Print Page - ammunition loading and long-range ballistics

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on May 06, 2007, 09:28:18 PM

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 06, 2007, 09:28:18 PM

Up to date, there exists two schools of thought concerning long range gunnery - one emphasizing the human factor, and the other emphasizing the mechanical representation of general environment concerning the physics in the game. The former mainly focuses on the human ability to aim, which is greatly influenced by experience and innate talent, which unfortunately is unquantifiable and thus, unverifiable. Therefore, the latter usually emphasizes in removing possible human variation, and getting the general environment of the game to match that of reality as close as possible, to verify how much of human ability is really involved with a general phenomenon that is rarely observed in real life, but rather common in the game.

By the definition of "long range" I am following the general rule of thumb laid out by the renowned Tony Williams - which sets about 200m as a limit for gunnery ranges where one can expect to land critical hits against a fighter plane, and 400m for larger targets such as bombers.

Previously, I've pointed out that the ammunition counters and the distance indicators on the icons were the two main reasons (without dragging in the 'human variable' in the picture) why long range gunnery is seemingly more easy than it was in real life.

The argument is;

1) The ammunition counter verifies the exact amount of ammunition left for use. If shooting a gun is like drawing money from the bank, it isn't hard to imagine that a person who knows about his exact bank balance would be more willing to able to spend his money according to a planned budget. On the other hand, if the balance remains unknown, then one would be more cautious and conservative in drawing cash from the ATM, and one would be more resistant to situations that which normally one would spend money without hesitation, if he had the exact knowledge of how much he can spend.

Long-range gunnery is by definition, less effective than close-range gunnery, and thus, requires more rounds to be spent to expect the same hit probability as shooting at close distances. If there is no knowledge on how many rounds you have left, then the very thought of 'wasting' ammunition against an unlikely probability is met with considerable resistance - one can never know for sure just when his guns will stop firing, except for a vague "feel" of how many shots you've taken so far.

Shooting from longer ranges is lower in probability, but the probability does exist as long as someone fires his gun. However, what if that someone is discouraged from taking the shot in the first place? That is what the existance of the ammunition counter influences.

2) The distance counter is a fleeting example of how a familiarized visual indication can immediately link up with general experience to achieve higher efficiency. The introduction of AH2 Beta had two major changes in the gunnery modelling, in that the the concept of 'hit resolution' was more refined, and the icon distance indicators became more conservative in exact information (previous incarnation of the 'icon' showed exact enemy distances, instead of the 200yd marks which we currently have). The overall result was that the effective gunnery range in AH dropped down by nearly 200yards - whereas in AH1 500~600 yards was a very common distance where kills were achieved, in AH2 the '400' marker (which in AH2, indicates that the enemy plane is somewhere between 400 and 600 yards) is now generally known as the 'safety' line.

In short, in AH1, when you saw an enemy plane behind at 500~600, it was a distance where you would normally consider yourself either "dead" or "in big trouble". However, in AH2, the "400" mark is a distance one may expect a reasonable chance of getting out alive, especially if you were the faster plane that could depart to the "600" marker in a few seconds. This general drop in gunnery distance is perhaps the single largest evidence that the 'human experience' factor is far too overrated, since those advocates of 'experience' used to argue the same thing in AH1.

....

During the discussion of the thread on implementation of partial damage, suggested by BlauK, I seem to have stumbled upon another (possibly) fundamental reason on why long-range gunnery is more prevalent in AH2 than real life. I believe this is a previously unsuggested aspect (or at least, more or less completely forgotten) and might be worth a look.

According to most people who advise not to use tracers at all, the tracer rounds have different ballistics than the normal, invisible rounds fired and will often be misleading to where most of your potent rounds are actually going (as opposed to where the tracer is 'pointing' at).

Now, If the mere addition of luminous, burning phosphorous tips is that great to influence ballistics, as to be 'misleadin', then what if the ammunition type itself was different? Clearly this is something that does not exist in AH, but did exist in real life.

What we know about AH so far, is that AH2 does not model ammunition belt sequences. Every round fired is a equalized 'generic' round one would expect from that belt. For instance, if a real ammunition belt had 50:50 composition and fired two rounds of one AP shell doing "50" damage and one HE shell doing "100" damage, AH2 will fire two rounds of "75" damage - a "generic" round.

The perceived problem is this: note the following example comparison of the British Hispano Mk.II of real life and as depicted in AH2

* British Hispano Mk.I fired a mixed belt composition of:
HET - AP - HE - AP

*AH2 guns all fire generic rounds in generic composition going:
G - G - G - G - T

Now, if someone in AH2 fires a Hispano at a range where the ballistics differences between the T(racer) and G(eneric) rounds would be potent enough, not withstanding the dispersion factor, if he has aimed for the G rounds to hit then the four G rounds will hit the target and the T round will miss.

G(hits) - G(hits) - G(hits) - G(hits) - T(miss) ....

However, in real life, at a range long enough, where the ballistics differences between the rounds become potent, if one fires the Hispano so as to his HE round hits, then all the rest of the rounds will actually miss!

HET(miss) - AP(miss) - HE(hits) - AP(miss) - HET(miss)...

Thus, in the game, out of 5 rounds fired 4 rounds would connect, where as in reality, only 1 out of those 5 will hit. If the aim was good enough for the AP or HET round to hit, then it is both 2/5.

AH2 does not model belt sequences. Thus, 4 rounds of 5 fired are identical, generic rounds that has identical ballistics properties.

Therefore, even if dispersion is factored in, it can be said that AH2 guns have at least twice as high base probability of hitting the target than actual rounds in real life - provided, that the shooting distance is far enough for different types of rounds to show considerably different ballistics qualities.

Ofcourse, none of this matters when firing at close ranges, where all rounds will hit. However, one the range becomes far enough for different types of ammunitions to show different trajectories, AH2 guns have at least twice as higher base probability to hit the target, because AH2 doesn't have such a thing as a 'ammunition sequence'.

All the more the reason to ask for ammunition belt sequence to be modelled in the game IMO.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Blooz on May 06, 2007, 09:52:04 PM

I feel AH2 guns have half as much probability of hitting the target than actual rounds in real life.

Why?

Most of us that play aren't trained combat pilots and we aren't in a situation that is a life and death struggle.

Why not ask for something simpler like gun jamming or wind?

Something as insignificant as the difference in tracer round trajectory would be alot of work just to make kids who are pretending to be fighter pilots miss more than they already do.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: CFYA on May 06, 2007, 11:30:54 PM

One would have to point out the fact that the average new player spends more time in "combat" in one month than the average WW2 pilot did in there career. I have no doubts in my mind an average AH2 pilot would have been a formidable and often almost unbeatable in most engagements during WW2. One could point out the differences between sweating a little on the armchair vs pulling high gs in a aircraft. This would be the next reason why ah2 gunnery is eaiser than real life. Make no doubts about it a average WW2 pilot would be waxed in this game.

Ryan

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Blooz on May 06, 2007, 11:43:33 PM

I think the average WW2 pilot would be on your tail so fast it'd make your head spin.

He was trained in proper technique and would have the patience, knowledge and skill to make the average AH2 punk go back to playing Everquest.

Title: Re: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Oleg on May 07, 2007, 12:11:45 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
I feel AH2 guns have half as much probability of hitting the target than actual rounds in real life.

Absolutely wrong. btw, average hit percent in AH about 10 times bigger than was in RL, average shooting distance ~3-4 time longer.

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
2) The distance counter is a fleeting example of how a familiarized visual indication can immediately link up with general experience to achieve higher efficiency. The introduction of AH2 Beta had two major changes in the gunnery modelling, in that the the concept of 'hit resolution' was more refined, and the icon distance indicators became more conservative in exact information (previous incarnation of the 'icon' showed exact enemy distances, instead of the 200yd marks which we currently have). The overall result was that the effective gunnery range in AH dropped down by nearly 200yards - whereas in AH1 500~600 yards was a very common distance where kills were achieved, in AH2 the '400' marker (which in AH2, indicates that the enemy plane is somewhere between 400 and 600 yards) is now generally known as the 'safety' line.

