PDA

View Full Version : 50 cal Test



JG4_Helofly
02-21-2006, 12:58 PM
Hello,

Beacause many people think that the 50 cal of p51, p47 ... I tryed to test it offline.

I made a quick mission in which I took a bf 109 or fw 190 vs 4 p51 noob AI. Full real with externals on. Every time the fist bullets already damaged the wing or the engine. Most time in the fw 190 the engine loose power and you have holes in the wing which makes the fw 190 impossible to fly in standard manoeuvers.
With the bf 109 it was the same.

You should try it. You will probaly be suprised how fast the 50 cal reduce the power of these aircrafts.

I don't know why many people are complaining about the effectivness of this ammunition. Offline it seems to be very effectif.

I can be wrong or maybe is the ai better or i don't know.

georgeo76
02-21-2006, 01:03 PM
Most think that if it don't explode, it ain't damaged.

HayateAce
02-21-2006, 01:49 PM
Shame on you HayateAce, you owe me a beer.

Targ

VMF-214_HaVoK
02-21-2006, 02:29 PM
Got tracks? I always find it funny when the Blue fliers tell us how well our weapons and FMs work.

I been saying how good the MG 151/20s were for years. But no blue would believe me...funny dont ya think.

TX-Zen
02-21-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:


I been saying how good the MG 151/20s were for years. But no blue would believe me...funny dont ya think.

I don't think the MG151/20 issue was funny at all, they were porked for years up until recently. I say that in good faith...pretty much all I ever do is fly the Dora and I have no doubt in my mind the 151/20's had problems for a very very long time.

As for how effective the 50's are now, if you tell me they need to be looked at I'll take your word for it. If you tell me that the 190's DM needs to be looked at it, I'll take your word for it, but if you say the 151's have always been fine...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Gibbage1
02-21-2006, 03:04 PM
The AI is just stupid, and you cant use it as a proper test for any aircraft DM. They take glancing blows and auger in for no reason other then they are just dumb as dirt.

And yes, I have tracks.

It may seem like you killed the AI, but its just the AI doing something stupid and flying into the ground.

Kocur_
02-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Good place to ask: does anybody have data on current in-game .50 ammo belting? If it is still what was posted by Oleg long time ago, i.e.:

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

, than not only beling is wrong, but also data of projectiles is totally incorrect, as those weights and velocities have nothing to do with RL .50 ammo.

Gibbage1
02-21-2006, 03:45 PM
What should the correct ammo be?

Lordbutter4
02-21-2006, 04:04 PM
I always found the german cannons more then enough to handle any plane. Now more often then not you have 1 hit kills with german 20mm. I find it funny people say the 50's are fine but the 20 was defintely porked.

IV_JG51_Prien
02-21-2006, 04:06 PM
Most think that if it don't explode, it ain't damaged.

Quoted for Truth.

It's along the same lines of why so many times I'll get shot up, engine catch fire, prop seize, then PK'ed and the bandit on my 6 is STILL blasting away at me like it's going out of style.

I've caught small bursts of .50 cal from human pilots online and it render my plane useless for anything other than limping back home. But I guess having your target limp back home doesn't do as much good for your score does it?

DaimonSyrius
02-21-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Beacause many people think that the 50 cal of p51, p47 ... I tryed to test it offline.

Excuse me, but I don't see quite clearly what it was exactly that you tried to test:

-You decided to test whether many people think? What a bold hypothesis! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

-You decided to test whether 50 cals actually do ...? My guess would be that they ..., but also they don't ..., on the other hand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Either way, good luck with the tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

anarchy52
02-21-2006, 04:15 PM
It's pretty obvious. I tested .50 cal and it does not kill Tigers even if bounced off the road - hence it not powerfull enough in game. Then, I shot up a 109 and it only lost controls and caught fire instead of imploding and creating a miniature singularity, black hole if you like!!! Third and final insult for .50 is that it does not have off bore launch capabilities of the real thing, in game you actually have to align your plane with target to have any chance of scoring hits.

