Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vulcan on June 03, 2001, 04:45:00 PM
-
OK, I've been blacklisted as Allied by the LW bunch.
Now everyone knows I fly the tiffie and have done for some time. So stepping into a 190 cockpit for the first time in a LONG time heres what happened:
Vulcan has 12 kills and has been killed 7 times in the Fw 190A-8.
Vulcan has 37 kills and has been killed 11 times in the fw190A-5.
Vulcan has 11 kills and has been killed 3 times in the Fw 190D-9.
Now I'm no great stick. There are plenty of people that can hand my arse back to me sliced diced and minced in the MA. So I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet.
Personally, judging from the LW rollrate whines I think you guys are flying the 190s wrong. I think the roll rate is being overused. Not enough setup is done, and not enough vertical is used. Your scissors are too fast and e-burning.
The tiffie has taught me much, and with the new roll will teach me more.
-
Lesson Number 1: "How to be a good 190 piolet"
Fly more than just the 190, to get an idea of the performance and quirks of other planes. Use energy conserving scissors manuevers, and reversals by reducing the throttle.
I could teach more, but I'm having too much fun killing LWs using their own planes! <G>
-SW
-
Oh! Was that! Then it is me and my poor flying and not the 190 itself. Thanks Vulcan, now I can rest in pace...
About vertical moves:
- 190 is a very poor if not the worst zoom climber in AH.
- 190A series are the worst substained climbers at any altitude, except 0 - 1mm.
About energy conserving scissors:
They are useful only against very green pilots. Trying effective scissors brings two "little" problems to the table: First, in 190, if you "touch" the joy the E evaporates. Second, actuall roll rate is not enough to compensate the brutal loose of E.
About reversals:
While you can reverse in a second with a HogC loosing minimal E (you will be not disturbed by the horn at any point), trying the same with 190 is just stopping in the middle of the air, lossing almost all control response and an ethernity to recover a decent combat E.
Anyway, I agree, it should be me and my flying hability (NULL).
And I prefer not to post here my 190 stats, too long for a single post since first tour.
And finaly, yep, I have a very precise idea of the performance and quirks of other planes. While not flying them very much in MA, I do a lot of test with them offline. Yes, I now the existing E management abyss between any 190 and a SpitIX/La7/F4U/Nikki.
Thinking that the problem is in the pilots, being most of them experts since first tours is the most simplistic way to solve the "feeling" problem.
-
It does come down to knowledge of advanced air combat manuevers and inventing some of your own stuff.
I think it's hilarious these self-proclaimed "experten" and self-appointed "Herr Hauptmann von EversinkUselessUndUnderModell edUndLackingInEveryAspectBeca useVeSaySoUndWeAreZeBestButOu rPlanesAreZeWorst" running around crying about how their plane rolls 6% slower than it did in some tests because they keep getting shot down due to HUA syndrome.
Does flying LW aircraft mean that you must have a super-inflated ego that is accompanied by an uncomprehensible amount of ignorance towards their own ability?
Puhleeze.... the 190 isn't broke... you are!
-SW
-
Does being you mean you have to be a dick?
And no I haven't made any post about 190 rollrate.
-
S!
LW guys being bashed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Oh well..about big ego.U need that in MA,adds some color to it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)About 190,especially Dora.Fight like P51's used to..hit&run..err..extend.Use alt advantage etc. common crap (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)Only feasible 190 to survive a dogfight with a good pilot behind the stick is 190A-5.190 is no beginners plane like 109 either.Allied aluminum coffins are easier to fly and have beefier guns.If Ya can't live up to the challenge flying LW planes,then go Allied and stop whining (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue 34 (http://www.muodos.fi/LLv34/)
-
Seawulfe, you are so full of toejam that it must hurt. Really. You are FULL of it.
And no, I dont complain too much about the lack of rollrate on the 190. I frankly am more concerned that EVERY other plane, exception made now of the typhoon, has better rollrate than what it should while the 190 has worse.
In any case my worse complain about the 190 are its guns. They are woefully bad compared with any other weapon in AH regarding ballistics and dispersion, and are not that good in hitting power either.
[edit]Oh, and BTW, 6% my ASS. the 190 has between 15 and 10% worse rollrate than what it should have between 200 and 250mph, while at those speeds almost all the other planes have significantly better rollrates at those speeds.
Is like if I get a 109G10, I cut its climbrate by 10-15% (470-520fpm), and then I add 300fpm to ALL the other planes in AH's planeset. The G10 would still have the advantage, but would be SEVERELY hampered it its strongest feature: the sustained climbrate.
Or, better, why dont we get a P51, we cut its speed by 43-47mph and then we put a top speed of 20mph over the real numbers for the rest of the planes in AH?. That would rock, huh?. Yeah, right I guess it would.
And If the G10 thing happened I'm sure that you, SW could come here saying that how weenies we are because the 109G10 "only" climbs 500fpm less than what it should. As I said, you are so full of it that it must hurt.[/edit]
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 06-04-2001).]
-
SeaWulfe, first time I thought it was due my poor english, but no, my expresion is crystal clear:
"...being most of them experts since first tours..."
If someone has been here flying P51 since the beta, he will surelly be an expert in this plane. Hard to understand? No, It cant be...
Expressions like:
"I think it's hilarious these self-proclaimed "experten" and self-appointed ..." are absolutelly out of context. And if someone has a super-inflated ego he will go for Spit, nikki or any other "unbeatable" plane.
-
StSanta has 71 kills and has been killed 10 times in the Fw 190A-8.
Yeah, us LW types are flying the 190s wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Performance in the 190 for me depends on two things: a) how bored I am and b) if it's the cv map, my K/D goes into half because I tend to follow ack huggers all the way to their cv, wanting to show 'um that ack hugging ain't the way (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
So, the 190s roll a bit too slow at medium speeds. The tiffie rolled too fast, and other allied planes too fast as well. These are facts backed up by NACA reports. Let's keep it to that.
And Vulcan, flying the occasional LW plane doesn't make ya any less of an allied whiney peasant flyboy relying on laserspanos for kills (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
--
Baron StSanta Von GrossenArsch
-
I intended to fly allied for my last bit of time on AH to see if my perception of the ease of flying them and the guns was correct in any way.
well considering i havent flown much allied stuff for months and never relly flew any of them to the extent i fly the 190s, i managed to equal my best k/d ratios improve my hit% and discovered some strange querks which im would like you to test.
