Gun jam option, perhaps?

[Mayhem]

   

Originally posted by RAM:
BTW I know this is a lost campaign. THe pro-US bias of some guys in this forum is absolutely infame. THey call for sources and when sources are posted thy act as if they doesnt exist.

Bah, you know what?...you can have your damned ubersuperduperturbolaser on the Chog. But the blasterbird will be perked soon ,and the X-ray planes will be in a great part a thing of the past.

If you want perk planes before realistic gunnery and reliability, its your bussiness. ANyway soon I wont have to fly thru clouds of Chogs. So in the end, I will be happy.

Na Iam just tired of all the anti-American crap I see on these boards. Makes me wish we could just sever all the telephone lines and satilite contections with the rest of the world. Then we can stop waisting all our dam taxpaying money on other countries trying to help them so they can bash us. then we can jack the rent up on the UN and tell them if they don't like it move.

With the guns issue. I don't want a quote from a book. I want DOD historical stats. books can be wrong or inaccurate the DOD historic stats are fairly accurate.

I don't think it's an issue with the gun your screaming about, Your just another anti-chog guy.

BY the way Ram read my last post on Gforces did I hit on what you where talking about?

------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"


[This message has been edited by Mayhem (edited 01-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mayhem (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Pongo]

mayhem
The cannon in the chog is an M2 20mm.
The M2 HB you fired in the infantry has a much heavier barrel then the WW2 aircraft version.
Each 50 in the infantry has at least one guy that can open the cover and clear a stopage. Its reliablility does not have to be nearly so high to be effective.  

Putting in the Hog C was like putting a hispano armed spitfire into a battle of britain game. Or a T160 armed Sabre F into a korean war game. If you dont model the problems that they had with both weapons loads in the game then you scew the game all over the place. In both cases the dificulty that was had are well know and would probably preclude introduction of the load out into a reasonably designed game. Unless the down side is modeled.
In the case of the 1c the pitfalls of the load out are not as widly accepted. Not as irifutibly stated. But certainly the US had no end of trouble with hispanos in WW2. If US had a fighter mount Hispano that performed like the 1c then it would have been a clear cut decision to adopt it for all US aircraft.
Since all production corairs were eventually Hispano armed it is tempting to understate the difficulty that they had making it work during the war. Yet the Sabre and the Spitfire where both eventually succesfully armed with the cannons in question. The 1c should never have been introduced into the game with out its achilies heel. Saying its about its ability to launch from carriers ignores that the 1c has been very dominant since introduction with a few new plane intro breakes.
So does perking it really solve the probelm? Not from the point of view of someone who wants to see the planes represented as accuratly as possible. But as its battery is unballanceing and pilots realise that and want a piece of it and it gets used enough to make it anoying. It is an interesting experiment to see it Makeing people spend points on it will reduce its usage. As I understand it that means that the plane will be so cheap that it will be basically free. But no perkpoints will be earned while fling it. My bet is that people will fly it anyway.
The guns are just too big an advantage if you are used to having them.
Interestingly if you fly in H2H and give everyone 10 times ammo, the hog c pretty much disapears.
Maybe we should just give everyone else 10 times ammo to ballence out the modeling that the 1c is missing in gun reliability?
None of you would complain about that I guess.

[Mayhem]

   

Originally posted by Pongo:
mayhem
The cannon in the chog is an M2 20mm.
The M2 HB you fired in the infantry has a much heavier barrel then the WW2 aircraft version.
Each 50 in the infantry has at least one guy that can open the cover and clear a stopage. Its reliablility does not have to be nearly so high to be effective.  

Putting in the Hog C was like putting a hispano armed spitfire into a battle of britain game. Or a T160 armed Sabre F into a korean war game. If you dont model the problems that they had with both weapons loads in the game then you scew the game all over the place. In both cases the dificulty that was had are well know and would probably preclude introduction of the load out into a reasonably designed game. Unless the down side is modeled.
In the case of the 1c the pitfalls of the load out are not as widly accepted. Not as irifutibly stated. But certainly the US had no end of trouble with hispanos in WW2. If US had a fighter mount Hispano that performed like the 1c then it would have been a clear cut decision to adopt it for all US aircraft.
Since all production corairs were eventually Hispano armed it is tempting to understate the difficulty that they had making it work during the war. Yet the Sabre and the Spitfire where both eventually succesfully armed with the cannons in question. The 1c should never have been introduced into the game with out its achilies heel. Saying its about its ability to launch from carriers ignores that the 1c has been very dominant since introduction with a few new plane intro breakes.
So does perking it really solve the probelm? Not from the point of view of someone who wants to see the planes represented as accuratly as possible. But as its battery is unballanceing and pilots realise that and want a piece of it and it gets used enough to make it anoying. It is an interesting experiment to see it Makeing people spend points on it will reduce its usage. As I understand it that means that the plane will be so cheap that it will be basically free. But no perkpoints will be earned while fling it. My bet is that people will fly it anyway.
The guns are just too big an advantage if you are used to having them.
Interestingly if you fly in H2H and give everyone 10 times ammo, the hog c pretty much disapears.
Maybe we should just give everyone else 10 times ammo to ballence out the modeling that the 1c is missing in gun reliability?
None of you would complain about that I guess.

