody realized, sooner or later, that a 12,7-13mm heavy machine guns is actually the smallest practical caliber for fighters. Carrying RCMGs amounted to little more than carrying dead weight, especially on interceptors tasked to shoot down bombers.

Viper2005_
03-03-2008, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
That's some fuzzy math they are using.
They claim 4X the power (ballistics tables say 6X)
abut a higher rate of fire.
How do you get the same GUN EFFICIENCY?

Sumptin wong there.

Both Brownings, different ammunition.
The .303 cal gun weighs 1/2 that of the .50.
To add to that quandry the 7.92x57 (8mm Mauser)
is far more powerful as a .303 (about the same ballistics as a .30-06) and has the same rate of fire.
Yet it has a lower gun efficiency.

Garbage web site with an agenda to make British stuff look good.

P.A.

Since both Brownings were American, I don't see how you work that out...

I think that in the first set of tables he quotes the .50" round as being around 4.6 times as effective as the .303", which doesn't seem massively unreasonable.

The 7.92 mm Mauser round is ball, whilst the 0.303" is AP/I, and its chemical energy compensates for its lower kinetic energy.

The .303" Browning is lighter than both the MG17 and the .50" Browning and has a higher ROF than the .50" Browning, both of which strongly affect the efficiency score. Of course, as soon as you throw armour plate into the equation, the .50" beats the .303" hands down.

Patriot_Act
03-04-2008, 01:42 AM
Kurfurst__ is 100% correct.
And to add to that the .303 is less powerful
with far worse down range performance than both
the US .30 and the 7.92X57 (8mm Mauser).

Yes, the guns are Brownings. I believe most
British Brownings were made in USA.

By the way, I like the .303 as a sporting round.
I have a re-barreled Ruger #1 in .303
and re-load for it.
It's a wonderful old cartridge.
With proper attention to the shoulder head space (shoulder set back)
and moderate loads the cases seem to last forever.

P.A.

Xiolablu3
03-04-2008, 04:10 AM
Can anyone tell us why Spitfires kept the Mg's when they had space for 6 cannon in the wings after 19442?

Was it a result of the unrelaiable early Hispanos?

Viper2005_
03-04-2008, 04:31 AM
Several reasons:

1) Pilot confidence in the 20 mm had been badly hurt by initial Spitfire Ib experience in 1940

2) Gun bay heating was inadequate for more than 2 cannon at high altitude

3) Daylight bombing was no longer a serious threat; 2 cannon were sufficient for killing fighters and jabos.

Also IIRC ammunition availability was limited until relatively late in the war. For this reason, 4 cannon Spitfires were most common in North Africa, where the climate and altitude of combat helped remove the issues, and the need to get the best out of antiquated Spitfire Vs to cope with higher performance opposition was most pressing...