As far as i remember, in addition to icons HTC got rid of "hit bubble" and made hit sprites smaller in same time.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Blooz on May 07, 2007, 12:31:28 AM

Quoted - Absolutely wrong. btw, average hit percent in AH about 10 times bigger than was in RL, average shooting distance ~3-4 time longer.

You are the one that is wrong.

The average AH2 pilot has no reason to make every bullet count because his life doesn't depend on it.

I do agree however that the average shooting distance would probably be longer in AH2 than in real life and that's my point. The average AH2 pilot doesn't have a reason to get in close and get good hits. Since the bullets are not real they don't tend to develop good shooting skill nor conserve ammunition.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Oleg on May 07, 2007, 12:53:54 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
The average AH2 pilot has no reason to make every bullet count because his life doesn't depend on it.
...
The average AH2 pilot doesn't have a reason to get in close and get good hits. Since the bullets are not real they don't tend to develop good shooting skill nor conserve ammunition.

And because of it "average AH2 pilot" have gunnery ~10 times better than "average WW2 pilot"?
It like saying black is white.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Knegel on May 07, 2007, 01:17:32 AM

Hi,

I still dont get the ammo counter and distance icon argument.

Experienced no icon gamers dont need both. They have a very good feeling how many rounds they have already shot and they are able to estimate the distances rather exact.

Imho the main reason for the long distance kills is the possibility to train with unlimited ammo and unlimited lifes.

Actually i doubt that long distance kills happen that often in AH, with realistic ammo setting. Even with unlimited ammo, people have bad problems to get kills above 400yard, if the enemy dont fly exact strait.

But to compare RL with a AH, we need to compare Combatflightsim newbes, who have much experience with a civil flight simulator, with the normal WWII pilot, or we need to compare the exceptions in WWII, the absolut aces, with the normal AH player.

AH pilots of course have a higher hitquote than the normal WWII pilot, but i doubt that H.J.Marsaille or Hartmann had only a 2% hitquote, their hitquote was rather above that of the normal AH player.

Edit: One reason for long distance kills in AH probably is lag related. I often get shot down from 0,8-1,5k, but if i ask, the oponent saw me in 0,2-0,6k distance and the other way around.

Greetings,

Knegel

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Stoney74 on May 07, 2007, 03:20:29 AM

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
One could point out the differences between sweating a little on the armchair vs pulling high gs in a aircraft.

Ryan

The sensations of actual flight, control stick forces, and G's are, IMHO, the biggest difference in real-world vs. simulated accuracy. Negative G's cause some of the most uncomfortable and disorienting sensations in an aircraft, while control stick forces and pulling G's cause some serious strain on people. None of these are or can be modelled in AH. This doesn't even include the frantic fear, adrenaline, boredom, cotton-mouth from using oxygen, and overall exhaustion that builds up over the course of a 3-8 hour mission. Almost every WWII pilot I know wears hearing aids and the noise and vibration must have drained their energy. Also, recoil seems to have very little affect on the precision of the guns (not to mention disorienting the pilot) , even though the screen shakes--and the gun mounts are rock solid, even though in real life, the set harmonization of guns was changed every time they were fired.

I empathize with Kweeasa and think that getting kills beyond 400 meters is gamey, but am at a loss as to recommend a solution. I'm sure HTC has already considered the issue, and as with most things, the current state of gunnery is the best that can be practically created within the scope of their constraints. Until its better represented, I'll keep hoping...

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Charge on May 07, 2007, 07:51:07 AM

IIRC in 109s the different ammo and even ammo in different guns was matched so that the flight time of projectiles was pretty much the same to 400 meters and different propellant loadings were available at least to 20mm Minen ammo to make such matching. Im not sure if, say, matching the flight time of 20mm AP and Minen ammo to certain distance would make them land at the same spot, as they are aerodynamically different and thus have different ballistics in longer ranges.

-C+

Title: Re: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Tilt on May 07, 2007, 09:07:09 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
What we know about AH so far, is that AH2 does not model ammunition belt sequences. Every round fired is a equalized 'generic' round one would expect from that belt. For instance, if a real ammunition belt had 50:50 composition and fired two rounds of one AP shell doing "50" damage and one HE shell doing "100" damage, AH2 will fire two rounds of "75" damage - a "generic" round.

The perceived problem is this: note the following example comparison of the British Hispano Mk.II of real life and as depicted in AH2

* British Hispano Mk.I fired a mixed belt composition of:
HET - AP - HE - AP

*AH2 guns all fire generic rounds in generic composition going:
G - G - G - G - T

Now, if someone in AH2 fires a Hispano at a range where the ballistics differences between the T(racer) and G(eneric) rounds would be potent enough, not withstanding the dispersion factor, if he has aimed for the G rounds to hit then the four G rounds will hit the target and the T round will miss.

G(hits) - G(hits) - G(hits) - G(hits) - T(miss) ....

My understanding was that AH2 did not even configure the T round as a sequential non/low destructive round.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Krusty on May 07, 2007, 10:34:43 AM

Couple of corrections:

1) The distance 400 means the con is between 200 and 400, not between 400 and 600. The number means "already below this."

2) The reason ranges were reduced in AH2 vs AH1 was NOT the icons, but rather the horribly stupid "gigantic hit bubble" was removed and a real target profile was put in. The icons themselves had nothing to do with this, as you can set the same shots up at the same range (oh, FYI we still can see 1.0 on the icon meter so this is easy to verify) and in AH1 you'd have a sure hit, 100% of the time, but in AH2 you won't even ping it 2% of the time. Not icons at all. And thank frakking GOD they did this! The constant 1.3k sniping BS was really getting out of hand!

EDIT: P.S. AH's tracer rounds are no different than the normal rounds, I think. Same trajectory, they just are visible.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Oleg on May 08, 2007, 12:13:07 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
1) The distance 400 means the con is between 200 and 400, not between 400 and 600. The number means "already below this."

I dont sure, but i think 400 on icon means distance between 300 and 500, overwise i dont know how i can get 0 yards on icon :)

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Lusche on May 08, 2007, 05:59:43 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Oleg
I dont sure, but i think 400 on icon means distance between 300 and 500, overwise i dont know how i can get 0 yards on icon :)

You are right. At exactly 1k the icon label switches from 1.0k to 1000. After that: D800= 700-899, D600=500-699 and so on.
If someone is in doubt, this can be easily checked with the film viewer.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 08, 2007, 07:11:44 AM

The point is, over long ranges, where ballistics difference between rounds begin to manifest, some rounds are bound to have different trajectories which directly effect the hit rate. AH2's ammunition are generic in nature, and are all treated as same rounds.

If someone's aim is accurate against a target at 600yards for instance, if we assume a 50% dispersion, out of 50 20mm shells fired about 25 of them will hit, which is more than enough to bring down a plane. However, were it real life the trajectories of rounds would be influenced by different type of ammunition, and as per the example in my previous post another bug chunk of accuracy and hit probability is knocked off from the initial aim, making it more likely to achieve around 5 20mm shells at that distance, at best.

Note that this is not some artificial inhibition against AH2 gunnery which didn't exist in real life. It's simply a matter of accurate portrayal - ammunition belt composition and round sequence did matter. If some of the rounds are aimed and hit over such long distances, others, will miss - different bullet type, different bullet trajectory.... not to mention also, different damage effect per round.

It's a step to be taken for the next stage of evolution fo AH2, and frankly its not a moment to soon. AH2 is already lagging behind the 'technological' arms race against some of its contendors, and these sort of gaps tend to always widen, unless something is done with it.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Krusty on May 08, 2007, 08:55:35 AM

Unless you can back up the assumption that out of 5 rounds only 1 would hit historically because the ballistics were so horribly off between rounds that only the one type hit, I think you're guessing here.

