Author Topic: 2 easy changes  (Read 708 times)

Offline TalonII

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
2 easy changes
« on: January 16, 2007, 07:37:16 AM »
We constantly ask for things on the wish list and then get told how difficult and time consuming it is to model these new aircraft, which have no doubt is true. However I have 2 easy changes that would enhance 2 aircraft with minimum work. I've already brought to your attention that the Lancaster III modeled in this game, should have a quad 303 turrets in the tail, picture was included. Each gun carried 2500 rounds of ammo, which was fed from a box in the rear of the aircraft. I understand that later Lancaster did have twin 50’s. However all my research points to the fact that gunners carried as much ammo as they could, in fact they even added guns when possible. The ammo box for the tail turret carried 10,000 rounds of 303 and most Lancaster carried up 14000 rounds of machinegun ammo. So I’m guessing the 621 rounds of 50cal is exceptional short. If your won’t change the tail gun configuration, then up the ammunitions carried to 2000 rds in the tail which is more realistic. Second everyone loves the JU-87. Why don’t you change the model from a D-3 to the D-7 or G model? All that has to be done is up the wing guns to 20mm cannons and add a set of 37mm gun pods to carried munitions. These would enhance both aircraft with minimum work and make them great addition to the game.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
2 easy changes
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2007, 09:43:01 AM »
A great many Lancaster Mk IIIs had the twin .50s in the tail.

Photos can be posted if needed.  The ammo count for the .50s was apparentl;y researched with some dificulty by HTC.

The Ju87's tungsten cored 37mm cannons are too potent an anti-tank weapon to put into AH unperked.  It would basically make it suicide to take a perk tank out.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
2 easy changes
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2007, 11:20:00 AM »
In fact HTC did not want to even give us the D5 with twin 20 mm.

With the present Ju 87 FM it would take on an air to air use it was never famed for in RL.


......re Lancs I think it fair to say that the majority of the MkIII's carried 303's......

The use of the .5" is  not typical of Bomber Command who were stripping defensive armaments off Lancs and Halifaxes as LW interception grew less and less.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 11:23:39 AM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
2 easy changes
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2007, 01:09:48 PM »
2x50cal are 50% more effective than 4x303cal in Aces High.

That's just a fact of the gun modeling.

Also, look at the relative SIZE of the ammo involved here. 50cal is a frakkin' large round. The .303 round is pretty small. You can store more than twice as many .303cal in the same space as you could 50cal (hypothetically, I'm not sure of the exact ratio, but there's a big difference).

Just because the 4x303s could carry 2400 rounds (FYI: a measely 600 rounds per gun, not much to write home about since they all fire at the same time) doesn't mean you can fit the same amount of 50cal in there. You could probably only fit 800 in the same storage space. Seeing that we have over 600 rounds (quoting you, not sure if that's total or RPG) is pretty close.

Anyways, the 50s are far better than the .303s ever were, especially at range. 50cals on bombers in AH going at 300+mph can hit a trailing target at 1.5k to 2k ranges. You put .303s in the same situation and you'd do NO damage until the target was 600 yards or less.* In the meantime the enemy has shot your arse off at 1k with his 20mm cannon while you were waiting for him to get under 600 yards.

50cals in the tail of the AH lanc is the only way it would ever survive an enemy engagement.


As for the stuka: It's not just a matter of popping gunpods onto the wings and calling it a tankbuster. It was a specialized variant with many changes to it that affected weight and performance. Karnak still believes it would need to be perked, and I still disagree. I think we'll see it someday. As for the 20mm version: I don't recall the details about what Tilt posted, but consider that 20mm used to be able to kill even the toughest tanks (the damage model has changed a lot since AH left beta). I'm guesing back then they wanted it to use bombs to finish the job and not just strafe everything in sight. Today, there might be a place for it, but all I can see is that it would be used as the IL2 is now, as a HO-tard base defense platform. It's so darned slow I've actually out-turned spits and ki84s in a ju87, got kills with the 7mms, and made it back. However I'd not want folks dogfighting with it if it had 20mms.


*In Hurr1 or Spit1 you need to be 300 or much much less (150 better) to do damage with these guns, and they have 8x of them. Taking this max range and doubling it because of the speed of the bombers and the target flying into the bullets, but that's still max effective, and not near the full punch of the gun.

Offline TalonII

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
to Krusty
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2007, 05:02:20 PM »
Hmmmm, that was 2500 round per gun for a total of 10,000 round in the tail. Information for this was found on a British museum website, the same one I got the picture showing the quad 303, which I’m guessing makes it pretty accurate. I’m only asking the ammo count be upped, as 621 is not correct. and as for perking the JU-87 why not they've perked other aircraft and it hasn't slow anyone down.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
2 easy changes
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2007, 05:29:22 PM »
The 2500/gun is correct for the quad .303 turret, not for the dual .50 turret.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Benny Moore

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
2 easy changes
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2007, 06:04:03 PM »
My brother uses fifty caliber ammunition tins to store his .303 ammunition.  I don't know the exact numbers, but you can fit several times more .303 than .50 into the same space.  I estimate it as being a ratio of four to one.

Offline TalonII

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Bingo
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 07:12:11 AM »
i'm guessing the ratio is 4 to 1 which would reduce the load from 10,000 to 2500 not 621. now if you tell me thats 621 per gun then just up the load to 1200 and i'm cool. but also know the boxes could be change to accomdate the bigger ammo giving there location. my only point is 621 is incorrecrt and should be more like 1200 or more.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
2 easy changes
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2007, 09:08:17 AM »
It wasn't a space issue.  The RAF reduced the quantity to save weight as it was determined that more amm than that was not really needed.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

storch

  • Guest
2 easy changes
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2007, 09:50:34 AM »
how about a Ju88C-6?

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
2 easy changes
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2007, 11:57:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
how about a Ju88C-6?

I'd rather see a Ju88G-7b.  Better guns and better performance.  Ju88C-6 was armed with MG/FFs.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
2 easy changes
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2007, 11:57:41 AM »
misclick
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
2 easy changes
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2007, 01:01:07 PM »
Agreed on C-6 vs G-7. However I'd take either, really :P