Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Brenjen on May 18, 2005, 07:36:41 PM
-
I would like to see the .50 calibre round given it's fair due in Aces HighII. It is weak & anemic,it seems to hit only slightly harder than the .303's. In reality ma duece tore planes outta the sky with close to the same effect as 20mm. And if i'm not mistaken the .50 cal rounds were a mixture of high explosive,armour piercing & tracers when loaded in the anti-aircraft role something like 3-5 H.E. to each A.P. & tracer. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
-
It is weak & anemic
So just how exactly is the .50s 'weak and anemic'?
Any testings? Proof? Argument?
In reality ma duece tore planes outta the sky with close to the same effect as 20mm. And if i'm not mistaken the .50 cal rounds were a mixture of high explosive,armour piercing & tracers when loaded in the anti-aircraft role something like 3-5 H.E. to each A.P. & tracer. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
You are mistaken, but I won't correct you.
The place you wanna go look at is Mr.Williams' website.
-> http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
And if i'm not mistaken the .50 cal rounds were a mixture of high explosive,armour piercing & tracers when loaded in the anti-aircraft role
.50 never were HE, they were AP rounds and are quite affective as long as you can concentrate the fire at convergence.
-
Anybody that says 50cal are weak in AH (including MG17s, 12.7mm, etc) doesn't know how to shoot, period. They run for base the second they run out of 20mm.
Those that use them know they kill quite easily.
Fly the c202 more. It's one of the best MG armed planes, and has 2x50cal in the nose. You'll learn how to shoot in that puppy :)
-
The gunnery changes from AH to AH2 is what appears to have nerffed the .50's. There is now more dispersion and it is harder to concentrate the rounds. The cure is simple....get closer. :)
-
If you are flying the 202 and thinking the 12.7mm are .50s, you are mistaken.
I seem to recall that the C202 has somewhat less firepower than 1 .50 caliber, even with the 7.92's helping out.
-
I was flying yesterday in an F4U-D,attacked an F4U-D model, it pulled in a hard right turn I was above & to the right of it so it turned into my line of fire, I pulled the trigger @ around 450 yards & my convergence was set @ 425 yards, I raked it from the prop to the tail with about 100 rounds with the greatest majority of those rounds (I'd guess 60 or 70 of them) in the engine & cockpit. All 6 guns are set to the same convergence, & there was no hint of damage,no smoke,no pieces of plane coming off. And the pilot apparently never got wounded as the engagement took place a good 5 minutes from the nearest base,& he flew on dogfighting other people for 5 minutes after that. I say thats unrealistic.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
If you are flying the 202 and thinking the 12.7mm are .50s, you are mistaken.
I seem to recall that the C202 has somewhat less firepower than 1 .50 caliber, even with the 7.92's helping out.
*cough*BS*cough*
:D
12.7mm is same caliber as 50cal. From *MY* observations they hit about the same too.
And no, the total 4 gun package on the 202 is way better than a single 50cal. If you take the 2 gun package (2x12.7mm) you're just about as effective as any 2x50cal plane. Like hte P40B firing only the 50s. Or the SBD. They're nearly idential in punch. At least in AH. In real life it was different. But then the gunnery hits in AH aren't like in real life, now are they?
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I was flying yesterday in an F4U-D,attacked an F4U-D model, it pulled in a hard right turn I was above & to the right of it so it turned into my line of fire, I pulled the trigger @ around 450 yards & my convergence was set @ 425 yards, I raked it from the prop to the tail with about 100 rounds with the greatest majority of those rounds (I'd guess 60 or 70 of them) in the engine & cockpit. All 6 guns are set to the same convergence, & there was no hint of damage,no smoke,no pieces of plane coming off. And the pilot apparently never got wounded as the engagement took place a good 5 minutes from the nearest base,& he flew on dogfighting other people for 5 minutes after that. I say thats unrealistic.
That could have been a couple of things... Rubber bullets or bad luck.
I've done that too, but it's not too common. Heck I've done it with 20mms and the plane lived with no damage!
But the thing is that you need a good rear aspect hit. The high angle slashing snapshots don't work because the target is moving so fast that even if your convergence is set and he's at range, that he's zipping through the shots so that they spread out (bullets going in 1 place, but plane moving through them, so a hit on the cowl, a hit on the prop, a hit on the oil, a hit on the wing roots, a hit on the cockpit, a hit on the fuselage, a hit on the tail, etc etc... a lot of single hits, not enough to make nay 1 system fail)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
*cough*BS*cough*
:D
12.7mm is same caliber as 50cal. From *MY* observations they hit about the same too.
And no, the total 4 gun package on the 202 is way better than a single 50cal. If you take the 2 gun package (2x12.7mm) you're just about as effective as any 2x50cal plane. Like hte P40B firing only the 50s. Or the SBD. They're nearly idential in punch. At least in AH. In real life it was different. But then the gunnery hits in AH aren't like in real life, now are they?
Perhaps BS I remember reading somewher some italian 12.7 were filled with HE
But I remeber also that even with HE this gun was said inefficient.
-
Brenjen
" I raked it from the prop to the tail with about 100 rounds"
There is your problem right there. Yes you probably sparked that plane up like a christmas tree. The problem is you need all those rounds in 1 spot to cause a major part to fail.
As to his not having a pilot wound, you can't prove that either way.
If you'd been able to put that same 100 rounds into one spot on his wingtip at convergience. You'd of likely seen a different outcome entirely.
.50's are NOT cannons, they don't explode, they puncture. Whats more scattering your rounds from prop to tail scatters the damage.
Last, while mg's can certainly hit at that range its not idea for damage.
Take a page out of the .303 book.
At 400 yards you can light up a bogey with .303's virtually all day for little or no damage. At 150 yards they saw wings off with a short burst.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
And if i'm not mistaken the .50 cal rounds were a mixture of high explosive,armour piercing & tracers when loaded in the anti-aircraft role something like 3-5 H.E. to each A.P. & tracer. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
I seem to recall reading (I think it was Bud Anderson's book) that the US .50 calibers were loaded with A.P.I. (armor piercing incindiery) ammo that was not different types of ammo, but a special roound that combined the effects of all into one round. Also, that it gave very bright hit sprites when it connected.
On a different note, was watching the history channel the other night, a show about bombing in WWII. If I'm not mistaken, I heard the show say that the P-51 was armed with 6, 50MM machine guns! Wouldn't 50mm be about .160 caliber, or the equivalent of 2 and a half 20mm's? What firepower! Buff killer extraoridinaire!
-
Hits only slightly harder than .303?
Well take a spit1 with 8 .303 and a P47 with 8 .50 .
Try hitting a b24 at 400yards, and after that tell me again that there is little diffrence. I would say .50 has at least 3 times the hitting power.
-
Sounds like he's not firing his .50's at convergence range with enough time on target. All my jugs are set to 325d convergence, and I fire between 200-400 1 second burst. I saw the wings off Lancasters and B17's. Spits kinda dissassemble themselves and flutter away in peices..........
A side note, with AH2 I've reduced all my convergence on aircraft to 350-225 depending on the plane and just get really close to shoot. Works better.
-
Originally posted by SKJohn
On a different note, was watching the history channel the other night, a show about bombing in WWII. If I'm not mistaken, I heard the show say that the P-51 was armed with 6, 50MM machine guns! Wouldn't 50mm be about .160 caliber, or the equivalent of 2 and a half 20mm's? What firepower! Buff killer extraoridinaire!
The Military Channel once claimed the P-51D had "devastating firepower from it's eight .50 cal machine guns
That would be nice.
-
I can't remember were I read this, but my understanding in AH2 was that...
2 x .303 = 1 x .50 cal
2 x .50 = 1 x 20mm
(approximately)
.303s, from my observations are pretty much useless beyond 300 yards.
.50s tend to do very well out beyond even 400 yards and have about the flatest trajectory for range in the game.
20mm have great all around hitting ability, but drop quicker and have a slower rate of fire the the .50s. However, if you know what you are doing and have a plane with 2 x 20 mm or great you can hit at a pretty long range (assuming convergence is set well).
I used to straffe ACK emplacements (when AH2 first became the only arena) and take them out with about 70 to 100 rounds if I put the rounds in the center of the gun pad (less if I was more accurate). I did this without having to get all the way in on the gun (like, pulling up at the absolute last second). Now, I have made two or three passes at ACK and is still be in good form.
Against enemy AC I am really having to get in tight anymore with the .50s to do any good...unless, of course they are flying straight and level and I am about 400 to 500 yards off.
To me, from what I have seen, cannon armed planes rule anymore. If you aren't flying a cannon mount, you are just a bunch of ammo waiting to get shot. Doesn't mean I don't get kills with the MGs, but it does mean a lot more work. I used to love to fly the Jug (who doesn't love jugs :D ?), but I shy away from it now because even those 8 brownings are quiet as deadly as the seem to used to be.
Oh well, just my ramblings...
-
Blammo,
Should hook up with Nomde or YUCCA and fly jugs a bit. We are over in Rook land right now. We don't have any problems shooting things down with JUG's..............:)
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
.50's are NOT cannons, they don't explode, they puncture. Whats more scattering your rounds from prop to tail scatters the damage.
Last, while mg's can certainly hit at that range its not idea for damage.
