Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Zigrat on October 18, 2000, 06:48:00 PM
-
and hispano was a french company, and the hispano was so much better than the MG151 (not to mention the MG/FF which is what they were using when they captured france)
why don't 190s have hispanos?
-
NIH
(not invented Here)
An attitude that was not enitrely German; either.
-
Hi
Incorrect!Germans used many Chezc and French tanks.
The Pz35t and Pz38t were widely used in the Western Campaigns. The 35t was better than the Pz I, II, somewhat close to but less capable than III. The 38t was as good as the 37mm PzIIIs and was also widely used in Barbarossa. Many of the French tanks were converted to Panzejagers, Normandy in 44 was full of them, and others were used as rear guard police type vehicles and in lower intesity work vs partisans. Further use was made of captured planes for training and liason purposes. Plus many T34s were used by the germans as combat vehicles or recovery vehicles. German troops also favored some Russian weapons over their own as they were found to be more reliable in winter conditions.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
tanks?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Am I mistaken, I thought this thread was about Hispanos?
-
btw Off Topic.
-
Nath you are a national treasure. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Grunz..
We can look at this another way.
The whole world captured Germany, So why didnt the U.S.A. build and fly FW190-D or TA 152 in Korea instead of the p51?
Would lead me to think of an old addage...
If it aint broke, Dont fix it!
Dog out.....
-
Slightly off topic: One fighter the French were finishing development of just as the Germans took over was the Bloch MB-157, an improved version of the mediocre MB-152/155.
The MB-157 had an improved engine producing 1700hp at 26K. When the Germans got around to testing the MB-157 in 1942, they found it had a top speed of 440+ mph at 26K. This plane could have been available in 1941 had the Germans sought to develop it immediately. Imagine a plane with good high-alt performance, a better power/weight ratio than a FW-190, and 2 Hispanos being available in 1941.
ra
-
i think you guys miss my point
my question was about hispano cannon? in ah is is clearly superior to mg151 so why didnt germans use it.
or at least use what they saw to make a better mg151
-
Zig..
Ya missed my point..
Why would they do so when they where getting kills with what they had? To tool & die for a whole new setup may seem simple, but think of the logistics of switching planes to a New Cannon. All amunitions factories would have to be retooled. This takes time and Resources.
So, why fix what aint broke.
Dog out...
-
wardog i think you proved my point (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I thin that in actual use the hispano and mauser were not as different as here in aces high. I know dont show me the frigging picture or use 1/2mv^s to try to prove otherwise to me, but my bet is they had just about the same killing power so THATS why they stuck with their tried and true design.
Yes yes you are all going to chime in its bigger blad blah, and i don't dispute its long range ballistic qualities should be lower, but lethality at the 3-400 yard range is too different IMHO. If it WAS so different, they would have switched.
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
wardog i think you proved my point (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I thin that in actual use the hispano and mauser were not as different as here in aces high. I know dont show me the frigging picture or use 1/2mv^s to try to prove otherwise to me, but my bet is they had just about the same killing power so THATS why they stuck with their tried and true design.
Yes yes you are all going to chime in its bigger blad blah, and i don't dispute its long range ballistic qualities should be lower, but lethality at the 3-400 yard range is too different IMHO. If it WAS so different, they would have switched.
Hispanos jammed. Alot. It comes with bigger casings (Lots of times the 30mm Mk 108 jammed too) The better of the 109 and 190 flyers just needed a quick burst. Some only used one shot.
Why risk spoiling it with an unproved cannon?
Same reason the US didn't switch. When ya learn a gun for two or three years it's kinda bad for the pilots to suddenly arm them with a gun they know nothing about characteristic wise. Like switching from 75 and 76mm's to 90mm in US tanks. It was one of many arguments made (with the tankers obviously having no say in it!)
- Jig
-
WOW. Scared me. Reading the title to the thread, I thought they had done it again.
-
Just some observations.
At the time that Germany captured france they were using the mgff cannon.(swiss design)
The mg151 was still in development and the 190 was first made with mg17s in the wings.
Only later was the 151 mounted. Still with the swiss cannon in the outer wing spots.
It seems unlikly that the wing of a 109 could take a hispano(though they did mount 30mms out there) but surely the FW could have by 1943 when it was most needed. Pretty hard to syncronize the hispano though.
The germans were in fact very fond of allied weapon design. They put into production a 120mm mortar that was a total copy of a soviet one and of course they used french tanks and arty. They made extensive use of russian field pieces and even gave the caputured ones german designations and put ammo for them in production. They saw the bazooka and developed the panzerschrek the t34 led to the panther.
The americans of course used german technology a great deal after the war. The colt m39 cannon (F86H, F8U, F5)is basically a developed copy of a german cannon that was nearing production at the end of the war. They used the V1 and V2 rockets, the , german sonar and Sub hull advances whole aircraft experimently.
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
Hispanos jammed. Alot. It comes with bigger casings (Lots of times the 30mm Mk 108 jammed too) The better of the 109 and 190 flyers just needed a quick burst. Some only used one shot.
Why risk spoiling it with an unproved cannon?
Same reason the US didn't switch. When ya learn a gun for two or three years it's kinda bad for the pilots to suddenly arm them with a gun they know nothing about characteristic wise. Like switching from 75 and 76mm's to 90mm in US tanks. It was one of many arguments made (with the tankers obviously having no say in it!)