My guess is that the difference in ballistics at any range up to 600 yards is going to be negligable on weapons that have ranges out up to 1.2k (Hispanos) and 1k (M2 50cal). The weapon's range is far greater than that of the actual effective range. Only over greater distances will the accuracy truly start to suffer. If the dispersion is cone-shaped (like, say, rays of light from a source) and you move the target half as close, you get 4x the concentration.

I don't think the belting in hispanos was very complex. US belting was fairly simple (mostly API if I'm not mistaken). Not sure about Japanese. MG151/20 belting seems to be the most complex, with maybe the exception of MG131 belting...

Don't see how bad individual rounds would differ inside effective range, any more than the random dispersion we have now.

I admit that's just my semi-educated guess.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 08, 2007, 10:56:37 AM

Quote

Unless you can back up the assumption that out of 5 rounds only 1 would hit historically because the ballistics were so horribly off between rounds that only the one type hit, I think you're guessing here.

Ask anyone who has any experience in rifles about just how much a difference in bullet trajectories can be made due to small initial differences over some 500, 600 meters - and that's only on the ground against stationary targets. Heck, even same rounds have trouble landing in the same spot despite constant conditions. That's why they call it "dispersion" in the first place.

Quote

My guess is that the difference in ballistics at any range up to 600 yards is going to be negligable on weapons that have ranges out up to 1.2k (Hispanos) and 1k (M2 50cal).

So you're saying different type of bullets propelled in the air will all travel at a same trajectory and only beging to dispers/drop after 600?

Dream on.

Quote

The weapon's range is far greater than that of the actual effective range. Only over greater distances will the accuracy truly start to suffer. If the dispersion is cone-shaped (like, say, rays of light from a source) and you move the target half as close, you get 4x the concentration.

If we can assume an acceptable, 'realistic' firing range to be somewhere between 0~200yards, perhaps even out to 300yards in lenient views, try using .target command and see just how much a difference that 300yards can make. In planes with wing-armament, which horizontal convergence is of the greater issue the problem is pretty much evident. Even the planes with nose armament, the convergence range has to be set somewhere - and being 300 yards off the mark is more than enough to miss a plane by a large margin.

...and that's still not counting the difference in bullet types, since AH2 doesn't have one.

Quote

I don't think the belting in hispanos was very complex. US belting was fairly simple (mostly API if I'm not mistaken). Not sure about Japanese. MG151/20 belting seems to be the most complex, with maybe the exception of MG131 belting...

US belting had two~three types of ammunition. Hispano had three, Japan had two, Germany had about two~three. Two different types of ammunition already cuts down the hit rate by 50%, three types by 66%. Think about that.

Quote

Don't see how bad individual rounds would differ inside effective range, any more than the random dispersion we have now.

An 'effective range' is a range which the round stays potent enough to do actual damage. That doesn't mean the trajectory with in that range stays flat. Or rather, if the concept of 'effective range' should factor in a reasonable chance of hitting the target then the 'effective range' in aircraft guns are definately not 1.2k yards.

Hundreds of meters is a very very long range to expect accurate hits even with a sniper gun on the ground - guess how much would flying at 500km/h at 12 thousand feet up in the air, at a target flying 600m in front of you, would be detrimental to the accuracy of your rounds fired - not to mention the fact the gun fires a different type of round everytime.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Krusty on May 08, 2007, 11:10:13 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Two different types of ammunition already cuts down the hit rate by 50%, three types by 66%. Think about that.

See, there! Right there.... You don't know that.

The difference between an API 50cal and an AP 50cal round is minimal, and a tracer round is almost the same, but slightly different (a little lighter -- but not much).

You're making the claim that just because there are different TYPES of rounds they are so radically different that only 1 at any time will hit.

Oh, and as for sniper ranges...

In WW1 the US Marines at Belleau Wood opened fire on enemy troops from "outside" rifle range, at 300 yards, picking off dozens. It was a bloody slaughter, and the enemy thought they were inhuman devils because of their accuracy.

That's with the Mk.I eyeball and a bolt action rifle, no fancy optics. The targets were also a lot smaller than 40-foot-wide aircraft. It's all about training.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: hitech on May 08, 2007, 11:24:08 AM

Not going to jump in other than to say, Kweassa's argument is incorrect.

The reasons why he is incorrect is

1. He first makes the assumption that the difference in ballistics will cause one bullet type to miss.

This could or could not be the case and is completely dependent on the specifics of the case.

2. He assumes that the the bullets of 1 type will follow the same path and all hit at about 600 yards.

I do not know of anyone who can land all bullets at that range

3. He assumes perfect aim, think of the case where you are aiming and all of one type are missing, now going to a mixed ammo belt will actually increase the chance of hitting, not decrease like Kweassa argues.

My point in all this, is yes at some point I would like to have mixed belts. But do not begin to believe it will have much of an effect at all in hit % or the over all out come of fights. It is really just another cool detail to put in, but the ballistic effects on hit % will be minimal if any.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 08, 2007, 01:17:50 PM

They are mere abstractions HT.

You can't calculate the reality, so some parameters must be equalized in order to achieve at least some kind of objective comparison, and you know this. Like you said it requires some hypothetical parameters such as "perfect aim" or "no dispersion", but what we're digging into here is just what kind of basic difference exists between different round types composed in a single ammunition belt sequence.

Ofcourse, you'd know this math stuff a lot better than me, but even still the implications are quite clear as to just how much difference different rounds would make. This constitutes at least some kind of loose base in estimating the theoretical probability of hit rates.

For example, I've consulted the following websites for info:

Quote

*Lunatic's WWII Aircraft Gun Ballistics Page
(http://members.cox.net/rg_lunatic/gunpage/)
:for estimated data on ballistics coefficient of WW2 guns

* WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS, bu A. Williams and E. Gustin
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)
:for information on different round types, weights, and muzzle velocity

* JBM Small Arms ballistics
(http://www.eskimo.com/~jbm/calculations/traj/traj.html)
:for ballistics calculation tool

And these are roughly the results I've got.

Conditions
* MG151/20 cannon, 20x82 cartridge
* belt composition: API, HET, HE(M)
* projectile weight: 117, 115, 92 gm
* muzzle velocity: 720, 720, 800 m/s
* ballistics coefficient: 0.475
* atmospheric conditions: 16.2 ¡ÆF, 29.92 in Hg, 12,000 ft
* zero range: 300m

Now, frankly I don't have a clue as to how the ballistics calculation works. However, what I do know is that with all the rest of the parameters identical, the difference in the mere projectile weight(different ammunition) and firing velocity(use of different propellant quantities) alone is to produce the following results.

Range(m) / Drop(in)
: API : HET : HE(Mg)[/b]
......................................
000m : -1.5 : -1.5 : -1.5
100m : +4.7 : +4.7 : +4.4
200m : +2.6 : +2.6 : +3.7
300m : -8.8 : -8.8 : -4.5
400m : -30.6 : -30.6 : -21.0
500m : -64.2 : -64.2 : -46.8
600m : -111.0: -111.0 : -83.0
700m : -172.8: -172.8 : -131.0
800m : -251.5: -251.5 : -192.3
900m : -349.6: -349.6 : -268.6
1000m : -469.6: -469.6 : -361.9

The API and HET rounds are nearly identical, but the most potent HE(meingeshoss) rounds have a quite different trajectory coming from different weight and speed alone. Notice all three rounds are roughly equal upto 300m, but from 400m and on the difference manifests. At 600m, the difference is by 28 inches - about 2.3 feet and rapidly increasing, going over 5ft at 800.

Some factors such as shaky aim, vibrations, dispersions and etc etc.. will no doubt play a large factor in ultimately determining the final hit rate, but looking at the base hit/miss situation alone the most potent HE round cannot connect at the same time as other AP or HET round.

Like mentioned, the difference would hardly be noticeable under the '400' mark in AH2, but when the distance starts showing "600", there's definately going to be some differences.

Ultimately, there's only one way of proving me wrong - and that would be actually observing the differences in opinion after different ammunition sequences are indeed, modelled in the game.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: hitech on May 08, 2007, 02:04:27 PM

Quote

Like mentioned, the difference would hardly be noticeable under the '400' mark in AH2, but when the distance starts showing "600", there's definately going to be some differences.

