The Hispano

[Dead Man Flying]

Am I the only one who considers this entire debate silly?  The fact is that I didn't hit Urchin with a single round last night.  I plastered his tail at convergence (about 220-250 yards) with easily 10 or more rounds of 20mm.  Network lag almost certainly accounts for the perception of a single ping death.

I just looked at the film again... it took 14 rounds of 20mm... all or most of them hitting... to take off Urchin's tail.  Again this is at convergence with the help of .303s also hitting together in one spot.

Attached is an image of the ammo load before and after blowing off the tail.  Guess what, Luftwhiners?  That's 13 more rounds than a German 30mm would need to take that tail off, so please spare us the nonsense.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Pongo]

The germans did use the Hispano. In flying boats. They had the gun and the ammo in production. The Spanish even adopted the 109 wing to take 2 in wing hispanos.
The british evaluated produing the 151 but thought it was too hard for thier industry to produce. The US did produce it in a different caliber but never adopted it.

At 300 yards in AH I dont think there is any difference between the guns package on a 190D9 and a spit IX with 50 cals. I bet almost no one could tell a difference.
At 600 yards there is a big difference. That makes sence from a balistic stand point I think. Our range finder really helps the hispano and 50 cal.
But to say the hispano hits like a 108..that is just silly. the 108 hits real real hard in this game. If you hit.

[HFMudd]

DMF, it is a bit silly no doubt to debate 1 ping Hispano kills.  I'm not so sure that it is silly to debate if AH should or should not accurately pass along the number of hits from your client to your targets.  

I accept that it is an imperfect world and from time to time my AH view is not going to match that of my victim or my killer but a lot of people don't.  In my experience this more often results in an implication of cheating and bad feelings all around than the one ping kill.

For what is worth, I for one don't consider the 151 to be inferior to the Hispano.  The Hispano hits harder with a flatter trajectory sure, but we are not all DMF's and Urchins who can easily get that snapshot that lands a couple rounds on a wing tip.  I appreciate the greater ammo capacity of the 151 on the 190 series (I'm not going to compare the 109 to the Spit as the Hispano would not fit in the 109 nose and therefore is apples to oranges) that allows me the luxury of a longer burst.

[Kweassa]

Some shamless consideations

 ...

 I seem to recall wing armed planes were advised to shoot only at convergence ranges otherwise the fired load had a high chance of missing the target due to the rounds crossing in front or the back of the target plane. I also recall a story where a P-51D pilot had a gun solution on a Bf109G-14 which was chasing a frdly P-51D, but the target was closer than his convergence range and the Pony driver was afraid his rounds will land at the P-51D in front of the 109 so he couldn't shoot.

 Anybody actually notice the difference between nose armed planes and wing armed planes in AH??

 I sure don't.

 Thus, unless some sort of decisive difference can be noticed between the wing-arms agenda and the center-line agenda, comparing the Mausers on the 109 and the Hispanos on the Spitfires doesn't necessarily seem to be "apples and oranges".  

 Set convergence to 350 and whether you fire at 100 yards or 600 yards, doesn't seem to make a difference in any Hispano armed plane(at least to me..). Granted, the 1.2k hit claims are exaggerations, but hits(not just any hits, but lethal hits!) ranging from 600~800 yards is not uncommon in AH.

 However, firing at 100 yards and firing at 600 yards, makes a drastic difference on Mauser armed planes. And though experienced pilots in the 109 and 190 do say they can land 600 yard hits with the Mauser, to a paduwan like me the thought of firing over 500 yards range makes me wince.

 Generally, I feel safe when there's a Mauser armed plane behind me at 600 yards, but when I see a Type99(N1K2) or M2/Hispano armed plane behind me at the same range I pray to myself ("ooh.. please.. don't fire a tracking shot or otherwise I'm gonna lose my stabs or rear fuselage...!")

 ....

 If a plane has wing armed cannons range set to 350 yards, and fires bursts at a 600~700 yard target, the distance between the shots fired from each wing cannon is almost as much as the length of the wingspan where each cannons were armed. Be it even "mere" 500 yards and the distance between the separate cannon shells is enough to make the rounds pass the port and starboard sides of the target plane if the shots were fired "right on target" via the gunsight.

