better guns on JU88's?

[hazed-]

Fishu   i think you are thinking what im thinking heheh

Raw deal for LW again  

hazed JG2

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]

[juzz]

Browning M2 .50in: 12.7x99(48.5g), 870m/s, 750rpm
MG 131 13mm: 13x64B(34.6g), 730m/s, 900rpm

If you figure out the kinetic energy, you will find that the US .50in has almost twice the energy of the German 13mm. In Aces High, testing versus a fighter hanger shows the German round does about 80% of the damage the US round does.

[Hristo]

I believe MG 131 used 13mm HE rounds as well as other types.

[Fishu]

Juzz,

Little side note in here, even though I don't know who you're talking..
just sticked in my eye..

I don't qualify hangar testings as reliable source, because it doesn't get damaged like plane..
With plane, you have also penetration counted, so that one bullet should and could break more than just one part, depending on weapon and armour.. and.. (well, you got the point, no need to be that scientific)

[funked]

Fishu, that's a clever strategy you use.  Someone questions your information and you tell them shut up.  I'm sure this will be really convincing to Pyro.

If Ju 88A-4 really had MG 131 in some cases, I would love to see it.  I'm trying to learn about it but finding very little convincing evidence of its existence.

Here is what William Green says (Warplanes of the Third Reich):
Pilot:  MG 81
Bombardier:  1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81
Aft Canopy:  2 x MG 81
Aft Gondola:  1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]

[juzz]

The source is reliable, only the uselfulness of the data can be questioned.

One thing it does show however is that the MG 131 round does more damage than just it's KE would suggest -> they must be modelled as HE rounds?

I've read Eric Brown, he said the Ju 88A-5 he flew had a MG 131 in the rear cockpit, and another one in the gondola. Also, a twin MG 81Z in the bomb-aimers position, firing forward, and a pilot-operated fixed/free mount MG 81.

But of course, Eric Brown also said the Fw 190A-4 only did 394mph, and the He 219 sucked, so his reliability is highly questionable and this information must be ignored.

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by funked:
Fishu, that's a clever strategy you use.  Someone questions your information and you tell them shut up.  I'm sure this will be really convincing to Pyro.

If Ju 88A-4 really had MG 131 in some cases, I would love to see it.  I'm trying to learn about it but finding very little convincing evidence of its existence.

Here is what William Green says (Warplanes of the Third Reich):
Pilot:  MG 81
Bombardier:  1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81
Aft Canopy:  2 x MG 81
Aft Gondola:  1 x MG 131 or 2 x MG 81


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]

For the truth, you're getting to be annoying with your all-knowing acting.
You're 90% of the time against that what I tell and requiring for some pentagon sized file database to be read so that you finally believe other sources than your 'gods handbook'.

for gods sake, I am not going to talk about things without knowing a bit.
What I don't really know, I don't talk about or I will tell that I am not sure of it.
You always talk about agreeing in way "I'd love to see", but still you're talking like some all-knowing god, which you most certainly aren't because you're here with among us.

[funked]

Sorry, after doing a lot of research on Fw 190 I am very skeptical about claims for German aircraft.  

There is a lot of incorrect information in books and many authors have assumed certain equipment to have been in full production when it was a prototype only, or didn't even exist.  If HTC used everything they read in any book as "proof" that something existed or performed in a certain way, we would have a ridiculous sim.

I think if MG 131 were actually mounted on a Ju 88A-4 there would be a photo somewhere.  I hope to find it.  

That's all.  I don't pretend to know everything.  But when other people say that something is certain, when it is not certain, I will tell them.  I expect other people to do the same in return.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]

[hazed-]

ok i have finally got annoyed with you funcked!
you say that some sources of information are dubious as to their accuracy but what may i ask makes you think your source of information is any better? I have loads of books on axis and allied planes from the technical to the 'boys books' from childhood
and a typical example of ju88a4 armament 99% of the time agrees with the configeration you stated 'william green' quoted.
Are you telling me they are all lieing because you refuse to believe the LW had such good weapons? WHY do you think the world trembled when they ravaged europe for gods sake?
I suggest you read about the history of small arms and see if you can find a book that does not mention German weapons.they are still among the finest firearms in the world.I am NOT german and i despise what germany stood for during WW2(history) BUT! if you claim the LW guns were not as good as they say they were you are distorting our best recollection of the events.
I suggest you find a WW2 air veteran and tell him LW guns were not as powerful as they now claim..tell him he had the advantage in guns etc and you reduce/detract from the bravery of allied pilots who fought against a war machine of extreme power and technological prowess which the allies had no idea they might win against.My grandmother often tells me of the real fear of germany because of its seemingly invinsible nature.you dont get much of a sense of this in AH   .If you find it hard to kill enemy planes that perform extremely well just maybe you are getting a brief glimse into what it was really like?.I get the feeling in AH that all american planes seem to be top models of their type.F4uc a typical example!(see other thread by yeager)whilst axis get a seemingly raw deal.perhaps the american players want to fly their planes at advantage all the time?.Id rather see what the real differences were.
I am not here to listen to your ramblings about who 'you' think is wrong or right,I prefer to read litrature from those that were there thanks.I am merely asking for a 'balance' in bombers armament in a GAME!
after all i doubt many f4uc's shot down ju88's in RL.

hazed JG2

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]

[hazed-]

sorry double post
btw sorry funcked but i blew my top. i have flown with/against you and have no hard feelings  

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 10-17-2000).]

[funked]

Hazed don't sweat it.  I think you are confusing me with somebody else.  I am not making any claims about the quality of German guns.  

Just wondering about the defensive armament configuration on the Ju 88A-4 - why the photographs of wartime planes and existing aircraft in museums don't match what Green and some authors say.  If you can find comment on this subject by "those that were there" I would love to hear it.

I hope we can find some photographic evidence or at least some schematics that will help HTC to model it.  I'm pretty sure that finding a mention of it in a book is not enough.  HTC has higher standards of proof than that, no matter what country built the airplane.

[funked]

PS if you think MG 81 and MG 131 had the same punch as a Browning M2 .50 cal, you're looney.  

But I agree that Ju 88 should have the strongest possible defensive armament that can be justified historically.

[GRUNHERZ]

Am I looney to think that the AH M2 in buffs should have the same effect as the real 50cal?  Just compare the destructive effect of the twin 50cal turret on a lanc and a P51 when the 4 outside 50cals run out. Then tell me that the buff 50cals arent 20mms of some sort.

[funked]

If you want to start a thread whining about the strength of B-17 guns, go do that.  I'll probably back you up.  But I thought this was a thread about Ju 88 guns?

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-17-2000).]

[GRUNHERZ]

You brought it up funked. Thats all  

[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 10-17-2000).]