Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Vermillion on March 27, 2000, 10:22:00 AM
-
NOTE: This is NOT a post about the -1C, and please don't corrupt the thread. First one to mention the F4U-1C gets a thorough spanking and sent to bed without dinner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
There have been many complaints lately about certain aircrafts high lethality level. Personally I have nothing against a high lethality level (I believe this is realistic), as long as the relative lethalities is comparitive across the board. In other words different cannons and machine guns are believeable in comparison to one another.
Now when AH started, one thing I really enjoyed was the fact that an aircraft armed with .50 Machine Guns was actually a competitive ride, unlike in the other brands of online sims. Now don't get me wrong. I don't expect a x4 20mm type of lethality. But I do expect that if I fire at convergence for the MG's to be very lethal.
Unfortunately, as the beta progressed, either the MG's got weaker, the aircraft got harder, or some other change occurred causing unforseen lethality effects. I don't know what caused it, but to use CavemanJ's term the .50 MG's have been "nerfed" as in the Nerf foam rubber toys for children.
All I know is that I am now the "king of assists", and am so sick of working a bandit for 10 minutes, hitting him on multiple passes, and then see someone come in and make a single pass with cannons to get the kill of the plane I have been working over.
Now some may argue this fact, and I could go in and perform an extensive and time consuming comparitive study in the training arena on how many of each shell type does it take to remove the wing of a B-17, or something along those lines.
Another way to look at this is to compare MG's and Cannons under actual arena combat conditions.
So what I did was compare my own statistics, I fly the P-51 almost exclusively (.50's only), to a pilot that flys a similar flying style, and a similar aircraft but one armed with cannons.
I ended up picking DuckWing, of the Skeleton Crew squadron (handle: SCDuckw). We both fly for Rooks, usually during the same times of day, and fly the same basic style. I land 57% of my sorties' and he lands 55% of his sortie's. He shoots 5.2% and I shoot slightly worse at 3.9% (but I admittedly spray at long ranges occaisonally, especially at bombers). The only major difference in our totals is that he has flown 3 times the number of missions (159 sorties vs 56 sorties) I have, but we both have flown enough to be statistically valid. Look under "Verm" and "SCDuckw" if you wish to look at the raw numbers. And Duck, don't take this as a insult against you (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I picked you because I felt we were very similar in our flying and under the same conditions.
So effectively the major difference between the two of us is that my aircraft is armed exclusively with x6 .50 MG's, and his is armed with x4 20mm's.
Now, I have scored 35 kills and 23 assists for a 1.52 to 1 kill/assist(k/a) ratio. Duck has scored 229 kills and 44 assists, for a 5.2 to 1 k/a ratio.
If you take a look at the number of weapons mounted on the aircraft, the disparity is even worse. (1.52/6) = 0.25:1 gun per k/a, and (5.2/4) = 1.3:1 gun per k/a.
That means that under actual combat conditions, you are 5.2 times as likely to score a kill instead of an assist, if you fly a cannon armed aircraft in comparison to a .50 MG aircraft.
Now I understand statistics, and realize all the other factors involved. But I don't know how to remove many more factors without the entire player database at my disposal, to do a blind test.
I also understand how to calculate relative Lethality, of different armaments given their ballistic variables. Where this becomes complicated is how much percentwise of the explosive energy in the cannon shell do you apply to the airframe? This is very debatable, and the modern day US Air Force spends millons of dollars a year on the subject.
My point is that right now the cannons are way too powerful in comparison to machine guns, and its disrupting gameplay.
Two times as powerful, I can understand. Three times as powerful I think is pushing the realistic envelope.
But a single 20mm cannon being 5.2 times as effective as a single .50 cal MG, is definitely out of wack.
[edit: Oh I will quitely shutup if Pyro will give my Pony the equivalent firepower of 21 .50 cals, which is about what its like if your flying the ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)]
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
If I followed your reasoning correctly, I agree until the point on the math- are forgetting there are 4x20mm and 6x.50's? I think the gun package is 5.2 times more likely to kill, but not per gun.
And does it count that you alluded so strongly to the taboo plane? Spanking time? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Great post Verm!
Mox
The Wrecking Crew
-
Hehehe Verm I also want to have the Corsair C's firepower...
hey and I didnt say those letters and numbers!! so you cant make true ur taboo!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
IMHO I believe that 50cals have some less firepower than they had...and Hispano 20mm some MORE than it had...
matter of tastes on the 20mm...but not on the 50 cals, at least in P51.
-
First one to mention the F4U-1C gets a thorough spanking and sent to bed without dinner
First off, your spankings are considered to be undermodeled, therefore, this form of punishment would be fruitless.
Secondly, the dinners you cook may have a higer lethality than the 1C, so this form of punishment might be best if served, rather than NOT served.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Ripsnort(-rip1-)
=CO=II/JG2~Richthofen~
Aces High Training Corps
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/ripsnort.jpg)
"Experience is a hard teacher because she
gives the test first, the lesson afterwards"
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Bad math there. ONLY thing that you proved is he gets 5.2 times the amount of kills per assists. ANYTHING can do it, it might be that he holds fire until closer than you, so he hits cons less often, but more effectively. Or perhaps the ballistics of 20mm cannons mean that you can hit only close, so nearly any hit is lethal, but any hit is much harder. Try claculating hits/kills, this kind of calculation shows absolutely NOTHING.
-
F4u-1C Corsair, SPANK ME VERM, SPANK ME!!!!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dnil (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Kieren I did consider the 4 gun versus 6 gun, if you'll look back at the post where I divided by the # of guns.
Pyton, I can sit here and debate statistics with you all day. But there are two basic different ways to do a valid comparison.
One is where you control as many independent variables as possible, and study the results. Like the "take this fighter and park it Y yards from the wingroot of a B-17 and calculate the exact # of rounds needed to remove the wing, and repeat it 100 times". This is best to calculate the absolute lethality. For instance to find out it takes 15-20 20mm cannon shells needed to down a theoretical "average B-17 Bomber" in Aces High.
Thats not what I was trying too do.
The other is the method I used in my example. I control the variables of aircraft types, flying styles, and relative skill levels (the dominant independent variables of the system) and then assume (rightly so) that over the large statistical sample the differences in minor independent variables (distances, shot angle, etc.) become insignificant or merely create "noise" (cancel out over time and number).
Actually, if I had the raw statistics for a large user base and repeated the analysis(instead of the 1 to 1 comparison I had data for), my style of comparitive analysis can be more representative, than the style you suggest. This is because it takes into account many more "real arena" (instead of real life) combat variables that the static tests would miss.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Germans not only equipped their planes with quite a few 20mm guns, they also supplied them with lots of ammo, requiring even more weight and volume. If the 20mm cannon was not considerably more efficient then 0.5 machinegun, would not they rather put 2-2.5 times more of the machineguns instead of the cannons? How about 10 0.5 cal - armed 109 with plenty of ammo?
They did not do that because they needed to shoot down big american B17 bombers that could bring 3-5 guns to bear on the attacking fighter, preferably before being shredded to pieces. Of course 20mm cannon - equipped plane was much more lethal then the 0.5 cal armed one. Obviously that much firepower is overkill against fighters.
Sinse that firepower comes at the cost of weight, hence maneuvrability, the lighter armed planes should use that to deny the shot.
Also remember that during the scond half of the WWII Allies had total air superiority due to numbers, so Germans very rarely engaged in what we call vulching - strafing parked or taking off planes. That, like the bomber intercept, does not require much maneuvrability.