Take a page out of the .303 book.
At 400 yards you can light up a bogey with .303's virtually all day for little or no damage. At 150 yards they saw wings off with a short burst.
Brenjen, Ghost is quite correct. The longer the TOF(time of flight) for the MG round the lesser it's hitting power. MG rounds are all about kenetic energy. While you certainly can hit with MG's from D400-D600 your chances of inflicting lethal damage goes down considerably the futher out the target is. Add to this the fact the the f4u is a very tough plane plus spreading the fire out over the airframe it's no wonder you did not kill him
Bring your convergence in under 350, put all guns to a single spot, not a pattern and try to fire at or near convergence and you will have better success.
-
If you're standing (fixed location) and shoot a .50cal (browning) you can hit probably at more than 1000 yards.
on airplanes, if you're moving/turning at speeds around 400mph, expect the range and effectiveness to go down.
-
And some how, that F6 can manage to criple my plane from 1000 yards out, I get kills witht he single 12.5 on the yak or the 2 on the SBD. Its is just a mater of where the rounds hit and the condition of the game at that moment.
-
Incendiary is not explosive. It only lights fires if there's something there to light.
I.E. Imagine a dry grass hut.
Spray it with some regular .50's. It'll have a lot of holes.
Now spray it with some incendiary .50's. IT WILL NOT EXPLODE, but it will catch on fire.
-
I think the 50's are modeled pretty well for structural type damage. What I think is missing is the non-structural type damage, that would add a good bit to their effectiveness.
50's would tear up a planes insides, control cables, hydraulics, electrics, etc... Chopping a planes elevator controls would kill it just as well as knocking it's wing off.
It's a whole 'nother level of damage modeling and I kinda doubt we'll ever see it.
g00b
-
O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400 ,which in & of itself is laughable for realism, & if you read my previous post you will note that most of the rounds hit in one spot and at convergence range. I am above & to the right & he pulled up & to the right - I only had to pull gently up & to the right to keep him centered. I wish I had filmed it,the only reason I let off is because I was certain he was going to go *boom*. It may have been rubber bullets or some other freak glitch, but I still feel they are weaker than they should be. Thanks for the replies on what might make a difference.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400 ,which in & of itself is laughable for realism,
Really? Do tell.
Methinks you need to brush up a bit on your WWII aviation knowledge. You will find that a convergence of over 300 yards is very rare, typically the domain of an unblooded air force.
-
O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400 ,which in & of itself is laughable for realism
Can't you just admit you made a mistake and judged the impact of your actions a little too high? Why drag in 'realism' to justify your own shortcomings? You really wanna talk about 'realism'?
& if you read my previous post you will note that most of the rounds hit in one spot and at convergence range. I am above & to the right & he pulled up & to the right - I only had to pull gently up & to the right to keep him centered.
Obviously that's not what the others felt when they read your initial post.
I wish I had filmed it,the only reason I let off is because I was certain he was going to go *boom*. It may have been rubber bullets or some other freak glitch, but I still feel they are weaker than they should be. Thanks for the replies on what might make a difference.
They are not weaker than they should be, unless you are willing to prove just how much "they should be" is different from "what it is".
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
O.K. I will try setting convergence at under 400
Simply put conv at the most common range for you to start firing in your fights, then learn to aim at concentrate the fire at that range.
You should consider also the harmonization, that in AH coincides with the convergence range. If you set your conv at 400, your harmonization is set also at 400, so your bullets will go down the sight center for longer shots than 400 yards, and your bullets will go slightly above gunsight from 200 to 400 yards and below sight center closer than 200 yards. That is, you have two points where the bullet will cross your sight center vertically, the first ascending and descending at convergence.
-
About .50 lethality, I see no way to cut the wing of a B24 with them in RL, here with a P47 you can easily cut the entire B24 in half with 2 second burst. In RL .50s may have been good to damage systems, kill pilots and to start fires, but they were too weak to cause catastrofic structural damage. Here you can cut whatever you want with them.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
As to his not having a pilot wound, you can't prove that either way.
If you film it, you can prove a pilot wound. You can jump in their cockpit on replay and the blood splatter will show when the damage happens.
Also in reviewing films I noticed that sometimes what looked like good killer shots while flying, were as ghost said, just a light show. You can see in films that sometimes shots can be more dispursed than you thought they were at the time.
Concentration is the key with .50s. They are pleanty leathal if you have a tight shot group.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
*cough*BS*cough*
:D
12.7mm is same caliber as 50cal. From *MY* observations they hit about the same too.
And no, the total 4 gun package on the 202 is way better than a single 50cal. If you take the 2 gun package (2x12.7mm) you're just about as effective as any 2x50cal plane. Like hte P40B firing only the 50s. Or the SBD. They're nearly idential in punch. At least in AH. In real life it was different. But then the gunnery hits in AH aren't like in real life, now are they?
No, I'm being serious Krusty, I believe IRL the Italian 12.7mm (Breda-Safat I think) was less than half as good as the Browning .50 cal.
Here you go, on Tony Williams site http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)
Ok, I overstated my case a little bit lol. But even then, the difference is pretty drastic. The Breda-Safat used a 12.7x81 cartridge, MV was 760 m/sec for AP and 770 for HE, with projectile weight 35.4 and 33 grams. The Browning fired a 12.7x99 cartridge weighing 43 grams at 870 m/sec.
Tony rates the "Gun Power" at 60 for a .50 caliber Browning, and 36 for a Breda-Safat. Not quite 2x, but still pretty drastic. The 7.92 is rated at a 20 for "gun power"... so figure 2 .50s would give you 120 "gun power" total, whereas 2 12.7s and 2 7.92s would be 112. So the gun package on the C202 is a little less potent than 2 .50s.
Sorry for the overstatement, it has been forever since I looked at that site. I just remember the 202 was horrible undergunned, not the exact firepower :).
-
Oh, I agree Urchin. IRL there's a big difference. It's more like a beefed up MG, whereas the Browning was a HMG (Heavy MG) for its own reasons.
In AH, I am glad it is almost as good as a 50cal, because IRL the bullets penetrated and caused massive damage regardless of caliber, but in AH they just "stop" at the skin of the plane, and it tallies up the damager "per section," as opposed to "per piece/part/component/control rod/etcetcetc"
So for AH I think it's a good compromise.
-
Mando, that's not a lethality issue.
It's a damage depiction issue.
Closely related, but still different things.
-
If you want to see how hard 50s can hit try the 50s in the P38 or A20. Cowl mounted 50s rip things apart almost as well as 20mm. Aside from very very brief snapshots I don't even notice a difference in firepower when my 38 is out of cannon rounds.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Really? Do tell.
Methinks you need to brush up a bit on your WWII aviation knowledge. You will find that a convergence of over 300 yards is very rare, typically the domain of an unblooded air force.
Have you ever fired a .50? Have you ever read anything about the sabre on mig fights over Korea? Same .50 cal. round doing damage at much greater ranges than it's getting credit for here. I would like to hear from some people who have fired .50's in anger about the capabilities of the round. But I made this post simply for the AHII staff to give it a look & decide if it merited any adjustment,not to start an argument over. To all of you I say thanks for the suggestions on what to do to cure the original situation.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Have you ever fired a .50? Have you ever read anything about the sabre on mig fights over Korea? Same .50 cal. round doing damage at much greater ranges than it's getting credit for here. I would like to hear from some people who have fired .50's in anger about the capabilities of the round. But I made this post simply for the AHII staff to give it a look & decide if it merited any adjustment,not to start an argument over. To all of you I say thanks for the suggestions on what to do to cure the original situation.
While I have not fired the .50 from an A/C, I have fired them when I was in the Army. I agree that they are fearsome rounds. However, you cannot compare the Korea (Sabre vs MiG) to WWII (say, 51 vs F4U). Yes, the round and the HMG are essentially the same, but:
1) The Sabre had all six brownings mounted in the nose. This allowed for an automatic tight shot group and good converenge. From the muzzles the rounds were never more than a foot to two feet apart (IIRC). If you wanted to compare the P-38 with the Sabre, that would be closer, but...
2) Korea saw better gunsight. WWII began showing some improved gunsights, but the majority were static reflector sights (IIRC) and did no predicting or compensation (for maneuvers, etc). In Korea, particularly with he Sabre, we began to use much improved predicting and compensating sights.
While I agree that the .50 cal seems to be a different beast in AH2 as opposed to AH1, it is still a beast. I am not saying what you saw was not demonstrative of a greater problem, but I am saying that you may not have best employed your weapons for the situation you found yourself in.
If you fly MG planes I would recommend doing a lot more filming so you can review questionable events like this for yourself.
Cheers!
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Have you ever fired a .50? Have you ever read anything about the sabre on mig fights over Korea? Same .50 cal. round doing damage at much greater ranges than it's getting credit for here. I would like to hear from some people who have fired .50's in anger about the capabilities of the round. But I made this post simply for the AHII staff to give it a look & decide if it merited any adjustment,not to start an argument over. To all of you I say thanks for the suggestions on what to do to cure the original situation.
Have you ever read about WWII convergence settings?
From your comments thus far I have to say that you have not as you are so completely oblivious to what the reality was to be claiming that what was done is "unrealistic".
Do you understand ballistics? Do you understand bullet travel time? Do you understand hitting relatively small, fast moving objects in an environment in which the firing solution changes constantly and rapidly? Do you understand the dispersion on aircraft mounted guns? Do you understand how much harder 20mm cannons hit in reality?
Your comments in this thread indicate that your answer would have to be "no" to at least some of those questions and that you lack the knowledge to know which.
-
>>Mando, that's not a lethality issue.
It's a damage depiction issue.
Closely related, but still different things.<<
May be but, how are they modelled in the game?
Do ya know, do ya know, do ya know? :)
-
Do ya know, do ya know, do ya know?
I don't think anyone really knows, but I do think there's a consensus on what it may be like, based upon what we've experienced during the years.
1) Some internal components of the aircraft, seem to be modelled, albeit in a simplified form. The engine, cockpit, pilot, fuel tanks, oil cans.. etc..
2) However, the rest of the plane seems to receive damage upon direct impact to its surface. Damge to the wings and fuselage are registered upon its surface.
3) But the vital internal components which resides within those surfaces, does not seem to be modelled. Spars, struts, flight surface controls(rod/cable), ammo box, etc..
4) AH DM is "All-or-Nothing". There is no intermediate level of damage. If a certain amount of total damage is not reached, the area which was hit does not show any sign of damage. However, if that certain amount is reached, the area is totally 'destroyed'.
...
What Mando points out is valid. I've rarely seen any USAAF/USN footage of .50 rounds actually causing structural failure itself.
* Most of the lethalities caused by .50s documented in guncams are due to fire.
* The few cases I've seen where wings snap off show tell-tale signs of explosions of the ammo box in the wingroots of the target plane. Or, after a prolonged local fire at the wing area which 'ate away' the support structures and thus caused it to fail.
* In other cases, the pilot bails out of what seems to be a structurally sound(at least, visually unconfirmed) plane. It is highly probable that the pilot found the plane uncontrollable, and thus, bailed - which indicates internal controls messed up by concentrated .50 fire. But the structure of the plane does not fail.
The .50 round is a high velocity AP/API, and its incendiary component is severly insufficient to cause any real explosive effect. "Sawing" a wing off with .50s would be something akin to trying to snap a wooden plank with drills.
However, AH registers damage upon surface impact, and that damage is applied directly to the same surface. So, if a certain number of hits are registered at the wingroot, the wingroot will just fall off. Kills in AH are in vast majority caused by structural failures.
If internal DM was more complex, .50s would have a noticeably different effect in the game. You'd rarely be able to snap off a wing with .50s, but the probability of disabling the target plane's controls, or causing damage would become higher.
-
Well,... there is some people in this game I would not want on my 6, with any thing that has a projectal,... , just because they know where and how to shoot. I dont care if they were shooting at me with a BB gun. <-- single shot- pump action!! at that!
Matter of fact with some of these guys, shooting at me with a freaking sling shot in there hand while leaning out the cockpit would scare the hell outa me!
Dennis the menace has nothing on them!!!! Oh and you guys know who you are!! I should be on your do not kill list!!
hehe! :p
-
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_50cal.php
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~frontacs/WBStored/TombonGunsandDamage.html
-
The last link supported my belief the .50 rounds should have destroyed the target. He was in exactly the right spot starting at 450yds & exiting at around 375yds with my conv. set at 425yds & nearly 100 rounds in his engine, cockpit & wing roots. I have a .50 cal round in my hand as I write this, if the human body got hit with even 1 (one) of these rounds it would be dead, forget the other 99. I would not have started this thread if it hadn't happened several times before. It was merely for H.T.C. to double check the model for the .50 which I still believe is weaker than it should be. I now bow to all the "experts" who think it's fine the way it is. Goodbye & happy game play.
P.S. My M-14 hits hard at 1,000 yards & is accurate & it's only a .308. I can't see far enough to fire the .50 cal. No hard feelings either way,it's just a game. Long live Ma-Duece.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
About .50 lethality, I see no way to cut the wing of a B24 with them in RL, here with a P47 you can easily cut the entire B24 in half with 2 second burst. In RL .50s may have been good to damage systems, kill pilots and to start fires, but they were too weak to cause catastrofic structural damage. Here you can cut whatever you want with them.
The History channel showed the "Flying Misfits" last night ... the pilot film for the series "Baa Baa Blacksheep" staring Robert Conrad.
Before going to commercial, they had short snippet interviews with some of the actual Blacksheep pilots.
One of the pilots said and I quote ... "six .50 caliber machine guns could rip a boxcar in half at 800 yards". I don't believe for a second that this guys was streching the truth and spoke from actual experience.
With that ... I can see a Corsair easily cutting a B-24 wing in half with no problem. Had I not heard this guy say that ... I might have agreed with you.
I too believe than in some instances, the .50 in AH is too enemic, but in other instances ... it slices and dices. I just rack it up to programming anomolies that will forever be inherent in this game ... just part of the territory.
-
my favorite planes to fly are P47 d11, F6 and 190A8--- the first 2 net me MANY assists, the last one mostly kills; On other hand, I Was 20k in B24's one day, saw a lone F6 diving on me (AHHH, HERE's that second kill I was looking for to complete the mission;) the guy did 3 diving, right to left attacks, exploded or set afire 1 bomber on each of the three passes..I put a very few pings on him, no obvious effect--Im guessing that was that 200 yard thing yall were referring to earlier--woulda swore it was a cannon plane hitting me (was Icemaw, btw--very good pilot) If im driving a jug and I ever GET that close to someone, ill definitely pull trigger;
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
"six .50 caliber machine guns could rip a boxcar in half at 800 yards".
Yes, with "surgery" aiming an lots, really lots of ammo and time, and, of course, from a still ground placement. I bet that pilot never cut anything with any kind of airborne MG, much less at 800 yards.
-
AH models 50 cal's with an 800 rounds/min rate of fire and 20mm's (hispando's) at 650 rounds/min. Using Shaw as a reference, that provides a relative lethality of 15.9 for a 20mm cannon versus 6.4 for a 50 cal gun. The cannons are over twice as lethal as 50 cal's. I think that is reflected in AH.
When firing at convergence with all guns set at the same distance, 50 cal's are very effective. A 2 second hit burst from 50 cal's (27 rounds) always causes noticable damage or downing of a plane. From the above description of leathality that is the same as 11 cannon rounds.
Regards,
Malta
-
2 seconds??? 2 seconds is a long time stan.
A two seconds burst all connecting would even blow up a Lancaster or a B-17 in AH. For most fighters, under 1 second of full, concentrated hit is more than enough. Usually a half-second burst at right angle will damage something bad.
-
I fly the Hog sometimes. It takes a good long burst to shoot down another plane.
My convergence is 350. I fire when the icon distance clicks from to 400 to 200.
Anything that's not a dead six kill is gravy. I hope a deflection shot will damage the plane. I'm more likely to do serious damage to a wing than to a fuselage.
Chicks dig gullwings.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Yes, with "surgery" aiming an lots, really lots of ammo and time, and, of course, from a still ground placement. I bet that pilot never cut anything with any kind of airborne MG, much less at 800 yards.
I guess you decided to only selectivly read what I wrote.
The pilot was a REAL - ACTUAL member of the Blacksheep squadron and flew in REAL - ACTUAL combat with Pappy Boyington in the Pacific.
These guys not only blew Zekes out of the air with great success, they also were very prolific at attacking ground targets all over the Pacific, so I would believe that he does have significant experiences in attacking ground target ... much more than you and I.
I believe what he said and there is no reason in the world not to believe what he said.
-
SlapShot, I tend to believe what he meant is simply that he was able to destroy targets at 800 yards with 50s, quite different than really cutting something big in half, unless you hit something that explodes. Of course, hitting wood instead of metal will produce quite different results.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
SlapShot, I tend to believe what he meant is simply that he was able to destroy targets at 800 yards with 50s, quite different than really cutting something big in half, unless you hit something that explodes. Of course, hitting wood instead of metal will produce quite different results.
I agree.
His statement seems to be an exageration intended to enforce the idea of how effective the .50 cals were.
-
50 cals really really really suck. That is why the US desided to use them . And they lost the war and we all speak German and Japo . . .. wait a minute?:confused:
-
Originally posted by dedalos
50 cals really really really suck. That is why the US desided to use them . And they lost the war and we all speak German and Japo . . .. wait a minute?:confused:
Where has anybody claimed they suck in this thread, other than the seriously misinformed OP?
-
not reading all the posts so it may have been said already...
if you want to see the hitting power of 50cals, go furballing in an SBD, it pwns.
-
I wish I had a nickel for every post Ive seen in the last few years that trivialized something that a WW2 pilot said....
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I wish I had a nickel for every post Ive seen in the last few years that trivialized something that a WW2 pilot said....
I was at a loss for words ... you seemed to have filled in perfectly.
-
What else do you believe?
P-47 pilots swearing that they bounced .50s and penetrated Tiger tanks from the underneath? I suppose you believe that also. We shan't "trivialize" what they say, no?
-
We could ask Straigaa........
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What else do you believe?
P-47 pilots swearing that they bounced .50s and penetrated Tiger tanks from the underneath? I suppose you believe that also. We shan't "trivialize" what they say, no?
The difference is that I saw and heard this guy who was filmed during an actual interview ... I have never seen any P-47 pilot interviewed and filmed stating that they bounced .50s and penetrated Tiger tanks from underneath ... if you have, then please direct me to where I can see and hear an actual p-47 combat pilot say that.
-
So if someone films a vet then you should believe his every word literally, but if its not filmed it cannot be believed?
Strange piece of logic you have there, Slap. Almost as strange as "ripping a box car in half with .50s"
What's most strange is, you take the guy's every word literally, without having to require him to show any kind of photo/footage evidence to back up such a claim.. and yet you ask me for an interview and film for one of the most popularly circulated WW2 myths of all time concerning the .50s.
In that case I would also, really like to see a guncam footage or recording, that shows 6x .50s ripping objects in half - literally. Not just tattering them with enormous amount of shots, but word for word, "in half", with surgical precision like Mando commented.
I'm pretty sure 6x .50s would probably be able to tatter an unarmoured target into a piece of rag with certain lengths of fire, but I find it extremely unlikely 6x .50s mounted on the wings, extremely sensitive to convergence issues, can just swoop on top of a boxcar and "rip it in half" in a strafing run. The dispersion pattern alone does not allow that kind of damage to occur.
-
This help? (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=48951&referrerid=710)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Where has anybody claimed they suck in this thread, other than the seriously misinformed OP?
It is you who are misinformed sir. I am relating what actually happened to me in the game. The aircraft I have engaged all seem immune to the .50 cal. rounds. Maybe it was rubber bullets on multiple occassions, or maybe it was a modelling problem, I do not know. I do know however I shot down a 51 the other day in the D-hog, from the same range, around 400yds & those .50's tore it to bits at nearly the same angle as the last encounter that did nothing. I have a .50 - I fire it - & I know what it will do. As far as bouncing .50's off a road & into a tanks belly to kill it, I think I would have to see it to believe it. I do know a .50 cal strafing run up the 6 of anything but the heaviest armour of WWII would damage it,I have seen the gun camera footage of the hits & subsequent smoked engine as the pilot strafed the bailed crew.
I say the round is under-modeled in this game when a panzers pintle gun does more damage at 400yds than a .50 cal pintle on an M-3 & thats just one instance of the problem I have encountered. It has happened numerous times, & since you are not attached to me, haven't had any problems, & I have no film, I think this thread should just die already.
-
Kweassa, consider the .32 revolver vs the .44 revolver. Fire at a barn wall (made of wood planks) with a .32 and you put a hol in the wood. Fire at the barn wall with a .44 and you snap the entire plank of wood in half and send it flying (leaving a larger gap in the wall where that used to be). Imagine a mostly wood box car being hit by 6x50cal MGs with 100s of rounds a minute. It'll be KINDLING baby!
I think what many people have is the misconception that a bullet will just make a hole. Sure the rifle caliber rounds will. But when a 50cal hits a piece of aluminum that's on a wing, it's not just making a hole and passing through. It's probably snapping rivets around that panel, warping it, having half of it curl up, or even ripping it right off (due to a combination of warp, snapped rivets, wind sheer, what have you), resulting in some structural integrity (the surface of the wing was load bearing, to an extend), and definitely a loss in lift and an increase in drag. Again, imagine with 6x 50cal, 100s of rounds a minute.
P.S. Don't forget: Most planes didn't HAVE empty spaces anywhere. Except the tail, in most cases. Most wings were filled with vital systems. Consider the 109, one of the common targets for the 6x50cal planes. The wings were filled with radiator equipment, sometimes ammunition, controls, and so forth. Yes there is some empty spaces, but all in all you're more likely to HIT something than to MISS something.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
It is you who are misinformed sir. I am relating what actually happened to me in the game.
Seeing as you posted nothing but wrong information I see no reason to think you anything other than misinformed.
For some bizzare reason you seem to think the .50s in AH are barely decernable from .303s and that they should nearly match 20mm guns. Having used all three many, many times in AH I can absolutely assure you that .50s are vastly better then .303s, probably about 4 to 5 times better. The Hispano 20mm is, as I understand it, based on the US Navy's evaluation that one Hispano 20mm cannon was equal in firepower to three Browning .50s.
The hit sprites in AH are large and often make it look like you hit with far more rounds than you did. I suspect that is what happened to you. It is not uncommon at all.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
The difference is that I saw and heard this guy who was filmed during an actual interview ... I have never seen any P-47 pilot interviewed and filmed stating that they bounced .50s and penetrated Tiger tanks from underneath ... if you have, then please direct me to where I can see and hear an actual p-47 combat pilot say that.
I saw a show on the history channel where several surviving P-47 pilots said they did that. Dont recall the name of the show atm though.
-
Bullets that will bounce off of asphalt/dirt then penetrate steel. I have always loved the silliness of this arguement.
-
Originally posted by Furious
Bullets that will bounce off of asphalt/dirt then penetrate steel. I have always loved the silliness of this arguement.
When bullets richochet they lose some, but not all of their kinetic energy. How much energy is lost depends on the angle that the bullets strike the ground the first time. Very little (if any) armor plate was used on the underneath side of tanks in WWII.
Did P-47 pilots really do that? /shrug Who knows? Niether of us do :)
-
Elfie,
WWII tanks all had armor on the belly. More than enough to stop some tumbling, deformed, reduced energy bullet striking at a shallow angle.
And yes, we know that they didn't from the examinations of destroyed tanks.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Elfie,
WWII tanks all had armor on the belly. More than enough to stop some tumbling, deformed, reduced energy bullet striking at a shallow angle.
And yes, we know that they didn't from the examinations of destroyed tanks.
ALL destroyed tanks were examined?
Belly armor on tanks was very thin and designed to protect the crew from anti-tanks mines.
None of us on this BBS were there. I would tend to take the word of an eye withness over speculation.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So if someone films a vet then you should believe his every word literally, but if its not filmed it cannot be believed?
Strange piece of logic you have there, Slap. Almost as strange as "ripping a box car in half with .50s"
What's most strange is, you take the guy's every word literally, without having to require him to show any kind of photo/footage evidence to back up such a claim.. and yet you ask me for an interview and film for one of the most popularly circulated WW2 myths of all time concerning the .50s.
In that case I would also, really like to see a guncam footage or recording, that shows 6x .50s ripping objects in half - literally. Not just tattering them with enormous amount of shots, but word for word, "in half", with surgical precision like Mando commented.
I'm pretty sure 6x .50s would probably be able to tatter an unarmoured target into a piece of rag with certain lengths of fire, but I find it extremely unlikely 6x .50s mounted on the wings, extremely sensitive to convergence issues, can just swoop on top of a boxcar and "rip it in half" in a strafing run. The dispersion pattern alone does not allow that kind of damage to occur.
I find it extremely unlikely 6x .50s mounted on the wings, extremely sensitive to convergence issues, can just swoop on top of a boxcar and "rip it in half" in a strafing run
I would to if I had the amount of hours you have had flying an F-4U Corsair attacking ground targets.
I know you speak from vast experience and who is this guy from the Blacksheep anyways ... some poser looking for attention I guess.
God you can be so thick at times.
When I see with my own eyes and hear with my own words a RL combat pilot attest to something, I am going to give him every benefit of the doubt.
As for the written word ... unless the book/article/excerpt was actually written by the combat vet, I would tend to take it with a large grain of salt.
Too many stories told second-hand have been embelished upon. The P-47 tale ... I have only heard it from sources on this board ... I have never been directed to where that was actually written or verbally attested to ... with that ... the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
None of us on this BBS were there. I would tend to take the word of an eye withness over speculation.
An eyewitness going 300mph a couple of hundred yards from the tank whose bottom he could not see and was armored with 15-25mm of armor. Ok. Fine.
You may persist in your illusionment.
Fer cryin' out loud, simple logic should tell you the claim is impossible bunk.
These guys were brave, young kids in the grip of tremendous powers. They were not supermen and we should honor them as the citizen soldiers they were, not deify them as some infalable ubermensch.
-
deify them as some infalable ubermensch
I see nowhere in this thread anyone asking that these gentlemen be deified ... only not to summarily dismiss them as exagerating and embelishing their personal experiences.
What is being said is that their personal observations and many hours of experience in WII fighter planes in actual combat hold a lot more weight and truth than those who have absolutely 0 hours in any WWII fighter plane and spent 0 hours fighting in WWII.
Simple logic tells me that the gentleman that I saw and heard speaks the truth and unless you are also a WWII fighter pilot that acutally flew combat missions or are a verified expert in the field or can actually point to verified data that disproves what he/they say ... then anything that a wannbe expert brings forth is and should be considered bunk.
Think about it ... this guy probably tore up more things than we can imagine ... static airplanes, vehicles, buildings, boats, etc. Of all the things that he has destroyed, he just so happens to mention a boxcar ... why in the hell would he say boxcar unless he actually saw or experienced destroying/slicing a boxcar. I believed that he was so impressed at this type of destruction that it remained with him to this very day.
Krusty brings up a very important point ... I wouldn't doubt that the majority of all boxcars were mde out of wood in those days and 6 .50 cals at 800 yards ... pre-convergence - at convergence - post convergence ... would reduce it to toothpicks.
You wannbe experts always manage to ruin threads such as this and if anyone brings anything to the table that just might refute what you believe is the gospel truth, you feel threatened and feel the need to debunk and trash it.
An eyewitness going 300mph a couple of hundred yards from the tank whose bottom he could not see and was armored with 15-25mm of armor. Ok. Fine.
Please ... tell us your eyewitness accounts of what happened in WWII when you flew fighter missions or any accounts of your experiences in WWII ... oh ... thats right ... you weren't alive then ... but u can summarily dismiss those that were.
Have a blast.
-
Seeker:
Thanks for digging the link up.
Brenjen:
It is you who are misinformed sir. I am relating what actually happened to me in the game. The aircraft I have engaged all seem immune to the .50 cal. rounds. Maybe it was rubber bullets on multiple occassions, or maybe it was a modelling problem, I do not know.
The point is you're basing all of this upon pure speculation without any kind of evidence to back it up.
What's more interesting is the general attitude upon which some people agree with you. These are the same group of people who will comment with strong disbelief towards such claims if for instance, someone comes to post in the A/V or Game forums with the typical "Hey! My plane X was outturned by a plane Y.. he did impossible things... the game is modelled wrong!". In every case evidence is requested. Anecdotal claims are simply discredited.
Usually the conclusion is reached that the poster was not properly informed about what a plane could do, or what the situation was. Except... whenever a .50 issue comes up, it's all hooplah - no evidence required. Typical case of biased reasoning if I ever saw one.
I do know however I shot down a 51 the other day in the D-hog, from the same range, around 400yds & those .50's tore it to bits at nearly the same angle as the last encounter that did nothing.
This all the more proves the situation was different in the two cases. It's your word only, without any evidence to back it up. And I dare say it's faulty observation.
I have a .50 - I fire it - & I know what it will do. As far as bouncing .50's off a road & into a tanks belly to kill it, I think I would have to see it to believe it. I do know a .50 cal strafing run up the 6 of anything but the heaviest armour of WWII would damage it,I have seen the gun camera footage of the hits & subsequent smoked engine as the pilot strafed the bailed crew.
So have I. All Koreans are military conscripts and receive army training. But that doesn't make me an expert in firearms and their capabilities. Also, how would a .50cal strafing run against an armoured tank ever damage anything when the suggested penetration is physically impossible? Magic?
There are parts and parcels located upon tanks that are indeed susceptible to damage under .50 fire, but in regards to "damage" as stopping the total functionality of a battle tank, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so with .50s, and that's a given scientical fact.
I say the round is under-modeled in this game when a panzers pintle gun does more damage at 400yds than a .50 cal pintle on an M-3 & thats just one instance of the problem I have encountered. It has happened numerous times, & since you are not attached to me, haven't had any problems, & I have no film, I think this thread should just die already.
No film, no evidence. Empty claim, and a questionable one too. Numerous reasons can be given to what you've experienced. Besides, some of the better pilots have absolutely no problems in strafing M3s dead.
-
Krusty:
Kweassa, consider the .32 revolver vs the .44 revolver. Fire at a barn wall (made of wood planks) with a .32 and you put a hol in the wood. Fire at the barn wall with a .44 and you snap the entire plank of wood in half and send it flying (leaving a larger gap in the wall where that used to be). Imagine a mostly wood box car being hit by 6x50cal MGs with 100s of rounds a minute. It'll be KINDLING baby!
It'd be in rags and pieces. Not "cut in half".
A boxed car is a relatively small target with brittle surface. Strafing methods in WW2 were typically "walking the shots in", which the bullet landing patterns will start out wide, get narrower as the target nears the exact convergence range the guns are set, and than widen again as the range becomes closer than the convergence setting.
Nobody particularly questioned the vet's statement. Mando, logically pointed out it was an exaggeration, and you'd need surgical precision hits on a stable platform to really 'cut it in half' - except, someone starts to claim that statements should be accepted literally. (and preferably without any evidence)
ps) The higher the power of penetration is, the less damage it will do to ambient surfaces. The reason why your example of small arms snaps wooden planks is actually because it is weak. If you shoot at a wooden surface with rounds that is not hollow point, or doesn't shatter upon impact, or is not disfigured, it leaves a clear hole.
I think what many people have is the misconception that a bullet will just make a hole. Sure the rifle caliber rounds will. But when a 50cal hits a piece of aluminum that's on a wing, it's not just making a hole and passing through. It's probably snapping rivets around that panel, warping it, having half of it curl up, or even ripping it right off (due to a combination of warp, snapped rivets, wind sheer, what have you), resulting in some structural integrity (the surface of the wing was load bearing, to an extend), and definitely a loss in lift and an increase in drag. Again, imagine with 6x 50cal, 100s of rounds a minute.
That's not what the battle damage pics show. A group of .50s landing at a concentrated spot does wreck havoc on a surface. The more precise this concentration is, the closer it becomes to almost mimicing the effects of cannon fire.
However, firing on a small plane that is maneuvering through the air, with the gun platform itself mounted on a wing that is susceptible to flex and vibrations, with multiple convergence issues, and difficulty of general targetting? That's a totally different story.
P.S. Don't forget: Most planes didn't HAVE empty spaces anywhere. Except the tail, in most cases. Most wings were filled with vital systems. Consider the 109, one of the common targets for the 6x50cal planes. The wings were filled with radiator equipment, sometimes ammunition, controls, and so forth. Yes there is some empty spaces, but all in all you're more likely to HIT something than to MISS something.
No objections here. I totally agree.
But that's exactly why I mentioned in the earlier post that it's a DM issue, not a .50 issue. .50 fire should have higher probability of damaging internal systems, and less probability of snapping surfaces off.. except AH DM rarely has any internal DM we know of(rods.. cables.. spars..), and all damage is more or less received and dealt directly on the surface - which consequences result in strutural failure as the main reason of planes being shot down - as opposed to what .50 guncam footage shows.
And I'm not opposing this kind of change. I want it too.
It's not the .50 modelling is wrong. It's the DM that is insufficient.
Elfie:
I saw a show on the history channel where several surviving P-47 pilots said they did that. Dont recall the name of the show atm though.
Thanks for that Elfie. Now since clearly someone saw this recorded interview, I guess some of you guys must conclude that the particular vet story should also be taken literally!
SlapShot:
I see nowhere in this thread anyone asking that these gentlemen be deified ... only not to summarily dismiss them as exagerating and embelishing their personal experiences.
What is being said is that their personal observations and many hours of experience in WII fighter planes in actual combat hold a lot more weight and truth than those who have absolutely 0 hours in any WWII fighter plane and spent 0 hours fighting in WWII.
Except you will accept their experiences without any logical concern on the situational matter. You will take it literally and not question it, and accept it as a fact, because they said so.
That may not be 'deifying', but it is giving up logical/scientifical approach towards proving a claim.
Your remarks are typical of empiricism which assumes everything anyone has to say must come with experience, and those who have experience will always tell the truth(or, what they perceived to be true will always be really "true").
Except people like Tony Williams or Emmanuel Gustin also has absolutely ZERO hours in WW2 aerial combat and yet they provide as much - in some cases even more - insight and scientifical proof in what the aerial gunnery was like in those days, than your typical "vet".
Lucky for us, God gave us something we call logical analogy. By examining pieces of facts and evidence we can piece up an accurate picture of what happened. Experience helps, but it's not the only thing that can prove anything.
Besides, if we should follow your logic, you shouldn't be objecting to us since you're not the person who flew those fighters and made those claims. You also have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like, and thus, you also base your statements on facts and pieces which YOU perceive to be logical. You're also using your own process of logical analysis without concern to firsthand experience, just like every one of us.
In short, according to your empiricism, you shouldn't even be posting here. Because obviously you know nothing about what it is like and thus, have no substance which you can put against us to discredit our claims.
Please ... tell us your eyewitness accounts of what happened in WWII when you flew fighter missions or any accounts of your experiences in WWII ... oh ... thats right ... you weren't alive then ... but u can summarily dismiss those that were.
That's not a denial.
Do we need to experience to know that cramming pig stickers up our arses is gonna smart? Do we need to experience to know that a physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal? If it be so why did humanity even bother with science?
Or maybe science does not apply in this case, and it's some divine intervention that allows .50 rounds to bounce off road surfaces and penetrate inches of hardened metal, because German made tanks were evil incarnate?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Belly armor on tanks was very thin and designed to protect the crew from anti-tanks mines.
You want to say what 0.5cal bullet after ricochet from road and hitting armor at about 5-10 degrees has more power then anti-tank mine? Amazing.
Originally posted by Krusty
But when a 50cal hits a piece of aluminum that's on a wing, it's not just making a hole and passing through.
It do exactly that. A single hole ~13mm in diameter. Hell, 20mm AP round do almost same.
Look this film (~8Mb): http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/wing-test.wmv
-
Mando, logically pointed out it was an exaggeration, and you'd need surgical precision hits on a stable platform to really 'cut it in half'
Yeah ... you and Mando have how many hours in a F4-U or any armed WWII fighter plane ? Let me guess ... 0 hours ... thats what I thought.
Except you will accept their experiences without any logical concern on the situational matter. You will take it literally and not question it, and accept it as a fact, because they said so.
Logically ... he knows more than you and has far more experience on this topic than you could ever garner. Logically ... I choose him and not you.
That may not be 'deifying', but it is giving up logical/scientifical approach towards proving a claim.
Please ... did someone start the smoke machine ?
Your remarks are typical of empiricism which assumes everything anyone has to say must come with experience, and those who have experience will always tell the truth(or, what they perceived to be true will always be really "true").
When it comes to choosing between him or you ... you lose hands down. His word is far more concrete than you could ever dream of ... he DID fly combat missions ... you DID NOT ... he DID fly an F4-U Corsair ... you HAVE NOT. If the two of you were testifying to a jury as experts ... you would lose hands down.
Except people like Tony Williams or Emmanuel Gustin also has absolutely ZERO hours in WW2 aerial combat and yet they provide as much - in some cases even more - insight and scientifical proof in what the aerial gunnery was like in those days, than your typical "vet".
Tony nor Emmanuel have not weighed in yet on this thread/topic. Until they do, and empirically disprove what this vet says ... you still loose hands down to the vet.
Lucky for us, God gave us something we call logical analogy. By examining pieces of facts and evidence we can piece up an accurate picture of what happened. Experience helps, but it's not the only thing that can prove anything.
Nice try ... prove the vet wrong.
Besides, if we should follow your logic, you shouldn't be objecting to us since you're not the person who flew those fighters and made those claims. You also have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like, and thus, you also base your statements on facts and pieces which YOU perceive to be logical. You're also using your own process of logical analysis without concern to firsthand experience, just like every one of us.
Logically ... I am objecting to you because you know absolutely squat ... again, you could only wish to have the practical and real experiences that this vet speaks of. At least you would have a leg to stand on ... as far as I am concerned ... but we all know that you have 0 hours in a 6 gunned .50 cal WII fighter. I think my logic is pretty sound. You lose.
And how would you know that I have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like ? You know nothing about me, yet you can make that assumption ... so very much like the assumptions and logic that you have been applying to this discussion ... total conjecture on your part ... not a very scientific approach for one that holds it so high.
In short, according to your empiricism, you shouldn't even be posting here. Because obviously you know nothing about what it is like and thus, have no substance which you can put against us to discredit our claims.
You really crack me up ... I never claimed to know what it was like ... that is why I passed on what I heard from someone who did claim to know what it is like ... and has the history to prove it. Something that you drastically lack yet try to get others to believe that you "know what it was like". You have absolutly NOTHING to back your claims ... you never do.
Do we need to experience to know that cramming pig stickers up our arses is gonna smart? Do we need to experience to know that a physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal? If it be so why did humanity even bother with science?
Or maybe science does not apply in this case, and it's some divine intervention that allows .50 rounds to bounce off road surfaces and penetrate inches of hardened metal, because German made tanks were evil incarnate?
Here comes the smoke and mirrors ... The 'ol Kweassa 23 skidoo.
Let me refresh you ... I am the one that is saying that a 6 gunned .50 cal Corsair can cut a boxcar in half at 800 yards.
I did say in a previous post that as far as I am concerned ... the jury is still out on the "bouncing" .50 cals as far as I am concerned. I have only read the "urban legend" on this BBS, but I have yet to see anyone, which includes you, produce scientific evidence that it is unequivocably impossible.
So get your Radio Shack scientific calculator out and give us the ... physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal that proves it completely impossible. Make sure it's indepth and totally complete ... hope you have access to a Cray.
-
BTW, I've read the interview with russian WW2 veteran (Golodnikov N.G.) where he told what his wing leader cut Ju87 in two parts literally with 12 0.303 guns. But. He did it from about 50m and spent almost all ammo.
-
A bouncing .50 killing a Panzer ?
I doubt a ricocheting will ever have more penetration than a straight .50
Slapshot in the sentence you refered what meaning has the word "rip" ?
Main Entry: 1rip
Pronunciation: 'rip
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ripped; rip·ping
Etymology: probably from Flemish rippen to strip off roughly
transitive senses
1 a : to tear or split apart or open b : to saw or split (wood) with the grain
2 : to slash or slit with or as if with a sharp blade
3 : to hit sharply
4 : to utter violently : spit out
5 : CRITICIZE, PUT DOWN
intransitive senses
1 : to become ripped : REND
2 : to rush headlong
[/SIZE]
-
Yeah ... you and Mando have how many hours in a F4-U or any armed WWII fighter plane ? Let me guess ... 0 hours ... thats what I thought.
Extreme empiricism. Again.
Logically ... he knows more than you and has far more experience on this topic than you could ever garner. Logically ... I choose him and not you.
Nobody forced anyone to choose anything. Listening to reasoning and thinking about it, is not a matter of "choice" but a matter of logic.
What you're saying is basically a McDonald employee who made burgers for years knows more about nutrition and health than people who read about it from Medical books, because he handled more food in real life. Experience gives you absolute knowledge, eh?
When it comes to choosing between him or you ... you lose hands down. His word is far more concrete than you could ever dream of ... he DID fly combat missions ... you DID NOT ... he DID fly an F4-U Corsair ... you HAVE NOT. If the two of you were testifying to a jury as experts ... you would lose hands down.
In your way of thinking perhaps. Since you don't require any thinking, any logic, any analysis, any data, and any proving process.
You're the guy who picks up the Bible, opens a passage, and tells people, "Here, it says so right here. So I believe this divine authority, not human logic."
You'd have made a great inquistor in the medieval ages, I'll give you that.
Tony nor Emmanuel have not weighed in yet on this thread/topic. Until they do, and empirically disprove what this vet says ... you still loose hands down to the vet.
It's a matter of time. Tony probably won't wanna break it to you the hard way or would wanna be involved in this feud you create - as you always do. But hypothetically, if Tony or Emmanuel does intervene, and supports my claim over yours, what are you gonna do? Suck up all your empiricism and suddenly turn sides?
One thing for certain it'd be an interesting thing for the rest of us to watch.
Nice try ... prove the vet wrong.
We already have.
Actually, in terms of logic, you'd probably have to prove that what he mentioned in his interview is 100% literal, and no exaggeration, or figurative speech was used. You first have to prove that when he said "rip a box car in half", he meant not destroying it easily, but in exactly in half in a surgical strike, as you would see .50s ripping off wings cleanly from the root like it does in AH.
But oh wait. You don't like logic.
Besides, don't try to turn this into us vs. him. It never was us vs. him.
It's;
YOUR PERSONAL. SECOND-HAND INTERPRETATION OF WHAT A CERTAIN VET MENTIONED IN THE INTERVIEW
vs.
OUR BULLSHI* CALL ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE VET SAID.
It's us against you, not us against vet. Don't try to hide behind someone else's authority.
Again, you're showing a typical medieval age attitude. Somebody raises questions to the church and their interpretation of the Bible, and then the church accuses the individual for heresy and burns him at the stake.
And how would you know that I have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like ? You know nothing about me, yet you can make that assumption ... so very much like the assumptions and logic that you have been applying to this discussion ... total conjecture on your part ... not a very scientific approach for one that holds it so high.
You didn't seem to show diddly-squat of a hesitation in assuming that I had no knowledge in firearms.
So ok. Did you ride in 6x .50 armed planes and shoot at a box car? Did they "rip in half"?
You really crack me up ... I never claimed to know what it was like ... that is why I passed on what I heard from someone who did claim to know what it is like ... and has the history to prove it. Something that you drastically lack yet try to get others to believe that you "know what it was like". You have absolutly NOTHING to back your claims ... you never do.
There are ideas and logical doubts presented here in this thread by some people. They certainly did not come from you. Not one piece of original thought. You're every word is based on an interview you saw. And then you go as far as to claim he is the bible in reciting the effects of gun damage to physical objects.
Like always, you say a lot, try to smear someone, and yet have no substance whatsoever.
Let me refresh you ... I am the one that is saying that a 6 gunned .50 cal Corsair can cut a boxcar in half at 800 yards.
Which, is your personal interpretation on some interview. We, who are skeptical of you, interpret it in a different way.
I did say in a previous post that as far as I am concerned ... the jury is still out on the "bouncing" .50 cals as far as I am concerned. I have only read the "urban legend" on this BBS, but I have yet to see anyone, which includes you, produce scientific evidence that it is unequivocably impossible.
Do you really believe this load of horsecrap you're saying? If I were you I'd be either out of my mind, or be pretty embarassed to say something like this, since it's clearly a pathetic bid to keep alive an argument which is in everyway already hopeless.
Dig up the penetration angles and charts which has been mentioned again and again in this forum, and tell me if a AP round that bounces of asphalt can penetrate a tank underbelly with substantial portion of its kinetic energy lost, at an insufficient angle, and with a deformed round due to impact.
So get your Radio Shack scientific calculator out and give us the ... physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal that proves it completely impossible. Make sure it's indepth and totally complete ... hope you have access to a Cray.
Take out a book and read Slap. It's in the stores.
It's quite amazing you come this far arguing so many stuff, trying to discredit so many people, ideas, and suggestions, with just a single passage of dialogue from a single interview of a single person, without producing a single piece of evidence or logical refutal.
Your entire posting tendency is based on someone else's words. Unless someone does not give you material to tamper and warp, you cannot post anything original, or any idea or suggestion or logical process of thinking of your own.
At least Brenjen has the decency to post about what he thinks, and what he deems to know as true, and then tries to describe to us how and why that is true. He thinks Slap. You don't.
That's why we have no reason to do mud-slinging crap with him. We can discuss this with him, and we can compare our views and ideas with him.
With you, everytime you step up into a discussion it becomes an environmental disaster.
Why?
Because you don't think. You argue before you think, and then you need someone else's words in order to keep the argument going.
-
Originally posted by straffo
A bouncing .50 killing a Panzer ?
I doubt a ricocheting will ever have more penetration than a straight .50
Slapshot in the sentence you refered what meaning has the word "rip" ?
1 a : to tear or split apart or open
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
blah blah blah ...
smoke and mirrors
blah blah blah
Save your anecdotal crap ... anybody can come up with a scenario that will support any position ... it holds no water.
Practice what you preach ... show me/us your hard data and scientific facts that disprove ...
"six .50 caliber machine guns could rip a boxcar in half at 800 yards"
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
1 a : to tear or split apart or open
strange because if I translate rip to French (with this meaning) and translate it back I obtain the word "shred"
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Or maybe science does not apply in this case, and it's some divine intervention that allows .50 rounds to bounce off road surfaces and penetrate inches of hardened metal, because German made tanks were evil incarnate?
That'll work :aok
-
M-60 machine gun, 7.62 NATO Full Metal Jacket vs. barrel at 200 yards, stationary. Makes holes, doesn't rip barrel in half per se. Could it? yes with enough rounds and time and placement. So could a .22.
-
What the hell has gotten into you guys Slapshot?
You are arguing semantics. What Kweassa is saying you are saying (if you follow) is this "F4U flies down, shoots boxcar. Leaves. Boxcar is laying on ground in two identical halves.".
That is extraordinarily unlikely, to say the least. Would 6 x .50s blow a wooden boxcar to scrap? Absolutely. And I don't even think Kweassa would disagree with that.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
What the hell has gotten into you guys Slapshot?
You are arguing semantics. What Kweassa is saying you are saying (if you follow) is this "F4U flies down, shoots boxcar. Leaves. Boxcar is laying on ground in two identical halves.".
That is extraordinarily unlikely, to say the least. Would 6 x .50s blow a wooden boxcar to scrap? Absolutely. And I don't even think Kweassa would disagree with that.
Fully agree with that Urchin ... I didn't bring semantics into this ... I simply relayed what the guy said.
Others decided to focus on the "cut in half" part of the quote inorder to try and discredit what the vet said and not try to understand the true depiction of destruction.
Most would not picture a boxcar perfectly sliced in half ... but rather the damage incurred gave the appearence of being sliced in half, but because those were the words that he used ... he must be debunked by over-zealous wannbe experts.
-
Originally posted by straffo
strange because if I translate rip to French (with this meaning) and translate it back I obtain the word "shred"
The two words ... rip and shred ... could easily be exchanged in the context of that sentence.
Rip ... to me ... is more of a clean cut ... where as shred is more of a course cut or cuts.
I ripped your shirt ... this could possible fixed.
I shredded your shirt ... this more than likely can't be fixed.
-
The problem is that the folks pushing numbers and stats tend to be quick on the trigger to discredit anything a vet says as beyond the realm of possibility.
Whether it worked or not is open to speculation, that Jug drivers for example attacked tanks from behind and did in fact try and walk their fire in so they hit gas tanks or had ricochets come up under a tank is not. I've heard that from two different Jug driver vets. One a career pilot and Silver Star winner in Jugs.
Those guys got good at what they did and could put the bullets where they aimed them.
I watched a documentary with one of them one time. It was that recent color documentary "Thunder monsters over Europe" or something similar about 9th AF Jug Group. As the strafing film was coming across he was commenting on the guys shooting from too far out and other things. He'd learned the craft and could see the mistakes.
Compare it to the AH pilots. You've got those guys who seem to make impossible shots, and then the rest of us who spray and pray. The experience counts for something even in AH.
To dismiss the experiences of the vets because it 'can't happen that way" is silly.
You are talking about sawing a boxcar in half. My first thought was that B24 photo showing it sawed in two right in front of the waist windows by the fire from a 262. The called the 24 a flying boxcar. Guess you can saw them in half.
I hear folks, whenever rocket Tiffies are brought up say that they never really hit anything or stopped tanks. Yet German vets confirm that they didn't move in daylight for fear of that airpower. Someone was doing something right.
I remember one time writing in to an aviation magazine to point out something in error regarding the Spit XII. The reply was from the author of the article saying he had such and such a document that says etc etc. The pilot who told me the info and did the test flying wrote in to support what I'd said and got the same reply :) Even though he'd done the flying and was there he was wrong.
Ahh but they're old and not engineers so they lack credibility. LOL
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
The problem is that the folks pushing numbers and stats tend to be quick on the trigger to discredit anything a vet says as beyond the realm of possibility.
Whether it worked or not is open to speculation, that Jug drivers for example attacked tanks from behind and did in fact try and walk their fire in so they hit gas tanks or had ricochets come up under a tank is not. I've heard that from two different Jug driver vets. One a career pilot and Silver Star winner in Jugs.
Those guys got good at what they did and could put the bullets where they aimed them.
I watched a documentary with one of them one time. It was that recent color documentary "Thunder monsters over Europe" or something similar about 9th AF Jug Group. As the strafing film was coming across he was commenting on the guys shooting from too far out and other things. He'd learned the craft and could see the mistakes.
Compare it to the AH pilots. You've got those guys who seem to make impossible shots, and then the rest of us who spray and pray. The experience counts for something even in AH.
To dismiss the experiences of the vets because it 'can't happen that way" is silly.
You are talking about sawing a boxcar in half. My first thought was that B24 photo showing it sawed in two right in front of the waist windows by the fire from a 262. The called the 24 a flying boxcar. Guess you can saw them in half.
I hear folks, whenever rocket Tiffies are brought up say that they never really hit anything or stopped tanks. Yet German vets confirm that they didn't move in daylight for fear of that airpower. Someone was doing something right.
I remember one time writing in to an aviation magazine to point out something in error regarding the Spit XII. The reply was from the author of the article saying he had such and such a document that says etc etc. The pilot who told me the info and did the test flying wrote in to support what I'd said and got the same reply :) Even though he'd done the flying and was there he was wrong.
Ahh but they're old and not engineers so they lack credibility. LOL
Dan/CorkyJr
Wow .. another person who believes the word of someone who has been there ... done that ... rather some pencil pushin' pseudo-scientific wannbe expert ... thank the lord above.
I envy you to be able to sit down and chat with these guys.
-
Well in 1940z during WWII, Most if not all of the RR cars were made of wood, I dont think there were too many "if any" made of all metal. Engines back then would not have been able to tow very many if made outa all metal . Besides during ww2 steel was needed for other stuff.
I have some videos of ww2 planes shooting up stuff and they did tear up some RR cars, you might say Ripped in half, but they were made of wood, wood frames. Very few had metal frame, if it had metal it was very thin metal on some cars in certin spots. 50's would tear them up ,, oh ya!
Now the RR cars of today, all metal your not gunna tear one of these in half with a ww2 50 cal nothing. with 1 scrafe anyway
-
Have you ever fired a .50? Have you ever read anything about the sabre on mig fights over Korea? Same .50 cal. round doing damage at much greater ranges than it's getting credit for here. I would like to hear from some people who have fired .50's in anger about the capabilities of the round. But I made this post simply for the AHII staff to give it a look & decide if it merited any adjustment,not to start an argument over. To all of you I say thanks for the suggestions on what to do to cure the original situation.
Wow. It's absolutely absurd and irrelevant to compare gunnery performance of the F-86 to WWII. Not only do the fuselage mounts of the Sabre's .50 cals combined with the much heavier weight of the plane make for a far more stable gun platform, but the F-86 was also equipped with a radar assisted gunsight allowing the pilots to take accurate shots from much greater distances. Wing mounts, flimsy airframes and pure manual shooting all made for much harder gunnery in WWII. The most common accounts of WWII gunnery by pilots indicate that they could only hit with any great frequency when the enemy aircraft virtually filled their entire windscreen. Combine this with the relatve vulnerability of the MiG's jet engine to damage as opposed to the extremely tough radial of an F4U and your example of the Sabre vs MiG in comparison to F4U vs F4U is made even more ridiculous.
Try using a plane with centerline mounted .50's like the P38 or the A20. You'll see that you shouldn't have much trouble landing hits out to 1000 yards on non maneuvering targets, which is a bit more akin to the F-86 example. For WWII, landing hits from 600 yards or more was rare. There are accounts, but the pilots mostly attribute the hits to pure luck. Most pilots were trained not to fire from so far as it would be a waste of precious ammo.
-
Most would not picture a boxcar perfectly sliced in half ... but rather the damage incurred gave the appearence of being sliced in half, but because those were the words that he used ... he must be debunked by over-zealous wannbe experts.
Again, you turn it into a "me vs him", when it is really "me vs you" issue.
