Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DamnedRen on July 10, 2005, 08:11:59 PM

Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 10, 2005, 08:11:59 PM
Just passing along thoughts on neutered .50's vs RL.....

Read and weep :)

It's worth noting that the throw weight of the Ki-43 with 2 .50 cal (more or less) machine guns was about 162 lbs per minute.  The throw weight of the Me-109 models with one 20mm cannon and two .30 cal (more or less) machine guns was about 246 lbs. per minute--better, but not all that much different.  The throw weight of a P-40, with six .50 cal mgs, however,  was 486 lbs. per minute--very significantly different.  That's why marksmanship was so important to scoring with either the Ki-43 or Me-109:  the pilot had to make the few rounds he could fire in the brief window of opportunity he had count.  The P-40, on the other hand (and the other US fighters) put out such a volume of fire that as long as they hit the e/a (engine/airframe) somewhere, they likely did serious damage.

Just a quote about amassing a weight of .50 cal fire on an enemy plane.  I guess that doesn't count for much in AH2.


______________
Ren
The Damned

Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: eskimo2 on July 10, 2005, 08:18:01 PM
Canon armed planes can have a pretty serious punch due to the chemical energy in the explosive rounds in addition to the kinetic energy.  Look at the hitting power of a 3 x 20mm ME-109.  Chemical energy also is not lost through air resistance like kinetic energy.

eskimo
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: StarOfAfrica2 on July 10, 2005, 09:00:51 PM
How does it not count in AH?  At convergence ranges a 1 or 2 second burst from most 6 x .50 armed planes is enough to shred off wings.  Even the 8 x .303 Spit I and Hurri I will do the job with no more than a 2 second burst if you hit at convergence.  Its just a matter of being patient enough to get that proper range for the killing shot, or being willing to take small hits here and there that will add up.  The cannonz are just so much more dramatic when they hit that the MGs can seem wimpy in comparison.  They are just as deadly when they all hit at once though.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 10, 2005, 09:01:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by eskimo2
Canon armed planes can have a pretty serious punch due to the chemical energy in the explosive rounds in addition to the kinetic energy.  Look at the hitting power of a 3 x 20mm ME-109.  Chemical energy also is not lost through air resistance like kinetic energy.

eskimo


I agree and I'm not attempting to talk apples and oranges. I AM asking for a review of the "weight of fire" on a target and it's related damage model. The quote listed above is RL....

Thanks

______________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 10, 2005, 09:11:28 PM
The 4x .50s on the P-38 will pretty much shred anything they hit but then unlike wing mounted guns, the P-38's fire power is concentrated so the rounds are hitting for max effect.


ack-ack
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Messiah on July 10, 2005, 09:17:11 PM
2-4 50's at convergance will most definatley do critical damage to an enemy plane.  Planes like the P40 are putting out alot of lead but then again they might not all be hitting at convergance.  Planes like the Me-109 don't put so much lead out but they are almost all have nose mounted guns and if you hit with those it will suffice for the amount of lead.  Basically a balance between accuracy and power.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Hoarach on July 10, 2005, 09:18:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The 4x .50s on the P-38 will pretty much shred anything they hit but then unlike wing mounted guns, the P-38's fire power is concentrated so the rounds are hitting for max effect.


ack-ack


I dont always shred planes with the 38s 4x50s because ive put a good 500 rounds into some planes and they dont go down.  But the 38s guns being concentrated are easier to get long range shots such as for me 1000 yards out and im lucky to get 600 out with wing guns.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Karnak on July 10, 2005, 09:18:22 PM
There is a reason that all but one combatant went to 20mm and 30mm cannons and it isn't because the heavy machine guns were harder to mount or supply ammo too.  It is because they didn't offer nearly the firepower of the cannons.

The Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon was worth three Browning .50 caliber machine guns according to the USN.  Those are the values that Pyro based the relationship of those two guns on so far as I know.

What that means is that the Spitfire with two 20mm Hispano Mk IIs and two .50 Calober Brownings has approximately the same firepower as the P-47 with eight .50 caliber Brownings, but is able to focus the fire better for AH's damage model, and perhaps in reality too.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 10, 2005, 10:28:26 PM
Come on guys...the discussion is the throw weight of 6-50's and the fact that when that kinda weight hits something damage is done. Right?

Please continue, thanks......:)

_______________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Masherbrum on July 10, 2005, 10:30:30 PM
But what this thread fails to mention on cannons, were the OFTEN jams that were incurred with cannons.

Karaya
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Karnak on July 10, 2005, 11:09:55 PM
DamnedRen,

Yes, just like in AH.  I have never found the .50s to be wanting.  If anything, they hit too hard.  The big four engined bombers should be a lot more resiliant to them.

Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
But what this thread fails to mention on cannons, were the OFTEN jams that were incurred with cannons.

Karaya

The Hispano Mk II had approximately one stoppage in 2000 rounds fired, if I recall correctly.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 10, 2005, 11:21:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
DamnedRen,

Yes, just like in AH.  I have never found the .50s to be wanting.  If anything, they hit too hard.  The big four engined bombers should be a lot more resiliant to them.

 
The Hispano Mk II had approximately one stoppage in 2000 rounds fired, if I recall correctly.


I can understand the differences in hitting power on buffs. It's fighter v fighter where the weight of fire has been proven to be very effective with a direct hit.