- Jig
The US was fielding Hispano armed fighters by Pearl harbour. October 41.
They knew all about the Hispano and skipped on it for most of the war.They had the gun in production. They had the ammo in production. One of their most capable fighters used it.
-
I asked a such a question once, and I got a very convincing answer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002456.html).
By Minotaur
It still amazes me the value the US had in the 50cal, but I guess that was real and this is a game.
By Pyro
-------------------------
It was, still is, and always will be one of the greatest military cartridges of all times and it was plenty adequate for WWII aerial combat. However, that doesn't mean it was the most effective weapon available. I see arguments about weapons come up a lot that go something like "if this other weapon was better, then why wasn't it used instead or sooner?" It's not that simple. Weapons weren't chosen simply based on how destructive they were, there are many other factors involved. The War Dept. came under heavy criticism at the end of WWII over their reluctance to put into service a heavy tank until it was too late to make much difference. That's an interesting story in itself but it just goes to show that that argument doesn't hold up. There are bureaucracies involved and differing opinions on the matters.
In terms of power, the .30-06 is greater than the .308 which is greater than the .223. Yet our small arms have gone away from the heavier cartridges and for good reason.
Back to the subject of the .50. Here was a fine weapon which had been in production since 1921. But even before WWII started, the need for heavier armament was seen. A request for a 20mm weapon was issued in 1936 after some tests were conducted at Aberdeen. Unfortunately, through the 30s, hardly any money was available to ordnance research and this didn't appreciably pick up until 1939 when it more than quadrupled over the previous year as the clouds of war started to loom in a big way. In 1937 work was begun on the design of a domestically produced .90 caliber(about 23mm) weapon. This project was canceled as it became apparent that it would take too long and attention was turned towards weapons of foreign design. The same month that the .90 cal project was started, a promising report describing the Hispano-Suiza 404 came in and one was ordered for testing. While waiting for the new weapon to come in, tests were performed at Aberdeen on a 23mm Madsen, 20mm Rheinmetall, 20mm Oerlikon, and an earlier version of a 20mm Hispano. After extensive tests, the Hispano 404 won out and in 1939, more examples were ordered and negotiations over manufacturing rights were entered with the French. In May 1940, the weapon was approved as the 20mm M1. However, French drawings were in metric and had to be converted and some minor dimension changes were adapted. This would take a further 9 months and this weapon would be become the M2 or AN-M2.
Now examine that time line. 4 years just to adopt this weapon and that doesn't even consider getting sufficient numbers manufactured along with ammunition and the engineering problems faced by aircraft designers because of the increased size, weight, recoil, installation, etc. All these logistical and engineering factors are very important. If the .50 was totally inadequate, it would have been an easy decision to weigh but that was not the case.
At the Joint Fighter Conference in October 1944, Commander Monroe of the USN Ordnance branch reported the following:
"As it is now, we have the 50-cal. gun which has reached its peak. The only improvements will be minor.(Pyro's note: he was wrong about this as the M3 .50 later increased rate of fire by 50%) The only good increase is to increase the number of guns. So it seems to be just about the right time to look for a better weapon. There are two possibilities here- the one we have and the one we might get shortly. The one we have is a 20mm gun. I think very highly of it. It is a fact, it is one we have here, and it is one in hand. It won't do what the 60 will do, but we haven't got the 60, and we won't have it for a year. So we are gradually working into all our aircraft the 20mm gun. To give you some idea of the 50 versus the 20 and dispel a lot of ideas that have bothered us, I would like to give you a comparison. When somebody goes from four 50's to two 20's, to the layman that means a decrease in firepower. Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers. In the actual rate of fire delivered at the target, one 20 equals three 50's; in kinetic energy at 500 yards, one 20 equals two and one-half 50's.
"That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judged by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have the much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal will go through only .43. In addition to that you have one more great advantage- that is, you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up their barrels and ruining their guns on one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over. They will come down with screaming barrels and get trigger-happy, and then all the barrels are gone in one flight. It should not happen in a 20-mm. (Pyro's note: AAF pilot instructions allow a much longer burst of fire from .50s than from 20mm's) Of course, you have disadvantages. You have a heavier installation, one-half as much ammunition for the same weight. Our standard ammunition in the Navy is 400 rounds in one gun. The Fleet has set up 30 seconds of fire as a minimum requirement for the .50 cal gun. We can't do that with the 20, so we give them 200 rounds. The 20 is lethal enough to get far more results out of that 200 rounds than the .50 will ever do in 400 rounds.
"With the 20 you are putting out a new weapon. Fortunately, we are over the headaches to a great extent in the Navy. The SB2C has led the way with the 20mm. We had an awful lot of headaches getting the new ammunition, the new lengths, etc., and getting the ordnance men to learn how to use the gun and get around the temperamental characteristics. We are over that now, and the majority opinion is very enthusiastic about the 20mm gun. We have at the present time 200 Corsairs going out, at the rate of 50 a month, which will go into action as soon as we can get them aboard the carriers to get an evaluation of the 20mm gun in the Navy fighter. I am personally very anxious for the first report on that, and I think the first time they open up on a Jap fighter, it's going to fly into a million pieces. We have a great cry for the 20mm gun.
