Add Incendiary ammunition

[BnZs]

....again, this is NOT WWII.

Clearly it is not, that is why the P-51s and Spitfires are shooting at each other. OTOH it *is* a game played with WWII equipment whose main bragging point is almost obsessive attention to detail in the flight model, a game which bothers to model armor and armor penetration on tanks with that same level of detail, etc.

[save]

at 50-100 yards it probably will award you the kill in AH, like  gun-cams you see.
Its just us cartoon pilots that kills stuff regularly at 800 yards.

       The damage done by 50 cals. is already screwed up. In WWII, it would only take a 1/4 second burst to kill a 109 from a P51-B. In here, it takes at least a 1 Ro more second Burst to kill one in a P51D. Incidiary rounds would start to fix the underwhelming damage of the 50s. 


                                                          Coalcat1

                 

[Debrody]

        It happened in WWII in plenty of cases, the pilot, engine or hydraulics where hit forcing the pilot to bail out or dive away from combat.

Lost a 262 to one 303 ping from 800+ behind, with no damage prior. Pilot killed.
Killed a Lancaster with one 13mm round from a 109G6. Pilot killed.
Killed a Tempest and got killed in a Tempest by one 20mm round - engine or radiator hit.
Pumped 30-35 taters into a lancasters back in a K4, took all my ammunition to bring that bastage down as at that high altitude, couldnt really aim to one spot.
Everything's possible in AH. Takes some luck or some bad luck but its possible.

[BnZs]

at 50-100 yards it probably will award you the kill in AH, like  gun-cams you see.
Its just us cartoon pilots that kills stuff regularly at 800 yards.

So far inside convergence it is often difficult to get the job done. There may still be many, many hits all over the airplane but too spread out to land enough damage points on any one part.

[Karnak]

One .50 round is definitely inferior to one 20mm round in destructive capacity. However, the multiple .50s installed on an airplane may be putting out anywhere from 2 to 8 times the rounds per second as the typical two 20mm installation, with those rounds having the potential to pass through and through an airplane at typical combat distance. So when it comes to killing fighters the issue is a little more complicated. It is like comparing different shot sizes for bird hunting, the problem in-game being that our "birds" don't have all that many "vital organs" per the damage model.

An interesting thing is that .50s are perfectly adequate for trimming the wings off buffs, while they often frustrate on fighters and snapshots. This is because when shooting the large wing root of a buff every single hit landed on "wing root" goes to damaging "wing root". Whereas the same burst at the same distance on a much smaller fighter may end up having some of its rounds assigned to wing root, wing tip, aileron, flap, and fuselage, not going over the critical limit for any one part, even though by all rights the single-seat fighter should be much more likely to take critical damage from such a burst than a large bomber.

Per the US Navy an installation of two M2 20mm cannons (Hispano Mk IIs) was approximately equal to an installation of six M2 .50s.  That is that 20 rounds per second from the Hispano was as destructive as 72 rounds per second of M2 .50.  That is pretty close to what we have in AH, so no, six or eight .50s did not magically make them better than 20mm cannons.

[BnZs]

Per the US Navy an installation of two M2 20mm cannons (Hispano Mk IIs) was approximately equal to an installation of six M2 .50s.  That is that 20 rounds per second from the Hispano was as destructive as 72 rounds per second of M2 .50.  That is pretty close to what we have in AH, so no, six or eight .50s did not magically make them better than 20mm cannons.

"Better" is a loaded word.
They went with 6x.50s in the vast majority of US planes for the duration.  That indicates in R/L there were balancing factors that made .50s a viable alternative, such as having more lead of *adequate* destructiveness in the air when targeting fighters. Whereas in our game I think you'd have to be crazy to take 6 .50s over 2 Hispanos if you have the choice. IMO this is tied to the damage model and the need to usually saw off a part to knock another plane out of the fight.

[FLS]

        It happened in WWII in plenty of cases, the pilot, engine or hydraulics where hit forcing the pilot to bail out or dive away from combat.

I'm sure a lot of aircraft were only hit with a dozen rounds but it's unlikely that only a dozen were fired.

