Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Wanker on March 31, 2000, 09:29:00 AM
-
Spent the night in a Pony yesterday, and to me the damage done by the .50's seemed spot on. I couldn't just take a snap-shot to kill, I had to actually pour a couple seconds worth of ammo into a con for it to lose enough parts to kill it. It reminded me of the gun camera footage I've seen from Mustangs.
The cannons on the other planes seem a wee bit strong right now, though. But I think we're close to being able to call it "right".
Agree or disagree?
------------------
banana
308 (Polish) Squadron RAF "City of Cracow"
"On the whole, it is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them"
-
Is this a troll banana?? This subject is possibly the most controversial on this BBS. Expect some flames with this one. God bless you and good luck; Sir. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As to the subject.. I disagree. 2000 + sorties in P51D to date. These guns are undermodeled; and inefective in snapshot situations.
But then; you knew that. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
-
Disagree, But I've said my piece.
Hell, next tour I will just fly the cannon birds like everyone else. Its not worth the effort of trying to get the .50s competitive.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Hang:
Once again, though, we come to the question of whether the discussion is over the ballistics or the damage model.
I think there should be a clear distinction here.
So, before this latest fish fry starts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) , let's all try to remember that.
Ballistics is relatively easy physics. I think HT and Pyro HAVE the necessary ballistic data and programs.
Damage is more subjective. All I'm going to say is "go for realism". Any of these weapons, applied properly, are devestating to aluminum airframes.
<sits back, drags cooler over to act as armrest, pops umbrella for shade, opens beer>
-
Hehe, well actually Hang, I didn't intend it to be a troll, but it may sound like one. I seriously thought that the guns were effective. It could be that my past experience in Warbirds is coloring my opinion.
Or it could be that I'm subconsciously trying to get everyone to accept the gunnery with just a few tweaks, so we can move onto strat discussions. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
When I first started flying AH I kept thinking "Yer kidding me, these guns damage like howitzer shells". And I still think the cannons do perform like that. But the 50's feel right to me. I know nothing about physics, and I wasn't alive during WW2, so it's just one dweeb's opinion.
To be honest, I had more kills last night in a Pony than I ever get in a night's worth of being a Spit Dweeb.
------------------
banana
308 (Polish) Squadron RAF "City of Cracow"
"On the whole, it is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them"
-
I have been flying the P-51D for about 1 week vrs the (shudder) F4U-1C i flew the week before.
At first i thought oh these .50s are pathetic. Oops, my mistake it was my gunnery that was pathetic.
Any time i took the snapshot or a low percentage shot,i was left with a feeling of definite underpowered guns.
But when i had a good firing solution the .50s were devestating.
Further film review revealed to me that the key is concentration of fire in a single area.
Having your convergence set properly helps.
3 memorable sorties(not vulches) i had last night were 4 kills 2 assists, 5 kills , 3kills 2 of which were B17s!which I concentrated fire on the tail section where the tail meets the fusulage.Quite effective really but dangerous. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Since i have flown the P-51D i have had many 3+ kill sorties in tough gun shooting turning situations.
But snap shots are another matter eg.i filled a 109 full of lead on 3 high G snap shots with no damage to the 109 at all that i could visualize. Not the first time that has happened when i took low percentage shots
Now in terms of "realism" the kills i had attained on those 3 sorties, any pilot would be happy with.
Does any one know what the single sortie kill record is for a P-51 in WW2? (5)?
In version 1.02 the tweaking of ballistics might make a difference in the .50 cal during snap shots.
However untill i see a change from that i still believe my gunnery is to blame and not the guns.
The Ponys a pretty good ride the guns are adequate,its the arguement that might be overmodeled (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------
Some of my best Flying
is done AFK
-
Imagine an f4u-1c with the speed of a p51. I dont think any of us want a one plane sim.
