Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Sincraft on June 07, 2008, 11:45:37 PM
-
I was flying tonight, sans cannon in my ki84, found a 190 to play around with, had him dead to sites, and waited till I was point blank and unleased ALL of my mg ammo into him. Eventually I was void that ammo and just flew with him toying around having fun keeping up with his moves. I think he knew I was out.
So I have to wonder, were the smaller cal weapons really this lame? I hit him in the wings, underbelly, tail etc.
Also tonight while in a 190d9 - I nailed a funky chicken defending spit 3 or 4 times in the tail section only to watch him wiggle his stick violently avoiding 6! attackers for over 5 minutes.
This is getting outright nuts. There are some battles that make this worth the price of admission and more, but whenever I get down to bb's in a ki or see a spit16 flying low...I know he's going to pull the uber ufo 180's and funky chicken defense, I don't even both trying anymore.
Anyone else starting to feel this way eh?
-
I hit him in the wings, underbelly, tail etc.
This is actually the most common cause of the problem. With a cannon shell, an impact literally explodes and blows apart whatever it hit. With the smaller MG ammo, it's usually a solid ball round or some kind of AP (read: doesn't cause a big explosion on impact). With these, you must literally saw off pieces of an opponent...and if you've ever seen the episode of MythBusters when they're trying to replicate shooting yourself a hole to fall through in a floor, you know this is quite difficult.
The best way to cause damage with the lighter calibers is to concentrate every single bullet on its convergence point on the same point such as the wing spar or tail connection.
-
Thats the way it should be. Cowl guns had ammunition designed to kill animals and humans, not 10,000 lbs aircraft. I read an account of a German fighter pilot who had flown in the First World War, when all planes had were 1 or 2 rifle caliber machine guns. When he was assigned to the 109E in the Second World War, with not only two rifle caliber machine guns but two 20mm cannons (and crappy cannons at that), he was quite surprised with the effectiveness of the new era of weaponry. I'll type up his account tomorrow, I'm too tired to do it now.
-
~.30 caliber incendiary ammo was available. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems like you set more airplanes on fire in AHII when your ammo mix has some ~.30 calibers in it. But generraly, yeah, there is a reason that multiple .50s were about the minimum by wars ends.
Pilot kills probably accounted for alot of downed planes with smaller calibers. Remember, if your fuel tank got holed, you were quite possibly screwed as regards RTB, to say nothing of oil lines, radiator, hydraulic lines...commonly these guys had to RTB alot farther than 25 miles. Also, you've got to take into account that we've got something of an all-or-nothing damage model in AHII. You either blow the elevator off or nothing happens to it. Wherease in reality, you might put holes in the skin that cause tearing, aggravated by slipstream. If it goes to fluttering, that could make the airplane un-flyable right there. You might cut a control cable, jam a pushrod, etc-all sorts of possibilites than a reasonable sim damage model can't account for. Just like in some rare cases you might put a butt-load of .50s or even 20mms into real aircraft and not hit anything that even disables it. Be waaaaaaaay too complex to try and put all of these factors into a sim though.
-
First, define "point blank"
Second, how much MG ammo did you have when you ran out of cannon?
Third, of all the shots you fired, how many hit?
If you have 2x 50cal or equivelant (MG131, 12.7mm, etc) and have a lot of ammo left, you are NOT out of the fight. The more manuverable your plane is, the more lethal you still are. 2x 50cals are more than enough to bring a plane down (especially if nose mounted!) IF you land a good solid burst on target. I'm not talking a glancing snapshot as he ducks and dodges your BnZ. It takes a solid burst, but it's quite effective.
If you're lucky it takes just a single ping (to the cockpit), but generally don't bet on that.
In summation, "You missed him."
-
~.30 caliber incendiary ammo was available.
This is true, but for future readers I'll note that the .303s in the Spitfire and Hurricane Mk. I were designed for the purpose of using the same ammunition as the standard infantry rifle of the time, and therefor would be standard ball rounds.
-
Actually, incendiary rounds were common early on. A throwback from WW1 I believe, they still had the nice effect of setting a plane's fuel tanks on fire rather than just draining them.
