For Pyro AHII Gunnery

[Suave]

Untill the barrel begins to melt, dispersion should be constant. You say that the effect is minimal; compared to what ?

I'm sure a lot of those 400m+ kills were filmed . It was recommended that pilots kill nazi rockets from as far away as they could for obvious reason. Of course the most circulated film of rockets being shot down, because it's so dramatic, is the one where the pilot is actually closer than he should've been .

A big reason that pilots did not fire at long targets is because they had convergence set very close because they prefered to get so close to the target that they really did not need to do any aiming at all . Something the F86s and p38 pilots didn't have to worry about. In fact almost everytime I hear a p38 pilot being interviewed they allmost allways mention that .

[SlapShot]

"the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k"

Michele .... blah blah blah ... prove it ... come to the table with hard data and not conjecture.

[Batz]

You would be hard pressed to melt a barrel but thats not what I'm talking about. Guns and inparticilar wing mounted guns react  with recoil. The longer you hold the trigger down the greater the vibration and the more dispersion. Not to mention the movement of the wing.

A barrel wont melt but the lands and groves my wear down  and will effect the rounds ballistics.

A big reason that pilots did not fire at long targets is because they had convergence set very close because they prefered to get so close to the target that they really did not need to do any aiming at all

Chicken before the egg. It should read

A big reason convergence set very close was that pilots could not land hits at long ranges. They prefered to get close to the target so that they had a reasonable chance of landing hits.

Outside of the revi ww2 pilots had no idea of range. Range was determined by matching the wing span of a certain plane to the ring. Even at 250 yrds (750 ft) pilots had to aim. The better pilots got as close as they could.

If you want to go by pilot anecdotes then for every 1 that you referrence that claims kills at ranges beyond 600 yrds I can probrably fing 5 that say the opposite. They was an interview with an Aussie Spit pilot that commented directly on range.

From you first reply you said

Effective ranges of weapons in AH are shorter than they are in real life.

You knew what effective range means so or I right in thinking that you feel that in AH we need to be closer then real life to get kills?

I have read a p38 account of a guy claiming a kill at 800yrds. I dont believe any more then the accounts of pilots bouncing 50 cals off the ground to kill tanks or that a tanker could be welded into his tank by strafing.

[2Hawks]

Overall I think HTC has done a really great job the way it is. I think we should see the same jarring for shooting from a Bomber as from the pilots position in a fighter, and just like firing a Main Gun in a Gv rocks the aim.

These inconsistencies are little details that WOULD be easy to fix in and of themselves. But there are many of these and it points to an overloaded programming staff trying to work on bugs, maintain a business, work on enhancements and improvements to the game etc. etc. etc.  In order to take care of all the issues involved would mean hiring a few more programmers and raise the cost of the game.

If your going going to pay 14.95 a month you are going to get what you pay for. Unless anyone here is going to voluntarily offer up more Dough for development be happy with what you get and STFU.

2Hawks

Btw, It would be nice if HTC threw us some info or at least said "Boo" so we would know the game isn't going to dissolve suddenly.

[Suave]

Like I said before dispersion is as bad as it's going to get after the third round leaves the barrel, it's not going to get any worse, vibrations and resonance have peaked .

Yes we cannot get kills at ranges as long as we could in real life, because in real life 30.06 rounds go a lot farther than 650meters and 50 cal goes a lot farther than 1100m and still packs a punch .

Fighter pilots set their gun convergance very close because they needed to get very close to the target because they couldn't shoot worth ****. They had about as much aerial gunnery practice as I do, which is 0 . This changed after the war, at least for american pilots .

There were german pilots that would regular get kills on high deflection shots with only a few rounds. This wasn't because they were talented or special, it was because of practice and training . Anybody with the proper training and healthy visual accuity can become a marksman . Had 109s been equiped with mg's and cannon that didn't have such crappy muzzle velocity they could've done this at longer ranges . Again most 109 pilots, like p38 pilots are quick to point out the advantage they had because they did not have to worry about convergence .

[senna]

>A big reason convergence set very close was that pilots could
>not land hits at long ranges. They prefered to get close to the
>target so that they had a reasonable chance of landing hits.

Batz, I've read that during wwII pilots were taught to close the distance before shooting. This helped better ensure hitting the target. I've also read that conserving ammo was strongly suggested and considered a trait of good ariel gunnery. Especially within the US squadrons. Its difficult to conserve ammo when you are shooting targets at greater ranges and using tracers to lead. Yet still I've read about some pilots being great shooters and able to lead targets with great precision even with single bore 20mm cannons in 109s. I've seen film of corsairs using alot of tracers and lead to strike at targets at further ranges, color film BTW. So it shows that shootinng at further ranges was possible, its just that pilots were taught to close up the range before shooting. This makes sense because the combat time or experience of a real pilot in terms of hours doesnt match what a gamer experiences. Also in real life you experience the horror of possibly being killed, the natural panic that different men deal with in different ways. We gamers simply experience the fun part with some slight amounts of terror.

So what am I getting at here? I think that the gunnery should be made to be more realistic without removing the penalties of being able to shoot at longer ranges. Remove the range icon when the target is within D2.0. The gun FM math has to be good or better as well. On top of that some hodge podging needs to be implemented. Why so that it makes up for the difference between real life and a game. Example: I've noticed the gun modeling change throughout the years. I've simple adapted to it no matter how its changed. Im a gamer I'll never really die in AH. Give me some time and I'll adapt to the current gun FM. If it were real life though I might have died long before then. On the other hand, what if I have 50 sorties and havent been killed yet? Shouldnt I be allowed to adapt to some extent? If HTC makes the gun FM too hard, the older guys wont be able to hit anything. AH needs a unique gun FM thats not only mathmatically perfect but also has some hodge podging to better represent gunnery in real world conditions. Im all for that so long as its consistant and fair for everyone.

Rather than suggesting a solution, Im suggesting some factors/ideas instead for the gun FM.

[Suave]

Originally posted by 2Hawks
Overall I think HTC has done a really great job the way it is. I think we should see the same jarring for shooting from a Bomber as from the pilots position in a fighter, and just like firing a Main Gun in a Gv rocks the aim.

 

Yep, one of my beefs is that dispersion of pintle mounted mg's is the same as fixed mg's, It should be much broader. That, and the fact that to kill the airgaurd mg on tanks you have to disable the whole turret .

[Suave]

Originally posted by Batz


I have read a p38 account of a guy claiming a kill at 800yrds. I dont believe any more then the accounts of pilots bouncing 50 cals off the ground to kill tanks or that a tanker could be welded into his tank by strafing.

You don't believe he got a kill with 50cals and 20mm at 800yrds ? May I ask why ?

You know that at 800yards the browning 50cal is very stable and still packing about as much energy as ever.

And you know that the dispersion of the m2 with the light barrel group is still plenty dense at 800yards.

So I don't understand why you think this is unbelievable .

[Batz]

Because to get a kill at 800yrds the plane he shooting at would have to be level and not manuvering for him to "aim".

Take 109 with a wingspan of  10.6 m (35ft) at 800 thats a small target. If he aimed, that is if it wasnt anything more then a lucky spray n pray shot, how does he know it was 800yrds and not 600? The only range information he has is from his revi. 800yrds = 2400ft / .45 miles. If the plane he hit was level then why not hold fire and close the gap?  Surely you arent suggesting he got an 800yrd kill deflection shot.

It isnt substantiated any other way then by his story. I can post a 109e pilot claiming he can out turn a spit mkI. He believes but it aint truth. Just like bouncing 50s off the ground.

There were german pilots that would regular get kills on high deflection shots with only a few rounds. This wasn't because they were talented or special, it was because of practice and training . Anybody with the proper training and healthy visual accuity can become a marksman . Had 109s been equiped with mg's and cannon that didn't have such crappy muzzle velocity they could've done this at longer ranges . Again most 109 pilots, like p38 pilots are quick to point out the advantage they had because they did not have to worry about convergence.

Define high deflection shots. Marseille was probrably the best shooter in the lw and he hit deflection shots but even then he was in close. He practiced attacks on his staffel over and to perfect his shooting. The raf would go into a luftberry when attacked. Marseille would attack from above like most lw pilots but where he excelled was flying his 109s to the limit. With full flaps and would cut his throttle to get his shot. But all were in close.

The mgff151/15 was high velocity. Even the US looked to switching to that type of gun. If all the lw needed to increase thier range then they would have kept 13mm and 15mm nose cannon. But as I quoted above range was not a consideration in choosing gun type.

Find one quote anywhere that says the US choice to keep 50cals was based on range.

Comparing a gun fired from an aircraft in combat to guns fired on the ground is irrelevant.

I'll quote Tony again

Let me put it this way: when Spitfires were first armed with two 20mm cannon, the RAF was annoyed because gun bay restrictions prevented them from converging the guns any closer than 300 yards - they wanted 200!

I'm afraid that long-range shooting seems to be one area in which sims remain unrealistic.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

-- Major Thomas B. 'Tommy' McGuire, USAAF.

I opened fire when the whole windshield was black with the enemy . . . at minimum range . . . it doesn't matter what your angle is to him or whether you are in a turn or any other maneuver.

-- Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann,

If you are saying based on a few pilot anecdotes that the effective kill range for fighters with high velocity rounds (50cal) is  800yrds or so well thats fundementally wrong. In rebuttal I can post far more in support of my point.

[BenDover]

I remember reading somewhere that the major reason the americans decided to stick the the .50 cals was for the simple reason they had lots of them stockpiled.

[Suave]

Originally posted by Batz
Because to get a kill at 800yrds the plane he shooting at would have to be level and not manuvering for him to "aim".

