.50 cal's

[MANDO]

To cut anything metallic in half with small cal guns/MGs you need (not considering hits in explosive parts like fuel tanks or ammo boxes):

1 - To generate explosions (both, inside and outside the structure) powerfull enough to break the structure with the fragmentations, the holes and the shock waves. <- any 13mm, 20mm and 30mm HE round.

2 - To generate a internal explosion with a tremendous shock wave, powerful enough to deformate and open big parts of the estructure, so that it ends breaking by itself.  <- 20mm and 30mm mines (151/20, MGFF and Mk108)

3 - To make enough aligned and well placed small holes. The material between the holes is not enough to keep the integrity of the structure and the structure breaks in half. <- any AP round, including 12mm 50 cal.

Do we agree with the above points?

If so, I cannot see any practical way to cut (or break) a B24 (for example) in half using any kind of AP rounds fired from any WW2 plane.

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by Ecliptik
Wow.  It's absolutely absurd and irrelevant to compare gunnery performance of the F-86 to WWII.  Not only do the fuselage mounts of the Sabre's .50 cals combined with the much heavier weight of the plane make for a far more stable gun platform, but the F-86 was also equipped with a radar assisted gunsight allowing the pilots to take accurate shots from much greater distances.  Wing mounts, flimsy airframes and pure manual shooting all made for much harder gunnery in WWII.  The most common accounts of WWII gunnery by pilots indicate that they could only hit with any great frequency when the enemy aircraft virtually filled their entire windscreen.  Combine this with the relatve vulnerability of the MiG's jet engine to damage as opposed to the extremely tough radial of an F4U and your example of the Sabre vs MiG in comparison to F4U vs F4U is made even more ridiculous.  

Try using a plane with centerline mounted .50's like the P38 or the A20.  You'll see that you shouldn't have much trouble landing hits out to 1000 yards on non maneuvering targets, which is a bit more akin to the F-86 example.  For WWII, landing hits from 600 yards or more was rare.  There are accounts, but the pilots mostly attribute the hits to pure luck.  Most pilots were trained not to fire from so far as it would be a waste of precious ammo.

 No it isn't absurd.The damage from the round is not going to be much different & I have & do use the p-38 on occasion when all the rounds come together thats convergence,no matter how you get there. The differences in propellant & the differences in what the .50 slug was made out of would make a difference in the damage caused. I am tired of being called a liar in this thread because some of you don't agree the round is too weak in this game. I scored the hits. It's not a matter of one sight over another. You can't tell me 100 rounds in the top of a canopy with no damage to the plane is normal, & I don't give a ratz az if you think I am lying or not. I know what it should do, & I know what it does. It's weak. From this point forward I am going to film every engagement & then when I have an opinion about something I won't have to be called a liar when I relate what happened.

By the way; You close on an aircraft to within 400 yards & see if it doesn't fill your windscreen. That's pretty freakin close.

[Dace]

Originally posted by Schutt
Hits only slightly harder than .303?

Well take a spit1 with 8 .303 and a P47 with 8 .50 .

That's all there is to say bout that.

[tactic]

Some of you may have seen this video, in the gulf war, a apache helo w/30mm cannon  shooting up a couple of trucks and  people.  wow the people getting hit "splater" I mean crap flying everywhere the IR shows it. ewww!   But the trucks get tore up  huge holes etc..,   one guy is hiding under a big truck is fired on by the helo, the rounds were fired into the the truck from front and at ground ricocheting under the truck.  well the guy come rolling out from under the truck, rolling in front of this other truck wounded yes, not dead,  then they fire on the front part (engine compartment) of this truck hes in front of now, to kill him, not aiming at him mind you, and the cannon rounds ricocheting did finnish him off.     wicked stuff!!      (depleted uranium rounds)

[Kweassa]

No it isn't absurd.The damage from the round is not going to be much different & I have & do use the p-38 on occasion when all the rounds come together thats convergence,no matter how you get there. The differences in propellant & the differences in what the .50 slug was made out of would make a difference in the damage caused.

 It is absurd. The damage from the round IS different in that GUN and GUNNERY itself is different.

 F-86s used the M3 Browning which was more powerful than its WW2 counterpart and was also boosted in firing speed upto 1200 rpm, 50% faster than its WW2 counterpart. The gun placement itself was also nose mounted. Factor in the radar ranging and guess what, we have here a plane that uses a different gun, different mounting, and a different targetting system that is far superior to that of a typical WW2 USAAF/USN fighter.

 Irrelevant material for comparison. You're using a wrong example to prove your point.

I am tired of being called a liar in this thread because some of you don't agree the round is too weak in this game.

 Right. So bring in proof. Present a film where you score sufficient and concentrated hits at convergence range but the target remains undamaged instead of flogging claims around.  

 No evidence, no case.

I scored the hits. It's not a matter of one sight over another. You can't tell me 100 rounds in the top of a canopy with no damage to the plane is normal

 I say bullshi*. You'd probably hit less than 10% of what you claim.

I don't give a ratz az if you think I am lying or not.

 And that's why you're not convincing to anyone in their right mind.

I know what it should do, & I know what it does.

 But you don't know what YOU did. Again, memories are faulty and self serving in many cases, and I dare say this is one of those cases.

It's weak. From this point forward I am going to film every engagement & then when I have an opinion about something I won't have to be called a liar when I relate what happened.

 That's a very good idea and we'd all sincerely appreciate it.

[Krusty]

Please stop! Both of you!

The original post was relatively inoccuous in nature. The first few replies corrected the notion by saying that in AH the 50cal rocks.

Also, please read:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148778

I know I'm going to put my slider down even further and give it a test-run.

[JB17]

Remodel the boxcars, leave the 50 cals alone.

[stantond]

A wooden box car can be cut in half by .50 caliber bullets.  Kiln dried wood will absorb the kinetic energy in a .50 caliber round and burst.  Wood is a very different material than metal.  While having an infinite fatigue life, wood has no plastic deformation and experiences catastrophic failure rather than 'bending out of shape' as metal does.

As an aside, .50 calibre bullets puncture a vehicle and introduce stress concentrations that cause failure due to normal loads.  As such, bullet holes in low stress areas will not cause a failure.  A few bullet holes in a high stress area, such as a wing root, will cause failure.  

Regards,

Malta

[Kweassa]

Yeah Malta.

 Maybe with a ground-mounted single .50 with lots of ammo. The gunner will just have to simply hold the trigger down, "start at the bottom", and "move his way up" and that gigantic box will cut in half.  (<== hence, "surgical precision" as Mandoble mentioned)

 Nobody's disputing that.
 
 But in a flying platform with 6x .50s with a wide dispersion pattern with only one convergence where rounds meet? Will that 'catastrophic failure' be lined up neatly to form a single line where the box would be cut in half?

 Or will the bullets just land all over the wooden box and totally pulverize it to bits?

 Just think about what the people in AH are griping about when they have to kill acks with wingmounted .50s. Of hundreds of rounds fired, only a few land directly at the ack gun itself. The rest land all over the place.

 If the questioned plane was something like a TBM or a SBD, with merely 2x .50s mounted at the nose, I'd still believe that's possible. However, 6x .50s mounted on the wings of a Corsair?

 I don't beleive that.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Originally posted by 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

This man is correct, right now there is no effect from MINOR damage, we see bullet holes and such, but no real effect,drag..loss of lift causeing the plane to pull to one side,and so on...jamed alerons "not blown off just jamed in some position" untill we have all of this, the combat in ah2 will always be somewhat arcade fealing,and always lacking. THATS why no one fears death or minor damage in aces high, its your flying fine, or bam your wings gone.

We just dont see planes limping home with 60% right wing lift and control pulverised with combat damage, what we do see is la7's landing at 200mph with a wing tip missing, showing much skill..or lack of...codeing.  "much love HT, no pun intended"

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Brenjen
I would like to see the .50 calibre round given it's fair due in Aces HighII. It is weak & anemic,it seems to hit only slightly harder than the .303's. In reality ma duece tore planes outta the sky with close to the same effect as 20mm. And if i'm not mistaken the .50 cal rounds were a mixture of high explosive,armour piercing & tracers when loaded in the anti-aircraft role something like 3-5 H.E. to each A.P. & tracer. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

you ARE joking arnt you???? If so funny joke. if your not joking...... well your insain.

50cals are already alittle "too strong" id say. Or rather everything German is "too weak/slow"