Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Voss on August 16, 2002, 01:19:43 AM
-
From a discusion about the M2 modeled in FA3:
One factor that has tended to cause the under-modeling of the .50 has been the 750 rpm rate of fire information, which lists the minimum rate of fire. For all other guns except the MK108 (which still fires well above it's actual performance) the maximums are listed in the Gun Debate/Airborne Guns sites. In fact the lightweight (aircraft) Browning .50 M2 rate of fire was adjustable from 750-850 rpm. In the P-47 this was set at the factory to 750 rpm (since it had 8 guns they figured it didn't need the higher RoF), in all other installations (that I have found records of) it was set to 800 rpm. Once deployed these guns were virtually always cranked up to the maximum 850 rpm rate of fire for aerial combat (for ground attack, later in the war, the P-47's were set at 750 to give longer allowable burst and total time of fire). Not only this but field modification, involving the replacement of a fibrous disk used as a backstop/kickplate with a nickel, raised the rate of fire to over 1000 rpm, though this was discouraged late in the war since most targets were ground targets and this did cause decreased gun and significantly decreased barrel life. This modification was common in P-51B/C's and D's outfitted with 4 rather than 6 guns, right to the end of the war.
HTC, could you tell us what the ROF is for the planes equipped with the M2? It sure looks like the 51B and D should be turned up to 1000(?)rpm. Just wondering what it is now. :D
-
Damn, thats kinda interesting. I agree that the ROF should be turned up on the .50 planes if it was done on a lot of em during the war.
One other thing, how the Mk108 over-modelled?
-
Here, just check out Lunatic's site. Maybe you can check the validaty of his efforts, too, if you want.
http://www.rovingguns.com/lunatic/wwII_gun_analysis/
-
That is an awesome site! thanks for that link. I'm not going to look over it in great detail right now, but I will later. Seems really interesting.
-
I like this part:
The first thing that stands out is the superior velocity of the .50 M2 round, making it significantly easier to score with. Only the Hispano is in the same velocity class, and it has a substantially lower rate of fire. Surprisingly, the projectile mass/frontal area figure (g/mm2) figure indicates the .50 should hold its velocity better than any of the 20mm cannon except the Hispano. Because of the velocity and mass/area figures along with the rate of fire it is clear the .50 is the more effective weapon at longer ranges.
Clearly two .50 hits are more damaging than a single hit by any of the 20mm's listed, except the Hispano. Even when compared to the Hispano, damage from two .50 hits will probably be more significant, since there is twice the probability a critical component will be hit. A .50 caliber API round is easily capable of penetrating armor up to at least 19mm of face hardened plate (which only the USA and maybe GB used in aircraft) at 100 meters.
-
I guess it would depend on what sort of cannon round you were talking about. I'm pretty new to gun stuff, so I'll probably sound like a fool here, but -
1. If it was a AP Hispano round, wouldn't it be easier to punch through the armor with? It is a bigger round that a .50 and it has high muzzle velocity too.
2. If it was a HE Hispano round, I thought HE rounds made big old rips and tears in stuff that they hit (well, when they blow up anyway), so they'd be far more damaging than just bullet size and muzzle velocity would indicate. Also, I think this would mean that the other 20mm cannons get 'short-changed' in their 'rated' damage compared to the .50 caliber, if all you take into account is projectile size and muzzle velocity.
I guess the .50 could be considered superior in that :
-it is lighter, so you can put more of them on the airplane
-it has a higher ROF, so there is more lead in the air, thus a greater chance of bullets hitting
-it loses energy less quickly than the larger and less effecient (drag-wise) cannon round, so it'd be easier to hit with.
Just for pure 'damage-causing' I think I'd take cannon though.
-
If they model a gun jam, you will get it easily.
-
"A .50 caliber API round is easily capable of penetrating armor up to at least 19mm of face hardened plate (which only the USA and maybe GB used in aircraft) at 100 meters."
Part of this statement is totally incorrect.
1. Germany used face hardened armor plate to protect aircraft, as did the Soviet Union.
2. The best quality face hardened armor plate for almost the entire duration of the war was produced by Germany (in terms of average BHN ratings). In contrast, U.S. armor plate was rife with defects before 1943. The Soviet Union had a lower # of defects in their plate, but their defect % remained roughly the same for the entire war.
3. 19mm penetration is NOT vs. face hardened plate (if it was, there would be a BHN rating listed...otherwise what's the point of the test and the data?), and it's using a ground mounted .50 BMG (with a longer and heavier barrel, and thus a higher velocity), as opposed to the .50 BMG carried by aircraft.
4. HE and HEI were the best ways to kill aircraft. .50 AP based round has great velocity, and the penetration is good - until the round passes thru the rear fuselage of the aircraft, at which point it's trajectory is altered and you lose penetration performance. It is very rare to get a 100% clean and perfect penetrating impact vs. armor plate in an aircraft when your rounds have to pass thru other material.