"Another disadvantage of the 20 is the time of flight. Out to 500 yards you've got three-quarters of a second as agasint a .62 for the 50. These airplanes go 450 to 500 feet per second, and in one-tenth of a second 35 to 40 feet.
"It also hurts when you try to mix the batteries. I am personally very much against mixed batteries, with teh guns at the present ranges. If the Mark 23 sight does what we want it to do, it is going to push the hitting range out so far that the 50 cal will get to the target a helluva lot ahead of the 20. If our fire control that is coming is as good as we think it is, it is very unwise to mix the batteries. For present battle ranges it is perfectly all right. Of course the Navy is fighting in the Pacific. We have a rather inferior bunch of enemy airplanes. The Japs have played ball with us very nicely all during the war so far and they have refused to improve their armament or their planes as fast as we could expect them to. I have a WAVE in my office who keeps a chart on all Japanese aircraft trying to figure out what the trend is and it is very definitely towards larger armament, heavier guns, more guns and leak proofing and much better performance airplanes. In view of that, it behooves us to get in ahead of them. I feel it is much better to put the 20mm in now, although the 50's are doing a perfectly acceptable job and we could probably finish the war with them. It doesn't make the pilots feel very good to be shooting 50's when the enemy is shooting 20mms, however. Their 20mm is a somewhat inferior weapon, of course. We've got hold now of an experiemental Jap fighter. It has four 20's and two 30-caliber guns. The guns in that airplane are of German design copied by the Japs and they are pretty good guns. They're worth anybody's respect and it is not going to be any fun to come up against an airplane like that with inferior armament.
"We're finding all the time 20mm guns, 37mm and 50 calibers in increasing numbers, in Jap aircraft. I don't know why the Japs stick to the 30 caliber. It is a completely ineffective weapon particularly the way they use it. It might be all right in the fighter if you had 16 of them and got right on somebody else's tail. You might saw them apart. The day of the 30 has long since passed. The Japs stick to it and it's fine from our point of view. In the Fleet we have the SB2C which originally came out with a single .50 turret. Due to the marginal performance, they took the turret out and put twi 30 cal guns in its place. That was a very fine solution as far as the Fleet was concerned. They were delighted with it and have continued to be so. The same comparison holds true for the 30's and 50's as has held for the 50's and 20's. Two 30's are approximately 1/3 to 1/2 as effective as one 50. The two hand-held 30's can't compare to the effectiveness of the power turret, as far as getting on the target and holding your aim and following your enemy around. The Japs are very easily frightened off by those two streams of 30 caliber tracers going out there. The boys are able to scare most Jap pilots by hosing a stream of bullets out there in their general direction. However, it is my firm belief that if the Jap pilot would get over his awe of those tracers and just plow right in, he would have no trouble at all taking the SB2C any time he wanted to with his 20mm guns."
Later in the discussion, Commander Munroe said the following:
"I wonderif somebody in the Army could explain why the Army is not interested in the 20mm gun. They developed it but apparently have no requirements for it while the Navy feels quite differently about the gun. We are going to it in a large way, I trust, in that we are putting it in the Fleet to let them try it out. I personally have a tremendous amount of confidence in the gun and believe the requirements will be very great. Anybody in the Army who can speak on that?"
Colonel Coats from Eglin Field responded:
"I'll try to answer that in this way. I believe the feeling in the Army generally is that we would like to have a lethal density pattern. The most bullets going across one place at a given instance. We would like to have the smallest caliber gun that can do the job. If it takes a 22mm to tear a Messerschmitt or a Mitsubishi apart, we want 20's, but as long as a 50 will do the job we feel that if we can carry a greater number of guns and a greater amount of ammunition with the same weight, with an equal or greater firepower, that is the gun we want. If you are strafing an airdrome you can put out more bullets. A Jap doesn't care whether he gets killed by 20 mm's or a 50 caliber. We can put out more bullets and we have more weight covering the same area. Another thing that comes into this matter of sighting is the training of the personnel. When wew get sights to the point where we can pull the trigger just once and hit a fellow, then we can go to the bigger calibers. It is a matter of training of pilots. The Mark 14, the gyro sight, we found didn't increse our accuracy for our control gunner to any great extent. However, it did bring the people in the middle and lower brackets up as much as 5 or 6 times better than they had shot before. I think we in the aircraft game should be worrying about the people in the middle third or the bottom half, that we have to make better sights, better cockpit arrangements, easier planes to fly for those people. We don't need to worry about our top shot or our best pilot. he can get along in any kind of a rig. That is the reason- we feel we can get a bigger density pattern.
"I would also like to point out, I won't go into an argument with 20's versus 50's, but I thik a lot of it has to do with the arrangements in the plane. For instance, in a P-47 or F4U, you have all the guns in the wings. Of necessity you must cross the fire pattern at some fixed distance from the plane. With all your guns over one fixed point at a given number of yards, you have a great X forming out there. At 600 you are wasting a great amount of your bullets. If you close up on a fellow to 200 yards, you are also wasting bullets. In the F7F or the P-38 you can put all your guns in the nose; firing parallel streams of lead, your bullets all going out forming a lethal density pattern as far as the bullets go. In an installation like that you could possibly be better off firing four 20's than you would be firing six 50's. In the P-47 with four guns in each wing, we recommend that they cross the first two guns at 250 yards, the next at 350, at 450 and 550. That gives you a density pattern in depth as well as width for about 200 yards, which in turn gives the mediocre pilot a better opportunity to hit an airplane in flight."