That is why cannon planes seem much too deadly here - they can do what they were designed to do best here much more then they did in real life.
miko--
-
One more thing to add would be ROF (Rate of Fire).
Cannons have a SIGNIFICATLY lower ROF than those .50s making adjustments much more difficult to get on target when you're flying a cannon bird.
I remember reading German accounts where they would wait to fire those cannons until VERY close to target for that reason. They didn't want to waste it. Instead they used the higher ROF machine guns to guide to target and then adjust slightly for the cannons.
ROF has a LOT to do with leathality. I think (read this a while back, don't remember the source) that a one second burst of fire from a P-51 put 6 lbs of lead on target.
You put a one second burst of 6 .50s on target. You have 6lbs of lead on target. It's easier to hit something with the rounds being closer. When you DO hit, well, it's devistating.
You put a one second burst of 20mm into something (lets use a 109 for instance). You'll have a lot less rounds on target albeit that the explosive 20mm is going to make up for the lack of rounds.
In conclusion, I guess what I'm getting at is that the 6 .50s, by having MORE rounds on target, make up for their lack of punch. It's also EASIER to get those rounds ON target.
My .02 cents for what it's worth.
------------------
Wolverine [wlvrn]
www.wlvrn.com (http://www.wlvrn.com)
33rd Strike Group
www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
-
"Two times as powerful, I can understand. Three times as powerful I think is pushing the realistic envelope"
ähh may i laugh a little bit? I think you donīt have any impression of the explosive power of a HE round.
Donīt think that all german pilots liked the cannon. Many wanted 6 Mgīs like their adversaries, especially the unexperienced pilots. Because it was easier to get a hit. But not the kill:-) . All aces voted for the cannon.
A simple example: take a bar of wood and make with a knife 6 little notches, all close together. No take another bar and make one BIG DEEP notch. Ok, when you bend the bars, which of them will break first? The bar with the single but bigger notch of course.
You donīt need to do little damage at many different parts of an airframe. All you need is to do maximum damage to a special, vital part. When this part fails it leads to the total failure of the whole system.
Maybe the Hispano rounds are a bit too lethal compared to the mg151-rounds. As far as i know they were still usual rounds, designed to pass armor and to do damage with splinter etc. Now, thereīs not much armor in a fighter, right? Even the pilot armor is not thicker than ~15mm. Thatīs why germans switched to the "minengeschosse", with a thinner envelope of metal and a lot more explosive. They were MUCH MORE effective against planes, and did damage with a big gas explosion.
What do you want, to tune down the cannons? Which plane will suffer most from that? The 109 of course. We have only ons single cannon, and at the moment even a short burst from close distance isnīt enough. And a 109 has often only ONE opportunity to shoot....
4*20mm were deadly, are deadly now, and will be in the future, whatever you do with them.
niklas
-
You need better data Verm.
-
Oh I agree Funked.
The problem is how to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Find me ten pilots of relative skill levels that fly exclusively cannon armed planes that consistently fly to live, then find me 10 more pilots (same approximately skill level) that exclusively fly .50's aircraft and fly to live, and I will redo the calculations. Or if you can find 100 of each its even better. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) See my point?
Niklas, ummmm laugh all you want. Which type shell do you want me to compute the explosive power of? How about the American 20mm HE/I shell standard to WWII? Oh in that case its 60.35kJ of energy. If you think I am roadkillting you, I will do the equation and post the sources for you.
I know very well how much energy the bursting charge of a 20mm cannon shell has. I have done quite a bit of research into the subject and have gone as far as to visit a munitions recycling/remanufacturing facility to sitdown and talk about the subject with the plant engineers. Ever seen anyone detonate the primer and or the bursting charge out of a 40mm anti aircraft shell? Well, I have one sitting 24 inches from me right now that i brought home from my plant tour.
See the really funny part is that I haven't said a thing about reducing the power of the 20mm's. Quite the opposite. I think the .50's got turned down a while back during the beta and all I ask is that they come back to where they were. So calm down, Im not asking them to "detune" your precious cannons.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Hey Wolverine. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I do believe rof is modelled here. Sure seems to be anyway. For instance I like the six 50's of the F4U-1D over the F4U-1C any day. Because my flying is not superb in any way, so I want maximum impact on the enemy bogy. If I'm within 300 or less of the bogy he is deadmeat usually.
On the other hand I took up a 109 G6 with the 30mm and I knew I had to get close, which I did, and at about a 100 off his six, I shot two shells of the 30mm. It took the P-38 out nicely but then here came his wings and othe debri (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Getting in close is a must with the cannon but then that also subjects you to all of the idiosyncracies of net lag and delay. Cause I died too because I hit his pieces (due to netlag) even though visually I thought I was clear of him.
And I could not fire the 30mm as fast as the buttin could be pressed. So that lead me to think ROF was here, or my CH "B" button was gumming up.
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Yep the data is hard to come by. And remember this is not a linear system we are talking about. I don't think you can directly correlate kill probability per round to damaging energy per round.
-
What do modern jets carry today? ONE 20MM or 30MM cannon..only ONE. And they get kills in one burst..
Cannons are cannons, .50's are peashooters. Why do you think the F-16 or other modern jets dont load .50's ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
One thing that does seem odd is how quickly bombers fall to the cannons in this game.. in RL it took several passes or one damn long burst of cannon to bring a BUFF down.
But a fighter? That's nothing but a paper airplane with guns! Even a duck hitting it at high speeds can bring it down (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Hmm... sheep.. hey HT! Add some birds to the enviroment!
[This message has been edited by Wraith (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
6x.50 were also lethal. I read (in an article linked from here no less) that several US pilots felt that 4x.50 would have been plenty.
I cannae believe that the USAAF and USN/USMC would have kept the .50 as the predominant armament if they were as weak as the ones in AH seem to be.
Here's another example. A couple of nights ago I was in the P-38 and we were working on taking field 23 back. I got 3 kills in the air, using up all of my cannon and leaving with me around 1200rds for the 4 .50s, so I jumped into the vulch. I picked up 6 assists in that vulch. I would roll in and start shooting at 800yds, hitting with 80-90% of the rounds, and pulling up at about d200 to avoid pancaking. Then one of guys in the HawgC would come along, put a very short burst into the bandit, and get the kill w/ me getting an assist.
Watching the ammo counter I would putting aboot 175-200 rounds into the target each pass (after #6 I had 50-something rds left).
Verm, any time you want to do some testing on the .50s in the TA holler at me. I'm there. AH just dinnae have the enjoyment it used to have. I've quit flying bombers because the .50s are so fubar'ed and noone seems to listen. I'm still waiting for Pyro to answer on the thread I started on the Gameplay feedback/issues board.
[edit]
Wraith the M61A-1 20mm cannon has 6 rotating barrels and a ROF that makes the M2s on the HawgC look lethargic.
If the 20mm's in WWII were so good why dinnae they start putting them on all the birds. Even the late model Hawgs were still 6x.50. The F4U-5 they have at the New England Air Museum is a 6x.50 bird. I'm pretty sure it came along after the -1C (though I could be mistaken, I'm no expert).
[/edit]
[This message has been edited by CavemanJ (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Wraith,
They use 20s in modern day jets due to improvments in the deployment mechenism (i.e. the gun). Today's 20mm cannons that are on jets spew out so many rounds, that basically, anything in the projectile path is turned into a pasta strainer.
Mount one of today's cannons on a WWII prop and you'd better shoot it in a dive going 500 knots or you're gonna end up flying in reverse.