My main interest? test the guns.Hispanos: its a F*&king joke how much easier they are to kill with than mg151s,(especially how weak they are on the dora).They were really like this? if they were id like to know why there is not more mentions of the difference in the countless books ive read.Sure i know the velocity/ ROF was different but their equally destructive power can not be questioned.If they werent like they are in AH what can we do? i dont unfortunately have both guns to test em but i sure know 'WHO' id like to test em on (SW (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ).
I tried to fly objectively and have come to a simple conclusion.If i flew the same hours in allied planes as i do in 190s i think my kills would most likely increase and my accuracy would improve without much effort.
It was incredibly simple to rack up kills with those 50 calibres also.Admittedly on some occations,strangely usually close in the 50s seemed to need quite a few hits but at 700-1.1 you could spray and get the odd hit that seemed to do substantial damage(ie wings off, engines killed).It just seemed unpredictable.I can undderstand when allied guys say you need to stay on target with them because i needed to do that once or twice, hitting in a pass with a close 300 shot seemed to do nothing but after a loop over and shot from 900 with 2 pings i took a wing off (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) . This was how they were? somehow it 'FEELS' wrong.
I flew a few sorties in as many allied planes as i could(sorry i refuse to test f4c etc,They are definately for those that dont want any challenge just kills).The so called hard done by p38 was pretty easy if you ask me,
Well basically to cut a long story short even with several discos (new patch caused lockups for me) I managed to maintain similar if not better k/d ratio and hit% than i could with 9 months of flying the LW stuff.I averaged 2 kills per death which had it not been for the discos would have been better.
I flew quite carelessly,looking for fights regardless of advantage etc to test the guns more than anything......
p38 3 kills 1 death,p51d 2 kills no death,p47-d11 6 kills 2 deaths,tempest 6 kills 3 deaths(flying it like a loon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )Spitix 4 kills 2 deaths,typhoon 2 kills 1 death.
i couldnt get on with the p51b, i think i tried to fly it like a 109! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) it isnt is it? <S> p51b pilots :)
anyway this was 1 day, having not flown 1 allied plane for a month and precious few before that.
My honest opinion is they are'nt all easy to fly but hell they are'nt hard either are they?.If i could stand flying the p51d for a month i think id do pretty good.you have ample ammo,huge quantities of fuel and can escape 80% of the planes if in trouble and of course the easiest stream of bullets to aim.
the fact that i dont 'want' to fly it is a damn shame, i just dont like em like i do the 190,109,etc.So my choice is keep flying the LW stuff knowing they may be undermodelled (roll/weak guns?) whilst those i fight have more accuracy and hitting power or take a break and look elsewhere for fun.Shame really but seems ive reached breaking point.I dont enjoy it like i used to.
That and the fact i see no attempt at price reduction which i sencerely hoped HTC would try after they discussed it (after the cheap accounts fiasco).
Leaving it until WW2ol comes out before reducing ? who knows if WW2ol even enters the debate for HTC? i dont know but i suspect it does, as they and WB are competition.
HTC have the best online sim, theres no doubt there but they seem to be trying to cover too many bases, a bit of strategy,bit of realistic stuff here and there then concessions for some not others.I think its hard to predict where this game is going and i have just stayed as it unfolds but i still have no clue as to whether we are trying to make a huge furball type game or a war simulation? I know what id like to see and i think AH has gone the other way.
I thank HTC for opening my eyes to ACM and energy fighting etc, something i never took notice of before in any sim.HTC have truelly done their job of entertaining and i feel it was money well spent, its just ive felt let down by certain aspects of the game and now that ive decided to cancel im playing AH as it seems to be intended.On for a quick hour to get a fix then play something else.Well now it costs me too much for that kind of game.I can get that type free.(not as good obviously! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
StSanta has 71 kills and has been killed 10 times in the Fw 190A-8.
Yeah, us LW types are flying the 190s wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Quit that.. you'll break my record soon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Really RAM, you need to quit talking out your ass.
As for the roll rate being a little less than it should, it's still a LOT faster than other planes.
Out scissored a YAK-9U last night, then shot him down in the 190A5 with full internal gas... Boy, that roll rate thing sure made the difference there! (http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/cwm34.gif)
You gotta be kidding me, the only thing I've seen any of the so called "LW Experts" do with the roll rate in the 190s is flop around like a fish out of water.
10% faster isn't going to do much, just make you die with a cramp in your wrist from jacking your plane in every which direction until the guy chasing you gets bored of attempting to follow your flip flopping bellybutton across the sky.
RAM, why don't you quit again... maybe then they'll fix the 10% roll rate. YOu whined the hardest you could about the F4U-1C, hmmm come to think of it... everyone except for 2 people in this thread whined about the F4U-1C.
Wierd coincidence? I think not. (http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/cwm13.gif)
As for Hazed's comments.. man you really need to open your eyes a bit wider.
Take a look at all the test data on various weapons. MG151 drops like a rock, therefore you need to adjust for that.
But wait! I thought this thread was about the 190's roll rate, somehow you managed to toss in something about weapons into it...
RAM, you are a dumb ass... making transparent guesses and utterly rediculous statements, then second guessing what I would do.
Roll rate does 1 thing, it allows your sorry bellybutton to stick stir all you want.
1.03FM was better right RAM? Hey! Remember that time you dove on me in that 190A5 of yours and I outflew you in a low, slow and loaded full of gas 205?
Get better, then come here and tell me the 10% "missing" from the 190's roll rate matters enough to be a whiney little bellybutton wipe.
-SW
-
My main interest? test the guns.Hispanos: its a F*&king joke how much easier they are to kill with than mg151s,(especially how weak they are on the dora).They were really like this?
Yes they were.
You have been shown actual test data and technical spec's over and over and over again. Some of it from American Sources, some from German sources, and some from Soviet sources (strange that they all agree, regardless of source).
If you choose not to believe it, fine.
But until you come up with some real data to refute the reams and reams of data that the current game is based upon, and not just your impression of how you think they should be, your just making yourself look like a "Luftwhiner".
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
SeaWulfe, the 10% "missing" from the 190 and the 5 - 10% "extra" for the rest of the planes is an overal of 17%. IMO, a deviation of 17% is more than important, well, in fact, a deviation of only 10% in any factor is also critical. This is not a 1% or 2% this is near 20%. What about a 190 10% faster than it should be and a SpitIX 10% slower?
Second, read the thread topic, it is not related only to 190 "roll rate", but the way people use the 190, and weapon performances could be included into the discussion.
Third, publishing a deviation with hard and reliable data is not to whine. IMO this is more than good to improve the game fidelity.