Doug_Thompson
02-21-2006, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by georgeo76:
Most think that if it don't explode, it ain't damaged.

Besides being funny and true, it raises an interesting point.

Perhaps some of these offline tests on how effective the .50-cal are should be done while flying the target plane.

Kocur_
02-21-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
What should the correct ammo be?

Translating RL data into game's "ammo language" it would be:

Ball M2

mass = 0.046
speed = 860,0
power = 0

AP M2

mass = 0.046
speed = 860,0
power = 0

I M1
mass = 0.041
speed = 900,0
power = 0.002

T M10

mass = 0.041
speed = 870,0
power = 0

API M8

mass = 0.042
speed = 890,0
power = 0.001

APIT M20

mass = 0.042
speed = 890,0
power = 0,0017

It seems also that M23 incendiary made it too and was used in last months of WW2!

I M23

mass = 0.034
speed = 1036
power = 0,058


Types of projectiles mentioned in that 2002 post were:
T - Tracer bullet
AP - Armor-Piercing bullet
APT - Armor-Piercing with Tracer
API - Armor-Piercing Incendary
APIT - Armor-Piercing Incendary Tracer
HE - High-Explosive shell
HEI - High-Explosive Incendary shell
HET - High-Explosive with Tracer
HEIT - High-Explosive Incendary Tracer
MG - M-Geschoss, thin-shell High Explosive

There is no "Ball" i.e. regular projectile of lead core in steel jacket in the game, so we would drop the type and replace it with AP, since both have the same MV and weight. There is also no simple I projectile so that one has to be replaced with API in .50 belts.


Beltings.

Williams&Gustin mention early WW2 .50 belting: "The .50 Browning fighter belts in US service started the war loaded with 40 per cent AP, 40 per cent incendiary and 20 per cent tracer.". IRL it would be:

AP-AP-I-I-T

But since there is (was?) no 'I'in the game it would have to be:

AP-AP-API-API-T


As we know later APIs become preferable load, sometimes with tracer, sometimes without. I dont think we would like to get rid of tracers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. So it would be (sticking with 1 per 5 tracer):

API-API-API-API-T

or

API-API-API-API-APIT

M8 API was available since spring 1944, so above two beltings would be good for all "1944" US fighters and. Also since P-51B/C flew only few missons in 1943 and lots of them in 1944 I would vote for a "late .50 belting" for them too.
Distinguishing early and late WW2 .50 belting is proper from historical accuracy POV, but there is little difference between them (it would be bigger if there were 'I' projectiles at all in the game). I think that universal, "compromise"

API-API-API-API-T

(APIs instead two first AP from early belting, but OTOH T instead of APIT in second late belting) could be implemented if introducing two beltings for the same weapon in the game would be too much trouble.

Friendly_flyer
02-22-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The AI is just stupid, and you cant use it as a proper test for any aircraft DM.

Do you mean that the DM is different when flying online? I knew AI have simplyfied FM, but have never heard they have a different DM from a player plane.

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The AI is just stupid, and you cant use it as a proper test for any aircraft DM.

Do you mean that the DM is different when flying online? I knew AI have simplyfied FM, but have never heard they have a different DM from a player plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. It means they just do stupid stuff. I call it the "death spiral" and it happenes way too much with the AI. You get a glancing blow, and the AI will manuver into a left or right bank with nose down and slowly spiral into the ground.

It seems that getting hit will compleatly mess up the AI's logic and it simply stops flying. They just fall out of the sky! I will try to post a track of this death spiral.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:24 AM
should we just test:

1 hit HE from 20mm cannon on wing. no matter if its russian, german, japanese, or english.

Then compare it to .50cal hit or two, on wing as well.

which reduces speed and how much..