BZZT wrong the military model # standard for the 20mm hispano is an M1 (sometimes AN-M2 and mark 1 and mark 2)cannon the m2 (usually called affectionately a ma-duce) is a 50 cal. (Some very early runs it was a .30cal) The barrel and the entire gun on the browning is perty much unchanged since it was invented. your right about the jam but I've fired thousands of rounds threw a M2 and never had a malfuntion hell i dam near melted a berrel and I put more rounds threw it then any wwII aircraft carried to get it that hot and even with a warped barrel it still fired (bullet trajectory was a little off and wierd cuasing tracers to fly in a corkscrew pattern but it fired). If the militar HBARed the 50cal then they have done so since Ive been out. Some of the 50cals in the army have been in service for over 50 years (not alot only a few) hell my first m-16 was made buy general motors and had a GM logo on it instead of the Colt (was an early pre 1970 early production run)
 the 20mm and 25mm modern weapons I was refuring to where chain guns not vulcan multi-barreled cannons (the army has one bit it's used strictly for air defence and is towed or mounted on a m113. the bradly uses a 25mm and some veriants of the uh-60 as well as the ah-64 use the 20mm. the ah-1 uses a tri-barreled 50cal seen some that had the old .308 cal (7.62mm nato)

You know why don't people just learn to beet the dam thing. hell when I fly it i feel like spit yak la5 and 109 bait. Just learn to beet it. crap Ive seen guys get 10 kills in a jug why they learned the plane and leanred how to beet other with it. Is it so dam hard. first don't go for head ons you have a 50/50 chance and a posible colision involved. wish people put as much effort into learning to kill it rather then cryig about it and there wouldn't be as much problem with it.


[This message has been edited by Mayhem (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Ripsnort]

Ram,
The Pro-US plane choices the community enjoys is because of ordnance load outs primarily, the P47D in AH can 2500 lbs of bombs and 10 rockets, the F4U and P51D can carry 2000 lbs. of bombs and rockets.

You need to re-focus your anti-Americanism on getting HTC to give you some FW190F models, or turn back the clock and encourage the Germans to build a better ground attack rocket.

[Vermillion]

RAM, I think I have this book at home, so please tell me what page your talking about, it might help me find it.

However, I will still say, that one anecdotal (or even several) stories related by a pilot (or even worse an author that just spoke to a 75 year old pilot) are not worth the paper they're written on in regards to technical facts. Hell, I can produce hundreds of stories of Hispano's working flawlessly.

I can also produces pilot accounts of F4U's, P51's, and P47's, out turning Japanese pilots in planes like the Zero or Ki84. So does that mean that we need to change the Chog flight model to reflect this? Of course not.

Anecdotal stories are not equivalent to research programs and actual testing. Sorry, but its just the way it is.

RAM, I suggest you buy the book that contains the Report from the Joint Fighters Conference held in late 1944, and edited by the same guy who wrote America's Hundred Thousand. It contains a full chapter on ordinance, comparitive effectiveness of the US .50's and 20mm's, the Navy's representative discussing they're (the Navy) experience with these guns, and even a down right "debate" (read arguement) that the Navy and the Army representatives got into over this issue. In fact, many of the things you bring up constantly, were raised by the Army pilots, and were subsequently shown as false or inaccurate by the Navy representative.

Show me data from an ordinance study, a reliability study conducted during the war,  or comments and data from an expert in the field and I will take them into consideration.

But this crap that is constantly posted as "fact" in nothing but that... crap.



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[lazs]

Ok.. so let's go for worst case scenario and say that the Hispanos jammed at twice their normal rate say..... every 1200 rounds or so and that the heaters were problematic so that they might freeze up at over say 25K about 10% of the time.   So every sortie... if you fire more than 1200 rounds from each gun... expect a jam.

Oh, and the Hog actually had lighter ailerons (less stick effort) than the 190 since it had "boosted" ailerons.
Doran

[Westy]

Here is the best online resource as regards to WWII guns:
 http://www.geocities.com:80/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html


 -Westy

[Hooligan]

Pongo:

Early models of nearly every gun had their problems and of course so did Hispanos.  In time these problems were corrected to give the guns acceptable performance.  So the 1Cs did not in fact have an Achilles heel in terms of gun reliability.  I don't currently have access to a copy of the joint fighter conference book but if memory serves they state that the AN-M2 guns had a stoppage every 2000-2500 rounds and required gun heaters (which were installed in the US aircraft) at higher altitudes.