Fourth, it seems that all your tricks'n tips are related to defense moves and to enter the combat with a significative advantage on E, and I agree, with our actual 190 not much more can be done. It is not very good marketing for a plane to know that 90% of the time you'll be on defensive unless you have lots of E more than the enemy. Suppose you agree with me that 190s are a "touch your stick, loose you E" plane.
-
Verm, agree with you about ROF and trajectory, but not about the noticeable difference in damage done.
As far as I know, the sources you mention confirm the hispano as an excelent gun, but having reliability problems and with ugly effects due vibrations while firing.
Those sources confirm also the 151/20 as a very reliable weapon with poor trajectory but same or better punch power than hispano against not armoured targets.
Anyway, I WHINE mostly about the 151 poor ROF mixed with net lag and micro-warps. We can learn to aim with that ugly bullet drop, but we can't learn to deal with buffs crossing in front of your bullet path without getting a single hit.
-
Yes Mandoble, I agree the plane will bleed energy like an elephant with wings... The trick is to be able to "hold" it in controlled flight despite it's poor low speed performance... I was stallfighting a Yak last night on the deck, he was behind me for a good 3 or 4 reversals in the scissors before I finally said to myself "F*ck this" and pulled back on the stick into a vertical climb, then did a hammerhead and came down with a fleeting snapshot on him... blew his wing off and he went straight in. The whole time I was riding 200MPH, and almost spun into the ground several times from almost instant snap spins.
Would 10% quick roll rate have helped here? I don't believe it would of, 10% more elevator authority at that speed would of helped... but that isn't what's broken.
My point is, that while the roll rate maybe 10% off, it's still a very fast roll rate as is, faster than most planes at any speed. So that 10% isn't hurting your that much.
Now, if we were to get the other planes to more acceptable levels (ala what happened to the Typhoon), then I think the 10% missing from the 190 would be nullified. That 10% would mean the difference between dogfighting and warp fighting.
-SW
-
LW vermin must die!
Y
-
As far as I know, the sources you mention confirm the hispano as an excelent gun, but having reliability problems and with ugly effects due vibrations while firing.
What has reliability got to do with ANYTHING? If this was factored in, then the LW wouldn't be in the sky. Your G-10s, Doras, Arados etc would all be much worse than they are now due to the badly machined parts, the low quality fuel, the impure oil and grease. Not to mention the lack of quality control on either the production line or with the final product.
If you factor in reliability into the game, the LW would come off much, much worse believe me.
-
SeaWulfe, I agree with you, tunning down the roll rate will help the minimize warp fighting. But I insist, this is not a 10%, you should consider the roll rate lost by 190 and the roll rate gained by the rest of planes. For example, in the case of Zeke, the relative roll rate lost by 190 is about 20% or more.
About your combat with the yak, we are comparing planes, not pilot skills. And I suppose you agree with me that having the yak pilot same skill level as you, the 190A5 had no chances at this altitude (now imagine an A8...).
Anyway, I can relate to you dozens of combats where the roll rate was not a key factor, and also dozens where it was. It depends a lot on the enemy way of fighting.
-
Right, I said in "relative" terms that the roll rate should be fixed. Get the other aircraft closer to their roll rates (if they are indeed too high) and the 10% error on the 190 won't seem as bad.
-SW
-
Dowding, AFAIK those reliability problems were related to the design itself, not due lack of good materials, etc, etc. The design was revised and the problematic "part" was substituted at some point in the war (dont remember the year, neither the quantity of "fixed" guns) deriving in a new subversion of the gun.
"Your G-10s, Doras, Arados etc ..."
They are not specifically mine, in fact, all the planes in AH, as a customer, are mine, as mine as yours.
IMO, marking a frontier between LW players and allied players is the worst thing you can do to judge anybody opinion.
-
Vermillion after your reply to my post read what mandoble said in his answer plz.
I know they behave correctly on paper and in AH but something isnt right if its so much harder to get a hit and damage.
I was trying to give an honest appraisel verm as im about to leave AH.
Im getting annoyed with this quoteing of partial paragraphs and trying to change the context of the statements.its a cheap trick.
Dowding has done it with mandoble by taking just the reliability part of his post and ignoring the whole point he was trying to make.He didnt ask for reliability to be factored into the hispanos.He was merely saying that some adjustment might be necessary to compensate for net problems that make an otherwise accurate model behave differently than it should.
I agree with him that sometimes planes go through your bullet stream and dont get hit.is this net problem ? i dont know but ive had it happen.Dowding you start on about the fuel,manufactureing quality etc ok! fair enough many munitions factories had sabotaged cannon rounds made by the slave labour its true, the oil was poor grade blah blah but this was not what he meant I dont think.
I think hes hinting at the fact that if we are to drop 'most' of the over the top details(reliability etc) surely in the interest of gameplay you should adapt the guns in the game to 'appear' to behave right and adapt them to suit the net medium.
the LW had slower ROF and worse trajectories but when they hit they werent any less damaging.(go on show me the stuff all over again about high velocity shells peircing fuel tanks better) We know it but similarly i KNOW what ive read about 30mm shells and the 20mm 'armour destroying' shell.We havent got all the types of shell so why should we be forced to use the basic modelling of the gun which clearly,due to net stuff mentioned earlier etc, makes them underperforming in what is essentially a game for our enjoyment.
I thought the concession for bombers range was a fair one.why not up the ROF on mg151 to help with net lag etc?
[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
thought id add:
'The 20mm mine shell didn't show up quite so well. A comparative test with
the Hispano concluded that there wouldn't be much difference. What the
Hispano lost in explosive effect (only half the HE), it gained in kinetic energy, and it stood a better chance of punching through aircraft structures to reach fuel tanks,
or to inflict structural damage. Once again, it was with wing hits that the
mine shell was most dangerous.
Cheers,
Tony Williams'
there you have it.similar effect but different ways of acheiving it
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Don't leave Hazed... the UBB is just a place filled with too many opinions and that inevitably leads to heated arguments.
Besides, where are you REALLY gonna go? It doesn't get any better, you'll run into the same kind of people everywhere.
-SW
-
Hazed you are correct in regards to Tony Williams statement if you are comparing one (1) single MG151 Mine shell, with one (1) single Hispano HE shell. No arguements at all.
But the point I am trying to continusously make is that AH represents mixed ammunition belts, of which Mine shells were historically only a 1 in 3, or 1 in 5, portion.
As to in game damage, I'm not quite sure what you guys are talking about.