For Mashuerbrum,

While it may not be common knowledge the Mustang suffered from many gun jams. They also had some tail problems as in "loosing them" and wings in hard, rolling turn fights. I think they had an abort rate in the EUR theatre of operation of around 30%. I still enjoy the ride in the game though. :)

_________________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Messiah on July 11, 2005, 01:43:22 AM
It's more about velocity than weight. You can drop a bullet on someone from your hand and they will laugh at you, you throw it at them at 5,000 fps and they will not even know what happened.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Furball on July 11, 2005, 04:49:47 AM
Search for Tony Williams' posts on the bbs.  heres a couple of posts to answer your question: -

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138530

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131669


And quoted from one of those threads: -

Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi again,

While I'm at it:


Firepower per barrel in MW:
MK 108:          5,03 MW
MK 103:          4,08 MW
NS-37:           2,17 MW
MG 151/20:       1,27 MW
Hispano V:       1,23 MW
VYa-23:          1,20 MW
Hispano II:      1,06 MW
37mm M4:         0,91 MW
20mm Ho-5:       0,71 MW
20mm Type 99-2:  0,63 MW
20mm Type 99-1:  0,52 MW
MG-FF:           0,78 MW
Berezin B-20:    0,64 MW
Ho-1 / Ho-2:     0,64 MW
20mm ShVAK:      0,64 MW
MG 151:          0,44 MW
12,7mm UB:       0,37 MW
,50 Browning M2: 0,28 MW
MG 131:          0,21 MW
Ho-103:          0,18 MW
12,7mm Scotti:   0,14 MW
Breda-SAFAT:     0,14 MW
Browning ,303:   0,09 MW
MG 17:           0,09 MW


Regards,

Henning (HoHun) [/B]
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Wilbus on July 11, 2005, 07:08:23 AM
Furball, according to that little chart the Mg151 should have a better hitting power then the Hispano II, am I right?

It must be with explosives aswell right?

50 cals in AH2 shred fighters apart even if not on cinvergence. Best guns in the game except for Hispano IMO, add to that they are easy to hit with.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Delirium on July 11, 2005, 07:18:14 AM
For me, the only difference between my P38 with and without cannon is the ability to knock down someone with less than a 1 second snapshot when they reverse and attempt to manuver out of plane.

Shooting at horizontal turning bandits, I don't see a difference...

The big difference between cannon and non cannon equipped aircraft is being able to cause critical damage at range, and to be able to knock down ack or some other ground structure.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Midnight on July 11, 2005, 11:09:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Hoarach
I dont always shred planes with the 38s 4x50s because ive put a good 500 rounds into some planes and they dont go down.


You may have fired 500 rounds, but you certainly didn't hit with 500 rounds.

If you hit at convergence or close to it, a 1/2 second burst with 6x .50s will kill just about anything that flies in AH.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 11, 2005, 11:28:25 AM
Midnight,

I disagree. It USED to take 1/2 second burst on target with .50's do get the job done. Now its a full second, unloaded.

______________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: monteini on July 11, 2005, 11:37:26 AM
Try taking down ack with 50's compared to 20mm cannons, If im going to take down ack off of a cv I will deffinatly take a zero or spit over the f4u or f6f, it only takes one quick burst with the cannon but consentrated hits with the .50.  Forget about the science, its the way it is in the game.

Nick
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: JB73 on July 11, 2005, 11:43:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by monteini
Try taking down ack with 50's compared to 20mm cannons, If im going to take down ack off of a cv I will deffinatly take a zero or spit over the f4u or f6f, it only takes one quick burst with the cannon but consentrated hits with the .50.  Forget about the science, its the way it is in the game.

Nick
that is because with the MG rounds you have to physically hit the gun, where with cannons, the gun takes damage from the explosion that happens close to the field gun
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: monteini on July 11, 2005, 11:47:46 AM
Thanks,

I was wondering why it was so easy to kill acks with the 20mm.

Nick
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: killnu on July 11, 2005, 11:47:57 AM
Quote
You may have fired 500 rounds, but you certainly didn't hit with 500 rounds.


when referring to the P38 as he was...there is no convergence issue to worry about...now he may not of hit all 500, but not due to convergence setting.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Wilbus on July 11, 2005, 11:57:33 AM
Quote
I disagree. It USED to take 1/2 second burst on target with .50's do get the job done. Now its a full second, unloaded.


I disagree. I usually kill people in a quick snapshot while just using the 50 cals in the P38. That is even less then half a second burst.
Full second will just about shred em apart in more then one place or blow em up right away.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 11, 2005, 12:00:44 PM
Quote
Try taking down ack with 50's compared to 20mm cannons, If im going to take down ack off of a cv I will deffinatly take a zero or spit over the f4u or f6f, it only takes one quick burst with the cannon but consentrated hits with the .50. Forget about the science, its the way it is in the game.


 It takes five .50 rounds to knock down ack, in normal setting.

 Basically, planes with wing armed MGs suck in getting hits to teeney weeney targets.


 Try taking up a SBD or a TBM - these have only 2x .50s, but it's still easier to kill acks with these planes than a F4U or a F6F.

 Cowl armament rocks!
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Hornet on July 11, 2005, 12:06:47 PM
50's are the best weapon system in the game. P51B is a great case in point, 4 wingmounted 50s will clip off tails, or wings with regularity when fired at convergence.

the problem is the 50s are so good it lures people into taking shots they normally wouldnt take with a different gun.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 11, 2005, 12:10:22 PM
Quote
when referring to the P38 as he was...there is no convergence issue to worry about...now he may not of hit all 500, but not due to convergence setting.


 Well, it's not hard to tell that he is exaggerating both the number of rounds fired, and number of rounds landed.

 The M2 Browning 50cal in AH is set up 800rpm - 0.075 seconds are required for each round fired.

 If he fired 500 rounds from four guns mounted on the P-38, he fired 125 rounds from each gun, which means he was holding down the trigger for roughly 9 or more seconds. (9.375 secs)


 Shoot at a plane for 9 seconds, and still it doesn't go down?

 Right....
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: JB73 on July 11, 2005, 12:18:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
Shoot at a plane for 9 seconds, and still it doesn't go down?

 Right....
i do that all the time, most every night, all types of guns ; (
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Bullethead on July 11, 2005, 01:16:21 PM
I have a very interesting book which every AHer would do well to read.  Maybe you'll agree with its conclusions, maybe you won't, but you can't deny it's got a lot of excellent data.  The book is:

Flying Guns:  The Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition, and Installations 1933-45, by Emmanuel Gustin and Anthony G. Williams, Airlife Publishing Ltd, 2003, ISBN 1-84037-227-3.

