Author Topic: 50. Vs. Cannons  (Read 8291 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2007, 05:32:25 PM »
He's not talking "rpm" (rounds per minute).

Offline Gibbage

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
      • http://www.gibbageart.com
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2007, 05:39:17 PM »
Sorry about that.  My bad.  -1 on reading comprehention for me.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 05:44:25 PM by Gibbage »

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2007, 05:43:08 PM »
:rofl

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2007, 09:30:40 PM »
Cannons. I HATE flying MG planes. Granted, the P-47 makes up for its weaponry shortcomings, but I much like the punch offered by cannon.

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2007, 11:36:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
Doing some testing with the Mk108 (German 30mm) in the game on the Bf-110G2, set the 30mm to a 650 convergence.  Put a target at 650 and note the pattern.  Take a P-38 and set the .50 cal to 650 convergence.  Repeat with another target at 650.  The two patterns are almost identical and hit the target practically center-mass where the convergence and target are at the same range.


(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)

There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well. If you set convergence to 650 and aim at 650, you'l hit. With the same convergence with a target at 300, the impact point will actually be HIGHER due to the gun being set to lob the round out to 650.
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Gibbage

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
      • http://www.gibbageart.com
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2007, 01:12:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by OOZ662
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)

There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well. If you set convergence to 650 and aim at 650, you'l hit. With the same convergence with a target at 300, the impact point will actually be HIGHER due to the gun being set to lob the round out to 650.


This is correct, but the Mk-108 should be very innaccurate at this range.  It was a short berral, righ ROF grenade launcher and it sort of lobbed low mass HE shells in a general area.  The therie about it is you have the pilot point at a mass of bombers, and maybe something will hit.  Having it accuratly hit the CBM of a target 650M away is a problem.  A big one.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2007, 01:27:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by OOZ662
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)

There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well.


They were converged vertically in real-life as well. At least ze Germans did.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2007, 02:20:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Viking
They were converged vertically in real-life as well. At least ze Germans did.

As did the Brits.

I'd be surprised if the Russians and Japanese didn't do so as well.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Gibbage

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
      • http://www.gibbageart.com
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2007, 03:02:13 AM »
From my speaking with P-38 pilots, so was the US.  They said that the 20MM was aimed higher then the .50's for vertical harmonization.  Even though P-38 pilots did not need to care about horizontal, they still use convergence in the vertical.  ALL guns were vertically harmonized.  The bullet starts to drop the moment it leaves the gun.

Offline Hazard69

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2007, 04:20:39 AM »
I personally prefer the 0.50cals. I usually fly the P38, and I find that when taking "pot shots" at targets beyond 300 yards, the 50cals are far more accurate due to their better trajectories. (I have 4x50cals + 1x 20mm all converged at 300yards).

Also during snapshots,I find that even with the same convergence the 20mm arc is quite different from the 50cals due to the different mass (note: I am pulling G's whilst firing here).

All in all the 50s are way easier to aim than the 20mm. For tracking shots however, the 20mm is the way to go!
<S> Hazardus

The loveliest thing of which one could sing, this side of the Heavenly Gates,
Is no blonde or brunette from a Hollywood set, but an escort of P38s.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2007, 08:48:54 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by OOZ662
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)

There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well. If you set convergence to 650 and aim at 650, you'l hit. With the same convergence with a target at 300, the impact point will actually be HIGHER due to the gun being set to lob the round out to 650.


My point in making this observation was to counter Ghost's argument that .50's in the game are better for long range shots.  I consider just about anything over 400 meters icon distance to be "long range".  The interesting thing is that the pattern for both weapons at the same convergence setting are almost identical.  Conventional wisdom would say that the Mk108 pattern should be more scattered.  In the 109, it looks like a shot gun, but the 110 has a group that matches the precision of the nose mounted .50's in the P-38.  There are a lot of folks that bump the Mk108 out to 650 and they spray at you in the hope of one of those "taters" connecting.  Better to be lucky than good I guess.

For whatever its worth...

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2007, 04:28:01 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gibbage
This is correct, but the Mk-108 should be very innaccurate at this range.  It was a short berral, righ ROF grenade launcher and it sort of lobbed low mass HE shells in a general area.  The therie about it is you have the pilot point at a mass of bombers, and maybe something will hit.  


Incorrect. Check the MK-108 gunnery charts. The cannon puts its shells very accurately, in concentrated fashion. It was a weapon that required aiming, not just "lobbing" shells to the general direction of the target.

The R4M rockets were area effect weapon, not any 30 mm cannon.

Offline Gibbage

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
      • http://www.gibbageart.com
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2007, 04:47:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grendel
Incorrect. Check the MK-108 gunnery charts. The cannon puts its shells very accurately, in concentrated fashion. It was a weapon that required aiming, not just "lobbing" shells to the general direction of the target.

The R4M rockets were area effect weapon, not any 30 mm cannon.


On what mount?  A fixed test bed, or a 5000lb aluminum frame held aloft in air?  Look at the factors of the gun.  Recoil operate, short berral, low velocity, light weight shell mounted in light fighters.  Nothing there speaks of accuracy in everything I know of gunnery.  Whats its MIL rating?  And please make sure of the mount.  Alot of pilots spoke of the Mk-108 as not being very accurate, and hated it for the recoil.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2007, 08:00:22 AM »
The MK 108 Rheinmetall-Borsig cannon had the reputation of being an inaccurate weapon in combat, but this was the result of its low velocity, not of barrel length or any inherent inaccuracy of the design.

It is a common misconception that a long barrel makes a cartridge more accurate.  In fact, all a long barrel does is add velocity to the shell, decreasing bullet drop at long range, thereby making it easier to hit the target.  A long barrel does nothing to help a caliber group its shots better.

In fact, short barrels tend to group slightly better, especially at distances of 300 yards or less, because the barrel tends to be stiffer.  Barrels have individual harmonics, much like those of a musical instrument or tuning fork, which come into play when a bullet is rotating down the barrel.  The shorter the barrel, the less impact those harmonics have on the ability of the barrel to shoot accurate groups.

The velocity of the MK 108 is variously given as being between 1640 fps and 1770 fps.  This hovers around 60% of the velocity of the M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun.  To put this velocity into perspective, the MK 108 round is approximately 600 fps slower than the Winchester 30-30 carbine round and is 200 fps slower than the round of the .30 caliber M-1 carbine.  In fact, the velocity isn't much better than that of the .22 long rifle.

A shell launched at that speed and sighted to be dead on at 200 yards range would be about 6 inches high at 100 yards and nearly 30 inches low at 300 yards.

Now imagine installing this unit in the flexible wing of an aluminum skinned fighter, and trying to hit a target moving at speeds of approximately 400 feet a second, or executing a tight, high-g turn.  The attacker armed with this weapon would have to be extremely close to an enemy fighter in order to score a hit.

Thus, one must conclude from these facts that the MK 108 was intended to be a point blank range weapon for use against the large, lumbering Allied bombers.

Regards, Shuckins
« Last Edit: July 07, 2007, 08:05:59 AM by Shuckins »

Offline DoLbY

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2007, 09:57:26 PM »
Some good points so far; I look forward to reading and learning more :)