Admittedly it is much harder to hit with MG151 cannons, than it is to hit with Hispano's or .50s.
Again, I don't argue that point. But I think we can all agree that this in game performance matches the historical documents, such as muzzle velocity and rate of fire to just name a few.
But when I fly the Fw190's if I can get a good solid hit with cannons, the enemy dies very easily. Note however I don't use the MG's and Cannons at the same time, so I'm sure my hits are cannon only. Its the same with the Russian 20mm cannons. Very hard to get hits with in comparison to Hispano's or .50s, but when I do hit someone they die very satisfactory.
Which aspect do you guys feel is wrong? Damage capacity or Weapons Ballistics?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
so... I'm still confused after all this 5% slower, NACA this and that,
Which plane in RL of all WWII planes really had the better roll rate?
It sounds like individual planes have been tweeked and this has created an imbalance.
Perhaps roll rate on ALL planes should be made 5% slower to decrease the warps.
Nexus
-
Nexus, go there and open the Excel sheet posted by Jekyll in one of the last messages.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001511.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001511.html)
-
"Your G-10s, Doras, Arados etc ..."
They are not specifically mine, in fact, all the planes in AH, as a customer, are mine, as mine as yours.
It's hard to explain, but I was using a common turn of phrase - it isn't meant to be taken literally. I wasn't declaring 'ownership', although it would look that way to someone who's first language isn't English. I'm not saying your standard of English is anything short of excellent, BTW. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But if you are going to talk about reliability as a game feature, then you must examine it in every way it arises (to be fair). This is very hard to do, and I'm not sure it would be worthwhile.
P.S. I don't fly any birds that have hispanos.
1Im getting annoyed with this quoteing of partial paragraphs and trying to change the context of the statements.its a cheap trick.
Dowding has done it with mandoble by taking just the reliability part of his post and ignoring the whole point he was trying to make.
2He didnt ask for reliability to be factored into the hispanos.He was merely saying that some adjustment might be necessary to compensate for net problems that make an otherwise accurate model behave differently than it should.
Point 1: I wasn't quoting out of context - I was pointing out the irrelevance of reliability as a game feature. Wherever it may arise.
Point 2: I don't see how reliability ties in with net lag at all - read Mandoble's post again Hazed - he makes a point about the characteristics of the Hispano and the 151/20 and THEN moves onto a different point about net lag.
-
Which aspect do you guys feel is wrong? Damage capacity or Weapons Ballistics?
Verm, It seems you answer yourself, you need a SOLID, and very SOLID burst to do any damage. And I, like you, use only guns when firing with any 190.
Dowding, yep, my english is absolutelly awful and I'm very proud of it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway, I understand very well what you mean with "your", basillacy referring to "only LW planes" fans.
And no, I was not proposing to implement weapon reliability now in AH, I was only enumerating the main factors described by the information sources Verm was referring to.
[This message has been edited by MANDOBLE (edited 06-04-2001).]
-
Thanks Mandoble,
Although, many planes are missing from this chart. i.e. 109, F4U, tempest to name a few.
My question was in regards to source data to for real life results.
This chart was created by someone playing AH, which means this is not an original source chart - but someone's guestiment of AH roll rates.
I'm sure this chart is reasonably accurate for AH.
Though, I can think of a several flight parameters which could influence roll rate, that if not held constant with each test, could result in skewed results.
5 rolls left and 5 rolls right is hardly sufficient to conclude accurate results.
If this is not a top secret issue - perhaps Pyro and HiTech could just post a chart of how they modeled these planes.
They should know - they coded it, and apparantly can tweek each parameter at will for each plane.
Nexus
-
Nexus, go there: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001538.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum8/HTML/001538.html)
And look for a Jekyll post with the "NACA REPORT" link. It is in PDF format and you'll see that the NACA lines from the jekyll sheet are more than accurate. The only missing data is roll rate from 150 to 200 mph.
-
Anyway, I understand very well what you mean with "your", basillacy referring to "only LW planes" fans.
Heh, it looks like I couldn't explain what I meant. But I wasn't referring to LW plane fans with the 'your' part. I know it sounds strange, but it's a turn of phrase in common use over here - I just wish I could explain it sufficiently well. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway, your English is very good, as I said before.
-
<<<- 190A series are the worst substained climbers at any altitude, except 0 - 1mm.>>>
Maybe true in comparison to other LW planes, but there are planes with far worse climb than the 190A.
ra
-
Absolutelly agree Ra: Ju88, Lancaster and C47 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Sorry guys I didn't mean for this to start an us vs them squeakfight again.
There are some awesome FW190 pilots in this thread. And it was wrong of me to generalise.
I do think the 190 roll rate is to low.
I do think the guns, especially the doras, are just wrong.
I don't mind the roll rate being so low in the tiffie. Currently I'm 36:11 this tour.
I've been jabo'ing and not watching my k/d, so not bad for a roll-less heap (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
My point was, that I honestly believe the 190 is being flown wrong. Why? I compared it with the tiffie. The tiffie FORCES you to fly a certain way. If you don't you die. So let me describe important things I do in fight:
- keep fast
- setup for 15k-20k
- dive at merge for speed gains
- resist turns, go vertical
- go for enemys back line, stay away from front line fights
- setup targets, come in from blind spots (low 6), hi 4-5 hi 7-8
- if a con comes in with alt on me, turn my back and drag the E out of him, set up for vertical reverse
- be careful in selecting prey. Pick the guys that looks like he hasn't seen you, pick the guy that is in a low-E situation so when you dive on him hes got nowhere to move
Basically very little ACM is involved. Its a matter of select prey, setup, hit, zoom out. Start again. Classic BnZ fighting.
To me, 190s should be doing this. But most 190s I see aren't. The fact that the tiffie does this well without roll indicates to me the roll issue is not the problem. Its peoples perception of how the should be flying a 190 -> they think they should be rolling it, "cos 190s roll fast".
So this whole "yeah the tiffies been fixed, now make the 190 roll faster and then the 190 will be a killa" argument seems wrong - and is a basic indication that its been flown wrong ***in general***.
Right?
-
Extremely good and precise description Vulcan. Just the same steps needed to have success with a B26 as a fighter in this environment. Hide, run, attack by surprise, dont use ACM, get higher than the enemy, stay higher, etc. Well, we are talking about a plane that historically merged and did dogfight against Spits, P51s, P47s, P38s, Yaks and Las, they where frontline fighters, not some kind of obsolescent dynosaur. Flying like you describe will ensure the success for any plane, not just the 190.
