Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SunTracker on May 16, 2005, 10:52:46 AM
-
Would bombers be at all competitive if the accuracy of bomber guns was reduced to a realistic level? As of right now, bombers perform how the US Army Air Corp thought they would in the late 30s- being able to fly undefended into enemy territory and fight their way in and out. As real life has shown, they could not.
I believe the average dispersion for a bomber turret was 20 feet at 500 yards.
-
Some bombers hit everything like a laser but i cant hit anything in it.
It just seems some guys are very practized in it.
But mostly i just wack any bomber formation looking at my K/D there is nothing to complain.
Making the guns "weaker" would be the end of the bomber fun for most of them drivers i guess.
-
Actually, RL bombers had to deal with fairly well trained enemy pilots, or atleast some degree of coordination and tactics.
Here, at least when I fly buffs, about %70 of the attacks against me are co-alt rear-hemisphere. Very easy targets.
When more people start to learn the proper way to attack a buff group, we will start to see unescorted survivability similar to what RealLife (tm) has shown.
-
How do you think bombers were attacked in real life?
From the rear. All the hype over the LW head on attacks is nothing more then that. Göring actually made an order stopping head on attacks. It took a real expert to score hits due to the closure speeds and small target profile. After a head -on attck where do you end up? In the rear. The LW wouldn't have time to fly out ahead and set up anopthe rrun fropm head on especially later in the war when the escort numbers grew.
The Sturmgruppen attacked bombers by flying right up their arse and shooting them down.
At 600yards the tail gunner on a B-17 had a dispersion of something like 28 ft while on the ground (IIRC I posted a scan a while that shows test results from bomber gun tests that were conducted on he ground). In the air the odds of landing a single hit on an attacking fighter would have more to do with luck then 'bomber gunner' skillz.
Some of the most inexperienced LW pilots were those tasked with hunting bombers.
So all the talk about the 'proper way to kill a bomber' is just so much BS its not even funny.
Don't try to rationalize away the fact that in AH the bombers guns don't have 'historical dispersion' nor is the gunner affected by turbulence or 'gun shake'. Plus he has icons to give him range etc...
The answer to the original posters question is:
No AH bomber types can not handle realistic bomber gunners for several reasons.
1. Most don't fly bombers 'realistically'.
2. Most fly alone
3. Most don't bother climbing or planning a route to avoid contact.
4. Their are to few folks unwilling to be bored flying escort for the bombers.
If Ah went with more realism with the bomber gunners then very few would continue to fly bombers, especially in the main (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
-
Emmm, one thing Wotan:
"After a head -on attck where do you end up? In the rear"
And I may add that once there the same departure rate applies as the closure rate mentioned.
Some of the head-on attacks were successful enough tocause the buffs to have frontal armament.
Anyway, I'd expect Tony Williams to pop in and inform us....
-
Guns weren't added just because the potential 'damage' they may cause. Scorng a hit as I said was mostly luck. They are also were added to help the moral of the crews.
Head-on Attacks were very disturbing to the bomber pilots. Not only were they the main target of the pass but they had to rely on the pilot of the attacking fighter to avoid collision.
If you need a break down of Sturmgruppe tactics let me know I will give info...
In the mean time pick up:
Gunner:- An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions
ISBN 1 84037 304 0
by Donald Nijboer
-
Somewhere I have a big file from LW gun cams attacking.
Not all from 6 o clock, but some.
If I find it, I could mail it, but achtung,some 11 megs or so.
Maybe you have it?
Anyway, thx for the ISBN ;)
-
HO attacks were ordered stopped March 1944. Before that they seem to have been popular. I have LW guncamera footage of HO attacks on my HD. Heinz Knoke writes about performing these against B-24s with quite effective results
-
If you want to make bomber fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Cue the German guncam footage pls.....
note how close the attacking planes were and how long they stayed in a cone of fire....
sad thing is those were probably the stragglers that had fallen out of formation
as for in game - you'd have to trade gun accuracy for damge, meaning less accurate gunners - the more lead you'd have to pump into them to bring them down.