Anyway, as the title implies, this book covers all the aspects, not just the guns themselves but also their ammo, which was at least as important, as well as how they were mounted.  It's got real convergence settings for a lot of common AH planes, too.  Besides describing the weapons and ammo, it also draws on a lot of contemporary test results which compared the effectiveness of various guns and their different types of ammo against targets such as standard self-sealing fuel tanks inside aircraft structures at different ranges, armor penetration at different angles, etc.

At the end of the book, there's an appendix where the authors present their opinions about the relative effectiveness of typical standard gun/ammo combos (because the ammo had such a big effect on what a given gun could do).   They even say, "The comparative effectiveness of fighter guns in the Second World War is a subject of perennial fascination (and a great deal of argument) among technical military historians and, in particular combat sim designers and players."

To cut to the chase, the authors crunched the numbers in a way that combines kinetic engergy and ammo chemical energy for a given gun/ammo combo into a unitless coefficient, which can then be compared with the values derived for other weapons.  They also arranged their system so that .30cal ball ammo has a coefficient of 1, so it can be used as a baseline for everything else.  Interestingly, the authors' formula uses momentum instead of kinetic energy, because in their opinion squaring the velocity overstates its potential to cause damage.  Most of the target planes were sheet metal, so extra speed just made a neater hole instead of causing more damage.  The velocity was only really important for armor penetration, which is something of a special case on most targets.

Anyway, under the authors' system, things rank as follows:

POWER PER "AVERAGE" ROUND
Takes standard ammo belt composition into account

All .30-ish ball, AP, and I:  1  (.303, .30, 7.9, etc.)
12.7x81SR  AP and HE:  3  (Breda-Safat, Ho-103)
13x64B  AP and HE:    3  (MG131 and IJN 13mm Type 2)          
12.7x99 API:        4.5 (US M2)
12.7x108 API/52:  6  (UB Beresin)
15x96 AP and HE:  7 (MG 151)
20x94 HE and AP:  10  (Ho-5)
20x72RB HE:   12 (MG FF and Type 99-1)
20x99R:  13 (ShVAK and B-20)
20x80RB HEIT and HE(M):  15  (MG FFM)
20x101RB HE:  15 (Type 99-2)
20x82 HET and HE(M):  17 (MG 151/20)
20x125 HE:  18 (Ho-1, Ho-3)
20x110 HE (Mk II and V):  20 (Brit and US Hispanos)
23x152B API and HE:  26 (VYa)
30x90RB HE(M):  58 (MK 108)
37x195 HE:  106 (NS-37)

GUN POWER
Using above standardized ammo combined with guns' stats, such as ROF.  All guns rated on UNsynchronized ROF.  The authors note that synchronization reductions in ROF varied considerably from about -10% for German electric primers to between -20% to -40% for other systems.  The authors give the synchronized ROF for the 12.7 UB, so I've added numbers after the / for synchronized mountings using -10% for German 20mm and -20% for everything else (some of which is unnecessary because some guns weren't synchronized, but WTF?).

.30-ish MGs:  21/17
Breda-Safat:  36/29  
MG 131:  45/41
Ho-103:  45/36
.50 M2:  58/46
12.7UB:  102/78
MG 151:  84/76
Type 99-1:  96/78
MG-FF:  120/96
Type 99-2:  120/96
Ho-1 and -3:  126/100
Ho-5:  140/112
ShVAK and B-20:  169/135
Hispano Mk II:  200/160
MG 151/20:  204/184
VYa:  234/208
Hispano Mk V:  240/192
NS-37:  424/340
MK 108:  580/522

It's nice to see the 151/20 and the Hiso2 are about equal in destructiveness, which is supported by the contemporary test data.  Basically, the higher velocity of the Hiso was countered by the larger explosive content of the 151/20.  So this gives me a bit of confidence in what is obviously a somewhat subjective subject.

The authors take this 1 step further and give a "power-to-weight" ratio, taking into account the weight of the gun and its ammo, to come to an overall efficiency rating for each gun.  But that's beyond this argument.

SAMPLE AH PLANE FIREPOWER RANKING
My own creation, based on the above data.  This is PER SECOND and AT CONVERGENCE RANGE.  The different ballistics of some gun combos on some planes made it harder to get good convergence, and the "sweet spot" was smaller than for more homogenous armaments.

Brit 8x.303:  168
P-40B:  176
A6M2:  226
US 4x.50 (51B, F4F):  232
Bf 109F (1x20mm):  238
La-5:  270
Bf 109E:  274
A6M5:  274
Bf 109G6 (1x20mm):  286
Ki-61:  314
Bf 110C:  324
Yak-9U:  325
US 6x.50 (51D, F6F, Dhog):  348
Ki-84:  352
La-7 (3x20mm):  405
P-38:  432
FW D9:  450
P-47 (8x.50):  464
C.205:  466
N1K2-J:  480
Spit 5:  484
Yak-9T:  502
Il-2M:  510
Spit 9 (2x.50):  516
FW A5 (4x20mm):  642
Bf 109G6 (1x30mm):  662
Typhoon, Hurri IIC, Chog:  800
FW A8 (4x20mm):  858
Mossie:  884
Ta-152H:  948
Tempest:  960
Me 163:  1160
Bf 110G (2x20mm):  1568
FW A8 (2x30mm):  1610
Bf 110G2 (4x20mm):  1976
Me 262:  2320

So, to get back to the start of this thread, 6x.50s, according to this way of looking at things, was a bit weak by European standards, in terms of max potential damage per second.  It was better than the anemic guns of the early-war rides, but not quite into the spit and FW class.  Still, it wasn't THAT much worse, and the ballistics made for decent accuracy over a fairly long range, plus good convergence from all the guns being the same type.  Thus, I feel it was probably easier to get the most out of 6x.50s than it was with the mixed gun types on planes with more powerful armament on paper.  This would go some way towards redressing the apparent US weakness.  Still, unless you're packing multiple cannon, or a 30mm, you don't have that much firepower.

