HiTech, you may check real MG-FF dispersion here

[GODO]

Originally posted by Pyro
No, it's not like that at all.  First of all, things like velocity and mv is readily available information.  Dispertion is not.

That is a different story. If information is unavailable, you may start with some basic aproach using a generic dispersion, just halve the dispersion for wingroot or nose mountings, and quadruple the dispersion for handed guns. But take also into consideration that caliber is a wrong aproach, energy may be a better one. It seems that the old MG-FF, even wing mounted, is more accurate than 50"s.  

Originally posted by Pyro
Second, you attach way too much importance to it. It would have to get extremely large before it could anywhere close to the other factors you put it in company with.

I disagree. Dispersion is the primary factor to measure gun/mounting accuracy. As far as you can predict accurately where a round will land at 300m, your weapon will be effective, even having a single gun. If the round trajectory is not so flat or not so fast is, IMO, secondary, as far as it doesnt miss the target.

And, of course, If I eventually get accurate information about dispersion for different weapons and different mountings, I will share it with you, as any of us will do. But, take into consideration that players usually expend its AH limited free time playing, not looking for info

Said that, please, check all the current manned guns, on ships and ground, none of them has even the minimal dispersion configured, with the exception of the 5", these have a bit (very small bit) of dispersion.

[Krusty]

I think being mounted to a several-ton cement platform by heavy steel mounts would negate all problems for dispersion, providing a good, steady, stream of rounds.

[Urchin]

Having talked to Pyro about guns and how they are modelled in the game..  I kinda trust how he has it.

[Crumpp]

I think being mounted to a several-ton cement platform by heavy steel mounts would negate all problems for dispersion, providing a good, steady, stream of rounds.

Actually not, bro.  Depends on the actual gun cradle/mount.  In a flexible mount, such as a waist gun, dispersion is greater than a pintle with T & E.

Crumpp

[Krusty]

Yeah, but on a field gun, which was what I meant by the heavy, sturdy, base, you don't aim by yourself, you aim by turning gears which lock the gun in place, even during recoil.


That's what I was thinking of, specifically.

[HoHun]

Hi Krusty,

>Yeah, but on a field gun, which was what I meant by the heavy, sturdy, base, you don't aim by yourself, you aim by turning gears which lock the gun in place, even during recoil.

Well, sounds logical, but have a look at this:

http://www.sadid.co.za/SADID_7/edition7/liw-nads/liw-nads.html

Modern 35 mm gun, 5.5 t total weight, still the 1 sigma dispersion is 2 mrads (= mils). The 70% dispersion we're talking about is 2 sigma, 100% dispersion more like 3 sigma, or 6 mils.

I don't think WW2 AAA would have been any better than that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Pyro]

Originally posted by GODO
I disagree. Dispersion is the primary factor to measure gun/mounting accuracy. As far as you can predict accurately where a round will land at 300m, your weapon will be effective, even having a single gun. If the round trajectory is not so flat or not so fast is, IMO, secondary, as far as it doesnt miss the target.
 

If battles took place on the gun range against stationary targets, I would agree with you.  Extreme accuracy is irrelevent if the target is no longer where you aimed when the bullet reaches that point.  Some dispersion is not bad and was often intentionally put in with how the convergences were set up.  

Originally posted by GODO
That is a different story. If information is unavailable, you may start with some basic aproach using a generic dispersion, just halve the dispersion for wingroot or nose mountings, and quadruple the dispersion for handed guns. But take also into consideration that caliber is a wrong aproach, energy may be a better one. It seems that the old MG-FF, even wing mounted, is more accurate than 50"s.  

And, of course, If I eventually get accurate information about dispersion for different weapons and different mountings, I will share it with you, as any of us will do. But, take into consideration that players usually expend its AH limited free time playing, not looking for info
 

So grab what info is readily available and volunteered here and see if a model can be made to extrapolate out a general but better arrangement.  I'm not asking you to dig up the data on every plane, most of which is probably nonexistant.  Just start up a thread on how dispersion should be modeled and I'm sure you'll get plenty of input and advice.  And then when things are as good as they're going to get, I'll stick them in.