The British went through these same problems but it wasn't as big of a dilemma for them as they were looking at the difference between .30 cal to 20mm. Even so it caused controversy between the different schools of thought that didn't end until the 20mm proved itself well in combat. This wasn't helped because of the bugs that had to be worked out from the problematic first installation of 20mm's in the Spitfire IB. Group Captain Kent wrote the following about the change in firepower that came with the cannon armed Spitfire:
"It was not very long after we received these aircraft that one of our flights was scrambled after a small force of 109s. The Flight Commander, 'Pancho' Villa, got to within 300 yards of one of the Germans and opened fire with his machine guns. Although he could see a number of strikes on the enemy aircraft, his fire was having no visible effect. He then remembered his cannons and, slipping his thumb onto the cannon button, gave a very short burst and was more than a little startled, as was everybody else, when the 109 exploded. As he described it, it looked like an anti-aircraft shell bursting and there was nothing left but a cloud of black smoke and tiny pieces tumblimg to the ground."
A few months later, he had the following encounter:
"I attacked and opened fire at about 100 yards (Group Captain Kent records); it was the first time I had fired cannons for three or four months and I was not prepared for the vibration and loud thud-thud-thud as I pressed the gun button. I quickly let go as if I had been stung! I do not know how many shells I fired, it could not have been many, but it was enough - there was a brilliant flash on the starboard wing root of the 109 and the whole wing came off. The rest of the aircraft hurtled down twisting madly round and around giving the pilot no chance to escape even if he had still been alive, which I rather doubt...
"Not wishing to expose myself unduly to the attentions of the flak gunners on the coast I came down very low and slipped over the seashore at Gravelines. Just crossing my path was a small convoy so I put a burst into the stern of one of the ships which started a fire. On my return to Northold I discovered that I had only fired sixteen rounds out of each cannon - I had not used my machine guns - and I became more convinced than ever of the validity of my argument as to the cannon's effectiveness."
This post is way too long and I should be working on something else. Some improvements in damage and the weapons modeling will be made, but if anybody is thinking that the difference between .50s and 20mm's isn't that big, I guess we're at an impasse. Anyway, I hope some of you found this interesting. I have a tremendous reference library on all this stuff, more than I could ever cite here, but I think those passages are interesting if you haven't read them before. Perhaps it'll give some insights into the differences between what works best overall in the real world versus the game world.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew
"Anyway, more golf..."
Humble
-
The original Hispano design jammed, as did the American made version.
Posted on another board by Tony Williams
The reference is:
Chinn, G.M. The Machine Gun. (5 volumes) Vols I-IV Bureau of Ordnance, Department of the Navy (USA, 1951-55); Vol V RAMP Inc. 1987
All the stuff about the Hispano is in Volume 1.
You're in luck because someone asked me to do a summary of Chinn's account a couple of weeks ago, so here it is:
The British had a lot of early problems with unreliable firing with the Hispano, and solved them by shortening the chamber (by 2mm) to make sure that the firing pin would strike the primer with sufficient force, and urged the USA to do the same (the British wanted complete standardisation between both countries' production). The Americans, after testing the guns in April 1942, decided not to bother.
However, concern was expressed by US ammo manufacturers that the misfires which kept occurring were the gun's fault, not theirs, so further US tests were held between June 1942 and January 1943. The results of the tests
were...a recommendation to shorten the chamber! (but not as short as in the British guns). Various other detailed changes were made, following which some guns were sent over to the UK for testing in July and August 1943 and
showed themselves to be as good as British production. Only at this point were US guns accepted by the British as "acceptable for service use".
The problem was that the USA had already made 56,410 guns (no less). These guns effectively had to be remanufactured to the new standard. In February 1944 all AN-M2 production stopped. At that time there were still 35,955 long-chamber guns in store, classified as "unserviceable". Most were later converted to M3s.
Chinn goes on to give details of the operational performance of the AN-M2. The USN mounted some 90% of these guns, the USAAF making very little use of them. Incidentally, the M1 version was for engine mounting and not used in service, although several hundred were made (also incidentally, for some reason US production of the 60-round drum feed carried on into 1944 and nearly 30,000 were made).
First use by the USN was in the SB-2C when a test batch was sent out in 1943 and evaluated in combat, the first action being in March 1944. Factory representatives accompanied the cannon to the front. To quote Chinn; "These expert technicians sent back voluminous reports that explained the
malfunctions that did occur were due to one of three things; failure of the feeder, bad ammunition and improper maintenance. Their zeal in clearing the gun itself in every instance casts doubt upon the validity of the reports."
Some 5,800 USN planes were fitted with 11,600 guns. The SB-2C and SB-W aircraft were the principal planes carrying this weapon into combat, along with a very limited number of F4U-1Cs. It was therefore hardly ever used by fighters and shot down very few aircraft.
