ammunition loading and long-range ballistics

[gripen]

Originally posted by Kweassa

3) This aim may not be as accurate as closer distances, but it is enough to place the target smack in the middle of the dispersion pattern, where the bullets are most grouped.

This is where the devil lies; is that a reasonable assumption?

Yes: dispersion bad.

No: dispersion good.

[Charge]

"The chance of hit does not directly increase in proportion to dispersion."

Well, it depends. If you shoot a target with a shotgun your chances of hitting your target are greater than if you shot the same target with a .22 cal. The point here is the amount of projectiles shot at the target in a given time frame.

If you consider the .22 having the same dispersion as the shotgun that will severely reduce its effectiveness as it does not even obey your aim if you happen to aim at the right spot.

Of course the destruction power of a single projectile needs to be considered too...

The dispersion pattern does not make the aiming insignificant. In extreme ranges you need the ability to place the dispersion pattern on a maneuvering target and to my experience even that can be very hard. The dispersion is good because you do not know the right aiming spot, but if you happen to get it right the dispersion is bad because it prevents you from getting all the shots in the target.

E.g. Galland thought 109 had inadequate arming because he figured that for average pilot it would be hard to get adequate hits on target. Maybe he calculated that it is too hard the get the centralized and relatively tight dispersion pattern of 109s weapons on target? The higher dispersion of MG17s would not really help because the projectile lacks destructive power from longer ranges.

Another example could be Hurri1, or rather Spit1. Even at longer ranges the chances of getting a hit are still good but the hits would have no significance because they lack power and they are scattered all over the target. A 109K4 with its single 30mm cannot get such a vast amount of projectiles in the air and if that gun would have much dispersion your chances for hitting a distant target would be totally random as the gun would not obey your aim at all, not even if you had the sights right at the correct spot at the right time.

Oh well, I'm not sure if this was of any help but just confusing the matter....

-C+

[Kweassa]

Well, it depends. If you shoot a target with a shotgun your chances of hitting your target are greater than if you shot the same target with a .22 cal. The point here is the amount of projectiles shot at the target in a given time frame.

 Like you've mentioned, the key is the "time frame" and "the amount of projectiles shot".

 Assuming a single shotgun slug holds 20 pellets inside, when a shotgun is fired the 20 shots are simulatenously spread out in a wide pattern which is evidently intentional. Shotgun pellets are meant to spread out, and by doing so, while covering a wide range there is no possibility that the entire 20 pieces from a single slug can be "grouped" at a certain spot. In order to compare the general accuracy of the .22 as opposed to a shotgun slug, the experiment should fire not a single round and compare that with a 20-pellet-filled slug, but rather fire 20 individual .22 rounds and compare the accuracy of 20x .22 against a 20-pellet slug.

 Therefore, when one compares a 20-pellet, single slug against a single .22, that's not comparing "accuracy", it is comparing "efficiency".

 IMO, that is why the "shotgun analogy" is wrong. People treat the dispersion pattern from an aircraft gun as a "shotgun" - firing multiple rounds simulataneously and intentionally in a dispersion pattern - when in reality, the pattern formed from an aircraft gun is a result of multiple rounds fired one at a time, over a certain given time frame.
 
 Ofcourse, in reality the "shotgun effect" does exist, albeit only in planes with multiple armaments spread out at a certain distance - particularly across the wins. However, this "shotgun effect" is not a result of dispersion of an individual gun which lands at a "shotgun pattern", but rather an effect caused by multiple guns firing at the same time. In short the reason behind what produces the effect is entirely different from what we're discussing in this thread, and its basically misleading.

 The accuracy of the individual pellet is abysmally low than compared to a .22 round which is aimed and fired. However, the efficiency of 20 pellets fired in an intentional pattern that spreads simultaneously, is greater than a single .22 round fired, or .22 round fired 20 times. If we situate this analogy directly to an aircraft gun, the "shotgun effect" is a result of multiple guns firing simultaneously - we're not talking about that "shotgun" here. We're talking about a "shotgun pattern" produced by an individual gun due to its own dispersion (not, by an intentionally spread pattern from multiple guns).

