Hispano vs. MG151 In-Game Relative Effectiveness

[Boozeman]

Small hijack: the negative evaluation of the M2 .50cal Browning was surprising.  So far as I know, it's the most lethal .50 cal weapon in the game, whereas the data you link suggests it should be one of the worst because of its minimal chemical component.

Actually, the M2 is only the 3rd most lethal .50 cal in AH, both the UBS and Ho103 are more lethal. At least in lbs/s, ballistics not counted in. 

[Anaxogoras]

I put the following information up for AH guns quite a while ago (2002 I think), so only the guns included in the game at that time are included.  If anybody wants to go shoot offline at hangers or re-measure the rates of fire with stopwatches I am sure the information would benefit from some updating.

http://www.lvcm.com/jayb/ahgun102.htm

Hooligan

That's a great table hooligan.  Your stop-watch test for ROF matches up nicely with mine...which is what I'm really curious about.  A HS II with a RoF of 10rps is only marginally better than the MG 151/20 (unsynchronized), but with a RoF closer to 11rps it is a much improved weapon.

Tony Williams gives a RoF of 10 rps for the Hispano Suiza II, but in AH it's closer to 11.  Anyone know the real story with a source to back it up?

[Stoney]

Stoney, I would ask to pls conduct your tests at two different ranges, might need another player to park near the building to range it. See if any of your data is linear over range pls. A factor is what were looking for.

In-game, its going to be difficult to test different ranges against buildings.  Reason being, there's no way to elevate the tail to be able to hit from a distance.  I suppose the P-38/P-39 could be used, as well as the Me-262 for the Mk108, but seeing how none of the tri-gear aircraft have a weapon that's in the discussion here, it'd only help our knowledge of the .50 cal, U.S. 20mm, 37mm, and Mk108.  I guess the U.S. 20mm is the same weapon as the Hispano II, I just don't know if the ammo is equivalent.

[Karnak]

Stoney,

In AH the American M2 20mm cannon and British Hispano Mk II 20mm cannons are identical in all ways.

[Stoney]

Stoney,

In AH the American M2 20mm cannon and British Hispano Mk II 20mm cannons are identical in all ways.

Well, in that case, it should be much easier to check the effect of range on the Hispano II.  I'll see if I can't set that up tonight when I get home.

[Schlowy]

The 110g2, belly land it, the cannons still fire at a good angle for range. Set the far range by where ya land the 110. Not exactly scientific method though...

[Krusty]

MG151/20s are in the belly though. Fire them and you'll probably blow yourself up. I think the 30mm are in the upper cowling, but they aren't the guns being tested.

Unless I've got my guns positions mixed up? I know the 110C had the 20mm in the belly and I thought the G retained this but replaced the 7mm upper guns with a couple of 30mm.

[Stoney]

Tail guns of the Ar-234 MG151's???

Might be able to set the tail gun up, and taxi away from a hangar to a certain distance...

[Wmaker]

Unless I've got my guns positions mixed up? I know the 110C had the 20mm in the belly and I thought the G retained this but replaced the 7mm upper guns with a couple of 30mm.

110C has MG-FFs in the under nose-position. Normal G-2 armament consisted of MG-151/20s in the under nose position and 7.9mms on the upper nose. AH's G-2 has those upper nose MGs replaced with MK-108s.

Stoney,

Yes they are 151/20s, good catch there. You should be able to test with that setup.

[Urchin]

Projectile damage doesn't change with distance against buildings, which is one reason why I believe damage against planes and damage against buildings are two seperate and unequal things. 

[Stoney]

Projectile damage doesn't change with distance against buildings, which is one reason why I believe damage against planes and damage against buildings are two seperate and unequal things. 

Why would it not change against buildings as a result of distance, but change against aircraft as a result of distance?  Perhaps HTC has made a statement as to this?

[Urchin]

Yes, HT said that damage against buildings does not change with distance.  Had he said only that damage does not change with distance, I would assume that meant damage against all objects.  He specifically said buildings.  Was in a different gun testing thread years ago.  Saw it again searching, could probably find it again.

[Stoney]

Well then, how exactly do you recommend we test the airborne effectiveness of the two cannon? 

Also, and not to be obtuse, but just because HT didn't explicitly state that "damage against aircraft does not change with distance" does not mean that it does.  My gut feeling is that they wouldn't have built that type of complexity into the damage model of the ammo, but even this is a suspicion and not a known fact.  Best to either develop a test in-game, or just ask HTC outright...

[SectorNine50]

I read elsewhere on these forums that the damage model on buildings was different than that on aircraft.  They stated that this was the reason that range had no effect on damage on buildings, yet range on aircraft did have an effect.

[trotter]

FWIW, I also can anecdotally claim that I remember HT stating specifically that damage against buildings did not change with distance. This issue came up only a few months ago, but I can't recall what thread it was in.

As to why the game might be modeled this way: I would guess that ordnance and cannon projectiles share the same damage coding. If the game would recognize "impacting object velocity" as a factor contributing to damage against buildings, this would influence damage for bombs as well. Terminal velocity would then be a key prerequisite for those seeking to maximize bomb damage. This would discourage low level, or dive bombing.

That is my guess, at least.