.50 cal's

[Blammo]

I can't remember were I read this, but my understanding in AH2 was that...

2 x .303 = 1 x .50 cal
2 x .50 = 1 x 20mm

(approximately)

.303s, from my observations are pretty much useless beyond 300 yards.

.50s tend to do very well out beyond even 400 yards and have about the flatest trajectory for range in the game.

20mm have great all around hitting ability, but drop quicker and have a slower rate of fire the the .50s.  However, if you know what you are doing and have a plane with 2 x 20 mm or great you can hit at a pretty long range (assuming convergence is set well).

I used to straffe ACK emplacements (when AH2 first became the only arena) and take them out with about 70 to 100 rounds if I put the rounds in the center of the gun pad (less if I was more accurate).  I did this without having to get all the way in on the gun (like, pulling up at the absolute last second).  Now, I have made two or three passes at ACK and is still be in good form.

Against enemy AC I am really having to get in tight anymore with the .50s to do any good...unless, of course they are flying straight and level and I am about 400 to 500 yards off.

To me, from what I have seen, cannon armed planes rule anymore.  If you aren't flying a cannon mount, you are just a bunch of ammo waiting to get shot.  Doesn't mean I don't get kills with the MGs, but it does mean a lot more work.  I used to love to fly the Jug (who doesn't love jugs ?), but I shy away from it now because even those 8 brownings are quiet as deadly as the seem to used to be.

Oh well, just my ramblings...

[bustr]

Blammo,

Should hook up with Nomde or YUCCA and fly jugs a bit. We are over in Rook land right now. We don't have any problems shooting things down with JUG's..............

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Ghosth

.50's are NOT cannons, they don't explode, they puncture.  Whats more scattering your rounds from prop to tail scatters the damage.

Last, while mg's can certainly hit at that range its not idea for damage.
Take a page out of the .303 book.

At 400 yards you can light up a bogey with .303's virtually all day for little or no damage. At 150 yards they saw wings off with a short burst.

Brenjen, Ghost is quite correct. The longer the TOF(time of flight) for the MG round the lesser it's hitting power. MG rounds are all about kenetic energy. While you certainly can hit with MG's from D400-D600 your chances of inflicting lethal damage goes down considerably the futher out the target is. Add to this the fact the the f4u is a very tough plane plus spreading the fire out over the airframe it's no wonder you did not kill him

Bring your convergence in under 350, put all guns to a single spot, not a pattern and try to fire at or near convergence and you will have better success.

[1K3]

If you're standing (fixed location) and shoot a .50cal (browning) you can hit probably at more than 1000 yards.

on airplanes, if you're moving/turning at speeds around 400mph, expect the range and effectiveness to go down.

[dedalos]

And some how, that F6 can manage to criple my plane from 1000 yards out, I get kills witht he single 12.5 on the yak or the 2 on the SBD.  Its is just a mater of where the rounds hit and the condition of the game at that moment.

[lasersailor184]

Incendiary is not explosive.  It only lights fires if there's something there to light.

I.E. Imagine a dry grass hut.


Spray it with some regular .50's.  It'll have a lot of holes.

Now spray it with some incendiary .50's.  IT WILL NOT EXPLODE, but it will catch on fire.

[g00b]

I think the 50's are modeled pretty well for structural type damage. What I think is missing is the non-structural type damage, that would add a good bit to their effectiveness.

50's would tear up a planes insides, control cables, hydraulics, electrics, etc... Chopping a planes elevator controls would kill it just as well as knocking it's wing off.

It's a whole 'nother level of damage modeling and I kinda doubt we'll ever see it.

g00b

[Brenjen]

O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400 ,which in & of itself is laughable for realism, & if you read my previous post you will note that most of the rounds hit in one spot and at convergence range. I am above & to the right & he pulled up & to the right - I only had to pull gently up & to the right to keep him centered. I wish I had filmed it,the only reason I let off is because I was certain he was going to go *boom*. It may have been rubber bullets or some other freak glitch, but I still feel they are weaker than they should be. Thanks for the replies on what might make a difference.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Brenjen
O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400 ,which in & of itself is laughable for realism,

Really?  Do tell.