Yes there can be a difference but once again you imply the hit rate would be less with a mixed belt. This is the totally false assumption.

With mixed ammo (assuming different properties) we are creating more of a shot gun, at 600 yards where the odds are higher that your aim is incorrect vs being correct your odds of scoring hits will be greater with the mixed belt. I.E.

Exactly the opposit of your argument.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: CFYA on May 08, 2007, 03:52:01 PM

Hitech is absolutly correct. For examples I will use extremes...........say all of your bullets go down the same path....ie laser.....if your aim is even slightly off you will miss. Now at say 800 yards you aim dead on with your shotgun the odds off hitting go up even tho your impacts per sq foot go down. In RL velocity variations from bulllet to bullet (same type/batch) could amount to 5 ft at 800 yards. I may know next to nothing about ww2 but I know a lot about ballistics. Having shot 5 inch groups at a 1000 yards as taught me a thing or two. FYI The army mandates a bullet dispersion of over 10 feet at 1000 yards on a belt fed 50 cal.
Ryan

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: titanic3 on May 09, 2007, 06:16:33 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
I feel AH2 guns have half as much probability of hitting the target than actual rounds in real life.

Why?

Most of us that play aren't trained combat pilots and we aren't in a situation that is a life and death struggle.

Why not ask for something simpler like gun jamming or wind?

Something as insignificant as the difference in tracer round trajectory would be alot of work just to make kids who are pretending to be fighter pilots miss more than they already do.

technically, we don't miss 'cuz we're in the 21st century, all we do is track, lock, identify, and press the big RED button.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Blooz on May 09, 2007, 07:59:30 PM

We do miss.

We miss alot.

It's programmed into the game.

What I'm saying is between the programmed dispersion of rounds and the untrained nature of our 'pilots' we don't need to model the minor differences between tracer rounds and normal rounds.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Stoney74 on May 09, 2007, 08:10:32 PM

Blooz,

I think Kweassa is trying to determine why people have the uncanny ability to get kills at ranges longer than those that were effective historically. Almost everyone will "try" a shot at 1.0K just to see if they can nick the LA-7 enough to slow it down and catch it, for example. In real life, very few shots of this nature were ever attempted, as most pilots "knew" they wouldn't be able to hit effectively beyond 300 meters or so.

I think he's just trying to get a more realistic (from a historical perspective) representation from gunnery in the game. Personally, I think its bull stink that someone can hit me with a Mk108 from 800 meters, and therefore encourage any discussion of this sort.

:aok

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Blooz on May 09, 2007, 09:12:53 PM

Looks to me as if he's advocating the introduction of ammo rounds that have slightly different trajectories.

All I'm saying is that we don't need it. The dispersion pattern now is twice as much or more than what you'd have in real life and that should be enough to simulate differing ammo types.

As for the reason for uncanny accuracy? Same as collision modelling. What you see on your computer and what the other guy sees are two different things.

If you see someone at 800 shooting at you it's quite probable that he's actually closer due to the time it takes the data to get to the server and back to your computer. It may look like 200 or 400 to him and looks like 800 to 1K to you. It's just the nature of the internet.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Stoney74 on May 10, 2007, 12:43:07 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
All I'm saying is that we don't need it. The dispersion pattern now is twice as much or more than what you'd have in real life and that should be enough to simulate differing ammo types...It may look like 200 or 400 to him and looks like 800 to 1K to you. It's just the nature of the internet.

I agree with you about the different ammunition, but I agree with Kweeasa about the uncanny ability to hit at long range.

I've verified being hit at 800 meters through the film viewer. I've also checked my distances with squaddies flying close formation, and I'm typically 15 meters further away from them than what I see. Don't know how scientific either of those two are, but it's all I've got to go on.

From my tests offline, a Mk108 (Bf-110 mounted) with convergence set at 650 on a target at 650 yards has a pattern that appears to contain approx. 75% or more of the rounds within 6 mils (or 3 mils left or right). The 75% is a guess from looking at the pattern on the target. That's a pretty tight group for a gun that wasn't supposed to be effective much beyond 200 meters. Of course, it could have been that since you couldn't change the convergence of the Mk108 in real life, the factory had it BZO'd at 200 meters. Who knows?

Just think its interesting that the real life guys rarely shot beyond about 300 meters, but here, you can safely go much further out with a high expectation of accuracy. What I'm most curious about is why the discrepancy. And, even though I may be putting words in his mouth, I believe Kweeasa is looking for "why" as well, even though he initiated the thread with a discussion of different round-type ballistics.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Knegel on May 10, 2007, 03:07:20 AM

Hi,

i dont know why it shouldnt be possible to hit a strait flying target on 800yard. The US 20mm cannon got valued with a max proctical range of 1200yard, while it had a max theoretical range of 2400yard.
The early .50cal had a max practical range of 300yard and a max theoretical range of 900yard.

I dont know how often you got shot down by .50cals on 800yard, but i guess this only did happen with unlimited ammo or while you was in a stallturn and did present the large side of your plane and of course a almost still standing plane is a rather easy target.

I rarely got shot down on 800yard with MG´s, in general i only fear the wing mounted Hispannos and the 3 x 20mm of the La7 on this distance.

btw. while creating a new DM for EAW i found that on long range a higher dispersion often lead to a better hitquote(unwanted of course).
This is so, cause the bullets seems to be much to big, and so they cover a much more big area, in combination with a dispersion you simply cant fail.
I did counter this by setting the dispersion to almost zero, as result the player need to aim VERY exact to hit the target, but this is rather difficult. In game this result in much more difficult long distance kills.

Of course i dont know how AH work regarding, just a thought.

Greetings,

Knegel

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Charge on May 10, 2007, 06:53:32 AM

"That's a pretty tight group for a gun that wasn't supposed to be effective much beyond 200 meters."

Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

The low velocity (recoil) and low ROF along with one type ammunition and nose mounting resulted in low dispersion for that particular weapon set.

The practical range was low because of low velocity and thus at long range you do not shoot at the profile of the plane from the rear but in a way you have to "drop" the projectile on the target and in that scenario even a slight change in closure rate makes the aiming very very difficult. At 200 yds you can shoot the target without considering the projectile drop of without suffering from the rapid drop at longer ranges. And I can assure that the 30mm Minen grenade is as lethal at 200 yds as it is in 800 yds or even at 1200 yds...

-C+

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 11, 2007, 05:38:42 AM

Was waiting for a bit if Tony can bump in and clarify a few things, but perhaps he's busy for the time being.

The chance of hit does not directly increase in proportion to dispersion. If that is to be made true it would require another batch of those abstract conditions, such as "dispersion increases the chance of hit in proportion to the amount of rounds fired". Frankly, accounting the dispersion factor as a means to hit an aerial target takes for granted that the process of "reasonable aiming" is non-existant in the first place, and therefore the shooter is to rely on a more a less semi-random patterned dispersion to hit anything.

In other words, it is a "fire enough rounds in the general direction and hope at least some of those rounds hit" approach. The entire concept of "aim" is neglected in that kind of thinking.

(Frankly, this is the part where the "get rid of the ammo counters" and "get rid of distance indicators inside 1.0" argument justifies itself, since it requires somewhat hefty volume of rounds to be propelled in the air, so a round that is destined to fly inside the general dispersion pattern eventually finds a way in a random chance.

If the ammo counters are removed, and people do not have the means to keep track of remaining rounds, every attempt in long-range gunnery increases the anxiety factor to the pilot, until it eventually pressures him to stop firing at such distances in the first place - in which case the chance to hit at long ranges eventually reaches near zero levels, since if the pilot does not shoot, that 'chance' influenced by the dispersion becomes meaningless.

I was preparing a number of 'challenges', with some amount of confidence, for those who claim they don't have any problems in judging distances even without the 200yd incremental 'markers', until my Photoshop crashed on me, so it might take a few more days until it is prepared again.)

