PDA

View Full Version : The WWII Fighter Gun Debate



SECUDUS
02-15-2004, 04:38 PM
Finally here's a site that will put to rest the question about how much clout one particular a/c had against another...Some might be dissapointed with the answer...Lol!

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

Oh, oh, hang on the Geocities site is down...Bugger, that was a good site! Ah well you'll have to take my word that it was...Lol!

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

[This message was edited by SECUDUS on Sun February 15 2004 at 03:47 PM.]

SECUDUS
02-15-2004, 04:38 PM
Finally here's a site that will put to rest the question about how much clout one particular a/c had against another...Some might be dissapointed with the answer...Lol!

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

Oh, oh, hang on the Geocities site is down...Bugger, that was a good site! Ah well you'll have to take my word that it was...Lol!

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

[This message was edited by SECUDUS on Sun February 15 2004 at 03:47 PM.]

VW-IceFire
02-15-2004, 04:47 PM
This is another one I've found:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

I believe both of them seem to agree most or all of the time...although I've never really checked. The first one has exceeded its bandwidth quota for the hour unfortunately http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Who would be disappointed about what BTW?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

SECUDUS
02-15-2004, 04:52 PM
Well, so as not to cause a international incident I won't give the a/c in question, but I will say this...You would be very happy at the conclusion for WWII a/c which carried the biggest clout!

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

hobnail
02-15-2004, 07:50 PM
http://users.on.net/apoulos/2621aU1.jpg
mmm.

Quite frightening was a proposed future 262 variant which was to mount 2xMk213C/20 and 2xMk112 55mm.

http://users.on.net/apoulos/webbanner.jpg (http://www.jg11.com)

Vladimir_No2
02-15-2004, 09:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobnail:
http://users.on.net/apoulos/2621aU1.jpg
mmm.

Quite frightening was a proposed future 262 variant which was to mount 2xMk213C/20 and 2xMk112 55mm.

http://www.jg11.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and I thought that 4xMk108s were dangerous. That would be quite effective unless the aircraft became underpowered because of the added weight.

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

tenmmike
02-15-2004, 09:50 PM
those two site are from the same guy.anthony g williams.......his books rapid fire and flying guns are both excellant ..if you can afford them get them, they are very good

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

clint-ruin
02-15-2004, 09:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vladimir_No2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobnail:
http://users.on.net/apoulos/2621aU1.jpg
mmm.

Quite frightening was a proposed future 262 variant which was to mount 2xMk213C/20 and 2xMk112 55mm.

http://www.jg11.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and I thought that 4xMk108s were dangerous. That would be quite effective unless the aircraft became underpowered because of the added weight.

http://www.doyle.com.au/images/scharnhorst2.JPG
"Engage the enemy more closely" -Rear Admiral Cradock

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The page Icefire linked certainly comes up with some interesting numbers! Something to chew on for those who feel the MG17/MG131/.30/.303 cals are undermodelled or the UB overmodelled in hitting power [now we just need to get their trajectory and velocity drop fixed :&gt;]. The odd ones out as compared to FB testing on IceFires page link seem to be the Japanese cannons.

Still, it's pretty hard to do better than 4 x Hispano-Suiza if I understand the implication of Secudus's post. Hurri IIc - when hitting at or near convergence - is easily top of the list for damage per second in FB versus most engines and structural components.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SECUDUS
02-16-2004, 08:29 AM
Ah the site is up and running again!

Take alook at this page and you will see why the 4 x Hispano-Suiza were used by the British (The Whirlwind being the first British fighter to do so) in preferance to the .50's favoured by the American's...? Though in fairness we did make a slight mistake with the .303's

I quote "A comparison with the P-51 shows that the 20mm Hispano was the equivalent in weight of fire and muzzle power of two .50 Brownings; its more deadly ammunition was another advantage."

The Whirly if it had been developed would have been more than a match for the P-38 (In fact the P-38 apart from its speed advantage due to its choice of engines had little else superior to it's British older cousin) The later, Tempest was capable of the biggest clout of them all, even putting the P-47 to shame... Lol!

Or have I got it all wrong?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 08:37 AM
I'm fairly certain that the Hispano cannons we have in FB are a tad too high in terms of damage potential. Last night I exploded in a 109 with a single blast of well aimed cannon fire from a Hurricane IIC. Thats perhaps a bit TOO good...but not too far off. Hispano's certainly had the kinetic impact that some of the other cannons didn't have. We'll find out with the P-38 and the Spitfire V how good the Hispano is.

Tempest once again is near the top of the list. There's only a few aircraft with superior firepower (the 109 with 3x30mm and the 262) and I daresay but the rapid fire rate of the Hispano V and the stable gun platform that the Tempest (and Typhoon) is makes them a better choice in my eyes for fighter combat.

I'd say these two sites pretty much validate alot of what we see in FB in the 1.22 patch. Certainly the .50cal was undermodeled before but with the current modeling it seems very much accurate with what we see here. The same goes for all of the Russian guns and so on (which explains why the Russians mounted a single cannon alot of the time - it was reliable and powerful). It has some interesting history for the German 20mm cannons as well...the low muzzle rate on the MG-FF and the development of the MG151/20 from the MG151/15 (which I think explains its good fire rate and speed with slightly less punch - its still easily the 3rd best gun on 20mm list).