Of course, I have NO IDEA how HTC models all these guns, and whether or not the above is even close to HTC's method.  But at least it puts things in perspective.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 11, 2005, 01:22:21 PM
ok, this whole ack killing with 2 20mms that don't even hit the target is kind of fubar (no offence fubie :D ).  You guys want me to believe that 2 20mms (cause that is all it takes) hiting 5 or more feet away from the ack gun will totaly desable it and make it explode?  Then you have the case where a plane can take 2 or more 20s on a wing and have no damage?  Not saing that it should or shouldn't but if 20s can kill a gun by exploding 5 feet away well, you can emagine what they can do to a wing.

Wana have some fun?
Go in the DA with a friend.  Get as close as you cant to his plane and fire your 20s.  You will die while he flyins away with no major damage.

Land with your gear up.  Fires a small burst of 20s on the runway and you can get to the tower without having to end flight.

I don;t know what the hitting power of a 20 or 50 should be, but ammo seems to have some issues.  Fits in perfectly.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Soulyss on July 11, 2005, 01:29:11 PM
I haven't noticed a difference from AH1 to now in terms of the hitting power of .50 cals... what I think might be going on the perception has changed because of how the icon system works now.  Before you new exactly what range you were firing at.  Now it's broken down into 200 yard incriments... if your convergence is at 300 or anything but 200 or 400 you're basically guessing your range.  You can get close by measuring the closer rates but at best it's still an educated guess.  I think that have something to do with the "lesser" power of the .50's that I hear about every so often.  If I take that into consideration I haven't noticed a difference and I fly the hellcat 99% of the time it seems.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: JB73 on July 11, 2005, 01:35:53 PM
don't forget that the hit model in AHII is a vast improvment, and significantly different than in AH I

it was discussed in detail maybe 2 years ago, by Pyro and HT.

IIRC something along the lines of now AH tracks more points, and there is less "lienency".

i don't understand fully the details to explain it, but it is something along the lines of the "old" wing took a hit anywhere, it counted toward it's failure, and the "hit polygon" was very simplistic. now it is tighter, with more corners or something, and the "lazer .50" from 1.5k now ricchotes off a light angle or something.


i could be totally wrong in my explnation, but i know it is different.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: eskimo2 on July 11, 2005, 02:45:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
ok, this whole ack killing with 2 20mms that don't even hit the target is kind of fubar (no offence fubie :D ).  You guys want me to believe that 2 20mms (cause that is all it takes) hiting 5 or more feet away from the ack gun will totaly desable it and make it explode?  Then you have the case where a plane can take 2 or more 20s on a wing and have no damage?  Not saing that it should or shouldn't but if 20s can kill a gun by exploding 5 feet away well, you can emagine what they can do to a wing.

Wana have some fun?
Go in the DA with a friend.  Get as close as you cant to his plane and fire your 20s.  You will die while he flyins away with no major damage.

Land with your gear up.  Fires a small burst of 20s on the runway and you can get to the tower without having to end flight.

I don;t know what the hitting power of a 20 or 50 should be, but ammo seems to have some issues.  Fits in perfectly.


I think that the cannon near yet lethal hits are representative of shrapnel killing the crew, setting off secondaries (ammo) or damaging the gun.  Look at the exposure of soft stuff near these guns.  I wouldn’t want to be manning one of these guns in a 20 mm hit 5’ or even 10’ away.

(http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/photos/WWII/ErlyYrs/SC180758t.jpg)

(http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/Polsten_Airborne_Mounting_No_2_Mk_2_1945_photo.jpg)

(http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/Modelling/M2-50cal-AA-02.jpg)

(http://www.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/4/4d/AA_gun_in_Algeria.JPG)

eskimo
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 11, 2005, 02:56:16 PM
Eskimo,

you make it sound as if the 20mms had the power of a hand granade.  If thats the case, they should have the same effect on airplanes too.  If shrapnel is the issue, well, getting hit you or the other soft stuff by a 50 cal should also cause death.

YOur first pic has 9 guys manning the gun.  Hard to believe two 20s killed them all but 100 50s did not.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Ack-Ack on July 11, 2005, 02:57:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Midnight,

I disagree. It USED to take 1/2 second burst on target with .50's do get the job done. Now its a full second, unloaded.

______________
Ren
The Damned



I have to disagree with you there.  At least in the P-38, the 4x .50 cals are very lethal.  I only use my machine guns at targets beyond 400 yards and when I hit a target at 400 to 600 yards out with a single burst of .50s, 9 out ot 10 times the plane is going down.


ack-ack
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: JB73 on July 11, 2005, 03:00:16 PM
the second pic by eskimo, with the single guy sitting in the gun, thats what at least the manned guns are in AH (or at least look strikingly similar too up close)
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 11, 2005, 03:15:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
the second pic by eskimo, with the single guy sitting in the gun, thats what at least the manned guns are in AH (or at least look strikingly similar too up close)


OK, I get it.  Spraing 100 50s at that guy will most likely miss him and not kill him.  Two 20s at 5 to 10 feet out will kill him every single time.  What was I thinking :rolleyes:
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Murdr on July 11, 2005, 04:35:29 PM
Regarding the P-38s 4X.50's.  At times Ive had a "wtf? he's not dead?" shot while film was running Ive went back and watched the film from exterior on the target plane.  Often Ive found that those particular shots were dispersed between the farthest and nearest points of the target plane, but sitting behind the guns in the cockpit it looks like a tight shot group.  You just dont have the angle or depth perception to see how concentrated the hits really are.