 
 Now, let's continue with the .22 vs shotgun example.

 Unlike a shotgun pellet, 20x .22 rounds fired individually have a chance that all 20 rounds might connect, but it also has a chance that none of them might at all. The shotgun is different. It fires multitude of rounds simulateneously, and therefore while there is no chance for all 20 pellets from a single slug will connect at a target (ofcourse, assuming that the target is smaller than the magnitude of the pellets spread) , there is a significant chance that "some" of it will connect. This is why you can't compare a shotgun with the dispersion pattern of a gun. The dispersion pattern created by an aircraft gun represents the probability, not a result of a directly predicted pattern.

 Therefore, when someone has aimed reasonably accurately, so that the target is set in the center of the dispersion (which means the target is aimed and placed in a position where the bullets have the highest probability to hit), in this case the dispersion is malevolent to the probability of hit. This is because dispersed bullets that diverge away from the center of the dispersion pattern (which means "highest hit probability") will miss.

 However, when someone has aimed wrong, so the target is set apart from the center of the dispersion pattern - only then does the dispersion increase the chance of hit. Because, the diverging round that strays randomly off from the center of the dispersion pattern contains a miniscule chance to connect with the wrongly-aimed target, since the target was out of aim in the first place - which otherwise, in a perfect vacuum world without dispersions factors such as air, vibration, wing twist, etc etc.. there would be no chance to hit at all.

[Puck]

Originally posted by CFYA
One would have to point out the fact that the average new player spends more time in "combat" in one month than the average WW2 pilot did in there career. I have no doubts in my mind an average AH2 pilot would have been a formidable and often almost unbeatable in most engagements during WW2. One could point out the differences between sweating a little on the armchair vs pulling high gs in a aircraft. This would be the next reason why ah2 gunnery is eaiser than real life. Make no doubts about it a average WW2 pilot would be waxed in this game.  


Ryan

C | N > K

(C == tea (I don't drink coffee), N == nose, K == keyboard).

You have NO IDEA what flying the real thing was like.  Try playing the piccalo some day and you'll get an idea.  Noise, smell, gravity, wind, turbulence, sensory overload, lack of icons, engine management, gun sight adjustments, clouds, jams, engine failures, engine limits, radio chatter...the list is endless.

That was the funniest thing I've read all week.

I know several WWII pilots.  Make no mistake about it, you'd be on their kill board before you figured out how to turn on the gun sight.

[Kweassa]

Finally got Photoshop working again.. *grumble*

 ...

[Krusty]

Your theory only works if you remove the gunsight from every plane in the game.

Also, even if you removed ammo counters, most planes would still know "I've got a hell of a lotta ammo left" and spray away, or "I've got a moderate amount of ammo left" and spray away..

Consider almost every US plane after 1943, and a large majority of the rest of the planes in the game, had 500-3400 machine gun rounds, and most with cannons have 240-750 (or more!) to play with.

You place too much emphasis/blame on the ammo counter and the icon. They have nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Kweassa
IMO, that is why the "shotgun analogy" is wrong. People treat the dispersion pattern from an aircraft gun as a "shotgun" - firing multiple rounds simulataneously and intentionally in a dispersion pattern - when in reality, the pattern formed from an aircraft gun is a result of multiple rounds fired one at a time, over a certain given time frame.

The aircraft guns are usually burst type weapons ie you aim and shoot a short burst. So in practice the "shotgun analogy" is there. The only practical difference to the shotgun case is that your aim usually wander during the burts so dispersion pattern differs some what. Naturally multiple guns at various positions makes the situation even more complicated as well as the rate of the fire.

Originally posted by Kweassa
Therefore, when someone has aimed reasonably accurately, so that the target is set in the center of the dispersion (which means the target is aimed and placed in a position where the bullets have the highest probability to hit), in this case the dispersion is malevolent to the probability of hit. This is because dispersed bullets that diverge away from the center of the dispersion pattern (which means "highest hit probability") will miss.