"Clearly two .50 hits are more damaging than a single hit by any of the 20mm's listed, except the Hispano."
More untrained thinking. This is the equivalent (for penetration purposes) to saying that a U.S. 75L38 MA (used by the Sherman) can do more damage to a target with 2 AP rounds than a Pz V can with a 75L70 MA.
You either penetrate armor with your round, or you don't. Hitting a face hardened armor plate with 30 .50 BMG API rounds that can *almost* penetrate it is not as good as hitting it with a 2cm API round that can penetrate it. 2 .50 BMG API rounds can't 'combine wonder twin penetration powers' to stack and penetrate a face hardened plate. The mere fact that this guy talks about 'damage values' makes me worry. NACA engineers weren't conducting studies in 1943 to see how many '.50 damage points' it took to knock down a Fw 190.
But the penetration debate was proven moot by 1944, at which point most combatants realized that the most likely way to knock a combat aircraft down was to set it on fire and/or damage it to the point that it can't fly anymore. A pilot is much better off having 6 .50 inch holes in his wing (one or two hitting a self sealing tank that seals said holes) as compared to having 2 2cm HEI or APHE rounds hitting the same wing. HEI and APHE is going to explode and damage surrounding areas near the impact. And HEI and APHE rounds wrecked self-sealing fuel tanks with 1 hit - they blew holes that were too big for the bladder to seal over.
This whole website smacks of a guy who is pissed that .50 BMG isn't the wonder weapon he wants it to be in FA.
Hooligan put it best in terms of .50 BMGs. Lots of fast rounds that are easier to hit with and more rounds on target to score critical hits with. That summation doesn't do his writeup(s) justice really -do a search for his postings to see what I mean.
The USAAF/USMC/USN used .50 BMGs because they already had a zillion of them deployed on aircraft, and they didn't have to knock down heavy bombers, and half of their enemies in the air didn't have the protection to stand up against .50 BMG API rounds (read: most pre 1944 IJA/IJN combat aircraft). If that's your situation, why spend the $$$ and time to rearm your aircraft with cannon? The U.S.A. neglected to rearm in cases where existing armament was totally inadequate (AFVs in Europe). There's no way the U.S.A. was going to rearm when existing armament was adequate.
Mike/wulfie
-
wulfie, wow, well said m8t.
I was speaking with a weapons expert at the Oregon military museum on this very subject a few months ago, I posed the question why did the US stay with the 50 cal for the gun arament and not go with more Hispanos, and up grade to cannons like all the other Nation's in the war were doing. His response was that the Hispanons were not well receaved by the US in fact they were disliked do to unreliablity issues, aparently they jamed alot. On the subject of the 50 cal he prety much said verbatium what wulfie said above, in fact in Korea the US realised it neaded to get away from the 50 cal aircraft gun since it was not cuting the mustard anymore. Esecentialy the US faught a war of attrition, and mass production was the biggest weapon we had, changing horses mid stream was somthing we wanted to avoid.
The HEI/AP debate has been going on for quiet some time, and the case for the HEI seams a bit stronger to me, and generaly from a design aspect the lighter weapons and ammo associated with the Japanese, German, Italian, and Russian aircraft arament of the later war make more sence. The Browning 50 cal and it's ammo are very heavy, A MG 131 is very light by comparison, I have picked a MG 131 up easly with one hand, while the 50 cal is a real gut buster. The apparent reasoning behind this lighter German gun was the obvious advantage to a light weapon in a plane, and the fact that most all aircombat takes place at ranges less than 500 yards, so why have a weapon that can go that distance and pay the price for it, in terms of weight. Even the Japanese coppies of the 50 cal Browning were lightened considerably, a H0-5 20mm cannon weighs less than a US 50 cal and it is a coppy of that gun.
-
What Wulfie said !
While the .50 HMG is obviously the best of its class, and an excellent weapon, many of the points that were made are erroneous.
The US Navy towards the end of the war saw the need to convert to cannons, and were begining to convert over. Two points of evidence are the cannons mounted on the Helldiver, and the transition to cannons on the F4U-1C and the F4U-4B. They also stressed this point at the Fighter Conference in 1944, and considered it essential to future fighter design. However the war ended before the transition could become wholesale.
-
I agree with what Verm Johnson said about what Wulfie Johnson said!
-
Wulfie, just follow his references.
The point is there wasn't much on enemy aircraft that an M2 .50cal couldn't punch a hole through, and the higher rate of fire could really help in reducing the number of passes required to cut down a Hellcat (for instance).
Stay on topic.:cool:
-
Voss,
His point(s) are incorrect - that's what I'm saying:
"The point is there wasn't much on enemy aircraft that an M2 .50cal couldn't punch a hole through..."
