Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DoLbY on July 13, 2007, 01:35:24 PM
-
I was bored the other day so I decided to write down all the ammo load outs of each plane (buffs included). I'll post that at another time since it'll take me forever to do on here, but I know there is a big debate on here over biggest guns vs, most ammos. Which one do you think is better, planes with big guns or ones with more ammo?
(if I knew how to make this as a poll, i would)
-
I prefer big guns AND lots of ammo :D
(http://rafiger.de/Homepage/FBMuseum/Info-JG5/Profile/Bf-110-G2-1B-EU.jpg)
-
a lot of guns are useless if they're very weak and have short range. A hurricane Mk.I has 8x .303 caliber MGs, but this is a light round and has a very short effective range (shooting outside 200 yards is just stupid, because you only get a fraction of the damage and concentration).
If you're asking what's best? Who knows. What's the best compromise? That's a more attainable answer.
6x50cal (or 8x50cal in p47s) or something with 2x20mm is your best bet.
I believe HTC has said that a single 20mm is as powerful as a 3 50cals, and I think 1 50cal is as powerful as 3 .303s (or 7mm). So a single 20mm (when it hits) is the same as 9 .303s. You could take out the 7mm MG ammo on a 109 and the 20mm hub gun would still be more potent than the 8x .303s on a hurricane 2, for example.
So something with 6x (or more) 50cals, p51, f6f, p38 (the 20mm makes up for only having 4 guns), or something with 2+ 20mm cannons, spitfires, fw190, ki61, la5/7, etc.
Planes like the C202 (2x50cal, 2x7mm) and p40b (2x50cal and 4x30cal) and the 109f (1x20mm and 2x7mm) are often considered underpowered, as they have to sit there and pound the target for a long time to get any results.
-
Also, you don't have to write it down. Go here:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/index.html
It's under the HTC homepage. It's got most of the armament for most of the planes, I think. Don't need to count bombers, IMO, just fighters/attackers.
-
http://www.netaces.org/roundpwr/roundpwr.htm
-
I wouldn't really trust that much, trotter...
It's got certain... issues.... that I don't agree with. Especially the entire premise of killing a hangar. Ground objects don't react to MGs the same way they do to cannon. Fleet ship hulls are invulnerable to 50cal fire, for example, but a plane with even 1x20mm can kill them (with enough ammo).
I don't think it's a good relative test, nor do I agree with some of the "ranks" listed there. From personal experience I've had more planes survive a hit from a NS37 than I have from a Mk108.
Suffice it to say I don't trust that test in any way.
-
All of the rounds in the world mean squat, when yer aim sucks. I'd prefer my aim being good. Because I'm 10-0 while HO'ing 110's in a Spit Mk1.
-
For fighters, big guns are better because it will minimize your time in target fixation, a very dangerous situation. In BnZ, it allows more firepower in the crucial few milliseconds in effective gun range.
I find the less time I spend in a dangerous situation, the more survivable I am, and the more kills I'll bring home. In a P47, I would normally take 8 guns low ammo, and that would be plenty to get 5 kills with a healthy reserve.
For attack aircraft over a hot target, big guns win again because it will minimize your time within AA range.
For bombers... that's a tough one. I'd go for extra firepower with low ammo on the front, and medium firepower medium ammo on the sides and rear since engagement time is long on the sides and rear.
In all situations, for novice pilots, go ahead and take more ammo. You'll get more feedback in order to learn faster.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
All of the rounds in the world mean squat, when yer aim sucks. I'd prefer my aim being good.
Well my aim sucks no matter what :D
Krusty...I mean as in I noticed people think Cannon planes are the best because the damage is much greater than with MGs, but the ammo is limited and every shot pretty much has to count. Then you have 50s. 303, etc, that doesn't cause as much damage but more. I personally rather have guns with more ammo although not as descutive as cannons. That and I find it more challenging that way. Not questioning what you had to say or anything of the sort, just answering one of your questions you had for me in one of your earlier posts. And as for the ammo count and such, wish I knew of that site that you told me before i did on my own lol.
-
Depends. Some of the cannon armed aircraft have ammo endurance exceeding that of most machine gun armed aircraft and others still come close to matching it. Look at the Fw190's inner wing guns, the Bf110G's guns, the N1K2-J's and the F4U-1C's. The La5-FN and Mosquito VI also have pretty good endurance while carrying cannons.