Take 109 with a wingspan of  10.6 m (35ft) at 800 thats a small target. If he aimed, that is if it wasnt anything more then a lucky spray n pray shot, how does he know it was 800yrds and not 600? The only range information he has is from his revi. 800yrds = 2400ft / .45 miles. If the plane he hit was level then why not hold fire and close the gap?  Surely you arent suggesting he got an 800yrd kill deflection shot.

You know I am not, although a defection shot at 800m is just as possible as a non deflection shot. Probability does not = Posibilty, and don't call me Surely .

The mgff151/15 was high velocity. Even the US looked to switching to that type of gun. If all the lw needed to increase thier range then they would have kept 13mm and 15mm nose cannon. But as I quoted above range was not a consideration in choosing gun type.

[/b]
Yep, the 15mm was a good weapon, also big and heavy. Fortunately the 13mm was not very good.

Find one quote anywhere that says the US choice to keep 50cals was based on range.

[/b]
No.
Three reasons:
1. I don't feel like doing what you tell me to do.
 
2. By your statement you are implying that I stated that the 50cal was fielded solely for it's muzzle velocity. I did not .

3. It would be pretty stupid of them if range was not a consideration, if it only threw lead 3yards it wouldn't have been on aircraft then and it wouldn't be on aircraft now. Range was a basis for keeping 50cals.

Comparing a gun fired from an aircraft in combat to guns fired on the ground is irrelevant.[/b]

It is not irrelevant, all the data we have about aircraft guns was collected on the ground .

If you are saying based on a few pilot anecdotes that the effective kill range for fighters with high velocity rounds (50cal) is  800yrds or so well thats fundementally wrong. [/b]

No I am basing it on facts and data, at 800yrds the 50cal bullet is moving at 2,000-2,400fps with a dispersion diameter of roughly 10meters(wingspan of a 109).

 In rebuttal I can post far more in support of my point. [/B]

I think I know what your point is, but you haven't posted anything to support it yet.

Basically you think that pilots couldn't hit, or at least nearly impossible to hit other planes at ranges >500m or so.

And others including my self think that for the most part pilots wouldn't shoot at planes at ranges >500m.

Is there something that happens to projecties when they get 500m from the muzzle that affects their trajectory so drastically that it renders the weapon ineffectual ?

No, of course there is not.

But for your contention to be true, that shots at ranges <300m regularly scored, and shots beyond 400m will almost never score in real life, there would have to be .

[clouds]

Hey guys......did you never try some other Air combat simulator except AH ???? No ???? Then try it once before to say this is a good FM and a good gunnery model, I suggest one overall Warbirds, then you will know what's the difference.

Obviously I prefer AH at last, but this don't means I can't criticate some its TOY aspects hoping it will be more realistic like some years ago it was (or better).

I have played some months ago at the same time in Ah and Warbirds and I could say I came in AH to relax myself, this don't means I'm presuming to be one of the best, this only was how I  felt.

Have fun.

[Suave]

I think everybody here has played/plays wb .

[Kweassa]

So what am I getting at here? I think that the gunnery should be made to be more realistic without removing the penalties of being able to shoot at longer ranges.

 senna, I agree.

 That's what I'm basically suggesting here.

 Nobody is asking things to be nerfed or neutered.

 What I'm saying is that in AH, physical and numerate factors that suggest a certain possibility is modelled, and yet, other factors which also regulated them, are not.

 ....


 Suave, gunnery is a whole lot more than just 'laws of physics'... and certain factors from the DM are also interlinked with the GM.

Bounced rounds, penetrations etc is a damage model issue.
...
Hit sprites, and visual feedback of damage is a graphics issue, and I'm sure it will be improved upon also .

 It must be noted that the very characteristic of how AH does damage in the game, and the way how people can confirm it, has also a lot to do with the 'firing at long range' mentality.

 It is not itself a gunnery issue, true, but it does effect people's judgement and tendencies.  

 All along you continue to assume that we're better shots and more experienced in gunnery than the WW2 pilots - well, the truth may very well be that we show better hit rates due to factors which only exist in AH, and not in reality - hit sprites and range counters immediately come into the mind. Those are factors outside of 'laws of physics' which effects people's gunnery.

 You can't just dissect this factor from that factor, and deal with "the ONLY relevant factor", because there's no such thing. "Factors of possibility" is continuously regulated by "factors of probability" - and there's a lot more factors of probability than just experience.

[funkedup]

As far as .50 cal vs 20 mm in US aircraft, remember that the USAAF and USN had access to a 20 mm gun with better ballistics than the German stuff, namely the Hispano.  Both services considered (and used) both weapons, and if you are interested to know what the decision makers were thinking at the time, there's no reason to speculate.  Just get a copy of "The Report Of The Joint Fighter Conference" or do a search of the Aircraft & Vehicles Forum to find a lengthy discussion with excerpts from the book, in which Pyro neatly summarized the whole debate and his feelings on how it plays out in AH.