From one of his own sources...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ar.html
...which he apparently didn't take the time to read thoroughly or he just quoted the parts that supported his argument and ignored the parts that didn't work for him:
"The Spitfire F Mk.21, a late war model, was considered protected against German 20mm AP rounds in a 20 degrees cone from the rear, and against 13 mm rounds from the front. The US Navy expected fighters to carry armour able to stop a .50 rounds at 200 yards. Early in the war the relatively slow projectiles of the Type 99-1 cannon were often stopped by the armour of the F4F. Protection against US .50 rounds was the required standard for German fighters. Indeed it would not have made much sense for most German aircraft to carry armour that would not stop the .50 at combat distances, for this was the standard weapon of the USAAF, the enemy that was most often met in daylight combat."
The whole point here - anything really critical is going to have some armor protection by 1944. The Fw 190D-9 and post 1942 Fw 190As even had armored cowl rings to cover vs. frontal MG hits in a ~20 degree total arc.
Going back a little, regarding his comment about 'only U.S. and (maybe) British aircraft using FH armor plate for protection' (gee, think the guy flies mainly U.S. and British aircraft in FA?)(URL for this quote same as listed above):
"How effective was the armour? It's thickness varied from 8 mm to about 13 mm. The armour was certainly effective against rifle-calibre machineguns, but these weapons were increasingly replaced by far more powerful medium-calibre machineguns or by cannon. The American .50 AP M2 round, a projectile with a high muzzle velocity, was expected to penetrate 1 inch (24.5 mm) at 100 yards (91 mm) and the AP-I M8 round still 7/8 inch. However, such armour penetration figures are traditionally measured against a homogeneous "standard" plate, while the armour plate fitted to aircraft would be face-hardened plate of good quality, to achieve maximal protection for minimal weight. Also important was that before it could hit the armour, the projectile had to pass through the aircraft skin and maybe structural members, which would deflect it or slow it down and was likely to cause tumbling, which would considerable reduce armour penetration. In this way relatively thin plates could greatly increase the protection. Equipment in the aft fuselage could be carefully arrange so that the bullet would have to pass it first, before it could hit the pilot. Finally, typical firing distances were of the order of 300 yards. Most airforces seem to have felt that the armour of their fighters offered substantial protection against .50 and even 20 mm rounds."
Even if he's trying to prove an (unbiased) point about how .50 BMG should be more effective vs. U.S. aircraft in FA, he never gives us any FA gun data. If he doesn't like the fact that the .50 BMG isn't super effective vs. an F6F for example, he's going to have to play 'X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter' if he can't handle it. Of all the fighter aircraft in WW2, USN aircraft are going to be able to handle .50 BMG fire better than anything else. Sturdier construction head to toe, tougher material all over including the skin of the wings and fuselage. An F6F *should* be able to absorb a large volume of .50 BMG API hits, barring a critical hit (which with the F6F, being radial engined, your only real critical hit is going to be to penetrate the pilot's protection and kill or incap him).
Don't get me wrong here - unless you've wasted a fair amount of time researching stuff like this when you come across a page like that it looks pretty damn convincing. But that's the danger of the internet when it comes to research: *anyone* can put up a detailed looking web page to support his own agenda.
Also, don't get me wrong about .50 BMGs - they are great guns. But some people can't get their head/ego/errant version of history around the fact that one mid-late war 2cm HEI or APHE or APHEI (mid-late war is when you started to see high pressure explosive warheads made to break spars and support with near hits, and use casing fragmentation to damage nearby fragile components, as opposed to early war 'big charge but non-optimized effect' MG FF Minengeschoß rounds) has a much better chance of bringing down an aircraft than 4 or more .50 BMG API hits. the .50 BMG API hits *need* to score a critical hit. Good HE based cannon rounds *create* their own critical hits.
In fighter vs. fighter combat, it can 'wash' sometimes. Put 50+ close range .50 BMG API hits on a fighter: the fighter is so small and so tightly packed with important stuff that you are almost guranteed a critical hit or three. But when it comes to snap shots and limited time on target (more and more common late in WW2 when your fighters were all becoming much faster, so the average exposure to a burst with anything but a tracking shot was becoming lower) a good cannon round has a far better chance of scoring/creating a fatal hit with 1 or 2 hits.
If a F6F engine took 4 .50 BMG API rounds you are going to lose a cylinder or two, start leaking oil, your 'critical hit' would be causing a fuel fire (not likely). Time to head back to the CV.
Take 1 2cm APHE hit and there's a chance the engine is wrecked if the round detonantes near the center of the engine. Also a chance of fragment damage to the cockpit and pilot. Etc., etc., etc.
Me, I'd say don't get hit by anything... 8)
Mike/wulfie
-
ty for your input wulfie, what is your opinion on the initial point Voss brought up about the typical ROF for .50 armed US birds in combat? I think this is the most interesting point of the website and I am curious what the ROF is here in AH.