BTW. In reading comments, from the htc guys, about ver 1.02. I see the word bullit mentioned, in talking about drop, but not cannon. With the flat trjectory the P51 already has this improvement should help.
-
I believe the single mission record for a p51 pilot in WW2 was 6 Baddwag, but don't quote me on it.
As far as the damage on the .50s I've felt for a while now that it's just about right on. I think it might take a little more effort to set up the shot and maybe a little more skill to concentrate that fire on the bad guys but if you can set up a tracking shot those 6 .50's on the P51 can saw someone in two in short order.
(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kalger/sig.gif)
------------------
"Sorry can't talk now, gotta shoot."
-Bud Anderson
[This message has been edited by Soulyss (edited 03-31-2000).]
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/ammo.gif)
Visual Aid. Left to right: .30-06 US, .303 British, 12.7mm Russian, .50 Cal US, 13mm MG 131, 15mm MG 151, 20mm MG 151/20, 20mm Hispano, 23mm VYa, 30mm MK 108, 30mm MK 103, 37mm BK 37.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
LOL!! Actually I have a very similar display sitting on my desk at work.
5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x56mm (.308), .50 cal, 20mm, 40mm AAA shell.
Thank heavens most of my co-workers are gun people, or I could get in "political correctness" trouble.
But then again I live in a where owning weapons is a way of life.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
I think it has more to do with the way damage is calculated then anything else. In the sim I believe the damage is calculated with ‘hit points’ in some way. It takes X amount of ‘hit points’ to make damage show up on a component. A single cannon shell has the ‘hit points’ do damage, but it would in most cases take multiple hits from the .50s on the same component to make any damage show. With moving targets, conversion and the dispersion modeled in the ballistics, it would take a lot of hits on a plane to get enough ‘hit points’ into one component and get it over the damage limit.
The fix for this might be to let every round do damage, just not the same amount (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). Make damage accumulative so that every component can have 0-100% damage and even a .303 round would add a bit of drag to a wing or make the elevator a bit less effective for example. That way we would see damage, even if it is not catastrophic.
Thoughts?
-Jinx
------------------
(http://www.algonet.se/~hk/jinxf4u.jpg)
www.flyingpigs.com (http://www.flyingpigs.com)
[This message has been edited by Jinx (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
I have heard that you can buy the 37mm BK 37.
Its available at your local Love Shop.
hahaha i couldnt help myself. But you wont find it in the visual aid section .
Roflmao (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
ps thanks Pyro
-
The Luftwaffles should have a look at the MG 151 round next to the Hispano round. Should answer their questions right there. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hmmmmmmmmm.... ballistics or damage model.
Damn good question. As far as 'ballistics'... no problem there; best I've ever seen. As others have noted; low AOT tracking shots with some time on the target produce the desired results.
Put those .50's into a snap shot situation and yah get nada... zip, uhgats.
Tie that to the damage mapping; and observation data from hitting targets at low AOT with time on target and we may have our culprit... the damage model as noted in the posts above.
The results are... the EFFECT of the .50's are undermodeled. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Full circle??
Hang
-
Lifted from other thread/
<SNIP>
Mg151/15 (15mm)
ROF: 700 rpm Muzzle vel: 2800 fps.
RW: 57 grams
<SNIP>
And some data I found on the 109f3
Bf.109F-3
Dimensions: Span 32 ft 6.5 in.; Length 29 ft 0.5 in.; Height 8 ft. 6 in.; Wing Area 174 sq ft.
Powerplant Daimler-Benz DB 601E, twelve cylinder inverted-Vee liquid cooled engine of 1,300 h.p.
Armament One 15 mm MG 151 cannon mounted between engine cylinder banks and firing through propellor spinner, with 200 rounds per gun. Two 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns mounted in a light alloy cradle on top of engine and firing through blast troughs in upper cowling with 500 rounds per gun.
Weights Empty 4,300 lbs, loaded 6,054 lbs.
Performance Maximum speed 390 mph at 22,000 ft. Cruising speed, 310 mph at 16,500 ft. Maximum climb rate 3,320 ft./min. at 5,000 ft. Service ceiling 37,000 ft. Normal range 440 miles, endurance 1 hr. 24 mins.
Was the MG 151/15 ever used in the 109f4? This looks like an excellent weapon for fighter vs fighter in the arena. I would gladly trade the extra punch of the 20mm for the higher muzzle velocity of the 15 mm cannon. If it was used in the 109f4 could it be added as a loadout option Pyro?
-
The F-4 didn't use the MG 151, that was used in the F-2. Maybe we'll do a F-1/F-2 at some point, but they use a less powerful engine than the F-4.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
Dont worry Pyro.
From the fact that the exact same dicussion goes on at the other flight sim forum, you guys will never be able to please the masses so just do your best and leave it there.
You make it more powerful, one half will complain, you reduce it and you upset the other half. None of them have any experience on what it actually is, only what they think it would have been like. And they cant all be right, so maybe theyre all wrong and you are right.
Even interviews with experienced WW2 combat pilots conflict. Im sure the guy who says his 50 cal shots didnt do much damage on that 109 isnt going to admit that most of them missed their target. And the pilot who claims he took a wing off that FW190 with his 20mm couldnt believe his luck that day.
I dont fly AH since it went pay for play (cant afford the monthly cost in Australian dollars) but I liked what I flew in the beta test period and I feel for your position in trying to make it right. Some want realism (at least to match what they believe is real), others want fun and a fast kill, even more believe you should be able to have both.
Once people get used to one setting, any changes you make will upset them, while pleasing another group.
My advice?? Do the mathematics (as I know you have), run your tests, and leave it alone. You'll NEVER please them all so dont try.
------------------
aussie
Phoenix Squadron
-----
Any ship can be a minesweeper... once.
-
Actually it is very simple. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Give up on the idea of flying a plane you like just for the sake of flying that particular plane.
If you want to be more immediately successful, learn to fly a plane with cannon. Cannon give you snapshot kill abilities, 50cals do not. This not a hard concept once grasped.
It still amazes me the value the US had in the 50cal, but I guess that was real and this is a game. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Good Luck! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
-
It still amazes me the value the US had in the 50cal, but I guess that was real and this is a game.
-------------------------
It was, still is, and always will be one of the greatest military cartridges of all times and it was plenty adequate for WWII aerial combat. However, that doesn't mean it was the most effective weapon available. I see arguments about weapons come up a lot that go something like "if this other weapon was better, then why wasn't it used instead or sooner?" It's not that simple. Weapons weren't chosen simply based on how destructive they were, there are many other factors involved. The War Dept. came under heavy criticism at the end of WWII over their reluctance to put into service a heavy tank until it was too late to make much difference. That's an interesting story in itself but it just goes to show that that argument doesn't hold up. There are bureaucracies involved and differing opinions on the matters.
In terms of power, the .30-06 is greater than the .308 which is greater than the .223. Yet our small arms have gone away from the heavier cartridges and for good reason.
Back to the subject of the .50. Here was a fine weapon which had been in production since 1921. But even before WWII started, the need for heavier armament was seen. A request for a 20mm weapon was issued in 1936 after some tests were conducted at Aberdeen. Unfortunately, through the 30s, hardly any money was available to ordnance research and this didn't appreciably pick up until 1939 when it more than quadrupled over the previous year as the clouds of war started to loom in a big way. In 1937 work was begun on the design of a domestically produced .90 caliber(about 23mm) weapon. This project was canceled as it became apparent that it would take too long and attention was turned towards weapons of foreign design. The same month that the .90 cal project was started, a promising report describing the Hispano-Suiza 404 came in and one was ordered for testing. While waiting for the new weapon to come in, tests were performed at Aberdeen on a 23mm Madsen, 20mm Rheinmetall, 20mm Oerlikon, and an earlier version of a 20mm Hispano. After extensive tests, the Hispano 404 won out and in 1939, more examples were ordered and negotiations over manufacturing rights were entered with the French. In May 1940, the weapon was approved as the 20mm M1. However, French drawings were in metric and had to be converted and some minor dimension changes were adapted. This would take a further 9 months and this weapon would be become the M2 or AN-M2.