I can't wait for more aircraft with more of these weapons http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

MandMs
02-16-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SECUDUS:

The Whirly if it had been developed would have been more than a match for the P-38 (In fact the P-38 apart from its speed advantage due to its choice of engines had little else superior to it's British older cousin) The later, Tempest was capable of the biggest clout of them all, even putting the P-47 to shame... Lol!

Or have I got it all wrong?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Whirlwind was developed into the dud of the Welkin.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The P-38, besides its speed, had ceiling, range and bombload advantages over the Whirlwind.

MandMs
02-16-2004, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hobnail:
http://users.on.net/apoulos/2621aU1.jpg
mmm.

Quite frightening was a proposed future 262 variant which was to mount 2xMk213C/20 and 2xMk112 55mm.

http://www.jg11.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you imagine trying to aim 3 different types of weapons with all having different RoVs and ballistic characteristics.

If only one MK214A (50mm) could be fitted, how can 2 MK112s be fitted?

There was a proposal to mount 4 MK213C rotary cannons.

The Germans had a motor driven rotary mg in WW1. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif It was of 12 barrels and was designed by the Fokker Waffenfabrik.

SECUDUS
02-16-2004, 10:40 AM
"The Whirlwind was developed into the dud of the Welkin."

I'm afraid your wrong on that point. The Whirlwind was brought into being by Specification F.37/35 for a 'high-performance, single-seat, day and night fighter', where as the design of the Welkin was built to Specification F.4/40 for a 'single-seat, high-altitude fighter' apart from the mid-mounted tailplane, wing leading-edge radiators and four 20mm Hispano cannon arranged in the nose, it was a completly different a/c!

The Whirlwind's only downfall was the lack of developement of its 'Peregrine' engines by Rolls-Royce who were at the time concentrating on the 'Merlin'
For want of a few extra h.p. that would have given it it's high-altitude performance, the Whirlwind would have had as much 'punch' and in some cases more in 1940 as the much larger(Including the Tempest and the P-38...) had at the end! Imagine that in an aircraft of that size and weight! Oh, how short sighted we were...

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

MandMs
02-16-2004, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SECUDUS:
"The Whirlwind was developed into the dud of the Welkin."

I'm afraid your wrong on that point. The Whirlwind was brought into being by Specification F.37/35 for a 'high-performance, single-seat, day and night fighter', where as the design of the Welkin was built to Specification F.4/40 for a 'single-seat, high-altitude fighter' apart from the mid-mounted tailplane, wing leading-edge radiators and four 20mm Hispano cannon arranged in the nose, it was a completly different a/c!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Welkin was a continuation of the Westland design configuration of a two engined heavily armed a/c that was originally the Whirlwind. If you want to nit-pick go ahead.

Also you is wrong, as the P.14 was to be also a 6 cannon 2 seater. The Mk II was to be a NF.

Spec F.37/35 was for a "cannon fighter".

clint-ruin
02-16-2004, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I'm fairly certain that the Hispano cannons we have in FB are a tad too high in terms of damage potential. Last night I exploded in a 109 with a single blast of well aimed cannon fire from a Hurricane IIC. Thats perhaps a bit TOO good...but not too far off. Hispano's certainly had the kinetic impact that some of the other cannons didn't have. We'll find out with the P-38 and the Spitfire V how good the Hispano is.

Tempest once again is near the top of the list. There's only a few aircraft with superior firepower (the 109 with 3x30mm and the 262) and I daresay but the rapid fire rate of the Hispano V and the stable gun platform that the Tempest (and Typhoon) is makes them a better choice in my eyes for fighter combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, accuracy is important.

The Mk-108 doesn't start to shine until the closer ranged tests [of 400-350-300-250-200-150-100-50m, it starts getting parity picking up at 150 and dominates 100/50]. If the first hit of a single-point MK108 installation doesn't destroy the target, it can sometimes be a while before the second HE/MG shell scores a hit.
MK108 dispersion has been a sore point - FB1.00 had a really, really wide spread for that gun, and it was reduced about 50% for 1.11. Still makes anything other than point-blank shooting a bit touchy, though.

Dispersion of the Hizookas is very low - no idea how much of this is from the gun, and how much of this is from the Hurri being a stable gun platform.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

SECUDUS
02-16-2004, 01:07 PM
"Also you is wrong, as the P.14 was to be also a 6 cannon 2 seater. The Mk II was to be a NF."

Spec F.37/35 was for a "cannon fighter".

The 'one off' Welkin MkII was a two-seat night fighter. Produced in 1944, had a longer nose to accommodate A.I.(Airborne Interception) radar and increased outer-wing dihedral. The windscreen was lowered and the cockpit moved forward to make space for the rearward-facing observer behind the pilot. Both Mk's had cannon (4) armament.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/WhirlySig03.jpg?0.8016962940949658

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 02:57 PM
ive read the jap cannon where not convergerged ive read, some of the larger calibre where dire in acracy terms

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg