Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Naudet on June 19, 2001, 06:08:00 PM
-
After reading Green Hearts - First in Combat with the Dora 9, i really come to the conclusion that the dmg of the 0.5 must be reduced.
Nowhere in the book (which refers to the time sept 1944-end of WW2), is mentioned that the 0.5 was a very deadly gun.
But there are many reports of D9 getting shoot up and still returning home (btw most often with intact engine and radiator ;) ), cause the 0.5 cal only used massive bullets instead of explosive shells like a cannon.
i.e. a D9 returned home with 25 0.5 cals in it, in one prob blade there were 3 wholes, 2 bullest were stopped by pilots armour, and there were a couple of bullets that passed through wing etc.
in AH we have no bullet path modeled that recognizes if a bullet hits a vital part, instead we have accumulated dmg, which means the 0.5 cal in AH is much more powerful than it should, i guess the power should be reduced by about 10-20%, this may also account for all other guns with solid bullets like the MG131, the 0.303 cal, the 7,9mm MG17 and or the 7,7mm mg
-
Naudet,
You may well be right, but:
Modeling bullet damage can't really be done in any scientific way because even if you know the ballistics of a round, there is no way to know how much damage that round can do to an airplane, there are just too many variables. So any damage model is going to be guess work. When you dig up anecdotes like a Dora taking 25 .50cal rounds and making it home, you invite others to dig up their own anecdotes. Someone is bound to post that story about a Jug taking 200+ 7.7mm and 10 20mm and making it home. The fact is a plane can be brought down by 1 7.7mm or it can survive multiple cannon hits, depending on many variables. Mostly on how lucky the pilot is. Games like AH try to get the ballistics right, but the damage model has to be guessed at.
I bet under the right circumstances an AH Dora could survive 25 hits from a .50cal and RTB. That doesn't mean the AH damage model is good or bad, but it shows that one anecdote can't really be used as a significant source of data for a damage model.
ra
-
From my own perception, to kill a plane, u need to spray a continuous fire for at least 2 secs to kill a plane with .50s.
If you use canons, 3-4 pings and it's done, making snapshots more effectives.
I'm not complaining, it's just my observation.
Olivier "Frenchy" Raunier
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/rauns/sig-frenchy1.jpg)
-
Boy, would there be the ultimate riot if this ever happened.
As it is whether an AC has cannons or not is really a primary consideration of aircraft selection.
As someone who flies a P-51 mostly, the difference in ease of quick kills with a CHog or LA7 is monumental.
Keep in mind, the problem with battle damage is that you get accurate reports of what was survived FROM PLANES THAT MADE IT BACK.
If a Dora is a crumpled hunk of metal half-buried in the North German plain and the pilot is in several pieces, you don't get a very accurate idea of what .50 cal does to them from that aircraft.
-
not to mention SEVERE lack of armour or any kind of inbetween damage modeling.
P-38 will have its tails, wings and engines shot out in a high angle snapshot of .303's quite commonly. Last time I checked, this plane was made of some kind of metal, not glass. The last planes that were introduced DO seem to eat more lead (better modeling? no clue)... when will earlier introduced planes be "revisited" with the magic touch of armour? FM?
It aint the guns I think, its the damage model. Its unbelievable to think a spray 'n hit lone .50 cal bullet can rip an entire wing out, or smack an elevator/aleiron clean off the wing of a plane at d700. That simply does not happen.
-
And Robert Johnson came back with 20+ 20mm holes in his Jug. So turn those down too ;)
-
Since when did the "machineguns" fire exclusively solid ammo?
Eg: afaik, the MG 131 ammo mix was something like 2:1 of HE/I to AP.
-
The book "Corsairs and Flattops" documents a F4U returning with over 40 20Mill holes from NIK2. Try that in AH.
And oh yeah. It says F4U can out turn NIK2 too, hehe. Imagine that in AH ;)
-
i have heard people say that a p38 outturns a zeke too. are we to believe that too f4udoa?
cmon i dont trust a damned thing a pilot says they are all fulll of bs, i trust math and wind tunnel tests alot more :)
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
i have heard people say that a p38 outturns a zeke too. are we to believe that too f4udoa?
cmon i dont trust a damned thing a pilot says they are all fulll of bs, i trust math and wind tunnel tests alot more :)
hehe pilots who made the experience that the other plane could outturn them canīt tell this the rest of the world anymore ;) (Maybe a reason why we can read so many "my plane was better" statements today. The "my plane was worse" crowd is dead :rolleyes: )
niklas
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy:
From my own perception, to kill a plane, u need to spray a continuous fire for at least 2 secs to kill a plane with .50s.
