For Pyro AHII Gunnery

[Rapace]

I agree Michele to 100% ....
I heartily hope that Ah2 is different !!!!!

[Suave]

Originally posted by Michele
the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k,

What exactly is wrong with AH gunnery ? Could you provide some data ?

No, of course you can't .

Effective ranges of weapons in AH are shorter than they are in real life . Muzzle velocity of weapons in AH reflects that of the real life weapons, as does the projectile trajectory, as does the dispersion of fixed guns . Wind also affects trajectory. So does the air speed of the aircraft doing the shooting .

[Batz]

Effective range in regards to a2a guns means the range at which the average pilot could fire and be reasonably assured of landing hits.

Effective range doesnt mean the furthest range at which a bullet can travel and do damage.

The "effective range" of most ww2 guns was 250 - 300m.

The US and Brits (early on) chose guns (50s and 303s) that had a flat trajectory which increased hit probrability at a given range.  But a  flatter trajectory means a higher muzzle velocity which also means higher dispersion. This offsest some of the increased hit probrability.

 As Tony Williams has stated no gun was chosen because of its long range hit damage. @ 250m there was really little difference in the amount of damage  50s or 303s could do (or any round). As a matter of fact the brits stayed with the 303s even after evaluating the 50 cals. They could carry more ammo and more guns and they had a higher rate of fire. As the war progressed planes had added armor this is when the 50 proved superior to the 303. However the brits by this time had settled on the hispano.

Recoil (or gun shake) is also a factor. With the Hispano the whole gun moved with recoil. The mg/151 recoil was internal.

The US had copied the german mg151/15 and evaluted it for use in US planes. But the complicated manufacturing of the gun and the amount of work to replace all the 50s made it impractical.

Muzzle velocity of weapons in AH reflects that of the real life weapons, as does the projectile trajectory, as does the dispersion of fixed guns . Wind also affects trajectory. So does the air speed of the aircraft doing the shooting .

But you over look 1 important part. Each round contributes to the "hit points". Theres been a debate in AH on whether rounds that rely of chemical energy (mg/ffm and the type 99 mk1s) get short changed because of the lower velocity.

Both Types fired the same projectiles - it was only the cartridge case length which differed. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Oe1b.jpg
The Type 99-1 was the Oerlikon FF (20x72RB), the Type 99-2 the Oerlikon FFL (20x101RB).

The question of the effect of velocity on the damage inflicted by an HE shell is an interesting one, and not entirely clear. You have to remember that HE shells (with the partial exception of the M-Geschoss) did not damage by blast effect alone, but by a combination of kinetic and blast effects. The blast broke up the shell and sent fragments flying through the target, so the faster the shell was going when it hit, the faster the fragments would travel through the target. Also, not all HE shells had instant fuzes; in fact the most effective had delay fuzes, to give them time to smash their way into the structure; again, muzzle velocity helps here.

For a longer discussion of this subject, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
As you will see, the 20x72RB scores 12 for destructive effect, the 20x101RB scores 15. That is, however, only an estimate.

originally posted by Tony Williams in this thread

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81396

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

again from Tony in this thread

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71114

Heres an informative reply from Hohun in that same thread

Hi Hitech,

>Would also be interesting in your rate of fire table if you could put in a factor for frequency of hits (i.e. flatter traj = higher rate of hit ).

Here the shooting accuracies the Luftwaffe considered to be realistic against heavy bombers under combat conditions:

d (m) - Ph MG151/20 - Ph MK103 - Ph MK214
500 - 9.1% - 10.0% - 10.5%
1000 - 3.3% - 3.8% - 3.8%
1500 - 0.8% - 1.3% - 1.5%

The 50 mm MK214 as a large-caliber high-velocity weapon of course had a significantly flatter trajectory than the MG151/20, but that only paid off beyond effective range.

As pointed out above, flatter trajectory, i. e. higher muzzle velocity, also equalled higher dispersion, which would decrease the number of hits.

Time of flight of course is a beneficial factor, but it's value is greatest against moving targets - which means shorter effective firing ranges so the velocity advantage doesn't get to full effect.

Here's a time of flight comparison (from http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...ghlight=hispano)

d (m) - MG151/20: t (s) - 20 mm AP (2800 fps): t (s)
100 - 0.13 - 0.12
200 - 0.29
300 - 0.47 - 0.42
400 - 0.69
500 - 0.94 - 0.73

In practice, this works out to these limiting target speeds for each type of gun for a 90° crossing shot, based on the assumption that the sight from each cockpit is 100 mil below the sight line (as in the P-51D).

d (m) - MG151/20: v (km/h) - 20 mm AP M75: v (km/h) - Hispano advantage (%)

100 - 277 - 277 - 0%
300 - 230 - 245 - 7%
500 - 191 - 228 - 19%

(From http://www.hitechcreations.com/foru...ghlight=hispano)

I'd say that any weighting of the results from Tony's tables according to assumptions about the hit probability would distort the results. The reason is that finally it's up to the pilot to choose his combat tactics according to the capabilities of his weapon.

Implying certain accuracies means implying certain tactics - which impedes the value of the weapon comparison as a tool for unbiased analysis.

(The most important tactical difference I'm thinking of is tracking shot versus snap shot.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

So I dont think anyone can say that theres no chance of getting hits at longer ranges (600+). But in AH if you have a 50 or hisso armed aircraft out to d1.2k its inevitable that the spray and pray will follow.

The problem folks associate with ah gunnery may not be ballistic problems but  factor in highly visible hit sprites, limited DM, hours of practice,  accurate range info, and ammo counters it all contributes to a less the "real" gunnery model.

Also the angle impact doesnt seem to be reflected in ah gunnery. Any hit adds to the hit points. In real life so round glanced off or just made a whole in the skin.

[Siaf__csf]

I'm pretty sure the biggest difference in gunnery (AH - IL) is the hit sprites.

AH flashes make it extremely easy to determine when you're hitting or not and adjusting your fire accordingly..

IL2 forces the pilots to go really close if they want visual confirmation of the hits. It's possible to hit at longer ranges - but you won't know if you did unless something actually explodes. That way you can spray all your ammo without knowing if any of them hit or not. Something that will never happen in AH.

The difference is like shooting eyes open or blindfolded. The latter was closer to reality as real life pilots (even the aces with thousands of combat hours) witness.

[Suave]

I know what effective range on point targets means.

Low velocity HE rounds should do less KE damage than higher velocity HE rounds .

As far as impact angle affecting damage, that's really a damage model issue .

And the hit sprites is a graphics issue .

Fixing the gunnery model and improving the gunnery model are two different things. The, "I hope the arcade/laser-like gunnery model gets fixed in AH2" whine is straight out of mandoland .

[Kweassa]

"Fixing the gunnery model and improving the gunnery model are two different things. The, 'I hope the arcade/laser-like gunnery model gets fixed in AH2' whine is straight out of mandoland."

 Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.

 Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.

 People can argue all they want... but as long as there's another game which came up with a gunnery model far more coherent with actual history, without 'nerfing' or 'neutering' anything, and using the same kind of data available for research...

 Well, no more excuses for AH.

[Batz]

Higher velocity just means a "cleaner whole" unless some other component is hit like a wing spar. Most "armor" on ww2  aircraft was under 6 mm.  Rate of fire causes more damage then just high velocity. At 250m the chemical energy of an HE and even more so of M'geschoss has a greater potential to cause serious damage. At this range velocity is less of an issue.

The question thats brought up is the effect of velocity alone on damage in relation to he and mine rounds. At 250m there may be variation in velocity between gun types but at that range it hardly matters. At these ranges higher velocity guns allow for better deflection shooting because the bullet will travel the distance between the 2 aircraft faster.

Gunnery "modelling" is not just ballistics. Its all those things I mentioned from hit sprites to hit points. Regardlees of how accurate or not the ballistics are the gunnery in AH isnt an accurrate representation of gunnery in the real world.

The percieved "unreal" advantage of 50 cal and hissos in ah is the range that they are able to get hits. Thats where the "laser gunnery" is brought up. At 250m its a simple matter of point and click. One thing I noticed from the .target command is that dispersion doesnt change between a short burst or long burst. So the the spray and prayer suffers nothing by holding his trigger down and hosing the sky. Range is only an issue, thus "laser gunnery", because of:


easily identifiable hit sprites
accurrate range counter
ammo counters

All these issues are linked.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Michele

  ...the starwars-like FM of spitfires or n1k,

I was wondering when this would show up in this thread.


Ack-Ack

[Suave]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.

 Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.

 People can argue all they want... but as long as there's another game which came up with a gunnery model far more coherent with actual history, without 'nerfing' or 'neutering' anything, and using the same kind of data available for research...

 Well, no more excuses for AH.

Yes I know, all bullets should just dissappear of have little or no KE after 500yards, just like real life  Your opinion that critical shots beyond 500yards is unrealistic is wrong . The only way to make 500meter critical shots go away would be to ignore factual data and "nerf" gunnery .

 Any game that makes 500+ shots ineffectual is in fact "nerfing" their gunnery. If you think anectdotal pilot testimony is more important than the laws of physics, then AH is not the game for you .


Batz, Using the .target command you can see that dispersion does change, the longer the burst, the more disperse the pattern is, this is most clearly demonstrated using the ns37mm of the yak9t.

Without considering barrel temp., after 3 rounds dispersion of a fixed mg isn't going to get anyworse. So if you are arguing that dispersion of a 150 round burst should be much larger than a 20 round burst that is not correct .

And at 250m the variation in velocity of 20mm HE shells does matter. It affects how far the cone of shrapnel penetrates .

[Suave]

Originally posted by Batz

The percieved "unreal" advantage of 50 cal and hissos in ah is the range that they are able to get hits. Thats where the "laser gunnery" is brought up.

Yep, that statement sums it up nicely. Like anything in this game, if it doesn't match some peoples preconcieved notions, it must be wrong, and a "lazer hizzooka, ufo niki fm" whine is initiated .

[Suave]

Also note how the location of the guns on an aircraft in AH in relation to the vector of thrust affects recoil.

In other words, recoil from cowl guns pushes the nose up, while recoil from wing mounted guns pushes the nose down .

[Kweassa]

"Your opinion that critical shots beyond 500yards is unrealistic is wrong . The only way to make 500meter critical shots go away would be to ignore factual data and 'nerf' gunnery . "

 No that's not my opinion. It may be someone else's though.

 The answer is right above in Batz's post:

"easily identifiable hit sprites
 accurrate range counter
 ammo counters "

 Take these away - what have we got to lose?

(Maybe except pissing off people using planes which have advantages which it never should have had in the first place?)

...

"Any game that makes 500+ shots ineffectual is in fact "nerfing" their gunnery. If you think anectdotal pilot testimony is more important than the laws of physics, then AH is not the game for you."

 Where do you draw the line between 'anecdotal pilot testimony' and 'historical fact'? Frankly, I don't think even you'll go as far as to dispute the fact that long range(anything over 400 meters) shots were almost totally ineffective.

 Laws of physics is only a part of the whole picture. Despite the "physics", the 'real thing' never worked that way - people just couldn't, and/or wouldn't attempt to fire over certain distances due to various factors.

 So the question is, why choose to use only the 'physics' part, and ignore the other factors? Would an attempt to introduce as much of those factors as possible be 'nerfing' it?

 I don't think so.

 ...

 So many factors are either missing, or warped(on the grounds that it was 'necessary for gameplay') in AH.

 Up to a certain point, that was forgiveable, because still, AH was the best in every way. Other contendors were waning, and AH could boast that it provided the one and only 'realistic air combat experience using WW2 machinery'.

 Now, after some years have passed since AH surfaced, other companies are coming up with air combat sim games which include the very subtle factors which AH chose to ignore on the grounds that "it's just a game". Turbulence, kinetic factors, bullet penetrations and bounced rounds, range of explosive effects for HE shells, 'quality' of hits, differences between the damage done by tracer rounds and normal rounds, accurate ammo counters, realistic hit sprites.. you name it. Oh, and they didn't aritficially 'nerf' anything, either.

 As long as AH attempts to create a game based on a certain historical past, people asking for a better job on 'simulating' the airframes and battles, is IMO only logical. Us AH fans can't use the same excuses over and over again, lying to ourselves.

[Suave]

The choice of believing personal testimony over the physical laws of nature is a matter of free will, after all sanity is relative.

Facts are facts, that pilots of fighters with long range guns would wait untill they were very close to pull the trigger does not mean that medium range(500m) shots were ineffectual . It was pretty much standard doctrine in wwII and wwI to get as close as you can before shooting. Pilots and gunners who made it a practice to fire at targets 500yards or greater did so with good results. That's what machine guns are made to do . Case in point, the Korean War .

