Gunnery

[Toad]

Turned out to be a pretty interesting thread.
I think a lot of really fine, important points were made in the last 10-15 posts. Lots of things in there that should be considered when gameplay gets reviewed every so often. <shameless "hint, hint" to HTC...did someone say "icons"? <g,d,r>


HiTech said:

>In my view there are only 2 ways of looking at things.

1. From a real life view point, this involves only what could be done in real planes<

Thought this one had already been decided before you wrote the first code. Go for Real! Real as you know how! Real as a free download that runs on a PC can be!   You go boy!

To the guys that related actual experiences with the "big bores" Thx! Interesting reading.

Funked:

I think you've pointed to an OBVIOUS clue that we've overlooked, the part about hit sprites at the longer ranges. How many guys would hammer away if they didn't have the encouragement of the occasional spark? At 1k, it might well be tuff to see results of MG rounds hitting unless the big pieces started falling off. <I defer to our experienced RL gunners here...??>

Others pointed out correctly that here, as opposed to RL, more ammo and fuel are usually a short fast dive away.  Changing that might temper the urge to twitch the trigger finger as well.

Lastly, Pyro's right...you should be able to score long range hits...it shouldn't be an "effective tactic" though.

[BBGunn]

No one mentioned trajectory but I think a .50cal round would drop about 12-14 feet at 1000 yards and would loose a great deal of velocity.  This complicates the aiming equation and in all the stuff I have read, most fighter to fighter shooting started when the enemy plane filled or even exceeded the diameter of the sight ring.  One German pilot mentioned that he fired several long bursts from the 6'clock position at a P-38 at about 700 meters and got no hits at all. Another reference indicated that air gunners on bombers could probably hit a directly oncoming radial engine fighter at 400 yards with some consistancy- but the low percentage of kills from bomber gunners suggests that it was very difficult to hit a fighter even when in range.  Since some Japanese Ki-43 pilots were successful at shooting down B-24's by themselves I'd say that defensive fire from the bombers was rather ineffective.  I think a 1000 yard kill is pure fantansy.  I have found no evidence of either air gunners or fighter pilots getting a kill at that range.   Remember the ordnance people measured machine gun potenial in pounds/second.  You have to get multiple hits within your 2 or3 second shooting window to do much damage thus you have to be reasonably close.  The best of the German aces were always close-like within 150 yards to nail down a kill.  I did notice that some German fighter pilots fired at B-17's from 500-600 yards but achieved less than 2% hits.  They also started firing early on head-on passes because the rapid closing speed gave little time for adjusting  aim.  The bomber had to fly into the bullets path so to speak.   For the purposes of a game I would think that it would be much more interesting from a manuvering skills point of view to have to get close to assure a kill.   Remember the spit and hurry pilots whose guns were harmonized at 400 meters early on.  They didn't hit squat until the guns were re-harmonized at 250.  

[Jekyll]

 

>For those who think long range gunnery is OK, go to your nearest golf course. Stand on the tee of a straight par 5... start jogging on the spot and tell me you would have no trouble machine gunning a 39' wingspan aircraft sitting on the green.<

Jekyll, I'm very curious with respect to the "jogging on the spot" part of this. What does that have to do with aerial gunnery?

Well, I would imagine that a moving aircraft is not a pefectly stable platform.  I'm not talking about movements of 10 or 20 feet up and down (unless you can jump 20' straight up)    But even the most stable aircraft would not be able to hold altitude to within a foot or two with 6 50cal machine guns spitting shells .. thus the jogging analogy.

Personally, I think the long range gunnery cheapens what is an incredibly impressive sim.

An example:  in another thread I saluted MrAnza for a fight we had a couple of nights ago.  A classic energy fight between his 109 and my stang.  The fight eventually ended when I caught him in a 90 degree deflection shot at about 500 yards.  And you know, it kinda spoiled the outcome for me, because I've got my doubts whether it would have been like that in WW2 for real.  But I KNEW he was 500yds away.. the icons told me so.  So it became just a fairly simple matter of put the gunsight in the right spot for a 500yd crossing shot and BANG... down he went.

But if I had not had his range exact to the yard.. it might well have been a different story, as I was already low on ammo.

