PDA

View Full Version : all american fighters use 50Cal rounds



RedDeth
04-02-2004, 09:55 PM
question for santa luthier, will the extreme spread of the 50 CAl rounds be tightened up to make the guns more effective than they are now?

this is being discussed in ORR and i was wondering if it will be addressed in P.F. since they are not even accurate now but japanese machine guns are laser beams currently.

there have been many tests all showing about 8 times the dispersion with 50 cal compared to all other machineguns

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

RedDeth
04-02-2004, 09:55 PM
question for santa luthier, will the extreme spread of the 50 CAl rounds be tightened up to make the guns more effective than they are now?

this is being discussed in ORR and i was wondering if it will be addressed in P.F. since they are not even accurate now but japanese machine guns are laser beams currently.

there have been many tests all showing about 8 times the dispersion with 50 cal compared to all other machineguns

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

NegativeGee
04-02-2004, 10:00 PM
I really doubt Luthier has any say in a matter like this, but good luck anyway.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Gibbage1
04-02-2004, 10:54 PM
I am still working with Oleg to correct this issue. I assume that if its corrected in IL2, it will be corrected in this game since they will share the same core program. I will be having a face-2-face with Oleg at E3 and Luthier will be there to help translate for me so there is no confusion. But again, I am no official spokesman. Just some guy who does stuff. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
question for santa luthier, will the extreme spread of the 50 CAl rounds be tightened up to make the guns more effective than they are now?

this is being discussed in ORR and i was wondering if it will be addressed in P.F. since they are not even accurate now but japanese machine guns are laser beams currently.

there have been many tests all showing about 8 times the dispersion with 50 cal compared to all other machineguns

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

[This message was edited by Gibbage1 on Fri April 02 2004 at 11:13 PM.]

RedDeth
04-02-2004, 10:58 PM
gibbage if you get the 50 cal issue fixed ill personally cover your six on every dogfight server thereafter!

of course your evasion skills will suffer for it since you wont ever have to worry about your six again. quack

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Gibbage1
04-03-2004, 12:13 AM
I dont know how you will cover me from orbit. I tent to fight on the deck, and you tend to fly with the stars http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I dont think we are very compatible. I bet you cant wait till the P-51 has some nice concentration of firepower at the point of convergance so you can shoot down people like me in 1 pass instead of 5-6. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I know you very well...

Gib

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

RedDeth
04-03-2004, 03:45 AM
i only go high enough to be on the highest guys six firing into his rudder

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Tully__
04-03-2004, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
i only go high enough to be on the highest guys six firing into his rudder

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So does every other good P-47, P-51 and Fw190 pilot... sounds like a first into orbit contest to me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

CaptainGelo
04-03-2004, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
i only go high enough to be on the highest guys six firing into his rudder

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So does every other good P-47, P-51 and Fw190 pilot... sounds like a first into orbit contest to me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/sig.jpg

_IL2 Forums Moderator_
http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm

Salut
Tully<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its pointless if u'r in fw or p51, we all know that p47'll win , its best Starfighter in this game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/Animation3.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
04-03-2004, 11:31 AM
I wish you the best of luck Gib in this quest to get the spread of the Brownings reduced as it should be. If you manage to pull it off you along with snopipe will be my new heros of the virtual world http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
=S=

http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/98027.jpg

RedDeth
04-03-2004, 08:02 PM
eggsactly. to all above posts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Jazz-Man
04-04-2004, 02:01 AM
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/il2fb/quick0013.zip

I don't understand, what is wrong with the 50cals?

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

clint-ruin
04-04-2004, 02:37 AM
I don't think anyone could really argue that much with the hitting power of the .50 cal. Well, actually they probably could around here, but at least, as compared to other guns in the game, it doesn't come off as being grossly deficient. According to USN wartime tests estimating general weapon effectiveness, the armament of the Hurricane IIc should be around 3 to 4 times as effective per second of firing time as that of the P-51B we have in the game, and I think that's generally supported by in-game results. That's more or less backed up by other attempts to estimate gun effectiveness such as those by Anthony Williams at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

The thing that has gotten people piqued is that the dispersion patterns from the .50 Browning guns in-game is many times wider than that of any other gun, and certainly more than that of the MG-131 or UB guns of similar caliber. This basically forces the .50 cal to rely on individual rounds randomly landing on internal structural supports or systems, rather than letting the rounds chew up the skin and structure through sheer weight of fire.

I don't think the argument is so much with the M2 as it is with the M2s dispersion being a number of times worse than any other comparable gun in FB. Not sure myself if this is right or wrong [probably half of what I learned about ballistics I learned doing research into this myself :&gt;], but it's more that there's no identifyable reason found yet as to why this should be.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Jazz-Man
04-04-2004, 06:15 PM
S! Clint,

Thank you for the reply. But my question I suppose is, how good do you want 50cals to be? I mean, I've heard people complaining that they should be able to down an enemy aircraft at 1000m... I wonder if maybe some people don't know how far away 1000m is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't remember exactly, but I believe I was about 200m behind the FW-200 when I took that shot in the P-38, and I've duplicated it in the P-51B/C, D and P-47, and in that order, they do increasing amounts of damage. The effect is the exact same against Bf-109s, FW-190s. There isn't much of anything that a well placed 50cal round can shed a wing off of from 200m, so I'm asking, based solely on the physical attriubutes of a 50cal round, are you asking that the 50cal be made more accurate out at range so that you can get the same effect from 500m-1000m? Or simply that the bullets remain true out through 1000m (though with considerable drop I would imagine) but of course, lose a ton of their hitting power?

Because, while I don't have a problem with the 50cal having its dispersion decreased, it should not become a sniper rifle, capable of downing aircraft at 500m like it does now at 200m, that simply doesn't make any sense.

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

RedDeth
04-04-2004, 06:30 PM
jazz man the current dispursion rate compared to all other machine guns in game is anywhere from 10 times worse to 8 times worse in a 50 cal.

this is not correct. just tighten up the dispursion to equal all other machine guns and it will be perfect. the ballistics of a 50 cal is very straight for very long range. 50cal rounds are accurate out to greater than 1 mile and can accurately hit a car up to a mile and a half distance.

how many guns are that accurate?

on a side note current us army uses them as sniper rifles accurately way past 1000 meters also .

the 50 cal currently has a similar pattern to a very old shotgun at long range that has mudballs stuck in the barrel while being fired underwater through a school of fish at night with real old ammunition.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

luthier1
04-04-2004, 06:34 PM
You realize I hope that the ballistics of a round is not the deciding factor in weapon accuracy?

I'm not saying the 50 cal dispersion in FB/AEP is perfect, but maybe you should look at the weapon itself and not the bullets. Browning M2 is not the best machine gun in the world, by far.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-04-2004, 06:44 PM
OK, I think that the 50 cals in FB are a little inaccurate. I mean, to set the convergence on the inside pair of point 50s to be different than the outside two pair on a P-51, the weapon has to have some small degree of accuracy. Personally, I have learned to clobber a target at convergence range with point 50s, and I get strikes much easier with a P-47 or P-51 than with a Bf109E4.


But citing the .50 caliber sniper rifle as "proof" that a .50 cal should be accurate is BS! The M2 is a completely different weapon!



The M82 is almost two meters long and is designed to be accurate. What's the cyclic rate on that sniper rifle, again? Oh, it's not an automatic sniper rifle? So I guess a 50 caliber Desert Eagle pistol must be accurate at 500 yards just because it's a 50 cal round being tossed out the barrel? Wrong... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

The rifles ( I hope you know what I mean) on a Battleship are accurate, too! One shot at a time, that is.