They are very leathal when a tight shot group isnt just an optical illusion.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Karnak on July 11, 2005, 04:38:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
OK, I get it.  Spraing 100 50s at that guy will most likely miss him and not kill him.  Two 20s at 5 to 10 feet out will kill him every single time.  What was I thinking :rolleyes:

Welcome to the world of linear damage models.  Stop whining.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 11, 2005, 05:26:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Murdr
Regarding the P-38s 4X.50's.  At times Ive had a "wtf? he's not dead?" shot while film was running Ive went back and watched the film from exterior on the target plane.  Often Ive found that those particular shots were dispersed between the farthest and nearest points of the target plane, but sitting behind the guns in the cockpit it looks like a tight shot group.  You just dont have the angle or depth perception to see how concentrated the hits really are.

They are very leathal when a tight shot group isnt just an optical illusion.


Ok, that sounds fair. Now take a plane and begin shooting at 200 yds while saddled up. You still get large dispersion but it looks tight. Is this result that HTC has chosen to make the planes smaller that you would actually see in real life? You can say any size is the correct size but the limitations of the screen actually make the planes smaller than you would see them in RL, ergo, the tight group will "never" be seen at 200-300 yards because the whole view is too small. The only time you will see your tight group is while shooting a wall and when the magic convergence distance = the wall distance you see a tight pattern with no dispersion.

It's very easy to see. Take a pony up and fire at a water tower. The rounds are very dispersed when you first fire then begin to group tighter as you come into convergence range.

Unfortunately, the plane set visual clue is so small I don't think you will ever see the tight pattern on another plane.  Unless you ZOOM in. I gather that's what RL pilots did during a dogfight. I guess when thhey got into firing range they'd hit the zoom key so they could see the target and go for the shot. Yeah, that's what they musta done. :) I'm sure glad we have zoom so we can see what we would normally see in RL.

______________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Karnak on July 11, 2005, 05:41:29 PM
DamedRen,

FYI, the zoomed in view is actually not a zoom in, but rather a "make it approximately the correct size" feature.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 11, 2005, 05:54:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
DamedRen,

FYI, the zoomed in view is actually not a zoom in, but rather a "make it approximately the correct size" feature.


You don't have to bother typin out damned ren...ren will do :)

What you said above sounds reasonable. But which part of the zoom equates to the correct size? :)

_______________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Murdr on July 11, 2005, 06:07:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
The only time you will see your tight group is while shooting a wall and when the magic convergence distance = the wall distance you see a tight pattern with no dispersion.

It's very easy to see. Take a pony up and fire at a water tower. The rounds are very dispersed when you first fire then begin to group tighter as you come into convergence range.

None of that is an example of what I was saying.  The 38 has an 18 inch cone of fire.  Now of course the target and the gun platform are moving, but lets forget that for a moment.  Lets just hypothetically put that 18 inches just off center of a tail on a near true 6 shot.  In that 18 inch circle, you could hit anywhere down the side of the fusalage from the engine to the tail, the wing root, and some wing surface, the vert and horizontal stab surface, and their control surfaces.  No matter where those rounds hit, they will look like a concentrated circle of flashes from your POV.  The hits may have been spread out 30 feet along the side of the plane instead of 18 inches.

My point being, that some lethality issues are a matter of perception.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Bullethead on July 11, 2005, 08:06:20 PM
Murdr said:
Quote
My point being, that some lethality issues are a matter of perception.


This is quite true.  Many times, when I've had like a 10-20^ tracking deflection shot, it's looked from my POV behind the sight like I've put every single bullet right into the cockpit.  And seeing all those hits apparently in the same place, I've checked fire to save ammo, thinking the bastard will fall apart in another second or 2 once lagged damage kicks in.  Then I've been very annoyed the bastard didn't die.  Maybe a piece came off, maybe he smoked, but he kept going.  This, mind you, is right at convergence range, because all the hits were practically in the same small spot in the 2D plane of the monitor screen.

HOWEVER, this seemingly lethal appearance ignores the 3rd dimension along the line of fire.  When I look at these films in an external view from a different angle, I see instead the hits are all along the plane's length, with some on the tailfeathers, some on the wing roots, and others spaced out all along the fuselage.  Never enough in any one spot to inflict immediately fatal damage, despite how it looked in the foreshortened POV at the time.  Thus, even when you fire at convergence range, you still have to fire long enough bursts to accumulate enough hits in 1 spot to do fatal damage, despite how it might look after just 1 second of fire.

As to the question of how you can determine the actual range under the new icon system, the old tried-and-true method is to put marks on your gunsight that line up with the wingtips of the typical fighter target at your convergence range.  To get the marks in the right spot, take a screenshot of an offline drone right at the correct range, as seen through your sight, and then put marks where its wingtips are.

This brings up the issue of determining your best convergence range.  It ideal is to set your convergence at a range where all your guns are very close to being converged for some useful amount of space on both sides of the specified range.  And to know that, you have to experiment with the .target XXX command.  Set your convergence for, say, 200, then see what the pattern looks like at 100, 150, 250, and 300.  Play around with the convergence setting until you can get a decently tight pattern for a space of about 100 yards.  This will vary from plane to plane depending on the types and locations of guns aboard.

Several months ago, I sent in some revised skins for the .target XXX target.  These had ass-view, full-size silouhettes of a spit and a B17 centered in them.  This would enable you to see how good your pattern really is versus the typical targets, because the simple rings on the target as we have it today utterly fail to provide that info.  Unfortunately, HTC hasn't seen fit to incorporate this into the game, and they have to do it because this isn't something you can incorporate on your own.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 11, 2005, 08:45:00 PM
Quote
you make it sound as if the 20mms had the power of a hand granade. If thats the case, they should have the same effect on airplanes too. If shrapnel is the issue, well, getting hit you or the other soft stuff by a 50 cal should also cause death.


 Well, not quite as powerful as a hand grenade, but its effects are essentially simular. The concept of HE cannons itself was derived in order to shoot down planes by tearing whole surfaces away with surface explosions.

 A 20mm can blow whole pieces of plane chunks off a plane. A 30mm shell, if planted and detonated insided a plane fuselage(simulating the 'ideal' hit), it will basically just blow up the entire rear fuselage of that plane.
 
 It sure as hell is more than powerful enough to kill/incapacitate flesh-and-bone entities with near impact.

