Was there an FM change with v2.02??

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Wotan
I don't question the lethality of the Hisso in AH, but from my experience the MGFF is pretty useless unless you are in very close.

I never took MGFF of the A5 (which should have a 90 round drum option; the 90 round drum fit into the same space of the 60 round drum) because the added weight vrs the lethality gain wasn't worth it. [/B]

If the HE(M) rounds were being "averaged" into a hybrid round, would that explain the drop off in lethality? Given that the normal HE round relies more on kenetic damage? Or is this off?

-Sik

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Zanth
Ballistics.  Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon.

At typical combat ranges the differences in "time on target" on all these weapons (MK108 excluded) is insignificant.

[Wotan]

If the HE(M) rounds were being "averaged" into a hybrid round, would that explain the drop off in lethality?

Here's my opinion:

MGFF

HE + low kinetic energy = greater loss of lethality at range

Hisso

HE + high kinetic energy = higher level of lethality at range

I could agree on that. However its my opinion that the loss of lethality over range for the MGFF is to great.

Also by averaging out the effect of M'geschoß over the belt individual rounds are less lethal., ie it takes more hits to get the same effect as 1 M'geschoß.

So more hits per kill and at a reduce range as compared to the Hisso.

This is just my opinion and I certainly don't know any more then the rest of us.

It is my opinion that velocity at impact determines a greater portion of damage. Take a buff attack 6 o'clock.

When the first BoB scenario was run in AH I was the Axis Co. We tested many ways to defend /escort and formations for the Ju-88.

We found that if the Ju88 were attacked form 6 o'clock by an attacker at a high closure rate the effect of the defensive guns improved.

Since the attacker is coming in fast the Ju88 gunner could open fire and a greater distance and the enemy would fly into the round. Not only that, the faster the enemy the more damage they would receive.

We did several tests with the Ju88 level and slow, the hurri coming in fast and with slow closure coming in from 6. The slow Hurri can take more hits with less damage.

My orders to the Ju88s were to keep speed if attack head on of from the flanks, in fact shallow dive and get fast as possible.

Once the initial attack was over the enemy were left in tail chase.

When being attacked from 6 I ordered the Ju88s to reduce power to get as slow as  possible. In the event the JU88s had the highest k/d rate then any of the fighters.

As I said this just my opinion and guessing.

This maybe explain the 'ho lethality' when 2 planes come head on the closure rate is so high that in adds to the lethality of their guns.

Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon.

non-sense...

[Charge]

"Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon."

Rounds that fly fast also tend to scatter more...

-C+

[Zaphod]

Originally posted by Charge
"Ballistics. Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon."

Rounds that fly fast also tend to scatter more...

-C+

Probably not exactly true.  I think it has more to do with the ballistic co-efficient of the bullet as far as how much they tend to scatter.  Obviously there is a sweet spot for loading an accurate round and gun barrel design comes into play but ballistic co-efficient gives a good idea on how inherently stable a bullet is going to be starting out.

The .50 was very effective vs fighter planes.  I suspect that if the U.S. planes were being used for knocking down bombers as a primary role then they would have had to design more cannons into the fighters.  I'm thinking that the .50 was a great fighter killer because it had the power (with multi-gun loadouts) combined with straight trajectory, range and high rate of fire yet was still light enough to allow a large ammo loadout.

On a side note.....

I don't completely understand the "I hate everything Allied (or American)" crowd with respect to AH planes.  The Mustang was a great plane...fact of life.  Is it an "Easymode" plane?.....depends on how you fly it.  Every plane in AH can be easymode if you just run around in a big crowd and swoop in for the pick or some such similar tactic.  It's certainly a fast plane, and folks tend to run alot in it....but several non-US planes are exactly the same in that respect.  In fact the cannon armed planes to a certain degree or even easier to do so in (harder to hit with but far more damaging when they do hit).

Oh well just my two cents.  I'm no expert with regard to plane modelling so I can't say if AH models are precisely correct or not.  I will say that I just started messing with the 109's and they are pretty nice rides....especially those little F and G2 109s, they are quite agile.

Zaphod

[Kweassa]

The problem is, no matter how the numbers are drawn out, what actually happens when the flying bullet meets the air is different everytime. This stuff is all non-linear. There's certainly a 'tendency' of how or which path the bullet trajectory follows, but it always varies more or less - which, under certain circumstances, will determine if the bullet hits or misses.

 More bullets in the air means more different factors working at the same time. For instance, if you fire 6 bullets at the same time, in some cases(preferably MANY cases) all of those 6 rounds might hit a certain area within a certain circle of diameter. However, in other instances, some of them might diverge and miss.

 The problem is, for non explosive shells, of all those entire set of possibilities, only one ideal instance draws up its maximum potential to do damage. All 6 rounds must converge, and connect at a very small point, in order to do a great deal of damage.
 
 If those 6 rounds are scattered along the surface due to variety of reasons that cannot be figured out by numbers alone(air conditions, wing twist, target plane propwash, vibration, malalignment due to convergence, etc etc..), then the chances of the set of bullets for a single burst doing maximal damage, decreases greatly. A stray bullet might sever a cord or puncture a radiator, but it also might do nothing but make a small hole.

 The HE shells of cannons are different. They do their maximal damage all the time. Unless its a total dud, whereever or however the round hits the target it will explode and knock out a chunk from a plane, which will immediately effect its flight capability.

 So the problem with multiple machine-gun mounted planes is, that it needs to mount more number of weapons to make up for the lack of pure power, and it still could not be as effective as a cannon round. The USN evaluated the Hispano Mk.II as worth three M2 50cal brownings.

 To match a Spitfire mounted with two Hispano cannons a Mustang needs six 50 cal guns, and that still might not be effective if the convergence ranges are wrong, or if the window of opportunity to open fire an a target is too short(since the lack of power means a concentrated length of gunfire is required to immediately damage the target on a critical level).

 So, why suffer all that extra weight of six machine guns and loads of ammo, when in overall effectivity only two cannons and its ammo load can offer the same results, or even be superior??

[GScholz]

I don't understand why someone would bring "'I hate everything Allied (or American)' crowd" into a thread like this.