Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: danny76 on July 10, 2012, 08:46:04 AM
-
http://www.4shared.com/file/hZ3PJGvX/109_kill_1800.html?refurl=d1url
Now I fired 110 rounds of .303 once in one session at Wrekin Range some years ago, I was black and blue. These things carry some serious power.
174 grain projectile (11.275g) 8 guns, each firing 1150 rnds per minute is 153 rounds per second. The rounds were traveling 2660 ft per second at the muzzle.
Bearing in mind I know that many would miss however my guns were calibrated to 375, so judging by the 400yds indicated most would hit together. And there were a couple of good second long strikes. That's almost 2kg of lead and copper traveling 1814mph hitting the 109 each second. There were strikes over his cockpit, control surfaces etc. Surely this would have resulted in the enemy being in several parts rather than pootling off home with oil and fuel strikes?
-
I'm not expert but 303's loose a lot of power after 200 yards
-
I'm not expert but 303's loose a lot of power after 200 yards
They would penetrate both side of a Krupp German steel helmet and the head in between at 600+
Effective out to 1000yds fatal at 2 miles
-
How far are the rounds really traveling with both planes going more than 300 mph?
-
I find 303s to be fine, 3+ kills in a hurri 1 shortie is not uncommon. you have to get in tight and fire <300, also aim for the same spot as best you can. no point hosing them with 303s all over.
Dont forget there was a reason the brits upgraded the Hurris and spits to have 20mms. Many times eny plane would fly home after a british fighter had given them the whole 7 yards.
-
Another point is that if you have even half of your bullets striking the target you are doing amazingly well. You can't just calculate the weight of rounds impacting by multiplying rof by the number of guns and say that this is the damage that will be done.
Also, the 303 was among the weakest of the main battle rifle calibers used by any army during the war. The op's experience of thinking of it as incredibly powerful is likely due to lack of experience with other types.
There is also ample source material around regarding the ineffectiveness of the 303 during the Bob, particularly against bombers, which are much easier to put concentrated fire on than a maneuvering fighter.
-
My squaddies and I did a lot of work with the hurri and spit one preparing for a fso mission against 109Es. We found that cockpit and fuselage hits were very ineffective unless you were shooting at a 90 degree angle to the enemy cockpit. However at d200 wing shots were highly effective. It would rip their wings of with a relatively short burst. We wouldn't fire until the ac was 300 or closer with a preferred range of d200. :salute Hope that helps
-
How far are the rounds really traveling with both planes going more than 300 mph?
erm. about 400 yds :bhead
-
Another point is that if you have even half of your bullets striking the target you are doing amazingly well. You can't just calculate the weight of rounds impacting by multiplying rof by the number of guns and say that this is the damage that will be done.
Also, the 303 was among the weakest of the main battle rifle calibers used by any army during the war. The op's experience of thinking of it as incredibly powerful is likely due to lack of experience with other types.
There is also ample source material around regarding the ineffectiveness of the 303 during the Bob, particularly against bombers, which are much easier to put concentrated fire on than a maneuvering fighter.
Well in my limited experience of L1A1, Bren 7.62, FN GPMG, Sig Sauer P226/P228's, Browning Hi Power, L81-A1, L85 A1 and A2, L86-A1, M240, Browning .50. and the 30mm L21 Rarden....
I fired the L42 sniper version of the No4 Mk1 in 7.62 and found the recoil considerably less than the .303
-
Butcher
22:35:11 Departed from Field #16 in a Hurricane Mk I
23:19:20 Shot down a Bf 109E-4 flown by CASHEW.
23:22:04 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by Jenks.
23:22:34 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by JVZilla.
23:22:54 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by tym2kill.
23:23:21 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by BushLt.
23:28:27 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #15.
23:39:33 Shot down a Bf 109E-4 flown by tuk151.
23:39:39 Shot down a Bf 109E-4 flown by 68WydWyt.
23:50:26 Shot down a Bf 110C-4b flown by Blackboy.
00:01:04 Shot down a Bf 110C-4b flown by Badmood.
00:04:14 Helps BudGray shoot down Sleepdet.
00:08:12 Arrived Safely at Field #45
Didn't have a problem shooting down 9 with 303s, get closer then 200 and the 303s are simply devastating.
-
Butcher
22:35:11 Departed from Field #16 in a Hurricane Mk I
23:19:20 Shot down a Bf 109E-4 flown by CASHEW.
23:22:04 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by Jenks.
23:22:34 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by JVZilla.
23:22:54 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by tym2kill.
23:23:21 Shot down a Ju 87D-3 flown by BushLt.
23:28:27 Takes on fuel/ammo/ord at field #15.
23:39:33 Shot down a Bf 109E-4 flown by tuk151.
23:39:39 Shot down a Bf 109E-4 flown by 68WydWyt.
23:50:26 Shot down a Bf 110C-4b flown by Blackboy.
00:01:04 Shot down a Bf 110C-4b flown by Badmood.
00:04:14 Helps BudGray shoot down Sleepdet.
00:08:12 Arrived Safely at Field #45
Didn't have a problem shooting down 9 with 303s, get closer then 200 and the 303s are simply devastating.
:salute Nice work Sir. I was however simply using the film as a case in point and judging by the numbers of hits he should have gone down IMHO
-
:salute Nice work Sir. I was however simply using the film as a case in point and judging by the numbers of hits he should have gone down IMHO
It really comes down to how armored the aircraft is, whats the range? did it have any damage already? I ran a few scenarios before the FSO and found out putting the guns at 200 and shooting point blank was effective enough to take a wing/tail off an aircraft in under 200 rounds.
Thus being said, this was the perfect aiming day, where the moon was aligned and the sun was bright, water was blue.
Pure luck, but it goes to show the damage is there - I once sat behind an LA7 and put 2/3rds of my ammo into his tail and nothing, flew away like nothing.
-
Bearing in mind I know that many would miss however my guns were calibrated to 375, so judging by the 400yds indicated most would hit together.
This is why Late War regulars complain when FSO or other special events use Mk1 Early War equip that use .303's. They think the guns are crap, when in reality they have their convergence set way out, as if they are still flying their LW birds with .50 cal guns. They spray bullets at d400+ and wonder why they can't hurt the bad guys.
Convergence past 275 is useless for .303's and firing past d300 is futile.
-
I've watched the film, it is a nice shot, but at that distance, in AH you need a much more localized shot. I have no idea about real life tho.
-
This is why Late War regulars complain when FSO or other special events use Mk1 Early War equip that use .303's. They think the guns are crap, when in reality they have their convergence set way out, as if they are still flying their LW birds with .50 cal guns. They spray bullets at d400+ and wonder why they can't hurt the bad guys.
Convergence past 275 is useless for .303's and firing past d300 is futile.
The British Army used .303's from WW1 through to Korea and Malaya. The No4 Mk1 and SMLE rifles are recognised as phenomenally accurate and with strong hitting power, the Vickers .303 was a feared area weapon and the Lewis an excellent Light support Weapon. There is no doubt that the .303 was inadequate in terms of aerial combat, nevertheless if it would punch holes in 1/4 inch thick hardened steel helmets at range, it would shred aluminium skinned airframes, their control cables, fuel tanks, coolant tanks and the organic lump of hair and skin driving it. The film clearly shows impacts playing over the wings nose fuselage and control surfaces. I just feel that the community is entrenched in the notion that the rounds were weak. if they hit something they were going to damage it, if 153 a second hit something they are going to destroy it.
The point about convergence is, that the rounds had not run out of steam by 200 yards, or 400 yards, in truth they were almost certainly still in the acceleration phase at 200 yards. If they are calibrated to converge at 375 yards then you have a heavy cone of bullets striking in a relatively condensed pattern at that range. They certainly don't run out of impetus and drop to earth over such small distances as 300yds
-
There was a video a while back shooting a 303 into steel and a german 20mm.
303 creates such a small hole, its laughable compared to the 20mm.
Hitting power doesn't mean much when the whole is barely big enough to fit a pencil inside.
Here's the damage 303s do:
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/watermark.php?file=21465&size=1)
HEre's the damage 20mm do:
(http://www.b24.net/crashsites/42-99990,%20Short%20Snorter,%20battle%20damage%2018Mar44.jpg)
-
well the 109 you shot was crippled. Oil, radiator, probably pilot and wing guns also. It was just not enough for the wing structure to give up.
as butcher showed, the 303 pierce stuff alright, but will have trouble doing actual damage to the structure
-
I think it's great if you can aim for the cockpit area. The amount of bullets you have and the rate of fire makes it the most likely to kill the pilot, since you only need 1 or 2.
-
lancasters have no trouble removing me110 wings with them at d900.
-
lancasters have no trouble removing me110 wings with them at d900.
lancasters fire 50cals
-
I think it's great if you can aim for the cockpit area. The amount of bullets you have and the rate of fire makes it the most likely to kill the pilot, since you only need 1 or 2.
I'd have to find my film, but caught a few Stukas in a turn fight trying to evade my hurri, 2-3 blew up by aiming for cockpit with less then 50 rounds fired, it can be done but to aim you need to be well under 200 yards and nailing the cockpit each time.
Easier said then done :D
-
Two things:
They would penetrate both side of a Krupp German steel helmet and the head in between at 600+
Effective out to 1000yds fatal at 2 miles
Sure, on a human being. People are made of meat. Now compare that to an airframe that has much of the vital stuff armored heavier than the aforementioned helmet, and also consider that those guns are firing with an effective crosswind around 300mph a few degrees off of straight ahead. Dispersion is going to be a factor.
in truth they were almost certainly still in the acceleration phase at 200 yards.
No offense but that statement right there tells me you may not have the greatest understanding of how bullets work. The only 'acceleration phase' that happens with a bullet occurs in the barrel it is shot out of. Immediately upon leaving the muzzle, a bullet begins to slow down.
Don't forget, it's mass x velocity ^2. That is to say, a drop in velocity makes a huge difference to the amount of energy a round imparts.
Quick googlage to illustrate, http://www.sportsmansguide.com/Outdoors/resource/remington_charts/303bribal.htm (http://www.sportsmansguide.com/Outdoors/resource/remington_charts/303bribal.htm). Yes, it's a hunting round, but the fine specifics of the military rounds is a quibble, I'm talking about relative power.
A round that leaves the muzzle at around 2460 fps has slowed down to around 1311 fps at 400 yards. Energy has dropped off from 2418 foot-lbs at the muzzle to 687 at 400 yards. That's just over 1/4 of the energy at the muzzle left, and just over 1/3 of the energy it had at 100 yards.
That's a major difference on an armored target. That's handily the difference between full penetration and leaving a dent. Light rifle rounds slow down relatively fast, that's why they work ok in close, and less well the further out you get.
Wiley.
-
they work just fine set at d200 :aok
although I had them set to d250 for the SEC BoB because we were going to be hunting Ju88s, I reckon 250 is about the useful limit.
(remember this is about double the distance they were generally used at in WWII ...)
-
lancasters fire 50cals
I was referencing the 303s.
-
Aircraft losses were not always catastrophic. Many planes flew for awhile before eventually succumbing to the damage inflicted to them. Sometimes resulting in a ditch, a crew bailout, a forced landing or a crash while attempting to land. Some rtb'd ok to be written off for too much damage. Sometimes the pilot was wounded and died later or perhaps was never able to fly operationally again. Being hit by a battery of .30 caliber machine guns firing at 1000rpm in a twin engined bomber or a small fighter was no joke...you would likely crap your pants and pray to your maker in real life. They were also responsible for hundreds and hundreds of kills despite not being anywhere near the equal of a 20mm. They were still machine guns not toys. There was a gradual evolvement of weaponry from 1939 onwards and you have to put the planes into their proper timeframe.
They also do this (crashed Do-17 brought down in the BoB by a Hurricane Mk I):
(http://i535.photobucket.com/albums/ee354/Warloc_bucket/Dornier20DO17Z.jpg)
-
I was referencing the 303s.
ok, but still the tail guns of the lancaster we have ingame are dual browning .50
-
+1 squire, in aces high we are focused on the instant kill, an enemy ditching often goes unnoticed.
-
A round that leaves the muzzle at around 2460 fps has slowed down to around 1311 fps at 400 yards. Energy has dropped off from 2418 foot-lbs at the muzzle to 687 at 400 yards. That's just over 1/4 of the energy at the muzzle left, and just over 1/3 of the energy it had at 100 yards.
That's a major difference on an armored target. That's handily the difference between full penetration and leaving a dent. Light rifle rounds slow down relatively fast, that's why they work ok in close, and less well the further out you get.
This (thanks, Wiley, I always have trouble finding those frigging tables). You'd have the same issue with the .30s on the P-39D, if there were a way to fire only the .30s. The British .303, German 7.92 and US .30/06 all had virtually the same ballistics. They make great deer and people rifles, but not so much good metal choppers. That's why, as others have said, you have to set your convergence down to 200 (or 175, which I use) and don't bother taking shots past 200 or from any angle but the rear.
That said, if you DO get on his six at 200 yards for a few moments, the 8-gunned British planes will really chew up an enemy aircraft.
- oldman
-
That said, if you DO get on his six at 200 yards for a few moments, the 8-gunned British planes will really chew up an enemy aircraft.
- oldman
At convergence in close, it's a sawzall. 75 yards from convergence, it depends how you're oriented and what the two groups of bullets hit.
If the icon isn't showing 200, so the guy is inside 300, I hold fire with the small MGs.
Wiley.
-
I collected Lee Enfield rifle for the last 40 years. My first bolt action rifle I ever owned was a No.4 MK 1 I ordered from a magazine for $19.95 shipped to the door. The good old guns days before the 1968 gun (grab) act was pasted. I had over 30 of them over the years. I think I have 8 now counting the 22cal. I shot a massive amount of 303 over the years. You could get a 1000 rds $40.00 in the 70s so it was dirt cheap to blast away at Woodchucks and Prairie Dogs with as well as shooting rocks at long distance at an old gravel pit we went to..
Just this spring I was shooting my No.4 MK.1 at a 5 ft wide steel buffalo at 900 yrds from a bench with military sights and hit it every time I pulled the trigger. I think the Lee Enfield was the best bolt action rifle in military history but the 303 round was not the best rifle cartridge. That was in my opinion the 30-06. That said no rifle caliber machine gun mounted in a WWII fighter was very effective at 300 mph. The 303 British the US 30-06 the German 7.92X57 and the Jap 7.7 and Italian 7.7 were all about the same weight bullet about 165gr at from 2400 to 2700 fps give or take. All these rounds were exceptionally good infantry cartridges they did not have the same luck against aircraft even firing incendiaries but the Luftwaffe may have disagreed with me in the summer of 1940 over England.
-
Tony Williams coverd this in his article:
The Development of RAF Guns and Ammunition from World War 1 to the Present Day
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
WW2 .303 Air Combat rounds.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/img083.jpg)
Sectioned .303" rounds, from the left: tracer, armour-piercing and B Mk VI incendiary (Dixon/De Wilde)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
British and German WW2 Air Combat rounds.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/P9110068.jpg)
The three standard wartime RAF rounds: .303", .5" and 20 mm Hispano (left), compared with representative German ammunition: 7.92 mm, 13 mm MG 131, 15 mm MG 151, 20 mm (MG-FF) and 20mm MG 151
--------------------------------------------------------------------
General Internal Structure of German Compound Explosive Rounds and why they are effective.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/FGMGFFcart.jpg)
Luftwaffe 20mm MG-FF ammunition: HE-T, Minengeschoss and API
The HE rely's on the shrapnel from it's thick wall. Minengschoss the (hexogen aluminum) is 3x more powerfull than TNT burning at 1000C. Both the HE and Mine fuzes have aluminum, copper or magnesium bodies. API has phosporus contained with an aluminum plug which ruptures on penetration contact.
-
...my guns were calibrated to 375, so judging by the 400yds indicated most would hit together. And there were a couple of good second long strikes. That's almost 2kg of lead and copper traveling 1814mph hitting the 109 each second. There were strikes over his cockpit, control surfaces etc. Surely this would have resulted in the enemy being in several parts rather than pootling off home with oil and fuel strikes?
I recall reading that the British initially set their .303 convergence well out beyond 300 yards (350-360), however based on combat experience, the RAF (or veteran pilots) changed this recommendation to 220-225 yards. This would suggest that the real-world effectiveness was much greater well inside of 300 yards. [Sorry I can't cite the source off the top of my head as I'm not home with my books ATM, but I am quite certain I've read this. Perhaps others can corroborate this information.]
I would suggest trying your convergence of .303s at 220-225 as recommended by the RAF pilots of the era.
I think you will find they are extremely lethal at that range, and are therefore modeled fairly accurately in AH.
<S>
-
Thats why in my spits I set the .303 to 275 with the 20mm at 300. Snapshots inside of 200 the .303 appere to be the pilot killing golden BB more often than the 20mm. A kill is a kill.
-
I recall reading that the British initially set their .303 convergence well out beyond 300 yards (350-360), however based on combat experience, the RAF (or veteran pilots) changed this recommendation to 220-225 yards. This would suggest that the real-world effectiveness was much greater well inside of 300 yards. [Sorry I can't site the source off the top of my head as I'm not home with my books ATM, but I am quite certain I've read this. Perhaps others can corroborate this information.]
I would suggest trying your convergence of .303s at 220-225 as recommended by the RAF pilots of the era.
I think you will find they are extremely lethal at that range, and are therefore modeled fairly accurately in AH.
<S>
IIRC, the "Fighter Area Tactics" used by the RAF at the onset of the war called for convergence to be set at 600-800 yards.
ack-ack
-
the RAF ring sight is set up so that a 109 at 150yd just fills the circle - that should give us an idea of the best range to open up at :)
-
Thats why in my spits I set the .303 to 275 with the 20mm at 300. Snapshots inside of 200 the .303 appere to be the pilot killing golden BB more often than the 20mm. A kill is a kill.
spit1's don't have 20mm's
that said you want all our MG's to be at the same distance, to have the best focused fire possible
-
Here's a pair of photos to show just how close I fire when I am in something with 303s (taken from my FSO with 367thdynamitegang)
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/hurricane.jpg)
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/hurricane1.jpg)
(http://www.367thdynamitegang.com/upload/butch/stuka.jpg)
Sorry for poor quality, these are 2600x1600, last photo counts 20 stukas, managed to bag 4 or so :)
-
You are inside of 100 yards becasue the reflector glass is about 200Mil wide and the wings almost fill it.
