Author Topic: WW2 fighter gun effectiveness (Read 1632 times)

hazed- · « **Reply #30 on:** November 28, 2002, 07:08:38 PM »

how similar are the mg131 and the 50cal according to this method of comparison?

As for range for hitting Ive hit out to 1.2k with 50 cals or hispanos and i can hit 90 degree deflection shots out to almost 1k.Ive taken wild shots at these ranges and still taken wings off.Realistic? hell i dont know but it doesnt sound too similar to the write ups from WW2 pilots.They always seem to mention not firing until the aircraft fills your view, as in almost colliding!

I cant do this with mg131 or mg151/20's as it requires blind shooting with their ballistics although i have hit at 800 yards with mg151's very rarely.

I think there is a huge gulf between peerformance/effectiveness of the 50 cals and other similar calibre weapons in AH(12.7mm/13mm) but whenever i express this opinion its always taken as if I have some hidden agenda.When i see info like those charts i often wonder why its so hard to question the 50s in AH.Its there in black and white that there was nothing particularly amazing about them in terms of lethality.Still what can you do?

Pongo · « **Reply #31 on:** November 28, 2002, 07:37:41 PM »

I think that comparing the 131 and the 50 cal almost exactly paralells the Hispano and 151/20 comparison. If your talking about 300 yards they are near identical. If your talking about 600 yards there is no comparison.

Urchin · « **Reply #32 on:** November 28, 2002, 08:32:05 PM »

I think part of the ".50 calibers are 'uber'" thing comes from the fact that there are at least 6 of them on any plane thats common in the MA.

I've gotten kills out to 600 yards before on La-7s that were flying straight and level, just using the twin 13mms in the nose of the 109G-10.

I really think that if you compare 1 Mg131 to 1 .50 caliber, they will come out damn near the same in 'damage output'.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #33 on:** November 29, 2002, 01:22:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
I really think that if you compare 1 Mg131 to 1 .50 caliber, they will come out damn near the same in 'damage output'.

On my table, for each shot the MG 131 scores an average (AP and HE) of 3, the M2 scores 4.5. In gun power, the MG 131 closes up a bit with its higher rate of fire, giving a score of 45 against 58 (both unsynchronised). In gun efficiency, the lightweight MG 131 pulls ahead, scoring 2.65 against 2.0.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

hazed- · « **Reply #34 on:** November 29, 2002, 09:04:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams
On my table, for each shot the MG 131 scores an average (AP and HE) of 3, the M2 scores 4.5. In gun power, the MG 131 closes up a bit with its higher rate of fire, giving a score of 45 against 58 (both unsynchronised). In gun efficiency, the lightweight MG 131 pulls ahead, scoring 2.65 against 2.0.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

ah yes i must admit i often forget about the slower rate of fire due to synchronisation through propellors.But when i say i think the 50s are a little too effective imo im merely stating an opinion.I dont want changes or anything but i do feel its a hell of a lot more easy to hit at long range with them and often they seem to behave just like a cannon round, ie taking tails off or wingtips etc.Of course there are times where you pepper other aircraft from quite close ranges and see nothing happen.I think the net factors make a larger difference than we give it credit for?

the one aircraft im constantly surprised by is the p51b with just 4x50's which i find very effective. People say its an assist fighter, as in all you get are assists

but I havent found that much at all.When i use them i get cleaner kills than ive had with the 190d9 which i find often hits with little effect, less effect sometimes than i feel i get with 190a5's or 190a8's.This is where im often confused by the modelling as the guns are the same.

Another thing id have to say is the russian guns are less effective than the mg151's from my experience in AH but according to those charts they should be as good.Am i alone in feeling they are less effective in AH? obviously its very hard to judge guns in AH as so many factors effect their hits and damage not least of which is how used to using certain types we are.I do get annoyed when people accuse you of bias if you feel one gun is more or less effective than they should be though.Im just interested to see if i have the same feelings as others concerning these weapons.

Tony i have to ask, did that chart i posted about guns effectiveness recently from 'fighter combat' , R.Shaws book, help you in this new addition to your mountains of info?

If it did Im very glad it helped you, its about time i posted something that wasnt ignored and was actualy usefull hehee

Tony Williams · « **Reply #35 on:** November 29, 2002, 02:45:52 PM »

> Tony i have to ask, did that chart i posted about guns
> effectiveness recently from 'fighter combat' , R.Shaws book,
> help you in this new addition to your mountains of info?

I'm sorry to have to say that I did this one without reference to other tables, just to the basic ammo and gun data.

I have since discovered that the ShVAK/B-20 muzzle velocity of 860 m/s may be too high, as other (very reliable) sources quote 750-790 m/s, depending on the loading. It is possible that the 860 m/s refers to the very long-barrelled versions used in engine mountings.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Tony Williams · « **Reply #36 on:** December 02, 2002, 02:51:30 PM »

I've modified the article, to take account of:

Corrections to the ShVAK/B-20 ballistic data,

Amendments to the power rating of some cartridges (mainly German) to take account of more accurate ammunition load data,

More precise calculations for HMG power ratings,

Arguments concerning the importance of velocity and range, and why ammunition weights aren't included.