Methinks you need to brush up a bit on your WWII aviation knowledge.  You will find that a convergence of over 300 yards is very rare, typically the domain of an unblooded air force.

[Kweassa]

O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400 ,which in & of itself is laughable for realism

 Can't you just admit you made a mistake and judged the impact of your actions a little too high? Why drag in 'realism' to justify your own shortcomings? You really wanna talk about 'realism'?

& if you read my previous post you will note that most of the rounds hit in one spot and at convergence range. I am above & to the right & he pulled up & to the right - I only had to pull gently up & to the right to keep him centered.

 Obviously that's not what the others felt when they read your initial post.

I wish I had filmed it,the only reason I let off is because I was certain he was going to go *boom*. It may have been rubber bullets or some other freak glitch, but I still feel they are weaker than they should be. Thanks for the replies on what might make a difference.

 They are not weaker than they should be, unless you are willing to prove just how much "they should be" is different from "what it is".

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Brenjen
O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400

Simply put conv at the most common range for you to start firing in your fights, then learn to aim at concentrate the fire at that range.

You should consider also the harmonization, that in AH coincides with the convergence range. If you set your conv at 400, your harmonization is set also at 400, so your bullets will go down the sight center for longer shots than 400 yards, and your bullets will go slightly above gunsight from 200 to 400 yards and below sight center closer than 200 yards. That is, you have two points where the bullet will cross your sight center vertically, the first ascending and descending at convergence.

[MANDO]

About .50 lethality, I see no way to cut the wing of a B24 with them in RL, here with a P47 you can easily cut the entire B24 in half with 2 second burst. In RL .50s may have been good to damage systems, kill pilots and to start fires, but they were too weak to cause catastrofic structural damage. Here you can cut whatever you want with them.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by Ghosth
As to his not having a pilot wound, you can't prove that either way.

If you film it, you can prove a pilot wound.  You can jump in their cockpit on replay and the blood splatter will show when the damage happens.

Also in reviewing films I noticed that sometimes what looked like good killer shots while flying, were as ghost said, just a light show.  You can see in films that sometimes shots can be more dispursed than you thought they were at the time.

Concentration is the key with .50s.  They are pleanty leathal if you have a tight shot group.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Krusty
*cough*BS*cough*



12.7mm is same caliber as 50cal. From *MY* observations they hit about the same too.

And no, the total 4 gun package on the 202 is way better than a single 50cal. If you take the 2 gun package (2x12.7mm) you're just about as effective as any 2x50cal plane. Like hte P40B firing only the 50s. Or the SBD. They're nearly idential in punch. At least in AH. In real life it was different. But then the gunnery hits in AH aren't like in real life, now are they?

No, I'm being serious Krusty, I believe IRL the Italian 12.7mm (Breda-Safat I think) was less than half as good as the Browning .50 cal.  

Here you go, on Tony Williams site http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Ok, I overstated my case a little bit lol.  But even then, the difference is pretty drastic.  The Breda-Safat used a 12.7x81 cartridge, MV was 760 m/sec for AP and 770 for HE, with projectile weight 35.4 and 33 grams.  The Browning fired a 12.7x99 cartridge weighing 43 grams at 870 m/sec.

Tony rates the "Gun Power" at 60 for a .50 caliber Browning, and 36 for a Breda-Safat.  Not quite 2x, but still pretty drastic.  The 7.92 is rated at a 20 for "gun power"... so figure 2 .50s would give you 120 "gun power" total, whereas 2 12.7s and 2 7.92s would be 112.  So the gun package on the C202 is a little less potent than 2 .50s.  

Sorry for the overstatement, it has been forever since I looked at that site.  I just remember the 202 was horrible undergunned, not the exact firepower .

[Krusty]

Oh, I agree Urchin. IRL there's a big difference. It's more like a beefed up MG, whereas the Browning was a HMG (Heavy MG) for its own reasons.

In AH, I am glad it is almost as good as a 50cal, because IRL the bullets penetrated and caused massive damage regardless of caliber, but in AH they just "stop" at the skin of the plane, and it tallies up the damager "per section," as opposed to "per piece/part/component/control rod/etcetcetc"

So for AH I think it's a good compromise.