The very process of aiming presumes that by 'aiming', a reasonable chance can be expected to hit the target with reliable accuracy. Therefore, the 'aiming process' is meaningful when the distance is close enough for the human pilot to accurately judge and aim, and then finally pull that trigger to expect a certain amount of hitting accuracy ratio in relation to the total number of rounds fired.

However, saying that 'dispersion increases the chance to hit" is dangerously misleading IMO, in that such assumption leaves out a single word - which would be "eventually".

Imagine a situation where you have a limited amount of rounds to fire against a plane's 6 o'c angle. At a distance of 100~200yards, when you have limited 100 rounds to fire, the hitting accuracy can be deadly high.

However, imagine the same target at 600yards, and you fire that same 100 rounds against it. How many here thinks that when the parameters are set identical, only 100 rounds to be fired, that you will still achieve a higher rate of hit because of dispersion?? Only when you fire, 100, 200, 300, 400 more rounds, will the dispersion finally allow some of the fired rounds to connect at the target. Dispersion doesn't allow a higher hit rate at the same parameters - it only allows it at the price of wasting very many rounds to finally achieve a satisfactory number of hits - I don't call that 'higher hit probability'. I call that 'higher hit probability simply due to more numerous attempts".

What we're talking about here is the hit probability that can be attained and influenced by human aim. When I am talking about "long-range hits", I'm not talking about those fluke shots which rarely happens in the game. I'm talking about the people who can aim at a target flying at least some 500~600yards in front of him, and then constantly achieve a meaningful probability to seriously damage, or even shoot down the target in only the first or second burst fired from his plane. Perhaps Stoney's case of being on the receiving end of those MK108s at 600 yards out, could be one of these cases.

Clearly, those people have a correct aim, and do not rely on the pure chance factor of the dispersion pattern to hit the target - they actively aim, and aim accurately despite very far distances and while I do admit at least some 60~70% of their "good aim" is due to experience and skill, at least some 30~40% of the secret to their success is caused by some parameters from the game that existed in real life, but do not exist in the game, which (this is the catch) can be introduced into the game without causing too many problems.

Some people say that is caused by the different FEs, but I distinctly remember Wotan/Batz/Bruno's experients which proved that actual difference in the FE rarely, if ever, extends further out than 100~200 yards. I only wish Bruno was here to clear the point.

But I digress.

In the above mentioned cases of people who regularly achieve a reasonably high chance of shooting down planes at such distances, I suspect the entire process is influenced by specifically the ammo counters, distance indicators, and the identical ammunition fired. I imagine what they are doing is;

1) see the plane, judge the relative E factors, and then make a 'guess' as to just where the plane is when it indicates "600".

2) Relying on that visible, verifable "600" number, they place the target plane at a certain position on the gunsight, giving a vertical lead as they are trained to by using the "600" verification.

3) This aim may not be as accurate as closer distances, but it is enough to place the target smack in the middle of the dispersion pattern, where the bullets are most grouped.

Therefore:

1) by removing the "600", the 200yd incremental distance indicator from the icon, we first remove the very basic judgement tool which more or less verifies a certain range of the target, that the pilots can rely on, and move the entire "judge distances" to the realm of uncertainty, as it should be.

2) then we remove the ammo counters, and move the "calculated risks concerning spending available ammunition", again, into the realm of uncertainty. Perhaps in his first, second, or even third engagements the pilot would pretty much not hesitate to "spray" some of his rounds at long distances, expecting a hit, but I can bet that when it comes to his 4th, 5th, or more engagements he would be ever more uncertain about the condition of his available ammunition - which, will ultimately discourage him from even attempting a long distance shot.

3) and then, by introducing different ammunitions, we not only diverge the "quality" of his hit at long distances (in case of cannons, some of his hits achieved might not be the powerful HE rounds, but rather the more weaker AP rounds), but we also influence the dispersion itself. A pilot, with experience, may be able to lead the target so it rests at the most concentrated, center location of the circular dispersion pattern - but at least more than half of his rounds (that have different ballistics), will fall lower from that most concentrated place.

In the end, I do not believe long-distance gunnery is achieved by skill alone. I think it is also achieved by a significant amount of unvoluntary 'exploitation' of the system (if you can call it 'exploit' in the first place) - which, IMO, can be corrected. AH was always forthcoming when it came to "situationary realism" as opposed to "technical realism" and that is one of AH's great points IMO. I don't see why my suggestion cannot be valid, as it is not as if I am requesting for an artificial "bullet inhibitor" that prevents hits at long ranges.

All I am asking is that AH be a little bit, just a tad bit more life-like, and let's all see where that leads to.

I mean, in the worst case scenario, I could be totally wrong and people would still be achieving 600yd hits regularly - no harm done to any of you out there, since the game stays the exactly same.

In the best case scenario, the gunnery distance would be shortened, and people will have a lot more hear-pumping dogfights at close-ranges.

Nothing to lose, only lots to gain - what can be more better than this?

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: gripen on May 11, 2007, 07:02:48 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa

3) This aim may not be as accurate as closer distances, but it is enough to place the target smack in the middle of the dispersion pattern, where the bullets are most grouped.

This is where the devil lies; is that a reasonable assumption?

Yes: dispersion bad.

No: dispersion good.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Charge on May 11, 2007, 08:41:24 AM

"The chance of hit does not directly increase in proportion to dispersion."

Well, it depends. If you shoot a target with a shotgun your chances of hitting your target are greater than if you shot the same target with a .22 cal. The point here is the amount of projectiles shot at the target in a given time frame.

If you consider the .22 having the same dispersion as the shotgun that will severely reduce its effectiveness as it does not even obey your aim if you happen to aim at the right spot.

Of course the destruction power of a single projectile needs to be considered too...

The dispersion pattern does not make the aiming insignificant. In extreme ranges you need the ability to place the dispersion pattern on a maneuvering target and to my experience even that can be very hard. The dispersion is good because you do not know the right aiming spot, but if you happen to get it right the dispersion is bad because it prevents you from getting all the shots in the target.

E.g. Galland thought 109 had inadequate arming because he figured that for average pilot it would be hard to get adequate hits on target. Maybe he calculated that it is too hard the get the centralized and relatively tight dispersion pattern of 109s weapons on target? The higher dispersion of MG17s would not really help because the projectile lacks destructive power from longer ranges.

Another example could be Hurri1, or rather Spit1. Even at longer ranges the chances of getting a hit are still good but the hits would have no significance because they lack power and they are scattered all over the target. A 109K4 with its single 30mm cannot get such a vast amount of projectiles in the air and if that gun would have much dispersion your chances for hitting a distant target would be totally random as the gun would not obey your aim at all, not even if you had the sights right at the correct spot at the right time.

Oh well, I'm not sure if this was of any help but just confusing the matter....

-C+

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 11, 2007, 11:30:28 AM

Quote

Well, it depends. If you shoot a target with a shotgun your chances of hitting your target are greater than if you shot the same target with a .22 cal. The point here is the amount of projectiles shot at the target in a given time frame.

Like you've mentioned, the key is the "time frame" and "the amount of projectiles shot".

Assuming a single shotgun slug holds 20 pellets inside, when a shotgun is fired the 20 shots are simulatenously spread out in a wide pattern which is evidently intentional. Shotgun pellets are meant to spread out, and by doing so, while covering a wide range there is no possibility that the entire 20 pieces from a single slug can be "grouped" at a certain spot. In order to compare the general accuracy of the .22 as opposed to a shotgun slug, the experiment should fire not a single round and compare that with a 20-pellet-filled slug, but rather fire 20 individual .22 rounds and compare the accuracy of 20x .22 against a 20-pellet slug.

Therefore, when one compares a 20-pellet, single slug against a single .22, that's not comparing "accuracy", it is comparing "efficiency".

IMO, that is why the "shotgun analogy" is wrong. People treat the dispersion pattern from an aircraft gun as a "shotgun" - firing multiple rounds simulataneously and intentionally in a dispersion pattern - when in reality, the pattern formed from an aircraft gun is a result of multiple rounds fired one at a time, over a certain given time frame.