Chinn says; "With the mounting of the 20mm cannon in Navy planes a series of malfunctions began that could not be properly corrected at the time as manufacture was at the peak of production...the most serious problem was the
oversize chamber. There still remained considerable variance in dimensions between the chambers of the British and US cannon...". A curious explanation for the poor standards of manufacture which plagued the AN-M2 was that, being over .60" (15mm) calibre, it was considered to be an
artillery weapon rather than a small arm. It was therefore built to artillery manufacturing tolerances, which were not tight enough for this weapon. As a "quick fix", the USN liberally coated the ammunition with a heavy lubricant (which the British specifically banned from their Hispanos).
Some 32,000 M3s had also been delivered by the end of the war and these suffered the same problems as the AN-M2.
After the end of the war, all of the problems were analysed and a development programme was put in hand to correct them, work being successfully carried out over the next few years. In conclusion, Chinn says; "Nothing was basically wrong with the weapon. Its wartime performance, good or bad, was the result of having being bought in desperation, put into mass production without first having been adequately proved, and then modified regularly to meet a future commitment before the previous model had been made to function reliably."
Unfortunately Chinn, a USMC officer, did not comment on the gun in USAF service. It would be interesting to know how it fared in the P-38.
On a personal note, I am well aware that when the firing pin strike is only just good enough to fire the primer, such minor details as the characteristics of the metal forming the primer cap can be very significant. The fact that the guns performed well in the UK could have been simply due to a softer or thinner primer cap material, or even that the primer protruded slightly more, in the ammunition used in the tests. Alternatively, as
its problems partly resulted from excessive manufacturing tolerances, it would have been possible to produce satisfactory guns by carefully selecting and matching components. However I'm sure that the Americans would never
consider doing something so devious and underhand to their old ally, perish the thought (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The other point concerns the need to oil the cartridges. This was never entirely dispensed with as even the Mk 16, in USN service in the 1980s as a deck gun, had a built-in cartridge oiler. Yet the British decided they didn't like this and, according to Wallace, changed the cartridge to avoid the need to oil it (this is supported by the official manual, which specifically bans oiling). The problem is, I have never been able to find out what changes were made,
and it begs all sorts of questions about the interchangeability of British v. other nations' ammunition etc.
The postwar USAF one would have been the M24, which was converted to electrical ignition. I don't have any information about problems with that.
Tony Williams
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
Military gun and ammunition website
-
I support cannon jamming modelled!!!!!
BRING IT TO AH AND END THE HISPANOLAZERFEVER!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The Hispano 20mm as used in the Spitfire and Typhoon was undoubtedly superior to the MG 151/20 in killing power per round.
But in real life there are many more important design factors for an aircraft cannon than killing power per round.
Weight, size/shape, rate of fire, ammo load, reliability, ease of synchronization are all important. And in these areas I believe the MG 151/20 was superior to the Hispano gun.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-19-2000).]
-
Originally posted by RAM:
I support cannon jamming modelled!!!!!
BRING IT TO AH AND END THE HISPANOLAZERFEVER!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
And give the bad synthetic petrol (with low octane ),bad ammo, jamming gun, short fuse shell,assymetric slat deployement and so on (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
What you say RAM ? "GULP" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) , ok it's perhaps a lot ...
------------------
"Real man fly Yak!" A.Nonymous
-
Forgot one thing ... after the end of the war we have copied the MG151 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but with better result (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
"Real man fly Yak!" A.Nonymous
-
Once again, the problem is that the Hispanos have HE and AP in one round, with none of the vices. Blow up a plane? HE mode engaged. Blow up a tank? AP mode.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Santa, would you PLEASE stop using that stupid arguement.
How many times do I have to explain to you, that according to Pyro's posts what you are saying applies to ALL the cannons in AH. Each and every single one.
So if you remove it from the Hispano, you remove it from the MG151.
Relative lethality remains the SAME.
So it's not gonna change the difference between the two guns. Therefore your arguement is moot.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
So if you remove it from the Hispano, you remove it from the MG151.
Relative lethality remains the SAME.
No,man. If we give each cannon their REALISTIC, their MOST used ammo respectively, then I assure you that Relative lethality WONT be the same. And believe me that the MG151 wont be the loser in that tradeoff, because that means that MG151 will use HE rounds and Hispanolazers only AP rounds.
Go to the B17 damage link and take a look to what can do a SINGLE mauser HE hit. No pure AP round will do something near that damage unless it is a 75mm.
So dont ask for it, that maybe we get it. (hopefully).
Model realistic ammos and we'll see if you are right, or if we are.
Oh, and care to model the 13mm HE rounds please?...because those aren't here either.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-19-2000).]
-
AP effect of MG151/20 seems more like HE with very easy impact fuse..
-
Oh. Did MG151/20 had ANY AP effect?
didnt notice, so far.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Horse Excrement! RAM
If we give each cannon their REALISTIC, their MOST used ammo respectively, then I assure you that Relative lethality WONT be the same. And believe me that the MG151 wont be the loser in that tradeoff, because that means that MG151 will use HE rounds and Hispanolazers only AP rounds.
So me proof of either statement in that sentence.
You make that kind of statement over and over, yet once again you never have any documentation or proof to back it up. Without some kind of proof, it comes out as yet another Luftwhine.
Convince me, show me, make me believe! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
RAM said:
If we give each cannon their REALISTIC, their MOST used ammo respectively, then I assure you that Relative lethality WONT be the same. And believe me that the MG151 wont be the loser in that tradeoff, because that means that MG151 will use HE rounds and Hispanolazers only AP rounds.