Do you use TrackIR in 6-axis mode and your head pushed forward or are you useing a 60Mil ring as your Mk2 reticle?
The 100mph ring used by the british depending on how you calculate it is either 100Mil or 120Mil. The gap between the horizontal bar was adjustable for wingspan at distances out to 1.5k yards. The outside of your bar and posts are about 120Mil for the default head position set in the spit and Hurri. The Revi ring as a comparison is 100Mil so at 100m a 10m wingspan fits in it.
About 200 yards a 109 wingspan is 60Mil.
-
Tony Williams coverd this in his article:
The Development of RAF Guns and Ammunition from World War 1 to the Present Day
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
WW2 .303 Air Combat rounds.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/img083.jpg)
Sectioned .303" rounds, from the left: tracer, armour-piercing and B Mk VI incendiary (Dixon/De Wilde)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
British and German WW2 Air Combat rounds.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/P9110068.jpg)
The three standard wartime RAF rounds: .303", .5" and 20 mm Hispano (left), compared with representative German ammunition: 7.92 mm, 13 mm MG 131, 15 mm MG 151, 20 mm (MG-FF) and 20mm MG 151
--------------------------------------------------------------------
General Internal Structure of German Compound Explosive Rounds and why they are effective.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/FGMGFFcart.jpg)
Luftwaffe 20mm MG-FF ammunition: HE-T, Minengeschoss and API
The HE rely's on the shrapnel from it's thick wall. Minengschoss the (hexogen aluminum) is 3x more powerfull than TNT burning at 1000C. Both the HE and Mine fuzes have aluminum, copper or magnesium bodies. API has phosporus contained with an aluminum plug which ruptures on penetration contact.
Bit of a Hijack, but on the 15mm and 20mm german cannon rounds theres a notch on the shell, what is what for?
-
You are inside of 100 yards becasue the reflector glass is about 200Mil wide and the wings almost fill it.
Do you use TrackIR in 6-axis mode and your head pushed forward or are you useing a 60Mil ring as your Mk2 reticle?
The 100mph ring used by the british depending on how you calculate it is either 100Mil or 120Mil. The gap between the horizontal bar was adjustable for wingspan at distances out to 1.5k yards. The outside of your bar and posts are about 120Mil for the default head position set in the spit and Hurri. The Revi ring as a comparison is 100Mil so at 100m a 10m wingspan fits in it.
About 200 yards a 109 wingspan is 60Mil.
I do use TrackIR 5. I zoomed in on the image while in the cockpit trying to give a better look at how close it was, still hard to even read 0 for the range which was the point.
-
Bit of a Hijack, but on the 15mm and 20mm german cannon rounds theres a notch on the shell, what is what for?
Complete assumption here but that notch looks similar to the notch on the aerator on the kitchen faucet, might be for tightening or turning it.
Now to show just how much of an assumption, I had always thought the projectile was pushed into the shell casing.
How's that. I give an answer and they say why I thinhk my answer is wrong.
I'm such a marOOn.
And don't copmpare real life things with ingame ones. [ this for the replys that reference real life experience.]
I have my Hurricane or Spitfire Mk. I guns at 225.
-
causes pilot wounds from 1000 yards out.
-
Complete assumption here but that notch looks similar to the notch on the aerator on the kitchen faucet, might be for tightening or turning it.
Now to show just how much of an assumption, I had always thought the projectile was pushed into the shell casing.
How's that. I give an answer and they say why I thinhk my answer is wrong.
I'm such a marOOn.
And don't copmpare real life things with ingame ones. [ this for the replys that reference real life experience.]
I have my Hurricane or Spitfire Mk. I guns at 225.
Cogitations after the post, maybe its the fuze that gets screwed into the projectile, thusly needing a means of turning it and tightening it.
Heck, I know here fuze gets screwed over regularly.
fication from Clara, here as in home.
-
Butcher,
A few years back Hitech corrected an issue in the default FoV and pilots perspective eye distance for the gunsights in the game. Consiquently this made building gunsights in 512x512 that 1Mil = 2Pixel. So now you can use the historic gunsights as they were intended for range determination based on what percentage of the con fills the main ring or some structure in the reticle. The range determination rules and lead hold off rules from the British and German gunnery manuals "Bag the Hun" and "Schiessfibel" now work in the game using main rings of 100Mil.
British taught 150 yards, 300 yards and 600 yards while the Germans, 100m, 300m and 600m as generalised combat distances. With both teaching deflection as percentages or fractions of the main ring. The reason for stadia marks in later Revi reticle.