Honestly, I'd like to see the bombers toughend up a little bit currently.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
If you want to make bomber fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
This suggestion will make lot of people cry :D
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Would bombers be at all competitive if the accuracy of bomber guns was reduced to a realistic level? As of right now, bombers perform how the US Army Air Corp thought they would in the late 30s- being able to fly undefended into enemy territory and fight their way in and out. As real life has shown, they could not.
I believe the average dispersion for a bomber turret was 20 feet at 500 yards.
Bombers are terribly easy to shoot down in this game. Wish they would be more of a challenge. Kind of like shooting down moving barrage balloons as they stand now.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
If you want to make bomber fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
I could probably live with this in the interests of realism...
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
If you want to make bomber fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Mr. Williams is exactly correct.
However, if HT did that you would see no more bombers in the main. Which as I said isn't necessarily a bad thing considering how they are employed.
Angus and bunch I have plenty of films. Its only the expert shots that were effective in making head on runs. The average pilot was not that skilled.
Head-on passes are the least effective way to ensure hits. The best way is slow closure from 6 o'clock and getting in close. Which is how 90% of the bombers shot down by LW fighters were killed.
I can post kill claims that show pilot jumping from one bomber after another shooting them down in minutes of each other. You can't do that head on. While a head-on attack may appear less threatening to the attacker it's effectively a one pass solution.
Sturmgruppe pilots were ordered not to return to base unless they expended all their ammo. They would run of fuel making multiple head on pases before they ran out of ammo.
The whole 'head-on' thing is just nothing more then hype. Some of the least experienced LW pilots were attacking bombers.
Bombers are more difficult (I am not saying they are hard to kill, because they are not) in AH because of game play not because its 'realistic'. No amount of rationalizing will change that.
-
Wotan,
Whats the wingspan of a 190?
Seems to me that someplace between 400 yards & 700 yards that wingspan is going to fill that dispersion circle. Granted its only going to be a portion of the circle. But considering the rounds a B17 can put out in 10 seconds odds are fairly good for a critical hit.
Over all its possible to shoot a plane down in a bomber if the fighter pilot isn't smart.
Its also possible to shoot down a bomber if you don't park on his 6.
My opinion, while it may not be, nor ever be perfect. Its not THAT broke, leave it be.
-
Creeping in slowly from the 6, well, that's a bit bad if there are escorts....
Anyway, I quite belive the 90% of kills came from the 6. And probably 95% of the shootings..
Now there is high 6, low 6, and ...the middle one ;)
-
Here in AH, when you make a run on bombers you have every possible gun pointed at you. With groups, that 3 times the possible number of guns pointing at you.
In real life, were there a lot of enemy pilots that attacked a group of three bombers by themselves?
In real life, would every gunner that was able to shoot at a single plane actually shoot at that single plane?
IRL, I can see a couple of gunners picking on a target, but not every possible gun in the group at once? It seems they'd be looking for targets in addition to shooting, or they'd always have multiple targets to choose from? Also, instead of one guy shooting and the other guns all shooting the same place (like AH now), you'd end up with 3,4 gunners (x3 planes...9 - 12 different gunners) all trying to aim independently while freezing their prettythang off and the plane/guns bouncing all over.....
IRL you'd have to be insane to attack a group of three bombers by yourself (just my opinion).
Right now in AH even adding one attacking friend to the mix, that's two of you attacking a bomber formation, greatly increases the kill chances. Two planes ought to be able to send all three bombers home in short order. There's just no way a single gunner can effectively take on two enemies at one time (assuming the attackers are coordinated enough in their runs).
I don't know how things happened IRL (lone attacks on bomber groups and how gunners picked their targets). I need to watch more gun footage.
-
What difference does it matter about wing span?