50s aren't peashooters. A good 2 second burst from the 50s on a P-51 into an F-16 would SHRED the Falcon. SHRED it. Fact is, 6 .50s do damage to ANY aircraft. And BIG damage. They were "worthless" only in terms of armor busting.
Today's jets use 20 and 30 mm cannons due to two factors.
1. Today's guns are SO much more advanced than yesteryears that 20mm/30mm cannons have an ROF equal or more so than ALL those 50s firing on a 51. Weather it's due to that gun having a higher ROF or the fact that many of today's jets utilize "gatling" type guns.
2. Today's jets serve a ground cover role as well. Those cannons enable any of today's jets to take out tanks and lesser armor with guns.
[This message has been edited by Wolverine (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
Caveman,
Actually the late model F4U's all used 20Mill
Cannons. Starting with the -4's. It's hard to say when they actually started being used in combat however(the -4's not the -1C's). The Navy did some extensive research into selecting it's new gun platform in 1944 and settled on the 20mill due to the Kamikaze threat. The Airforce experemented with 60cal(not a typ-O but a new weapon) machine guns into the mid 1950's. Notice the F-86 armament included six forward firing 50 calibers. It was the durability of the Mig-15 that changed their minds. It is one arena that the Navy led the Air Force in for almost a decade. But if you look at the run of F4U-4 after the first couple hundred off the production line they never looked back including the -5, AU-1 as well as the -7 built for France. Also the Bearcat and AD-1 Skyraider were produced exclusively with 20Mil. I still think that the 50Cal in AH is way undermodeled considering it's effectiveness in WW2 combat but that still doesn't change history.
Thanxs
F4UDOA
-
The M2 20mm had a rof of 600 rpm. So the XXXX(censor) puts out 40 of the biggest fastest cannon rounds in the game per second. In a 2 second burst Duck hits with 4 of them. 4 of those cannon rounds have a high prob of wounding the target in some critical or worrying way. Enemy is defensive..casulty report to follow. He has enough ammo for 11? or so bursts like that.
I have 2 rof numbers for the M2 50 cal. 550- and 800? at 800 the pony puts 80 rounds out in a second.
In 2 seconds you put 6.4 of them onto the target. Your burst put 0.6 pounds of velocity dependent lead onto the bad guy. At 550 the final wieght is .44 lbs.(you will notice that at the lower 50 cal ROF his burst is at least 3 times as effecive as yours even without explosion)
ducks shot puts 1.2 pounds of exploding cannon rounds onto his bad guy(or the one you pinged) Ducks damages is concentrated in 4 places. Each of those places gets hit with the equvilent kinetic energy of 3 50cal rounds...then an explosion. The only real quesion is did anything bad get hit.
Your hits might be spread over 6 places each of them getting .1 lbs of lead. No explosion.
Your burst will probably not do critical or worrying damage to the bad guy, he will not surrender the initiative from it. But it is enough to count as a hit in AH. So you get an assist.
The cannon armed plane is far more likly to inflict crippling damage on an enemy. That is why the Heavy mg was replaced as primary armement in allmost all cases by cannons within 2 years of the time frame we are simulating here. The M2 20mm removes all of the advantages of the M2 50cal in relation to other cannon armed aircraft. Its as accuate, as long ranged and has comparable ROF. On the XXXXXX it also has 4 tubes and lots of rounds...
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
NOTE: and I shoot slightly worse at 3.9%
The best you can do is to increase your skills in gunning. When you will make it close to 9% I doubt you will ever want to return to the subj.
Even 2 mgs on spit can bring you a kill, though normally it takes more work and is hard to predict if your pings killed the nme or not.
Fariz
-
Pongo,
I've got some photos of 20mm damage on P-40s (via 109s and 190s in Africa) and the damage was pretty nasty.
The hole is about 6 inches.
In one particular incident, one 20mm round going clear through the right wing managed to take out all 3 .50s on that side. (ouch)
I must say I disagree on those ROF figures on the 51 though. I *really* remember a source saying that a *one* second burst would put 6 lbs of lead on target. The source was a gunnery manual(?) for the P-51. I'll try and find it tonight when I get home.
Westy - What's up bud!? =) I hope to be joining you guys here once I free myself up from my EverCrack addiction. The dogfighting bug is calling me back!!
------------------
Wolverine [wlvrn]
www.wlvrn.com (http://www.wlvrn.com)
33rd Strike Group
www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
-
Wolverine,
About your rate of fire comment. This is not entirely true. The larger cannons had lower firing rates. As in 30mm and above, however the 20mm had a higher firing rate. At least the Japanese 20mm did.
According to "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J Francillon ISBN 0-87021-313-X the rate of fire for the Ho-5 Type 1 20mm Cannon was 850 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,460 feet per second. This cannon was the most widely used version in Japanese aircraft.
Compare this to the firing rate of the Browning .50 calibre machine gun which is only 550 rounds per minute. And a muzzle velocity of 2,900 feet per second. This is according to "The Great Book of World War II Airplanes" by various authors, ISBN 0-517-459930.
With some quick math you can see that in any given minute there are 3,400 20mm rounds in the air from an aircraft equiped with 4x20mm compared to 3,300 rounds from a 6x.50 machine guns equiped aircraft.
The information for the Hispano 20mm cannons varies considerably depending on the revision. And I do not have any information as to the version used in the bent winged wonder. But the rates of fire vary between 600 to 750 rounds per minute depending on version. What is intersting is the muzzle velocity is closer to that of the Browning .50 at 2,850 feet per second.
So what this tells me is that with a higher rate of fire, larger caliber, exploding projectile the 20mm cannon is probably correctly modeled in AH. The .50 caliber might be a little weak, but remember that it isn't an explosive round so the bullets would just punch a nice little whole and keep right on going.
Spritle
-
"Vaaaaarrie In-ter-restingggg" (must be said like german from "Laugh In" show)
JagdNine
-
Originally posted by Wolverine:
Pongo,
I must say I disagree on those ROF figures on the 51 though. I *really* remember a source saying that a *one* second burst would put 6 lbs of lead on target. The source was a gunnery manual(?) for the P-51. I'll try and find it tonight when I get home.
Unfortunalty Verm and I dont hit with all 6 pounds. Verm says he hits with less then 4% of his 12 pounds.
thats
.48 pounds.. I have him him over .1 pounds more that that.
love all this talk about pounds...had to go to the cook book to find out how pounds compared to ounces....
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Pongo & Spritle, the 550 rpm number is the vehicle mounted version of the M2 Browning. The aircraft version had a lighter action and some other internal modifications that allowed between 800 rpm at 2,750 ft/sec. The M2 20mm cannon has a rate of fire of 650 rpm at 2,850 ft/sec.
Spritle, where in Francillons book does it say the HO-5 was the most common Japanese 20mm cannon? Cause I have it sitting on my lap. The HO-5, while a spectacular performer, was the late war cannon used by the Japanese Army, who had earlier used the the HO-3, and then a few shipments of German MG151's. Actually the most common Japanese 20mm cannon was the Japanese Navy's Type 99, relatively a very poor cannon in most versions.
For those quote modern single 20mm cannons on Jets.... LOL!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) FYI that is the M61 20mm multibarreled gatling cannon. It has a rate of fire 6,000 shells per minute at a muzzle velocity of 3,300 ft/sec. A single M61 has as much firepower a NINE M2 20mm cannons.
Weight of Fire arguements. Four (4) 20mm's have a WoF of 13.06 lbs/sec. Six (6) .50's have a WoF of 8.10 lbs/sec.