How much 2x 13mm holes (enter and exit holes)reduce speed compared to 20mm hit which makes some 50-300mm hole on aircraft skin, are these comparable on reducing speed??

is the speed loss same in every plane, or does some planes have "special" bonuses?

(If bomb pylons drop speed for some 7-15kmh on P51, how can small holes reduce speed more than those?)

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
should we just test:

1 hit HE from 20mm cannon on wing. no matter if its russian, german, japanese, or english.

Then compare it to .50cal hit or two, on wing as well.

which reduces speed and how much..

How much 2x 13mm holes (enter and exit holes)reduce speed compared to 20mm hit which makes some 50-300mm hole on aircraft skin, are these comparable on reducing speed??

is the speed loss same in every plane, or does some planes have "special" bonuses?

(If bomb pylons drop speed for some 7-15kmh on P51, how can small holes reduce speed more than those?)

This has nothing too do with the current issue. The speed loss from damage is an FM problem, not a DM.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
should we just test:

1 hit HE from 20mm cannon on wing. no matter if its russian, german, japanese, or english.

Then compare it to .50cal hit or two, on wing as well.

which reduces speed and how much..

How much 2x 13mm holes (enter and exit holes)reduce speed compared to 20mm hit which makes some 50-300mm hole on aircraft skin, are these comparable on reducing speed??

is the speed loss same in every plane, or does some planes have "special" bonuses?

(If bomb pylons drop speed for some 7-15kmh on P51, how can small holes reduce speed more than those?)

This has nothing too do with the current issue. The speed loss from damage is an FM problem, not a DM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


it is DM as well FM issue. or are you worried about something?

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:

it is DM as well FM issue. or are you worried about something?

How much the aircraft slows down is up too the FM.

But we are not talking about slowing down an aircraft. We are talking about bringing it out of the air compleatly.

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 12:47 AM
Here is a track displaying what I mean about the stupid AI FM

This is me vs 3 FW-190 A8's in a QMB. They are set for standard pilot.

Note a few things.

In the first head-on, I almost collided with FW #2, and hit his right wing with 2 bullets. It must of scared him so bad he fainted, because shortly after he spiraled into the ground. His ailerons are still working since he was the one that initiated the roll into the spiral. This was in no way critical damage.

2nd FW went down in a similar way. I hit him a few times, got some good strikes, and he just fell out of the air for some reason. He still had full controle of his aircraft just before he initiated the AI dealth spiral.

3rd and final took a lot of abuse. It seems he still has total controle, dove for the deck, and just splashed into the water. His engine was sounding bad, but he still had plenty of energy from the dive. The stupid AI just nosed it into the water.

Here is the track file. I suggest turning on arcade mode so you can see how little I hit the 1st guy. Its almost laughable. Does this mean 2 hits in the same place would take down a human pilot? No. Maybe slow him down as Startrolly pointed out, but its more likley to peev him off then bring him down.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/stupidAI2.zip

So thats why I say shooting AI down in QMB is USELESS for damage testing. Now, letting the AI shoot you down may be a better idea, since you can feel what the effects of the hits are.

anarchy52
02-22-2006, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
How much the aircraft slows down is up too the FM.

But we are not talking about slowing down an aircraft. We are talking about bringing it out of the air compleatly.

Slowing down/degrading performance is a DM issue. Slowing down due to wing racks/ordonance is an FM issue.
.50 cal in game is grossly overmodelled in terms of effect of hits on flight performance (best example would be 190 and it's wing dip/loss of speed when hit).
Loss of control cables/rods is too frequent for almost all planes and weapons, this is probably due to out of scale controls hit "boxes".

For "taking out of air completely" you should go for cannons.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:

it is DM as well FM issue. or are you worried about something?

How much the aircraft slows down is up too the FM.

