Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality

[-lynx-]

verm - no jet fighter is carrying a Vulcan. The only plane (in fighter class) with multibarrel cannon is A10 - a 7 barrel 30mm thing with 600 rpm/barrel. It (the cannon) weighs 2.5 tons (shedload of pounds for those imperial minded) with the ammo load. But then again - A10 IS that cannon with twin turbofans, wings and a titanium bathtab for a cockpit.

When you talk about jets just keep in mind that at 600+ knots an irregular hole in your fuselage may shred the whole thing into pasta just by the sheer power of the airflow...



------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

[Wolverine]

I must say that all the fancy terms we use are mute.  It comes down to this:

Both .50s and Cannons can EASILY punture the skin of an aircraft.  Once that step is done, it's really just a matter of where the shell hit.  What brought planes down the most was, engine failure (fuel lines, oil, or direct damage) or control damage (lines, hinges, etc).  In terms of bringing a plane down both rounds are going to do it.  The only thing that the cannon has for it in terms of the above (engine or control failure) is that when the round exploded, fragments could damage the surrounding structures turning a near miss into a "fatal" hit.

HOWEVER.

In terms of STRUCTURAL damage (wing falling off), the cannon has a MUCH bigger chance to do such damage.  It was STILL UNCOMMON however.

What I'd like to see is structural failure percentages toned down a LOT.  That means that wing loss would be toned down to a rare event and only if a LOT of cannon rounds hit the wing in the same spot (not sure how many "sweet" spots there are on the damage model).  Fact is, cannon rounds really did control surface damage when impacting a wing (read: flap, aileron failure).

I'm sick and tired of one of two things happening the majority of the time.

1. My wing falling off.
2. Just exploding.

Those two should be the rare deaths.

I won't even get into the damage inflicted on a B-17.  It's ridiculous here.

[RAM]

Well i guess is time to mess in here    

As I said before, I think 50 cals are a little turned down...but only at long ranges.
I've flied P51 a lot this TOD. I love the plane. I've set convergence at 300yds, and usually I fire 2-3 second busts. Under 300-350 Yds I find the 50 cals' feeling OK. U sually not very mortal...but that cuz my shooting sucks!!! but when I get steady pings, I get a kill.
I agree about longer distance hits...but with 300yds convergence I never expect to kill anything beyond 500 yds.
I find the 50 cans OK. Cave, RANGRBOB...when I came here first time, B17 had assasin guns, was kinda "God's death ray"...Now 50 cals are less powerful (IMHO well done), But you still have advantages on aiming and distance firing, and I find that Buffs MGs are OK. You cant expect to go in a mission to a capped field , be attacked by 4 cons and go out alive!!!! Get escort, and go in group...as B17s did in RL.

Now, we've talked about HIspanos...why dont we talk about MG151??...the weapon is FAR less mortal that it should be...It has much less punch that what I find reasonable (in fact a 4-cannon Fw190A-8 in a Ho vs a spitIX is in DISADVANTAGE!)...Thats why I said that I find Hispanos a bit overmodelled...or Mg151 a bit UNDERmodelled. I know that Mauser 20mm was less powerful than Hispano...but 4 20mms MUST SHRED a spit LONG before the Spit kills the Fw190!

BTW can anyone post here some data bout MG131? I thought it was roughly equal to american 50 cals.




[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 03-28-2000).]

[Pyro]

The circle is complete.




------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

No sniveling!

[Dingy]

Wolvie says:

I'm sick and tired of one of two things happening the majority of the time.

1. My wing falling off.
2. Just exploding.

Dude! You havent flown in AGES!!!  Give up your Gamestorm and EverCrack accounts and come fly with us!  

-Ding

[Wolverine]

Give up EverCrack...

[ponders that thought]

You're outta your mind.  They're about to up the dosage with the expansion man!

I'll join up soon enough.  30 is still a bit steep for me.  I'd like to see a few more developments before I make that kind of commitment.

------------------
Wolverine [wlvrn]
 www.wlvrn.com

33rd Strike Group
 www.33rd.org

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."


[This message has been edited by Wolverine (edited 03-28-2000).]

[Hangtime]

Pyro..

"the circle is complete"

Once more; for the slow pilots (like me).. what does this mean??

Hang

[Pongo]

 

Originally posted by -lynx-:
verm - no jet fighter is carrying a Vulcan. The only plane (in fighter class) with multibarrel cannon is A10 - a 7 barrel 30mm thing with 600 rpm/barrel. It (the cannon) weighs 2.5 tons (shedload of pounds for those imperial minded) with the ammo load. But then again - A10 IS that cannon with twin turbofans, wings and a titanium bathtab for a cockpit.