No arguements from me, I agree that the 20mm's should be more lethal, the question is how much more lethal? Right now the gap is huge.
[Edit: all these numbers come straight out of Chapter 1 of Shaw's book]
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
In my experience if you get close (i.e. <200 yds) whether you have MG's or Cannon, you will probably get the kill. One thing I have noticed though: It is MUCH easier to land deflection shots with .50 cal, but kills are unlikely. Using cannon, deflection shooting is very hard, but any hits usually result in some damage. If you pull any g's while trying to shoot in a cannon armed plane, you lose sight of the bullets only about 300 yds ahead of you. I can get hits with MG's while pulling g's consistently until about 600 yds.
Another observation: Convergence settings for cannon armed planes don't seem nearly as important as with MG armed planes. When I fly the Ensign Eliminator 1c (hehe), if I land 4+ hits on an aircraft under 600 yds, I usually get a kill. Using the 109, p51, or c205, (using MG) I need at least 10+ hits to do any damage at 600 yds. Once you get close though, 5 hits all on the same area will usually cause lethal damage.
My question is whether the loss of kinetic energy at the longer ranges is making the difference? (I.e. Since the cannon rounds are explosive, does that account for their high leathality at longer ranges?)
Please make sense of my post for me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
As one who deals with statistics every day in my job it's a pleasure to finally see someone who has taken the time to analyze the statistical data correctly.
Verm's stats are on target.
The question now is what to do about it?
Like Cavemanj, I too used to love the strategy of flying bombers, but I hardly fly them anymore due to the obvious change in lethality of the 50's. I've followed the threads about the lethality of bomber guns. It's obvious that those concerned about bomber guns shooting them down just aren't bomber pilots. Take a B17 up one on one against Caveman and see how to kill a bomber from a bomber pilots point of view. You aint gonna live.
I have been considering quitting AH, because I'm just not having the fun I used to have. Endless furballs get old, and I'm usually stuck flying alone.
So what is to be done about the obvious 50cal lethality question?
I vote with Verm that the 50 cal lethality be increased, and I salute him for his excellent handling of the data.
Ranger Bob
-
Hmmm .. this is the first time i'm used as a comparison (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Well and i have to add something here to your calculations Verm...
I flew both the C and the D and you have to spilt up those kills and the assists...
i can make that for the kills but can't for the assists but as far as i can remember 80% of my assists are from the D
C -> 164 total kills
D -> 77 total kills
Assists 44 of which are at least 80% D-Hog
(last score after todays flying - *yawn*)
And it's true .. usually if i see hits on the target i'm prety certain i got the kill in the C.. in the D only if i get a good burst in at convergence and i see pieces falling off..
yea the lethality desparity between C and D seems a bit high.
------------------
(http://members.aon.at/duckwing6/dw601.gif)
Phillip "Duckwing6" Artweger
Flight Officer "E" Flight
Skeleton Crew (http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/oneshot/main.htm)
[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 03-27-2000).]
-
As one who deals with programing every day it was my pleasure to present a case about why comparing the capabilities of the XXXXX(censor) gun package and the P51 gun package is really rather strate forward. Big hint. The XXXXX is in this game so that Americans can have a domestic cannon armed plane to fly. Saying the other domestic guns should be improved to make the game more fun for the
people who prefer silver to blue is starting to get silly.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Verm...
Thank You. This is a subject dear to my heart; I've started threads on it; howled about it; moaned about it; whined about it and kicked the gawd-damned cat more times than I can count over it. Never had any way to PROVE my points.. only 'gut feeling' and experience with a 25 year old MaDuece as a grunt..
The statistical data speaks volumes. Finally; emperical proofs for the developer. Please... HTC take note! The .50's on my P51 are pitiful shadows of what they should be.
I've gunned at 10% the last 4 tours. I can hit what I shoot at. (thanks to Rude's gunsight) The deflection shots are almost hopeless with the .50's. When I play with the unmentionable AC my deflection shooting is frightining. Not because I get more hits with cannons in deflection shots (I don't)... but because the cannon hits kill instantly. With the P51 only low AOT shots with sustained time on target can kill reliably. I contend that as snapshot weapons, the .50's should be significantly more lethal.
As Verm has stated; as I have stated numerous times in the past... don't cripple the cannons... just model the .50's better.
Again.. Verm. Thank you sir. No matter what comes of this; you got my undying respect for figuring out how to PROVE it.
Hang
"Never give the suckers an even break"
-
The M2 cannons are really that much more leathal then M2 50 cals. All that Verm has proven is that the game is modeled accuratly.
Its the comparison of the M2 20mm and the other cannons in the game that is questionable.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
I chose to disagree.. 6 .50's on convergence are devestaingly lethal. They ain't in this sim.
Dead is dead. Except for here in AH. Here yah need a cannon, or if not; a lot of time on target with yer MG's. Booooooooooo!
Hang
-
Hang...
The rof is similar,
Velcocity is similar,
Projectile weight is triple,
one explodes like a grenade on contact. the other nocks a hole.
I LOVE THE 50 CAL. Still remember the feel of that double grip bucking in my hand....
But you canot increase its capabilities beyond what the physics indicate.
Verm in my opion has validated the existing model more that challenge it.
Get your % up near hangs...you will get fewer assists.
-
ok how about somthing completly different. rather than state the charts lets think about the theory. the real reason the 50 were chosen is the damage the inflict is lesser that the cannon explosive rounds. one simple sentence,
the damage caused by a round is purportional to mass of the provectile and gometric to velocity. the idea is you get a great trajectory frome speed ,more dense projectile cause its solid and with all these things giving you a flat trajectory the very hypersonic bullet becomes even more so ( i.e it stays hypersonic for a long time) and the hypersonic wave af a 50cal passing thru a aircraft does ALOT of collateral damage similar to the explosion caused by the slower higher drag cannon round (the usa had acces to whatever weapons it wanted in ww2 and 50s were loved for their ability to reach out and touch at a distance, the prob here is they get (nerfasized TM) at d 350+ it seems.
opens mouth closes mouth does an about face and marches off to bedroom muttering about how hogs from korea should stay there .
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Verm...
I've gunned at 10% the last 4 tours. I can hit what I shoot at. (thanks to Rude's gunsight) The deflection shots are almost hopeless with the .50's.
I have to agree here, on deflections .50 now are almost useless, unless it is a long deflection. But also I have to mention that the situation when most of the fighter pilots, including myself, simply avoided 17 because their .50 made them one of the most deadliest weapon around is in past with the beta.
The only thing I agree 100% is that game ballance issues should not make some weapon to be overmodeled and some undermodeled. I love this game due to fact that it is a sym, not arcade, and I want it to stay as much sym as possible. If .50 were really as deadly as you say -- then I want them to be deadly heer. But, sorry hang for saying it, I do not want back the time when p51 was the best buff killer in the AH. I simply do not believe it could be in reality.
Fariz
-
Originally posted by -towd_:
ok how about somthing completly different. rather than state the charts lets think about the theory. the real reason the 50 were chosen is the damage the inflict is lesser that the cannon explosive rounds. one simple sentence,
the damage caused by a round is purportional to mass of the provectile and gometric to velocity. the idea is you get a great trajectory frome speed ,more dense projectile cause its solid and with all these things giving you a flat trajectory the very hypersonic bullet becomes even more so ( i.e it stays hypersonic for a long time) and the hypersonic wave af a 50cal passing thru a aircraft does ALOT of collateral damage similar to the explosion caused by the slower higher drag cannon round (the usa had acces to whatever weapons it wanted in ww2 and 50s were loved for their ability to reach out and touch at a distance, the prob here is they get (nerfasized TM) at d 350+ it seems.
opens mouth closes mouth does an about face and marches off to bedroom muttering about how hogs from korea should stay there .