"You pull the trigger which produces a kilometer long stream of lead that you then manipulate with the control yoke to cross with your target, and that's that ."

Bounced rounds, penetrations etc is a damage model issue. Would be nice if the damage model was more elaborate and I'm confident that it will be.

Untill computer monitors can compare to binocular vision in a 3d enviornment we cannot do without range counters.

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

The trajectories and dispersion and range are modeled realisticly. Bottom line, if your plane occupies the same space as a stream of bullets it should take damage .

[Suave]

Originally posted by Kweassa
Be it 'improved' or 'fixed', the 500+ yards critical shots are going to have to go away sometime, sooner or later.

 Ain't nothing's gonna change that fact.

 

No, it's not a fact, it's an opinion .

[Batz]

Theres a whole host of data that I can reference that offer what the "effective range" is for the average pilot in ww2 was. In particular german data that accounts for hit %, firing range and amount hits per kill. Even flying lw planes in AH I (with my average gunnery) get "better" results.

That's what machine guns are made to do

As I said above and Quoted Tony Williams range was not a factor in determing what gun loadout should be on fighters. 50s werent chosen because of range nor was any other gun.

It was pretty much standard doctrine in wwII and wwI to get as close as you can before shooting.

They got in close because it was at those ranges where they could reasonably expect to land hits.  The "doctrine" didnt dictate the range. Effective range determined the doctrine. Using jets as a comparison to ww2 prop fighter is misleading. Jets could "open" fire at longer ranges because of the speed of closure. Lw pilots would open fire at longer ranges when attacking bombers because of the size of target and closure. Plus at the eand of ww2 and into Korea Lead computing sites were developed.

I agree that pilot anecdotes alone are nothing you can model a sim on. But pilots could determine range on their Revi by adjusting the "ring" to match the wing span of a particular plane at a given range. Even with Hissos in the spifire the RaF wanted a convergence of 200m.

Pilots and gunners who made it a practice to fire at targets 500yards or greater did so with good results.

The only evidence of longer range gunnery are pilot anecdotes. So you cant really have both ways. Some speculate that ww2 pilots underestimated the range at which they opened fire (planes were actually further away). However they could of just as easily overestimated the range. But either way I would guess not more the 50-100meters. Any more then that seems improbrable.

Yep, that statement sums it up nicely. Like anything in this game, if it doesn't match some peoples preconcieved notions, it must be wrong, and a "lazer hizzooka, ufo niki fm" whine is initiated .

Exactly, some over state the "problem". While I have seen films in AH of kills in excess of 800m and they are rare. But whats less rare in imho is those kills in the 500m - 800m range (not bomber guns).

This is where the spray and pray is seen. Folks holding their trigger down and hosing the sky.

There is dispersion in AH, any one can test that. But it is constent even if one holds down the trigger. Recoil and "gun vibrations" are there but (with the exception of the hurri IId) the effect is minimal.

Theres room for improvement in AH gunnery. Gunnery is more then just ballistics. If we all agree (from the info HT has offerred on the board in the past I certainly agree) that ballistics are modelled correctly then theres only a few tweaks that imho would make ah "gunnery" better.

1. Better Hit sprites (thats a given). In particular the type of sprite of HMG and rifle calibre rounds. All HE and Mine rounds should give the visual effect of the blast.

2. No ammo counters in planes that didnt have them (this allows the spray and prayer be fully aware of the number of rounds hes used and how much he can spray)

3. An icon system that replaces exact ranges to something like wwporkonline. Where the icon fades in as you close. This would give us closure rate. As a part of that allow the revi "ring" to be adjusted and matched to our convergence. This may mean standard historical Revis for each plane but I use historic sites anyway.

So if I am in a 109 I can set my convergence to match the wing span of say a spit at 250m or a p51 at 250m then the diameter of the ring in the revi matches that.

4. Re-examine the effects of dispersion and recoil. Especially in regards to prolonged bursts.

It not not just a matter of real life physics being nerfed to match real life effects. So may want that but theres plenty around the edges that can be tweaked that could help improve "gunnery" overall.

But then again some folks like it as is.

fyi I am not sure who said laser "nik guns" but the type 99 mkIIs with thier lo rof are anything but laser. They drop well over range.