The caliber of the weapon doesn't really dictate the type of round it can fire. Look at the german guns, for example!
-
Problem is aces high has full damage, and no damage.
Nothing in between, fairly light damage modeling with engine components, wires,fuel lines pully systems for control. In reality No one gets shot at with ANYTHING, and sticks around in that persons sights for long.
Try flying your damaged f4u, when the left aileron is none functional and just flapping in the wind, or even worse jammed in a not so good always keeping you rolling position. If ever we got these things, or more. EVERYTHING with aces high combat would change.
Imagine loosing lift, or added drag from a 20mm hole in your wing, your wing forever dipping, the constant correction.
With a flying machine, every bit of damage effected something.
Ask any pilot if he would mind someone taking pot shots at him with machine guns, you will most likely get a big "nuh uh, no thanks" :salute
In short.no machine guns were really not that bad, aces highs damage model is, all or nothing at all. <3 HTC for everything
-
I have killed many aircraft with just the two Ho-103 12.7mm machine guns on the Ki-84. In one case I downed a Hurricane Mk IIc, one of the tougher single engined fighters, after an extended fight and still had enough ammo to kill the C-47 he was escorting afterwards.
I also remember shooting down a B-26 using just the MG131s on the Fw190D-9 (this was before formations) in a single, relatively short, pass.
The only B-17 kill I remember getting with the C.202 was also done in a single pass, but it was a long pass with me firing the whole way in.
-
I've landed 7 kills air to air with a TBM, which has only a pair of .50 cal MGs. On the other hand, I've had my Wildcat hit by at least a dozen 20mm rounds and suffered no disabling damage. My experience tells me that 190s can suck up a lot of machine gun hits in the fuselage and fly on seemingly undamaged.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Actually, incendiary rounds were common early on. A throwback from WW1 I believe, they still had the nice effect of setting a plane's fuel tanks on fire rather than just draining them.
The standard early war load out for US aircraft was three AP, one Incendiary, and one tracer. Repeat.
By the end of the war, we were loading out all API, unless of course you had clout enough to have the armorers load your own personal mix.
-
Problem is aces high has full damage, and no damage.
Nothing in between, fairly light damage modeling with engine components, wires,fuel lines pully systems for control. In reality No one gets shot at with ANYTHING, and sticks around in that persons sights for long.
Try flying your damaged f4u, when the left aileron is none functional and just flapping in the wind, or even worse jammed in a not so good always keeping you rolling position. If ever we got these things, or more. EVERYTHING with aces high combat would change.
Imagine loosing lift, or added drag from a 20mm hole in your wing, your wing forever dipping, the constant correction.
With a flying machine, every bit of damage effected something.
Ask any pilot if he would mind someone taking pot shots at him with machine guns, you will most likely get a big "nuh uh, no thanks" :salute
In short.no machine guns were really not that bad, aces highs damage model is, all or nothing at all. <3 HTC for everything
But don't forget that there was a good bit of this action in the war as well. Innumerable stories of guys who landed with major holes blasted open, or several hundred bullet holes SCATTERED ALL OVER THE AIRPLANE.
Two points explain what the original poster describes. First, and most importantly, the distances we shoot at here are unhistorically long. The vast majority of air to air kills came at ranges of 200 yards or less -- which makes sense because the real pilots had to deal with far more engine and airframe vibration than AH ever dreamed of. At those ranges, the kinetic energy was higher, especially for the rifle caliber guns. If you doubt this, talk to some of the guys who use them regularly and you'll hear how 8x303s are a buzzsaw inside 200 yards.
Second, there's that "scattered all over the airframe" thing. Damage is appropriate when bullets are concentrated right on the point of impact. When you scatter shot, you're hoping for the golden BB that happens to do critical damage.
-
i fly these type planes alot. you have to get close to your target and concentrate your fire on a certain spot to get the kill. if your hits are spread out, it will take most of your ammo to kill a target.
-
What good they were IRL was that they increased the chance of a stray critical hits in systems or in pilot and because there are no ricochets and small components modelled in AH the MGs may be less efficient that they were IRL -unless they are compensated in some way in how much damage they do.