Now examine that time line. 4 years just to adopt this weapon and that doesn't even consider getting sufficient numbers manufactured along with ammunition and the engineering problems faced by aircraft designers because of the increased size, weight, recoil, installation, etc. All these logistical and engineering factors are very important. If the .50 was totally inadequate, it would have been an easy decision to weigh but that was not the case.
At the Joint Fighter Conference in October 1944, Commander Monroe of the USN Ordnance branch reported the following:
"As it is now, we have the 50-cal. gun which has reached its peak. The only improvements will be minor.(Pyro's note: he was wrong about this as the M3 .50 later increased rate of fire by 50%) The only good increase is to increase the number of guns. So it seems to be just about the right time to look for a better weapon. There are two possibilities here- the one we have and the one we might get shortly. The one we have is a 20mm gun. I think very highly of it. It is a fact, it is one we have here, and it is one in hand. It won't do what the 60 will do, but we haven't got the 60, and we won't have it for a year. So we are gradually working into all our aircraft the 20mm gun. To give you some idea of the 50 versus the 20 and dispel a lot of ideas that have bothered us, I would like to give you a comparison. When somebody goes from four 50's to two 20's, to the layman that means a decrease in firepower. Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers. In the actual rate of fire delivered at the target, one 20 equals three 50's; in kinetic energy at 500 yards, one 20 equals two and one-half 50's.
"That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judged by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have the much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal will go through only .43. In addition to that you have one more great advantage- that is, you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up their barrels and ruining their guns on one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over. They will come down with screaming barrels and get trigger-happy, and then all the barrels are gone in one flight. It should not happen in a 20-mm. (Pyro's note: AAF pilot instructions allow a much longer burst of fire from .50s than from 20mm's) Of course, you have disadvantages. You have a heavier installation, one-half as much ammunition for the same weight. Our standard ammunition in the Navy is 400 rounds in one gun. The Fleet has set up 30 seconds of fire as a minimum requirement for the .50 cal gun. We can't do that with the 20, so we give them 200 rounds. The 20 is lethal enough to get far more results out of that 200 rounds than the .50 will ever do in 400 rounds.
"With the 20 you are putting out a new weapon. Fortunately, we are over the headaches to a great extent in the Navy. The SB2C has led the way with the 20mm. We had an awful lot of headaches getting the new ammunition, the new lengths, etc., and getting the ordnance men to learn how to use the gun and get around the temperamental characteristics. We are over that now, and the majority opinion is very enthusiastic about the 20mm gun. We have at the present time 200 Corsairs going out, at the rate of 50 a month, which will go into action as soon as we can get them aboard the carriers to get an evaluation of the 20mm gun in the Navy fighter. I am personally very anxious for the first report on that, and I think the first time they open up on a Jap fighter, it's going to fly into a million pieces. We have a great cry for the 20mm gun.
"Another disadvantage of the 20 is the time of flight. Out to 500 yards you've got three-quarters of a second as agasint a .62 for the 50. These airplanes go 450 to 500 feet per second, and in one-tenth of a second 35 to 40 feet.