P.S.  for those suggesting that we should be sending in films I've got this to say.  I NEVER shoot beyond about 550yds so a film from me would be worthless.  I understand the differing perceptions of netlag, but on a number of occasions I've been nailed at over D1.2 on my FE, asked the shooter what range he saw on his FE, and have been told 800yds or more.



------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[fats]

--- HiTech: ---
Buff's need to be able to hit at longer range's than fighters simply do to net lag on 6 problem. If we didn't give them a slightly longer range a fighter could sit just out of buff range, 200 - 400 yard net lag differance, and shoot with imunity.
--- end ---

How is this longer hitting range achieved? Higher Mv and/or bigger bullet radius ala High Velovity <edit>Velocity that is</edit> Basketballs(tm)?


//fats



[This message has been edited by fats (edited 02-02-2000).]

[Maniac]

Pyro wrote :

Funked, there's a lot to that. Anytime I've read about combat reports being matched to gun-cams where actual range can be measured, its stated that most pilots would underestimate the range in their reports.

-----------

So it is hard to estimate range in RL right? why should it be so easy in AH? why do we have the range counters? keep the icons but remove the counters. . .

// -nr-1-

[Saintaw]

Juss  

If I took a rifle and tried to hit a plane-sized target 1000 yards away I very much doubt I would be able to

With a 5.56 or .227 with a Scoped rifle, U are able to shoot a penny sized target up to 300 meters, with a .2 , you are able to hit that same target up to 500/600 meters...

NO problem hitting a Fighter sized target at 1KM...

But, that is, being stable, on a tripod...

------------------
Saw/Saintaw/Saint
BISHOPS
 
DCO 186th Wardogs (Falcon4 Squad)
 http://www.wardogs.org/
"Firepower Mate, that is what separates the men from the boys..."

[This message has been edited by Saintaw (edited 02-02-2000).]

[pzvg]

Well all my RL time with heavies was in UH-1's where not only did you not have a stable gun platform (particularly on a bungie cord)
but you weren't in control of the A/c either
yes we got hits on targets out to 1200-1300 perhaps 30-40 hits for 600-800 rds (which explains my gunnery) and yes on a metal target one does see strikes at that range.
as for damage, simple rule of thumb here, if the round that hits is at a velocity high enough to impart kinetic energy sufficient to penetrate, then in actuality you ARE causing damage, now wether you damage something that means something to the aircraft's ability to stay in the air, is luck, an aircraft has a lot of parts that it needs to stay up, it also has a lot of dead space that you can drill holes in all day with no real effect. My ship came home from Grenada with 64 holes in her, but no real damage besides the vomit by the doors  
In AH I've gotten hits out to 1.6 but as a rule I'll only fire like that if I'm about to break off a chase, (and I believe the Brits were fond of "parting shots" too)
L/r gunnery is easiest when your target is near ground since you can observe impact on land and adjust fire accordingly (sound familiar SC-Greybeard?  
But, as I said before We do things that people who are aware of the penalty for "screwing up" would not even think about
eg; 1 plane Jabo attacks on airfields
So we get hits at max eff range? It doesn't, if you think about it happen often enough to really be a problem now does it?
(Hmm jeez, I really don't tend to run on like this, time to shut up)

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[Sharky]

Pyro,

 

Just take a ride a P-51 up and only shoot at people who are over 800 yards away and send me film. I'm not saying this to be facetious, I can't do more than get a lucky ping once in awhile from those distances. I need to see what you're talking about.

At what convergance?  I normally set mine at 250-300yds so at 800yds my bullets stream is pretty dispersed, however if I set it to 800yds I'm sure it will be fairly easy to kill guys out to 800 yds and although this is unrealistic (setting convergence at 800yds) I know guys are doing it.

Also I don't have a website to post the film on so it could be a long email  

Sharky



------------------
You can run, but you just die tired.

[Toad]

Jekyll,

Recoil isn't the only force acting on that wing. I'm sure the recoil from a .50 Browning is pretty hefty; my 8 pound Weatherby .300 is reported to have about 38 pounds of "felt recoil". I'd bet the Browning is at least 80 or more...and it fires consecutive shots. If it reacts like a normal machine pistol, the barrel wants to rise...and there's three per wing.

BUT the plane weighs a whole lot more than a rifle. And like a rifle "felt recoil" and muzzle jump would be less the heavier the structure that holds the barrel & action.