When you talk about jets just keep in mind that at 600+ knots an irregular hole in your fuselage may shred the whole thing into pasta just by the sheer power of the airflow...

planes off the top of my head equiped with an m61 vulcan 6 barreled 20mm cannon
f104(the first)
f4e
f16
f18
f15
f22
must be more.

edit
AC130!
AMX?
russians use rotary cannons i beleive as well only with 2 barrels instead of 6.

------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew

[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 03-28-2000).]

[RAM]

F14 has Vulcan too...F105 "thud" I believe it had it also (im lacking in this thing cuz is a plane i dont know very well). All versions of F4 Phantom after the "E" had the Vulcan.

Quote by Lynx:
The only plane (in fighter class) with multibarrel cannon is A10

Emm...lynx...A10 is a FIGHTER???? A-10 Thunderbolt is an ATTACK plane designed for anti-armor duties. Its only "fighter" qualities are the provision for AIM9 sidewinders...wich are never loaded BTW...


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 03-28-2000).]

[Pongo]

would do well here though....give it a LW cam job...

------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew

[Citabria]

lol it aint the guns that need fixin!!!!!

its that range indicator that tells ya exactly how to aim and how much closure you have and distance to the target that is making long range shooting too easy!!

as an experiment set range indicators to disapear past 400yards... the fighting will get much closer since no EFIS GPS Abomination is doing the aiming calculations for you.


its worth a try to "end the sniveling"


oh and icons below the planes

[AKDejaVu]

 

Emm...lynx...A10 is a FIGHTER???? A-10 Thunderbolt is an ATTACK plane designed for anti-armor duties. Its only "fighter" qualities are the provision for AIM9 sidewinders...wich are never loaded BTW...

I haven't heard of an a10 getting an A2A kill with a sidewinder, though I know they have with that cannon.  But then... the F-111 has an A2A kill with a 2000 lb bomb.  If I were flying and had my preference as to what were going to hit my plane... .50 first, 20mm second, 30mm 3rd, 105mm 4th, 2000 lb bomb last.

AKDejaVu

[CavemanJ]

RAM Pyro said (in another thread) that the buffs dinnae have any kind of range adjustment.  I'd swear HT said in the arena one day that they do, for netlag.  While realism is great, this is becoming a gameplay issue.  I love the bombers.  Check my time spent in them all the way back to beta tour 1 (214CaveJ during beta tours).  I quit flying them a week ago because I'm tired of being a target drone.  And you try to get a large enough formation for those BB guns to be effect just to capture a field.. won't happen.

Hangtime, I found that one confusing also.

In reading this thread and the one I started on the gameplay feedback board a thought ocurred to me.  

What type of ammo is being modeled in the .50s?

We have a ratio of 1:4(?) for tracers.  So tracers are here.  What are the other 3/4 of the belts I'm carrying?  
AP?
HE?
incindiary?

or just plain ball?

[Pongo]

I believe there was an experiment in putting HE rounds in the .50 but rounds where never produced.

I like to guess at just about anything so my money on pyros post is that he is refering to this line in RAMs post
"I find Hispanos a bit overmodelled...or Mg151 a bit UNDERmodelled"
Having started a post not asking to decrease the Hisp. but to increase the Ma Duece we have started to not only think about toning back the Hisp but maybe improve the 151.
In effect we are asking Pyro to

Make the 50 and the 151(probebly everything else) more deadly.
Make the buff tougher(made redundent by item 1)

Or he could be quoting D. Vader, DLS, JN(ret). And he thinks that one of us is going to challange him for his mastery..

------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew

[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 03-29-2000).]

[Vermillion]

Spritle, ok you forced me into it   the table below colates the data from Francillons book, I totaled every Japanese Army plane armed with the HO-5 cannon, and every Japanese Navy plane armed with the Type 99 cannon. Prototypes not included. Plus I was generous on the Ki-44 & Ki-46 since the HO-5 variants weren't broken out in the production totals, so I assumed ALL were HO-5 armed variants.

Results? Like I said the Type 99 Cannon was the most common Japanese Cannon, not the HO-5. Twice as many aircraft were armed with the Type 99, and twice as many Type 99 were mounted totaled. In fact the A6M Zero alone were armed with more Type 99's than the all the rest of the HO-5 armed Army aircraft together.

   

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"