-
Question is Mandoble, were they at their best flying like I describe. From all accounts I've heard of they were. Whenever I read about 190 success it was as a bird that set up bounces well, and devasted in one pass.
BTW, how exactly do you hide a tiffie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
verm: yes it was purely the damage i mean not so much the ballistics.
one point you made is this is a single shell spoken of in tonys post and i understand where you are coming from but this is a game and i go by what i see and feel.
this situation:
'a 2 second burst from an hispano fired at 300 yards' would cause more damage than a mg151 for the same 2 seconds because more shells would hit(rof).But im going by the amount of pings you see.If i fire a snap shot at a fleeing plane with an hispano it 'seems'(not always but generally) to cause more damage than my mg151 if i get a single hit.This is where its not right you see? if i hit with my mg151 it is a harder shot but it should be no less damageing if like you said tony was talking single shell.I know velocity/penetration on hispano is greater but please this IS a game and for the sake of peace lets drop this finite squabbleing over subtle differences.Make my shell travel the true RL trajectory but please a hit is a hit, and according to tony williams, they 'should' cause the same sort of damage.in RL hispano probably more but AH it seems too much more to me.
the hispano would still have its advantage in ease of hitting a target.I hope this explains what im asking for, it really isnt an LW issue so much as a game issue.As for the net(lag etc) adversely affecting the more spaced out shells of a slower ROF gun i dont know but if this is true adjustment for it seems only fair to me.
SW <S> mate, you have really got me wound up a few times but i accept its all in 'fun' (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) i never was much good at holding my temper unfortunately so if ive ever offended you try to take it with a pinch of salt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Vulcan: <S> mate!! i understand now !!what you meant and i agree totally BUT i have got to say you are missing out if you havent discovered the 190s CAN dogfight if you use your bag of tricks! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
As for roll rates non importance I'll give you an example of roll rate saving my ass.
P51 on my bellybutton 900-1k closing..i split S but he follows slipping wildly with a barrel roll to maintain his position in lag pursuit as he cant match the initial roll, but hes clever enough to adjust, ok hes still on my bellybutton and he will follow me out in a favourable position i think.hes obviously not stupid, so i dive headlong for the ground looking back, jinking,watching his wings carefully,pings all around i wait until the last moment and roll at high speed,he starts to follow me round i rudder and roll the other way and pull out under extreme G...he cannot follow and i have the oppertunity to head the oppersite direction and disengage.tricking them into thinking one thing is part of the game and the 190 is a great plane for dummy moves.
there really are many tricks only usable in 190s with its high roll rate and i urge you to fly them more to learn them.Shaws book was written for the 190a8 !! im sure he was really a kraut hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
<S> mandoble i think i'll state here and now whatever you say i agree with (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) your posts are usually among the best ive seen.
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
p.s. dowding i'll try to explain the significance of the reliability to the arguement bearing in mind what ive just written.
hispano armed f4c RL:
lower roll rate(than 190): higher ROF,excellent trajectory,equal if not better damage than comparable mg151 hit(1 shell only) but not much in it (tony williams quote) reliability problems and adverse vibration effects.
mg151 armed fw190 dora in RL:
Excellent roll rate, lower ROF , poor trajectory,equal if not slightly less damage than comparable hispano hit, no reliability problems as such, no mention of adverse vibration effects.
Hispano armed f4c in AH:
A gain in roll rate over 190s,higher ROF,excellent trajectory, more damaging than comparable mg151 hit(IMO),perfect reliability,no adverse vibration effect.
Mg151 armed fw dora in AH:
(20%?) reduction in roll rate,lower ROF,poor trajectory, less damage than comparable hispano hit (IMO),no bonus for reliability or vibration.possible disadvantage due to ROF and net issues.
this is what i feel is wrong.and im asking if it is possible to adjust to make it more fair.hope this is a bit clearer why i mentioned the other factors such as reliability.reliability as it stands, i know, is not a usable issue for a game but lets be fair and close the gap in differing performance of guns a bit.190s have already lost out on roll (and possible e retention? but im not expert i just take in what i read)
hispano armed planes have all the pluses and none of the historical minuses.
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 06-04-2001).]
-
Ok, time to sumarize some points in common with all 190 variants.
Real Life vs AH:
- Lost of 15-20% roll respect the rest of the planes.
- Poor punch power for 151/20 guns.
- Poor resistante to enemy fire even having the extra weight of hvy armoured parts.
- One hit = engine stops with almost any front quarter shot.
Gameplay issues:
- Net lag + poor ROF = very low chances to hit anything moving in front of your nose.
- While fuel multiplier has been "calculated" with our actual map scale in mind, the altitude is a key factor not considered into the equation. This is hard to explain in english but I'll try to do my best. For example, in RL you need an hour to travel from base A to base B, and the fuel consumption will be 50%. During that hour you have had enough time to climb to 25k in the first 15 minutes and at this point you have consumed 10% of your fuel. Here, in AH, you burn fuel much faster and bases are much closer, but time to reach 25k remains the same. So, in AH, when you get to 25k you have consumed 50% of your fuel instead 10% (for example). This issue affects directly short range planes like 190 while does not affect at all long range planes like P51/P47/P38/F6F/Zeke/Nikki/etc.
- Another issue related to fuel. In bombed bases where you cant load drop tanks and only 25% of fuel is available per plane. The gallons needed to fill up 25% of fuel in a P51 are equivalent to filling up 75% of fuel in a 190A5, but the reality is that only 25% is available also for 190A5. And 25% in a 190 is just enough fuel to take off, climb to 2k and land. In the other hand, a P51 with 25% of fuel can travel from one base to the closest one for sure.
- Another game concession: All the planes have combat trim and ammo counters, while the only one with similar systems in RL was the 190.
And now, a personal feeling: Each time a fly lands on my stick and moves it a nanometer, my E blows up, the most closest plane with same effect is the Ju88.
Well, this is my third day without AH, and I'm not leaving, just resting. Hazed, I recommend you the same therapy, it works. Some resting days and come back to kill spits (if you are very lucky con can even find some other type of planes nearby to shoot at).
-
Ironically, the extra armor on the 190A8 and 190F8 would only be good against other LW planes.
Against ack, it is as vulrenable as other birds - I'd argue that it suffers engine hits more frequently than some birds. Not smoke or oil hits - just one hit, engine dead.
Against Hispanos, the extra armor wouldn't do much. The kinetic energy of an AP hispano round would go right through. Against a HE round, it might stop it from penetrating and exploding inside the plane, and thus reduce the damage done by the expanding gasses, since they're free to expand. Shrapnel would also be repelled more with the armor.