But we are not talking about slowing down an aircraft. We are talking about bringing it out of the air compleatly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


DM model gives that data to FM, does it?

nakamura_kenji
02-22-2006, 02:04 AM
why no let ai shoot you? that way no rely on ai fm as you fly damage plane. way see how damage effect plane

JG54_Arnie
02-22-2006, 02:34 AM
From what I read in the first post. This is exactly what he did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
02-22-2006, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by IV_JG51_Prien:
But I guess having your target limp back home doesn't do as much good for your score does it?

Well, it's not a kill. So what's the point in carrying guns that do not kill a thing?

JG4_Helofly
02-22-2006, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
From what I read in the first post. This is exactly what he did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Exactly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
My english is bad so maybe some of you didn't understand.
50 cal is not a distruction weapon for explosions or such things.
In RL I think that the 50 cal made swiss cheese of the ennemy aircraft. Probalbly most time the fuel tank burned or the pilot was hit.
It makes many holes and destroy the internal of the plane ( tank, oxygen bottles, pilot,...).
In the game the main problem is probaly the not precise DM. Wait for tbob.

MystiqBlackCat
02-22-2006, 09:16 AM
I kinda thought that all the armament arguements were over a this point. The 20mm on German planes had a funny ammo loadout for a while so they were a tad off, the .50s were kinda soft for a bit and the tracers were synced. All this stuff was fixed/improved as far as I can tell.

I blew a wing off of a He-111 last night with a P-47 in a screaming dive with a snapshot burst. That pretty much confirmed for me that the .50s have plenty of power.

If some one is willing then I will help test online. Private server, let them take short bursts and take note of damage. I don't know how effective it would be but its better than shooting at A.I.

Xiolablu3
02-22-2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Lordbutter4:
I always found the german cannons more then enough to handle any plane. Now more often then not you have 1 hit kills with german 20mm. I find it funny people say the 50's are fine but the 20 was defintely porked.

I think you must be pretty new to the game, about a year back there was a test of the MG151/20 and it was found to be not even half as effective as the rest of the 20's.

Oleg admitted this after much testing by the community and put it right.

JtD
02-22-2006, 10:31 AM
ShVAK was always weaker than the MG 151, no matter how much it was porked - in FB, in AEP, PF and certainly after the belting fix.

JG54_Arnie
02-22-2006, 10:46 AM
funny. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
ShVAK was always weaker than the MG 151, no matter how much it was porked - in FB, in AEP, PF and certainly after the belting fix.

is the svak weaker just because single round doesnt make so much damage??

Kocur_
02-22-2006, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
ShVAK was always weaker than the MG 151, no matter how much it was porked - in FB, in AEP, PF and certainly after the belting fix.

IF it is/was weaker than other 20mm cannons in the game, then it would be fine modelling, as ShVAK was IRL weakest of that class of guns (apart from Oerlikon FF derivatives): the lightest projectile, little HE content, medicore MV and bad ballistic properties of projectile.

TX-Zen
02-22-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

.50 cal in game is grossly overmodelled in terms of effect of hits on flight performance (best example would be 190 and it's wing dip/loss of speed when hit).


I don't think thats a 50 cal issue, its definately the fault of the 190 DM and has been forever. As far as I can tell all weapons cause the 190 to suffer the dreaded wing damage...only thing about the 50's (or any other MG) is that often this damage occurs from just a few hits.

Still the issue is with the 190 DM imho.

TX-Zen
02-22-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
ShVAK was always weaker than the MG 151, no matter how much it was porked - in FB, in AEP, PF and certainly after the belting fix.

I'm not so sure how 20mm cannons stack up these days, probably Hispano, 151/20, B20, Shvak is how things look now, but thats fairly recent.

Shvak ruled the game in IL2 original and a long ways into FB too.

JtD
02-22-2006, 01:00 PM
The mv of the ShVAK was better than most contemporary cannons mv. How do you know it had bad ballistics?

Kocur_
02-22-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The mv of the ShVAK was better than most contemporary cannons mv. How do you know it had bad ballistics?