The USAF must have found that that hypersonic wave was not equal to the destuctive power of 20mm cannons. Or its existance was harder to prove to pilots..So they upgraded everything to cannons. They didnt have the option of wishing there 50cals to be like cannons.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Noooooooo! leave the 50īs alone! i use the 6x50īs solution all the time and it aint nuthing wrong with lethality! what conv are you guys using anyway!?
Dont take this sim yet another notch to Quakers high please, if anything is needed to be done then it is to lover the lethality of the cannons instead.
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
(http://www.rsaf.org/osf/images/osf_inga.gif)
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/ (http://www.rsaf.org/osf/)
[This message has been edited by Maniac (edited 03-28-2000).]
-
got this months aviation history where they talk about settin the conversion on a 50 cal plane. at a conservative 1200 to 1500 ft there is plenty of energy in one round at 1/4 mile to crack open a engine block like a egg ( have witnessed penitration of one 1 1/2 plate steel at 300 yds ) .
they aint for killin buffs the magic of the 50 cal is its long trajectory and hyper velocity. once planes got where they could lug around multiple heavy bellybutton cannons they were obsolecent , but note any "small and manuverable" usa plane of ww2 era and some jets still used 50s cause they were lighter had a greater effective range higher rate of fire and one burst usualy killed just fine unlike here where you see 10-15 hit sprites and nothin happens generaly if they past d300 or so cant name the nunber of times i have been d 900 on somones tail usin the 50s to put rd after rd into a bog with them almost unconcerned
a 50 cal at such a range i assure you from personal experience would not with all probability bounce off anything short of main tank armor i.e. you would open up on a apv or light armor vehical at 900 ft no prob with assured penitration.
and hyper sonic wave is hard to prove? please get 2 boxs of 22 cal ammo one normal one hypersonic stinger tm and fire them into somthing that will gage the damage block of gelitin is best but a 2 litre bottle will do fine. shoot them and see the difference it will be massive same buller 4 or 5 times the damage why? your hard to prove wave.
50s are not as powerefull as connons up close but they have superior effective range and because of high speed, high density, low drag and hypersonic wave effect they carry their slightly lower damage (but higher penitration potential at all ranges) to a much greater range, they were just as good as cannons for a non buff killer planes that is why the greatest air force/army/navy in the world used them for a period longer than most mens lives sheesh get a life.
they are nerfed get over it htc turn them up, we dont know why you tuned um down and we dont like it.
-
"they are nerfed get over it htc turn them up, we dont know why you tuned um down and we dont like it. "
I like it the way it is! please please HTC dont turn lethality up...
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
(http://www.rsaf.org/osf/images/osf_inga.gif)
http://www.rsaf.org/osf/ (http://www.rsaf.org/osf/)
-
Invalid Datum point. Need penetration data for the 20mm to really cook this, As I recall, a noted problem with the 20mm was the explode on contact issue, which will strip away skin,but by being outside the aircraft, did not do structural damage.
The .05 had a decent pen at all ranges, but was small in area, which meant inflicting structural damage took repeated hits in a small area. The move away from .05's in the 1950's was due to jet combat being a faster form than WWII, You did not have time to hold on a target as much so you needed better results with less "holdtime" In AH I think it might be the damage model which has changed somewhat,a slight spacing in the "hit boxes" or what have you would lessen the repeatability of the .05's while leaving the one hit one explosion of the cannons intact.
My viewpoint, not too scientific I know but then again, I'm not a scientist
Long live Texas instruments! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
"I can hit what I shoot at. (thanks to Rude's gunsight)"
Hangtime, any chance I could get a copy? I searched the site by Rude's username and checked out most of his posts but unable to find it or a link to it.
-Westy
-
Same here. I've been wondering where I can get this "Rude's Gunsight"
Thanks
Ranger Bob
-
Vermillion,
I should have clarified that the Ho-5 was the Army Airforce weapon. You are however incorrect about the quantity. No single place in the book states that the Ho-5 was the most widely used. You actually have to read the entire book. Just look at the armament for each aircraft and the breakdown of which variants carried what weapons. It's pretty easy to see that the Ho-5 was the most common on Army Airforce aircraft.
The Ho-5 was used extensively on:
Ki-45, 61, 100, 46, 43, 44, 84, to name a few.
Please don't read extensively as exclusively, because there were exceptions, however these are listed in the book.
On a different note, I forget who was posting about the energy imposed on an aircraft by a bullet.
This is how it works. The kinetic energy imposed on the aircraft is the difference between the kinetic energy of the bullet before it enters the target and the kinetic energy of the bullet after it exits the target. No more no less.
What this means is that if the bullet lodges somewhere say in an engine block then there is a great amount of energy transfer however if the bullet hits a relatively benign area like say the aft fuselage or wing tip then a much smaller amount of energy is transferred. A cannon on the other hand can transfer much more energy to the target for two very important reasons. First, is a higher kinetic energy due to greater mass and second, is the fact that a cannon carries an explosive charge. This charge adds an even greater amount of energy. However the explosion has a dual effect. It can cause massive damage from the force of the explosion and the smaller fragments of bullet can now impose more of the initial kinetic energy to the target because their energy is now dispersed over a larger area.
I dont think that the .50s are good snap shot weapons. I forgot what you said your hit percentage was Vermillion but if it was between 3 and 5 percent then in any given shot only 3 to 5 percent of your bullets are connecting.
I think that the .50s are probably modeled correctly. I think what we are seeing is that gunnery skills need to be 5 times better with machine guns than with cannons.
Towd,
No offense but your .22 analogy is incorrect. Aircraft are not made out of ballistic jelley or milk jugs full of water. A more accurate example would be to go shoot at empty beer or coffee cans with the two different rounds. Your case only works if a bullet hits a fuel tank.
Spritle
[This message has been edited by Spritle (edited 03-28-2000).]
-
Jeesh towd. for that entire life there was a vocal group trying to get everything upgraded to cannons. The plane we are comparing it to here was upgraded from 6 * 50 Cal....WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DID THAT...
and with most later non jet aicraft...
I am only an old infanteer so things have to be pretty simple for me.
The initial velocity of the 50 cal is 40fps LESS then the M2 20 mm. You are stating that because of its projectile density and shape it maintains its velocity better..infact it gets HYPER velocity..
This is starting to sound like the dont take my M1911 away debate of years past.
Honestly sounds like nonsense to me.
Ill fly the 51 a little and see how the guns feel. They seem to hurt me plenty when they hit. And they still seem to have better range then the German guns, right or wrong that has been the case since beta.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
verm - no jet fighter is carrying a Vulcan. The only plane (in fighter class) with multibarrel cannon is A10 - a 7 barrel 30mm thing with 600 rpm/barrel. It (the cannon) weighs 2.5 tons (shedload of pounds for those imperial minded) with the ammo load. But then again - A10 IS that cannon with twin turbofans, wings and a titanium bathtab for a cockpit.
When you talk about jets just keep in mind that at 600+ knots an irregular hole in your fuselage may shred the whole thing into pasta just by the sheer power of the airflow...
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
I must say that all the fancy terms we use are mute. It comes down to this:
Both .50s and Cannons can EASILY punture the skin of an aircraft. Once that step is done, it's really just a matter of where the shell hit. What brought planes down the most was, engine failure (fuel lines, oil, or direct damage) or control damage (lines, hinges, etc). In terms of bringing a plane down both rounds are going to do it. The only thing that the cannon has for it in terms of the above (engine or control failure) is that when the round exploded, fragments could damage the surrounding structures turning a near miss into a "fatal" hit.