Nobody had any problems in what he said and could easily account for differences in opinions, until your smart prettythang remark against Mando insisted every vet is always more correct over any scientifical proving, and what vets say must be believed literally. I call that bullshi*.
If there is I'm trying to 'debunk', it's your biased fanatic approach to oral testimonies, without any consideration to common logic.
You are talking about sawing a boxcar in half. My first thought was that B24 photo showing it sawed in two right in front of the waist windows by the fire from a 262. The called the 24 a flying boxcar. Guess you can saw them in half.
Right.
So landing 3~5 shells with nose mounted 4x MK108s on the waist of a B24, is the same thing as shooting at a real box car on the ground with a strafing pass with a 6x .50 wing-armament?
-
To cut anything metallic in half with small cal guns/MGs you need (not considering hits in explosive parts like fuel tanks or ammo boxes):
1 - To generate explosions (both, inside and outside the structure) powerfull enough to break the structure with the fragmentations, the holes and the shock waves. <- any 13mm, 20mm and 30mm HE round.
2 - To generate a internal explosion with a tremendous shock wave, powerful enough to deformate and open big parts of the estructure, so that it ends breaking by itself. <- 20mm and 30mm mines (151/20, MGFF and Mk108)
3 - To make enough aligned and well placed small holes. The material between the holes is not enough to keep the integrity of the structure and the structure breaks in half. <- any AP round, including 12mm 50 cal.
Do we agree with the above points?
If so, I cannot see any practical way to cut (or break) a B24 (for example) in half using any kind of AP rounds fired from any WW2 plane.
-
Originally posted by Ecliptik
Wow. It's absolutely absurd and irrelevant to compare gunnery performance of the F-86 to WWII. Not only do the fuselage mounts of the Sabre's .50 cals combined with the much heavier weight of the plane make for a far more stable gun platform, but the F-86 was also equipped with a radar assisted gunsight allowing the pilots to take accurate shots from much greater distances. Wing mounts, flimsy airframes and pure manual shooting all made for much harder gunnery in WWII. The most common accounts of WWII gunnery by pilots indicate that they could only hit with any great frequency when the enemy aircraft virtually filled their entire windscreen. Combine this with the relatve vulnerability of the MiG's jet engine to damage as opposed to the extremely tough radial of an F4U and your example of the Sabre vs MiG in comparison to F4U vs F4U is made even more ridiculous.
Try using a plane with centerline mounted .50's like the P38 or the A20. You'll see that you shouldn't have much trouble landing hits out to 1000 yards on non maneuvering targets, which is a bit more akin to the F-86 example. For WWII, landing hits from 600 yards or more was rare. There are accounts, but the pilots mostly attribute the hits to pure luck. Most pilots were trained not to fire from so far as it would be a waste of precious ammo.
No it isn't absurd.The damage from the round is not going to be much different & I have & do use the p-38 on occasion when all the rounds come together thats convergence,no matter how you get there. The differences in propellant & the differences in what the .50 slug was made out of would make a difference in the damage caused. I am tired of being called a liar in this thread because some of you don't agree the round is too weak in this game. I scored the hits. It's not a matter of one sight over another. You can't tell me 100 rounds in the top of a canopy with no damage to the plane is normal, & I don't give a ratz az if you think I am lying or not. I know what it should do, & I know what it does. It's weak. From this point forward I am going to film every engagement & then when I have an opinion about something I won't have to be called a liar when I relate what happened.
By the way; You close on an aircraft to within 400 yards & see if it doesn't fill your windscreen. That's pretty freakin close.
-
Originally posted by Schutt
Hits only slightly harder than .303?
Well take a spit1 with 8 .303 and a P47 with 8 .50 .
That's all there is to say bout that.:aok
-
Some of you may have seen this video, in the gulf war, a apache helo w/30mm cannon shooting up a couple of trucks and people. wow the people getting hit "splater" I mean crap flying everywhere the IR shows it. ewww! But the trucks get tore up huge holes etc.., one guy is hiding under a big truck is fired on by the helo, the rounds were fired into the the truck from front and at ground ricocheting under the truck. well the guy come rolling out from under the truck, rolling in front of this other truck wounded yes, not dead, then they fire on the front part (engine compartment) of this truck hes in front of now, to kill him, not aiming at him mind you, and the cannon rounds ricocheting did finnish him off. wicked stuff!! (depleted uranium rounds)
-
No it isn't absurd.The damage from the round is not going to be much different & I have & do use the p-38 on occasion when all the rounds come together thats convergence,no matter how you get there. The differences in propellant & the differences in what the .50 slug was made out of would make a difference in the damage caused.
It is absurd. The damage from the round IS different in that GUN and GUNNERY itself is different.
F-86s used the M3 Browning which was more powerful than its WW2 counterpart and was also boosted in firing speed upto 1200 rpm, 50% faster than its WW2 counterpart. The gun placement itself was also nose mounted. Factor in the radar ranging and guess what, we have here a plane that uses a different gun, different mounting, and a different targetting system that is far superior to that of a typical WW2 USAAF/USN fighter.
Irrelevant material for comparison. You're using a wrong example to prove your point.
I am tired of being called a liar in this thread because some of you don't agree the round is too weak in this game.
Right. So bring in proof. Present a film where you score sufficient and concentrated hits at convergence range but the target remains undamaged instead of flogging claims around.
No evidence, no case.
I scored the hits. It's not a matter of one sight over another. You can't tell me 100 rounds in the top of a canopy with no damage to the plane is normal
I say bullshi*. You'd probably hit less than 10% of what you claim.
I don't give a ratz az if you think I am lying or not.
And that's why you're not convincing to anyone in their right mind.
I know what it should do, & I know what it does.
But you don't know what YOU did. Again, memories are faulty and self serving in many cases, and I dare say this is one of those cases.
It's weak. From this point forward I am going to film every engagement & then when I have an opinion about something I won't have to be called a liar when I relate what happened.
That's a very good idea and we'd all sincerely appreciate it.
-
Please stop! Both of you!
The original post was relatively inoccuous in nature. The first few replies corrected the notion by saying that in AH the 50cal rocks.
Also, please read:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148778
I know I'm going to put my slider down even further and give it a test-run.
-
Remodel the boxcars, leave the 50 cals alone.
-
A wooden box car can be cut in half by .50 caliber bullets. Kiln dried wood will absorb the kinetic energy in a .50 caliber round and burst. Wood is a very different material than metal. While having an infinite fatigue life, wood has no plastic deformation and experiences catastrophic failure rather than 'bending out of shape' as metal does.
As an aside, .50 calibre bullets puncture a vehicle and introduce stress concentrations that cause failure due to normal loads. As such, bullet holes in low stress areas will not cause a failure. A few bullet holes in a high stress area, such as a wing root, will cause failure.
Regards,
Malta
-
Yeah Malta.
Maybe with a ground-mounted single .50 with lots of ammo. The gunner will just have to simply hold the trigger down, "start at the bottom", and "move his way up" and that gigantic box will cut in half. (<== hence, "surgical precision" as Mandoble mentioned)
Nobody's disputing that.
But in a flying platform with 6x .50s with a wide dispersion pattern with only one convergence where rounds meet? Will that 'catastrophic failure' be lined up neatly to form a single line where the box would be cut in half?
Or will the bullets just land all over the wooden box and totally pulverize it to bits?
Just think about what the people in AH are griping about when they have to kill acks with wingmounted .50s. Of hundreds of rounds fired, only a few land directly at the ack gun itself. The rest land all over the place.
If the questioned plane was something like a TBM or a SBD, with merely 2x .50s mounted at the nose, I'd still believe that's possible. However, 6x .50s mounted on the wings of a Corsair?
I don't beleive that.
-
Originally posted by g00b
I think the 50's are modeled pretty well for structural type damage. What I think is missing is the non-structural type damage, that would add a good bit to their effectiveness.
50's would tear up a planes insides, control cables, hydraulics, electrics, etc... Chopping a planes elevator controls would kill it just as well as knocking it's wing off.
It's a whole 'nother level of damage modeling and I kinda doubt we'll ever see it.
g00b
This man is correct, right now there is no effect from MINOR damage, we see bullet holes and such, but no real effect,drag..loss of lift causeing the plane to pull to one side,and so on...jamed alerons "not blown off just jamed in some position" untill we have all of this, the combat in ah2 will always be somewhat arcade fealing,and always lacking. THATS why no one fears death or minor damage in aces high, its your flying fine, or bam your wings gone.
We just dont see planes limping home with 60% right wing lift and control pulverised with combat damage, what we do see is la7's landing at 200mph with a wing tip missing, showing much skill..or lack of...codeing. "much love HT, no pun intended" :aok
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I would like to see the .50 calibre round given it's fair due in Aces HighII. It is weak & anemic,it seems to hit only slightly harder than the .303's. In reality ma duece tore planes outta the sky with close to the same effect as 20mm. And if i'm not mistaken the .50 cal rounds were a mixture of high explosive,armour piercing & tracers when loaded in the anti-aircraft role something like 3-5 H.E. to each A.P. & tracer. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
you ARE joking arnt you???? If so funny joke. if your not joking...... well your insain.
50cals are already alittle "too strong" id say. Or rather everything German is "too weak/slow"