Ofcourse, in reality the "shotgun effect" does exist, albeit only in planes with multiple armaments spread out at a certain distance - particularly across the wins. However, this "shotgun effect" is not a result of dispersion of an individual gun which lands at a "shotgun pattern", but rather an effect caused by multiple guns firing at the same time. In short the reason behind what produces the effect is entirely different from what we're discussing in this thread, and its basically misleading.

The accuracy of the individual pellet is abysmally low than compared to a .22 round which is aimed and fired. However, the efficiency of 20 pellets fired in an intentional pattern that spreads simultaneously, is greater than a single .22 round fired, or .22 round fired 20 times. If we situate this analogy directly to an aircraft gun, the "shotgun effect" is a result of multiple guns firing simultaneously - we're not talking about that "shotgun" here. We're talking about a "shotgun pattern" produced by an individual gun due to its own dispersion (not, by an intentionally spread pattern from multiple guns).

Now, let's continue with the .22 vs shotgun example.

Unlike a shotgun pellet, 20x .22 rounds fired individually have a chance that all 20 rounds might connect, but it also has a chance that none of them might at all. The shotgun is different. It fires multitude of rounds simulateneously, and therefore while there is no chance for all 20 pellets from a single slug will connect at a target (ofcourse, assuming that the target is smaller than the magnitude of the pellets spread) , there is a significant chance that "some" of it will connect. This is why you can't compare a shotgun with the dispersion pattern of a gun. The dispersion pattern created by an aircraft gun represents the probability, not a result of a directly predicted pattern.

Therefore, when someone has aimed reasonably accurately, so that the target is set in the center of the dispersion (which means the target is aimed and placed in a position where the bullets have the highest probability to hit), in this case the dispersion is malevolent to the probability of hit. This is because dispersed bullets that diverge away from the center of the dispersion pattern (which means "highest hit probability") will miss.

However, when someone has aimed wrong, so the target is set apart from the center of the dispersion pattern - only then does the dispersion increase the chance of hit. Because, the diverging round that strays randomly off from the center of the dispersion pattern contains a miniscule chance to connect with the wrongly-aimed target, since the target was out of aim in the first place - which otherwise, in a perfect vacuum world without dispersions factors such as air, vibration, wing twist, etc etc.. there would be no chance to hit at all.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Puck on May 11, 2007, 11:33:14 AM

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
One would have to point out the fact that the average new player spends more time in "combat" in one month than the average WW2 pilot did in there career. I have no doubts in my mind an average AH2 pilot would have been a formidable and often almost unbeatable in most engagements during WW2. One could point out the differences between sweating a little on the armchair vs pulling high gs in a aircraft. This would be the next reason why ah2 gunnery is eaiser than real life. Make no doubts about it a average WW2 pilot would be waxed in this game.

Ryan

C | N > K

(C == tea (I don't drink coffee), N == nose, K == keyboard).

You have NO IDEA what flying the real thing was like. Try playing the piccalo some day and you'll get an idea. Noise, smell, gravity, wind, turbulence, sensory overload, lack of icons, engine management, gun sight adjustments, clouds, jams, engine failures, engine limits, radio chatter...the list is endless.

That was the funniest thing I've read all week.

I know several WWII pilots. Make no mistake about it, you'd be on their kill board before you figured out how to turn on the gun sight.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 11, 2007, 01:52:00 PM

Finally got Photoshop working again.. *grumble*

...

(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC1.gif)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC2.gif)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC3.gif)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC4.gif)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC5.gif)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC6.gif)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e171/kweassa/PIC7.gif)

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Krusty on May 11, 2007, 02:10:21 PM

Your theory only works if you remove the gunsight from every plane in the game.

Also, even if you removed ammo counters, most planes would still know "I've got a hell of a lotta ammo left" and spray away, or "I've got a moderate amount of ammo left" and spray away..

Consider almost every US plane after 1943, and a large majority of the rest of the planes in the game, had 500-3400 machine gun rounds, and most with cannons have 240-750 (or more!) to play with.

You place too much emphasis/blame on the ammo counter and the icon. They have nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: gripen on May 11, 2007, 02:20:23 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
IMO, that is why the "shotgun analogy" is wrong. People treat the dispersion pattern from an aircraft gun as a "shotgun" - firing multiple rounds simulataneously and intentionally in a dispersion pattern - when in reality, the pattern formed from an aircraft gun is a result of multiple rounds fired one at a time, over a certain given time frame.

The aircraft guns are usually burst type weapons ie you aim and shoot a short burst. So in practice the "shotgun analogy" is there. The only practical difference to the shotgun case is that your aim usually wander during the burts so dispersion pattern differs some what. Naturally multiple guns at various positions makes the situation even more complicated as well as the rate of the fire.

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Therefore, when someone has aimed reasonably accurately, so that the target is set in the center of the dispersion (which means the target is aimed and placed in a position where the bullets have the highest probability to hit), in this case the dispersion is malevolent to the probability of hit. This is because dispersed bullets that diverge away from the center of the dispersion pattern (which means "highest hit probability") will miss.

As noted above, here is where the devile lies: How accurately you can aim in average and are your aims evenly distributed around the correct point.

IIRC the largest dispersion patterns (80 % or 100 %, can't remember) for the WWII aircraft guns were around 4 mil (4 m at 1000m). So at range of say 600 m the dispersion pattern is about 2,4 m.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 11, 2007, 02:51:12 PM

Quote

Your theory only works if you remove the gunsight from every plane in the game.

Why? Because the crude crosshair is enough to provide as accurate a numerical estimation on enemy range as the distance indicators?

Quote

Also, even if you removed ammo counters, most planes would still know "I've got a hell of a lotta ammo left" and spray away, or "I've got a moderate amount of ammo left" and spray away..

You wish.

Quote

Consider almost every US plane after 1943, and a large majority of the rest of the planes in the game, had 500-3400 machine gun rounds, and most with cannons have 240-750 (or more!) to play with.

Those 3,400 rounds also come from 8 barrels. Having more ammunition doesn't necessarily mean you have longer firing time. It merely means you have as much ammunition packed in accordance to the number of guns your plane is armed with.

* The F4U-1C packed with more than 800 rounds of 20mms have a mere 22 second firing time.
* The P-47D with 3,400 rounds have 32 seconds.
* The Bf109 has total 13 seconds with 150 x 20mm, and 17 seconds with 200 rounds
* The P-38 has total 15 seconds with 2,000 50cals and 14 seconds with 20mms.

Once the ammo counter is removed, the remaining ammunition is measured in seconds. How many times do you fire a gun in a single sortie? Are you going to memorize every second you've spent pulling the trigger with a stopwatch, and then add them up during the heat of battle?

In the initial engagement after take-off, very first time you pull the trigger you'd be confident. Fly around until about you've used up 75% fuel, and see just how well your memory betrays you. The burden of not knowing, the uncertainty of it all, is what drives people to save ammo rather than risk drying up during the middle of a fight.

Are you trying to suggest the pilots of AH have some sort of flash memory installed in their brain, that recounts on the amount of ammunition spent after some twenty, thirty minutes of flight?

Quote

You place too much emphasis/blame on the ammo counter and the icon. They have nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

Ah, but they have everything to do with it.

You can always prove me wrong when AH implements my suggestions, God and HT willing. If you can fly around like nothing has changed then I'll humbly concede defeat.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 11, 2007, 02:58:21 PM

Quote

The aircraft guns are usually burst type weapons ie you aim and shoot a short burst. So in practice the "shotgun analogy" is there. The only practical difference to the shotgun case is that your aim usually wander during the burts so dispersion pattern differs some what. Naturally multiple guns at various positions makes the situation even more complicated as well as the rate of the fire.

No matter what kind of burst is made, it is inevitably a result of each round fired subsequently from a barrely that adds up to produce a certain clandestine 'dispersion' pattern. Shotguns are made in the first place to fire all contained pellets, and spread them out to maximize the area of impact intentionally. This is a big difference.