As noted above, here is where the devile lies: How accurately you can aim in average and are your aims evenly distributed around the correct point.

IIRC the largest dispersion patterns (80 % or 100 %, can't remember) for the WWII aircraft guns were around 4 mil (4 m at 1000m). So at range of say 600 m the dispersion pattern is about 2,4 m.

[Kweassa]

Your theory only works if you remove the gunsight from every plane in the game.

 Why? Because the crude crosshair is enough to provide as accurate a numerical estimation on enemy range as the distance indicators?

Also, even if you removed ammo counters, most planes would still know "I've got a hell of a lotta ammo left" and spray away, or "I've got a moderate amount of ammo left" and spray away..

 You wish.

Consider almost every US plane after 1943, and a large majority of the rest of the planes in the game, had 500-3400 machine gun rounds, and most with cannons have 240-750 (or more!) to play with.

 Those 3,400 rounds also come from 8 barrels. Having more ammunition doesn't necessarily mean you have longer firing time. It merely means you have as much ammunition packed in accordance to the number of guns your plane is armed with.

* The F4U-1C packed with more than 800 rounds of 20mms have a mere 22 second firing time.
* The P-47D with 3,400 rounds have 32 seconds.
* The Bf109 has total 13 seconds with 150 x 20mm, and 17 seconds with 200 rounds
* The P-38 has total 15 seconds with 2,000 50cals and 14 seconds with 20mms.  

 Once the ammo counter is removed, the remaining ammunition is measured in seconds. How many times do you fire a gun in a single sortie? Are you going to memorize every second you've spent pulling the trigger with a stopwatch, and then add them up during the heat of battle?

  In the initial engagement after take-off, very first time you pull the trigger you'd be confident. Fly around until about you've used up 75% fuel, and see just how well your memory betrays you. The burden of not knowing, the uncertainty of it all, is what drives people to save ammo rather than risk drying up during the middle of a fight.
 
 Are you trying to suggest the pilots of AH have some sort of flash memory installed in their brain, that recounts on the amount of ammunition spent after some twenty, thirty minutes of flight?
 

You place too much emphasis/blame on the ammo counter and the icon. They have nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

 Ah, but they have everything to do with it.

 You can always prove me wrong when AH implements my suggestions, God and HT willing. If you can fly around like nothing has changed then I'll humbly concede defeat.

[Kweassa]

The aircraft guns are usually burst type weapons ie you aim and shoot a short burst. So in practice the "shotgun analogy" is there. The only practical difference to the shotgun case is that your aim usually wander during the burts so dispersion pattern differs some what. Naturally multiple guns at various positions makes the situation even more complicated as well as the rate of the fire.

 No matter what kind of burst is made, it is inevitably a result of each round fired subsequently from a barrely that adds up to produce a certain clandestine 'dispersion' pattern. Shotguns are made in the first place to fire all contained pellets, and spread them out to maximize the area of impact intentionally. This is a big difference.

As noted above, here is where the devile lies: How accurately you can aim in average and are your aims evenly distributed around the correct point.

 Unless you're willing to say those "600" guys are the AH version of the bigfoot, I'd say people can aim pretty danged well accurate at the correct point. Ask around the "vet" community and one can easily recruit hordes of guys who claim "600" is a relatively easy shot... and being on the receiving end, I don't think they're lying.

IIRC the largest dispersion patterns (80 % or 100 %, can't remember) for the WWII aircraft guns were around 4 mil (4 m at 1000m). So at range of say 600 m the dispersion pattern is about 2,4 m.

 That's interesting to know.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Kweassa
No matter what kind of burst is made, it is inevitably a result of each round fired subsequently from a barrely that adds up to produce a certain clandestine 'dispersion' pattern. Shotguns are made in the first place to fire all contained pellets, and spread them out to maximize the area of impact intentionally. This is a big difference.