*****************************
Punk Rockers in the UK, they won't notice anyway. They're all too busy fighting for a good place under the lighting~ Clash

clint-ruin
04-04-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
S! Clint,

Thank you for the reply. But my question I suppose is, how good do you want 50cals to be? I mean, I've heard people complaining that they should be able to down an enemy aircraft at 1000m... I wonder if maybe some people don't know how far away 1000m is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there would be complaints even if it was accurate out to that range. Not ones with anything much in the way of data behind them, but I really had no idea people could find so much to complain about before I started reading these forums :&gt;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't remember exactly, but I believe I was about 200m behind the FW-200 when I took that shot in the P-38, and I've duplicated it in the P-51B/C, D and P-47, and in that order, they do increasing amounts of damage. The effect is the exact same against Bf-109s, FW-190s. There isn't much of anything that a well placed 50cal round can shed a wing off of from 200m, so I'm asking, based solely on the physical attriubutes of a 50cal round, are you asking that the 50cal be made more accurate out at range so that you can get the same effect from 500m-1000m? Or simply that the bullets remain true out through 1000m (though with considerable drop I would imagine) but of course, lose a ton of their hitting power?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two seperate issues on this:

a) hitting power of a .50 cal round that connects with a target. This is fine and I don't think there could be any reasonable complaint about this, as compared to the way damage is calculated for other rounds in FB. It should be less powerful than the UB in terms of hitting power/incendiary effects per round, and it is, and it should be more powerful per round than the MG131, and it is. That part is fine as far as I'm concerned.

b) dispersion and the ability to make two rounds land in roughly the same place.

B-239: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/b2391.jpg

Yak9U: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak9u1.jpg

FW-190D9: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/FW190D91.jpg

Two 12.7mm/13mm prop synched cowl mounted guns in each case but with much wider patterns of hit distribution over the same area at the same range.

Don't know why. Makes hitting the same spot repeatedly much harder with the Browning .50s as compared to the other guns. Given that the .50 cal is not generally a 1-hit-1-kill weapon this is important to the -perceived- effectiveness of the weapon.

If the Brownings are considered to be correct, it would be good to get the UBS / MG131 and other similar guns made to make similar patterns. If the Browning .50s are wrong it would be good to have them make similar patterns to the MG131/UBS. From some of the data posted to the gigantic thread on .50 cal dispersion, it seems that the Browning .50 should be of lower accuracy/consistency than the others, but perhaps not that much worse.

What is interesting is that even some of the rifle caliber guns, which should have real problems as far as long range accuracy goes given that they hold their momentum over distance less well than the heavier rounds, also produce 'sniper' patterns.

Ju-87B2, mid wing mounted MG-17: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Ju87B21.jpg

I don't know why that is, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Because, while I don't have a problem with the 50cal having its dispersion decreased, it should not become a sniper rifle, capable of downing aircraft at 500m like it does now at 200m, that simply doesn't make any sense.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There have been a few people on the huge thread trying to compare the .50 cals used as sniper weapons in Korea/Vietnam to WW2 era weapons in full-auto, and it's not generally shaping up as much of a valid comparison so far. I don't think it's realistic to expect a little dot of distribution at 1000m either. But it would be good if rounds fired went in a basically straight line out of the barrel over short ranges. The perceived effectiveness of each round would go up a lot if they could at least land on roughly the same DM segment of a plane in FB.

To cherry pick the thread:

Weapon harmonisation manual for FW-190:

MG131: 100% within 10 mils
MG151/20 inboard: 100% within 7 mils
MG151/20 outboard: 100% within 8 mils

Weapon harmonisation manual for F-51, P-80 and other US fighters with explanation of terms:

The 100 pct dispersion value of the M2 .50cal was 8 mils in aerial gunnery application. In USAF parlance, an angular measure of one mil is equivalent one foot at 1000 feet.

At a range of 1000 feet (333 yards), 100 pct of the bullet strikes from a .50cal MG will therefore fall within a circular area 8 feet in diameter centered upon the point of aim. By the law of ballistic dispersion, if 100 pct of strikes fall within 8 mils, then 50 pct of bullet strikes will fall within a circular area of 2 mils (2 feet) diameter. 75 pct of bullet strikes will fall within a circular area of 4 mils (4 feet) diameter.

Analysis of in-game results:

in game test of M2 Browning: 100% within 18 mils

With thanks to Dahdah, Blutarski and Cosmokart for the data/analysis.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

tenmmike
04-04-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
You realize I hope that the ballistics of a round is not the deciding factor in weapon accuracy?

I'm not saying the 50 cal dispersion in FB/AEP is perfect, but maybe you should look at the weapon itself and not the bullets. Browning M2 is not the best machine gun in the world, by far.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> gotta go againt that statement the m-2hb is stil to this day regarded as one of the finest heavy mg in the world...feel free to name another that is significantly better i will concede the soviet UB 12.7 as it had a substatially higer teoretical ROF and so did the ShVAK and slightly more powerful round but those 2 weapons were sychronised and the rof reduction due to that was appox 17-28% but those weapons are no longer in service the dshk series are also very good but is more on line as a direct competiter to the m-2, (note i ame using as a comparison of ground and aircraft weapons

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

[This message was edited by tenmmike on Sun April 04 2004 at 06:30 PM.]

Gibbage1
04-04-2004, 10:43 PM
Was not the best, be sure! But we are not trying to make it the best. Just equal or on par with all other .50 cal.

Remember. The Ho-103 was a copy of the Browning .50 cal but was lighter, higher ROF, and a shorter round. Given all that, it "should" be worse then the M2 and all data i have found said it was. But in the game, the Ho-103 has pin-point accuract. All other .50 cal guns have pin-point accuract. The .50 cal M2 does not, no matter its mount or number of guns.

Again, we are not asking for the M2 to be better then the other .50 cal class HMG's in the game. But the dispersion to be equal. There is no reason for the spread to be that wide at 100M. None at all other then a program bug, or 1 other reason I wont say http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
You realize I hope that the ballistics of a round is not the deciding factor in weapon accuracy?

I'm not saying the 50 cal dispersion in FB/AEP is perfect, but maybe you should look at the weapon itself and not the bullets. Browning M2 is not the best machine gun in the world, by far.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

NegativeGee
04-04-2004, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Weapon harmonisation manual for FW-190:

MG131: 100% within 10 mils
MG151/20 inboard: 100% within 7 mils
MG151/20 outboard: 100% within 8 mils

Weapon harmonisation manual for F-51, P-80 and other US fighters with explanation of terms:

The 100 pct dispersion value of the M2 .50cal was 8 mils in aerial gunnery application. In USAF parlance, an angular measure of one mil is equivalent one foot at 1000 feet.

At a range of 1000 feet (333 yards), 100 pct of the bullet strikes from a .50cal MG will therefore fall within a circular area 8 feet in diameter centered upon the point of aim. By the law of ballistic dispersion, if 100 pct of strikes fall within 8 mils, then 50 pct of bullet strikes will fall within a circular area of 2 mils (2 feet) diameter. 75 pct of bullet strikes will fall within a circular area of 4 mils (4 feet) diameter.