Quote

As noted above, here is where the devile lies: How accurately you can aim in average and are your aims evenly distributed around the correct point.

Unless you're willing to say those "600" guys are the AH version of the bigfoot, I'd say people can aim pretty danged well accurate at the correct point. Ask around the "vet" community and one can easily recruit hordes of guys who claim "600" is a relatively easy shot... and being on the receiving end, I don't think they're lying.

Quote

IIRC the largest dispersion patterns (80 % or 100 %, can't remember) for the WWII aircraft guns were around 4 mil (4 m at 1000m). So at range of say 600 m the dispersion pattern is about 2,4 m.

That's interesting to know.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: gripen on May 11, 2007, 03:20:31 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
No matter what kind of burst is made, it is inevitably a result of each round fired subsequently from a barrely that adds up to produce a certain clandestine 'dispersion' pattern. Shotguns are made in the first place to fire all contained pellets, and spread them out to maximize the area of impact intentionally. This is a big difference.

The only relevant thing here is that one aim results multiple projectiles at target area; this makes aircraft gunnery similar to the shotgun case.

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Unless you're willing to say those "600" guys are the AH version of the bigfoot, I'd say people can aim pretty danged well accurate at the correct point. Ask around the "vet" community and one can easily recruit hordes of guys who claim "600" is a relatively easy shot... and being on the receiving end, I don't think they're lying.

The skill of the pilot is decisive factor, but maybe you should think that phenomena from the another direction: What kind of planes use to hit at such long range?

My quess is that planes like Hispano armed Spitfires and 12,7mm Browning armed use to get hits. The theoretical reason for this is that these send large amount of projectiles to the target area and high velocity of the projectiles make aiming a bit easier (less lead needed).

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: llama on May 11, 2007, 03:43:24 PM

While a well-illustrated and lucid argument, I'd like to add the following:

In real life, two-eyed pilots have depth perception to assist in determining the range of a target.

Since we lack depth perception in aces high, the icon is an attempt to make up for it.

I think it is fair to say that experienced, real-life pilots with stereo-vision-based depth perception, were about as good at accurately judging the distance to a target as the current icon displays its approximation of distance.

-Llama

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: EagleDNY on May 11, 2007, 04:12:34 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Why? Because the crude crosshair is enough to provide as accurate a numerical estimation on enemy range as the distance indicators?

I see the argument you are making, and yes, AH would be improved if we had individual round ballistics and damage modeling, as well as modeling of the individual damage effects on each plane. I'd love to see the flying characteristics of the target change as holes are punched in his wings and fuselage, or the effect on the pilot if you shatter his canopy. I, for one, would like to have that additional random effect during combat as it increases realism, but HT is limited in programming time on one hand, and by the limits of their customers machines on the other.

One thing I haven't seen discussed in this thread on the supposed "over accuracy" of AH vs Real Life was that IRL the fighters had COMPUTING GUNSIGHTS. I'd be a lot more worried about some dweeb coming at me in a Spit if he had the "ace maker" gunsight computing deflection for him. Somebody tell me how the computing gunsights in ww2 figured range - were they pre-programmed to a certain convergence?

Since we are limited to crosshairs & prayers, I think that brings the "over accuracy" down to a managable level. Frankly, it's rare for me to get caught by a long range shot unless I am running with someone dead on my six. A crossing shot at 600+ is iffy at best, and I vastly prefer to get in close and let 'em have it. If I'm in a buff, anyone climbing up my six for a long range shot usually gets a rude surprise, and if I'm in a fighter flying straight with someone 600 out on my six, I deserve what I get.

Yes, I've played with the target and can get hits at long range if I'm dead on your six (as per your graphic), but I consider it a waste of ammo and since I probably flew 10 minutes over there, I'd like to get more than 1 or 2 kills before RTB.

EagleDNY
$.02

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: gripen on May 11, 2007, 04:33:00 PM

Quote

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Somebody tell me how the computing gunsights in ww2 figured range - were they pre-programmed to a certain convergence?

In the case of the British system, the pilot dialed from the selector the span of the plane (usually there was preadjusted settings for the Fw 190 and the Bf 109). There was another adjusting pot in the throttle and during the aiming pilot adjusted the size of the aiming ring to equal the span of the plane.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Krusty on May 11, 2007, 04:41:41 PM

Which you can pretty much do with a stationary gunsight, using the rings against the enemy's wingspan to get a good idea of how far he was (also just using your eyes).

the only thing the "modern" gunsights in WW2 did was take that range from the pilot and automatically adjust for round drop. It wasn't like a modern jet HUD or anything, it just angled the pipper down/up so that you had to raise/lower the nose to get it on the enemy (thus making the rounds lob up a bit more before hitting the target, if it was further out)

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: gripen on May 11, 2007, 04:50:35 PM

Well, the gyroscopic gunsight compute the needed lead based on range and acceleration of the plane assuming that the pilot keeps the target steadily in the aiming ring. The only practical difference to the modern sight is that the modern sights use other methods to measure range (usually radar).

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Krusty on May 11, 2007, 04:55:09 PM

And modern ones paint a bright box around the target following it wherever it goes, the old ones just moved the dot around in the gunsight reflector.

EDIT: Or moved the outer rings to denote firing range

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Stoney74 on May 11, 2007, 06:27:31 PM

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
IIRC the largest dispersion patterns (80 % or 100 %, can't remember) for the WWII aircraft guns were around 4 mil (4 m at 1000m). So at range of say 600 m the dispersion pattern is about 2,4 m.

Is there a source that has this information? I'm guessing HTC had to get their ballistics information from somewhere...

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Stoney74 on May 11, 2007, 07:02:15 PM

Quote

Originally posted by llama
I think it is fair to say that experienced, real-life pilots with stereo-vision-based depth perception, were about as good at accurately judging the distance to a target as the current icon displays its approximation of distance.

-Llama

They might disagree with you. But, what they did do was memorize the wingspans of the enemy aircraft in mils or feet, and used this information to either (1) check that the wingspan of the target was bracketed by the appropriate mil ticks on the sight, or (2) were able to set the appropriate span (for lead computing sights) prior to the engagement. I would think that in the heat of the moment, this knowledge may have been difficult to quickly remember and adjust. For the K-14 sight, the P-47N POH recommends 25 feet as the generic span width for single engine fighters. Given that most Axis single engine fighters had wingspans in excess of 35 feet wide, I'm not sure why that span is recommended.

Regardless, there was still the matter of shooting at the range that matched the harmonization/convergence setting to contend with. Even if they knew the range (based upon the techniques described above) the computing gun sites did not allow them the same accuracy at all ranges (which in the case of the K-14 was a minimum of 200 yards to a maximum of 800 yards). By this I mean, gun convergence was fixed, even though the site allowed them to determine different ranges.

Hypothetically speaking they could have maintained the range ring at their convergence setting, and waited until the target filled the site. Remember, the site merely gives them lead information--everything else is up to the pilot.

I would say that accurate ranging during combat conditions was probably much more difficult than it is in AH, and that's why most pilots did not fire until they were 300 yards or less. At those ranges, it eliminated the guess work and made them much more accurate.

The bottom line, IMO, is to ask those that actually flew why they didn't fire at longer ranges. I've read so many quotes from books where they talk about wasting ammo by taking shots at ranges in excess of 300 yards or so. I believe it would be interesting to know why there is a discrepancy between the capability of pilots during the war (with respect to gunnery) and the game.

I agree with Kweeasa--we certainly won't know for sure without trying it. There are a host of different settings that can be used in AH2, but aren't in the MA's (wind, darkness, etc.). So, you could say there's precedent for at least trying it.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Tony Williams on May 11, 2007, 10:31:10 PM

A few comments: I don't have the time to address all of the issues raised here.

As is well known, the Luftwaffe did a lot of statistical analyses of aircraft gun effectiveness, trying to work out the best combination of weapons. The figures for hit probability I have seen are between 2% and 5% of rounds striking the target; that's an average across all pilots firing at all ranges, from point-blank to distant. Bear in mind that the typical target at that time was a four-engined bomber, flying fairly steadily. That gives you some basis for a reality check.