 Not to mention that it does have simular effects on planes - a 20mm hit near the cockpit will more than likely cause you a pilot wound. A 20mm hit that enters the cockpit, will kill you with one ping.

 
Quote
OK, I get it. Spraing 100 50s at that guy will most likely miss him and not kill him. Two 20s at 5 to 10 feet out will kill him every single time. What was I thinking


 Perhaps you can ask HT to put a human 3D model at ack stations..  In this case, the chances of hitting the human dummy will be pretty good even for wing mounted .50s..

 So, maybe the acks can have a dual damage model?

 If the human dummy is what is hit, then the ack guns will stop fire, but regenerate in like 5 mins... if the gun itself is destroyed... then it will spring up like normal ack...
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Karnak on July 11, 2005, 10:07:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
What you said above sounds reasonable. But which part of the zoom equates to the correct size? :)

Heh.  That is why I said "approximately" as it will vary depending on the size of your monitor and how far you sit from your monitor.  There is, unfortunately, no way to get it just right.  I have a 21" monitor that I sit fairly close too and so max zoom will be bigger than max zoom on a 17" monitor, especially if the viewing distance is greater.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 12, 2005, 08:19:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa

You got me all wrong.  I don't want the ack to die easyer.  I was just saing that it does not make sence that 2 20s anywhere around the ack kills it, but 50 or 100 50s do nothing.  I was compering the amound of 50 cal being sprayed with shrapnl.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: DamnedRen on July 12, 2005, 08:32:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Heh.  That is why I said "approximately" as it will vary depending on the size of your monitor and how far you sit from your monitor.  There is, unfortunately, no way to get it just right.  I have a 21" monitor that I sit fairly close too and so max zoom will be bigger than max zoom on a 17" monitor, especially if the viewing distance is greater.


NEC 29" monitor here....

_______________
Ren
The Damned
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 12, 2005, 08:41:13 AM
Quote
You got me all wrong. I don't want the ack to die easyer. I was just saing that it does not make sence that 2 20s anywhere around the ack kills it, but 50 or 100 50s do nothing. I was compering the amound of 50 cal being sprayed with shrapnl.


 Naw dedalos, we got you covered. What we're trying to tell you is that it makes perfect sense.

 The problem you see is not a .50 problem. It's a gun mounting problem that has nothing to do with .50s themselves.

 The bullet has to hit the ack gun itself - and those ack guns are quite tiny and very thin objects compared to a fighter-sized target. Also, the chances are, when you go into a strafing run the ack gun barrels are pointing at your plane - which minimizes the surface area which can be hit with .50 rounds.

 So basically, you have to hit a target that is practically a single dot, with wing mounted armament.

 How many rounds does it take to kill an ack gun with .50s?

 It takes five rounds. Yes, five.

 People with wing-mounted guns, can't hit mere 5 rounds out of hundreds they have fired.

 Why?

 Because all the rounds fired before/after the convergence range just basically does nothing but throw up dust all around the gun and obscures the target, or gives visual info that confuses them.

 They think they are hitting a lot of rounds at the ack, except none of the rounds fired ever connected with the ack gun intself.

 If you don't believe me, take up a SBD or a TBM with cowl-mounted guns, or even a P-38, and see how much it is easier to knock acks with these planes with only 2x .50s.

 The cannons are different. They have a radius of blast effect. They are detonated weapons that blow up upon impact.

 ...

 It's just the price you have to pay for mounting so many guns at the wings, and a fact you must accept.

 The HMG armed P-47s or P-51s and stuff may be efficient for an A2A weapon, but the way how the game is set(where you have to hit that very small and thin ack gun), it just sucks at hitting tiny targets.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 12, 2005, 09:52:44 AM
Or, if you would prefer a visual explanation of what happens in a typical gunnery pass;


(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1121179579_fordummies.jpg)
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Masherbrum on July 12, 2005, 10:52:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DamnedRen
I can understand the differences in hitting power on buffs. It's fighter v fighter where the weight of fire has been proven to be very effective with a direct hit.

For Mashuerbrum,

While it may not be common knowledge the Mustang suffered from many gun jams. They also had some tail problems as in "loosing them" and wings in hard, rolling turn fights. I think they had an abort rate in the EUR theatre of operation of around 30%. I still enjoy the ride in the game though. :)

_________________
Ren
The Damned


Machine gun rounds (50 cal) were far more RELIABLE in WWII than any Cannon (Hispano's included).  However out of the Cannons, the Hispano was the most reliable.  

Karaya
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Karnak on July 12, 2005, 10:57:50 AM
I understood that the Hispano was rather unreliable by cannon standards.  At least that is what I have read on this board.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 12, 2005, 11:09:18 AM
Kweassa,
you are killing me man.  Never said 50s are nutered.  All I said is (one more time) that since the explanation for the gun deing to 2 20s fired somewhere around it was shrapnel hitting 'soft' stuff around it, then 100 rounds of 50s should have the same effect.  Those things would be bouncing around all over the place hitting ammo and people even if nothing ever hit the gun.  Thanks for the pics though.  Being new in the game I had no idea what happens when you fire 50s from a plane.  Looks like you missed, lol.  I assume you have fired reall guns and you have some idea of what bullets do when the hit the grownd or the cement our guns are on.  They dont just stick there.

Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: eskimo2 on July 12, 2005, 11:13:54 AM
The only thing in our game that I am convinced needs to be added, and would be practical, would be gun crews who could also take “damage”.

eskimo
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 12, 2005, 11:29:32 AM
Quote
All I said is (one more time) that since the explanation for the gun deing to 2 20s fired somewhere around it was shrapnel hitting 'soft' stuff around it, then 100 rounds of 50s should have the same effect.


 Which part of the word "High Explosive" do you not understand?

 Cannon shells are not frag shells. They tear away pieces of metal with pure explosive force, and that is what kills the acks with a near hit.