[Charge]

"NATO 35 x 228 mm rounds at 1100 rounds per minute, with a muzzle velocity of 1175 meters per second."

30mm MK108 650 r/min with 525 m/s. Hardly similar as the weapon mentioned above. To me it seems that they produce quite a different amount of recoil energy as well.

-C+

[Karnak]

Charge,

Tony was comparing it to an MK103, not an MK108.

[GODO]

Pyro, you can still have a far more accurate gunnery model even without real numbers per gun and mounting.

My proposal would be to start measuring the power of the guns, it should be easy to find that information, weight of the round, muzzle velocity and ROF would be the factors.

You can start with the less potent gun, probably MG-FF with the known 1 mil dispersion, then make the dispersion of any other weapon be a function of its power relative to the 1 mil dispersion gun (MG-FF?). It would be ideal to know the dispersion of the less potent gun and the dispersion of the most potent gun, and then scale any other dispersion depending on the each gun power between these two values.

Once you have the "base" dispersion of every gun, multiply by 2 or 3 (Hohun?) that dispersion for guns in half wing mountings, and multiply by 4 or 5 for manned guns.

About air combat and gunnery, if you learn to aim, yo will easily predict where the engine of the enemy plane will be when the round reach the target with the target moving, not stationary. Some gunsights were well marked for that purpose. As far as you can follow the target with the sight and make the target "stationary" relative to a known mark in the sight, you will hit with a 0 mil dispersion weapon and with the very first round (unless the target changes violently its course or the turn is so tight that the target is obscured by the nose of your plane). It is like the old "trick" of aiming torps with PT boat against a moving ship, just make the moving ship "stationary" with your PT boat course and launch the 0 dispersion torpedoes, and, if inside range, you will hit always.

[Pyro]

Sounds good to me.  Collect some basic info and see what relationships exist between the different data points.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by GODO
About air combat and gunnery, if you learn to aim, yo will easily predict where the engine of the enemy plane will be when the round reach the target with the target moving, not stationary. Some gunsights were well marked for that purpose. As far as you can follow the target with the sight and make the target "stationary" relative to a known mark in the sight, you will hit with a 0 mil dispersion weapon and with the very first round (unless the target changes violently its course or the turn is so tight that the target is obscured by the nose of your plane). It is like the old "trick" of aiming torps with PT boat against a moving ship, just make the moving ship "stationary" with your PT boat course and launch the 0 dispersion torpedoes, and, if inside range, you will hit always.

It is not quite that simple. The PT boats were cruising at the same speed as their torps, and that's how they could aim them by finding the angle of approach that kept the target stationary in their sights. Aircraft do not have the same capability, thus relative speed becomes a factor.

[Charge]

So if all the guns have a certain dispersion factor there is no difference in ME262 firing 4xMK108 simultaneously and Bf109 firing single centerline MK108. They all have similar dispersion pattern.

I'd imagine the engine mounted MK108 to be quite accurate considering the placement on recoil point of view. Dunno how the engine vibration would affect it as it is not attached to engine but in forward fuselage and just fires "through" the engine.

On ballistics: It is, of course, good to have a streamlined greanade when flight speed is considered but in relatively light grenades it is also good to have a blunt tip so it more easily enters the fuselage of the target in shallow angles and does not bounce away.

-C+

[GScholz]

The "bounce away" myth is just that ... a myth. The skin of aircraft is in no way strong enough to deflect even the guns with lowest of muzzle velocities. Most pistol rounds would penetrate at 50-100 yards even at extremely shallow angles.

[Charge]

So why didn't they put a bakelite cap to the Minengesch. tip to gain better ballistics?

-C+