Author Topic: Thoughts on .50 cals. (Read 2111 times)

DamnedRen · « **on:** July 10, 2005, 08:11:59 PM »

Just passing along thoughts on neutered .50's vs RL.....

Read and weep

It's worth noting that the throw weight of the Ki-43 with 2 .50 cal (more or less) machine guns was about 162 lbs per minute. The throw weight of the Me-109 models with one 20mm cannon and two .30 cal (more or less) machine guns was about 246 lbs. per minute--better, but not all that much different. The throw weight of a P-40, with six .50 cal mgs, however, was 486 lbs. per minute--very significantly different. That's why marksmanship was so important to scoring with either the Ki-43 or Me-109: the pilot had to make the few rounds he could fire in the brief window of opportunity he had count. The P-40, on the other hand (and the other US fighters) put out such a volume of fire that as long as they hit the e/a (engine/airframe) somewhere, they likely did serious damage.

Just a quote about amassing a weight of .50 cal fire on an enemy plane. I guess that doesn't count for much in AH2.

______________
Ren
The Damned

eskimo2 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 10, 2005, 08:18:01 PM »

Canon armed planes can have a pretty serious punch due to the chemical energy in the explosive rounds in addition to the kinetic energy. Look at the hitting power of a 3 x 20mm ME-109. Chemical energy also is not lost through air resistance like kinetic energy.

eskimo

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 10, 2005, 09:00:51 PM »

How does it not count in AH? At convergence ranges a 1 or 2 second burst from most 6 x .50 armed planes is enough to shred off wings. Even the 8 x .303 Spit I and Hurri I will do the job with no more than a 2 second burst if you hit at convergence. Its just a matter of being patient enough to get that proper range for the killing shot, or being willing to take small hits here and there that will add up. The cannonz are just so much more dramatic when they hit that the MGs can seem wimpy in comparison. They are just as deadly when they all hit at once though.

DamnedRen · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2005, 09:01:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
Canon armed planes can have a pretty serious punch due to the chemical energy in the explosive rounds in addition to the kinetic energy. Look at the hitting power of a 3 x 20mm ME-109. Chemical energy also is not lost through air resistance like kinetic energy.

eskimo

I agree and I'm not attempting to talk apples and oranges. I AM asking for a review of the "weight of fire" on a target and it's related damage model. The quote listed above is RL....

Thanks

______________
Ren
The Damned

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2005, 09:11:28 PM »

The 4x .50s on the P-38 will pretty much shred anything they hit but then unlike wing mounted guns, the P-38's fire power is concentrated so the rounds are hitting for max effect.

ack-ack

Messiah · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2005, 09:17:11 PM »

2-4 50's at convergance will most definatley do critical damage to an enemy plane. Planes like the P40 are putting out alot of lead but then again they might not all be hitting at convergance. Planes like the Me-109 don't put so much lead out but they are almost all have nose mounted guns and if you hit with those it will suffice for the amount of lead. Basically a balance between accuracy and power.

Hoarach · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2005, 09:18:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The 4x .50s on the P-38 will pretty much shred anything they hit but then unlike wing mounted guns, the P-38's fire power is concentrated so the rounds are hitting for max effect.

ack-ack

I dont always shred planes with the 38s 4x50s because ive put a good 500 rounds into some planes and they dont go down. But the 38s guns being concentrated are easier to get long range shots such as for me 1000 yards out and im lucky to get 600 out with wing guns.

Karnak · « **Reply #7 on:** July 10, 2005, 09:18:22 PM »

There is a reason that all but one combatant went to 20mm and 30mm cannons and it isn't because the heavy machine guns were harder to mount or supply ammo too. It is because they didn't offer nearly the firepower of the cannons.

The Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon was worth three Browning .50 caliber machine guns according to the USN. Those are the values that Pyro based the relationship of those two guns on so far as I know.

What that means is that the Spitfire with two 20mm Hispano Mk IIs and two .50 Calober Brownings has approximately the same firepower as the P-47 with eight .50 caliber Brownings, but is able to focus the fire better for AH's damage model, and perhaps in reality too.

DamnedRen · « **Reply #8 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:28:26 PM »

Come on guys...the discussion is the throw weight of 6-50's and the fact that when that kinda weight hits something damage is done. Right?

Please continue, thanks......

_______________
Ren
The Damned

Masherbrum · « **Reply #9 on:** July 10, 2005, 10:30:30 PM »

But what this thread fails to mention on cannons, were the OFTEN jams that were incurred with cannons.

Karaya

Karnak · « **Reply #10 on:** July 10, 2005, 11:09:55 PM »

DamnedRen,

Yes, just like in AH. I have never found the .50s to be wanting. If anything, they hit too hard. The big four engined bombers should be a lot more resiliant to them.

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
But what this thread fails to mention on cannons, were the OFTEN jams that were incurred with cannons.

Karaya

The Hispano Mk II had approximately one stoppage in 2000 rounds fired, if I recall correctly.

DamnedRen · « **Reply #11 on:** July 10, 2005, 11:21:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
DamnedRen,

Yes, just like in AH. I have never found the .50s to be wanting. If anything, they hit too hard. The big four engined bombers should be a lot more resiliant to them.

The Hispano Mk II had approximately one stoppage in 2000 rounds fired, if I recall correctly.

I can understand the differences in hitting power on buffs. It's fighter v fighter where the weight of fire has been proven to be very effective with a direct hit.

For Mashuerbrum,

While it may not be common knowledge the Mustang suffered from many gun jams. They also had some tail problems as in "loosing them" and wings in hard, rolling turn fights. I think they had an abort rate in the EUR theatre of operation of around 30%. I still enjoy the ride in the game though.

_________________
Ren
The Damned

Messiah · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2005, 01:43:22 AM »

It's more about velocity than weight. You can drop a bullet on someone from your hand and they will laugh at you, you throw it at them at 5,000 fps and they will not even know what happened.

Furball · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2005, 04:49:47 AM »

Search for Tony Williams' posts on the bbs. heres a couple of posts to answer your question: -

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138530

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131669

And quoted from one of those threads: -

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi again,

While I'm at it:

Firepower per barrel in MW:
MK 108: 5,03 MW
MK 103: 4,08 MW
NS-37: 2,17 MW
MG 151/20: 1,27 MW
Hispano V: 1,23 MW
VYa-23: 1,20 MW
Hispano II: 1,06 MW
37mm M4: 0,91 MW
20mm Ho-5: 0,71 MW
20mm Type 99-2: 0,63 MW
20mm Type 99-1: 0,52 MW
MG-FF: 0,78 MW
Berezin B-20: 0,64 MW
Ho-1 / Ho-2: 0,64 MW
20mm ShVAK: 0,64 MW
MG 151: 0,44 MW
12,7mm UB: 0,37 MW
,50 Browning M2: 0,28 MW
MG 131: 0,21 MW
Ho-103: 0,18 MW
12,7mm Scotti: 0,14 MW
Breda-SAFAT: 0,14 MW
Browning ,303: 0,09 MW
MG 17: 0,09 MW

Regards,

Henning (HoHun) [/B]

Wilbus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2005, 07:08:23 AM »

Furball, according to that little chart the Mg151 should have a better hitting power then the Hispano II, am I right?

It must be with explosives aswell right?

50 cals in AH2 shred fighters apart even if not on cinvergence. Best guns in the game except for Hispano IMO, add to that they are easy to hit with.