Is that really true? I thought HE rounds were quite common for the Hispano?
I'd prefer to leave this selection up to the pilot. If I am going after armored vehicles I want AP. If I'm going after bombers I want HE. No matter what plane I'm flying.
Oh, and care to model the 13mm HE rounds please?...because those aren't here either.
I agree. In the only objective and scientific gun test results I've seen (performed by Dinger, processed by Hooligan), the ratio of MG 131 lethality to M2 .50 cal lethality was the same as the ratio of MG 131 KE/round to M2. 50 KE/round - about 2:1.
However, the HE charge in the MG 131 must be very small, looking at the very small dimensions of the projectile. I wouldn't expect too much of an effect, but it should be worth something.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-19-2000).]
-
Well, quite obviously the mg151 is modelled as having none or very close to nonexistant AP capability in it's rounds. Thus if separate ammo types would be modelled, perhaps a portion of the hispano whines would cease, as the pilots would have to choose HE or AP or a mix of these in their ammo belts.
And this is a point of interest:
Are the hispano rounds modelled as to having the full explosive capability of HE ammo and also the best penetrating capability of AP ammo thus combining the best of the two into one bullet? If so, then choosing a AP/HE-mix in the ammo belts would result in a lowered HE and AP capability respectively.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---
-
Originally posted by funked:
I agree. In the only objective and scientific gun test results I've seen (performed by Dinger, processed by Hooligan), the ratio of MG 131 lethality to M2 .50 cal lethality was the same as the ratio of MG 131 KE/round to M2. 50 KE/round - about 2:1.
Does this mean those unscientific hangar shootout testings?
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 10-19-2000).]
-
I think what most don't like about the Hispano is the speed and hitting power of a hardened-steel AP round, with the chemical energy of the flat nosed HE.
There's many charts that in the Aircraft forum that have pictures of the AP and HE Hispano rounds side by side. Like any gun, they have very different trajectories. The AP is a fast, flat shooting round, while the HE is intially slower and arcs quite a bit more.
As far as the Hispano Mk II HE availablility...it was there, but generally it was rejected by the pilots, when it was their option to do so. They had a very bad reputation of pre-detenation in the barrel because of the combination of first-round HE shells with a sensitive fuse, and muzzle tape. While that was fixed before 43, pilots were still very wary of it.
By 44 the supply of 20mm Mk II was abundant enough that British pilots usually had a mission specific choice. AP was preferred because a more universal role round. It also had a trajectory much more like the .50 cal on the Spitfire, so aiming with multiple banks was easier.
I'm not sure what the F4U-1C loaded into it's belts, but it's role and the damage done to the several bombers engaged by them and shot down suggest a solely AP belt.
That's based on several factors. First, They are poised for ground attack work. While the Japanese have no strong armor in the immediate area, but they do have alot of concrete pill boxs. A mass of AP shells from oblique angles would work pretty well for collapsing them. Second, ships, and lots of them.
Now as far as the recorded account of them engaging a Japanese bomber, it took a great deal of ammunition to bring it down. Tracer/AP/HE mix would of most likely set it afire, which didn't happen. But there's really to much guess work there because of the random nature of downing large planes.
- Jig
-
Jig, your extrapolating alot of data from a single incident, to explain the ammunition specifics from the entire war (the single F4U-1C incident).
Its like when the Luftwaffe guys start with the MG151"mine" shell thing. True, It may have been the most common shell in the summer of 1944 on the western front (which hasn't been proven in itself yet), but what about the rest of 1939-45? Or in North Afrika, or the Eastern Front?
You can read many accounts of "These pilots preferred this..." or "This squadron typically did this".
That doesnt' mean that you can take those statements and stretch them to cover that those conditions were the prevailing conditions for an entire Country throughout the entire war.
Not only may the conditions/preferences been different for other units/theaters, simple logistics and production availability may dictate much different situations.
Show me some kind of production numbers for shell types per country for the entire war (or other applicable data), and I will type my hands off writting posts in support of making such a change as RAM suggests.
But posts like "Well I read in GrayHawk Killer DoubleAces of the Luftwaffe, that in JG989 that all the aces flew with nuclear tip ammunition mixed in with corrosive chemical warhead ammuntion, while the stinking British Nancy Boys flew with Spitwad ammunition in their cannons, because the British factory workers were having Tea and crumpets instead of working properly for the Queen". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Well... you get my point.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-20-2000).]
-
(http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/cartridges.jpg)
E-mailed to me by Tony Williams author of Rapid Fire (Airlife). Even BREDA-Safat fired HE shells. With very good effect, judging from what C.202s did in North Afrika. Anyway, great book, I recommend it.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-20-2000).]
-
Gatt, did you recieve your copy ? Last I had heard, no one had yet gotten their shipment, and I was waiting to hear if it was worth the money.
Worth the Cash?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
I received it yesterday from Amazon. Well, I thought it was a bit more technical and focused on a/c guns, but I think it is worth the price.
-
Thats what I was principally looking for, a technical manual with alot of good data.
So is it not worth the money then?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Good question Verm,
I'm not so addicted, so probably for me it is more than enuff. I'm afraid that it could not be so for a bullet-penetration-ballistic-convergence-HE-AP wizard (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Anyway, I do think it is a good book.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Jig, your extrapolating alot of data from a single incident, to explain the ammunition specifics from the entire war (the single F4U-1C incident).