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/gross/Vergleich_Revi_16%5B1%5D.JPG)
Your con in that picture is 3x the width of a 60Mil ring. He is inside of 100 yards.
------------------------------
MK84,
You would be right that the notches are for a tool to set the fuze into the body of the round. fuze bodies were made from Copper, Aluminum and Magnesium.
(http://www.jannousiainen.net/photo_gallery/luftwaffe_ammunition/mg_ffm_he_fuze_01.jpg)
-
Your con in that picture is 3x the width of a 60Mil ring. He is inside of 100 yards.
And? the whole point of my post about 303s being quite effective.
-
note to self: pay more attention to Butcher, maybe take a few lessons, wing up with him, buy him a beer, date his sister, avoid fighting him when possible.
-
note to self: pay more attention to Butcher, maybe take a few lessons, wing up with him, buy him a beer, date his sister, avoid fighting him when possible.
mm beeer, why avoid a fight? im easy to kill - if someone actually turns 90 degrees lol.
-
And? the whole point of my post about 303s being quite effective.
He's concuring with you that they are when your target is positively within their lethal/effective range.
Bustr is pointing out that this was a common practice in aireal gunnery during WWII. In your case, you're waiting for your target to be less than or ~100 meters, which also equates to it's wingspan being X width in comparison to your reticle's width since a recent change made it more historicaly correct (that you can guage distance with your target recticle). Where in AH we have the benefit of the distance being displayed over our target, in WWII there was no such courtesy, so this was one of the only means they had of guaging distances with their target.
Prior to a recent patch, this wasn't the case as each gunsight was displaying the recticles at different ratios.
-
He's concuring with you that they are when your target is positively within their lethal/effective range.
Bustr is pointing out that this was a common practice in aireal gunnery during WWII. In your case, you're waiting for your target to be less than or ~100 meters, which also equates to it's wingspan being X width in comparison to your reticle's width since a recent change made it more historicaly correct (that you can guage distance with your target recticle). Where in AH we have the benefit of the distance being displayed over our target, in WWII there was no such courtesy, so this was one of the only means they had of guaging distances with their target.
Prior to a recent patch, this wasn't the case as each gunsight was displaying the recticles at different ratios.
Ahh I don't actually use the gun sight to determine my distance thus why I was confused, I get close enough and scream "RAMMING SPEED" then open up. 90% of time I do not even see my gun sight let alone aim from it, with Track IR my biggest problem is snapping back into original view, I pretty much get used to looking 360 degrees every 2 seconds, and using deflection/snapshots as my usual way to aim. As for the screenshot, I was actually looking OVER my gunsight and didn't even see it, usually just get so close I can't miss.
-
Babs,
Thank you but, most air to air gunnery in this game is played by the point, shoot and oops method. Much of WW2 gunnery was the same.
That was the reason the British and Germans published for their fighter pilots those two comic books that are longer on illustrations then technical information. The K14, GGS and development of the german EZ42 was the result that most pilots could not judge distance or defelction in the heat of the moment very well. Just like in this game. No matter how good the comic books were designed for being the easiest to visualy learn the concepts they illuded about 80% in practical application other than dead 6 inside of 250 yards.
I doubt anyone but me knows or cares the diameter of the main ring in Butcher's screen capture of the Mk2 based on it's relationship to his cons wing span. Sadly making it second nature is part of knowing if your defelction hold off has any chance of producing hit sprites. It is a reproducable formula.
I've offered my histroic gunsights along with the two gunnery manuals along with all the information I know about using the gunsights, reticles, and their relationships to convergence and timing. It still comes down to simply handing most an AimBot(active K14) while about 20% or less are born naturals. Exactly the same as was found in WW2.
Hey Babs you think I should even offer up my low "G" lead point and click compensated Historic gunsight pack? It's the closest I've ever gotten to a static point and click gunsight for 200-400 yards. You still have to judge elevation over or under coalt in turns. Remember the one I gave to semp to test and he said it made him feel like he was cheating? Wonder if he is still using it..... :)
I've posted a how to build them and what the Mil line below the center dot is for the compensation line was about twice now since last year. No one seemed interested. Guess Hitech will have to introduce an active K14 to get their attention. Reading puts them to sleep.
-
mm beeer, why avoid a fight? im easy to kill - if someone actually turns 90 degrees lol.
So.............ya didn't say nothing about your sister..................so, there is a chance then.
-
So.............ya didn't say nothing about your sister..................so, there is a chance then.
My sister was in a def lepard video in the 80s and married some roadie she met, I keep asking her what video but she won't tell, funny i had to find out from my dad.
if you watch any music vids, just look for a bubble headed blonde, yep thats her.