"It also hurts when you try to mix the batteries. I am personally very much against mixed batteries, with teh guns at the present ranges. If the Mark 23 sight does what we want it to do, it is going to push the hitting range out so far that the 50 cal will get to the target a helluva lot ahead of the 20. If our fire control that is coming is as good as we think it is, it is very unwise to mix the batteries. For present battle ranges it is perfectly all right. Of course the Navy is fighting in the Pacific. We have a rather inferior bunch of enemy airplanes. The Japs have played ball with us very nicely all during the war so far and they have refused to improve their armament or their planes as fast as we could expect them to. I have a WAVE in my office who keeps a chart on all Japanese aircraft trying to figure out what the trend is and it is very definitely towards larger armament, heavier guns, more guns and leak proofing and much better performance airplanes. In view of that, it behooves us to get in ahead of them. I feel it is much better to put the 20mm in now, although the 50's are doing a perfectly acceptable job and we could probably finish the war with them. It doesn't make the pilots feel very good to be shooting 50's when the enemy is shooting 20mms, however. Their 20mm is a somewhat inferior weapon, of course. We've got hold now of an experiemental Jap fighter. It has four 20's and two 30-caliber guns. The guns in that airplane are of German design copied by the Japs and they are pretty good guns. They're worth anybody's respect and it is not going to be any fun to come up against an airplane like that with inferior armament.
"We're finding all the time 20mm guns, 37mm and 50 calibers in increasing numbers, in Jap aircraft. I don't know why the Japs stick to the 30 caliber. It is a completely ineffective weapon particularly the way they use it. It might be all right in the fighter if you had 16 of them and got right on somebody else's tail. You might saw them apart. The day of the 30 has long since passed. The Japs stick to it and it's fine from our point of view. In the Fleet we have the SB2C which originally came out with a single .50 turret. Due to the marginal performance, they took the turret out and put twi 30 cal guns in its place. That was a very fine solution as far as the Fleet was concerned. They were delighted with it and have continued to be so. The same comparison holds true for the 30's and 50's as has held for the 50's and 20's. Two 30's are approximately 1/3 to 1/2 as effective as one 50. The two hand-held 30's can't compare to the effectiveness of the power turret, as far as getting on the target and holding your aim and following your enemy around. The Japs are very easily frightened off by those two streams of 30 caliber tracers going out there. The boys are able to scare most Jap pilots by hosing a stream of bullets out there in their general direction. However, it is my firm belief that if the Jap pilot would get over his awe of those tracers and just plow right in, he would have no trouble at all taking the SB2C any time he wanted to with his 20mm guns."
Later in the discussion, Commander Munroe said the following:
"I wonderif somebody in the Army could explain why the Army is not interested in the 20mm gun. They developed it but apparently have no requirements for it while the Navy feels quite differently about the gun. We are going to it in a large way, I trust, in that we are putting it in the Fleet to let them try it out. I personally have a tremendous amount of confidence in the gun and believe the requirements will be very great. Anybody in the Army who can speak on that?"
Colonel Coats from Eglin Field responded:
"I'll try to answer that in this way. I believe the feeling in the Army generally is that we would like to have a lethal density pattern. The most bullets going across one place at a given instance. We would like to have the smallest caliber gun that can do the job. If it takes a 22mm to tear a Messerschmitt or a Mitsubishi apart, we want 20's, but as long as a 50 will do the job we feel that if we can carry a greater number of guns and a greater amount of ammunition with the same weight, with an equal or greater firepower, that is the gun we want. If you are strafing an airdrome you can put out more bullets. A Jap doesn't care whether he gets killed by 20 mm's or a 50 caliber. We can put out more bullets and we have more weight covering the same area. Another thing that comes into this matter of sighting is the training of the personnel. When wew get sights to the point where we can pull the trigger just once and hit a fellow, then we can go to the bigger calibers. It is a matter of training of pilots. The Mark 14, the gyro sight, we found didn't increse our accuracy for our control gunner to any great extent. However, it did bring the people in the middle and lower brackets up as much as 5 or 6 times better than they had shot before. I think we in the aircraft game should be worrying about the people in the middle third or the bottom half, that we have to make better sights, better cockpit arrangements, easier planes to fly for those people. We don't need to worry about our top shot or our best pilot. he can get along in any kind of a rig. That is the reason- we feel we can get a bigger density pattern.