Unfortunately, the Hispano round in AH is both AP. And HE. And incendiary. The extra armor is therefore useless and only adds weight.
Against buff guns the extra armor especially around the nose and wings of the A8 should help, but the AH buffs have beefed up guns.
One can conclude that all extra armor does in AH is reduce climb rate and overall performance.
Seawulfe, most Experten I meet (and fly with) fly the 190 as it should be flown. They aren't idiots (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). With the exception of the A5, you really cannot get really tempted to turn.
------------------
--
Baron StSanta Von GrossenArsch
-
I know someone else already stated this - but I'll re-itterate.
Would it make every one happy if NACA charts were used, but all plane performances lowered by 10% respectively?
This would make the relative differences between planes the same as RL, but adjust performance for game play reasons.
Nexus
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
They aren't idiots (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
With the exception of you and Hblair, I beg to differ! (http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm/wink.gif)
-SW
-
vermillion,dowding plz reply about the guns issue.id like to know your thoughts.this is the first time ive felt id explained what i meant clearly hehe.
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Hazed dude check some of my other posts. I do talk about rollrate more as a defensive measure. So I agree totally with you there (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) , I think my view of rollrate misuse relates to it in offensive moves.
One question about the 190 cannons, I notice I torched a lot more buffs with 190. Almost every Lanc I hit ended up in flames. This is quite rare with the tiffie. Does AH model incendaries?
On the hispano side, I agree with the comments on the ROF vs Net lag. Being so far away this has always been a problem for me. The low ROF and drop on 190 rounds has always been hard for me. Especially as the 190 is most effective in at d200. At this range the net makes landing a shot hard (planes tend to jump around a lot more).
-
vulcan ive never noticed the higher rate of fires caused but then i havent flown hispano plane enough to know.Maybe youre right and mg151s are better against buffs.I also did some testing offline to check hits on drones and it seems both guns seem about the same in there to me.very strange as online the hispanos seemed to feel much better than mg151.
Its incredibly hard to do even tests tho and since ive cancelled my account i just stopped testing them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I still dont 'know' if the mg151s were suffering from net lag or undermodelling and maybe if i flew the allied stuff more i wouldnt feel they are so different but from the many short term tests ive done the hispano always 'appeared' a lot stronger.
who knows? i certainly dont for sure.
i give up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) hehe
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Santa, SW is just boosting his ego. Any LW who replies to him just helps him in his new ego project.
He might try to take 202 up now (or better, C47). Once he makes a decent record in it, he can use it as an excuse when claiming 202 is competitive in 1944 arena.
Live and learn (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 06-06-2001).]
-
I once checked out the Chog vs the tiffie on hispanos. I noticed a couple of things. One, the chog has a 'drooped' nose, giving much better snapshot/lead shot capability. Two, the close grouping of the chog guns (look at the chog pair distance vs tiffie pair distance) definitely helps the chog hispanos grouping lethality.
I also know that the wing root cannons on 190s are always more effective than the outer wing cannons, once again because of the grouping.
So what do we have. Minor differences that make a big difference combined. Better gun grouping, better visibility for snap/lead shots, better trajectory, higher RoF.
Given that B17s never had to defend against chogss and tiffies maybe what we see here isn't that out of whack after all?
-
The points about ROF, projectile drop - well they are characteristics of the German cannons, and really it's something you have to live with. As for the other points:
no bonus for reliability or vibration.
Are you saying that German weapons were more reliable than the Hispano et al? Considering all the manufacturing problems I mentioned previously?
Perhaps you believe that there should be a bonus accorded to the LW planes for reliability and a reduction in performance for the Hispano. If this was implemented, then the only thing that can follow from this is that you must introduce defects into all LW late-war A/C.
Reliability problems due to design and reliability problems due to manufacture yield the same results and must be treated the same in any modelling.
As for the 190 roll-rate - I really would like to see corroborating data for ALL aircraft under scrutiny. I guess it's the physics grad. part of my mind. ;)
BTW, this new BB version is ace. :)
-
Hristo, when you can fit your ego through a doorway you can have room to talk.
Fact of the matter is, these planes are damn competitive... you are just whining to the wrong guy on that issue.
"I'm superior pilot in an inferior plane fighting superior planes with inferior dweebs flying them"
-SW
-
Who is whining ?
Planes are competitive as they are, IMO. I think I never had poor K/D in any of them.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
The points about ROF, projectile drop - well they are characteristics of the German cannons, and really it's something you have to live with.
I stated quite clearly ROF and trajectory were better on the hispano and have never claimed otherwise.'live with it'?...again you have a venomous tone.As if im asking for them to be changed purely for my own gain!
Are you saying that German weapons were more reliable than the Hispano et al? Considering all the manufacturing problems I mentioned previously?
Reliability problems due to design and reliability problems due to manufacture yield the same results and must be treated the same in any modelling.
during the course of the entire war YES i do beleive MG151s were more reliable(I suggest you read tony williams book).Why else would the hispanos have a notorious reputation for unreliability and being prone to jams under G.Later in the war 1944-45 maybe the sabotage/lack of materials, was bad but im sure even you cant possibly beleive it happened so often as to make an essentially reliable gun suddenly unreliable always the way a design fault would.(later mark hispanos were greatly improved in reliability but still had vibration trouble).We could argue all day on this and neither of us has any evedence other than what we can read.
Perhaps you believe that there should be a bonus accorded to the LW planes for reliability and a reduction in performance for the Hispano. If this was implemented, then the only thing that can follow from this is that you must introduce defects into all LW late-war A/C.
:mad: GRRR!!now you are babbleing.NEVER SAID IT.just wrote it that way to show oppersite of unreliabilty/vibration, stop making assumptions and you may stop annoying people though i suspect this is what you enjoy.
As for the 190 roll-rate - I really would like to see corroborating data for ALL aircraft under scrutiny. I guess it's the physics grad. part of my mind.
totally agree with you.Im still unsure as to the true RL/ah performance gap.but the fact its talked about is the whole reason i request it looked into.totaly fair request if you ask me.