Analysis of in-game results:

in game test of M2 Browning: 100% within 18 mils<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that sounds more like the kind of language Oleg likes to use. Cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Jazz-Man
04-05-2004, 12:52 AM
S! Clint-Ruin,

You're obviously someone interested in having an intelligent conversation about this, and I really appreciate it. The 30 pager over in the ORR got pretty well out of hand.

I would argue, as many have said, that comparing the 50cal sniper rifle to the 50cal machine gun is futile. That being said, given that the 50cals we're talking about are being fired from an aircraft, we have to talk about the shake of the aircraft from firing, from the engine, and probably from air buffeting. All of that being said, I think you're right in asking that the American 50cal rounds have their dispersion reduced to more in line with the rest of the games 50cal rounds. I would however argue that it is likely that given 8 machine guns @ 50cal the dispersion would be larger than if you were only firing two. Is this not accurate?

As for the theory of ballistic dispersion, am I to understand that given 100% hit in 8 mils that you correctly typed 75% in 4 mils and 50%% in 2 mils?? Wouldn't it be 50% in 4 mils and 25% in 2mils? I am not familiar with the theory but it stands to my reasoning that given a reletively similar 'shake' of all guns, that there would be an equal chance of striking at the edge of the 8 mil circle as there would be of striking at the center?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
S! Clint,

Thank you for the reply. But my question I suppose is, how good do you want 50cals to be? I mean, I've heard people complaining that they should be able to down an enemy aircraft at 1000m... I wonder if maybe some people don't know how far away 1000m is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there would be complaints even if it was accurate out to that range. Not ones with anything much in the way of data behind them, but I really had no idea people could find so much to complain about before I started reading these forums :&gt;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't remember exactly, but I believe I was about 200m behind the FW-200 when I took that shot in the P-38, and I've duplicated it in the P-51B/C, D and P-47, and in that order, they do increasing amounts of damage. The effect is the exact same against Bf-109s, FW-190s. There isn't much of anything that a well placed 50cal round can shed a wing off of from 200m, so I'm asking, based solely on the physical attriubutes of a 50cal round, are you asking that the 50cal be made more accurate out at range so that you can get the same effect from 500m-1000m? Or simply that the bullets remain true out through 1000m (though with considerable drop I would imagine) but of course, lose a ton of their hitting power?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two seperate issues on this:

a) hitting power of a .50 cal round that connects with a target. This is fine and I don't think there could be any reasonable complaint about this, as compared to the way damage is calculated for other rounds in FB. It should be less powerful than the UB in terms of hitting power/incendiary effects per round, and it is, and it should be more powerful per round than the MG131, and it is. That part is fine as far as I'm concerned.

b) dispersion and the ability to make two rounds land in roughly the same place.

B-239: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/b2391.jpg

Yak9U: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Yak9u1.jpg

FW-190D9: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/FW190D91.jpg

Two 12.7mm/13mm prop synched cowl mounted guns in each case but with much wider patterns of hit distribution over the same area at the same range.

Don't know why. Makes hitting the same spot repeatedly much harder with the Browning .50s as compared to the other guns. Given that the .50 cal is not generally a 1-hit-1-kill weapon this is important to the -perceived- effectiveness of the weapon.

If the Brownings are considered to be correct, it would be good to get the UBS / MG131 and other similar guns made to make similar patterns. If the Browning .50s are wrong it would be good to have them make similar patterns to the MG131/UBS. From some of the data posted to the gigantic thread on .50 cal dispersion, it seems that the Browning .50 should be of lower accuracy/consistency than the others, but perhaps not _that_ much worse.

What is interesting is that even some of the rifle caliber guns, which should have real problems as far as long range accuracy goes given that they hold their momentum over distance less well than the heavier rounds, also produce 'sniper' patterns.

Ju-87B2, mid wing mounted MG-17: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/Ju87B21.jpg

I don't know why that is, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Because, while I don't have a problem with the 50cal having its dispersion decreased, it should not become a sniper rifle, capable of downing aircraft at 500m like it does now at 200m, that simply doesn't make any sense.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There have been a few people on the huge thread trying to compare the .50 cals used as sniper weapons in Korea/Vietnam to WW2 era weapons in full-auto, and it's not generally shaping up as much of a valid comparison so far. I don't think it's realistic to expect a little dot of distribution at 1000m either. But it would be good if rounds fired went in a basically straight line out of the barrel over short ranges. The perceived effectiveness of each round would go up a lot if they could at least land on roughly the same DM segment of a plane in FB.

To cherry pick the thread:

_Weapon harmonisation manual for FW-190:_

MG131: 100% within 10 mils
MG151/20 inboard: 100% within 7 mils
MG151/20 outboard: 100% within 8 mils

_Weapon harmonisation manual for F-51, P-80 and other US fighters with explanation of terms:_

The 100 pct dispersion value of the M2 .50cal was 8 mils in aerial gunnery application. In USAF parlance, an angular measure of one mil is equivalent one foot at 1000 feet.

At a range of 1000 feet (333 yards), 100 pct of the bullet strikes from a .50cal MG will therefore fall within a circular area 8 feet in diameter centered upon the point of aim. By the law of ballistic dispersion, if 100 pct of strikes fall within 8 mils, then 50 pct of bullet strikes will fall within a circular area of 2 mils (2 feet) diameter. 75 pct of bullet strikes will fall within a circular area of 4 mils (4 feet) diameter.

_Analysis of in-game results:_

in game test of M2 Browning: 100% within 18 mils

With thanks to Dahdah, Blutarski and Cosmokart for the data/analysis.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

Gibbage1
04-05-2004, 01:24 AM
I think bringing the point of the M2 being used as a sniper rifle is stating that it does have accuracy. If you go into IL2 FB, and slow things down to 1/4 speed you can fire off 1 round birst's. Do this, and the bulletes WILL go askew. The M2 sniper rifles in Vietnam were mounted on 44lb tripods with another steele plate for added stability. I would guess that single round birst's on that setup "should" be just as effective as if it was in the nose of a 17,000lb aircraft sitting on the runway. But its not. Far from it. Thats how we are doing our test's. No engine vibration. No kickback or recoil. No turbulance. So it should be very accurate at at least 100 yards. But its not. Its got a nasty spread on a 17,000lb platform firing 1 round shots at a target 100M away, were a sniper on a ~100lb platform hits targets at 2000M away. Thats what we are saying.

Gib

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

LuckyBoy1
04-05-2004, 01:57 AM
I dunnow about all this. It was 1977 and it was a twin 50 mounted in a jeep, but I could write my name in a tree from 500 yards. Back on the farm, we had a tail modified Veitnam era P-51 and of course, had no use for guns on that thing. However, if we needed something tied to a absolutely stable area, it would be the old gun rails. Gun-cam footage from P-51's in WWII are smooth as silk, so I don't think a whole lotta shakin' was goin' on! I had to smoke on this a while before posting it, because I'm hoping to help clarify the issues and not cloud them. I'm not trying to say that the multi-50's were uber in the P-51 during WWII. I do agree that trying to compare the performance to a sniper rifle operated in single shot mode under ideal conditions would be giving too much credit to the performance of the weapon in question. However, they weren't that bad or we'd all be goose stepping today! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Solutions for internet security & spyware problems... http://www.geocities.com/callingelvis911/s_s.html

Luckyboy = Senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11 & Contributing Editor to Complete Users magazine.

clint-ruin
04-05-2004, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
I would argue, as many have said, that comparing the 50cal sniper rifle to the 50cal machine gun is futile. That being said, given that the 50cals we're talking about are being fired from an aircraft, we have to talk about the shake of the aircraft from firing, from the engine, and probably from air buffeting. All of that being said, I think you're right in asking that the American 50cal rounds have their dispersion reduced to more in line with the rest of the games 50cal rounds. I would however argue that it is likely that given 8 machine guns @ 50cal the dispersion would be larger than if you were only firing two. Is this not accurate?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In FB it's good to realise that while we have a pretty damn good physics/aero ballistics model, it's one that necessarily has to be quick and fast at what it does, and there seem to be a few shortcuts.

Two factors interplay in the example you're talking about:

a) dispersion. This is hardcoded per type of gun, with no variance in accuracy from different mounting points in FB. Every .50 cal in FB firing a 1-3 round burst will have exactly the same distribution pattern no matter where it is on whichever airplane you choose. Same with every MG-17, etc. The only exception seems to be some of the ShKAS 7.62mm armed planes like the I-16 and I-153.

b) recoil. In FB this would seem to be calculated completely independantly of the hardcoded dispersion effects. Recoil will move the airframe in extended bursts, but this effect is of only minor importance to single-round firing both in the real world and in FB. Recoil effects will produce greater apparent dispersion in extended firing as a result of shifting the shooters platform around.

If you have two nose mounted guns and one is shot out, the recoil of the remaining gun will not yaw the plane by any great amount. If you have two wing mounted guns and one is shot out, the plane will yaw a little differently [.50 P-39Q1] to a lot differently [NS-37 Il-2M3] when the remaining gun is fired.

Recoil effects change weapon accuracy depending on the mounting of the weapon in the aircraft, weight of the frame, total firing time, etc. Hardcoded dispersion effects are independant of the mounting point or type.

The result is that from a parked aircraft, firing the smallest bursts possible, we get exactly the same distribution of shots over a targetted area from 8 guns as from 6 guns as from 4 guns as from 2 guns. And I do mean exactly - compare the P-47s 8 wing mounted guns to the B-239s two wing root mounted guns:

P-47: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/P47D2712.jpg

B-239: http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/b2392.jpg

They're both aimed to converge at the same point, so we shouldn't be too surprised at this result.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for the theory of ballistic dispersion, am I to understand that given 100% hit in 8 mils that you correctly typed 75% in 4 mils and 50%% in 2 mils?? Wouldn't it be 50% in 4 mils and 25% in 2mils? I am not familiar with the theory but it stands to my reasoning that given a reletively similar 'shake' of all guns, that there would be an equal chance of striking at the edge of the 8 mil circle as there would be of striking at the center?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I don't have the worlds best understanding of it myself, I find the easiest way to think about this is to consider how paint comes out of the nozzle of a can of spraypaint. Denser distribution towards the centre. With regards to the Mils and MOA measures, it's important to consider that the figure given is generated between two most distant shots, as an angle from those two shots back to the shooters position at a certain distance.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

RedDeth
04-05-2004, 03:00 AM
my comment about the sniper rifle was a side note for those who think the 50 cal is short ranged. a 50 cal sniper rifle can shoot and kill a man at over a mile...thats a long way.

im not saying the 50s in the planes are this accurate only that those bullets travel very very far and very very straight. these bullets dont drop off at 500 yards. they drop off at a mile and a half.... that was my point. not that they are an m82 full auto in a plane...

50 cals didnt have much dispersion due to loss of power or wind etc . these bullets dont curve in flight, they fly a straight path.

but not in fb. in fb they curve and skew around. whereas machine guns in all other planes do not do this. which is funny considering the rifle caliber bullets in some planes are like sniper rifle bullets and they should be useless at more than 300 yards.

and the reason this really needs changing is that all the main planes in the pacific that fought the japanese used the 50 cal....hellcat, wildcat, corsair, p38,p47,b239,p51,p40,p39, b17,b25 , etc etc etc...its imperative to have this gun modelled correctly as its in all of these planes and more

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

FZG_Immel
04-05-2004, 03:56 AM
well..If I was you, I wouldnt complain about the .50s..

they are the best weapon into AEP.. With them, at close range you can shoot a plane down in a 1/2 second burst, and at long range, you can "pray and spray" and you'll be sure to hit, and it always do damages..

WIth the ammo in a P51D, I have averagely enough ammo to shoot 5 fighters type 109/190 down..

lets say im in a very bad day, and miss a lot, and make only 3.. LOL damn, this is still many !

http://merlin555.free.fr/f15/tgsign3.gif

HarryVoyager
04-05-2004, 08:49 AM
So, basically, you are arguing that taking around 400 rounds of 0.50 to down an aircraft at close range, is perfectly acceptable performance, because the USAAF aircraft are all loaded with obscene amounts of ammo.

Has it perhapse occured to anyone that the reason USAAF fighters are loaded with obscene amounts of ammo might have something to do with the fact that USAAF fighters were routinely sent on six to eight hour missions most of which were spent over enemy territory? That this odd mission requirement might just have somethign to do with why the US fighters always had abotu two to three to five times the weight of ammo per gun, as any of their contemporary fighters?

You're taking about four hundred rounds to down a single aircraft. That is, in damage and mass, equivalant to spending the entire clip of a Yak-9 to down a single fighter, on average. (The Yak-9 has about 100 rounds of 20mm ammo, and 120 rounds of 12.7mm, which roughtly equals 400 total rounds of 0.50 ammo.)

Harry Voyager

FZG_Immel
04-05-2004, 03:33 PM
are U kidding me or what ?

I told you. with a P51D I need a short burst (1-2 seconds) to kill everykind of 109 in AEP.. for a 190 its more random.. sometimes 1 second and you get PK, sometimes you need more than 4 seconds of fire.

If you dont trust me we can have a try online-

at the moment I consider the .50 X 6 the best weapon in AEP. it is the most adaptable.. you can use it at close range and it is devastating (PK, engine killed, wings brocken, fire..) , you can shoot from very long distance and still make damage to the enemy (spray and pray..) and god, you have a long time of fire with those. Lots of ammo !

If you really dont believe me, I invite you to come with me in some dogfight in HL or even a private if you want. I can show you. or even post tracks if you are willing to

http://merlin555.free.fr/f15/tgsign3.gif

Gibbage1
04-05-2004, 07:21 PM
I would REALLY like to see a track of this. But even if your some UBER sniper dude, you cant dispute that the dispersion on the M2's are just horrible compaired to all other HMG's. If your this good with the way it is now, just emagin how much ammo you will save if we get this fixed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. I was flying in a P-39 one time with 4 P-50's B&Zing me for about 5 mins. They all nearly emptied there entire ammo stores on me. Only thing that killed me was my engine caught on fire eventually.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

SkyChimp
04-05-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
Browning M2 is not the best machine gun in the world, by far.
http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it's not the most powerful .50 there is, or the fastest firing, but it was extremely accurate and reliable. And reliability is the most important aspect of any weapon.

With regards to reliability, I don't think it took a backseat to any other gun.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

luthier1
04-05-2004, 08:21 PM
I actually disagree about M2 being "extremely accurate". First of all, gun accuracy is a VERY subjective thing. It depends on very many factors, the gun's mount being one of them. Gun mounted in nose will generally be much more accurate than a wing-mounted gun (when we're talking about multiple rounds being fired of course)

I have a huge mess of books here and I really don't have to look through these - the only thing I found is official USAAF results of defensive guns on heavy bombers. On a B-24 for example, 11 rounds fired at 600 yards gave you anything from a 15-foot dispersion from the ball turret to 63(!) feet fired from waist guns; all other guns were between 20 and 35 feet. Situation is similar on B-17s - 15 feet for ball, 61 for tail "stinger" or 45 for tail turret, and between 21 and 34 feet for other positions.

