Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Midnight on January 28, 2003, 03:55:57 PM
-
How about player induced gun jams / malfunctions?
1. Jams when firing under high G conditions.
2. Jams when firing in prolonged bursts (spray and pray)
-
Of course, a Mauser of superior german workmanship & engineering will never fail hehe
devious, from Oberndorf a.N., home of the Mauser Werke, out !
-
Originally posted by Midnight
How about player induced gun jams / malfunctions?
1. Jams when firing under high G conditions.
2. Jams when firing in prolonged bursts (spray and pray)
I like this idea much more than random gun jams. I'm pretty sure random guns jams will be followed by long whhhiiiinnnnneeesss.
BTW are there any specifications or statistices about gun jams?
-
yeah man, player induced.
Should also be plane specific. P51B .50cals are famous for jamming under a G-load, for example.
-
Duedel,
I recall seeing a figure of less than 1 stoppage per 1500 rounds fired for Hispano in '44 or there abouts. But that has little meaning how freuqent the jams could or should really be due to usage patterns. Kind of like basing planes' performance on victories to deaths to get it to same level in AH.
// fats
-
we should assume that what was meant by random reliablility for guns wasnt meant as truly random..but effected by historical reputation of weapon and mounting and by the usage and theater..
-
Thats an assumption.
-
actually thats a big assumption. Unless some one can come up with factual data that shows the probrabilty of guns jamming by type we mostly rely on anecdotal evidence.
The idea that guns automatically jammed with long burst is about as real as melting the gun barrels.
Without real evidence then "random" is the only way to go. Or not do it at all.
-
Woton:
Although i doubt that a gun barrel ever "melted" there are two definite things that happen to them during long periods of use.
I remember reading about 3 man MG42 light machine gun teams. 1 guy carried the weapon, 1 guy carried the ammo and 1 guy carried extra barrels. After long periods of use, the heat would actually warp the barrel and thus altering its accuracy. They would have to replace the barrels periodically. I would imagine this to be the case in AC guns if prolonged use of the weapon were to happen.
The other thing did happen in many AC guns. The heat would expand the firing mechanism making it to small for the next round to enter making reloading impossible. After the guns cooled sufficiently, reloading was possible.
Again, you might want to do actual research to find exact specs for specific guns, but this might be worth modelling.
-
$$
-
The contrary position that all guns would be considered equally reliable is also an assumption. They just didnt state it and I did.
You think there was no data rating the reliablility of one gun and one mounting vs another..
you think that gun barrels dont melt if fired too long?
I can assure you they do.
-
Their is tons of evidance citing weapon reliabality for various aircraft, some using the same weapons were more prone to faliuler than other simply do to the design of the instlation.
This topic and it's implmanation will be highly debated no doubt, espichaly if it is historical and based on know negative traits that certain planes possesed.
One way to do it would be to simply randomise the effect for all planes, a generic damage model if you will.
Another would be to combine the Generic model with know relalibality issues.
Whatever the ultamate critiria for imlementing this is to be I think it is great.
-
A big NO to using anecdotal evidence for any gameplay decision.
'Random' gun jams based on a statistical study are fine. But I doubt you'll find such a study for every weapon in AH.
Jams under high G-loading would be fine however.
-
Pongo defined prolonged firing?
heat transfer from the gun barrel to atmosphere on plane traveling at 300mph and at altitudes above sea level is great.
You wont melt a barrel or warp it with less then 15 sec continous fire.
JB mg 42 fired on the ground can sustain more the 15 sec fire.
Gun jams are different in that theres a variety of factors that contribute. Studies that predict gun reliability are based averages and are not exact. If you hard code it that xx gun should jam 1 every 5 missions its bs.
If its random and considers real life data and incoporates that into "random" thats fine.
But having 1 out of every 7 spits in mission end up with a jammed hizooka would be bs.
How the gun was cleaned, loaded etc all effect the probrability that a gun will jam.