 Landing a "lethal" hit with both cannons seems very unlikely in ranges over the convergence settings in wing-armed planes, and it would be typically only one of the cannons hitting the target plane while the other misses, since the target range and convergence range is so different.

 So, given 20~30 rounds of Hispanos fired from a Spitfire against an extending enemy plane at 500~600 yards thats 10~15 rounds fired per a single gun. Due to convergence issues, only a part of those 10~15 rounds fired from a single gun will hit on a target like a vertical stab or rear fuselage(while the other misses). If we consider 5 hits from 20mm shells lethal, then we can assume the shots fired out of a single cannon against a target outside convergence range is landing with 33~50% hit percentage, and knocking out clean a vertical stab or rear fuselage.

 So, how in the world do they land lethal shots in that condition? I'd understand that happening to nose-armed planes, since with the control of the nose pitch the lethal range of the cannons be extended or reduced with relative ease. However, I don't think one can compensate for ranges on wing armed planes with such ease, and yet, when I'm in a Spitfire, I fine-tune aiming in exact same way(pitch up a bit, or pitch down) as I would when I'm in a 109, against targets further off the convergence and they all seem to hit exactly in the same manner.

 I'm not ready to claim something's "right" or "wrong". And I understand that AH is not a physically perfect world. But some things still seem just too strange..

ps) But then again, I also suck crap when it comes to gunnery. Maybe I'm mising something I shouldn't?

 



 

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Anybody actually notice the difference between nose armed planes and wing armed planes in AH??

I notice a huge difference.  I can hit things with killing bursts with the Mosquito at ranges that I can only hit with stray rounds from the Spitfire.

Convergence works just like it did in WWII.

If you think about it, there is no way HTC could make it perform differently.

[Kweassa]

Honest question Karnak:

 I know you're a lot into the Mossie, so probably you're right when it comes to when Spits and Mossies are compared. But considering the trajectory of the hispanos, isn't there a possibility that the sheer number of 20mms cramped up in the nose is the main reason for for the difference you notice, rather than the differences in the agenda of wing-armed planes and nose-armed planes?

 Like, its the same sort of 'stray rounds' that you're hitting the target with when in Mossie, except the number of the hispanos on the Mossie just gives out a higher probability of killing the plane?

 Because, if I'm in a plane like a Mossie armed with four hisps and tons of 20mm ammo, I'd be pretty much go for a confident tracking shot no matter what range he is in if within 1000. But if I'm confined to a Spit with two hisps and only 240 rounds.. I think I'd be much much more hesitant and timid, using only short bursts and thus, lowering the chance of hit probability even more.

 The funny thing is, even with those short bursts, I land its more often than I'd think against targets at 600~700 yard range in the Spitfire when converged at 350. In the 109 with a single 20mm also converged at 350, which would be theoretically easier to compensate in aiming, I consider myself lucky if I even get a single flash on the target plane.

 Maybe a comparison with the Typhoon and the Mossie would be more relevant? Or a comparison with the Spitfire and some other fighter plane with center-lined armament?

 Also, how about a comparison when inside the convergence range too close? Like when the guns are converged at 350 and the target is at 100 yards?

 I'm not asking to just Karn, but anyone else who'd be interested share his experience on this thread


ps) I'm also interested in how high an arc would be when cannon convergence is set to 650. I've tried some quick experiments with different convergence settings so I actually can get a result where I am aiming the target right in the center of the sight, but the rounds would miss because the ballistic arc would be above the target. So far, I couldn't produce any such results. Is this possible in AH?? If so, which distance should I try shooting at with what convergence?

 

[Karnak]

Well, when I flew a Spit IX earlier tonight I was firing at a P-51D at 800 yards (only .303s after the first burst) and I could very clearly see my rounds converging and then separating.  All my rounds missed him, that was about 20 rounds of 20mm and 600 rounds of .303.

It was very clear to me then that it is different.

I have my Spitfire convergence set to 250 yards and my Mosquito convergence set to 650 yards.

[Shane]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Nationalistic Pride.
Impression are one thing, accurate testing is another.

the AH luftweenies just won't admit to being crappy shots.



edit: except kweassea, apparently.  