A 60+ foot dispersion at 600 yards for a flex mounted gun is far from being "extremely accurate". I wouldn't even characterize the average 25-foot dispersion at 600 yards as "extremely accurate".

Gun stability in an aircraft wing is quite comparable to one in a hard turret like B-17's top turret - and it would be much affected by multiple guns sitting right next to each other, i.e. figures being worse for three MGs per wing compared to two MGs. Even assuming that 1/4 the distance we get 1/10th the scatter, we'd arrive at around 3 feet of dispersion at 150 yards PER GUN.

Anyway, if anyone has some readily available gun dispersion data I'd like to see it in order to continue the discussion http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hopefully these tests would incorporate guns fired from wing-like shaky mounts.


P.S. I'm not defending any FB modeling in any way here - just want to make sure everyone has realistic expectations

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

FZG_Immel
04-05-2004, 08:29 PM
rgr Gibbage. I will go right now for some offline action and provide you some tracks. then I will look for a good online server where I can make reliable track as well.

remember.. for "sniperS" as you call it, dispertion would be bad.. cause it means that they could put much more ammo on the tgt.

http://merlin555.free.fr/f15/tgsign3.gif

CaptJodan
04-05-2004, 08:38 PM
Well, from what I understand, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but what started this whole situtation was Gib's and other's noticing the 38's dispersal, and concluding that, a fairly heavy fighter platform with an undisputed nose gun position still had an above average dispersal range for an aircraft that I think was fairly well known for concentrated firepower. Also, the Brewster has two engine mounted 50s which I think were tested, and showed some still large dispersal. I'm just saying what I think Gib already has been...that even if the wing mounted weapons are less accurate and that is part of what we're seeing by the modelling, that the centered weapons are still giving a nasty spread that doesn't make sense. (especially in the 38)

I do have a somewhat related question. On the 38, firing the 50's don't give a really massive shake, but you do feel at least some vibration. On some of the other AC such as the Komet and I think the Go, among others (that I can't remember now cause I'm at work). I'm not trying to stir the pot in any way, but am asking for a real answer for this. Were the cannons in these two birds so smooth firing that there was little if any shake of the AC?

Bull_dog_
04-05-2004, 08:39 PM
My beef with the whole .50 cal thing is not whether the M2 is "accurate" but more like..."how does it compare to other modelled weapons?".

If the M2 is accurately modelled, then other 12.7mm guns are too accurate and need more dispersion. After bringing all the guns into a relative equalibrium...then adjust all the damage models of the aircraft to accurately depict what we think is the right amount of damage.

Some might say that the UBS is better than the browning or vice versa, but I doubt that the "accuracy" of a gun barrel would be worth modelling the differences as they were in real life.

It might be that the .50/12.7mm round does much more damage than is currently modelled and the dispersion is correct. Its all relative...

Methinks that if all the .50's fired like the M2 then the damage per round would be increased in order to get what we think are accurate damage results.

Good luck Luthier...considering that most US aircraft had .50's in them, there are many of us simmers who are watching with bated breath over this whole thing...nothing worse than having to B&Z an A6M5 in our Corsairs four or five times to kill them...that would spoil a perfectly good sim.

Gibbage1
04-05-2004, 08:46 PM
Luthier. Looking at the technical scematics for turretes, there is no way you can compair a ball or top turrete to a fixed .50 in the nose. The ball alone has about 1/2" around the ball, and is supported by 1 pipe on the roof! That has a lot of flex. Also because of the cramped nature of the turrete, it does not allow for a very firm gun mount. You simply cant compair it, or anywere near! Even the best turrete has twice the dispersion of a fixed gun in a fighter (Ball at 16 mils, compaired to 8 mils on a mounted M2).

I would say the type of dispersion you see in the game now is what you would get from a B-17 turrete. There is no doubt in my mind that the gunners were throwing up lead in a general direction. But in a box formation, you have no less then 32 .50 cal guns firing at you at any given time. And thats just for a single box formation of 4 bombers! Let alone diving through a formation of 300+ bombers. There was a damn good reason Luftwaffa feared the B-17 and attacking it in formation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Again, we are not saying the M2 is the best .50 cal. No. Its not. We all know that. But we also know it was not the worse, and it was not as bad as it is in-game.

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

Jazz-Man
04-05-2004, 08:53 PM
What is the diameter (in inches, or centimeters or whatever) of the aiming circle on a standard US gunsight?

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

luthier1
04-05-2004, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Looking at the technical scematics for turretes, there is no way you can compair a ball or top turrete to a fixed .50 in the nose. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. However it is quite comparable in my opinion to a row of three 50-cals in a wing. Have you ever walked on an aircraft wing? They're quite flexible. You hit a bit of turbulence, the wing tips move up and down very visibly.

Of course the actual way the gun is fixed to the wing is more rigid than in a turret - however the wing itself vibrates quite a bit more than the turret when the guns are firing.

Anyway, what we're both doing now is making assumptions, and that's really not a very good thing. Let's get some data, I'm sure it exists on such famous weapons as M2s. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere just by saying "that don't seem right" - "yes it does" - "no it doesn't" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Jazz-Man
04-05-2004, 09:17 PM
Just a couple of screen shots I'd like to share....

http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/il2fb/1km_1.jpg

http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/il2fb/1km_2.jpg

They are way too large to make pics here in the forums, so they're just links. Anyone want to put money on whether or not they could make that shot? Heck, in the 2nd one I even gave you zoomed in view which you'd not have had in WW2. Even if they fixed the gun dispersion, do this test yourself and adjust the range on the sight to 1000m and look how much it moves even tracking a stationary target.

I point this out because I want to see someone provide data beyond pilot accounts. Think of the last time you told your buddies about this incredibly gorgeous woman you picked up in this bar and got to go home with her and he 3 roommates... yeah.. Pilot accounts are like that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
www.raf74.com (http://www.raf74.com)
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg

FZG_Immel
04-05-2004, 09:21 PM
Ok Gibbage (sorry for my last comment. seems I did not get everything and you agreed with me on some points.).. I just made 5 tracks offline which shows the vulnerability of german planes to the .50 caliber.. I did it offline cause now my EMule is running, but i'll do the same online later. Online, this is even more easy, cause normally you get kills in turn and deflection shots, and that make you shoot the tgt from "above" which increase even more its vulnerability. Morever, offline with ACE IA you have to face their stupid and tricky manoeuver where they loose all their E in 3 sec.. Anyway, moneuvers are not the topic here. So dont comment my awfull manoeuvers and merge, lol, because I even lost the tgt a couple of times. Just have a look at the 1/4 sec bursts I use, and look how each time you get a serious damage (engine, elevator, fuel leak, smoke, fire..)

http://merlin555.free.fr/spec/gib.zip

im affraid that deacresing the dispertion of .50 will make no real change.. just give good shooter another advantage they do not need.

http://merlin555.free.fr/f15/tgsign3.gif

RedDeth
04-05-2004, 09:24 PM
well i think i disagree with wing mounted 50s equaling b17 50s that were aimed by scared 18 year olds firing full auto with the guns shaking them to pieces and rotating the guns in all directions up and down and side to side.

there may be some flex in the wings of the p47 and p51 but remember these planes are flying at 350 to 400 miles per hour which will help steady the wings no?and most of the firing of the guns will pull backward more than up or down? im no expert just thinking out loud

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

luthier1
04-05-2004, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
well i think i disagree with wing mounted 50s equaling b17 50s that were aimed by scared 18 year olds firing full auto with the guns shaking them to pieces and rotating the guns in all directions up and down and side to side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are official USAAF tests. They didn't use any scared 18 year olds, rotate the guns in all directions or fire long bursts. These were fired by well trained marksmen aiming at one target, and the figures are for 11 rounds fired - i.e. under one second of firing time.

