Hit rate- cannons vs mg

[Karnak]

Pongo,

Even then it wouldn't increase your chances by a factor of ten.  Forty guns will miss just as completely as two guns if your fighter isn't aimed correctly.  Forty would increase your chances slightly due to the sheer quantity of bullets filling the dispersion zone, but I'd be surprised if it were even by a factor of 1.5.

[Pongo]

No one point harmonizes 40 guns karnak. 40 guns would increase the number of bullets that hit signifigantly.  Have 4 harmonized in each 25 yard range from 150 to  400 hold down the trigger as you approach..even a loser will get lots of hits.

it would be a great gun package if it didnt weigh 3000 pounds and 200 square feet of gun bays to do it with 50 cals.

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Schaden

Is there any doc showing what the effectiveness of the guns of the various planes are in the game?

scJazz made a study for the effectiveness of the different gun rounds.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97083

Note: This was for AH1. Also this does not take into account the differences in the rate of fire.

Originally posted by scJazz
This update includes PT Boat's 37mm and 40mm guns as well as damage from Shore Batteries and Cruiser main guns.

Gun Type                Dam in #
.303 Browning AC 0.296
.303 Browning GV 0.3125
7.6mm ShKAS 0.296
7.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.28
7.7mm Type 97 0.296
7mm MG 17 0.3
.50 M2 AC 1.17
.50 M2 GV 1.25
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.95
12.7mm Ho-103 0.998
12.7mm UBS 1.15
13mm MG 131 0.92
20mm B-20 3.47
20mm Hispano Mk II 4.03
20mm Hispano Mk V 3.94
20mm Ho-5 3.36
20mm M2 AC 4.03
20mm MG 151/20 3.55
20mm MG-FF 3.25
20mm ShVAK 3.47
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 3.85
23mm VYa 5.62
30mm Mk 108 11.63
37mm NS37 16.67
40mm Vickers S 13.89 *
37mm PT Boat            13.2
40mm PT Boat            15.6
37mm HE Ostwind 15.15 *
37mm AP 15.6  #1
37mm HE 31.2  #1
75mm AP 78.1  #1
75mm HE       156.2  #1
88mm AP       117.1  #1
88mm HE       234.3  #1
3.5" Rocket       140.0  #1
4.5" Rocket        93.0  #1
5" Rocket       156.0  #1
RS132       125.0  #1
RS82        93.0  #1
WGr21       200.0  #1
Shore Battery          250 - 500 #2
Cruiser Gun            250 - 500  #2



* The Vickers S and 37mm HE Ostwind are the only weapons I
am not 100% certain of the full series of tests had very
inequal results. The value shown is the maximum damage
inflicted per round. I suspect that the variance is caused
by a bug in the burst dispersion code.
#1 Testing for the GV main guns and rockets was different.
I fired 1 round into a hanger and constantly tweaked the
hanger's damage resistence until I found the maximum single
round damage.
#2 The Main Guns on the Cruisers fire 3 shells at a time
each shell does 250lbs to 500lbs of damage. If all 3 hit then the
target just took 750lbs to 1500lbs of damage. The damage is scaled by range 250lbs at maximum range, 500lbs at point blank, 390lbs at 6400 yards.

[/B]

[Tony Williams]

Which weapons are meant by '37mm PT boat' and '40mm PT boat'?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Pongo
No one point harmonizes 40 guns karnak. 40 guns would increase the number of bullets that hit signifigantly.  Have 4 harmonized in each 25 yard range from 150 to  400 hold down the trigger as you approach..even a loser will get lots of hits.

it would be a great gun package if it didnt weigh 3000 pounds and 200 square feet of gun bays to do it with 50 cals.

There'd have to be a new saying: "I gave him the whole 90 yards"

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by SunTracker
A post war report showed the 50 cals could have been much more effective.  There were three ways in which 50 caliber ammunition usually destroyed enemy aircraft.  (1) Exploding the ammo stores (2) igniting fuel tanks (3) killing the pilot.  It was found that the only truely effective 50 caliber ammunition was armor piercing incendiary.

The .50 M8 API (copied from a Russian design, incidentally) was introduced in Spring 1944 and was the standard US fighter ammo for the last year of the war. However, it only contained a tiny quantity of incendiary material - less than one-tenth that of the RAF's 20mm Hispano SAPI, which had similar penetration.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Kweassa]

Mr.Williams, the PT boat is the US Elco 80' PTs. I'm not sure this if it is right, but I've found the armament details listed as:

20mm(fwd.): Oerlikon Mark-4 with shoulder rest
20mm(aft.): Oerlikon Mark-4 on tripod
37mm: Same gun as the P-39 Aircobra, on factory mount
40mm: Bofors Automatic, on standard mount
.50s: Dual Browning 50 caliburs, on turret mount
Rockets: 5" Rockets, on swivel mount


 ..