-C+
-
Spit 1 and Hurri I, .303 cal mg's. Shoot those things at 400 and out and its like hail on the roof. They scatter all over, punch a few holes and don't break anything.
Shoot those same guns in the same plane at 150 convergence with 150 distance to target and they saw wings off. But, you have to be steady, and you have to keep your rounds hitting in the same area.
Chances are if you'd of gotten in to 150 and opened up with those mg's and kept hitting the SAME spot, you would have nailed him eventually. But it takes training, and discipline to be able to do that consistently.
-
I took a TBM up for a 'scrap' last night, and with those two .50s, I nailed 3 N1Ks, and 2 TBMs in one sortie. If your shooting is true (And from d150 it was hard for me to miss...) even light MGs will do MAJOR damage.
-
I took a TBM up for a 'scrap' last night, and with those two .50s, I nailed 3 N1Ks, and 2 TBMs in one sortie.
This never happened.
I can't understand why people try to impress fellow cartoon pilots with made up stories...
And before you now lament "How can you you dare!":
You killed three N1k this tour, but in three different sorties and in three different planes, not in a single TBM sortie.
-
This never happened.
I can't understand why people try to impress fellow cartoon pilots with made up stories...
And before you now lament "How can you you dare!":
You killed three N1k this tour, but in three different sorties and in three different planes, not in a single TBM sortie.
Have you checked the stats in time? I can give you the guy's name too.
-
Have you checked the stats in time? I can give you the guy's name too.
I have checked stats before posting of course.
One kill of N1k in TBM
One kill of N1k in P47D11
One kill of N1k in P47D25
-
I have checked stats before posting of course.
One kill of N1k in TBM
One kill of N1k in P47D11
One kill of N1k in P47D25
Where exactly did you get those stats? For some reason on my computer the scores page won't open. My internet crashes anytime I try.
-
Where exactly did you get those stats? For some reason on my computer the scores page won't open. My internet crashes anytime I try.
Scorepages.
Expanded Stats
Player vs Plane. Select Player & Plane
It's nto displayed correctly by default, but when I switch view to "user mode" in Opera, all tables are shown
-
This never happened.
I can't understand why people try to impress fellow cartoon pilots with made up stories...
And before you now lament "How can you you dare!":
You killed three N1k this tour, but in three different sorties and in three different planes, not in a single TBM sortie.
:lol
-
lmao, really =)
guess what I killed WMlute 2 times in same sortie in his 110G2 and me in yak, next sortie I killed his nik :salute (got 2 times cmustard also lol)
wait...I lied :P
on the topic of small caliber, it really depends where you hit, you can kill 2 fighters (or more, see Fariz) with 100 12mm bullets, just need the bullets concentrated on one point.
-
Scorepages.
Expanded Stats
Player vs Plane. Select Player & Plane
It's nto displayed correctly by default, but when I switch view to "user mode" in Opera, all tables are shown
Still crashes my internet trying that...
-
Still crashes my internet trying that...
Try a different browser maybe ?
-
I was watching an episode of Dogfights and they showed a 190 shoot every thing it had into a p-47 and the p-47 pilot flew the thing all the way back to base.
-
I was watching an episode of Dogfights and they showed a 190 shoot every thing it had into a p-47 and the p-47 pilot flew the thing all the way back to base.
we have like 10 threads covering this in here.
EDIT : I've been looking for one, couldn't find it.
you say a 190 shoot every thing it had into a p-47
lucky that the 190 was out of 20mm (no cannon impacts were found on the P47 afterwards IIRC), that illustrates the 7mm efficiency.
-
Stupid me.
Dont have 3 user names all with suttle changes, over a five year period.
bad things happen with a agein' brain.
it works ;)
-
Odd.
Worked for me with IE & on Firefox currently.
NVM it doesn't work on Firefox.
-
we have like 10 threads covering this in here.
EDIT : I've been looking for one, couldn't find it.
you say lucky that the 190 was out of 20mm (no cannon impacts were found on the P47 afterwards IIRC), that illustrates the 7mm efficiency.