Vermillion:

Could you please do me a favor and post the reference quote for gun stopages from the fighter conference book?

Hooligan

[Pongo]

Hooligan.
Yes many succesful types had teathing problems with a given gun. I pointed that out quite clearly in my post. You state that the 1c did not have this trouble. Or that it did but it was corrected.. For such a common weapon the M2 Hispano is at best enigmatic. Was it reliable or not. Did they have to heavily grease the ammo for it to work or not. Was it skiped for use on the P51 because the 50 was better or because the 20 had serios problems.
Im still looking. But I wouldnt bet in favour of the gun being acceptabley reliable nor in favour of it having the killing power it still has in AH.
"Wasting no time, Johnson headed into the middle of the formation, and as he got closer, the Germans saw him. Two to the FW 190s broke off sharply, but the lead aircraft stayed on course. Johnson closed rapidly to about 1,000ft(305m) dead astern, putting his sights squarely on the intruder. Two short burst of 20-mm fire found thier mark, but were not fatal. The Fw 190 took the hits in its right wing and drifted into a slow turn to port. The range had narrowed to 500 ft(152m), and the next five-second burst delivered the lethal punch. Hits were observed all over the fuselage, with black smoke pooring from the engine. The doomed German fighter-bomber nosed down into a near vertical dive and exploded upon impact.
"
An encounter between a P61 and some Fws from Wings of Fame volume 15.
Now its hard to make comparisons of course. Because in AH if a HogC did that to a fw, 9 seconds fire from 300 to0 150 yards... the pilot would likely be imediatly killed which would imediatly blow up the Fw. But still. That is 1/3rd the ammo of a hog c at 300 yards or less. Lots of observed strikes on wings. Would anyone one here expect a plane to fly away from a hit like that in AH.


Still looking.

[Zigrat]

blah blah

the problem is with the damage models, not the guns in my opinion

especially true with the vehicles i think

the panzer damage model is pathetic, as is the ostwind. From a frontal attack, 20mm cannon should not be able to kill a panzer IV yet it can. I hear some people even killed panzer with m16 by firing point blank from the front. Same with the mm16 and m3, i have seen m16s or m3s take more than 5 .50 cal US bullets without dyin, one of those should at least kill the driver or engine or gunner most likely.

In a2a engagements i dont think theres a big deal, but for a2g stuff i think theres a serious problem with damage model.

[fd ski]

Pongo - that's just a story - nothing more.
for all practical purposes - pilot could have been a hamburger - just one leaning backwards.

As for 20mm effectiveness, someone posted a little RAF document about 109 they found with 20mm shell in it ... actually one hole after one...
it went though the tail, all the good toejam in the back, pilot armor, pilot's ribcage, ENGINE BLOCK and exited out front.
1 shell.



------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF

Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998

Northolt Wing Headquarters

[Luke Skywalker]

Well I have to say this,because I am surprised  

Tonite I have destroyed a tail of a P51@200 yards with two 20mm pings.

And, incredible as it may sound, a N1K2@150 yards with one single 20mm ping...that really amazed me (hehe It must be that it was "a shot in a million", and as always I trusted in the force   )

Then again I must admit that I also got at least 4 pings on a close fight against a N1K2's wing@less than 100 yards, and he "only" lost aileron and flaps.

All that happened with me in a typhoon.

Only some AH facts  

------------------
Hey, dont shoot me! I'm on the light side!!
   

 



[This message has been edited by Luke Skywalker (edited 01-10-2001).]

[Jigster]

I'd just like to add a few things.

When the British and US Hispanos seperated in manufactering styles, the nature of the British system lead to a more reliable (in what precentage that is, you'd need to take into account combat conditions)

The British ditched lubricating the rounds all togather once they decreased the breech gap by 1mm (the same was done to the US gun) for fear of jamming issues with the colder Europe weather. Lubricating gels such as grease become gummy and sticky in cold weather and hence the problem. So the gun tended to work much better.

The US decided to continue the heavy use of lubricants on their M2 Hispanos, which generally caused no problems due to the planes that used them and their condtions.  It's wasn't a big issue on the P-38 in Europe either though, even if it did jam because of the M2 .50s. Because the USN was operating in the much warmer Pacfic the guns tended to work just find, until reaching the colder temperatures at higher altitudes where the lubrication gummed up preventing reliable gun preformence. Gun heaters fixed that for the most part.


It is interesting that the gun charging system never comes into question during these "jamming" discussions. It is much suspect thing and less random occurence, more likely "run down" the electric system via triggers of most planes during prolonged fire(apparently this was a fairly large drain on the batteries). I'm going to dig through some old magazines where I saw accounts of this, but I know this was a problem with the P-40, P-38, and F6F.