You would want to know total target area of the 109 or 190 from a full frontal view. I could dig it up but even the test I mentioned (you find the results in the book I recomended above or search the forum because I posted the correct data a few times in the past) the tail gunner fired a 12 round burst and at 600 yards the dispersion was out to 28 ft or (I don't recall exact distance off hand) while on the ground.
Things will only get worse in the air. If you don't believe me or the book (actual war time tests) the read what Mr. Williams wrote.
I am not saying no fighter was ever damaged or shot down by bomber guns but the odds of getting a hit was rare. We both know that its just as rare to get 1 hit that would kill an aircraft outright. It would take more then 1 hit and more thne just a few hits spread out over the entire aircraft to bring it down. The ability to concentrate fire would be impossible.
I found it:
Taken right fromm the book:
Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils
For the B-24 it was:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils
It seems I was wrong it was 45 feet
Not only that I could post a ton of anecdotal LW pilot accounts to show my point.
The Sturmgruppe closed on the American Group's Low Squadron, as Hauptmann Wilhelm Moritz split his force into its three component Sturmstaffeln and directed them against different parts of the enemy formation. Leutnant Walther Hagenah was one of the German pilots who took part in the attack;
" My Staffel was in position about 1,000yd behind 'its' squadron of bombers.The Staffel leader ordered his aircraft into line abreast and, still in close formation, we advanced on the bombers. We were to advance like Frederick the Great's infantrymen, holding our fire until we could see 'the whites of the enemy's eyes'.''
The tactics of the Sturmgruppe were governed by the performance of the wing-mounted 3cm cannon. Although the hexogen high-explosive ammunition fired by this weapon was devastatingly effective, the gun's relatively low muzzle velocity meant that its accuracy fell off rapidly with range . With only 55 rounds per gun, sufficient for about five seconds' firing, the Sturmböcke could not afford to waste ammunition in wild shooting from long range. The sky was alive with a withering hail of defensive fire from the bombers. As the unwieldy fighters slowly advanced on the bombers, the Sturmbock pilots could only grit their teeth until they were right up close against the bombers. The huge bulk of the radial engine and the heavy armour plate around the cockpit allowed the Sturm force to press on with a certain impunity, as Hagenath remembers
" like the armoured knights in the Middle Ages, we were well protected . A Staffel might lose one or two aircraft during the advance, but the rest continued relentlessly on ."
Positioned now about 100yd behind the bombers the Staffel leader barked out the order to open fire
' Pauke ! Pauke ! ..'.
From such a range the Staffel could hardly miss, and the 3cm explosive rounds struck home . Just 2 rounds could take the tail off a B-17 , and a B-24's fuselage structure was not as sturdy. The enemy bombers literally fell apart in front of the Sturmgruppe.
Also remember that the formation they were engaging are much larger and more disciplined then what you see in AH.
I believe Hohun made a post that calculated hit probability using the numbers above verse the total area of a 109 / 190 frontal view. I will see if I can find it.
I looked into this stuff a while back . I talked with a few bomber gunner's themselves. Almost universally they would say hitting a 109 or 190 was all but impossible. An ex-squaddies dad was a Tail Gunner on a B-24 and confirmed just what Mr. Williams said.
-
I would like to add, that another reason 'proper way to attack' rarely works is because the buff guns shoot through the drones.
I usually try to 'peel off' the bombers one by one, hitting the outer drones. At certain angles, due to friendly fire issue, I'll get to face the guns from only one bomber, right?
- Wrong.
-
I recall reading one Lancaster tail gunner saying that he prefered the quad of .303s with lots of ammo to the dual .50s because the tracers had intimidation factor and it wasn't like the tail gun was likely to be shooting anything down.
Of course some kills were obtained. You repeat an unlikely scenario enough and it will eventually happen, but from his statement it sounds like he thought many more Luftwaffe nightfighters were scared off by the sudden tracer fire than were shot down or even damaged.
