Calculated "base" dispersion of guns based on energy delivered

[bustr]

What is the goal of these formulas in reference to the current gunnery model? Will it help us to increase our hit% or will the dispersion numbers resemble trying to hit the "X" ring at 100 yards with a Rumanian SKS?

[phookat]

Cool, HoHun.  I suppose the mounting scheme (wing/root/fuse/turret) would be a multiplicative factor overlaid on that?

[phookat]

Originally posted by bustr
What is the goal of these formulas in reference to the current gunnery model? Will it help us to increase our hit% or will the dispersion numbers resemble trying to hit the "X" ring at 100 yards with a Rumanian SKS?

I think the idea is to vary the dispersion based on gun type and gun mount.  I believe Pyro stated in a previous thread that what we currently have is a single amount of dispersion for everything.

Edit-- NM, I think what he actually said was as stated below, a single amount of dispersion based on caliber alone.

[Karnak]

The problem with both MANDOBLE's formula and HoHun's formula is this:

Originally posted by Tony Williams
The Browning was never a particularly accurate gun in any calibre - the short-recoil design meant that the barrel had to move around instead of being fixed. The Hispano was reckoned to be significantly more accurate.

They do not seem to mimic historical accuracy.

[GODO]

HoHun, what do you put in "bore", caliber?

For artillery guns (ROF is not a factor), there are three points of dispersion generation or modification of dispersion:
1 - Initial detonation (quantity of explosive charge and mass of the round to move?).
2 - Momemtum applied to the barrel as the round advances (depending on the round design, also a factor of "jinking?" of the round inside the barrel is applied). Barrel lenght, projectile mass and acceleration inside the barrel may be the factors.
3 - When the round exits the barrel. suddenly, the previous conditions dissapear and the gun tends to recover its initial angle.

with these factors you achieve the dispersion of the very first shot. But for substained fire things are a bit more complicated:


A METHOD FOR ESTIMATION OF THE PROJECTILES PROBABLE ACCURACY IN THE CONTINUOUS FIRING

BTW, your simplified system seems pretty accurate, and probably more than enough.

[GODO]

Originally posted by Karnak
The problem with both MANDOBLE's formula and HoHun's formula is this:
They do not seem to mimic historical accuracy.

Of, course, if you already have the historical dispersion of a gun, why to apply any calculated one?

[bustr]

What will a more accurately modeled dispersion accomplish for us? Please, I would like to understand. My personal understanding of dispersion is an M1A1 at 600yd. Fireing faster than 1 round per 2 to 5 minutes will show a dramatic variation in your dispersion ie your shot pattern.

Is our currently modeled dispersion akin to 5 rounds rapid fire with an SKS at 100yds or a National Match M1A1 5 rounds at 100yds? The M1A1 in competent hands will give a 2inch pattern during rapid fire(Pull the trigger as fast as you can). The SKS is lucky to keep all 5 rounds on the black.

Is this what we are talking here? And will your formula ultimatly give us an M1A1 or reduce us to an SKS? Sorry to use such a crude example, my math is not as elegant as yours, but I've had to shoot alot in my life.

Your earlier picture of the Me's wing guns being sighted in showed about a 6inch shot pattern at 125yds. Not bad for an automatic weapon.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GODO
Of, course, if you already have the historical dispersion of a gun, why to apply any calculated one?

But we don't have the historical dispersion of the Hispano, just the note that it was more accurate than the Browning 50 cal.  That is not something that your formula or HoHun's formula matched.

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

>The problem with both MANDOBLE's formula and HoHun's formula is this:
 
>[...]

Well, your post only serves as an example for the uselessness of unquantified truisms :-)

Bring a number, and we can talk.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Godo,

>HoHun, what do you put in "bore", caliber?

Roger.

>BTW, your simplified system seems pretty accurate, and probably more than enough.

Well, when we've fed all our guns into it and still got coherent results, I'll agree :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[GODO]

Originally posted by bustr
What will a more accurately modeled dispersion accomplish for us?

Actually we have a generic dispersion based only on gun caliber. That is, all 20mm guns have the very same dispersion modeled, doesnt matter where they are placed, nor the gun type, just caliber.

As an example, AH 30mm  Mk108 has greater dispersion than 20mm MG-FF that has greater dispersion than 12mm Brownings. But, historically, 50" had greater dispersion than mk108 that had greater dispersion than MG-FF.

Considering 30mm Mk108 alone, 109G10 can load a single one with 60 rounds. If we put a generic big dispersion on that gun based on its caliber, you will be lucky getting a single kill with it. You cant just spray&pray with only 60 rounds and a single gun. With a more accurately modeled dispersion, Mk108 will become a much more accurate weapon. Basically, if you aim correctly your chance of hit with few rounds will be noticeably greater than with the current model. Accurately edited and marked gunsights will be really useful tools.

Other weapons, like 50" will suffer an increase in dispersion. Spraying&Praying with them will ensure more hits for the poor aimers, but concentrating the hits on a particular spot will be harder. Buffs will not dissintegrate your plane at 800 yards any more with concetrated fire, but chances of getting scattered hits will increase.

[HoHun]

Hi Bustr,

>And will your formula ultimatly give us an M1A1 or reduce us to an SKS? Sorry to use such a crude example, my math is not as elegant as yours, but I've had to shoot alot in my life.

The results are given for the 100% dispersion radius measured in mil.

You can convert them into convenient units: At 100 m, 1 mil = 10 cm. That's about 4 inches at 110 yards.

For a 1 mil 100%-dispersion figure, you'll find all of the hits in a 20 cm diameter circle at 100 m range. Most of them will actually be grouped near the centre of the pattern.

I don't (currently) fly Aces High, but from what I've heard, it's my impression that accuracy will tend to be improved or at least stay the same with realistic dispersion, depending on the exact gun and mount.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[GODO]

Originally posted by Karnak
But we don't have the historical dispersion of the Hispano, just the note that it was more accurate than the Browning 50 cal.  That is not something that your formula or HoHun's formula matched.

Hispanos being more accurate than 50s?? If you are talking about the very first shot of a single gun in a pretty fixed mounting, may be, still very hard to believe. But probably just the opposite with substained fire.

A good example would be the P38, with a single hispano and several 50" in the nose. I would like to see any comment of P38 pilots about the relative accuracy of these weapons.

[HoHun]

Hi Phookat,

>Cool, HoHun.  I suppose the mounting scheme (wing/root/fuse/turret) would be a multiplicative factor overlaid on that?

Yes, that's my idea at the moment, at least for the more rigid mounts.

For the most wildly dispersing bomber guns, we probably have to blame the mountings alone, so it's not an universal principle though :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Karnak]

HoHun,

That was Tony William's data, not mine.  I have no data on this subject other than Mr. William's books.

MANDOBLE,

I don't think you've adjusted to AH2 yet.  I'm lucky to get a single hit at 800 yards with a bomber's tail gun and have not managed to "dissintegrate" a fighter at any range using a bomber's guns since AH2 was released.  Bombers really had their teeth pulled.