As many of you know I don't use sims but some contrasts with RL are very obvious and some have been mentioned already: sim players don't have to put up with the noise, vibration, cold, exhaustion, g-forces, and the sheer terror of knowing that you could be killed at any moment. This last usually had the effect of severely distorting judgment, making shooting accuracy drop off considerably (just compare the accuracy which rifle and pistol shooters can achieve on the firing range with the fact that in combat, the normal hitting ranges at that time - snipers excepted - were about 100 feet with a rifle and 10 feet with a pistol). Even in training conditions, tests of pilots' ability to judge range-to-target when in the air showed their judgment to be abysmal - I don't just mean slightly off, I mean two or three times off. Furthermore, most pilots only had a few opportunities to practice combat firing. No great surprise that something like 90% of kills were made by around 10% of pilots.

Put all that together and I would indeed expect people who constantly practice on sims would be able to score "kills" much more easily than most pilots could in RL. That really doesn't mean a lot, the circumstances are so different.

I don't know that variations in ammunition type made a huge difference in RL except in extreme cases (M-geschoss) or at very long ranges, because the spread of fire was already high due to natural gun dispersion, mounting flexibility, and aircraft movement while firing.

It's really down to the sim designers to decide how tough to make the shooting. It's a game decision, but don't let anyone confuse what sim players can do with the reality of combat in WW2 - they weren't just different worlds, they were in different galaxies.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Kweassa on May 12, 2007, 12:28:45 AM

Quote

The only relevant thing here is that one aim results multiple projectiles at target area; this makes aircraft gunnery similar to the shotgun case.

gripen, shotgun pellets spread in a pre-determined pattern. They are not a result of individual dispersion due to involuntary forces - they are of design. When someone fires 100 rounds from a gun, he may observe the end-result of a dispersed pattern that resembles a shotgun pellet pattern. But that's all it is - it is resemblance.

Let's assume you hold a shotgun that fires (unrealistic, but just for experimental argument) a 100-shot filled slug that boasts a dispersion pattern of 5m in diameter when reaching 100yards. You aim it against me and fire the trigger from 100 yards and as long as I am inside that 5m diameter pattern, the probability that you will hit me is 100%. But this probability applies to the whole "group" of pellets bursting out from a single slug. The probability of an individual pellet hitting me is low. It's simply that they are so numerous and simultaneous, that only as a whole group the hit probability reaches 100%.

Then, let's assume you carry a handgun that holds 100 rounds, and when fired 100 times consecutively the end pattern resembles the same 5m diameter pattern of the previous shotgun. Now, you aim that handgun at me and take a single shot. Would the probability of hitting me be as high as the shotgun mentioned above?

That's why the shotgun analogy does not apply.

When one compares an aircraft gun to a shot gun, one assumes the probability of a single instance of shot fired connecting to the target will be as high as the probability the overall pattern emerged from an entire group of bullets fired over a time will be the same - this is entirely false.

Dispersion increases hit chance only with sufficient amount of bullets are fired to create a certain pattern. Because using so much ammunition to achieve a hit is deemed largely inefficient the history of aircraft guns ultimately abandoned the shotgun approach.

Therefore, when the environment is controlled so it becomes more difficult for people to make up for the consequences of their inefficiency (ie. no means to balance and manage the amount of bullets you view as 'expendable' = no ammo counter), the very practice of firing long bursts to spew enough rounds to create a pattern dense enough to achieve a hit will start to dwindle.

Thus, even if people do attempt long-range gunnery they will fire at considerably shorter bursts than they used to - which, negates the entire analogy of the shotgun, because people don't fire that many rounds anymore.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Knegel on May 12, 2007, 01:01:37 AM

Hi Kweassa

how often do you play without icons and ammo counter(other sims)??

It looks to me not that often, cause then you would know that people learn to estimate diatances by using zoom and the size of the plane in the gunsight and that you get a natural feeling for your ammoload.
As result people shoot particular from even longer ranges and they do hit sometimes, just like with ammo counter and distance icons.

But again, how often someone get shot down in AH above 400yard, if he dont fly strait of extreme slow??

I guess the virtuel bullets are to big on large distance, as result the dispersion work much as an advantage, instead a disadvantage.

I assume the bullets in 800yard distance have a size of a basket ball. In such a case, if 20 of this bullets fly to the target with a dispersion, the probability to hit the plane, with a deadly number of bullets, is by far more big than without a dispersion.

In this case: As lower the dispersion, as more exact a pilot need to aim to hit, but the sensitive AH plane behaviour, around the stick center, will make this rather difficult.

Greetings,

Knegel

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: gripen on May 12, 2007, 03:41:10 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
gripen, shotgun pellets spread in a pre-determined pattern. They are not a result of individual dispersion due to involuntary forces - they are of design.

The situation is exactly same when you shoot a short aimed burst with the aircraft guns; the projectiles disperse according to dispersion of the gun. Note that some aircraft guns are designed for certain dispersion pattern and these have different barrels for various dispersion patterns.

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Let's assume you hold a shotgun that fires (unrealistic, but just for experimental argument) a 100-shot filled slug that boasts a dispersion pattern of 5m in diameter when reaching 100yards. You aim it against me and fire the trigger from 100 yards and as long as I am inside that 5m diameter pattern, the probability that you will hit me is 100%. But this probability applies to the whole "group" of pellets bursting out from a single slug. The probability of an individual pellet hitting me is low. It's simply that they are so numerous and simultaneous, that only as a whole group the hit probability reaches 100%.

Then, let's assume you carry a handgun that holds 100 rounds, and when fired 100 times consecutively the end pattern resembles the same 5m diameter pattern of the previous shotgun. Now, you aim that handgun at me and take a single shot. Would the probability of hitting me be as high as the shotgun mentioned above?

Shotgun part of your example is correct but the hand gun part does not aply here. The realistic way to form that part is that you have an automatic hand gun with very high rate of fire, say 100 rps. Then you aim and shoot a one second burst. Assuming that 5 m dispersion pattern for both guns follows normal distribution, then the both guns will have about same dispersion pattern and the same probability of the hit. In practice your aim will probably wander during the burst so the pattern will be a bit different.

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa

Dispersion increases hit chance only with sufficient amount of bullets are fired to create a certain pattern.

Here is where the devil lies (again); what if you aim is not good "enough to place the target smack in the middle of the dispersion pattern, where the bullets are most grouped" (as you wrote above). You see, your aiming error at range of 600 is probably much larger than the dispersion pattern and why the target should be in the middle of the dispersion pattern? It's more than probable that it is not there.

Title: ammunition loading and long-range ballistics
Post by: Charge on May 12, 2007, 07:01:15 AM

IMO one of the "devils" lies in the understanding of "time" - the time you have to aim and to shoot and understanding the effects of ROF in relation to afore mentioned factors. That is why the shotgun analogy is bad but in understanding the effects of dispersion and ROF it is a good analogy.

IRL you do not have time to fill the shotgun dispersion pattern but given a suitable gun and projectile even scattered hits are enough. My point earlier was that the "suitable" dispersion for a gun depends of its use in relation to its properties. This means that given a certain firing situation every gun has its optimal "window" of effectiveness.

E.g. while .50 Cal was not probably the most optimal weapon in the end of WW2 against fighters, given the situation it was enough for the job, also considering the logistical simplicity it provided. However mounted in F86 in Korea it lacked punch but it probably had suitable dispersion to its effective range but because the speeds were different the effect of dispersion was somewhat worse than in WW2. But the planes were different, too, with even a single bullet capable of ruining your day if it hit your jet turbine blades.

As the speeds increase the firing solutions become more brief making it necessary to put more bullets in the air in less time with more effect. Thus the modern jet cannons have incredible ROF and their caliber is generally either 20mm or 30mm.

I think you could even construct a equation which would give you the optimal ROF, caliber, gun weight, number of guns, ammo load, and dispersion if the requirements were known.

-C+

Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kweassa on May 06, 2007, 09:28:18 PM