[Karnak]

"Better" is a loaded word.
They went with 6x.50s in the vast majority of US planes for the duration.  That indicates in R/L there were balancing factors that made .50s a viable alternative, such as having more lead of *adequate* destructiveness in the air when targeting fighters. Whereas in our game I think you'd have to be crazy to take 6 .50s over 2 Hispanos if you have the choice. IMO this is tied to the damage model and the need to usually saw off a part to knock another plane out of the fight.

Logistics were simplified by using only the .50s and the .50s worked fine against the targets they were mostly being employed against, German and Japanese single engined fighters.  The US Navy had wanted to go to cannons but the M2 20mm was never satisfactory for service due to manufacturing issues.  American fighter pilots remarked on how tough the H8K was to shoot down.  If the Japanese had miraculously been producing H8Ks by the thousands and using them in mass formations we would have been pressed to switch to cannons as well.

The fact is that for the weight of the P-51D's six .50s it could have almost carried the Typhoon's four Hispano Mk IIs.  The M2 .50 is a heavy gun, as is the Hispano.  The best air-to-air fighter guns were the MG151/20, ShVAK 20mm, Ho-5 20mm and B-20 20mm.  Against heavy bombers the 20mms were serve in a pinch, but you'd really want MK108s.  Heavy guns like the Browning .50, Hispano and MK103 cost more in performance than the advantages they bring are worth.

[guncrasher]

I'm sure a lot of aircraft were only hit with a dozen rounds but it's unlikely that only a dozen were fired.

I have read several books were pilots mention "lots of 2 and 3 second bursts".


semp

[BnZs]

Nothing you say is untrue Karnak, but it isn't quite the whole story either. 4xHispanos for instance, more destructive than a 6 .50s? Definitely! However, even 4 cannons still amounts to less lead in the air and fewer chances for hits. If the .50s are adequately destructive on a target, then opting for a denser "shot pattern" with more hits is a rationally defensible choice. OTOH, I believe that if the disadvantage of .50s relative Hispanos was as large in WWII as it is in-game, American fighters *would* have been universally armed with Hispano clones by war's end, instead of being retained to successfully shoot down fighters on into the early *jet* age.

Logistics were simplified by using only the .50s and the .50s worked fine against the targets they were mostly being employed against, German and Japanese single engined fighters.  The US Navy had wanted to go to cannons but the M2 20mm was never satisfactory for service due to manufacturing issues.  American fighter pilots remarked on how tough the H8K was to shoot down.  If the Japanese had miraculously been producing H8Ks by the thousands and using them in mass formations we would have been pressed to switch to cannons as well.

The fact is that for the weight of the P-51D's six .50s it could have almost carried the Typhoon's four Hispano Mk IIs.  The M2 .50 is a heavy gun, as is the Hispano.  The best air-to-air fighter guns were the MG151/20, ShVAK 20mm, Ho-5 20mm and B-20 20mm.  Against heavy bombers the 20mms were serve in a pinch, but you'd really want MK108s.  Heavy guns like the Browning .50, Hispano and MK103 cost more in performance than the advantages they bring are worth.

[Fish42]

Nothing you say is untrue Karnak, but it isn't quite the whole story either. 4xHispanos for instance, more destructive than a 6 .50s? Definitely! However, even 4 cannons still amounts to less lead in the air and fewer chances for hits. If the .50s are adequately destructive on a target, then opting for a denser "shot pattern" with more hits is a rationally defensible choice. OTOH, I believe that if the disadvantage of .50s relative Hispanos was as large in WWII as it is in-game, American fighters *would* have been universally armed with Hispano clones by war's end, instead of being retained to successfully shoot down fighters on into the early *jet* age.

The ROF between the 20mm Cannon and the 50cal were not that different. Although the 50 Cals would have 3 rounds in the air every-time it fired, if you missed in a close range shot with 1 then you were most likely missing with the other 2. At longer range were the dispersion would spreed the rounds out more then it starts to make a difference, though lose of energy is taking its toll on the round by that point too.

The US did not like to change major items in their supply chain. They would stick with something that mostly worked instead of rolling out a new item.

I know the Aussies when they acquired the Sabre, they redesigned the plane, replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon.