-
The British Army used .303's from WW1 through to Korea and Malaya. The No4 Mk1 and SMLE rifles are recognised as phenomenally accurate and with strong hitting power,
Compared to what? Hitting power vs. a human body is not hitting power vs. aluminum or steel. And they are not "phenomenally accurate" compared to other battle rifles. They're decently accurate and far more accurate than most soldiers, but not target rifles. The biggest advantage the Lee-Enfields had over the other bolt-action battle rifles of the day is that the bolt is easier to manipulate, which makes for a higher ROF and also more accurate shooting since the rifle will move less as the firer works the bolt. The higher magazine capacity was a plus as well. But for pure target shooting a good K98 or Springfield '03 will beat a SMLE or No. 4 Mk1, if only just. And the Mauser will bruise your shoulder noticeably more than the .303.
(And I know this from personal experience - I own a No.4 Mk1, a K98, a 7.7mm Type 99 Arisaka, and a Mosin-Nagant, just to name WW2 battle rifles, and I've shot many others owned by friends.)
The biggest advantage British riflemen had in both world wars was not their rifle, but their training.
As to comparing it to a .50, fuhgettaboutdit. Try firing a Barrett in .50 BMG sometime. The recoil isn't horrible but that's because the rifle weighs a ton and has several integral recoil-reducing devices. But the power compared to any .30 is just enormous. Even a single shot will blow big hunks of metal off a target a .303 will just put a little .303 hole in. Ordinary .50 ball (lead) ammo will go through 1" of mild steel like a knife through butter. Even AP .303 won't do that. .50 AP will go right through steel targets that a .303 or 7.62 NATO won't even dent.
There is no doubt that the .303 was inadequate in terms of aerial combat, nevertheless if it would punch holes in 1/4 inch thick hardened steel helmets at range,
Nobody, but nobody, has ever issued a 1/4" thick steel helmet, it would weigh 20 pounds. Not even 1/16". The German M1935 and its successors had a maximum thickness of about 1.2mm. Any rifle round will go right through any WW2 helmet.
it would shred aluminium skinned airframes, their control cables, fuel tanks, coolant tanks and the organic lump of hair and skin driving it.
Enough of them would, sure - but it would take a lot fewer .50s or cannons to do the same damage. And most fighters were armored in some critical locations - and as noted above the .303 is much, much worse at penetrating any kind of armor than a .50 BMG. That's why cockpit hits with any .30 are so much more effective from above, there's no armor or bulletproof glass on top of the cockpit.
I just feel that the community is entrenched in the notion that the rounds were weak.
Weak compared to what is the question. Compared to other small arms, no. Compared to a .50 or 20mm, yes, weak.
The point about convergence is, that the rounds had not run out of steam by 200 yards, or 400 yards, in truth they were almost certainly still in the acceleration phase at 200 yards.
Nonsense. Others have posted the relevant figures.
-
Reading puts them to sleep.
You are right about that. I usually start to nod off after the first two hundred words in your novels - err posts. (http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/smilies/indifferent0008.gif)
-
"Nobody, but nobody, has ever issued a 1/4" thick steel helmet, it would weigh 20 pounds. Not even 1/16". The German M1935 and its successors had a maximum thickness of about 1.2mm. Any rifle round will go right through any WW2 helmet."
http://www.militaryheadgear.com/items/5332
;)
-C+
-
Compared to what?Hitting power vs. a human body is not hitting power vs. aluminum or steel. And they are not "phenomenally accurate" compared to other battle rifles. They're decently accurate and far more accurate than most soldiers, but not target rifles. The biggest advantage the Lee-Enfields had over the other bolt-action battle rifles of the day is that the bolt is easier to manipulate, which makes for a higher ROF and also more accurate shooting since the rifle will move less as the firer works the bolt. The higher magazine capacity was a plus as well. But for pure target shooting a good K98 or Springfield '03 will beat a SMLE or No. 4 Mk1, if only just. And the Mauser will bruise your shoulder noticeably more than the .303.
Compared to equivalent weapons, bullets hit human bodies with the same power they hit aircraft, just do more damage relatively to flesh.
(And I know this from personal experience - I own a No.4 Mk1, a K98, a 7.7mm Type 99 Arisaka, and a Mosin-Nagant, just to name WW2 battle rifles, and I've shot many others owned by friends.)
The biggest advantage British riflemen had in both world wars was not their rifle, but their training.
As to comparing it to a .50, fuhgettaboutdit. Try firing a Barrett in .50 BMG sometime. The recoil isn't horrible but that's because the rifle weighs a ton and has several integral recoil-reducing devices. But the power compared to any .30 is just enormous. Even a single shot will blow big hunks of metal off a target a .303 will just put a little .303 hole in. Ordinary .50 ball (lead) ammo will go through 1" of mild steel like a knife through butter. Even AP .303 won't do that. .50 AP will go right through steel targets that a .303 or 7.62 NATO won't even dent.
