Author Topic: The Void between Machine guns and cannons.  (Read 9082 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2003, 03:08:49 AM »
Not problem with cannons overall in AH, it's a problem with Hispanos. I'd pick 6x50 cal any day over the 4xMg151's and 2x13mm in the 190 A8. 50 cal far better in AH.

Only with Hispano does the cannon become better than 50 cal in AH.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2003, 03:52:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
And.. how many people actually start firing within 300 yards distance?


When I played AH, I wondered if theres ever situations where you are firing within 300 yards, since mostly shooting had to happen at ranges 300 yards or more.
Occasionally 200-300 yards and quite rarely within 200 yards.

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2003, 04:51:02 AM »
You talking about AH or in real life?

 If its the former, I agree. Opening up inside 300 yards rarely ever happens in AH, since there's no reason to risk missing the target, overshooting the target, colliding with the target etc etc.. when you can just knock them out of the sky, five football fields away.

 If your talking about the latter, I find that strange. Annecdotes can be personal, exaggerated, misleading, etc etc and many more things, but it still can hold an inclination of truth.

* People sucked in gunnery in real life
* People needed to go in closer in real life
* Firing at long distances was difficult in real life
* Firing at long distances was ineffective in real life

 Yes we're better shots than our real-life counterparts. But would that mean that experience alone will enable us to hit something five~six times further out than it was in real life?

Offline XtrmeJ

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2614
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #48 on: August 03, 2003, 07:22:19 AM »
Well think of all the people who vulch in the F4U1C compared to those who vulch in the F4U1. Then think about what planes
"mostly" up at capped fields and bingo, do we have a winner? Sad to say vulching is the answer to your question.. Has nothing to do with superior plane =).

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2003, 10:29:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
Yes we're better shots than our real-life counterparts. But would that mean that experience alone will enable us to hit something five~six times further out than it was in real life?


As a very rough rule of thumb, typical maximum effective firing distances in RL would seem to have been around 400m against bombers, 250m against fighters flying straight and level, and 100m or less against manoeuvring targets.

Hartmann (of the 350+ claims) preferred to get within 50m before opening fire so he didn't need to bother about estimating deflection.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2003, 02:11:49 PM »
Stats for the MA are pointless in comparrison to the real war.

Most of the kills were of pilots who were green with very little flying hours. Here in AH most have flown for litterally weeks of flying time. Theres the fact that newbies gravitate toward NIks and spits etc and experts use the F4uC and other perk rides.The fact that perk planes are costly makes people fly them with more care whereas a Nik is free and losing one isnt a problem. The MA in no way reflects the real world.Theres no fear or faults with weapons and engines, no weather no sun glare etc ewtc , you could go on all day.

If anything, I think the 50cals are overly powerfull personally.6 50s in AH are as effective as almost any gun, they just need a split second longer on target. you can cut wings off with them from 500 yards no problem.If you read books written by American veterans they often talk of seeing their bullets bounce off enemy planes. In 'Combat crew' a book written by a top turret gunner and engineer of a B17 he says the 50 cals even bounced off 109's! In AH if you hit an aircraft you never see bullets bounce off, every one hits and connects.
The HE based cannons also in AH dont have the real High explosive effect and this is a real shame. For one thing the German cannon shells were impact fused which meant they exploded on the first thing they touched. There have been gun tests where they placed perspex in front of face hardened armour and they discovered the armour was never peirced because the bullets exploded on contact with the perspex and shattered it leaving the armour behind almost untouched, then when tested on the armour with no perspex in front resulted in something like 6.8mm penetration. We dont have any of this modeled and its silly imo to draw conclusions about weapons effectiveness from stats in the MA.Its just too far removed from the reality of WW2 to be a fair comparison.

If you did tests with the weapons on a stationary object like a hanger and count the number of rounds it takes to kill them off it is very close to the charts of ted williams (if you convert the numbers to a sort of percentage), what we dont have is those 'happy accident' type hits where they either cause severe damage or like the german bullets should do , cause little deep impact damage but severe surface damage. Its pretty good how it is but its hardly a perfect copy of the real world. Its just a close 'representation' at best.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #51 on: August 03, 2003, 02:57:24 PM »
<>

i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23046
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2003, 11:34:02 PM »
I did not mean that to look like I was saying the Hispano Mk II, Type 99 Model 2 and MG151/20 were parable.  I meant it to say that I consider the Type 99 Model 2 and MG151/20 parable.  I consider the Hispano better than either the Type 99 Model 2 or MG151/20.

The descriptions that I find most off in this thread are the claims like "80% of the time a single Hispano hit causes damage".

In my experience a single Hispano hit causes damage, maybe as much as 25% of the time and significant damage (not a landing gear, flap, elevator or aileron) 5-10% of the time.