A 20mm is what kept Johnson from bailing out of said plane. A 20mm hit just behind the canopy frame jamming it with the twisted metal. There were numerous 20mm hits to the armor behind his seat as well. He was lucky for the strong airframe and armor plating and that there were not more enemy fighters around. He also had to pull the rudder cables by hand since they had been severed in the hail of bullets. (I think it is this sortie...could be wrong) His book, Thunderbolt!, is a good read. :salute
-
He was lucky
That's it right there.
I used to have a quote on here from Heinz Knoke, Staffelkapitaen of 5.JG11 and 33 kill ace, where he shredded a Thunderbolt with a short, single burst of fire from his 109. I can't find it now though. It's from his book "I Flew for the Fuehrer". Really good book.
-
His book, Thunderbolt!, is a good read. :salute
I guess I'll have to read it someday, everytime I hear about that I get a different version :noid
I hope it exists a French translation but working my English can't be bad either :salute
-
I guess I'll have to read it someday, everytime I hear about that I get a different version :noid
I hope it exists a French translation but working my English can't be bad either :salute
Lol, I know what you mean, that's the way it is with war stories. Not sure if the book is in translation. Look for Robert S. Johnson, he was the pilot, the Bantam copy I have was written by Martin Caidin. There are some photographs floating around the webisphere of the plane after landing as well. :salute
-
Scorepages.
Expanded Stats
Player vs Plane. Select Player & Plane
It's nto displayed correctly by default, but when I switch view to "user mode" in Opera, all tables are shown
Interesting how the topic of discussion changed from "It did TOO happen" to "How did you check that?"
-
we have like 10 threads covering this in here.
EDIT : I've been looking for one, couldn't find it.
you say lucky that the 190 was out of 20mm (no cannon impacts were found on the P47 afterwards IIRC), that illustrates the 7mm efficiency.
Johnson's P-47 took no less than twenty two 20mm hits prior to his later encounter with the 190 while limping home. Moreover, his Jug took many more than 200 7.92mm hits. They merely stopped counting at 200.
I posted a series of photos of this P-47 elsewhere. Was probably lost when they rolled back the BBS.
My regards,
Widewing
-
we have like 10 threads covering this in here.
EDIT : I've been looking for one, couldn't find it.
you say lucky that the 190 was out of 20mm (no cannon impacts were found on the P47 afterwards IIRC), that illustrates the 7mm efficiency.
Wasn't the topic smaller cal weapons?
I said nothing about Cannons!
-
Wasn't the topic smaller cal weapons?
I said nothing about Cannons!
lol sorry about the thread hijack, and I was wrong on top of it :uhoh.
-
This is true, but for future readers I'll note that the .303s in the Spitfire and Hurricane Mk. I were designed for the purpose of using the same ammunition as the standard infantry rifle of the time, and therefor would be standard ball rounds.
From "The Battle of Britain: armament of the competing fighters": http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm
"Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.
The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)"
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
-
Johnson's P-47 took no less than twenty two 20mm hits prior to his later encounter with the 190 while limping home. Moreover, his Jug took many more than 200 7.92mm hits. They merely stopped counting at 200.
I posted a series of photos of this P-47 elsewhere. Was probably lost when they rolled back the BBS.
My regards,
Widewing
Interesting!
-
First, define "point blank"
Second, how much MG ammo did you have when you ran out of cannon?
Third, of all the shots you fired, how many hit?
If you have 2x 50cal or equivelant (MG131, 12.7mm, etc) and have a lot of ammo left, you are NOT out of the fight. The more manuverable your plane is, the more lethal you still are. 2x 50cals are more than enough to bring a plane down (especially if nose mounted!) IF you land a good solid burst on target. I'm not talking a glancing snapshot as he ducks and dodges your BnZ. It takes a solid burst, but it's quite effective.
If you're lucky it takes just a single ping (to the cockpit), but generally don't bet on that.
In summation, "You missed him."
By point blank I mean, sitting exactly at conv spraying 2 second bursts at times with planes not moving seemingly afk flying home. I've also had instances where I've hit with deflection shots with the bb's and utterly destroy a plane. Most of the time however, I note that the small cal weapons seem to be very ineffective or worthless at best. With the lag in this game and prediction code/ I would think that it's pretty useless for most unless the guy IS flying straight AND doesn't move when he hears that ping AND you are hitting a critical control surface and not just seat armor.