"I would also like to point out, I won't go into an argument with 20's versus 50's, but I thik a lot of it has to do with the arrangements in the plane. For instance, in a P-47 or F4U, you have all the guns in the wings. Of necessity you must cross the fire pattern at some fixed distance from the plane. With all your guns over one fixed point at a given number of yards, you have a great X forming out there. At 600 you are wasting a great amount of your bullets. If you close up on a fellow to 200 yards, you are also wasting bullets. In the F7F or the P-38 you can put all your guns in the nose; firing parallel streams of lead, your bullets all going out forming a lethal density pattern as far as the bullets go. In an installation like that you could possibly be better off firing four 20's than you would be firing six 50's. In the P-47 with four guns in each wing, we recommend that they cross the first two guns at 250 yards, the next at 350, at 450 and 550. That gives you a density pattern in depth as well as width for about 200 yards, which in turn gives the mediocre pilot a better opportunity to hit an airplane in flight."
The British went through these same problems but it wasn't as big of a dilemma for them as they were looking at the difference between .30 cal to 20mm. Even so it caused controversy between the different schools of thought that didn't end until the 20mm proved itself well in combat. This wasn't helped because of the bugs that had to be worked out from the problematic first installation of 20mm's in the Spitfire IB. Group Captain Kent wrote the following about the change in firepower that came with the cannon armed Spitfire:
"It was not very long after we received these aircraft that one of our flights was scrambled after a small force of 109s. The Flight Commander, 'Pancho' Villa, got to within 300 yards of one of the Germans and opened fire with his machine guns. Although he could see a number of strikes on the enemy aircraft, his fire was having no visible effect. He then remembered his cannons and, slipping his thumb onto the cannon button, gave a very short burst and was more than a little startled, as was everybody else, when the 109 exploded. As he described it, it looked like an anti-aircraft shell bursting and there was nothing left but a cloud of black smoke and tiny pieces tumblimg to the ground."
A few months later, he had the following encounter:
"I attacked and opened fire at about 100 yards (Group Captain Kent records); it was the first time I had fired cannons for three or four months and I was not prepared for the vibration and loud thud-thud-thud as I pressed the gun button. I quickly let go as if I had been stung! I do not know how many shells I fired, it could not have been many, but it was enough - there was a brilliant flash on the starboard wing root of the 109 and the whole wing came off. The rest of the aircraft hurtled down twisting madly round and around giving the pilot no chance to escape even if he had still been alive, which I rather doubt...
"Not wishing to expose myself unduly to the attentions of the flak gunners on the coast I came down very low and slipped over the seashore at Gravelines. Just crossing my path was a small convoy so I put a burst into the stern of one of the ships which started a fire. On my return to Northold I discovered that I had only fired sixteen rounds out of each cannon - I had not used my machine guns - and I became more convinced than ever of the validity of my argument as to the cannon's effectiveness."
This post is way too long and I should be working on something else. Some improvements in damage and the weapons modeling will be made, but if anybody is thinking that the difference between .50s and 20mm's isn't that big, I guess we're at an impasse. Anyway, I hope some of you found this interesting. I have a tremendous reference library on all this stuff, more than I could ever cite here, but I think those passages are interesting if you haven't read them before. Perhaps it'll give some insights into the differences between what works best overall in the real world versus the game world.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
Fantastic stuff Pyro
Could you possibly give a Bibliography of some of your reference material. So all of us who are interested can read up on stuff pertainingto this, and other matters at our leisure?
[This message has been edited by Baddawg (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
Wow.
Thanks Pyro for your time...
Im flying to texas to read for a week. Ill bring the beer.
But.
The 51 started out rigged for Hispanos. There was a P51B that flew with them.