-
Most Realistic Bomber Mission (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=150107) I've been was in H2H.
Normally there is a limit of 8 players per room, but 2 people joined at the same time so there were 9 people.
We had 3 b17 formations and 2 b24 formations (a total of 15 bombers).
The other team had 4 FW190a-8s.
This was arranged ahead of time so the 190s knew where to find us and were all flying in a formation together.
5 minutes before host thought we would encounter the 190s, he asked both teams to turn off all icons, we all confirmed we had icons off before starting (dont know if everyone kept them off, but most of us did)
The first attack from the 190s we were at 20k and they were as well so they didnt have the alt advantage they had hoped for. we only lost 1 b24.
Second attack we lost another b24 and the lead bomber lost an engine.
Third attack the knights upped doras and 109g10s and were above us and could offer a better fight. Here we lost 2 b17's and 2 more b24s. I took a fuel leak and the lead bomber lost another engine so I had to take over calibrating. Our target was an HQ (Paris), I would calibrate and everyone would drop when I dropped my bombs.
By the end of the mission we lost 53.3% of our original formation of 15 bombers.
7 190s (3 waves of 4 fighters, so out of 12 in all) were downed and the rest either ran out of fuel or were forced to land from damage.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/201_1115507181_raid1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/201_1115507735_raid5.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/201_1115507900_raid6.jpg)
(http://img29.echo.cx/img29/4289/ahss931hv.jpg)
-
The 190's probably did better than they might have historically. Only 4 fighters at a time attacking a close knit formation of 15 B-17's and B-24's would have been very dangerous for the fighters. That's a lot of defensive firepower focused on very few targets.
-
9 FPS ? Ouch
-
thats a screen shot someone else took, I got around 20-30 on average
-
Just a snipet, more A/C were shot down by Anti-Aircraft fire than other A/C.
Have a nice day;)
-
That's because more aircraft were flown against ground targets than against other aircraft.
-
Wotan: Use the .target command and fly a b17, check each guns diserpsion diamater.
You might be suprised.
HiTech
-
Buff hunting art
(http://forum.axishistory.com/files/ferris_a_test_of_courage.jpg])
(http://forum.axishistory.com/files/ferris_a_test_of_courage.jpg)
-
Heh, Raptor, I still say had we not been 5k lower than you we'd have plowed through you head-on and done more damage in the first wave :)
There was a 109??? I thought we'd all agreed to doras for second wave.. D'oh! Oh well. After we lost some players things went to heck.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Wotan: Use the .target command and fly a b17, check each guns diserpsion diamater.
You might be suprised.
HiTech
Dispersion might be correct, but I don't think the gunsite always is. People always talk about the B17 or the B24 because they only fly the bombers with the super heavy gun placements.
However I was in a Ju88A-4 and trying to shoot down a hurc on attacking me. He ended up doing a dead six, and I was too mesmerized by the absurdity of not being able to hit him that I didn't jink or turn. Anyways I FINALLY found the spot I needed to aim at to hit him. And in level flight (on the deck) with him literally 500d off my tail sitting level and steady as you please (firing away at me of course) I had to aim 2 plane heights above him (got a screenshot) to score any hits. Level, steady flight. distance of 500. Both planes basically stationary. And the gunsite was way way way off from where the bullets were hitting. No wonder I couldn't hit him.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Wotan: Use the .target command and fly a b17, check each guns diserpsion diamater.
You might be suprised.
HiTech
I have and I wasn't surprised at all. In another thread where I posted scans directly from the book Pyro suggested the same thing last time as you just did.
He posted results of his own test and I was correct in that that (at least for the tail gunner position) the diameter was less then 45 feet according to his own test. I don't recall the exact number but I will dig up that post...
Unless you have changed things since then but I haven't read anything about a 'fix'.
IIRC all the bomber gun positions had the exact same dispersion (on the B-17).