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #37 on:** December 02, 2002, 03:37:07 PM »

Nice article Tony.

IMO, AH gunnery may be decent (ballistics), but damage model is very poor, and that includes the typical one-hit-BOOM, several 30mm hits and no-BOOM, random damages (u hit the tail and the enemy starts smoking, etc) or heavy armour ineffectiveness.

Hristo · « **Reply #38 on:** December 03, 2002, 12:11:01 AM »

AH gunnery can't be compared to real life, IMO, if it keeps the highly unrealistic (and gunnery aiding) hit sprites. They can be seen at any distance, through the cockpit and regardless of type of round impacting (which gives AP and small caliber rounds an advantage over HE shells). Fairly gamey for a combat flight sim, can't believe it is here for 3 years.

In Il-2, the way to go is icons off. As for inferior views in Il-2, you probably didn't try TrackIR. With its damage model, graphics, FM and necessary hardware it is lightyears away from AH.

P.S.
I always had hard time to believe that one 20 mm round, being 100 g in weight, with some 15g of explosive and traveling 600 m/s would bring down a 4000 kg plane.

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #39 on:** December 03, 2002, 06:35:58 AM »

It would be nice if the hit sprites were revamped, true.

Quote

In Il-2, the way to go is icons off. As for inferior views in Il-2, you probably didn't try TrackIR. With its damage model, graphics, FM and necessary hardware it is lightyears away from AH.

lol 'Neccessary hardware' Like everyone has the money to buy a TrackIR system to make Il-2's view system even half decent.

Most people have better things to spend the money on, surprisingly

Quote

I always had hard time to believe that one 20 mm round, being 100 g in weight, with some 15g of explosive and traveling 600 m/s would bring down a 4000 kg plane.

And I've always had a hard time believing the volume of whine produced by some people, despite their lack of evidence and/or credentials. Basic physics tells you that that round has a huge amount of energy. The mass of the target has very little to do with it - more important considerations like the ruggedness of the area of impact and its importance in relation to structural integrity would seem paramount to me.

Hristo · « **Reply #40 on:** December 03, 2002, 07:11:09 AM »

Jumpy, eh... ?

. Not every comment is intended against your dweebfire.

With Track IR you don't get half decent, that is a serious understatement. With it, you get superb and lightyears better than AH (an overstatement).

Money, you say ? Track IR is 1/3 of my monthly income, I do have a life, but my enthusiasm gets Track IR for me in few months.

If you insinuate my whining, please make it clear.

100 g + 15 g HE to 4000 kg is like 30 g + 4.5 g to 1200 kg car.
Let's say car is normal, not rugged one. The round is close to a .50 cal with HE component.

Would such a round destroy a car ? Robocop did it for sure

.

P.S.
Can someone explain what is wrong with Il-2 views ? I hear it so many times, yet I can't see how it is bad.

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #41 on:** December 03, 2002, 07:54:24 AM »

I don't fly the spitfire. You're more likely to find me in a Yak or La-5.

As for the IR thing. That's your choice. But saying imploring people to get one to make the view system workable, doesn't really cut any ice. It's like the WW2OL diehard fans, who went out and bought an extra gig of RAM to make the game *almost* run well. It doesn't put the game in a good light.

Pongo · « **Reply #42 on:** December 03, 2002, 10:25:52 AM »

A more interesting question is why dont 100 such projectiles seem to hurt enemies in Il2 some times.
I dont like the head stuck in one place limitation of Il2. Other then that its view system is good.

Hristo · « **Reply #43 on:** December 03, 2002, 01:15:00 PM »

Sorry for hijacking this thread. I guess I got jumpy as well

.

Anyway, Il-2 view system has only one drawback compared to AH (IMO), and it is what Pongo said. You can only rotate your head, but not to move it around.

As for realism, I don't think that turning your head 360 degrees without changing direction is realistic either.

Without TrackIR Il-2 view system is quite usable, if nothing else. With TrackIR, it is another dimension, and rightly so - for the money

.

Gunnery in Il-2 is hard, I can say that. If it is more realistic or not, I cannot tell. I sure like it more due to scaled hit effects, different impact flashes, probably more complex damage model etc. Without icons it is just great (IMO). But that's a matter of choice, I guess.

bozon · « **Reply #44 on:** December 03, 2002, 06:46:26 PM »

from the article:

Quote

There is some reassurance in the fact that the 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE emerge with similar scores, as a comparative test by the RAF rated them as about equal

in AH the german mg151/20 is WAY weaker then the hispano.
2 hispano hits will almost always result in a crippling damage while in the mg151/20 it takes about twice as many. I spent some time blasting away at the drones off-line and the hispanos kill much easier.

just my impression, nothing scientific.
Bozon