If you use canons, 3-4 pings and it's done, making snapshots more effectives.
I'm not complaining, it's just my observation.
When I've used .50s, I haven't had such 2 second problems.
2 seconds might be in reality less than second.
When you're playing, it will feel that everything takes long time, but in reality it takes just a very short time.
so 2 seconds is either gunners fault or exagerating of the time it takes.
-
I have a hard time accepting claims or requests when they have no data what-so-ever and don't include any reasoning.
You are asking for guns to be toned down because you think the uber-mausers should do a whole crap load of damage. Of course, 6x.50s will do a whole helluva lot more damage than 2x20mms with slow ROF unless you are up against a heavy bomber.
And honestly, if you are going by what you hear... that's rediculous because not all of the ping sounds play.
I regularly get kills with the 190A5's mausers with very few hits on the enemy... I don't think anything is wrong.
-SW
-
Heya Zig,
Notice the winking smiley face ;) indicating the intended humor in my post.
Very much like, hey those 50cals shouldn't be able to hurt my plane.
-
" (Maybe a reason why we can read so many "my plane was better" statements today. The "my plane was worse" crowd is dead "
he he good quote.
The guns seem well ballanced in relation to each other...
Gun cammera footage of how long a FW lasted under the guns of a jug or pony abounds....
it looks alot like AH to me.....
-
According to "Thunderbolt!", the P-47 can take 21 hits from a LW 20mm and over 200 mg hits...immediatly make the P-47 10 times as hard as it it now, please!
Daff
-
Actually. It will carry it's pilot home after being hit like that so HTC should actually make the P-47 invincible. ;)
-Westy
[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]
-
If anything needs toning down its the insta-one-ping-one-kill dweebspanos.
-
By SWulfe:
"...Of course, 6x.50s will do a whole helluva lot more damage than 2x20mms with slow ROF unless you are up against a heavy bomber..."
Well that depends on many factors. At least in RL. 6x12,67mm firing all at the same time will create a lot of dispersion in, for example, a P-51 wich was not very stable in the horizontal plane. So beside the guns itselfes the plane, altitude and some more factors affect how effective a gun will be :) Right? Chk your six up there!
Wulf
-
Deleted, wrong thread.
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
One thing that some of you folks seem to forget is that most, if not all of ww2 gun cam kills you see are done in REALLY short range. 200 yards or less I think.
-
Is this how Aces does Damage? ;)
Young's Modulus is the STRESS of a material divided by it's STRAIN. That is how much the material YIELDS for each pound of load put on it.
Put another way, it is a measure of the STRENGTH of a material, and is commonly used to measure the strength of metals and other materials used in aircraft and weapons systems.
check out www.youngsmodulus.com (http://www.youngsmodulus.com)
-Deez out.. :p :D ;)
-
Yes indeed. The .50 BMG is nothing but a SISSY round!
Why, just look at this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a217fe42e10.htm (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a217fe42e10.htm)
When Campbell and I arrived at the secret range, it was drizzling slightly as we set the slabs of steel into a dirt bank (he'd also brought along a 15-inch-square piece of 2-inch hot-rolled steel that must have weighed 90 pounds), and we mounted his .50 on a shooting bench 100 yards away.
We fired the A.P. first, into each of the three targets, then walked up to examine the damage. The bullet had ripped through the sculptor's piece of three-quarter-inch steel as if it were cardboard. It did the same with the one-and-a-half-inch (cold) rolled steel, hitting it with such force that it blew the flanges of the hole back toward us, rather than out the other side. The (hot-rolled steel that must have weighed 90 pounds) two-inch plate, however, finally stopped it. The A.P. round blasted through to within a quarter-inch of the far side, where it caused a bump-out, but then flagged. The two-incher also stood up to the incendiary ammo, which made a hole with a dark burn mark, but couldn't get through."
So you see, it shouldn't even be really denting the 2" plate steel wing spars much beyond 100 yards.
:)
-
The Hispano only averages in at 20mm of hardened steel.
38mm of rolled steel is probably an exaggeration, even at 100 yards.
-
Ah, don't trust the PRESS? :)
OK, here, how about this one?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/50.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/50.htm)
Its data is from the US Army field manual I think.
Shows WW2 era .50 M2 Ball (likely AP, as that was standard issue) ammo piercing 19 mm steel plate at 500 meters. That's .74 inches at 546 yards.
So, I guess all the 3/4" steel wing spars are only safe out around 550 yards then?
It's a simply awesome round, IMO.
-
Hmm might have to ask Mr. Williams.
That doesn't seem right, as that 19mm of penetration is EXACTLY what the Hispano is quoted for, same range. (vs armor anyway), from the Joint Fighter Conference thingamabob that has so often been used to prove why the 20mm Hispano is so lethal vs the .50.
Besides, they list it as ball ammunition, not AP on that sight! (scroll down to the penetration image) Sumpin tain't wight.
ballastically speaking however, the .50 cal round, as was the 7.92 German round, were aerodynamically perfect, or at least assumed, and showed up in various high speed flight projects :cool:
-
Steel and armor plate are not the same thing. Any AP round will penetrate a much greater thickness of "plain old steel" than armor plate. The following link shows a little penetration information from a US ordnance manual.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/50pen.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/50pen.htm)
Hooligan
-
Hooligan, thanks! I've been looking around for that page, knew I had seen it somewhere.
Steel plate is indeed not armored steel plate. Armored is much tougher.
Just as the aluminum that made up a very large part of these aircraft is no way as tough as plain old steel plate. Even the "hard" (not armored) pieces of these aircraft, like an engine block, isn't as tough as 3/4" plain old steel plate.
That's all I'm pointing out.
-
A few things you guys have to take note of regarding the .50 cal gun penetration numbers you give and its use in AH.
First of all do you know those numbers come from the long barreld higher velocity M2HB ground use gun. This weapon has a much longer barrel than the aircraft 50cal and thus achived much better muzzle velocity and penetration figures.
At what angles were the steel and armor plates placed during the firing test?
Was the test done using actual WW2 ammo and actual WW2 production guns. Postwar developments of the 50cal heavy MG and ammo increased its rof, muzzle velocity, and armour penetration.
A note regarding the effectiveness of weapon in AH must be made. In REAL LIFE the aircraft version could only be fired in short short bursts, otherwise the barrel lining would melt and the gubs would loose their accuracy. In orter words there was a penalty for spraying like we do in AH. One cant really argue this fact, and this does gives the AH .50cal some extra capability the real gun never had.
Now before all you proud defenders of the fatherland begin attacking my blasphemus post about the wholesome All-American, cheerleader dating, appple pie eating, quaterback of a Heavy MG, let me make a few points perfectly clear.
The .50 cal is probaly the best weapon along with the, M1911.45, MG42, AK47 and a few others made this century. The mere fact that it is still in use speaks to this effect.
I actually like gun.
And Im not trying to screw you guys or your enjoyment of the game, just pointing out a few realities of the gun and its capabilities in regard to WW2 use, postWW2 development, and use in AH.
Enjoy...
BTW I fully expect that idiot SW to not get my point, so I will save him some time and write his reply for him....
:rolleyes:
Grunherz %^#%@ is (*&(*^, how dare you &(**)@, lufwhiner $)*(*(),you %)(&*^^@, blah blah blah babble babble babble..
SW
-
grunherz u damn right !! hope it once in the next milenium will change in ah ;)
-
First of all do you know those numbers come from the long barreld higher velocity M2HB ground use gun. This weapon has a much longer barrel than the aircraft 50cal and thus achieved much better muzzle velocity and penetration figures.
The M2HB barrel was slightly longer giving the gun a muzzle velocity only about 3% better than the M2 (and thus negligibly better penetration). Compare the WWII M2 and M2HB data from “The Machinegun”, Bureau of Ordnance, 1951, George Chinn
http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/pg335.jpg (http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/pg335.jpg)
Also here is some information from a 1946 firing table for the .50 M2.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/50traj.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/50traj.htm)
Note that the muzzle velocity for a new gun firing M8 AP/I rounds is 3045 ft/sec.
At what angles were the steel and armor plates placed during the firing test?
It seems obvious to me that this is for 90 degree hits (i.e. the best possible angle for penetration). If not, then the penetration would be even better.
Was the test done using actual WW2 ammo and actual WW2 production guns. Postwar developments of the 50cal heavy MG and ammo increased its rof, muzzle velocity, and armour penetration.
Rate of fire is not germane to the points under discussion. The M2 gun, M8 and M2 rounds have been manufactured to the same specifications since WWII so I see no reason to expect any difference in performance. Further developments such as SLAP rounds, the M3 gun etc... have different characteristics of course but we are not talking about these. The pamphlet the penetration data comes from is a 60s publication and the velocity and penetration data matches WWII data from Geroge Chinn's "The Machinegun".
A note regarding the effectiveness of weapon in AH must be made. In REAL LIFE the aircraft version could only be fired in short short bursts, otherwise the barrel lining would melt and the gubs would loose their accuracy. In shorter words there was a penalty for spraying like we do in AH. One cant really argue this fact, and this does gives the AH .50cal some extra capability the real gun never had.
The implications here are absolutely wrong. All aircraft guns would jam if fired too long but the .50 M2 was among the most reliable of all such guns. Aces High does not model jamming, but in general .50 armed aircraft benefit far less from this than other aircraft (with the notable exception of the P-51B).
Here are some quotes from "The Machinegun". Vol 1, Page 338.
Similar reports were received from the Army Air Forces Material Command during the last phase of the Tunisian campaign, where 72 enemy airplanes were destroyed with less than 200 rounds per gun expended on 35 fighter planes without a single machinegun stoppage.
One such observation was the report of Capt. Malcolm F. Schoeffel (now admiral) to the Bureau of Ordnance, Navy, which showed that during the cruise of the Saratoga some 200,000 rounds of caliber .50 ammunition were fired with only 2 serious jams, and two dozen stoppages of all types. Captain Schoeffel declared that, although one of the purposes of his inspection trip in the Pacific was to locate troubles, he had difficulty finding them because of the high performance of the weapon.
Hooligan
-
Not talking abut jamming.
I am talking about barrel wear. This is where the barrel lining gets deformed due to friction and heat from the bullets passing through the barrel. This distorted the lining and killed the guns accuracy. This is one of the reasond many heavy squad MG,s have quickly interchangable barrels.
I have read specific accounts from US pilots in WW2 that they restriucted themselves to firing short bursts only so they dont ruin their aim from the guns linings getting melted. I think one example of this it was in Andersons book. It was also stated as one of the advantages of the Hispano over the the 50cal, during that Fighter Conference in late 1944, the one about which the book was written. Thee point was the 50cal linings could and would deform severly long before the full ammo load was expended unless fired in short short bursts.
Again these are facts about the US aircraft .50cals, which are easy to look up.
-
The Joint Fighter Conference book tells how long the bursts could be, but I'm too lazy to look it up. It was something like 10 seconds for the first burst, then 2 second bursts from then on. The 20mm had a lower RoF and barrel wear was not as bad a problem.
The problem mostly occurred on strafing runs, as most pilots didn't spray very long in air combat.
ra
-
10 Seconds of fire is about one third of the ammo load of a Hellcat, Corsair or P-47.
Hooligan
[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Hooligan ]
-
Always remember this... The one's telling the stories are the ones that got back. Think about this...
-
Has anyone got the exact figures from the joint fighter conference?
Go on ra, laziness isn't good for you ;)
-
Originally posted by ra:
The Joint Fighter Conference book tells how long the bursts could be, but I'm too lazy to look it up. It was something like 10 seconds for the first burst, then 2 second bursts from then on. The 20mm had a lower RoF and barrel wear was not as bad a problem.
The problem mostly occurred on strafing runs, as most pilots didn't spray very long in air combat.
ra
Just a note, but the limits put on MG bursts in aircraft is not soley because of barrel wear (in an exclusive sense) The electric system and servos for the remote triggers on the gun pull alot of power. The system will lose sufficent power after so many sustained seconds, and has to given brief periods to recharge off the generator.
Infantry and armored vehicles carried extra barrels because it was not uncommon for them to several boxes or belts in a suppressive fire role, without any form of cooling. Aircraft, on the other hand, had some cooling from airflow, and rarely had more than 400 rpg, less than most .50 cal equiped units had.
Oh one other note was the improvement of the propellant in the M2 round, it's the only real reason penetration increased much since WWII.
[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Jigster ]
-
Ok, from page 162 JFC. To save rifling bursts should be limited to 75 rounds for the first burst and 25 rounds per burst thereafter.
All that work, now I need a beer.
ra
-
Thanks ra :)
Now to be even more of a pest, do you know what the limits were for the Hispano?
I'll buy you a beer if we ever meet ;)
-
Hmmm... I always thought of Young's modulus as a measure of material stiffness. Glass has a high young's modulus, but is easy to shatter with an impact. There are lots of thigns with a very high modulus, but a low ultimate yield strength, since these materials don't give very much before they crack. I think armor is better judged by its impact toughness, which is a combination of elastic, inelastic, and ultimate tensile or shear strength properties. Fiberglass makes great structures, but it's terrible at stopping bullets compared to materials like kevlar or lexan, which deform, and absorb energy, yet still have a high ultimate breaking strength.
CJ
Originally posted by DeeZCamp:
Is this how Aces does Damage? ;)
Young's Modulus is the STRESS of a material divided by it's STRAIN. That is how much the material YIELDS for each pound of load put on it.
Put another way, it is a measure of the STRENGTH of a material, and is commonly used to measure the strength of metals and other materials used in aircraft and weapons systems.
check out www.youngsmodulus.com (http://www.youngsmodulus.com)
-Deez out.. :p :D ;)