Author Topic: Browning M2 .50 cal and Rate of Fire (Read 1904 times)

-ammo- · « **Reply #45 on:** August 16, 2002, 11:37:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
What Pongo said.

If .50s get their "field mods", no reason the MG151/15, /20 or the MK108s should not get theirs. 30mms firing at 900 rpm. Wouldn't that be sweet?

How long would your ammo last at 900 rds a minute, and with a very small capacity? Sounds like alot of frustration to me.

SKurj · « **Reply #46 on:** August 17, 2002, 12:41:36 AM »

Would certainly improve snapshot capability ammo. The ROF of the 30mm at the moment can see even jugs fly thru the stream untouched +Q

SKurj

-ammo- · « **Reply #47 on:** August 17, 2002, 12:54:46 AM »

yes it would give a better snapshot ability. maybe one or two of them:)

I know guys that dont miss with them taters. 1 is all it takes.

wulfie · « **Reply #48 on:** August 17, 2002, 05:23:50 AM »

ammo:

ROF of 900/min = 15/sec = 4.0 sec sustained MK 108 fire for a Bf 109G.

Where it would really come in handy (900/min that is) is for killing ability vs. heavy bombers when conducting 1 high speed high deflection gun pass.

Don't turn this into a 'USAAF vs. LW' argument. If ROF was adjustable by the pilot (i.e. he had the freedom to order it done) on *any* WW2 aircraft, it would be a cool option to have once HTC clears out their 'to do' list some.

Mike/wulfie

KBall · « **Reply #49 on:** August 17, 2002, 06:10:03 AM »

Tonight...I was in F6F, had dove, and was chasing a P51D on the deck. The pony was flying straight 950 in front of me (no distance closure) when I started firing. The first two bursts of my 50 cal hit sprites didn't do anything. Bursts 3-4 hit the P51s oil. Bursts 5-6 blew off his tail and a wing.

I've had several kills at that range using 50 cals. The key is the target can't be jinking. I've also had kills using only 20mms out to 750 yds.

SKurj · « **Reply #50 on:** August 17, 2002, 09:25:52 AM »

A consideration here that may make this sort of thing errm not easily doable.. The sounds for the guns...

SKurj

moot · « **Reply #51 on:** August 17, 2002, 09:48:11 AM »

What KBall said about the target staying put.
Many tours ago I put maybe 1 second's worth of F6F 50cals into a B17 , effectively shooting it down from ~1-1.1K, from about 6-7oc vertical and 7oc horizontal. Haven't used 50cals that extensively since, but it is very easy to kill a static target with .50s 1K ahead when on its flat 6.

-ammo- · « **Reply #52 on:** August 17, 2002, 11:48:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by wulfie
ammo:

ROF of 900/min = 15/sec = 4.0 sec sustained MK 108 fire for a Bf 109G.

Where it would really come in handy (900/min that is) is for killing ability vs. heavy bombers when conducting 1 high speed high deflection gun pass.

Don't turn this into a 'USAAF vs. LW' argument. If ROF was adjustable by the pilot (i.e. he had the freedom to order it done) on *any* WW2 aircraft, it would be a cool option to have once HTC clears out their 'to do' list some.

Mike/wulfie

I am not starting a USAAF vs Luftweenie fight:) I dont even know you. Seriously, have at it. If its realistic and HTC agrees, I am all for it. Grun says that the 108 could be adjusted to 900 RPM, but was late in the war and did not see service. Did it see service?

It would only take a short search of my posts to see that I advocate taking away the ability for the D30 to carry 10 rockets and 2 1000 lb'ers simultaniously. I have never found a reference of that loadout being something that was used. Another thing that should be implemented is that P-47's should not be able to fire their guns while carrying rocks. Or at least, they should not be able to jetison/fire them after their guns were fired. The M/T cases were known to sever the rocket motor fire wires.

My point is, don't tag me as an instigator. I want whats right, not whats popular.

Hortlund · « **Reply #53 on:** August 17, 2002, 12:45:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-
yes it would give a better snapshot ability. maybe one or two of them:)

I know guys that dont miss with them taters. 1 is all it takes.

err not really. Im trying the 109g6 this tour, and I have seen both P47d30 and F6F take 3-4 hits of 30mm and fly on like nothing happened.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #54 on:** August 17, 2002, 12:48:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

err not really. Im trying the 109g6 this tour, and I have seen both P47d30 and F6F take 3-4 hits of 30mm and fly on like nothing happened.

That could be internet anomolies as well. I've seen a P47D30 take one hit of FW190A8 30mm and explode. (Shrugs)

minus · « **Reply #55 on:** August 17, 2002, 03:04:15 PM »

well i hit some people with confirmed 20 hits from 110g2 20 mm and thing get away without smoke or parts fall of

that pis of realy

, other thing masacred realy many b 17 !!! they defensles !! and the 50 calibers on it have realy longer bare llike figters , the fighter got realy short barel and they still more precise like ground mounted heavy MG that SUXX , 50 caliber virtualy in AH haz just same fire power like lw 20 mmm and that sux big time the efectivens of 50 caliber to cut of pieces of plane at 500 m are strogly unrealistic plane elevator event in theory dont have precision to aim ant this distance 50 caliber can dmg some important parts but will never cut them a part

Wotan · « **Reply #56 on:** August 17, 2002, 03:25:55 PM »

under the conditions we see in the main now theres no way to say one plane or another takes more damage.

Theres been lotsa of lag and anomalies that arent relate to modeling.

Urchin · « **Reply #57 on:** August 17, 2002, 03:39:58 PM »

.50 caliber machineguns don't do anywhere near the amount of damage even the MG151/20s do.

The two weapons rely on totally different philosophies Minus. The .50 caliber relys on rate of fire, muzzle velocity, and number of guns firing for damage.

The 20mm (or larger) cannon relys on a larger shell, combined with explosive effect in most cases. An single hit from a 20mm shell is more damaging than a single hit from a .50 caliber shell, the .50 caliber makes up for that with the possiblity of getting many more hits in the same amount of time.

wulfie · « **Reply #58 on:** August 17, 2002, 04:00:36 PM »

ammo,

I should have been more clear. That comment was not directed at you in any way whatsoever. It was in fact for my 'comrades in grey'.

My whole point being this: Someone produces data that .50 BMGs should be able to up their ROF. Someone else says 'then we should do it for the MK 108'. What I'm saying is don't mention the MK 108 - instead say 'any gun on any aircraft that should have adjustable ROF should be able to have it's ROF adjusted in AH'.

It was starting to sound like the typical degeneration of a thread: This LW aircraft should have this WEP. Then some RAF biased type feels obligated to chime in along the lines of 'oh yeah but not until this RAF aircraft is modeled with this octane rating fuel or has this much boost'.

It's not about someone's favorite ride remaining superior, or even competetive. It's about every aircraft being modeled with whatever advantages and disadvantages they should have for the sake of realism.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Mike/wulfie

0scar · « **Reply #59 on:** August 18, 2002, 10:20:24 AM »

the rate of fire was reduced on a/c due to jamming which was common in hi G maneuvers mainly due to the feeding of the ammo.

as far as damage, look at the energy delivered by the 50s rate of fire, velocity and the projectile compared to other weapon systems...it's near the top in destructive potential especially at medium ranges 500-1000yds where velocity really aids greatly in the probability of getting any hits at all