They had 50s because they wanted them. The US services in WW2 where very doctrin orientated. There are some increadable success stories because of this, the Gato class subs are an example. Some increadable fiascos, The M4 75mm comes to mind. Some that where much more hard to call. The 50cal falls in this catagory. Fighting accross the globe in such increadably different enviroments, against such increadably different enemies the safe bet was probably the best.
For our furball use though give me a fast firing hard hitting cannon any day.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Thanks Pyro, above and beyond the call of duty.
Feel free to quote from your library any time.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Aside to Pongo:
The RAF orded 150 Mustang Mk. IA (North American designation NA-91) which four Hispanos in the wings. 93 of these were delivered to the RAF starting in mid-1942 .
The USAAF received the other 57 NA-91's and these were designated P-51 with no sub-type letter. The USAAF NA-91's had the Hispanos replaced by Browning M2 0.50's.
-
Somehow I like the second one from the right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
What will be the first plane to have MK 103 in AH ?
Also, is MG 131 modeled as HE (the pic should suggest that, right ) ?
-
Pyro;
Thanks for taking the time to post up! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
BTW that is about the way it happens in AH. One 2x20mm cannon burst and they fall down.
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
-
Awesome Pyro. I'm saving this post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and I hope it puts these arguments/complaints to bed. Or at least get more of the participants to have a better perspective on the issue.
I know I have and I wasn't even bothered with the guns here.
-Westy
-
go get em pyro!
hehe
I downloaded all that guncam footage someone posted last week on the p38s,
if I could make my monitor black and white I would be certain I was watching actual guncam footage when replaying AH footage.
one trick I really like when watching AH guncam footage is to slow it down the way they slowed down the real black n white guncam footage!
its scary how real it looks. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
as for damage:
your the expert Pyro I trust your judgement, it looks accurate in the comparisons between actual and AH guncams (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Not to say I wouldnt love to have 5 deathray blasters in the nose of my 38 but this thought only lasts a mere second then I go on happily blasting away with my 4 accurate 50's and 20mm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Citabria (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
Roger that Westy, I feel the same way!
Thanks Pyro
-
Outstanding Pyro. Greatly appreciated.
Sheds insight onto why the .50's remained the USAAF's mainstay, from a material as well as tactical standpoint.
Regarding the 'lethality' of our poor .50's...
..""I'll try to answer that in this way. I believe the feeling in the Army generally is that we would like to have a lethal density pattern. The most bullets going across one place at a given instance.".. (Col. Coates)
Pretty much the way I feel about it. The problem as I see it does not devolve around gun ballistics modeling... in AH it is certianly superb. It's the lack of a lethal density to the pattern that is.
..". A Jap doesn't care whether he gets killed by 20 mm's or a 50 caliber. We can put out more bullets and we have more weight covering the same area.".. (Col. Coates)
Yup. Possibly a point in the .50's favor... but not emulated with the AH damage or scoring model; methinks. He (Col Coates) also notes convergence factors, and this IS superbly addressed by this sim. My inboard pair converge at 225; middle pair at 250 and outboards are at 275. I tend to hold my fire till these range parameters are reached... unless I'm staring at a HO situation or am 'sharpshooting' a distant target.
I choose to remain optimistic regarding the trend of gun modeling here... it is already significantly better than anything else I've seen in any other sim; anywhere at any time.. And; I still refuse to suggest that the 20mm be 'detuned'... and only suggest that the 'lethality' of the .50's be examined in detail; particularly in the snapshot situation.
A question remains; tho... Gunnery scoring has me intersted. At the start of the last TOD on the first sortie I had an opportunity to strafe a tower, a barracks and a fuel cell... I made three careful passes; and as far as I could see; very few, if any rounds went wide of the mark. On two of the passes; guns were stopped before the building actually dropped.. so there was no lag factor apparent. Nothing else was shot at that flight; I used about 1/3 of my ammo. The field was captured, and I landed and immediatly checked the gunnery score. Only 14% registered! From observation, and actual impacts; I would guess that at least 70% found the mark; yet the system noted far far less than was apparent.