-
Don't forget the buff gunners 50's in this too :) If you want to crank some of em up, ya gotta do em all :p
How about this: After seeing this "field adjustable ROF stuff -make rate of fire adjustable in the game like convergence.
-
I saw a P51 pilot on "Wings" say that the guns on his aircraft fired at 950 rounds per minute.
-
Originally posted by Turbot
Don't forget the buff gunners 50's in this too :) If you want to crank some of em up, ya gotta do em all :p
How about this: After seeing this "field adjustable ROF stuff -make rate of fire adjustable in the game like convergence.
My dad (B24 nose gunner) told me they took out the buffer discs and replaced them with quarters (not nickels as said in the first quote) to increase ROF. Virtually all the gunning he did was deflection shooting, and he wanted as much lead in the air as possible.
Of course buffs carried a fair amount of ammo for those guns, too. You didn't want to spray and pray, though.
The Navigator (who "couldn't find his prettythang with both hands") had to fire his guns once during training, so dad told him short, controlled bursts. Tard hald the trigger down. They're flying over populated areas outside LA after the training run with rounds cooking off in the chamber. Nav says "You'd better take care of that" and walks away.
Must have been a West Point grad :p
-
If the ROF was adjusted in real life based on the pilot's wishes, I'd say model it. If it was done in real life most of the time I want it available in AH (being able to remove the outer wing cannon on Fw 190As is a good example of this). By 'most of the time' - certain things that had no effect on A2A or A2G combat...I don't really care about. AH is after all part air *combat* simulation.
There has to be some WW2 armorers from US fighter squadrons still around. I don't doubt the HTC guys would check with such sources before it was put into AH. Gun reliability should be added as well - when you have a blowback driven gun like the .50 Browning increasing the ROF will increase the chance of a stoppage.
I'd also like to see the ability to configure ammunition loadouts - pick 1 of say 5 historically used loadouts.
It's a cool thing, but from play AH for a couple of years on and off and WB for a long time I can gurantee there's a big 'to-do' list with higher priority items on it that HTC is whacking away at. If it was done in real life I think we'll see it *eventually*.
Mike/wulfie
-
makes no sense to increase rof in ah.
They kill thing effectively out to 1.2k
all you will do is waste more ammo spray and praying.
Every 50 cal armed plane I see holds his trigger down like hes trying to put out a fire. look at the typical hit % of the average 50 cal pilot.
Its not like 50 cal guys are in knife fights where a millisecond snap shot will win it for him.
They are usually at d800 holding the trigger :)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Its not like 50 cal guys are in knife fights where a millisecond snap shot will win it for him.
They are usually at d800 holding the trigger :)
Okay, just for grins, since VMF-323 pilots (these 3 in particular below) fly .50 cal planes primarily, we'll compare them to Wotan, who flies LW iron (with cannon) primarily:
Ripsnort 8.36%
Swoop 16.67%
Cavalear 8.64%
Wotan 7.39%
So much for that "Spray and pray" theory.:rolleyes:
-
Puck:11.14%
FM2 and F6F
I'm a miserable pilot, too. Rip, Swoop, Cav, and Wotan are all significantly better.
-
They kill thing effectively out to 1.2k
If you're talking about .50 cal fighters, I'd like you to produce film of some 1.2k kills in the MA.
Got film?
Wab
-
I had an LA7 out to about 800 running away and was able to put enough pings on to get him to turn. I doubt there was any damage, but once he started turning my FM2 was able to cut off a wing.
It would have been interesting to know how far back I looked to him when he got pinged. Could very well have been 1.2 from his seat.
I consider it unlikely those long range pings did anything but add ventilation holes, and the driver must not have known he was flying a UFO.
-
Our M2 .50 MG's fire at 800rpm. It's identical among the p51, f6f, fm2, and p47. (This from actual in-game testing 5 minutes ago)
-
Originally posted by Puck
I had an LA7 out to about 800 running away and was able to put enough pings on to get him to turn. I doubt there was any damage, but once he started turning my FM2 was able to cut off a wing.
It would have been interesting to know how far back I looked to him when he got pinged. Could very well have been 1.2 from his seat.
I consider it unlikely those long range pings did anything but add ventilation holes, and the driver must not have known he was flying a UFO.
Nice hit percentage up above puck!
Re: Range. I've been out D1.0 and gotten pinged by .50's but no damage done, HT posted in a thread some months ago about the lethality drop off at long distance...so, whiles its very possible to ping someone out at D1.0 (and D1.20 if your lucky), the damage is nil.
-
I had an LA7 out to about 800 running away and was able to put enough pings on to get him to turn. I doubt there was any damage, but once he started turning my FM2 was able to cut off a wing.
How far were you when you sawed off the wing?
If you were plinking him at 800 and he started to turn, then I'd guess he might be at 600 by the time you sawed his wing.
Thats a far cry from being able to effectively KILL out to 1.2k.