The only relevant thing here is that one aim results multiple projectiles at target area; this makes aircraft gunnery similar to the shotgun case.

Originally posted by Kweassa
Unless you're willing to say those "600" guys are the AH version of the bigfoot, I'd say people can aim pretty danged well accurate at the correct point. Ask around the "vet" community and one can easily recruit hordes of guys who claim "600" is a relatively easy shot... and being on the receiving end, I don't think they're lying.

 
The skill of the pilot is decisive factor, but maybe you should think that phenomena from the another direction: What kind of planes use to hit at such long range?

My quess is that planes like Hispano armed Spitfires and 12,7mm Browning armed use to get hits. The theoretical reason for this is that these send large amount of projectiles to the target area and high velocity of the projectiles make aiming a bit easier (less lead needed).

[llama]

While a well-illustrated and lucid argument, I'd like to add the following:

In real life,  two-eyed pilots have depth perception to assist in determining the range of a target.

Since we lack depth perception in aces high, the icon is an attempt to make up for it.

I think it is fair to say that experienced, real-life pilots with stereo-vision-based depth perception, were about as good at accurately judging the distance to a target as the current icon displays its approximation of distance.

-Llama

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Why? Because the crude crosshair is enough to provide as accurate a numerical estimation on enemy range as the distance indicators?
 

I see the argument you are making, and yes, AH would be improved if we had individual round ballistics and damage modeling, as well as modeling of the individual damage effects on each plane.  I'd love to see the flying characteristics of the target change as holes are punched in his wings and fuselage, or the effect on the pilot if you shatter his canopy.  I, for one, would like to have that additional random effect during combat as it increases realism, but HT is limited in programming time on one hand, and by the limits of their customers machines on the other.  

One thing I haven't seen discussed in this thread on the supposed "over accuracy" of AH vs Real Life was that IRL the fighters had COMPUTING GUNSIGHTS.  I'd be a lot more worried about some dweeb coming at me in a Spit if he had the "ace maker" gunsight computing deflection for him.  Somebody tell me how the computing gunsights in ww2 figured range - were they pre-programmed to a certain convergence?  

Since we are limited to crosshairs & prayers, I think that brings the "over accuracy" down to a managable level.  Frankly, it's rare for me to get caught by a long range shot unless I am running with someone dead on my six.  A crossing shot at 600+ is iffy at best, and I vastly prefer to get in close and let 'em have it.  If I'm in a buff, anyone climbing up my six for a long range shot usually gets a rude surprise, and if I'm in a fighter flying straight with someone 600 out on my six, I deserve what I get.

Yes, I've played with the target and can get hits at long range if I'm dead on your six (as per your graphic), but I consider it a waste of ammo and since I probably flew 10 minutes over there, I'd like to get more than 1 or 2 kills before RTB.  

EagleDNY
$.02

[gripen]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Somebody tell me how the computing gunsights in ww2 figured range - were they pre-programmed to a certain convergence?  

In the case of the British system, the pilot dialed from the selector the span of the plane (usually there was preadjusted settings for the Fw 190 and the Bf 109). There was another adjusting pot in the throttle  and during the aiming pilot adjusted the size of the aiming ring to equal the span of the plane.

[Krusty]

Which you can pretty much do with a stationary gunsight, using the rings against the enemy's wingspan to get a good idea of how far he was (also just using your eyes).

the only thing the "modern" gunsights in WW2 did was take that range from the pilot and automatically adjust for round drop. It wasn't like a modern jet HUD or anything, it just angled the pipper down/up so that you had to raise/lower the nose to get it on the enemy (thus making the rounds lob up a bit more before hitting the target, if it was further out)

[gripen]

Well, the gyroscopic gunsight compute the needed lead based on range and acceleration of the plane assuming that the pilot keeps the target steadily in the aiming ring. The only practical difference to the modern sight is that the modern sights use other methods to measure range (usually radar).