I want 24 feet or so but until I find his post (which I can't seem to find with a quick search) I can't say for sure.
-
Well if the dispersion is increased the bomber specie will diseapear completly,they are today as frequent as the dinosaur :)
-
What bombers NEED is NO formations, but more accurate guns. Make them a force to be reckoned with, but not a "flatten an entire field in 1 dweeb-arsed, unskilled, suicide bombing, pass".
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
That's because more aircraft were flown against ground targets than against other aircraft.
And something must have been shooting at them that could actually hit them. :D
-
Now looking at those pictures we all know what TOD will be somewhat like.
Attacking large formations of bombers, vs attacking 3 "maned by ONE GUY..bah" just sucks.
Tod will be something great, should be great for real ww2 sim buffs.
Would be great to have a roster for each bomber, so a formation could be manned, you could also select to "fly" the attacking and escorting fighters.
-
I doubt it. The point will be to get player to fly the bombers. However what TOD needs is increased FPS. See that 9 FPS? That was common for over half the players in the HTH room during that mission. At 10FPS you can't fly level let alone take aim, fire, and track shots. I lost a wingtip between frames and hell if I know who hit me!
The problem is once they FIRE their guns (6 b24s, 9 b17s, that's roughly 1500 guns firing hundreds of rounds a minute) the fps dropped to a slideshow.
AH2 has a long way to go if even 75% of its players will be even able to play TOD (just FPS wise).
-
Both historically and for playability purpose, bomber are supposed to drop bombs, not shoot down planes.
Another thing not modeled in AH is gun vibration. You fire the guns but the gunsight stays steady in mid screen - no shaking. This should not affect dispersion but still make aiming harder (same with manned acks. They have no recoil like tank guns have).
Giving gamey accurate guns will make bombers ack-stars. So this is not a good solution.
Bombers need improved survivability, not by making them A2A effective. As for now, a few shot will make a bomber fall apart. They should be stracturally toughened and thus be brought down by killing the engines, the pilot or due to fire - like in real life. Shooting a B17 till the wing falls off is gamey.
Only trouble I see with this is increased kamikaze tactics potential. But this is another issue.
Bozon
-
Raptor, Im glad you put up that mission. I was just about to do so myself untill I saw your post :)
That, indeed, was a very realistic mission with all pretty good pilots.
So this basically answers that question, the accuracy doesn't have to be any better.
-
Like said, many people don't know how to attack a bomber without getting killed themselfes.
here's what 90% do...
They start their attack at the same alt, and slowly catching up.
They start taping their fire-button when they're at around 1000 yards off, only to see themselfs getting killed and doing some damage on the bomber.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1116423575_bomberattack.jpg)
I'd rather die from a fighter with a good attack than this...
-
Originally posted by frank3
Like said, many people don't know how to attack a bomber without getting killed themselfes.
here's what 90% do...
They start their attack at the same alt, and slowly catching up.
They start taping their fire-button when they're at around 1000 yards off, only to see themselfs getting killed and doing some damage on the bomber.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/68_1116423575_bomberattack.jpg)
I'd rather die from a fighter with a good attack than this...
Geez...ain't it the truth!
If I die vs a bomber, 98% of the time it's because I got impatient and ended up dead 6 on 'em at 400 yards.
-
If I die vs a bomber, 98% of the time it's because I got impatient and ended up dead 6 on 'em at 400 yards.
Maybe people would care about that if it were the point of discussion.
The question is:
Could AH handle realistic bomber guns?
No is asking about how easy it maybe to kill them. I have killed hundreds of bombers. I killed 10 in the first Big Week event without a scratch (150 B-17s or so in 32 man formations with escort).
But none of that is relevant to the topic.
Bomber guns aren't 'realistic' in neither 'effect' nor in application. HT can test the tail gunner of the B-17 easy then we can. I done test before but its a real pain int he arse and don't have time to re-do them right now. My results for the tail gun were slightly tighter then Pyroi's but they can test it better then I can. Pyro posted his results but I can't find that thread.