Regards,
Wab
-
300. Convergence range on my guns. One of those "millisecond" snapsots us 50cal drivers don't ever take :D
He reversed to fight an FM2 (and I think someone had a P51 behind me also chasing). Turn fighting an FM2 isn't always a good idea.
FM2 may not be able to outrun a Panzer, but it turns nicely.
-
Gunnery % at present isn't a true stand alone indicator of shooting accuracy.
Ripsnort: 5 of 22 kills vs. GV (where your % of hits is going to be very very high as compared to shooting at another fighter).
Swoop: 18 of 109 kills vs. GV.
Cavalear: 37 of 113 kills vs. GV.
Now mind you I think all of you are good 'sticks'. I've seen Cavalear really frustrate 2 or 3 enemies while alone in the F6F. And no doubt some of those GV kills were scored with bombs and/or rockets, etc. (even with other GV).
But with .50s against a GV you are firing more rounds and scoring more hits.
In short - gunnery % won't show if you guys are firing shorter and more well aimed bursts than Wotan for example.
I'm also fairly certain that KE dropoff is well modeled. If you are hitting an aircraft with a few .50 BMG rounds at 1100 yards in AH you aren't doing as much damage as if you were hitting him at 150 yards.
When flying aircraft with wing mounted .50 BMG, I like to set the conv. between 175 and 225 in pairs. Then you really buzzsaw guys as they float across your gunsight in snapshot/rolling scissors/etc. situations.
Mike/wulfie
-
SO wulfie, then we agree, Wotans "Blanket" statement is incorrect. Better pilots will take their time and get within range, whether they fly a FW190 or a P51. The rookies will spray and pray regardless of what aircraft they're in.
I know for a fact NOT to pull the trigger on a FW190 outside of D500, but I *will* pull the trigger while flying a P51D at D800 since I know the .50 cal has a straighter projectory than the 20mm cannon.
-
typical hit % of the average 50 cal pilot.
nice list of average pilots their rip :rolleyes:
Everyone knows I suck so using me as a test case is pointless.
Ask anyone in ah who the spray and prayers are. 50 cal armed planes. Its comical at most times. If you want then to have an rof of 1000rpm minute go for it they will just run out faster
They will fire anywhere from d800 to d1.2k
Effectively doesnt mean proficiently.
Effectively means scoring hits and ripping of major parts.
Folks have posted films of long range 50 cal snipers. This tour I havent gotten killed by many 50 cal planes but I film my sorties so when it happens I ll post it.
i been flying a ki-61 whos cannon rof are a bit high for me I waste about 20 rounds more then I need per kill.
also it seems ya missed the smiley there rip, even though you quoted it.
-
Still doesn't explain me, Wotan. The only thing I can hit consistantly is the ground :)
*I* think the only difference between S&P in the MG and cannon armed aircraft is how much you notice it. I get a lot of S&P from everything; but with the 50s the tracers last longer. IMHO the reputation for the 50 armed planes being more likely to do so is undeserved. Also IMHO I don't think it really matters all that much.
50s fly a whole lot flatter than cannon rounds, so if someone is sniping you they're more likely to hit with a 50. If you fly straight I can hit you at D1000 with a 50 cal. I haven't fired enough cannon rounds to know where to aim them to hit at that range. On mixed gun AC I'll fire the MGs until I can see what brand your shorts are, then I'll bring the cannon in. I can't hit jack at range with the cannon of a mixed set.
In any event, at D1000 I don't think I've ever damaged anything. The best I can hope for is an inexperienced pilot that will come back and mix it up. Sometimes that works out badly for Puck. I'm lousy.
-
Effectively means scoring hits and ripping of major parts.
Actually you said KILLS effectively out to 1.2k.
Yet you can produce no film of your own nor anyone elses to support such grossly exagerated claims of kills at greater than 1.0k distance in a .50 cal fighter in the MA enviroment.
I bet you'd be very hard pressed to find film of a kill past 700.
Folks have posted films of long range 50 cal snipers.
I remember it differently. I remember people "claiming" it was happening and HT challenge anyone to post film of a MA kill past 1.0k and no one ever did.
Its possible perhaps, but would be an extremely rare occurance.
I could be wrong.
Wab
-
I've been killed out to 900 a couple times by .50s, I'll have to check and see if I have films. I think it was either Tac or Lazer that killed me in a a Ta-152 (he was in a P-38) - it read 900 something on my end, but it may have been closer on their end.
Also wulfie, if you fire at GVs while you are in FIGHTER mode, that HURTS your hit%, not helps it. I should know, I strafe M3s all the time on base defense (and LVTs lol, I probably wasted 1000 rounds trying to kill a LVT in a Hurricane I).
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
I remember it differently. I remember people "claiming" it was happening and HT challenge anyone to post film of a MA kill past 1.0k and no one ever did.