In terms of fire, 5-6 seconds of fire is a very long time...IIRC the drain on the electric system could reach the point where there was no longer enough power to engage the electric triggers, killing the guns until the system was charged enough to continue (And with the early P-40's they were trained for short bursts for this reason --  believe I heard that from an account from "Tex" Hill but I'll check and see what I can find) at which point they would be no problem as long as the electric current was delivered.

It's a bit more linear thing then gun jamming but I'm only aware of .50 armed US planes having this problem. Then again I never heard of it being fixed either though because it only caused problems with very heavy trigger use.

And I hate to burst the bubble of those that hope that gun jams would cripple the Hispano but most US planes after '43 had electric chargers that could be used(if there was no serious hang ups, best for use on misfires) to re-prime the gun, giving the ability to clear jammed guns. Other US planes used loaded charge round (or a normal round if not available) pre-loaded on the ground that, when the safety was removed from the trigger, was used to prime the gun for useage by starting the ammo belt into the gun (which is why nearly all planes fired short burst before entering combat) I'm not sure which the USN used for charging (and no clue on the British) but it's probably more then likely the electric charger (which doesn't require firing a live round)

One more thing...about the joint conference thing...there is a direct quote in their over the M2 20mm's ability to penetrate armor at 500 yrds...and that is perpendicular, 0-30 degree shot on a range (given the M2's muzzle velocity, and at that range it is not capable of exceding 30 degrees) that is less then all but the top armor of the PzIVH. (I've posted it before) So if we're going to argue that it's a reliable source for the Hispano's reliablity, (which Pyro, Verm, and many others have quoted and I very much believe it to be a reliable source) then perhaps we should argue of the M2's exaggerated armor penetration within the game? Btw it also notes the .50 cal as well at the same range, and it should be capable of a roof penetration (according to the joint conference and the Pz IVH's armor specs) if a 0-30 degree perpendicular shot is made to the roof armor (although it would prolly do knil)

- Jig

[Jigster]

Oh one more thing about MG/Cannon vs armor...I believe from observation that whether or not penetration occurs is based on weight of fire. I don't believe it's accumulative damage (other then loss of secondary items that do not lead directly to the destruction of the tank) because of the lack of effect most other guns have. This might also explain why the M-16 can kill a Pz IVH at point blank. It is somewhat a substitue between accumulative armor damage and  simple yes/no penetration, if it is indeed based on weight of fire. But the value of resistence does not seem near high enough.

- Jig

[Hooligan]

Pongo:

Yes they did lubricate the 20mm ammo belts in USN aircraft, however this solution did work (1 jam every 2,000 or 2,500 rounds).

As far as your Mustang/20mm question -- AH isn't reality.  The fact that 6x.50 M2 is inferior to 4x20mm HS in AH doesn't mean that this was also the case in the real world.  The biggest difference IMO between damage in AH and the real world was that a lot of single round critical hits would cripple aircraft (via fire, ammunition or oxygen bottle explosions, control hits, etc. etc...) in the real world and many of these effects are absent in AH.  Obviously the higher volume of fire from 6x.50s is a bigger advantage in the real world than it is in AH.  The most obvious example of this IMO is when the target is an unarmored A6M.  Any single hit from an incendiary or explosive .50 or 20mm round should have a good chance of torching the A6M.  The superiority in volume of fire should make 6x.50 a better weapon set against unarmored A6Ms.  In fact (and ignoring ballistic considerations) this same issue should make 8x.30cal firing AP/I a better weapon choice against A6Ms than either 6x.50s or 4x20s.  In AH this is simply not the case.  I expect that as the damage and weapons modeling undergo improvement that this will change.

In the current version the difference between 6x.50 cal and 4x20mm is not nearly as pronounced as it was in prior versions.  For the F4U in particular the AH tradeoff is between .50s with 30 seconds worth of ammo and 20mms with 21.5 seconds worth of ammo.  I have no trouble whatsoever killing with the .50s so for me the increased hitting power of the 20mms is worth far less than it was in prior versions.  In AH the tradeoff is somewhat ambiguous for me (I still favor the 20mm setup but not greatly).  If the game modeled every single component that was susceptible to .50cal fire, then I might very well strongly favor the .50.

I'll throw another little piece of anecdotal evidence your way.  Part of the reason for the USN's increased interest in 20mm guns at the end of the war was Kamikaze's.  If .50 damage tended to set an enemy plane on fire but 20mm damage tended to blow off wings, it might matter little to you which guns you had unless....  some of your targets were Kamikazes and it was important not only to destroy the aircraft but to destroy it in such a fashion that it couldn't maintain controlled flight for another 30 seconds and crash into a friendly ship.

Hooligan