Anyway, I'm sure we all have our ideas on how guns fired - however how bout some data? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

tenmmike
04-05-2004, 09:35 PM
hmm i dont think this will help but it should be shown again http://www.icon.co.za/~pauljnr/51bsd.gif

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Gibbage1
04-05-2004, 11:37 PM
We have two fact's that should convince any reasonable man. #1, all .50 cal in the game have pinpoint accuract at 100-200M BUT the .50 cal M2 Browning, no matter the mount, or ammount. Spread is programming into M2's. #2, the Ho-103 was a Japanese copy of the M2 that was lighter and had a higher ROF with a smaller round. With those modifications, it SHOULD have a higher disperion, but it dont. The 2x .50 cal M2 covers 10X the area in spread as the 2x Ho-103.

Those two facts alone should be enough to convince any man that there is something not right. The M2 was not the worst gun, nor was it the best. Apperantly he gives a much higher reguard to the Ho-103 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif How is the Browning M2 so bad that it still serves the US military along with 30 other nations today? Fact, its not.

P.S. I think the hole sniper M2 issue also came from Oleg saying that a 1000M hit is simply not possible given the M2's ballistics. Well if it can hit a human at 2000M, it sure as hell can hit an aircraft at 1000M http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Again, I still think its a bug in the programming of the M2. I doubt Oleg really things the M2 had a 5 foot by 5 foot spread at 150M when all other guns had pinpoint accuracy. In order for THAT to happen, you would need to mount the M2's on rubber brings, use old warn out berrals, and cheap ammo on the bacl back of a rented Mexican donkey. That should give you a reasonable simulation of the spread in IL2 using the M2.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Looking at the technical scematics for turretes, there is no way you can compair a ball or top turrete to a fixed .50 in the nose. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. However it is quite comparable in my opinion to a row of three 50-cals in a wing. Have you ever walked on an aircraft wing? They're quite flexible. You hit a bit of turbulence, the wing tips move up and down very visibly.

Of course the actual way the gun is fixed to the wing is more rigid than in a turret - however the wing itself vibrates quite a bit more than the turret when the guns are firing.

Anyway, what we're both doing now is making assumptions, and that's really not a very good thing. Let's get some data, I'm sure it exists on such famous weapons as M2s. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere just by saying "that don't seem right" - "yes it does" - "no it doesn't" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

luthier1
04-05-2004, 11:41 PM
Gib,

You're preaching to the choir. Let me repeat once again, I am not trying to defend the M2 programming in FB in any way. I'm just trying to build realistic expectations for what it's going to do in PF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

Gibbage1
04-05-2004, 11:52 PM
OK. Well you asked for proof, I gave it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But its up to Oleg to accept it or not. Its hard to read him sometimes. In the beta, I got quite a few "No, we will not change that" and boom, its there! I asked for loadouts for the P-63 and showed him Soviet P-63's carrieng stores on its 3 pilons and I got "No" back. Now look at the loadouts of the P-63 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif More then I even asked for. Even the gun pods! Oleg works in mysterious ways, hay?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
Gib,

You're preaching to the choir. Let me repeat once again, I am not trying to defend the M2 programming in FB in any way. I'm just trying to build realistic expectations for what it's going to do in PF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

SkyChimp
04-06-2004, 06:36 PM
Here is an NACA report that should help explan the factors behind gun dispersion:


http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1958/naca-tn-4199/

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

luthier1
04-06-2004, 07:46 PM
SkyChimp,

Unless that's buried in there somewhere, I can't find anything in that report directly relevant to this discussion. In laymans terms, the tests show how oscilations of the airframe cause the gunsight not to point towards where the rounds are going.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg

SkyChimp
04-07-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
SkyChimp,

Unless that's buried in there somewhere, I can't find anything in that report directly relevant to this discussion. In laymans terms, the tests show how oscilations of the airframe cause the gunsight not to point towards where the rounds are going.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I posted it as an interesting read that explains some of the factors involved in round dispersion.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

VF-10_Snacky
04-07-2004, 11:02 PM
Let me ask you something. These 200m shots which shred aircraft apart, are they offline or online??
Because it makes a difference.
I can shred apart a KI84C offline, but online against the same plane use up my entire load of ammo and only watch the KI84-1C fly away and turn without airlerons and horizontal stabs.
I think lag in the online games causes most of the .50cal rounds to miss so you get a small percentage of hits.
By tightening the spread you increase the hit percentage.
Try your test offline and online and you will see a difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz-Man:
S! Clint,

Thank you for the reply. But my question I suppose is, how good do you want 50cals to be? I mean, I've heard people complaining that they should be able to down an enemy aircraft at 1000m... I wonder if maybe some people don't know how far away 1000m is http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't remember exactly, but I believe I was about 200m behind the FW-200 when I took that shot in the P-38, and I've duplicated it in the P-51B/C, D and P-47, and in that order, they do increasing amounts of damage. The effect is the exact same against Bf-109s, FW-190s. There isn't much of anything that a well placed 50cal round can shed a wing off of from 200m, so I'm asking, based solely on the physical attriubutes of a 50cal round, are you asking that the 50cal be made more accurate out at range so that you can get the same effect from 500m-1000m? Or simply that the bullets remain true out through 1000m (though with considerable drop I would imagine) but of course, lose a ton of their hitting power?

Because, while I don't have a problem with the 50cal having its dispersion decreased, it should not become a sniper rifle, capable of downing aircraft at 500m like it does now at 200m, that simply doesn't make any sense.

S!
William "Jazz-Man" Katz
Squadron Batman
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.raf74.com
http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

PlaneEater
04-08-2004, 12:39 PM
When my grandfather was checking out in P-38s in Tunisia before transfering to Italy, they included basic gunnery cerification.

500 yards, 30 foot circle on a big sheet on the ground, 30 rounds in each gun (no cannon shells).

If you missed with a round, you failed. Then you did it over.

Once you got three good runs, you passed.

He said having to redo the course was very, very rare.

VF-10_Snacky
04-09-2004, 09:08 AM
Best analogy I have seen so far RD, thanks.lol

Now help me fly this P51 effectively and all will be well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
jazz man the current dispursion rate compared to all other machine guns in game is anywhere from 10 times worse to 8 times worse in a 50 cal.

this is not correct. just tighten up the dispursion to equal all other machine guns and it will be perfect. the ballistics of a 50 cal is very straight for very long range. 50cal rounds are accurate out to greater than 1 mile and can accurately hit a car up to a mile and a half distance.

how many guns are that accurate?

on a side note current us army uses them as sniper rifles accurately way past 1000 meters also .

the 50 cal currently has a similar pattern to a very old shotgun at long range that has mudballs stuck in the barrel while being fired underwater through a school of fish at night with real old ammunition.

http://www.fighterjocks.net home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://www.alloutwar.com/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

VF-10_Snacky
04-09-2004, 10:29 AM
No offense, but it was certainly good enough to shoot down thousands of German and Japanese aircraft in WWII. I doubt very highly the US would have outfitted every aircraft it used with the Browning M2 if it wasn't the best machine gun available. Are there better guns out there? absolutely, but to say that the Browning M2 was not a very good weapon just based on "opinion" is wrong. There is viable and credible data to support the M2 as being one of the best machine guns of WWII and deserving of the title "Legend". IMO of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luthier1:
You realize I hope that the ballistics of a round is not the deciding factor in weapon accuracy?