Multiple strikes tend to total the target.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2003, 12:51:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
<>

i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.


It all depends on the striking angle - most of the surfaces you will see in a head-on Bf 109 are at very fine angles and a bullet would only strike a very glancing blow. Stories of those same .50s bouncing off (admittedly tougher) MiG-15s in Korea are commonplace.

Furthermore, the later versions of the Bf 109s, intended for bomber attack, carried extra armour protection specifically to defeat the .50s.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2003, 12:58:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hazed-
The HE based cannons also in AH dont have the real High explosive effect and this is a real shame. For one thing the German cannon shells were impact fused which meant they exploded on the first thing they touched. There have been gun tests where they placed perspex in front of face hardened armour and they discovered the armour was never peirced because the bullets exploded on contact with the perspex and shattered it leaving the armour behind almost untouched, then when tested on the armour with no perspex in front resulted in something like 6.8mm penetration. We dont have any of this modeled and its silly imo to draw conclusions about weapons effectiveness from stats in the MA.Its just too far removed from the reality of WW2 to be a fair comparison.


The early German fuzes were instant-action, but they developed delayed-action ones some time in 1941-2.

There is an inevitable tension in AH between the wish to represent actual plane and weapon performance as closely as possible, and an acknowledgement that they can't compare with RL. I expect that's a balance the programmers have to keep struggling with!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2003, 01:22:13 AM »
Quote
i can't even belive you posted that , 50 cal "bouncing off' thin alum sheet metal, it must have been the super secret german extra hardened alum sheet metal armor designed by tank kurt.
ya , das ist da ticket.


I've seen .30-06 rounds bounce off of water.  I have no problem believing a .50 would skip off aluminum plate.  as Tony said it's all in the angle at the time of impact

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2003, 07:47:58 AM »
Karnak, the power of the Hispanos are fine. It's the frequency of those multiple hits at far distances which bring out the illusion of the '1-hit Hispano'.

 With other cannons, you can almost count how much rounds you're hit with. Particularly with the single MG151/20 mounted on the 109s. I can count every time I've been hit with it, unless a barrage of 151/20s kill me in a split second.

 But with the Hisps, it goes either "thump - kachink(parts fell off)" or "thu-thump - kachink(parts fall off)"... or, it can even be "thump - System: You have shot down by....".. when the range was like 500~600 yards, too.

 Batz has once tested, and pointed out the "200 yard lag" is most likely exaggerated, and in most instances lag never causes FE differences more than 50~100 yards.

 This probably means, in my layman's head, Hispanos, can hit and deal destruction to your plane so fast that the damage sounds or instant death seems to clog the rest of the 'hit' sound from playing. Whatever the reason is, the sound only gives out one 'thump', when multiple shots connect.

 People begin to think a single hit has destroyed their parts off, when in truth multiple rounds hit with very short intervals.

 ...

 But really, nobody cares whether they heard a hit sound once, twice or thrice.

 The real problem is this:

 People don't complain when they get hit like that when the bogey is behind you at 100 yards. That means you sucked big time, and let the Hispano armed plane get to you that close.

 But people do start complaining in disbelief when they get hit like that out at 500~600 yards, slow but steady separation from the Hispano armed plane, and doing a slow jink left and right. The guy behind points, aims and pulls, and a sudden thud will hit you, and hit you bad.

 Now, in that sort of a situation, how in the world did that cannon land enough hits on a same spot, to cause structural failure?  From 500~600 yards away??

 No wonder people call it the Hizooka.

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #57 on: August 04, 2003, 07:58:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
People begin to think a single hit has destroyed their parts off, when in truth multiple rounds hit with very short intervals.


I never count the sounds, but the tracers. Looking at my six while a single tracer connects my plane. BTW, single sound. Most of the time the damage is radiator gone.

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #58 on: August 04, 2003, 08:00:47 AM »
ask wilbus how far out he was when he took the wing off my spit 14 in a deflection shot with .50 cals.:eek:
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline niklas

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
The Void between Machine guns and cannons.
« Reply #59 on: August 04, 2003, 08:08:07 AM »
Iīm still convinced that Hispona shells are overmoddeld for long range shots, and Mg-151 rounds probably undermodelled. But as long as i donīt know the exact velocity in AH of each shell at 100 and for example 1000 yards i canīt make an exact proof.

Furthermore,  i once tested offline to shoot at the drones from very close range, and got the feeling that hit area (especially of the wing) is larger than the structure. Maybe the hit area of the wing is modelled bigger, or the shell is bigger. In any case you could get a hit with the center of the hit flash a little bit above or below the wing. So itīs maybe a bit easier in AH to hit than it was in real life, what helps especially at longer ranges.

niklas