In the Weatherby example it's 38 pounds from an 8 pound rifle. Even with 6 .50's at 100 lbs of recoil, they'd be working against (I don't have a reference for the operating weight of a combat loaded -51) many thousands, if not ten thousand pounds. That kind of weight can tame a lot of recoil when the gun is firmly attached.

Also, there are other forces acting on the wing all the time. The airflow both over and under the wing at 300kts exerts a lot of pressure on the wing. This too would work against the recoiling motion.

The wing guns are relatively close to the center of lift as well. This gives the recoil less moment to work with.

I'm not a physicist though...and someone might be able to explain this more clearly or tell me I'm full of it... I just know that almost nothing in aviation is simple. There's always more going on than meets the eye.  

Lastly, I know you've seen the gun cam films. There's shaking and jumping in those films but look at the tracer  streams...they're blurry because of the shake but they are generally straight. You don't see "starburst" patters, with tracers going up down and sideways in an expanding cone, you see _lines_ of tracer.

The shake is there because the cameras were usually shock-mounted to protect the mechanism. They could move a bit. The guns weren't shock mounted...

Another note..those .50's shoot at 800 rounds a minute and there's six of them...4800 rounds a minute, 80 rounds a second. Ballistics tell us that a .50 slug will easily, easily travel 1k and still have enough energy at that range to crack an engine block, slice a coolant line or fracture a pilot's brain pan.

So if someone slings a 5 second burst at you, there's 400 hornets headed your way...and it only takes one...if it's not your lucky day. Just something to think about  

As Pyro said, not an effective tactic, but possible.

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-02-2000).]

[BigJim]

HiTech,
Just a quick thought, I understand the lag difference for a buff rear gunner, but it seems your forumla is out of whack??? If it is a level playing field then when I am at 800 yards he should see 1.2 K??? But as it is when I see 1.2k he is firing and hitting me effectively and he must be seeing 1.6K??
I would would have no problem if when I am at 500 yrds and he sees 800 yrds he begins to take affect, but when he burns me at 1.2k and that is the reading on MY screen then I think the forumla needs adjusting

[Minotaur]

Toad;

 

So if someone slings a 5 second burst at you, there's 400 hornets headed your way...and it only takes one...if it's not your lucky day. Just something to think about

I am not convinced that each and every round is modeled.  I think that "Groups" of rounds get modeled.  Depending upon what gun is modeled the lethality is computed upon impact.  IE: The gun ammo counter ticks 5 times but only one projectile is modeled in flight.

In your example, a 5 second burst yields 5 rounds in flight.  This is wether the plane has 17 x 20mm guns shooting at once or 1 x 7.7mm shooting.  The only difference is that the lethality of the projectile changes if a collision is detected.  I would assume range is a major factor effecting lethality.

I am only guesing of course, but I have been wondering about it for some time.  HTC got an answer for me?

Mino

[Pyro]

Every round is individually modeled.  Toad's example is correct.  5 seconds of fire from a P-51 or F4U will put 400 rounds in the air.  Every fifth round is a tracer, so for every tracer you see, there are four more bullets that you don't see until they hit.  You can make a film and watch it in slow motion if you don't notice the effect in normal play.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

"If it's stupid but works, it's not stupid."

[TT]

 How do you get the slow motion to work?

[ra]

TT,

Slid the playback speed bar to the left to slow things down.

--ra--

[lakc]

The slider on the bottom changes replay speed.

As for proper dispersion at 1000 yards, I got out my reloading manuals. According to the 50'th anniversary edition of the Sierra bullets loading manual, the current World record for a 1000 yard group is under 4". Thousand yard bursts of 400 rounds should yield a few hits on any aircraft size target.

 You may note that airplane wings are made of Aluminum, and quite able to bend. But when you are flying there is an equal amount of force pushing up on those wings as gravity is pulling down on your 6000-14000 pound airplane, which should take most of the spring out of the airframe. What makes a big difference is air density, thermals, turbulance, etc. None of this is modeled in the random matter of which it occurs in real life. It is simply out of the horsepower requirements of probably every computer that exists. So, we are missing a few links in an ultra-realistic gunnery model. Altitude has a big difference in air density, and that may or may not be modeled into the gunnery equasion, and I recall an interview with a former Black Sheep who would open fire at extreme ranges during high alt engagements in Korea. Less air to slow the bullet down. So altitude should/may play a part in gunery as well.

------------------
Lake City
-lakc-