HOWEVER.
In terms of STRUCTURAL damage (wing falling off), the cannon has a MUCH bigger chance to do such damage. It was STILL UNCOMMON however.
What I'd like to see is structural failure percentages toned down a LOT. That means that wing loss would be toned down to a rare event and only if a LOT of cannon rounds hit the wing in the same spot (not sure how many "sweet" spots there are on the damage model). Fact is, cannon rounds really did control surface damage when impacting a wing (read: flap, aileron failure).
I'm sick and tired of one of two things happening the majority of the time.
1. My wing falling off.
2. Just exploding.
Those two should be the rare deaths.
I won't even get into the damage inflicted on a B-17. It's ridiculous here.
-
Well i guess is time to mess in here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As I said before, I think 50 cals are a little turned down...but only at long ranges.
I've flied P51 a lot this TOD. I love the plane. I've set convergence at 300yds, and usually I fire 2-3 second busts. Under 300-350 Yds I find the 50 cals' feeling OK. U sually not very mortal...but that cuz my shooting sucks!!! but when I get steady pings, I get a kill.
I agree about longer distance hits...but with 300yds convergence I never expect to kill anything beyond 500 yds.
I find the 50 cans OK. Cave, RANGRBOB...when I came here first time, B17 had assasin guns, was kinda "God's death ray"...Now 50 cals are less powerful (IMHO well done), But you still have advantages on aiming and distance firing, and I find that Buffs MGs are OK. You cant expect to go in a mission to a capped field , be attacked by 4 cons and go out alive!!!! Get escort, and go in group...as B17s did in RL.
Now, we've talked about HIspanos...why dont we talk about MG151??...the weapon is FAR less mortal that it should be...It has much less punch that what I find reasonable (in fact a 4-cannon Fw190A-8 in a Ho vs a spitIX is in DISADVANTAGE!)...Thats why I said that I find Hispanos a bit overmodelled...or Mg151 a bit UNDERmodelled. I know that Mauser 20mm was less powerful than Hispano...but 4 20mms MUST SHRED a spit LONG before the Spit kills the Fw190!
BTW can anyone post here some data bout MG131? I thought it was roughly equal to american 50 cals.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 03-28-2000).]
-
The circle is complete.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
No sniveling!
-
Wolvie says:
I'm sick and tired of one of two things happening the majority of the time.
1. My wing falling off.
2. Just exploding.
Dude! You havent flown in AGES!!! Give up your Gamestorm and EverCrack accounts and come fly with us! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-Ding
-
Give up EverCrack...
[ponders that thought]
You're outta your mind. They're about to up the dosage with the expansion man!
I'll join up soon enough. 30 is still a bit steep for me. I'd like to see a few more developments before I make that kind of commitment.
------------------
Wolverine [wlvrn]
www.wlvrn.com (http://www.wlvrn.com)
33rd Strike Group
www.33rd.org (http://www.33rd.org)
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."
[This message has been edited by Wolverine (edited 03-28-2000).]
-
Pyro..
"the circle is complete"
Once more; for the slow pilots (like me).. what does this mean??
Hang
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
verm - no jet fighter is carrying a Vulcan. The only plane (in fighter class) with multibarrel cannon is A10 - a 7 barrel 30mm thing with 600 rpm/barrel. It (the cannon) weighs 2.5 tons (shedload of pounds for those imperial minded) with the ammo load. But then again - A10 IS that cannon with twin turbofans, wings and a titanium bathtab for a cockpit.
When you talk about jets just keep in mind that at 600+ knots an irregular hole in your fuselage may shred the whole thing into pasta just by the sheer power of the airflow...
planes off the top of my head equiped with an m61 vulcan 6 barreled 20mm cannon
f104(the first)
f4e
f16
f18
f15
f22
must be more.
edit
AC130!
AMX?
russians use rotary cannons i beleive as well only with 2 barrels instead of 6.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 03-28-2000).]
-
F14 has Vulcan too...F105 "thud" I believe it had it also (im lacking in this thing cuz is a plane i dont know very well). All versions of F4 Phantom after the "E" had the Vulcan.
Quote by Lynx:
The only plane (in fighter class) with multibarrel cannon is A10
Emm...lynx...A10 is a FIGHTER???? A-10 Thunderbolt is an ATTACK plane designed for anti-armor duties. Its only "fighter" qualities are the provision for AIM9 sidewinders...wich are never loaded BTW...
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 03-28-2000).]
-
would do well here though....give it a LW cam job...
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
lol it aint the guns that need fixin!!!!!
its that range indicator that tells ya exactly how to aim and how much closure you have and distance to the target that is making long range shooting too easy!!
as an experiment set range indicators to disapear past 400yards... the fighting will get much closer since no EFIS GPS Abomination is doing the aiming calculations for you.
its worth a try to "end the sniveling"
oh and icons below the planes
-
Emm...lynx...A10 is a FIGHTER???? A-10 Thunderbolt is an ATTACK plane designed for anti-armor duties. Its only "fighter" qualities are the provision for AIM9 sidewinders...wich are never loaded BTW...
I haven't heard of an a10 getting an A2A kill with a sidewinder, though I know they have with that cannon. But then... the F-111 has an A2A kill with a 2000 lb bomb. If I were flying and had my preference as to what were going to hit my plane... .50 first, 20mm second, 30mm 3rd, 105mm 4th, 2000 lb bomb last.
AKDejaVu
-
RAM Pyro said (in another thread) that the buffs dinnae have any kind of range adjustment. I'd swear HT said in the arena one day that they do, for netlag. While realism is great, this is becoming a gameplay issue. I love the bombers. Check my time spent in them all the way back to beta tour 1 (214CaveJ during beta tours). I quit flying them a week ago because I'm tired of being a target drone. And you try to get a large enough formation for those BB guns to be effect just to capture a field.. won't happen.
Hangtime, I found that one confusing also.
In reading this thread and the one I started on the gameplay feedback board a thought ocurred to me.
What type of ammo is being modeled in the .50s?
We have a ratio of 1:4(?) for tracers. So tracers are here. What are the other 3/4 of the belts I'm carrying?
AP?
HE?
incindiary?
or just plain ball?
-
I believe there was an experiment in putting HE rounds in the .50 but rounds where never produced.
I like to guess at just about anything so my money on pyros post is that he is refering to this line in RAMs post
"I find Hispanos a bit overmodelled...or Mg151 a bit UNDERmodelled"
Having started a post not asking to decrease the Hisp. but to increase the Ma Duece we have started to not only think about toning back the Hisp but maybe improve the 151.
In effect we are asking Pyro to
Make the 50 and the 151(probebly everything else) more deadly.
Make the buff tougher(made redundent by item 1)
Or he could be quoting D. Vader, DLS, JN(ret). And he thinks that one of us is going to challange him for his mastery..
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 03-29-2000).]
-
Spritle, ok you forced me into it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) the table below colates the data from Francillons book, I totaled every Japanese Army plane armed with the HO-5 cannon, and every Japanese Navy plane armed with the Type 99 cannon. Prototypes not included. Plus I was generous on the Ki-44 & Ki-46 since the HO-5 variants weren't broken out in the production totals, so I assumed ALL were HO-5 armed variants.
