Repost of buff gun strength "study"

[Urchin]

Well, the time has come for me to raise the bat in my weary hands and beat the hell out of this dead horse again.  

 

Well, I corralled a fella (Redwolf, and a big <S> out to ya man ) into helping me with my "study". We were both tired though, so we didn't get past the initial ten test run, which was 190A8 vs B17 (tail guns only). As a note, on the first run where I took 30 hits, I did NOT die. I flew past B17. I lost the engine, suffered a whole pile of damage, but the plane was still flyable. On 9 of the 10 attacks, the engine went about halfway through the "burst" I took (he was firing really short bursts to make sure every round hit, I'd lose the engine about halfway through, then lose a wing [7 of 10] or the tail [2 of 10].
Anyway, here is what we came up with for the results. These results were obtained by flying a 190A8 straight and level behind a B17 while the B17 fired only its tailguns. We obtained the number of rounds fired by checking the ammunition counter before and after every kill. He did miss with 1 or 2 rounds on perhaps half of the kills he said.
He started firing when I crossed d500- that may skew the results, we'll have to try different ranges.

26,29,27,22,32,30*,26,30,15,18.

Works out to an average of 22.5 .50 caliber rounds hitting to kill a 190A8, the "armored" "buff-killer" 190. That number is actually shockingly low to me, it usually sounds like more hits than that.

 

Again, I'm curious as to whether the strength of the .50 caliber machine guns in the Ground Vehicles (particularly the M3) and the bombers (particularly the Lancaster) are consistant with the strength of the .50 caliber machineguns mounted in fighters.  

I did do the brief study with the Lanc's guns and it worked out to an average of 22.5 rounds per kill (of a 190A8).  I haven't compared this to the number of rounds that a fighter needs to kill the 190, although I suspect it would be significantly higher than 22.5 rounds.  I think to really compare the strength of the rounds I would need to fire the guns in the same situation, which means I could not use the Lancaster for my experiment (because the fighter would have to be firing at the tail of the 190).  This is rather dissapointing because I honestly feel that the Lancaster's .50 caliber guns are the ones that are a little out of whack, not the guns in the B-26 or the B-17.

Hitech, perhaps you could save me the trouble and inform me whether or not the bombers and GV's have .50 caliber machineguns that hit significantly harder than their equivalents mounted on fighters?  If so, why is this the case?

[Steven]

I'm not real clear on how BUFF gunnery works, but don't all guns track and shoot at the same target if within aspect?  So I wonder if in your tests more than one turret is firing at your target.

[Urchin]

No.. it is possible to fire only the station you are sitting at.  The test was made firing ONLY the twin ".50 caliber" machineguns in the Lancs tail.

[jpeg]

Originally posted by Steven:
I'm not real clear on how BUFF gunnery works, but don't all guns track and shoot at the same target if within aspect?  So I wonder if in your tests more than one turret is firing at your target.

If you push button2 than only the guns that you are using will fire

[Raubvogel]

You can lose an entire wing to 2 or 3 pings...I'm sure that's realistic  

[Urchin]

Raub.. AH has this neat "feature", which is you don't actually hear every shot hitting your plane.  So while on you (or my) end, it appears that the Lanc managed to hit you 3 times with the twin .50s, he in fact managed to hit you 10 times for every ping you hear.

At least that is the theory.

[Karnak]

Urchin,

The armor on an Fw190A-8 is not nearly think enough to stop a .50 cal round that hits directly.  It might stop a .50 cal round that is comming in at a heavy angle and it can stop fragments.

The armor on the Fw190A-8 only makes it a bit less likely to be destroyed, not invulnerable or even highly resistant.

To set up an accurate durability test you need to position your self a set distance behind the B-17/Lanc on his FE.  Then he needs to carefully hit you with as many rounds per burst as possible while firing as few rounds per burst as possible.

In a test like this I found that 12 .50 rounds from a P-38 at 50 yards will completely sever a Lanc's wing.

[Urchin]

I find that rather interesting, to be honest, because 150+ rounds from the F6F did NOT sever the wing of a Lanc from 400 yards.  However, his rounds did manage to sever both wings, the tail, the engine, and give me a pilot wound.  

By the way, I don't KNOW it was 150 rounds, but I do know I caught him on his bomb run and had plenty of time to line up a steady shot from his dead 6.  I fired perhaps a 3 second burst with all guns, all the sprites landed on his right wing (from the root to the edge).  I don't know the ROF for .50 caliber machineguns, but I think it is quite likely that I landed 150 rounds with a 3 second burst on a nonmanuevering target at 400 yards.  He then proceeded to explode my airplane as I broke down and to the right.  I heard a grand total of 3 pings, obviously there must have been more than that.