Its possible perhaps, but would be an extremely rare occurance.
It happens, not often, but it does. Though, it never happens to a plane that wasn't engaged. What happens is that said target got himself shot up badly, but not enough for something to fall off. Target then flies perfectly straight and level 1000yards out, thinking he's safe now. Attacker fires a well aimed burst of .50s, they land do that final bit of damage, and an important piece of the plane goes flying.
It's rare enough that trying to film it will cause murphy to intervene. It's also doesnt happen to a plane that has even the slightest amount of bank.
-
I've been killed out to 900 a couple times by .50s,
I think it was either Tac or Lazer that killed me in a a Ta-152 (he was in a P-38)
Was he ONLY firing .50 cal? P-38 has cannons right? That'd be much more believable to me because the cannon round relies more on its explosive capability than its kinetic energy. A .50 cal relies soley on its kinetic energy which has dropped off QUITE a bit by 1000 yards.
It happens, not often, but it does.
Well, like I said, its prolly possible. But it seems to be SO rare that in 3 years of "claims" I don't think I've seen one film posted of a 1000yrd+ kill. CERTAINLY not from a .50 cal.
Even BigFoot has been filmed a couple of times. ;)
Regards,
Wab
-
Thats a good question Wabbit, and to be honest I don't remember. He was probably firing everything (I would have been in his situation).
Also, innominate is exactly right, I've never been killed way out there without first having taken some hits before then- .50s just don't really do enough damage to kill you at that range.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Thats a good question Wabbit, and to be honest I don't remember. He was probably firing everything (I would have been in his situation).
Also, innominate is exactly right, I've never been killed way out there without first having taken some hits before then- .50s just don't really do enough damage to kill you at that range.
Actually at D1000 in a 38 I only fire MGs. The drop off on the 20mm will put it well below the flight path of the 50 caliber shells. They're a lot better than I am, may have been lobbing those hizooka rounds at you. P38 is the best sniping AC in the game; no convergence problems. All you have is flight path variation between 20mm and 50 cal.
Then again, they may well have set convergence out to 1000 yards and the hizookas dropped right through the same holes as the 50 cal. No way to tell for sure.
All I know for sure is level flight is a *B A D* idea if someone is behind you at less than 1.8. Only takes one lucky shot into the cockpit.
-
The mk108 could be tuned to 900 rpm as well. that would be cool..
Most any machine gun can be tuned to higher then recomended or authorized rate of fire if you throw out the reliability issues of doing so.
In a game without any consideration of the reliability of the guns isnt it a bit silly to allow the highest possible ROF?
-
Yeah 'ripl' a.k.a. ripsone, we agree. 8)
To be honest, I rarely (1%) agree with any 'blanket statistic'. I far prefer a %/statistical breakdown/table/etc.
Mike/wulfie
-
What Pongo said.
If .50s get their "field mods", no reason the MG151/15, /20 or the MK108s should not get theirs. 30mms firing at 900 rpm. Wouldn't that be sweet? :rolleyes:
-
Well, German planes already DO have field mods, in the form of the R and U packs (I don't know the german words).
For instance, a standard 190A8 had 4x Mg151/20 and 2x Mg131. the 190A8/R8 (I think it was the R8) had 2x Mk108, 2xMg151/20, and 2xMg131.
I don't think increasing the ROF for the .50 calibers would be a bad thing, providing there is documentation and stuff showing it was really done in the field.
-
That'd count more as 'varying ordnance' rather than a 'field mod' we're talking about here.
It is roughly the equivalent of asking for a field-mod paddle blade on the P-47D-11, or various other types of 'beefing up' on guns, engines, plane construction, etc etc.. in levels beyond the 'standard factory numbers' HTC uses.
I'm pretty sure the HTC agenda on this matter is to stick with the "standard numbers" in all cases - which is probably the only way to be objective about this matter. Allowing customized modifications in AH would pave the road for many requests on all sort of 'field mods' that existed in history - what's to stop people from asking all those 'theoretical modifications which saw some action historically' once people get their hands on those beefed up .50s ?? (ie. the argument that some typical plane should become X mph faster, because it was not uncommon the field people routinely sand-papered and oiled the plane's surfaces)
-
Yep late war Mk108 30mm cannon were readjusted to fire 900rpm. They did not see service, due to end of war. :D
Why do some of insist that .50cals are nearly equivalent to a good 20mm cannon. Plus all of you assume that the .50cal will maintain optimum penetration once it enters an airplanes outer skin. This is silly.
-
.50 cals are ridiculously easy to hit with. That's the main reason for the higher hit%. I took a 51b up tonight because someone had porked the fuel enough to reduce the range of anything German to about 25 miles. It was amazingly easy to hit stuff with those .50s. And they tore stuff up just about as good as Mausers.
-
Oops, forgot....why is anyone using an argument from freakin' FA3 to substantiate anything? Come on now, I would think most of us know better. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
What Pongo said.