BTW, this new BB version is ace. :)
thats twice ive agreed with you...must be something wrong... :D
dowding im not sure if you mean it or not but your posts in reply to mine are often really annoying because you use conjecture almost constantly, I like everyone else have difficulty making it totally clear what i mean.Again I'll say it, I dont claim anything is set in stone and undeniable.some of what i say IS personal opinion and it can be changed with evidence to the contrary.Take vulcans 'feeling' the mg151s may cause more fires as an example.I dont outrightly claim he is wrong,or worse still quote just the part about mgs causeing more fires and say something stupid like'VULCAN YOU allied dweeb show me the evidence to your claim! ' i actually think if he 'feels' it is different it may be true, hes not a liar nor do i suspect he has a hidden agenda like laz (the loon).Id like to see pyro or someone tell us why he feels it by explaining about incendries if they are modeled etc.try keeping an open mind and if you dont agree test stuff and post what you think.
Drop this conjecture on what others say.
[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Really Hazed, you fly off the handle at the slightest thing.
My 'live with it' comment wasn't venomous in the slightest; it was a statement of fact, recognising the relative ballitical characteristics of the German cannon versus the Hispano - i.e. it is something that cannot be changed. It was NOT a pointed attack.
As for your point about 'conjecture' - I don't understand. If you have a problem with people trying to derive the meaning behind what you write, then I don't know how you expect me to reply. I think you mistake 'extension of argument' for malice.
It seems to me you are asking for design flaws to be taken into account. Fine - I have no problem with that. All I ask for (which is stated in my last post), is that reliability through manufacturing flaws be taken into account also. As you rightly point out, this would be nigh on impossible to do objectively (which I've stated before).
You wrote about how the F4U-C is not penalised for having Hispanos which apparently had problems with vibration/reliability. Moreover, you state that Dora has 'no bonus' for reliability or lack of vibration. You then state you think this is wrong (along with the roll-rate issue), and ask for adjustment to make it more 'fair' (whatever that means).
Following this, you ask that the gap be closed based on the fact that hispano armed planes have all the plusses and none of the historical minuses.
All I'm saying is that if you do that for Hispano armed aircraft, you must do it for all late-war LW aircraft. To do any other would definitely be 'unfair'.
In summary, there was nothing personal in my post WHATSOEVER, yet your reply is filled with vitriol. I really can't see why.
-
Double post.
[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
jesus its difficult to get through to you dowding from almost the very beginning i was talking about damage done by the hits and the roll rate reduction.I merely mentioned the vibration/reliability because it was being discussed by mandoble originally,like HE AND I said we were NOT asking for it to be factored in and i can see now i should have left it off those RL/AH comparisons.I also should have put tyhoon or spit instead of f4c because again dowding you read more into it than i intended.The GUN dowding. f4c just a hispano example!.
Originally posted by Dowding:
'You wrote about how the F4U-C is not penalised for having Hispanos which apparently had problems with vibration/reliability. Moreover, you state that Dora has 'no bonus' for reliability or lack of vibration. You then state you think this is wrong (along with the roll-rate issue), and ask for adjustment to make it more 'fair''
no dowding i wrote:
'Hispano armed f4c in AH:
A gain in roll rate over 190s,higher ROF,excellent trajectory, more damaging than comparable mg151 hit(IMO),perfect reliability,no adverse vibration effect.
Mg151 armed fw dora in AH:
(20%?) reduction in roll rate,lower ROF,poor trajectory, less damage than comparable hispano hit (IMO),no bonus for reliability or vibration.possible disadvantage due to ROF and net issues.'
id rather you ignore the vibration/reliability dowding.You have 'conveniently' quoted JUST the reliability ignoring roll/damage per round/ROF net issues.These were what i was mainly trying to talk about. DO you see why it is so infuriateing? I really dont give a sh :)t about the reliability but it IS documented about the hispano.(in AH the guns are perfect models supposedly so manufacture materials dont factor in,its a DESIGN fault so thats why i thought people might agree it has avoided a real life problem and so it was another plus for the hispano).Im sure you do know exactly what you are doing, if not then i cant beleive you cannot see what i mean by your conjecture and quoteing out of context habits.You concentrate on an issue that I actually AGREED with earlier when i said even amunition was sabotaged by the slave workers and it was not worth factoring into a game.
Im trying to make you understand..yes the figures for rof/ballistics match whats on paper(official tests) and in the AH code. ROF/balistics to all intents is correct ok? BUT is the NORMAL NET PROBLEMS making them behave worse because, like mandoble said, the slower bullets will suffer more than a high rate gun as targets microwarp more(or each warp is more pronounced) when nearer than 300 yards.This is what i mean would be FAIR to account into the game if found true.I DID NOT ASK for a bonus to be added for reliability! it was merely the opersite of having no PENALTY for poor reliability.Jeez i wished this bit was never mentioned as its given you something to change the thread with.Its almost like hijacking a thread by being pedantic over the slightest remark.Ive spent more time trying to explain things to you than anything else.
My posts are full of vitriol? no dowding its called frustration and you are the cause.I called you annoying because your statement :
Originally posted by Dowding:
'The points about ROF, projectile drop - well they are characteristics of the German cannons, and really it's something you have to live with.'
Where did i say the ROF or bullet drop was wrong? I stated clearly what i KNOW about the hispano and mg151, hispano good with higher !mg151 poor with slower! yet you said id have to live with it as if i was demanding it changed when i wasnt asking for it at all!.Im asking for the damage and the reasons they are hard to hit with be looked into.whether the behaviour in AH has been affected by the net, or whatever else may cause them to appear so much less effective. I cant explain anymore and now ive left i really dont care for myself, so its not an attempt at getting an unhistorical advantage.I dont want one dont try and make out I do.I want this game to match what ive read in tony williams statement.I have left because this amongst other things was annoying me.
ok thats all ill say on it Dowding, i regret thinking you would read my post as it was intended.Its obvious you think everything i say is some sort of attempt to get an advantage or remove some realistic advantage the allies had.Either that or you find some pleasure in winding people up.Youre quite good at it arent you(intended or not).I think ill just ignore your answers from now on whenever i return to these boards.Do me a favour and ignore mine.
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
Well, I tried to be civil despite what you might think. I was just trying to understand what you were saying. That was all. There was no 'hi-jacking' of the thread - just a continuation of the reliability theme, which you brought up. You didn't explain yourself particularly well, and when I tried to make head-or-tail of your post, you took offence.
I'm sorry if I drive you into an apoplexy of rage - this was quite surprising, but nonetheless not my intention.
-
ok crossed wires then we'll leave it at that.
no hard feelins ;) and id still like SWs veiw but i dare not ask for it.
-
View on what?