[BnZs]

The ROF between the 20mm Cannon and the 50cal were not that different. Although the 50 Cals would have 3 rounds in the air every-time it fired, if you missed in a close range shot with 1 then you were most likely missing with the other 2.

Possible. But in AHII in a fairly accurate burst, if one .50 hits the part labeled "wing root" for the purpose of the damage model, another hits the part labeled "aileron", and a third hits the part labeled "outboard wing", assuming no previous damage, there is absolutely zero chance that ANYTHING will be accomplished. Whereas in real life an airplane wing tends to contain many more targets which can greatly reduce an airplane's combat effectiveness if a bullet or two passes through them. Up this to 6 or 8 guns poking holes and the chances increase exponentially. By comparison a single Hispano ping won't destroy the outboard or inboard wing section in AHII either, but it has a significant chance of popping the aileron right off.
The same logic applies to 8 .303s. Certainly it is not the best gun package, but it's "Swiss Cheese" effect was far from useless on single-seat fighters during the BoB.

[Les Paul]

The .50 cals in-game are amaaaaaazzzzzzzyyyyyyballz (Amazyballz) as they were in real life.

In the event that I am not in my early war German warbirds (Carrier missions!) I up the F4U-1A which has 3x .50's in each wing. Now, most people set their convergence for all the guns to converge in the same spot, I tend to fan mine out so that I get one winged convergence points at ~300-350.
Why do I do this? I have noticed that in most cases, I am really hitting planes with just one wings set of guns, and I must say 3x (6x) .50cals ROCK everything I hit, it usually doesn't take more than a good half second to full second burst to annihilate anything in my gun-sights.

And let us not forget about the B17s magic set of .50 cals... Do I need to say more?

What is more ridiculous to me, is when I encounter a P47 or P51 flying afk straight and level whilst in my 109F4. I like to get up nice and close to that afk bird, and use my brutally ineffective 7mm MGs and subsequently use a 500 round burst into their wingtip or wing root (Depending on which I line up with first) to no effect. Only to have to then hit their wingtip/wingroot with 2 or 3 20mm hits after that (My patience usually wears thin after round 500). I have also done the same in my K4 to conserve my glorious 65 rounds of 30mm destruction! The K4 has 13mm MGs, and I have personally witnessed pumping around a full 150-200 rounds into an AFK Jugs (Not the pony, that baby will die long before that... Like 100 rounds in..) wing before achieving the ever so devastating effect of knocking off its aileron... Before placing another 50 to take his wingtip off! I get it, the Jug is durable...but damn!

The above scenario's are the extreme's I have seen in the effectiveness of weapons. In most cases it takes less (Sometimes much much less) than what is described above.

Pretty much, fly any other countries fighters and use their MGs...Or fly a plane with a singular 20mm... Then go back to your American Bird. And you will realize just how glorious those .50 cals are. If you think the damage model hurts .50 cals more than any other gun, you are sadly mistaken. Sometimes (Key word "sometimes") I find myself requiring 2 bursts (2-3 hits each) of my 1 MG151/20 nose cannon to take the wing tip off of anything other than a Zeke (And sometimes the Zeke is included in this anomaly!).

But yeah, for any wing mounted guns I tend to fan the convergence out so that I get singular wing convergence sets at the desired range of shooting. I find this greatly increases the power of my guns (Because I am usually only making hits with one wings set of guns.) as well as my accuracy because my guns are firing at a softer angle (Since my convergences is usually set in the 600, 625, and 650, with a singular wing convergence happening at 300-350ish)

All in all I think the guns are really accurate in their ballistic properties (They just lack variety in the ammo rack), and its more of a problem with the damage model of ALL the warbirds. Though I do think the MG151/20 is a little underpowered in this game (But only by a hair.)

[Scca]

       The damage done by 50 cals. is already screwed up. In WWII, it would only take a 1/4 second burst to kill a 109 from a P51-B. In here, it takes at least a 1 Ro more second Burst to kill one in a P51D. Incidiary rounds would start to fix the underwhelming damage of the 50s. 

Citation ?

[Coalcat1]

Citation ?

          I've seen gun cam footage of a 109 going down from burst from a P-51B that was less than 1 sec. Then again, the rounds may have hit the engine and pilot, disabling the aircraft.