I'm not saying the 50 cal dispersion in FB/AEP is perfect, but maybe you should look at the weapon itself and not the bullets. Browning M2 is not the best machine gun in the world, by far.

http://www.il2center.com/PF.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Son of a B**ch! That's gonna leave a mark."

Klatuu
04-09-2004, 11:42 AM
Luthier, the Browning M-2 may not be the best .50/12.7 class mg ever made, however after 80 years in continuous service, and tens of thousands of aircraft destroyed, it is certainly deserving of a "good" rating. I was an armorer in the US Army, and I worked on, fired, and instructed the use of the "Ma Deuce". I never saw a malfunction in one that was properly headspaced, and it was no great feat to be able to hit a truck sized target at over 800 yards with it. In fact I remember watching a 105 lb woman I was instructing set the gun up, headspace it, and hit with about half her rounds on her first 10-12 rd burst at 600 yds. Her next burst was even more accurate, and would absolutely have killed everyone in the cab of the truck.

If there's any room for weakness in the employment of the M-2, I would have to say it would have been in the mounts on any aircraft it was installed in, and not the gun itself. No one has mentioned that yet so I would assume that's not been given too much attention in the model. It was, in fact, more prone to jam in the P-51B/C because the mounts were not upright, a feature that was remedied in the D models.

As mentioned before, the M-2 can and has, in unmodified form, hit man-sized targets at ranges in excess of 1 km.

Given that virtually every US fighter and bomber carried the M-2 in WWII and Korea, along with several British aircraft, and given the numbers of aircraft destroyed in both WWII theaters and Korea by both air-based and ground-based M-2s(including ship-mounted), one would be hard-pressed to argue that any other .50/12.7 class weapon, in fact any other gun period, had been responsible for downing anywhere near as many aircraft.

It may not be the best there ever was, but it certainly was good enough.

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
04-09-2004, 06:35 PM
the .50 in game is very powerfull, and enough efficient to kill 5 fighters with a P51D for ex.

stop whinning about it.

A more efficient .50 would make it a UBER weapon.

------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

clint-ruin
04-09-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin510:
the .50 in game is very powerfull, and enough efficient to kill 5 fighters with a P51D for ex.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noone is complaining about hitting power from individual rounds.

People are complaining about the difference in accuracy between the .50 and other rounds in the game.

Making the weapon more accurate would not necessarily make it "uber" - less dispersion means you're going to miss more unless you're right on target, removing the "shotgun" effect.

Klatuu and Seawolf, while I agree that the .50 was ubiquitous and obviously not some kind of disaster mounted to an aircraft, it is impossible to model such factors as "legend" or "it shot down thousands of aircraft" in a game. If you have actual data on the gun then that's what we need to pass on to Oleg.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

HarryVoyager
04-14-2004, 12:41 AM
Something bothering me about the mounting side of the argument is that it seems as though the wing mounted weapons are being viewed as if they were six individual guns mounted some distance from the wingroot, and that as such, they should have more than a full degree of randomized error from eachother.

But, what we have are banks of three, or four guns mounted less than a foot apart from eachother, in interlocking structures. Wouldn't even a few degrees of twist concentrated over the span of only a foot produce more than enough tension to cause significant problems with the wing?

Come to think of it, if the wing could twist a degree a foot, for an aircraft with a 30foot wingspan, that would allow the wing tips to twist to around a thirty difference of eachother under normal operating circumstances. I would think that kind of twist would be fairly significant, and cause interesting problems with the control surfaces in normal flight.

Harry Voyager

clint-ruin
04-14-2004, 01:24 AM
HarryVoyager
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But, what we have are banks of three, or four guns mounted less than a foot apart from eachother, in interlocking structures. Wouldn't even a few degrees of twist concentrated over the span of only a foot produce more than enough tension to cause significant problems with the wing?

Come to think of it, if the wing could twist a degree a foot, for an aircraft with a 30foot wingspan, that would allow the wing tips to twist to around a thirty difference of eachother under normal operating circumstances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think people are suggesting that the wings will be flapping several feet every time the guns fire. Rather that the rate of movement might be very large even if the total distance of movement is very small. Some of this will probably be transferred onto rounds as they're fired from guns going off at different times/different rates. Might be wrong but at least that's how I understand it :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

EmbarkChief
04-14-2004, 08:01 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Gents its fixed, thank goodness. The first time I fired a burst from the P-38 I got a huge grin on my mug. You will see!

Ruy Horta
04-14-2004, 08:43 AM
Maybe Oleg modeled shotgun instead of point harmonization for the 50-ies? Personally I find it a shame that there isn't an option to choose your harmonization (only range conversion).

Interesting piece I found on the British .303 Browning:

Intricate probability math included likely variables in a future dogfight: height, speeds, relative flight paths, "g" loads from steep turns and changes occurring. The calculations sought the "best chace of not missing" - a more subtle and fitting concept than the more obvious "best chance of hitting." They found the optimum size of a bullet hosepipe from all guns (cone of fire) for an inexperienced pilot should measure one degree - or a 30-foot diameter at a fighting range of two hundred yards. Only the "50% zone" of each gun where only half the bullets fall, was used because this area is practically constant. The 50 percent zone of the Browning gun (RH - note .303!!) is 1/3 degree, i.e. 1/3 of the desired hosepipe area. Thus the guns must be spread out by 1/3 degree from the center to get the one degree coverage. The open pattern is achieved in practice by aligning the two inner guns dead on target, the other six (RH - note 8 gun Spits and Hurris) are evenly spread around these two key guns with the 50% bullet zones just touching.

The following diagram shows a final bullet spread at 600ft of 10ft (equalling 1 degree).

What surprized me however was the 3ft diameter 50% zone of the .303 at a distance of 600ft. This would indicate that the other 50% would fall out of this 3ft cone.

Okay, I admit that this is not about the Browning .50, but it would be intesting to see someone present similar figures for the .50 Browning machine gun.

How large would its 50% zone be at a given range?

If we discuss relative modeling, than the .50 cal is almost certainly wrong.

If we discuss general dispersal modeling, perhaps few guns in the Il2-series are correct (either too good or too bad).

Ruy Horta

HarryVoyager
04-14-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
HarryVoyager
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But, what we have are banks of three, or four guns mounted less than a foot apart from eachother, in interlocking structures. Wouldn't even a few degrees of twist concentrated over the span of only a foot produce more than enough tension to cause significant problems with the wing?

Come to think of it, if the wing could twist a degree a foot, for an aircraft with a 30foot wingspan, that would allow the wing tips to twist to around a thirty difference of eachother under normal operating circumstances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think people are suggesting that the wings will be flapping several feet every time the guns fire. Rather that the rate of movement might be very large even if the total distance of movement is very small. Some of this will probably be transferred onto rounds as they're fired from guns going off at different times/different rates. Might be wrong but at least that's how I understand it :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what I am saying, is that having the 1 degree randomization in the gun mountings requires that the wings have the ability to flap several feet while in flight. As that clearly does not happen on most WWII fighers, that would imply that a 1 degree randomization within a gun mounting is far to high.