If .50s get their "field mods", no reason the MG151/15, /20 or the MK108s should not get theirs. 30mms firing at 900 rpm. Wouldn't that be sweet? :rolleyes:
How long would your ammo last at 900 rds a minute, and with a very small capacity? Sounds like alot of frustration to me.
-
Would certainly improve snapshot capability ammo. The ROF of the 30mm at the moment can see even jugs fly thru the stream untouched +Q
SKurj
-
yes it would give a better snapshot ability. maybe one or two of them:)
I know guys that dont miss with them taters. 1 is all it takes.
-
ammo:
ROF of 900/min = 15/sec = 4.0 sec sustained MK 108 fire for a Bf 109G.
Where it would really come in handy (900/min that is) is for killing ability vs. heavy bombers when conducting 1 high speed high deflection gun pass.
Don't turn this into a 'USAAF vs. LW' argument. If ROF was adjustable by the pilot (i.e. he had the freedom to order it done) on *any* WW2 aircraft, it would be a cool option to have once HTC clears out their 'to do' list some.
Mike/wulfie
-
Tonight...I was in F6F, had dove, and was chasing a P51D on the deck. The pony was flying straight 950 in front of me (no distance closure) when I started firing. The first two bursts of my 50 cal hit sprites didn't do anything. Bursts 3-4 hit the P51s oil. Bursts 5-6 blew off his tail and a wing.
I've had several kills at that range using 50 cals. The key is the target can't be jinking. I've also had kills using only 20mms out to 750 yds.
-
A consideration here that may make this sort of thing errm not easily doable.. The sounds for the guns...
SKurj
-
What KBall said about the target staying put.
Many tours ago I put maybe 1 second's worth of F6F 50cals into a B17 , effectively shooting it down from ~1-1.1K, from about 6-7oc vertical and 7oc horizontal. Haven't used 50cals that extensively since, but it is very easy to kill a static target with .50s 1K ahead when on its flat 6.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
ammo:
ROF of 900/min = 15/sec = 4.0 sec sustained MK 108 fire for a Bf 109G.
Where it would really come in handy (900/min that is) is for killing ability vs. heavy bombers when conducting 1 high speed high deflection gun pass.
Don't turn this into a 'USAAF vs. LW' argument. If ROF was adjustable by the pilot (i.e. he had the freedom to order it done) on *any* WW2 aircraft, it would be a cool option to have once HTC clears out their 'to do' list some.
Mike/wulfie
I am not starting a USAAF vs Luftweenie fight:) I dont even know you. Seriously, have at it. If its realistic and HTC agrees, I am all for it. Grun says that the 108 could be adjusted to 900 RPM, but was late in the war and did not see service. Did it see service?
It would only take a short search of my posts to see that I advocate taking away the ability for the D30 to carry 10 rockets and 2 1000 lb'ers simultaniously. I have never found a reference of that loadout being something that was used. Another thing that should be implemented is that P-47's should not be able to fire their guns while carrying rocks. Or at least, they should not be able to jetison/fire them after their guns were fired. The M/T cases were known to sever the rocket motor fire wires.
My point is, don't tag me as an instigator. I want whats right, not whats popular.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
yes it would give a better snapshot ability. maybe one or two of them:)
I know guys that dont miss with them taters. 1 is all it takes.
err not really. Im trying the 109g6 this tour, and I have seen both P47d30 and F6F take 3-4 hits of 30mm and fly on like nothing happened.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
err not really. Im trying the 109g6 this tour, and I have seen both P47d30 and F6F take 3-4 hits of 30mm and fly on like nothing happened.
That could be internet anomolies as well. I've seen a P47D30 take one hit of FW190A8 30mm and explode. (Shrugs)
-
well i hit some people with confirmed 20 hits from 110g2 20 mm and thing get away without smoke or parts fall of :( that pis of realy :o , other thing masacred realy many b 17 !!! they defensles !! and the 50 calibers on it have realy longer bare llike figters , the fighter got realy short barel and they still more precise like ground mounted heavy MG that SUXX , 50 caliber virtualy in AH haz just same fire power like lw 20 mmm and that sux big time the efectivens of 50 caliber to cut of pieces of plane at 500 m are strogly unrealistic plane elevator event in theory dont have precision to aim ant this distance 50 caliber can dmg some important parts but will never cut them a part
-
under the conditions we see in the main now theres no way to say one plane or another takes more damage.
Theres been lotsa of lag and anomalies that arent relate to modeling.
-
.50 caliber machineguns don't do anywhere near the amount of damage even the MG151/20s do.
The two weapons rely on totally different philosophies Minus. The .50 caliber relys on rate of fire, muzzle velocity, and number of guns firing for damage.
The 20mm (or larger) cannon relys on a larger shell, combined with explosive effect in most cases. An single hit from a 20mm shell is more damaging than a single hit from a .50 caliber shell, the .50 caliber makes up for that with the possiblity of getting many more hits in the same amount of time.