Its like when the Luftwaffe guys start with the MG151"mine" shell thing. True, It may have been the most common shell in the summer of 1944 on the western front (which hasn't been proven in itself yet), but what about the rest of 1939-45? Or in North Afrika, or the Eastern Front?
You can read many accounts of "These pilots preferred this..." or "This squadron typically did this".
That doesnt' mean that you can take those statements and stretch them to cover that those conditions were the prevailing conditions for an entire Country throughout the entire war.
Not only may the conditions/preferences been different for other units/theaters, simple logistics and production availability may dictate much different situations.
Show me some kind of production numbers for shell types per country for the entire war (or other applicable data), and I will type my hands off writting posts in support of making such a change as RAM suggests.
But posts like "Well I read in GrayHawk Killer DoubleAces of the Luftwaffe, that in JG989 that all the aces flew with nuclear tip ammunition mixed in with corrosive chemical warhead ammuntion, while the stinking British Nancy Boys flew with Spitwad ammunition in their cannons, because the British factory workers were having Tea and crumpets instead of working properly for the Queen". (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
Well... you get my point.
I only use the F4U-1C incedent because it is the only reference (basically) there is. Most of the others are to vague, but that incident descirbes in the most detail. I have seen nothing that suggest for or agianst otherwise. Notice all the little disclaimers in my post (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The stuff above it is totally unrelated other then they both used Hispanos. Generally, during WWII, armor-piercing was more widely available to ground attack units. It was certainly not the best at any one job, but it was capable of all, where as the HE types had almost no use in some jobs.
For comparison, say the GP bombs, vs Incd., AP, HV, Frag, etc. While the others were available time to time, there was nearly always GP's around too.
At one time, I had believed that the 1C's carried HE...but given they operated in a very tight area around Okinawa and had pretty general roles I have no faith in that anymore. (ground attack, anti-shipping, etc. 71 kills during their extensive use)
I pulled up making a left turn, then a right and got him on a head-on. He was about 800 feet ahead of and slightly below me when I fired. This makes an easy shot because you can aim ahead of him; he would run into the bullets, without deflection, just a high-to-low head-on shot. I gave it a long burst. I didn't see the bullets strike. I just pulled the trigger and he blew to hell - a big ball of fire.
Lt Joe Robbins VF-85, 5 Victories (3 in F4U-1C)
From the HTC pages. Different situation. Does it suggest they use HE ammo? Maybe. Mix? Now way to confrim it.
F4U-1C 1945 = Close-air-support version with four 20mm cannons; first combat at Okinawa. POP: 200 modified from F4U-1A.
Not much here other than specified ground attack. Adds to the 1A/1D confusion though.
The squadron continued strafing and bombing missions until moving to Okinawa in March 1945, and was the first Marine squadron to use fighter aircraft for dive bombing missions. The squadron, now flying the F4U-1C (a modification which include four 20mm cannons and pylons for 5-inch rockets), downed its first aircraft on April 7, 1945. Combat air patrols were the predominant mission until the war ended.
From the VMA-311 page. Again this demonstrates the ground attack role. Also notice how long t took for their first kill (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif) But, after the ground-attack switch they switched to CAP's. Even more vague.
As you might guess, finding total production that are specific enough to make conclusions for ammuntion types is difficult. Even more so is distribution amoung squads. Sure they would use what they had, but what DID they have?
I was merely making a suggestion that they were using a AP belt at the time. And Marine squadrons weren't subject to alot of variety (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However, before '43, there weren't many HE shells for the Brit's Hispano. The teething problems with the shell lead to very small distribution. I tried to point out they didn't have a choice most of the time due to command issues, but they did pefer the AP round, even after the HE round became more available, most likely because that's all they had used in '42.
I've been looking for 3 hours for web source.
The most specific I've found is "millions of shells" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
- Jig
-
Jig, sorry if it seemed like a personal attack. Most of it was really a friendly poke in the ribs to RAM.
I think we both agree that there is very little direct evidence out there. And what we do have is vague and anecdotal.
Remember also that RAMs point was two sided. What information is available on German loadouts? Maybe AP was also very common or more common than is usually represented by the Luftwaffe fan base, in units assigned to other fronts, different periods of the war, or units not directly involved in bomber busting.
But really this lack of information illustrates my point very well.
Which is that we should not make what amounts to a very large change to the simulation (game? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) based upon such little information.
Sorry if it seemed I was coming after you personally. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Jig, sorry if it seemed like a personal attack. Most of it was really a friendly poke in the ribs to RAM.
I think we both agree that there is very little direct evidence out there. And what we do have is vague and anecdotal.
Remember also that RAMs point was two sided. What information is available on German loadouts? Maybe AP was also very common or more common than is usually represented by the Luftwaffe fan base, in units assigned to other fronts, different periods of the war, or units not directly involved in bomber busting.
But really this lack of information illustrates my point very well.
Which is that we should not make what amounts to a very large change to the simulation (game? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) based upon such little information.
Sorry if it seemed I was coming after you personally. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The logical conclusion of your statment is that it is ok to add things to the game bases on little information. But not allright to question them based on little information.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Jig, sorry if it seemed like a personal attack. Most of it was really a friendly poke in the ribs to RAM.