[HoHun]

Hi Urchin,

>It makes absolutely no sense to me why anyone would choose the Mg151/20, or the godawful MG/FF, when they had the opportunity to use the Hispano instead.  

Actually, in WW2 the MG151/20 was considered superior to the Hispano.

Tony Williams pointed out that the British seriously considered copying the German MG151/20  to replace the Hispano cannon. The reason they didn't go ahead with it was that manufacture of the MG151/20 was comparatively complicated, especially considering that some specific German production techniques weren't normally employed in the British industry.

The USA actually did produce a copy of the MG151 (in its 15 mm version) as the T17 .60" (15.24 mm) caliber gun. The USAAF wanted it to replace the 0.50" Browning MGs, but for unclear reasons - one of them might be the USN pushing for 20 mm cannon instead of HMGs -, the T17 did never enter service.

Though the Hispano cannon had a higher muzzle velocity, it was considerably heavier and bulkier than the MG151/20. In single-engined fighters, the barrel return spring invariably protuded beyond the wing's leading edge, creating a fair amount of drag even when covered by a fairing and disturbing the airflow over the wing, reducing the lift it yielded in turns.

Additionally, the MG151/20 had the advantage of being fit for synchronization. Unlike earlier guns, the MG151/20 was electrically primed so that synchronization losses could be kept down to a minimum, and having the guns close to the centreline meant that firepower didn't deteriorate outside of the convergence zone as typcial for outer wing guns.

In short, the big picture is more complex than it appears at the first look, and the individual advantages and disadvantages of both guns really depend on the criteria you choose to apply :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[vorticon]

yes things normally die when you hit them with a

20MM ROUND
20mm = 2cm
2cm= proxy 1 inch

with 4 of them (on hurrc2lese)
thats about
2*4
80mm
8cm of lead going into your plane its not 1 ping your getting with the hurc if its set right its 4 so thats like getting hit with a howzwitzer shot from the panzer
8cm being 4inches

thats why you die i one go

thats why vort fly hurc2lese

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Shane


the AH luftweenies just won't admit to being crappy shots.

Wouldn't they also suffer with Hispano then?-)
Or would they actually get better with spray & pray tactics when one-two hits has chance of breaking wing?-)

[RRAM]

I've been too many times in the receiving side of this kind of thing. I've also been a lot of times in the "giving" side.

I will never forget how, once, flying a Typhoon, I hit a Tempest at 1.1K. Once. In the tail.

The tempest promptly lost its tail and went kaboom.

That was probably the most evident instance of the hispano-lazer issue for me. Well, that, and the time that Fariz hit me once from 1.2K and send me to the stars in my fw190A8.


AH's gunnery model is too simple to be real, and damage is too magnified. In RL, one hit in the tail or the wing would rarely get such catastrophic results as you get in this game, except on japanese rice-paper planes.


[edited for offtopic comments]

[MANDOBLE]

In my case, the most typical figure is a spit hovering nose up at my dead six, firing like crazy from 700-800 yards and getting my 190D9 radiator over'n over with what repeatedly sounds like a single lucky hit. And sometimes they get radiator and fuel at the same time. Those prolonged sprays'n prays while hovering nose up should put the spits directly in stall.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by RRAM
The hispano debate in particular has been discussed for too many times now, and for years, with NO result at all, other than seeing how blind people can get in their idol-adoration intoxication.

I'm curious.  Was it the image I posted of me shooting Urchin at about 220 yards with 14 rounds of 20mm that made you think that the Hispanos are hopelessly overmodelled, or is it just some hunch?  Because 14 rounds of 20mm into a tail at convergence range would cause devastating damage be it from a Spitfire or a 109.

If anything, Urchin has brought up a good point in this thread about how AH applies damage with network lag.  What he didn't do, and what you and several others keep jumping on in spite of it, is show that the Hispano is hopelessly overmodelled.

Guess that means I'm blind and intoxicated with idol-adoration.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[-ammo-]

Ram *was/is/will always be* a hopeless whiner (not to mention just plain wrong).

Why confuse the issue with fact?  We should just use his emotional hyperbole instead.