Don't remember comparing it to a .50 cal
Nobody, but nobody, has ever issued a 1/4" thick steel helmet, it would weigh 20 pounds. Not even 1/16". The German M1935 and its successors had a maximum thickness of about 1.2mm. Any rifle round will go right through any WW2 helmet.
See Krupp frontal plate, was issued, and was in widespread use.
Enough of them would, sure - but it would take a lot fewer .50s or cannons to do the same damage. And most fighters were armored in some critical locations - and as noted above the .303 is much, much worse at penetrating any kind of armor than a .50 BMG. That's why cockpit hits with any .30 are so much more effective from above, there's no armor or bulletproof glass on top of the cockpit.
I understand this, but a piece of perspex is hardly going to slow a .303 from trepanning your pilot either. why say .50 cal? I never mentioned .50 cal or a comparison with them, a 16" shell would do more damage as well but i didn't mention that either. refer to the title of the thread, all I was saying was that I would think concentrated bursts of .303's would do more damage.
Weak compared to what is the question. Compared to other small arms, no. Compared to a .50 or 20mm, yes, weak.
Nonsense. Others have posted the relevant figures.
-
In AH when shooting buildings, which use a different system in AH than when shooting aircraft, the Browning .303 does 0.295lbs of damage per hit. The Browning .50 does 1.17lbs of damage per hit. The Hispano Mk II does 4.06lbs of damage per hit.
-
Another point is that if you have even half of your bullets striking the target you are doing amazingly well. You can't just calculate the weight of rounds impacting by multiplying rof by the number of guns and say that this is the damage that will be done.
Also, the 303 was among the weakest of the main battle rifle calibers used by any army during the war. The op's experience of thinking of it as incredibly powerful is likely due to lack of experience with other types.
There is also ample source material around regarding the ineffectiveness of the 303 during the Bob, particularly against bombers, which are much easier to put concentrated fire on than a maneuvering fighter.
Among the "weakest" in WWII??? With all due respect you has sorely missed the mark with that statement. :headscratch:
Line up the .303 British, .30-06, 7.62x54R, 6.5 and 7.7 Jap, 8mm Mauser, 6.5 Carcano, 7.5mm French, 7.35 Belgian, 8mm Mannlicher, etc etc etc, and you will find two things: The 6.5 Carcano and the 6.5mm Jap bring up the rear and the rest of them are all within spit distance of each other in terms of "bullet weight/velocity and terminal performance". The .303 British fired a .310 caliber bullet of 174gr at approx 2400 fps out of an Enfield rifle. At distances in which other calibers such as the .30-06 and 7.62x 54R Russian surpass it in regards to ballistic performance is well beyond what the human eye can comprehend so that is besides the point, really. Also, research showed that flesh wounds caused by the .303 British was the worst among the full powered rifle calibers thanks to a bullet that had a rearward center of gravity though it was not a design characteristic goal when the projectile was introduced.
Vs aircraft, the gap is even more narrow. The differences are do narrow I'm willing to bet that no one can tell the differences between one .30 caliber MG and the next in AH. In the real world in that application it isn't any different either.
-
At close distances inside of 300 the rate of fire and numbers of rounds that will probably hit favor the .303's destructive power on smaller less armored fighters pre mid-war. The sheer area of and size of bombers in the game requires a high number of rounds in any damage area to do more than punch holes or cause leaks.
Excerpts From:
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS
by:Tony Williams
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
It is also worth pointing out that most successful attacks in WW2 took place at fairly short ranges at which different projectile ballistics would not have had a major effect on destructiveness. During 1940 the RAF rapidly dropped the harmonisation distance for their fighter guns from 370 to 230m, and were annoyed that the narrow gun bays in the Spitfire's wing prevented them from harmonising the 20mm cannon down to their preferred distance of 180m (at which they did most ammunition effectiveness testing). Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality – it doesn't!
180m = 200yd
230m = 250yd
370m = 400yd
--------------------------------
Later in the same article, this .50 cal pricipel is the same more poignantly with the .303:
3. The shorter flight time of the .50 bullets, plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely.
The first part of this criticism is undoubtedly correct, but the second part does not follow. The relative lack of effectiveness of the .50 bullets mean that it is necessary (on average) to score many more hits to shoot down a plane than with cannon armament. These two factors probably more or less cancel each other out.
As has already been observed, hit probability is also affected by many other things apart from gun performance: the quality of the gunsights, the location of the guns, the stability of the aircraft as the gun platform, and above all, pilot skill. These cannot be taken into account in a study of this type – there are just too many variables.