[Vulcan]

Ahhh the buff myth rears its ugly head again.

OK, Urchin, tell you what, u grab a car, sit in it, I'll swing round the front with a .50 cal and send 22.5 (or is it 45 as there are two .50 cal's on that station?) at you and we'll see how you feel  

Now... ARE YOU PEOPLE JUST BORN STUPID OR DO YOU LEARN IT?

First off all, you are hitting a fighter with the singular most lethal angle possible. Flying the A8 like that gives the bullets BEST velocity, and most damaging travel through a wing. Take a fighter wing, examine the thickness, then imagine 5 .50 cals tearing along it from that angle. They leave LONG damaging trails of destruction. Then do the same from above... that leave little tiny holes of destruction. GET IT?

I mean for godsake - if a 190 pilot sat nice and steady for the gunner he could probably kill the silly bastard with a pistol and one bullet let alone 22.5  .50's!

I have shot down 5 Lancasters with one ammo load in a tiffie. I have shot 7 B17s with one ammo load in a tiffie. I've also managed to survive those encounters with minimal or no damage.

Then theres this lame statement:
"because 150+ rounds from the F6F did NOT sever the wing of a Lanc from 400 yards. However, his rounds did manage to sever both wings, the tail, the engine, and give me a pilot wound."

followed by this supendous show of idiocy:
"but I do know I caught him on his bomb run and had plenty of time to line up a steady shot from his dead 6."

First, you sat on his dead 6. DUH!?!?!

Second, you say he was on his bomb run YET he shot you down. DOUBLE DUH!?!?!?!

Third, you say you had plenty of time which indicates to me you weren't making fast paces THEREFORE you were slow on his dead 6 TRIPLE DUH!?!?!?!

What I read here is Darwinian theory at its best. Only issue is you don't really DIE.

Next village-idiot PLEASE!

p.s. urchin don't take it personal I just get sick of this silly argument.

[Naudet]

Actually i dont think that 22.5 bullets for a fighter kill are to much. Especially as u shot at it to the front.

All important part eng, radiators are there.

it would a different thing if u would be able to kill a fighter with 22.5 rounds from behind or 6 o'clock high.

And as Vulcan mentioned, the angle of travel of the bullest also play a role. And thats whats not modeled in AH.
So if say 5 0.5 cals from dead ahead would cripple a wing, in AH the also do it if u shoot from dead above at the wing.

In real life the dead ahead attack would lead to major damage to the wingstructure (if we assume the bullets dont change there way once they hit a "hard tgt") while the dead above attack would only lead to 5 relativly small holes in the wing.


And i did some nice buff intercepting lately, i noticed that a Lanc cant do much harm if u constantly do a belly attack. And B17 can be effectivly attacked from ahead best from an alt advantage a a 10-20 degree angle off.

one major prob the lonewolf buffs of AH present to fighter jockey is that they have much more freedom to maneuver than real life buffs. A b17 or Lanc in formation cant do that last hope 180 degree turn once u zoom up from down below.

[Am0n]

Doesnt the LANC have .303s ?

[DanielMcIntyre]

HT state in a previous post that .50 cal buff guns are identical to .50 cal fighter guns.

And its true that you don't hear some of the pings from the buff hits.  You gun in a buff and watch the guy light up like a christmas tree and fly off.  You need to really get good sustained hits in a buff to rip a fighter apart.

I think the problem is people think "its only a bomber" but you should really think of it as HO'ing a superstrong P47 / P51 flying backwards.

[Am0n]

At any given time a b17 can have 8-50s pointed at you. I dont know if any of you are keen on the jug but those 8-50s dont have a bit of a problem shreding someone HO.

[Serapis]

As inconvienient as it may be, the .50 cal is a hell of a weapon with a lot of punch. There was a reason it was adequate as the main gun on recon M-113s and other scout vehicles until the Bradley generation came along (yeah, foreign AFVs had 20mm but it wasn't really necessiary until the bradley generation with heavier armor).

If a .50 can handle a BMP or BRDM then I think it can handle a fw-190A8. The extra armor was there to enhance survivability, particlulary in a slashing attack environment, not ensure it.

Charon

[Westy MOL]

Woo hoo.  It's Dingleberry Buffgun wine season. Only the finest from UrchinFarms in Sapa Valley, Kaliforn_aye_yay to boot! An uncompromising deal at .98 for a 5 gallon jug.

<hiccup>

 I think the problem is in the user end personally.

  Westy