 They have a explosive blast radius - which due to AH game limitations, cannot be confirmed visibly. However, HT himself told me when I asked him, that there was a blast radius, and that is why acks die with near hits from cannons.

 It's got nothing to do with 'shrapnels'. You think a 'shrapnel' can do this?

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/oneMK108inSpit.jpg)



Quote
Those things would be bouncing around all over the place hitting ammo and people even if nothing ever hit the gun.


 Except that ain't how it's modelled in the game. To kill something you hit something - directly.

 How about contacting HT and telling him how he modelled the game sucks, and he should model random bullet bounces that might go boing around the field gun and perhaps strike a field gun on whim?


Quote
Thanks for the pics though. Being new in the game I had no idea what happens when you fire 50s from a plane. Looks like you missed, lol.


 Judging by your "shrapnel" comments, is it any wonder I might confuse your knowledge on this matter is somewhat akin to a newbie?


Quote
I assume you have fired reall guns and you have some idea of what bullets do when the hit the grownd or the cement our guns are on. They dont just stick there.


 So tell me, dedalos.

Just what in the world is it that you want?

 Do you want the 50 cal guns, despite having no explosive quality whatsoever, be able to knockout a field gun even if the gun has not obtained enough strikes to be destroyed?

 Or do you want a better system, where perhaps the soldiers manning the gun can be also modelled(like eskimo and me suggested), so wing mounted guns still have a reasonable chance to disable it, despite not being able to destroy the gun itself?

 Oh by the way, all of our countrymen go through 3 years of military duty as conscripts.

Quote
You got me all wrong. I don't want the ack to die easyer. I was just saing that it does not make sence that 2 20s anywhere around the ack kills it, but 50 or 100 50s do nothing. I was compering the amound of 50 cal being sprayed with shrapnl.


 Remember when you made the above comment?

 "I don't want the ack to die easier"? - Yeah, right.

 Admit it dude. You want the ack to die easier. You can't stand the fact that among hundreds rounds of fired, you can't place just 5 on the ack gun... and thus, like so many people, you start faulting the game on grounds of "realism".
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 12, 2005, 12:26:34 PM
:rolleyes:

nice pick.  Is that what happens in the game when you hit a plane with a 20mm?  For the last time, try to understand what I was saing.  No reason to be an arse when you dont agree with something.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: eskimo2 on July 12, 2005, 12:44:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
:rolleyes:

nice pick.  Is that what happens in the game when you hit a plane with a 20mm?  For the last time, try to understand what I was saing.  No reason to be an arse when you dont agree with something.


Sometimes one 20mm hit does knock off a tail or wing.  I think we do understand what you are saying; do you?  I don’t think that Kweassa is being an “arse”; he’s just frustrated that you don’t seem to be getting something that has been explained to you repeatedly, in different ways, even with pictures.  You keep falling back to your original complaint without offering logical support.

eskimo
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 12, 2005, 12:50:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by eskimo2
Sometimes one 20mm hit does knock off a tail or wing.  I think we do understand what you are saying; do you?  I don’t think that Kweassa is being an “arse”; he’s just frustrated that you don’t seem to be getting something that has been explained to you repeatedly, in different ways, even with pictures.  You keep falling back to your original complaint without offering logical support.

eskimo


no complains.  I get what he is saing.  Don't have to agree with it, do I? He is being an arse about it.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: eskimo2 on July 12, 2005, 12:52:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
no complains.  I get what he is saing.  Don't have to agree with it, do I? He is being an arse about it.


What is there not to agree with?

How is he being an “arse”?

eskimo
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 12, 2005, 01:08:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by eskimo2
What is there not to agree with?

How is he being an “arse”?

eskimo


You don't see a difference on the way you reply and the way he does?

In any case.  I said something in my first message in here about how the 50s and the 20s act in the game.  You posted some picks of guns and explained that the explosive power of the 20s and the shrapnel would kill those men and cause secondary explosions from hitting the ammo.  All that makes perfect sence.  All I said to that was that 100 rounds of 50s would have a similar effect.  Meaning, they may miss teh gun but could hit the men or the ammo.  Just a responce to your post, nothing more.  So far it is a conversation.  Somehow he jumps in talking about whining about the nutered 50s and posts pics of exactly what I was saing.  Lots of 50s hitting around the gun but not killing it due to secondary explosions or from killing the crew.  

My point was originaly that the ammo has different effect on the crownd than in the air.  Never said which one is correct or wrong.  When you can die from shooting at a plane at close range with 20s while he flies away, it means to me that something is up.  

As far as hi explosives, I have see 30s hit the grownd.  I know what it looks like.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Lye-El on July 12, 2005, 03:12:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by dedalos
.  You posted some picks of guns and explained that the explosive power of the 20s and the shrapnel would kill those men and cause secondary explosions from hitting the ammo.  All that makes perfect sence.  All I said to that was that 100 rounds of 50s would have a similar effect.  Meaning, they may miss teh gun but could hit the men or the ammo.


As far as hi explosives, I have see 30s hit the grownd.  I know what it looks like.


My take is this: Explosions are omnidirectional. A bullet will skip but will continue pretty much in it's direction of travel. The effect being that if you hit three feet beside me I will crap my pants but the bullet will sail off and bounce off a hanger or trees or something until it's forward kinetic energy is expended. Maybe even hit one of your country man who is on the deck.

If the gun mounts died any easier all you would have to do is say "BANG" on range. :D

My personal frustration is from the ground going up. If he is lined up on my ack or Osti and I am lined up on his prop hub why is it he is going to hit me and I have a less than 50% chance of hitting him. I could hit him with my .308. :mad:
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 13, 2005, 01:58:17 AM
In truth, there are three issues related to the so-called ".50 vs acks" argument.

#1) This was never a ".50 vs ack" thing, and basically, this discussion should never even have been brought up on a "Thoughts on .50 cals" thread. (That's why I posted a separate thread on the Gameplay forums)

 This, is either a "cannon vs AP ordnance" issue, or a "wingarmament vs center armament" issue. It is not a .50 issue at all.