Add in tighter dispersion, multiple guns from multiple bombers aimed at you at once, no gun shake (ease of aim as bozon said) , no affect of the slipstream on the bullet etc... and you end up with something that is not 'real'.
I think every one acknowledges that if bombers were as incapable of defending themselves as they were in rl no one would fly them.
Thus 'could AH handle that?'. No, is the answer but lets try not to rationalize how 'close to 'real' it really is' because its not.
As Mr. Williams said:
If you want to make bomber fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.
-
>>When more people start to learn the proper way to attack a buff group, we will start to see unescorted survivability similar to what RealLife (tm) has shown.<<
Agreed. There is usually little to no cooperation amongst fighters trying to bring down a buff formation. It is usually a kind of mad rush for the fighters to get to the fat targets before the other guy does; this results more often than not, the death of the fighter.
I knocked down a formation of three the other day mainly because I was alone, and the buffs were too, and I took my time in my attack upon his triad. I took some hits but, I also took my time about my approach. Couple that with a healthy respect for the buffs guns and I was successful.
I see no reason to change the gun lethality on the buffs right now.
-
Originally posted by Don
I see no reason to change the gun lethality on the buffs right now.
I almost always die or get a disabled plane when trying to attacks buffs.
I wish we could get that kind of firepower for base defense.
-
I wish we could get that kind of firepower for base defense.
Now that is an interesting thought.
Instead of slow-poke autofire guns, how about all base acks are double .50 or 20mm, and they auto fire when nobody is manning the manned acks, but when somebody is in the manned acks they are slaved under the control of that guy?
Should be interesting.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Now that is an interesting thought.
Instead of slow-poke autofire guns, how about all base acks are double .50 or 20mm, and they auto fire when nobody is manning the manned acks, but when somebody is in the manned acks they are slaved under the control of that guy?
Should be interesting.
Entire player-controlled ack-batteries?
Then all the lala-flying field porkers would get their panties in a knot... LETS DO IT!:aok
-
Entire player-controlled ack-batteries?
Then all the lala-flying field porkers would get their panties in a knot... LETS DO IT!
Well.. semi auto I guess. They will act like normal, auto-firing ack when nobody is at the manned ack.
Ofcourse, HT has commented that the buff guns do not truly converge at one point... but at least loosely, all the defensive guns that has the right angle WILL fire towards the point you are aiming at.. and just look how devastating it is. If a skilled buff gunner is at the guns, even half a second of stationary aiming/firing upon the buff can get you killed.
I remember a really famous test, I think it was Urchin inside a buff, and some other guy flying a fighter. That guy claimed buffs aren't hard to kill. Urchin challenged the claims.. and the end result is, the guy did survive the buff attack, but failed to shoot down any of Urchin's three buffs.
So, considering the lethality of the buff guns, if the field acks are slaved to fire towards where the manned ack gunner is aiming at... *shudders*.. now THAT's what you would call integrated AA defense! :D If a sucky gunner is at the manned ack, the entire field acks would be dinky.. if a skilled gunner is at the manned ack.. it's gonna be murder!
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Now that is an interesting thought.
Instead of slow-poke autofire guns, how about all base acks are double .50 or 20mm, and they auto fire when nobody is manning the manned acks, but when somebody is in the manned acks they are slaved under the control of that guy?
Should be interesting.
I LOVE that idea! I think we would still need the 37mm as they do come in handy during a GV attack where the .50's and 20mm's wouldn't fair so good.:aok Unless we could get some quad 40 mounts. :D
-
That's actually not bad, since .50 cal and 20mm AA batteries are only good for close range point defense. It would mean that it would be easier to keep vulchers at bay, but you couldn't blow people out of a furball from 1.5k like you can with the 37 mm.