-
The Ki84 has more than average cannon loadout, also.
One not mentioned, probably because it'll kill you more than the enemy, the Ta152. If cannons are what ye're after, look no further! :D
-
C.205 has a goodly amount of cannon ammo.
I wouldn't count the Ki-84 though. It only has 30 rounds per gun more than a Spitfire and those guns have a rate of fire well above those of the Spitfire.
-
You're all are forgetting a couple of key points here. Those being ballistics and gun placement. Gun size and ammo count are only part of the total package.
Ballistics make a big difference in your gunning accuracy. I fly about every type of aircraft every camp and jumping between the various gun packages I have to constantly remember to adjust my aim (or in some cases my convergences so that I can maintain my aim points).
Jumping between center mounted and wing guns also affects accuracy. Oddly, I personally have a more difficult time with center mounted guns (hub or cowl) than wing mounted guns, often having to bring convergences in on center mounted guns (just the opposite of what I would expect).
In general, I find I have to set convergences shorter in Japanese and Russian planes than in any others.
Now on to your question. I prefer cannons to load-out in general but don't have a problem with any of the gun packages in the game. Even the 8 .303's on the Hurri I or the 2 .50's on the P-51B or FM2 are deadly if brought to bear and accuracy will make any gun package go a long way (not that I'm nessesarily accurate). As examples I've landed 5 kills in a Yak-9U before (120 rounds of 20mm) and the other night I landed 6 kills in a N1K2 having used only 150 of 400 rounds of 20mm. Likewise, I've landed 3 buff kills (B-26's) in a Hurri I and sawed the wings off of B-24's in an FM2.
I will say that the 8 .50's on the Jugs are about as deadly as any cannoned plane except maybe the FW190A-8 or the BF110-G2.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Ground objects don't react to MGs the same way they do to cannon. Fleet ship hulls are invulnerable to 50cal fire, for example, but a plane with even 1x20mm can kill them (with enough ammo).
Honestly Krusty, sometimes I wonder how you come up with some of this stuff. Neither of these two suppositions is true.
-
65 rounds of 30mm is all you need
:aok
Can't go past the 190 A8 for brute force, though
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
You're all are forgetting a couple of key points here. Those being ballistics and gun placement. Gun size and ammo count are only part of the total package.
Ballistics make a big difference in your gunning accuracy. I fly about every type of aircraft every camp and jumping between the various gun packages I have to constantly remember to adjust my aim (or in some cases my convergences so that I can maintain my aim points).
Jumping between center mounted and wing guns also affects accuracy. Oddly, I personally have a more difficult time with center mounted guns (hub or cowl) than wing mounted guns, often having to bring convergences in on center mounted guns (just the opposite of what I would expect).
In general, I find I have to set convergences shorter in Japanese and Russian planes than in any others.
Now on to your question. I prefer cannons to load-out in general but don't have a problem with any of the gun packages in the game. Even the 8 .303's on the Hurri I or the 2 .50's on the P-51B or FM2 are deadly if brought to bear and accuracy will make any gun package go a long way (not that I'm nessesarily accurate). As examples I've landed 5 kills in a Yak-9U before (120 rounds of 20mm) and the other night I landed 6 kills in a N1K2 having used only 150 of 400 rounds of 20mm. Likewise, I've landed 3 buff kills (B-26's) in a Hurri I and sawed the wings off of B-24's in an FM2.
I will say that the 8 .50's on the Jugs are about as deadly as any cannoned plane except maybe the FW190A-8 or the BF110-G2.
If your aim sucks to begin with, the wall of text is useless.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
If your aim sucks to begin with, the wall of text is useless.
Thanks Karaya, I knew I could count on you.
That may be but it's still 405th best in the arenas right now after losing almost 100 positions last night... and this coming from a guy who's gunnery is 583rd.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
That may be but it's still 405th best in the arenas right now after losing almost 100 positions last night... and this coming from a guy who's gunnery is 583rd.
I know you don't mean it that serious, but for possible noobs reading this thread:
You have to be careful when compairing hit% between players. There are way too many modifiers to account for. Your playing style, your standard plane's armament and last but not least your targets all have a big influence. IF you have more buff kills, your hit% goes up without being a better gunner per se.
