Stupid German 30mm Mk108 cannons!

[grizz441]

Um, no, those are 20mms.

Only if you are nub enough to take the 20mm option. 

[Serenity]

Only if you are nub enough to take the 20mm option. 

I never do

[vonKrimm]

Okay, yesterday I changed the convergence to d250 and upped a 262 in AvA, and got bounced by a PonyD on take-off!    Yup, I got caught low & slow; every pile-its wet dream.    He made a pass that oiled my left engine as I was turning, so I made my turn a 180 back to base & into the sun (where he lost me) and was able to build-up enough speed to let me re-engage on my terms.  We ended up having a nice little fight between the trees, where I finally got a gun solution at d200 & removed his vertical stabilizer with a quick burst.

Then I took my new convergence settings to the MA & got some lancs that seemed to be looking for our CV in only two passes; I still hit a piece of the last one & that put an end to my fun as I lost all four cannon to the collision.  I don't think I'll curse the Mk 108 anymore, at least until I take a 109k4 out. 

[Saurdaukar]

Big difference between a 262 and a K4: four times the taters in the air.

The ROF for the 108 is slow enough that you could run a train between shells.  With only one cannon, you can miss a lot of trains.

If you are finding it easier to hit with the 262 than the K4; I'd bet your lead may be just fine but your timing is off.  Aim to hit with the first round.

[thorsim]

wasn't the mk108 considered some kind of armament milestone or something like that?

thought i read that someplace ...

[Charge]

"The ROF for the 108 is slow enough that you could run a train between shells."

Same ROF as for Hisso and only a tad slower than MG151/20. But I do agree. I have had planes passing unharmed at 90 deg angle through my fire when flying A8 and firing 6 guns!

-C+

[thorsim]

ain't that just annoying as all get out ...

"The ROF for the 108 is slow enough that you could run a train between shells."

Same ROF as for Hisso and only a tad slower than MG151/20. But I do agree. I have had planes passing unharmed at 90 deg angle through my fire when flying A8 and firing 6 guns!

-C+

[Saurdaukar]

"The ROF for the 108 is slow enough that you could run a train between shells."

Same ROF as for Hisso and only a tad slower than MG151/20. But I do agree. I have had planes passing unharmed at 90 deg angle through my fire when flying A8 and firing 6 guns!

-C+

Accurate... I stand corrected.

I wonder if the speed of the projectiles results in the perception of a larger distance between rounds.

Conceptually (at this late hour) that seems to make sense.  

EDIT:  Yes, it does makes sense.  Chance of hit would increase if the speed of the same number of projectiles, with the same distance between them, traveled faster than a comparable ROF weapon.  The increased speed results in more shells passing though the target area in a shorter span of time.

Imagine standing next to a highway with a slow lane and a fast lane.  In any amount of time elapsed, given equal distance between cars due to equal ROF, more cars will drive past you in the fast lane.

Which lane is easier to run across without getting hit?

[Nemisis]

I can hit BUFFS and kill them with everything from 7.7mm BBs to 75mm punkins' (sometimes even landing afterward), EXCEPT the blasted 30mm!
I keep all my guns set between d350 & d450 and know where the rounds will go for a given weapon type.  What I would like to know is: should I decrease the convergence on the 30mm and flatten the trajectory or increase the range and lead more to allow for the lumbering flight of the taters?

Decrease to flatten out the trajectory and then get a feel for it from there. That way you don't have to aim below the plane at all, that really threw me at first.

For fighters, get in close (D200-250 max if your not used to the trajectory, and closer if your target is manuvering) and at low 6.

If its turning hard, try to make a slashing pass while its showing you its wings. Love to pwn 38's with the tater gun, nice big target, slower top speed, and lower climb rate. Sometimes when I get pwned in tanks, I just up a K4 and hunt 38's ignoring everything else.

[Lusche]

Accurate... I stand corrected.

I wonder if the speed of the projectiles results in the perception of a larger distance between rounds.

Conceptually (at this late hour) that seems to make sense.  

EDIT:  Yes, it does makes sense.  Chance of hit would increase if the speed of the same number of projectiles, with the same distance between them, traveled faster than a comparable ROF weapon.  The increased speed results in more shells passing though the target area in a shorter span of time.

Imagine standing next to a highway with a slow lane and a fast lane.  In any amount of time elapsed, given equal distance between cars due to equal ROF, more cars will drive past you in the fast lane.

Which lane is easier to run across without getting hit?

I might be wrong... but I think the analogy is not pefect, as we can see the cars and try to get the right timing to cross the highway.