#2) The logic and tendencies on how the game is modelled currently, as it is, there is nothing wrong with the fact that the wing-armed+HMG planes have a tougher time killing acks than cannon armed planes. It makes perfect sense.

#3) However, one may contend the current logic and tendencies, and request a better modelling that makes more sense - such as the option b) I have wrote above.


 #2 and #3 is a related issue, but still needs some differentiation. If you are focusing on #2, you are completely wrong. There is no 'shrapnel' modelled in both cannons and HMG shells. There is no random bounce that favors cannons over HMGs.

 It is the different attribute of the weapon itself that brings out the difference in its effectivity, and there's nothing wrong with it. So, under the current AH agenda of "If you want to kill ack gun, hit the gun itself", everything makes perfect sense.



 So I'll ask you again, dedalos.

Just what in the world is it that you want?[/b]

a) Do you want the 50 cal guns, despite having no explosive quality whatsoever, be able to knockout a field gun even if the gun has not obtained enough strikes to be destroyed?

b) Or do you want a better system, where perhaps the soldiers manning the gun can be also modelled(like eskimo and me suggested), or perhaps a "sandbag perimeter"(like whels suggested).

 Modelling in the human would give wing-armed planes also a reasonable chance of disabling ack, without having to destroy the gun itself, and modelling a defensive sandbag wall would make it a bit more difficult for 20mms to kill ack guns, as it requires a more precise hit inside the protective perimeters.


 So do you want a) or b)?


 If it is a) you are wanting, you're completely wrong. You're asking a .50 weapon to do something it cannot do. Under the way how the game is modelled, the .50 should never be able to do such a thing, because that is basically making an exception to the rule "hit the gun itself to kill it" for some weapon types.

 If it is b), then you are requesting a change in the "hit the gun itself to kill it" rules - asking for an alternative.

 a) and b) may have same results, but it is very very different.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 13, 2005, 02:04:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa

 So I'll ask you again, dedalos.

Just what in the world is it that you want?[/b]

. . . . . .

 So do you want a) or b)?
QUOTE]


:rofl  I want nothing.  I was just makign a statement.  20mm ammo seems to have different effects on the grownd than in the air.  I may be wrong but it is my opinion.  Posting pics of 50cal, starting 'for dumies threads', etc is not going to change it.  Who the hell are you anyway to define my choices?  I can only want what Kweassa posts? A or B?  Whats up with the bold letters anyway? :lol   Get over yourself will ya?
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: Kweassa on July 13, 2005, 03:16:47 PM
Quote
I want nothing. I was just makign a statement.

 
 And your statement is wrong. Plain and simple.

Quote
20mm ammo seems to have different effects on the grownd than in the air. I may be wrong but it is my opinion.


 Perhaps, but irrelevant anyways. HT said how the 20mm works on ground. He mentioned it has a blast radius, when I asked him a question specifically addressing this issue.

 I was the first, and the only, person who tested this out, and confirmed that 20mms will knock acks without direct hits. I asked HT about it, and he answered my question, confirming my speculation.

 That's basically the lowdown.

Quote
Posting pics of 50cal, starting 'for dumies threads', etc is not going to change it. Who the hell are you anyway to define my choices?

 
 Personally, I don't give a damn if you change your opinion or not. All I'm interested in is making it clear that;

a) your opinion is typical
b) such opinions spring up from misinformation
c) and people "effectively" lie about stuff when they start complaining. They make hollow claims without ever actually trying to exactly test things out

Quote
I can only want what Kweassa posts? A or B? Whats up with the bold letters anyway?  Get over yourself will ya?


 Well, at this point, basically anyone reading your responses would be wondering just what in the world you are trying to saying.

 What's your point?

 That the .50s aren't doing enough damage to ack? But this I've already covered extensively as best as I can, to show that it is totally wrong.

 Basically, I'm confused.

 You argue about something, then suddenly fall deaf ears to a counter argument which explains in detail why your opinion is wrong.

 So I thought perhaps that you were thinking of a specific alternative on how the game may be better.. except you don't seem to have one.

 Frankly, my speculation is you're continuing this argument just for the sake of argument, because you don't want to admit that you were wrong about the relationship between .50s, cannons, and acks.
Title: Thoughts on .50 cals.
Post by: dedalos on July 13, 2005, 03:47:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
 I was the first, and the only, person who tested this out, and confirmed that 20mms will knock acks without direct hits. I asked HT about it, and he answered my question, confirming my speculation.


:lol first and only? :rofl

Quote

Well, at this point, basically anyone reading your responses would be wondering just what in the world you are trying to saying.

 What's your point?

 That the .50s aren't doing enough damage to ack? But this I've already covered extensively as best as I can, to show that it is totally wrong.

 Basically, I'm confused.


If I say anything it would be that its way too easy to kill ack with 20s.  I think the people reading my posts are wondering you can't understand that.  They may also be wondering why you chose not to understand what I said.  Read it again please.


Quote

 You argue about something, then suddenly fall deaf ears to a counter argument which explains in detail why your opinion is wrong.


Hmmm.  You argued about something that had nothing to do with what I said.  I just pointed out that your opinion was wrong. :rofl

Quote

 So I thought perhaps that you were thinking of a specific alternative on how the game may be better.. except you don't seem to have one.

Perhaps an alternative would be that more than a couple of rounds somewher around the gun . . . never mind, you'd probably twist that one too.

Quote

 Frankly, my speculation is you're continuing this argument just for the sake of argument, because you don't want to admit that you were wrong about the relationship between .50s, cannons, and acks.


Wrong again.  I am continuing this argument cause it is fun to watch you missunderstand and twist evrything.  I'll give it one more try: "20mm ammo seems to have different effects on the grownd than in the air"  That is it.  Now postsome pics of 50s so you can prove me wrong on the 20s.  Get it now?  How about this way.  The blast radius is too big?   Don't want anything fixed, just saing.
Now how exactly did you determine you were the first and only to test this? :rofl