Results? Like I said the Type 99 Cannon was the most common Japanese Cannon, not the HO-5. Twice as many aircraft were armed with the Type 99, and twice as many Type 99 were mounted totaled. In fact the A6M Zero alone were armed with more Type 99's than the all the rest of the HO-5 armed Army aircraft together.
(http://web.mountain.net/~arringto/ah/j-cannon.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Verm,
I believe if you read my second or third post it clearly says that I should have said "Army Airforce cannon".
Spritle
-
About Mg151 and "circles" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Yes,Pyro I understand we are all a bunch on whiners...But if I talk about Mg151 is because something. Its a matter of feeling, I feel that a 4-cannon F4U1-C (oops (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) has WAY more punch than a fw190A-8 in snapshots. Well I know Hispanos were better than Mg151s...but German 20mm rounds were HIGHLY damaging, too. It is fun to see how in a straight HO, A Spitfire has nearly the punch of a Fw190. Either Hispanos are too powerful, or Mg151 are too few.
Of course, again is a matter of feeling. I used to drive Corsairs a lot when I started here, and I knew that a Snapshot with it was instant death for the enemy. When I changed to 190 with 4 151s on board I expected same puch...and I was very surprised when I saw the difference.
Of course, If Pyro says they are well modelled, then I must believe him. The problem is that he has said nothing about it. So far he has said few about 50 cals matter...so I guess he wont say much about German 20mms too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). But as the FM is so realistic I dont see why weapons aren't going to be well modelled, too.
It was more a question than a whine, Pyro. It would be really nice from u to give us some tips about the damage done by the different weapons here in AH, because right now we are playing with the "feeling", Statistics, history and so. So we are relatively "blind"
CavemanJ: I agree with the B17 being killed easily compared with WWII...B17s were TOUGH!...but if you want that toughness,then the defensive weapons MUST be turned down on accuracy...50 cals may be not as powerful as they were ,but still seems there is an EEGS system on the gunner's turrets!!!
(as in WWII bombers didnt kill 4 fighters per sortie!!!). Right now is REALLY difficult to make a buff go down before the fighter goes down too, if they are made tougher, then they will be impossible to kill.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 03-29-2000).]
-
Ok Spritle you said
According to "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by Rene J Francillon ISBN 0-87021-313-X the rate of fire for the Ho-5 Type 1 20mm Cannon was 850 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 2,460 feet per second. This cannon was the most widely used version in Japanese aircraft.
I responded this Spritle, where in Francillons book does it say the HO-5 was the most common Japanese 20mm cannon? Cause I have it sitting on my lap. The HO-5, while a spectacular performer, was the late war cannon used by the Japanese Army, who had earlier used the the HO-3, and then a few shipments of German MG151's. Actually the most common Japanese 20mm cannon was the Japanese Navy's Type 99, relatively a very poor cannon in most versions.
And then you replied I should have clarified that the Ho-5 was the Army Airforce weapon. You are however incorrect about the quantity. No single place in the book states that the Ho-5 was the most widely used. You actually have to read the entire book. Just look at the armament for each aircraft and the breakdown of which variants carried what weapons. It's pretty easy to see that the Ho-5 was the most common on Army Airforce aircraft
Yes at one point you say "Army cannon" but then you turn around and tell me that I was incorrect about the quantity and that I needed to read the entire book.
So I did and posted the results for you. Simple enough.
Enough with this tit for tat, I'm done.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Verm,
This is what my quantity statement was referring too. I haven't figure out how to do the little quote jobbie so this is as good as it's going to get.
You said: "Spritle, where in Francillons book does it say the HO-5 was the most common Japanese 20mm cannon? Cause I have it sitting on my lap. The HO-5, while a spectacular performer, was the late war cannon used by the Japanese Army, who had earlier used the the HO-3, and then a few shipments of German MG151's."
I was responding that the Ho-5 was in fact more widely used than the Ho-3 and the Mg151.
That is all. Also I wasn't Implying that you hadn't read the entire book I was just stating that there wasn't a single reference stating weapon quantities, but rather this information was gleaned throughout the text.
Spritle
-
oh and icons below the planes
HiTech answered this one some time back-it`s a limitation in the game engine and isn`t possible to implement.
the circle is complete
I could be wrong here but I think it`s in regards to the LW guns posting by RAM,this thread began as a comparison between the .50 caliber and F4U1C cannon,then the LW cannon comparison completes the circle of gripes.
-
Hunh.
Oh well. I guess we are all just whining. We must avoid this; and accept what we have; without comment, historical precedent, statictics or other outside influence and take as gospel the word of the developer on this subject.
"the circle is complete"
Hang
No Sniveling
-
I just meant that a lot of issues go in circles. "And our demands will all be different tomorrow." (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
Pierre brings over a bottle to Lugs table, and presents it for his inspection.
"Chateau HTC Chardonnay, 2000 vintage...Sir."
Lug motions with a wave of his hand and a slight nod and Pierre deftly removes the cork.
Sniff... Sniff....
Fruity, with an obtuse offtopic aroma.
Pierre wraps the white cloth on his arm around the bottle and quickly pours a snootful for the taste test.
as he pours, Pierre offers, "I hear it goes quite well with our Wildebeest tenderloins, with Brussel Sprouts au Grautin"
Hmmm. Tasted just like that pungent ICI Bordeaux 1997 that gave him a nasty hangover.
Lug swished the acrid mixture around in his mouth for a moment before offering it back into the bucket the wine was tendered in with a loud "Pbbbbt"; an elderly matron at the next table glared at Lug with a menacingly raised eyebrow at his tactless display.
"I should well imagine that it might be a fine complement to the Wildebeest. In the meantime Pierre, bring us an oilcan of Fosters and a good medium rare boneless Ribeye and be done with it."
"Very well sir".
"Oh...and Pierre?
"Yes, sir?
Lug pointed his butter knife at the ever patient waiter and said, "Mushrooms, gimme f*ckin pleenntty of mushrooms on top, got it?"
"Very good sir", and he spun on his heel and sped into the kitchen.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
ex-lug
[This message has been edited by Lugnut (edited 03-30-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lugnut (edited 03-30-2000).]
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002450.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002450.html)
this thread has avi guncam footage of all the weapons being complained about here.
however since no range icons are above the planes i cant tell you what range they are firing at.
hint hint (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
range icons suck (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
CitabriAirbatiC
"There Is No Spoon"
-
Originally posted by RAM:
BTW can anyone post here some data bout MG131? I thought it was roughly equal to american 50 cals.
Some data about guns and machineguns:
Mk 103 (30mm)
ROF: 420 rpm Muzzle vel: 2580 fps
RW: 330 grams.
Mk 108 (30mm)
ROF: 600 rpm Muzzle vel: 1515 fps
RW: 312 grams.
Mg151/20 (20mm)
ROF: 750 rpm Muzzle vel: 2400 fps.
RWeigh: 92 grams
Mg151/15 (15mm)
ROF: 700 rpm Muzzle vel: 2800 fps.
RW: 57 grams
Mg 131 (13mm)
ROF: 900 rpm Muzzle vel: 2460 fps.
RW: 34.6 grams
Browning M2 .50 (12.7 mm)
ROF: 750 rpm Muzzle vel: 2610 fps
RW: 48.5 grams.
Hispano Mk II (20mm)
ROF: 600 rpm Muzzle vel: 2640 fps
RW: 130 grams.
ShVAK (20 mm)
ROF: 750-800 rpm Muzzle vel: 2580 fps
RW: 96 grams.
Ho-5 (20 mm)
ROF: 850 rpm Muzzle vel: 2460 fps
RW: 99 grams.