Now we have two guns. Gun A:  10rps, 800m/s, Gun B: 10rps, 500m/s
Now there might me 800m between the rounds of gun A), and 500m between rounds of gun B)... but in the end, it's one bullet every 0.1 seconds, now matter how fast they are.
In both cases, we have the same amount of time to squeeze our plane between 2 bullets. (At 300 mph, a plane travels about 43ft in 0.1s)

[thorsim]

i think luche is incorrect in the sense that yes the space between the rounds may be the same but the time the plane has to get it's length through the path of the round is reduced. in his example safe time is @63% less  

i.e. along the line of fire there is a round at point x every 10th of a second, however the aircraft passing through point x however since the object passing through the point x intersection has a length as well it only @ 63% the time to cross the distance for the faster round than the slower round.  

i think ...

[Nemisis]

another thing is that it takes longer for the shells to get down range, meaning your target has more time (however small and amount it is) to see you, and screw up your aim.

[Lusche]

i think luche is incorrect in the sense that yes the space between the rounds may be the same but the time the plane has to get it's length through the path of the round is reduced. in his example safe time is @63% less  

i.e. along the line of fire there is a round at point x every 10th of a second, however the aircraft passing through point x however since the object passing through the point x intersection has a length as well it only @ 63% the time to cross the distance for the faster round than the slower round.  

i think ...

Hmmm still not convinced.

Every 0.1s there is a bullet leaving the barrel. So that means there is one bullet passing any point every 0.1 seconds too. I don't see how this interval is being shortened by bullet speed at all. (If the muzzle velocity would shorten this interval, the bullets would catch up with each other if the muzzle velocity were high enough - sounds illogical to me)

So every 0.1s there is a hit on point X.

An extreme example would be a light flashing once per second. "Muzzle velocity" = speed of light. But someone 100ft away would still have 1 second to cross a certain point, and not less because the light is so freaking fast.

[Serenity]

Hmmm still not convinced.

Every 0.1s there is a bullet leaving the barrel. So that means there is one bullet passing any point every 0.1 seconds too. I don't see how this interval is being shortened by bullet speed at all. (If the muzzle velocity would shorten this interval, the bullets would catch up with each other if the muzzle velocity were high enough - sounds illogical to me)

So every 0.1s there is a hit on point X.

An extreme example would be a light flashing once per second. "Muzzle velocity" = speed of light. But someone 100ft away would still have 1 second to cross a certain point, and not less because the light is so freaking fast.

Okay, let me see if I get it. Every .1 seconds a round travels down range. That .1 seconds determines the time between each bullet. The velocity of the bullet determines the physical separation between each round.

Derivation:

t=.1 vsub1=500m/s vsub2=300m/s

d=vt
d=(500m/s)(.1)=50m between each round
d=(300m/s)(.1)=30m between each round

So, we have a smaller space between each round. However, what matters is frequency. How many bullets pass through a single area in any given time. Because the frequency at the barrel is equal to the frequency down-range (the velocity is constant, therefore the spacing is constant) the amount of time between each round firing is equal to the amount of time between each round passing a single point in space. Because ROF is the same, frequency is the same, and therefore you have an equal amount of time between each round regardless of velocity.



HOWEVER, Sourdaukar nailed the true problem unintentionally. It is our ability to perceive the placement of the round downrange. Consider the extremes of a laser versus a slingshot. The laser is the 500m/s round, the slingshot is the 300m/s round. The longer the time between the bullet leaving the gun (point A) and the bullet arriving at the intersection of bullet path and target (point B) determines how much we must lead the aircraft.

As we all know, t=d/v, therefore, assuming the target is 300m away from you (Reasonable snapshot distance in AH), we get the following equations:

t=v/d
t=(300m)/(500m/s)= .6 seconds between the leaving the gun and arriving at the target.
t=(300m)/(300m/s)= 1 second between leaving the gun, and arriving at the target.

We have two factors here, lead, and pilot reaction. The 500m/s round gives the target only .6 seconds to move out of the line of fire. The 300m/s round gives the target a full second to leave the point of impact. So, the 500m/s round must lead the target by .6 seconds of flight time for the target; The 300m/s round must lead by 1 second. Assuming flight time for the targets are equal, and d=vt so, derivations applied assuming the aircraft is moving at, say 200m/s (Not realistic, just a random number),

d=vt
d=(200m/s)(.6)= 120m lead
d=(200m/s)(1)= 200m lead

So, you must put your line of fire 120m in front of the target with a 500m/s round, and 200m for the 300m/s round. As we know, the farther we must lead, the more time we must lead by, the harder it is to predict where the plane will be.  The shorter the lead, the easier the snapshot, and the less thinking necessary for the shot, therefore, less lead=easier kill.

So, long story short, while the 500m/s round is not MATHEMATICALLY more effective, PRACTICALLY it is much easier to put the round on a moving target than it is to use a 300m/s round.

[Saurdaukar]

 

Yer smert.