Guns didnt auto jam at 3 gs either.
The only way to do it would for it to be random as Dowding says:
'Random' gun jams based on a statistical study are fine. But I doubt you'll find such a study for every weapon in AH
Now find that data so ht can do it.
-
The MG151 gondolas on the 109 had trouble under G load I think.
A 109 pilot said it jam under G load and would not fire anymore.
-
Some planes did jam under g, thats different then setting an articial point where all guns jam.
At what g level? andt how often?
-
That's my point Wotan - you won't find that data. I'm guessing that most R&D establishments were more interested in finding out 'why' rather than 'how often', in terms of malfunctions. Very little time would be spent establishing how often a problem occurred compared to solving the problem itself.
Adding in artificial compromises for a perceived gain in 'realism' is self-defeating, as far as I can see.
Personally, the only area where randomness should come into play is perhaps where a fuel leak is concerned. Perhaps you'll make it back to base ok - but maybe you'll be toast instead. At least in that case, you have already suffered severe damage - instead of just flying along and suddenly losing your engine without an enemy in sight.
-
I know Dowding my last remark
"Now go find the data" was sarcastic because I doudt anyone can.
The main arguement behind gum jams will be
"pilot xxx says xx guns jammed all the time, where xx pilot says he never heard of guns jamming".
I dont think that would be good enough to model gun jams on.
-
Originally posted by Imp
The MG151 gondolas on the 109 had trouble under G load I think.
A 109 pilot said it jam under G load and would not fire anymore.
Who needs Gondolas anyway :D
-
No I should think that kind of porakified evidance has got most of the US thinking 50cal rounds can be bounced off the ground to strike the underbelly of Tigers and kill them.....
No matter what is is for certain to be widely debated:
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Pongo defined prolonged firing?
heat transfer from the gun barrel to atmosphere on plane traveling at 300mph and at altitudes above sea level is great.
You wont melt a barrel or warp it with less then 15 sec continous fire.
That's only partly true. Heat transfer is going to be directly related to how much surface area is exposed to the airflow. In the case of the .50s on a mustang, most of the barrel is enclosed within the wing. Although there are clearances around the barrel and the wing, the amount of airflow entering into the wing is going to be very minimal.
Now, I've never heard of warping an a/c gun barrel from extended firing, but I have read numerous books of the rifling getting burned out from excessive firing/heat. Bud Anderson's book "To fly and fight" has a reference to this very fact. Unfortunately, there are no actual firing times.
I would love to see the ability to burn out rifling if prolonged firing was done.
-
shouldn't gun accuracy decrease with use?
-
ambient temperature effects that as well, as long as new air is introduced and the heated air is removed you will have decent heat transfer.
Whats the temp at 15k doing 300mph? on a average summer day?
Burning out the rifling refers to the lands and groves that cause the bullets to spin. When those lands and groves are worn the bullet trajectory is effected, the gun doesnt cease to function.
Edit
Yes turbot
-
Very true, burning the rifling doesn't cause the gun to stop functioning, but it will make it mighty inaccurate. Without having the rifling to spin the bullet, it'll probably start to tumble very shortly after leaving the barrel.
-
I've read accounts of removing the hispano in favour of a MG simply because pilots hated the jamming POS.
Sure it blew stuff up, but it got you soon dead when it jammed in the wrong moment.
-
I think your opening a can of worms...gun jamms where only a part of the issue....
You'd need to model engine fires in 190's (lot of good sticks died that way) also parachute failures, tail failure on Typhoons. Friendly ack on both sides. Hypothermia on ditches and all kinds of other "fortunes of war" stuff.
Best left alone IMO.
-
Originally posted by mrsid2
I've read accounts of removing the hispano in favour of a MG simply because pilots hated the jamming POS.
Sure it blew stuff up, but it got you soon dead when it jammed in the wrong moment.
Early hispanos had jamming problems, late war ones were much better.