I think we both agree that there is very little direct evidence out there. And what we do have is vague and anecdotal.
Remember also that RAMs point was two sided. What information is available on German loadouts? Maybe AP was also very common or more common than is usually represented by the Luftwaffe fan base, in units assigned to other fronts, different periods of the war, or units not directly involved in bomber busting.
But really this lack of information illustrates my point very well.
Which is that we should not make what amounts to a very large change to the simulation (game? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) based upon such little information.
Sorry if it seemed I was coming after you personally. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'm still against a all in one wonder shell though, but that goes for any plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
No one tended to track the millions of shells used by any squadron, let alone what type there was. It's not a big deal with .50, or other rifle caliber shells because nearly every variety of shell had a really simular flight path. (tracers are the exception though) And given it's ROF, it's going to usually land more then 1 bullet.
The AP and HE Hispano shells (and another cannon for that matter) are very different
though. The bigger a shell gets, the worse the seperation gets.
Problem is, I have yet to find a sorce that said they didn't use mixed ammo belts (In 20mm). BUT I have yet to have one that said they did! There's much more evidence for German guns because they kept more accurate records (and were producing less then the allies, with a specific cause in mind) Therefore we know they mostly used stirctly HE rounds. But there were MG 151 AP rounds produced. They were used for ground attack when available. There's no evidence pointing for or against the Germans using soley AP, or mixed belts, either though.
Best source I've found was by Emmanuel Gustin. He has very well doucmented (and unbiased (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) information.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html)
- Jig
-
Jig, you don't need to quote my entire message each time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) it wastes space and load up times. Just put my name at the top or specifically quote just the parts you wish to respond too.
Back to Issue
I know that page quite well, in fact its the one I have been refering too all along.
Look at my posts and back look at Gustin's page.
Gustin's page quite clearly states that the loadout mentioned is for 1944 bomber interceptions on the Western front, and that for Eastern front missions more AP ammunition would be loaded.
So how does this information prove RAM's original statement: If we give each cannon their REALISTIC, their MOST used ammo respectively, then I assure you that Relative lethality WONT be the same. And believe me that the MG151 wont be the loser in that tradeoff, because that means that MG151 will use HE rounds and Hispanolazers only AP rounds.
It doesn't. It merely shows a common loadout used on one front, during the 1944 campaign.
No one tended to track the millions of shells used by any squadron, let alone what type there was
No, but country's kept production figures on types and ammounts of ammunition produced.
Pongo
The logical conclusion of your statment is that it is ok to add things to the game bases on little information. But not allright to question them based on little information.
Not in the least. My logical conclusion is Ammunition must be in the game, because we must have it to play, and it can not be "left out" due to insufficent data. So we didn't just "add something without sufficient data", the issue is that we had to add something without full data. Plus our current system applies the ammunition rules evenly, across the board to all country's represented in the game.
So while these assumptions/rules are not perfect, they are applied evenly.
But then you wish to change that rule to unbalance the situation without sufficent proof or evidence.
Thats when I cry foul.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Quit associating me with Ram (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Btw, try finding something more then gross estimates as far as shell production goes...I've seen hard numbers for brass casing, primers, fuses, but because one factory didn't make all the componets, finding what shell types were actually delivered, it's unbelieveably difficult (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In the present system though, even if different ammunition types, mixed belts, etc were added the Mauser will never beat the Hispano.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 10-21-2000).]
-
Cool pics GATT!!!
I shall start a thread talking about the evil combined AP/HE effects of the Breda! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-21-2000).]
-
"
But then you wish to change that rule to unbalance the situation without sufficent proof or evidence.
Thats when I cry foul.
"
But of course the current system is far from balanced. And the people who call foul you say need more evidence to do so.
I have pictures of front line RCAF armourers loading a mixed belt of 20mm into a Spit IX in 44-45. They deffinatly loaded mixed belts late in the war.
-
I didn't say the system was playbalanced (which we don't want anyway do we? If so lets get rid of all the aircraft except one). I said the system was applied evenly across the board, ie the same assumptions were applied to both sides.
Now you have me confused.
You say you have proof of Spit IX's with mixed belts from 1944. Good! then your proving my point exactly.
So now we both agree that at least in 1944, some proof exists that both sides used mixed belts of ammunition. Which is what our system represents.
Not RAM's prior statement that Germans used mostly HE and the Allied used only AP.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
However, how are the trajectories calculated?
IIRC the hispano's trajectory is calculated from the AP rounds performance but the Mauser's is from HE round. Shouldn't it be that both sets of numbers should be taken from HE or AP only and not mix them around.
And if we truly had mixed belts then there would be radical bullet dispersion from combining AP and HE shells, for hispano and mauser both. Now we have some sort of synthesis that has the principal effect of making Luftwobbles furious and The-Guys-Who-Fly-Hispano-AC defensive.
------------------
---
SageFIN
"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---
-
There IS radical bullet dispersion.
-
Originally posted by funked:
There IS radical bullet dispersion.
Albeit with a HE traveling at a AP's velocity. I figure we'd survive a whole second more if seperated ammunition was used.
User who turn off tracers should still get a leathality bonus, where applicable (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
- Jig