 Hope this helps.

[Tony Williams]

In that case, I'm surprised by some of the figures. Without doing the calculations, I would expect the order of merit of the individual 37-40mm rounds to be as follows:

37x145R for US M4 (P-39 gun) - by far the weakest.
40x158R for Vickers S - significantly more destructive
37x263B for German Flak - possibly around the same (except M-Geschoss - but that was rare, and for aircraft only AFAIK)
37x195 for NS-37 - a bit more destructive
40x311R for Bofors - the most powerful (it developed almost three times the muzzle energy of the 37x145R).

The figures in the table don't seem to match up with this.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Schaden]

Tony do the figures for the a/c mounted weapons look relaistic to you?

(Thnks for posting the thread...very interesting)

[HoHun]

Hi Schaden,

>Tony do the figures for the a/c mounted weapons look relaistic to you?

Here's a comparison of a selection of the above numbers to the energy of a single projectile (relative to the 12.7 mm Browning M2's API):

Gun Type                Dam in #  Energy
.303 Browning AC          0.296     0.20
.50 M2 AC                 1.17      1.00
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT      0.95      0.55
12.7mm Ho-103             0.998     0.55
12.7mm UBS                1.15      1.28
13mm MG 131               0.92      0.64
20mm B-20                 3.47      2.4
20mm Hispano Mk II        4.03      4.9
20mm Hispano Mk V         3.94      4.7
20mm Ho-5                 3.36      2.3
20mm MG 151/20            3.55      4.8
20mm MG-FF                3.25      4.5
20mm Type 99 Mk 1         3.42      3.0
20mm Type 99 Mk 2         3.85      3.6
23mm VYa                  5.62      6.1
30mm Mk 108              11.63     23.0

Note that the two columns are not directly comparable - increase the right hand column by 17% for that, using the 0.50" M2 as a calibration point.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Ghosth]

Suntracker, the key to kills with the 50's is that you must land those 20 to 30 rounds in ONE spot. Not scattered all over the plane.

That is why its easier to do it with cannons.

Your odds of getting enough significant damage in any one area is always going to be greater with cannons which had exploding shells. Your not dealing with pure kinitic energy, as you are with the .50's.

[SunTracker]

It is my opinion, that with the thousands of pilots the U.S. had to train per year,that the 50 caliber gun was the best choice.  I believe due to wing resonance, that bullets were lucky to hit in a 12ftx12ft box at 300 yards.  

So 30-50 seconds of firing time, compared to as little as 8 seconds for some cannon armed planes, was a big benefit.  Almost all the gun camera footage I have seen of U.S. aircraft attacking German or Japanese planes show the ammo bays or fuel tanks exploding.  

What was the other choice for the U.S. besides the 50 cal?  The M9 37mm?  The M2 Hispano?  Both of these weapons were subpar.

[HoHun]

Hi Schaden,

>Tony do the figures for the a/c mounted weapons look relaistic to you?

Here's the table again with the right-hand column made directly comparable:

,303 Browning AC         0,3      0,23
,50 M2 AC                1,17     1,17
12,7mm Breda - SAFAT     0,95     0,64
12,7mm Ho-103            1        0,64
12,7mm UBS               1,15     1,5
13mm MG 131              0,92     0,75
20mm B-20                3,47     2,81
20mm Hispano Mk II       4,03     5,73
20mm Hispano Mk V        3,94     5,5
20mm Ho-5                3,36     2,69
20mm MG 151/20           3,55     5,62
20mm MG-FF               3,25     5,27
20mm Type 99 Mk 1        3,42     3,51
20mm Type 99 Mk 2        3,85     4,21
23mm VYa                 5,62     7,14
30mm Mk 108             11,63    26,91

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kweassa]

So 30-50 seconds of firing time, compared to as little as 8 seconds for some cannon armed planes, was a big benefit. Almost all the gun camera footage I have seen of U.S. aircraft attacking German or Japanese planes show the ammo bays or fuel tanks exploding.

 You'll also notice that most of the guncam footages are shot from very very close distances. At that distance, there's nothing the .50 could offer which the 20mm cannot outdo.

What was the other choice for the U.S. besides the 50 cal? The M9 37mm? The M2 Hispano? Both of these weapons were subpar.

 The Hispano Mk.II 'subpar'?

 You've gotta be kidding.

[SunTracker]

Certainly you have not read the articles on the M2 Hispano.  Controlled by the same agency that regulated artillery, the m2 was overweight, had a relatively low cyclic rate, and was prone to jamming.