-
Personally, I don't care how they model gun jams as long as it doesn't happen more than 10-20% of the time. I know I'll be doing a gun check immediately upon takeoff just to ensure my ground crew's hangover didn't affect my ability to reach out and touch someone :D If they jam from G forces or a spazmodic trigger finger then at least I have a choice to make.
The focus of the game will be to complete the mission and coordinate with your countrymen as much as getting a kill, so it's not like the sortie would be a total washout if you get a jammed gun. Even if you do, the bad guys don't know it! I also think that all the guns won't jam simultaneously unless there is a problem with the trigger mechanisms (if they even model that).
Let's not forget about other mechanical problems either. Talk about being at the mercy of the randomizer. No matter what, you won't be the lone ranger out there when it comes to these type problems.
Imagine trying to figure out if the reason that Farkin' wolf that's 200 yds off your six ain't firing because his guns are jammed or it just seems that way because he didn't load any tracers and he's just a lousy shot. Kinda adds a new dimension the the virtual experience.
If you can't warm up to not always having your guns work then maybe AH2 Tour of Duty isn't for you. I do know if they ever tried that stuff in AH Classic I'd be the first to squeak.
I wonder if we'll be using a progressive plane set that updates as the theater ages? I guess that's another thread...
Magoo
The Blind Sniper
-
I recall reading about Hispanos that they increased the cyclic rate for Mk V because the gun life time exceeded the aircraft life time and there was no point keeping it lower.
// fats
-
No they dont oep you can check this using the dot target command.
The gunsite shakes, but the guns themselves remain stable.
-
If you model gun jams then dont you have to model engine failures and a whole host of other mechanical failures? D-9 and N1k2 pilots would hate that as both those aircraft were plauged with reliablity problems due to excessive bombing on the Allies part ;)
If it cant be modeled based on historical data then dont do it at all I say. Randomizing would be the worst possible solution IMO.
Elfie
-
Elfie, thats a valid point.
And what about if OUR war in AH/ToD progresses differently? England gets the crap bombed out of it, the spits start falling to pieces, and ...hey wait...that ain't so bad:D
Magoo
-
CAUTION: Anecdotal evidence about to be presented...
My dad, as I say repeatedly, was a nose gunner on B24s. During a training mission around Muroc the Navagator was required to shoot the nose guns as part of his quals (my dad's sentiment was "this guy couldn't find his bellybutton with both hands"). Anyway, dad tells the guy to fire short bursts, so he gets in the turret, jams the triggers down, and fires off about half the can of ammunition. When he was done the guns were so hot rounds were cooking off in the chamber. The Nav gets out of the turret (and by now they're starting to fly over populated areas) and tells my dad he'd "better do something" about the guns cooking off (dad just popped the top plate).
I've never heard of fighter guns getting hot enough to cook off ammo in the chamber, but it would seem to be just as likely after a prolonged burst. When I get home I'll look through dad's old gunnery manual and see if it says anything about hazards of prolonged fire.
-
As a former USAF weapons mechanic I have to say this also: aircraft that I worked on came back from missions with engine or radar problems far more often than they came back with any weapon system problem including gun jams. Although when an M61A1 rotary cannon (think Gatling gun) jams it can be a mess:) The worst gun jam I ever saw happened when a 20MM rnd didn't fire in the barrel, it went off after it had left the gun on its way back to the ammuntion drum. The entire system (gun, conveyor assembly and ammo drum) had to be brought in shop with the rnds still in them (one rnd was chambered). We had to eletrically ground each component and disassemble it to manually unload it.
Inherent design problems were generally found and fixed. Guns that jammed regularly would have been inspected and the reason for jams found and then fixed. Guns HAD to work to ensure a pilots chance for survival.
Sure gun jams happened, so did engine failures and a slew of other problems. I'm sure HTC will make AH2 an even better game than AH is.....whether or not they choose to include mechanical problems :)
Elfie