Harry Voyager

clint-ruin
04-14-2004, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
No, what I am saying, is that having the 1 degree randomization in the gun mountings requires that the wings have the ability to flap several feet while in flight. As that clearly does not happen on most WWII fighers, that would imply that a 1 degree randomization within a gun mounting is far to high.
Harry Voyager<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=979109092&r=458103423#458103423

Fw-190A8:


The shot pattern for the MG151/20(inboard) must be fired at one time(21 rds/gun)

max spread for 100% hits:
height = 70cm, width = 60cm @ 100m range
height = 35cm, width = 30cm @ 50m range

The shot pattern for the MG151/20(outboard) must be fired at one time(21 rds/gun)

max spread for 100% hits:
height = 70cm, width = 80cm @ 100m range
height = 35cm, width = 40cm @ 50m range


One of the most structurally sound planes of WW2 is producing a whole extra mil of dispersion just by virtue of having one set of guns further along the wing than another. I would imagine that this is from firing the pairs seperately to track their individual harmonization ratings too.

What do you think that is a result of?

Presumably Embarkchief is talking about one of the leaked beta patches fixing the problem, so I presume at least some of the noise about the .50 cal has paid off :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

HarryVoyager
04-15-2004, 11:04 AM
But on the P-51, P-47, F6F, and F4U, the guns in a given bank were mounted with less than a foot of separation from eachother.

The same sort of problems occured with the Spitfire if I recall correctly. While the Hurricain and Spitfire both had the same wing mounted guns, the fact that the Hurricain had its guns in closely packed banks gave it a significant edge in shot concentration over the Spitfire.

Harry Voyager

Addendum: I'll also add that the dispersion pattern your describing for the MG 151/20, provided it expands in a linear fasion, is merely 7 meters at 1km out for 100% hits. That's a far cry from the 30-40 meter spread we're getting with the 0.50's in Il-2 currently.

Even if we were to assume that the 0.50 has twice the spread of the MG151/20, it would still only be about a 14m spread at 1 km of range. We aren't even getting that tight of a shot pattern.

It just reasserts that in order to get the kind of spread we are getting in Il-2, if caused by randomization due to mountings, the wings would have to be undergoign a significant flex while it flight, to the poitn that it would be visible under normal flying conditions.

Bewolf
04-15-2004, 12:05 PM
Hmmm...

I may be wrong, but wasn´t it, that most ppl, before the american planes came into being in FB, cheered for the dispersion of the 50ies, saying it gave more chances to hit the target?

I remember reading something like the american guns acting like shotguns, increasing hit percentage etc. And now everybody complains about it? Sounds a bit odd to me.

Anyways, i have no idea about the historical corectness here. If a more concentrated fire from those guns is historical accurate, my best wishes to you to achieve this by bringing this to Oleg

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

clint-ruin
04-15-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HarryVoyager:
It just reasserts that in order to get the kind of spread we are getting in Il-2, if caused by randomization due to mountings, the wings would have to be undergoign a significant flex while it flight, to the poitn that it would be visible under normal flying conditions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not caused by randomisation due to mountings - nose guns are just as bad. Dispersion is modelled per type of gun, not per installation - recoil is modelled per installation but has a fairly minor effect.

At any rate - since it seems enough 20+ page threads on it have paid off - perhaps it is time to look at why some of the other guns [particularly MG17/MG131] seem to have such tiny dispersion modelled, and why the UBS seems to have the highest range/range at speed, and see if we can get anything done about that :&gt;

bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hmmm...

I may be wrong, but wasn´t it, that most ppl, before the american planes came into being in FB, cheered for the dispersion of the 50ies, saying it gave more chances to hit the target?

I remember reading something like the american guns acting like shotguns, increasing hit percentage etc. And now everybody complains about it? Sounds a bit odd to me.

Anyways, i have no idea about the historical corectness here. If a more concentrated fire from those guns is historical accurate, my best wishes to you to achieve this by bringing this to Oleg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what really kicked it off was that we suddenly got a plane people cared about (P-38 as opposed to the B-239 or P-39) with nose mounted guns that were producing absolutely amazing amounts of dispersion. Those guns weren't set to spread out to different patterns as some planes with wing mounted guns [P-47/51] were. A lot of people were probably writing off the spread to wing mount/deliberate pattern setting issues, and the P-38 brought it in to much sharper focus for more people that this wasn't the case. JTDs tests showed this long before but it never got the same momentum of sheer shrill screaming behind it :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

faustnik
04-15-2004, 01:13 PM
Clint-ruin,

This issue was brought up by us P-39 pilots back in IL-2 1.0. It is an old issue as is power of the .50 cal.

Gibbage's quest to "improve" the .50 cal might cost the USN a/c their biggest advantage in PF. The current "shotgun" effect of the .50s will be deadly against the fragile A6M2s and Ki-43s that will be the main Japanese fighters in PF.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

clint-ruin
04-15-2004, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Clint-ruin,

This issue was brought up by us P-39 pilots back in IL-2 1.0. It is an old issue as is power of the .50 cal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup - I was lurking here at around 1.04 or so - familiar with it. But back then there were other issues with the P-39s nose guns relating to their hitting power which hid the issue somewhat [wasn't it twice the ROF and ammo and half the power per round back then?].

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Gibbage's quest to "improve" the .50 cal might cost the USN a/c their biggest advantage in PF. The current "shotgun" effect of the .50s will be deadly against the fragile A6M2s and Ki-43s that will be the main Japanese fighters in PF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree - I don't think it will turn the .50s into an uber weapon at all, just one that will be more effective when it is on target, and less when it's not. If this is "fixed" for the final 2.01 release then we will see who was tagging along on those threads because they thought it would make things easier :&gt;

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BigKahuna_GS
04-15-2004, 02:04 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Williams
To: keith B.
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: M2 .50cal Dispertion in WW2 Fighters



AW--Information about gun dispersion, like that about reliability, is very hard to find. I don't have any actual figures for the .50 M2, but I have them for the .50 M3 and also some info about the .303 Browning, all of which is in 'Flying Guns: WW2' and 'Flying Guns: the Modern Era' as follows:

The .303 Browning had a dispersion of 10 mil (1 metre at 100m when mounted in a fighter's wings) although 75% of the shots were within 5 mil. The .50 M3 had a quoted dispersion of 5 mil.
____

Mr.Williams is listing the dispersion of both the .303 & .50cal while in flight.

___________


I have no data on any other guns, although I recall reading in discussion groups that the MG 151 and the 20mm Hispaqno were both better than this. I would expect the 12.7mm UB to be better because it was gas-operated, so the barrel was fixed in place. I know of no reason why the Japanese 12.7mm Ho-103 would be any better since, as you say, it WAS a Browning.

______________


For some reason the japanese 12.7mm Ho-103 has better dispersion than the M2 in FB/AEP

Anthony Williams--I know of no reason why the Japanese 12.7mm Ho-103 would be any better since, as you say, it WAS a Browning.

The question should be this: Oleg, what dispersion do you have for the 12.7mm Ho-103 ? As Mr.Williams said--they should be the same.

If you put these guns-12.7mm Ho-103- in the nose of the P38, is there less dispersion ?

________


Dispersion was of course in practice influenced by the mounting. Wings were more flexible than fuselages, so wing-mounted guns could be expected to produce greater dispersion.

Hope this helps,

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk



.



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson : It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.