-
ammo,
I should have been more clear. That comment was not directed at you in any way whatsoever. It was in fact for my 'comrades in grey'.
My whole point being this: Someone produces data that .50 BMGs should be able to up their ROF. Someone else says 'then we should do it for the MK 108'. What I'm saying is don't mention the MK 108 - instead say 'any gun on any aircraft that should have adjustable ROF should be able to have it's ROF adjusted in AH'.
It was starting to sound like the typical degeneration of a thread: This LW aircraft should have this WEP. Then some RAF biased type feels obligated to chime in along the lines of 'oh yeah but not until this RAF aircraft is modeled with this octane rating fuel or has this much boost'.
It's not about someone's favorite ride remaining superior, or even competetive. It's about every aircraft being modeled with whatever advantages and disadvantages they should have for the sake of realism.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Mike/wulfie
-
the rate of fire was reduced on a/c due to jamming which was common in hi G maneuvers mainly due to the feeding of the ammo.
as far as damage, look at the energy delivered by the 50s rate of fire, velocity and the projectile compared to other weapon systems...it's near the top in destructive potential especially at medium ranges 500-1000yds where velocity really aids greatly in the probability of getting any hits at all
-
Incidentally, has anyone tried getting 700~800 yard shots on the target with the Soviet UBS machine-guns?
From what I've read, the Beresins have higher initial speed upon the bullet leaving the barrel, and at the same time have higher rate of fire, is more powerful, and has at least equal - if not better - trajectory than the M2 Browning. If I remember correctly, the best MGs of the era ranging from 7.7mm to 13mm was not the M2 but the UBS.
I don't think I've ever seen people complaining about the UBS.. maybe its because they only have 1~2 of them..? Or because people pay attention to the ShVAK and not the MGs? Can anyone who uses Yaks a lot tell me what he feels about the UBS when compared to the M2??
-
wulfie--
NP at all. Just dont want to be misunderstood if possible. Don't get me wrong, I am a certified Jughead though.
Kweassa. I would be interested in reading that reference that the Russian 12.7 mm was as hot as the 50 BMG. the M2 cartridge projectile has an excellent ballistic coefficient and very good velocity. Please tell me where I can find that. Thx!
-
I'm sorry to say all the references I have are secondary source of information put on various websites - which I admit, some may object to as being unreliable. However, I do seem to notice in most cases the Soviet UBS machine guns are considered pretty much one of (if not) the best heavy machine guns ever to be used in WWII.
From what I've read:
The UB(Universal'nyj Berezina) machine guns used 12.7mm rounds and were divided into three groups:
*UBS: fixed, synchronized installation(800rpm)
*UBK: fixed, wing-mounted installation(1050rpm)
*UBT: flexible mounting (1050rpm)
UB
RPM: 800rpm (sync), 1050rpm (unsync.)
Muzzle velocity: 860m/s
Ammunition weight: 48g
M2
RPM:750rpm
Muzzle velocity: 870m/s
Ammunition weight: 48.5g
I'm not sure if the weight of the ammunition means the whole shell. I keep hearing that the UBS fired heavier bullets.. maybe the warhead itself is heavier? Sure wish Tony Williams was here to clarify things..
R.A.M website (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/index.html)
(follow the "WEAPONS" link on the UB)
Russian Ammunitions (http://www.geocities.com/russianammo/145mm.html#2)
Table of guns (http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/guns.shtml)
-
Wow, found Tony's comment on the UB machine guns.
the UBK was also the best HMG ever made
Name Ammunition Rate of Fire Muzzle velocity Weight Q-factor
Browning .50 M2 12.7 x 99 (48.5 g) 750 rpm 870 m/s 30 kg 7650
UBK 12.7 x 108 (48 g) 1050 rpm 850 m/s 21 kg 14500
MG 131 13 x 64B (34.6 g) 900 rpm 730 m/s 17 kg 8140
Note that the UBK is only 20m/s slower than the US .50cal and has a great ROF of 1050rpm, unfortunantly in syncronized installations it's ROF is dropped to 800m/s but it is armed with HE rounds making it more effective than the browning M2 .50cal
-by Soviet
I agree that on paper at least the Berezin was a better gun than the Browning (aspects such as relative reliability are difficult to determine). However, although the Soviets did have a 12.7mm HE round, I have only come across one mention of it - AFAIK they normally used an API (which was eventually copied by the Americans to make the .50" M8 round). Do you have any details of the proportions of rounds of different types normally loaded into ammunition belts?
-by Tony Williams
Thread is here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60706&highlight=UBS)
ps) sorry for the temporary hi-jack, guys. I thought the comparison on the M2 and UBS might be of some use.
-
thx kweassa. Indeed the external ballistics for that UB MG round were impressive.