A hit% difference of only 1% absolute (like it is the case between those two gentlemen here) is not enough to determine which one is actually the "better" shooter. (And btw, #583 places you in the top 10% of all players at the end of a month ;) )
You can, in my opinion, only roughly divide players into lousy, below average, average, good, and excellent.
And now back to the thread :aok
-
Stoney, mate.... I respect ya and all, but you cannot kill ships with 50cal, no matter how much 50cal you have. It doesn't work without some explosive (cannon) round.
I've unloaded thousands of rounds of 50cal into a wounded DD a few times. Nothing. Nada. I probably had a hit% in the upper 80s (just when firing on that target).
Ground objects don't "work" the same as aircraft/vehicles in this game. That's a fact. So using a flawed system to test weapons, the premise itself leads to flawed results. That's my opinion and why I don't trust those numbers. Also HTC said before that 1 20mm round is about as effective as 3 50cal rounds. The RtKH numbers are way way off compared to that. I'd rather get my info from the horse's mouth.
-
Oh, and for the record, i don't care how big or low my hit % is, just as long as i eventually hit what i'm aiming for :aok
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wouldn't really trust that much, trotter...
It's got certain... issues.... that I don't agree with. Especially the entire premise of killing a hangar. Ground objects don't react to MGs the same way they do to cannon. Fleet ship hulls are invulnerable to 50cal fire, for example, but a plane with even 1x20mm can kill them (with enough ammo).
I don't think it's a good relative test, nor do I agree with some of the "ranks" listed there. From personal experience I've had more planes survive a hit from a NS37 than I have from a Mk108.
Suffice it to say I don't trust that test in any way.
First, you can in fact destroy a ship with .50s. I recently killed a destroyer with a P47's mgs. You can test it off-line, too, by turning off the object protection and going to town on a friendly ship.
I agree that objects react with rounds differently than planes. There's not even a good way to determine the relative effectiveness in real life. That's why there are a couple of different expected powers on Tony William's site. However, the data for killing the hangars lines up pretty well with his data (1st column) with the exception of the larger rounds. I know the 40mm doesn't kill planes well (I'm doing a "kill in every fighter" tour and used lots of rounds from the HurriII on a lanc with little effect!) and I'll get the 37mm soon!
Unless someone comes up with a better way to check it or HiTech just tells us the relative effectiveness, we're stuck with killing stationary objects.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Originally posted by Krusty
... Also HTC said before that 1 20mm round is about as effective as 3 50cal rounds. The RtKH numbers are way way off compared to that. I'd rather get my info from the horse's mouth.
Actually, the 20mms range from 2.8 - 3.5 .50's/20mm. That's hardly "way off". In fact, that's right there. Assuming that every 20mm has the same value doesn't match with anecdotal evidence from the arenas or test results.
There is also the problem of the "average" round that AH uses vs the wide variety of rounds available to most of these weapons in real life. Certainly makes it hard to determine if we're getting the results we should expect.
Bottom line is that we have what we have. To accurately test rounds against planes, we'd need to be able to track hit %, where the round strikes, at what specific round fatal damage occurred, etc. Not possible with the tools we have now and not worth HTC's time to develop. If he's happy with the results, that's good enough for me! As for the numbers needed to kill hangars, that is exactly what it is - the rounds required to kill a hangar. It still gives a general idea of how rounds stack up against each other. The major deviation from these stats should be explosive (cannon) vs non-explosive rounds' effects on planes and objects. The difference between these in the game is an unknown.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I wouldn't really trust that much, trotter...
It's got certain... issues.... that I don't agree with. Especially the entire premise of killing a hangar. Ground objects don't react to MGs the same way they do to cannon. Fleet ship hulls are invulnerable to 50cal fire, for example, but a plane with even 1x20mm can kill them (with enough ammo).
I don't think it's a good relative test, nor do I agree with some of the "ranks" listed there. From personal experience I've had more planes survive a hit from a NS37 than I have from a Mk108.
Suffice it to say I don't trust that test in any way.
I do, that was a good test.
That test was done pre-armoured ship days where rounds would always take effect.
You know the target has a set number of hitpoints, the rounds it takes to destroy the hanger = power of round.
Hammer's test is probably the best, most accurate way of judging in game gun power. Not only that, but he compares it to the historical power of the rounds.