A side note:
British and americans manufactured hispanos separately. British-made seemed to be reliable, but the USN had frequent complaints about the unreliability of the feed mechanisms in the american-made version (M1 & M2).
-
Originally posted by RAM:
4-cannon F4U1-C (oops (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) has WAY more punch than a fw190A-8 in snapshots. Well I know Hispanos were better than Mg151s...but German 20mm rounds were HIGHLY damaging, too.
Most of the times hispanos were using normal AP ammo, very late in war they start to use a mixture of HE/I and SAP/I. In the other hand, most of Mg151/20 were using a mixture of HE/I, AP and AP/EI. So, during most part of the war, Mg151/20 was far deadlier than hispanos. Germans had to face bombers while allies only fighers, AP ammo is just enough for fighters but poor against bombers. One or two pings of Mg151/20 AP/EI or HE/I bullets were enough to kill any fighter.
IMO It seems that only AP ammo is modeled in AH.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
NOTE: This is NOT a post about the -1C, and please don't corrupt the thread.
...My point is that right now the cannons are way too powerful in comparison to machine guns, and its disrupting gameplay...
Two times as powerful, I can understand. Three times as powerful I think is pushing the realistic envelope.
But a single 20mm cannon being 5.2 times as effective as a single .50 cal MG, is definitely out of wack.
I think Verm has spoken far better than I could on this subject. And... He didn't cuss at all. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Seriously though, someones bound to argue the ROF thing and to that I say this...
If 4 canons do FOUR to FIVE times the damage of 6 fifties in the same ammount of time... Same one second burst... Then Verm has hit the nail on the head all the way around in his discourse.
I and many others have been sceaming about receiving those "ONE PING KILLS" from canon dweebs. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif)
Maybe HTC should have Verm look into the data for a "fresh" perspective? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Tern
"Live to Fly! Fly to Fight! Fight to Live!"
-
Visual Aid posted by Pyro. Scroll down a ways. Note relative size of Hispano and MG 151/20 rounds. Remember that Hispano barrel is way longer than MG 151/20 barrel. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002456.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002456.html)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-31-2000).]
-
If I was shooting at tanks I would definatly want the hisp. But what does that gain you vs aircraft? The extra weight of the hisp shell and its bit better velocity are made up for the higher rate of fire and better fuzing on the 151....There was no big distinction between them made during ww2. if they where as different as they are here you would read about it all the time.
Instead the overwhelming flavour you get from reading accounts from the time is parity. The Brits felt they had achieved parity with the germans as regards firepower.
They could never have had that impression with the guns we have here.
The germans captured the factories that made the initial hisp cannons in 1940. and the factories that made their ammo. They would have had to be pretty stupid not to use it on their aircraft, if the disparity was anywhere near what it is here. All those years of development wasted...they had it all the time. The perfect anti bomber, anti tank, anti everything weapon.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Originally posted by Wraith:
What do modern jets carry today? ONE 20MM or 30MM cannon..only ONE. And they get kills in one burst..
...
[This message has been edited by Wraith (edited 03-27-2000).]
You dope! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/mad.gif) F-16's carry a damn gattling cannon, spitting out 3000 rounds a minute at very high velocities.
You seen very many WW2 fighters carry 3000 rounds of 20mm?
Also... The F-16 uses depleted uranium core shells in those 20mm's!
Also... the first damn plane to carry the 20mm gatling was the F-104!
Also... The .50 calibre is much SLOWER than todays cannons.
Also... I am sick of all you idoit cannon dweebs trashing the 50 calibre round.
------------------
Tern
"Live to Fly! Fly to Fight! Fight to Live!"
-
Also... The F-16 uses depleted uranium core shells in those 20mm's!
Are you sure about this? I'll have to do some checking. The only plane I know that was carrying this was the A-10 in its 30mm cannon.
I suppose that since the F-16 was supposed to take over its tank busting role, they may have looked at depleted uranium bullets for the 16... but I doubt it was ever considered for A2A armament.
AKDejaVu
-
Just did some checking. Found a rather nice source on this:
F-16 M61A1 (http://www.f-16.net/reference/armament/m61a1.html)
Doesn't seem that Depleted uranium was used. It would, however, seem that the millitary would have looked at it at some point. I just can't imagine they'd not experiment with increasing the F-16's role and possibly eliminating the need for the A-10 (something the AF has been trying to do for some time). I think that after Iraq, the A-10 may have proven itself to be just too exceptional at what it does to be replaced by a multi-role fighter.
AKDejaVu
-
Tern,
Most of the fighters carry 1000 or 1200 rounds I think.
Also isn't the rate of fire 6000 rpm for aircraft installations? Or do they have selectable fire.
My father commanded a US Army AAA platoon around 1970 and they used an M-113 chassis with a Vulcan and radar. He says their weapons were 3000 rpm but the airplanes were 6000 rpm. Dunno if he's right, but he's fired the gun extensively and field stripped it, etc. We still have the manuals and some ammo around the house somewhere... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Pongo, the Hispano fired a heavier round at a higher velocity than the MG 151/20. Both the muzzle velocity and the mass difference are significant enough to explain the differences we see here in the sim.
Muzzle kinetic energy is about 75% greater for the Hispano. Furthermore the higher ratio of mass to cross-sectional area (and thus drag because the projectile shapes are similar) gives the Hispano round better downrange performance. The Hispano round starts with nearly twice the kinetic energy of a MG 151/20 round and it will retain this energy at longer ranges than the MG 151.
Pyro's picture is a good visual aid - the case and projectile of the Hispano round are significantly larger. Also if you have ever seen the two guns next to eachother on a rack, the Hispano is a monster with a much longer barrel.
In comparing both the guns and the ammo, it's like comparing an M-1 Garand to an M-1 Carbine. I'm suprised somebody with as much firearms experience as yourself doesn't see this.
The only things going for the MG 151/20 in this comparison are the compact size, and the reliability imparted by the electric firing system. Also I have read good things about the ammo feed systems used in MG 151/20 installations.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-31-2000).]
-
You needent be suprised, I am not burdend by an extensive education so I get to pretty much go by gut feel.
Like I said before. If I was hunting tanks I or straffing lighters I would definatly want the hisp. In ACM the penetration advatage that that kinetic energy gives you is wasted. Much of the long range trajectory advantage it gives you is wasted as well. The system is only as accurate as its weakest system, and given weather, lighting, recoil, manufacturing imperfections gunnery at the ranges that would take advantage of that extra velocity would be imposible with ww2 systems against fighter sized targets.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
Pongo I probably shouldn't have put your name at the front of my last post.
Your last statement makes sense. I agree on all points.
I forgot rate of fire in my post - only the later Hispano models (Mark V?) could match the ROF of an unsynchronized MG 151/20.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-01-2000).]
-
I guess I think that HTC has the numbers for the M2 and the 151 exactly right. But is there a chance that their algorithm for resolving gunfire unrealisticaly inflates the effect of those numbers..
Only they can decide.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
last night I shot up a spit at the merge. He just smoked. OK. Im use to the rubber bullits at this point. I put the 1c into a dive figuring if I cant kill him the ack will. He follows. at 2k i start turning in the ack. he follows. Im watching him get pinged the whole time. When im two slow to keep the plane up. I level, and start flyingback and fort through the ack 2 more times. Spit is following me the whole time. Than in frustration i ditch to see what happens. The spit ditch,s. BTW he sprayed me at least 5 times. I have no damage.
These real world ballistic,s mean next to nothing, in a world where connection seems to be everything.