-
And what, exactly, was your convergence, and which guns were fired? (if this isn't the original situation)
[EDIT]
I ask because these solid-bullet guns lose impact force the further down-range they are. They should never be fired with intent to kill outside 300 yards (only intent to spook/scare a target into turning)
-
I just use the .303s on the Spits as a spook when Im at like 600, then when they turn, I take them out with my Cannons. It works 70% of the time. :aok
-
I killed a b-17 with .303s from 600 out. I also used a ton of ammunition but I had my convergence at 650 and they all converged on the wing root setting it on fire and knocking out 1 engine.
-
I've taken off F4U's wings with my Zero's cowling guns (7.7mm and 13.1mm) with only about 200 rounds or so. You just need to get in at about 200 Yrds or less and keep the fire at the same area.
-
I killed a b-17 with .303s from 600 out. I also used a ton of ammunition but I had my convergence at 650 and they all converged on the wing root setting it on fire and knocking out 1 engine.
In the RL BoB, the RAF found that their original convergence range of 400 yards was much too far for their fire to be fully effective even against the Luftwaffe's twin-engined bombers (which were nowhere near as tough as a B-17). They reduced the convergence range to 250 yards accordingly. Even at that, they were desperate to get the much more effective 20mm Hispano into service, because too many bombers were getting home even when riddled with .303-sized holes.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
-
And, alas, aces like Bader were against the 20mm cannon in the beginning, beliving it would just inspire shooting from too far.....
BTW, I have an account where a Spit pilot peppered down a Stuka with just his 2 outboard Mg's. Interested?
-
I have read of an incident in which the rear gunner of a Ju 87 (1 x 7.92mm MG) shot down the P-61 night fighter which was stalking him (4x20mm + 4x.50).
I have also read of a verified incident in which a British army officer in North Africa shot down a Bf 109 with his .38 service revolver (the bullet struck either a fuel or coolant tube, I forget which).
In a war as diverse and long-lasting as WW2, almost anything could happen - and probably did.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
-
The one I referred to had a cannon jam and had lightened his aircraft by removing 2 of the mg's. He locked on a Ju87 and killed it by some bursts from the .303's. Probably at very close range.
When you think of it, a .303 coming your way at 50 yards is not a nice thing, and some thin metal will not make much of a protection....and then it's a mixed lot of bullets with DeWilde here and there....
-
And, alas, aces like Bader were against the 20mm cannon in the beginning, beliving it would just inspire shooting from too far.....
BTW, I have an account where a Spit pilot peppered down a Stuka with just his 2 outboard Mg's. Interested?
As I recall the three aces present for that meeting were Bader, Malan and Tuck and they spoke in that order. Bader and Tuck almost came to blows as Bader got more and more incensed by Malan's pro-20mm comments and when Tuck said that Malan had basically spoken for him and all he'd add is that he was sure they'd have gotten more of the hun if they'd had 20mm cannons it was too much for Bader and he decried Malan and Tuck for talking rubbish. So of those aces one was for maintaining the all .303 armament and two were for getting 20mm cannons in service as soon as possible. Bader's resistance is pretty much the only reason there was ever such an animal as a Spitfire Mk Va as far as I understand it.
-
So early in the war, the Hispano probably still had teething problems. I'm sure if Bader knew how reliable the cannon would be, he'd not have had much objection.
-
So early in the war, the Hispano probably still had teething problems. I'm sure if Bader knew how reliable the cannon would be, he'd not have had much objection.
No, he didn't think any change was a good idea mid-stream. The question was if a larger calibre weapon was desireable. Bader was just being conservative.
-
Ah, I see.
No doubt this is hind-sight and all, 60+ years later, but IMO a change was needed. Mid-stream or no, the rifle-caliber guns just weren't cutting it against stronger and stronger enemy aircraft.
I've read more than one report of Hurricane Mk.Is and Spit Is making group attacks on the same light bomber (dornier or heinkel) and after all had expended their ammo, it limped away. Might not have made it back to land, but it wasn't a definite "kill"