It was my impression that 'every bullet is modeled'. Is every bullet scored?? Does the system take some liberties with the hit model?? Is it possible that THIS is what the problem is??
And lastly... thanks again Pyro; for taking the time to shed light on the issues. SALUTE!
Hang
-
"It was my impression that 'every bullet is modeled'. Is every bullet scored?? Does the system take some liberties with the hit model?? Is it possible that THIS is what the problem is??"
Hangtime .. I think you may be right!!!
The ballistic modelling in AH seems to be spot on ... however damage modelling could be a tad simplistic maybe ...
I have been reading with interest how damage modelling will be implemented (and to some extent already is in 2.75 I believe) in WB 3.
In the model I mention the penetration of the individual round, and the accumulative penetration (when applicable) is supposed to be modelled, with corresponding failures to aircraft structure, fuel-lines etc.
This is not done in AH I think. If it were, we might be getting closer to the realistic effect of .50 cal, and all rounds for that matter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Cheers
skorni
[This message has been edited by skOrni (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
WOW!
Thanks loads Pyro, extremly enlightening!
Really appreciate all you guys do for us.
It also explains why I like the 20mm stuff.
As to the Japanese mixing types, well if you fire them seperately it makes sense.
You have .30's for long range spoiler shots,
once saddled up & in close cannon are devestateing! (As they should be!)
Add in a Big Gun for shooting at bombers from outside their gun range, and you have a plane that can do anything.
------------------
Maj Ghosth
XO 332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Great post Pyro! I thought they stuck with the .50's just for manufacturing concerns (e.g.-use them everywhere so you can make many, and the ammo is the same everywhere, e.g., logisitics). I agree with the post that stated if you could post some bibliographies on where you get some of this info, it would be greatly appreciated.
As to Pongos post, aren't you refering to the A-36? Which had the 4 cannons. I don't believe the P-51B ever had those, although I'm not absolutely sure. The A-36 was Allison powered, whereas the P-51B had the Merlin. So you would also take a power drop for the A-36. I propose HTC (When they get the time) Model the P-39 instead...or both. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Superfly needs to spend a little extra time to make up for those sick days anyway, right?...hehe..Just Kidding.
Maybe when things slow down a little at HTC HQ, you guys can start a BB group of reference material (Copyright probs?) or at least a good Bibliography list as stated.
Thanks HTC for all these cool timely updates!
[This message has been edited by Sundog (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
Well, that's all the explanation I need to be convinced. Thanks Pyro, hopefully we can put this gunnery issue to bed once and for all, and get to the other topics of discussion.
------------------
banana
308 (Polish) Squadron RAF "City of Cracow"
"On the whole, it is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them"
-
I highly recommend the "Report on the Joint Fighter Conference" (title is something like that) currently published by Schiffer. That is where the discussion about the Navy and Army's view of the .50 and 20mm came from. It's a great book to read because it gives you a lot of insight into differing opinions from experts. You see how different pilots may give different opinions on the same aircraft, some of which are diametrically opposed to others. Pilots flying the same plane can record a large range of data as demonstrated by the range of stall speeds these pilots reported. It's a very good read, I give it my highest recommendation.
As for good detailed ordnance books, those are hard to come because the good ones are long out of print and rare. I need to catalog my library at some point and I'll probably publish a bibliography. If you are planning on purchasing a book that you haven't seen, I'll be happy to give my opinion on it if I have it.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
Pyro that would be great!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Hmmmmmmmmm.... ballistics or damage model. ....Tie that to the damage mapping; and observation data from hitting targets at low AOT with time on target and we may have our culprit... the damage model as noted in the posts above... The results are... the EFFECT of the .50's are undermodeled. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Full circle??
Hang
Thank you. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Tern
"Live to Fly! Fly to Fight! Fight to Live!"
========================
"There I was, inverted at 50 feet and 120 kts. and the only thing running was the radio."