-SW
-
lol honestly SW nm mate :)
-
Hazed, regarding reliability of Hispano's, I found this on another board
The reference is:
Chinn, G.M. The Machine Gun. (5 volumes) Vols I-IV Bureau of Ordnance, Department of the Navy (USA, 1951-55); Vol V RAMP Inc. 1987
All the stuff about the Hispano is in Volume 1.
You're in luck because someone asked me to do a summary of Chinn's account a couple of weeks ago, so here it is:
The British had a lot of early problems with unreliable firing with the Hispano, and solved them by shortening the chamber (by 2mm) to make sure that the firing pin would strike the primer with sufficient force, and urged the USA to do the same (the British wanted complete standardisation between both countries' production). The Americans, after testing the guns in April 1942, decided not to bother.
However, concern was expressed by US ammo manufacturers that the misfires which kept occurring were the gun's fault, not theirs, so further US tests were held between June 1942 and January 1943. The results of the tests
were...a recommendation to shorten the chamber! (but not as short as in the British guns). Various other detailed changes were made, following which some guns were sent over to the UK for testing in July and August 1943 and
showed themselves to be as good as British production. Only at this point were US guns accepted by the British as "acceptable for service use".
The problem was that the USA had already made 56,410 guns (no less). These guns effectively had to be remanufactured to the new standard. In February 1944 all AN-M2 production stopped. At that time there were still 35,955 long-chamber guns in store, classified as "unserviceable". Most were later converted to M3s.
Chinn goes on to give details of the operational performance of the AN-M2. The USN mounted some 90% of these guns, the USAAF making very little use of them. Incidentally, the M1 version was for engine mounting and not used in service, although several hundred were made (also incidentally, for some reason US production of the 60-round drum feed carried on into 1944 and nearly 30,000 were made).
First use by the USN was in the SB-2C when a test batch was sent out in 1943 and evaluated in combat, the first action being in March 1944. Factory representatives accompanied the cannon to the front. To quote Chinn; "These expert technicians sent back voluminous reports that explained the
malfunctions that did occur were due to one of three things; failure of the feeder, bad ammunition and improper maintenance. Their zeal in clearing the gun itself in every instance casts doubt upon the validity of the reports."
Some 5,800 USN planes were fitted with 11,600 guns. The SB-2C and SB-W aircraft were the principal planes carrying this weapon into combat, along with a very limited number of F4U-1Cs. It was therefore hardly ever used by fighters and shot down very few aircraft.
Chinn says; "With the mounting of the 20mm cannon in Navy planes a series of malfunctions began that could not be properly corrected at the time as manufacture was at the peak of production...the most serious problem was the
oversize chamber. There still remained considerable variance in dimensions between the chambers of the British and US cannon...". A curious explanation for the poor standards of manufacture which plagued the AN-M2 was that, being over .60" (15mm) calibre, it was considered to be an
artillery weapon rather than a small arm. It was therefore built to artillery manufacturing tolerances, which were not tight enough for this weapon. As a "quick fix", the USN liberally coated the ammunition with a heavy lubricant (which the British specifically banned from their Hispanos).
Some 32,000 M3s had also been delivered by the end of the war and these suffered the same problems as the AN-M2.
After the end of the war, all of the problems were analysed and a development programme was put in hand to correct them, work being successfully carried out over the next few years. In conclusion, Chinn says; "Nothing was basically wrong with the weapon. Its wartime performance, good or bad, was the result of having being bought in desperation, put into mass production without first having been adequately proved, and then modified regularly to meet a future commitment before the previous model had been made to function reliably."
Unfortunately Chinn, a USMC officer, did not comment on the gun in USAF service. It would be interesting to know how it fared in the P-38.
On a personal note, I am well aware that when the firing pin strike is only just good enough to fire the primer, such minor details as the characteristics of the metal forming the primer cap can be very significant. The fact that the guns performed well in the UK could have been simply due to a softer or thinner primer cap material, or even that the primer protruded slightly more, in the ammunition used in the tests. Alternatively, as
its problems partly resulted from excessive manufacturing tolerances, it would have been possible to produce satisfactory guns by carefully selecting and matching components. However I'm sure that the Americans would never
consider doing something so devious and underhand to their old ally, perish the thought ;)
The other point concerns the need to oil the cartridges. This was never entirely dispensed with as even the Mk 16, in USN service in the 1980s as a deck gun, had a built-in cartridge oiler. Yet the British decided they didn't like this and, according to Wallace, changed the cartridge to avoid the need to oil it (this is supported by the official manual, which specifically bans oiling). The problem is, I have never been able to find out what changes were made,
and it begs all sorts of questions about the interchangeability of British v. other nations' ammunition etc.
The postwar USAF one would have been the M24, which was converted to electrical ignition. I don't have any information about problems with that.
Tony Williams
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
Military gun and ammunition website
-
thanks for the info but like i said earlier i knowthe major problems were with earlier model hispanos.a lot was ironed out from 1943 onwards.It was just unfortunate that this thread turned into a reliability arguement when i was more interested in damage per shell and net issues.neither of these were discussed and it turned into an hispano reliability flame war :(
Like i stated and as your report shows the hispano did have problems, originally with design(chamber size) which were corrected to some degree but as your report states there was still trouble even after the war.
To be honest i used the reliability as bolster to my arguement and i realise now that subjects of such conjecture should be left out of discussions on programme/net behaviour problems.I have no knowledge of the effects and i was merely repeating what id heard in another post.It was not my intention to 'piss people off' about it.
Anyway i have done offline testing by firing single shell(2x) bursts at wings on the drones and i must admit that both guns can hit with little effect or cause great damage eg wings off.Its one of those situations where unless i fly both hispano planes and mg151 planes almost equally my personal 'feeling' on their destructive power is not a viable opinion.
It seems thats how they are and thats how they will stay.But please remember that after flying for all this time seeing hispano armed planes take out GV's whilst i could put my entire clip into a gv with no effect im bound to feel a little hard done by right? We were told the hispano was modeled as 'both' ap and He and the mg151 was just He with mineshell although ive never read any confirmation of this by htc myself.This made me assume that we had a better chance of taking a wing off as they are described as deadly when they struck the wings.I just didnt see what i expected and thought 'i cant shoot armoured vehicles and my rounds seem to cause less damage to aircraft and are harder to hit with'.
Just felt a bit like we were getting everything in muted form but i appologise if this sort of thing has annoyed anyone.Im sure im not alone in feeling this though.
hazed out <G>
-
My view on the mausers, the roll rate, the hispano vs mausers debate... ?
I'm not sure what view of mine you want.
Does the 109F4 have the same cannon as the Fw-190A5/A8/F8/D9?
-SW