Better? Sure if you narrow that to contemporary German 20mm in 1940 (i.e. MG FFM).
ShVAK: 750/790 m/s (95/96g)
MG151/20 720/800 m/s (115/92g)
Hispano Mk.II 860m/s (130g)
Type 99-2 750m/s (128g)

As you can see ShVAK is the worse if you take under consideration MV and projectilve weight. But MV is not enough for ballistic properties. Weight of projectile, and we are talking of the same diameter, dictates low sectional density of ShVAK projectile- the major component of ballistic coefficient. The second is form factor, which greately depends on lenght of projectile. 20 x 99R ShVAK cartridge was developed by necking up 12,7mm casing for 20mm projectile. But necessity to use that new cartridge in already existing weapon (with 20mm barrel instead of 12,7mm one) dictated shortness of entire cartridge. So they made very short projectile, merely 63mm for API and 58mm for HEI. For comparison: 2cm Minengeschoss: 83mm, 2cm HE 80mm, Hispano 81mm SAPI, 82mm HE.

JtD
02-23-2006, 09:57 AM
ShVAK standard HE round:

The 151/20, MG-FF HE round - slower
The 99-1, 99-2, Ho-5 HE round - slower
The Hispano II, V - faster

This covers about all popular 20 mm guns of WW2. In terms of muzzle velocity it was about the second best WW2 20 mm cannon - unless of course you compare to some ultralight MG.

FYI, the MG 151/20 also was just an upsized 15mm gun, the Ho-5 an upsized 12.7mm. It's not that the ShVAK was anything special in that regard.

Length alone does not mean much for ballistics. When I asked for info, I was referring to test data.

Kocur_
02-23-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
ShVAK standard HE round:

The 151/20, MG-FF HE round - slower
The 99-1, 99-2, Ho-5 HE round - slower
The Hispano II, V - faster

This covers about all popular 20 mm guns of WW2. In terms of muzzle velocity it was about the second best WW2 20 mm cannon - unless of course you compare to some ultralight MG.

FYI, the MG 151/20 also was just an upsized 15mm gun, the Ho-5 an upsized 12.7mm. It's not that the ShVAK was anything special in that regard.

Length alone does not mean much for ballistics. When I asked for info, I was referring to test data.

MV alone does not dicate ballistic properties of projectile. It must be taken under consideration WITH sectional density AND form factor (in which lenght of projectile does matter), as two latter make ballistic coefficient. Who cares about SOLE MV anyway.

Dont belive? Data? There you go:

.........................V @ 600m(m/s)......time to 600m(s)
SHVAK (96g,770m/s)........334................1,22

and: a heavier but slower:

MG FF (117g, 720m/s)......424................1,10

and a lighter, bir slower

MG131 (34g, 750m/s).......337................1,22

not to mention two both lighter and slower

Ho-5 (79g, 730m/s)........328................1.27

MG151/20 (92g, 800m/s)....319................1,25



Oh and FYI MG151/20 was not upsized MG151. In fact MG151/20 was smaller than MG151 because 20mm barrel fitted in THE SAME receiver and everything inside was shorterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ShVAK and MG151/20 have that in common and fact, that their ammo was developed by necking up casing to fit larger projectile with unchanged entire cartridge lenght. ShVAK problem is that its previous version was 12,7mm while MG151 was 15mm. Dont let 2,3mm fool you, its quite a difference in everything else.

JtD
02-23-2006, 01:33 PM
I am only arguing over the mv because you said it was mediocre. But in fact it was about the only decent attribute the gun had apart from a good rof. I know that mv doesn't mean much, esp. if the differences are as small as they are.

About the ballistic - I am curious. Nothing else. So I have to ask - where is your data taken from? Also, I think that weight and form factor alone do not dictate ballistics. That's why I am asking for tests. Out of curiosity. Would poor construcion / manufacturing contribute to unblanced rounds and thus give bad ballistics? How was the construction quality? Is the lighter and larger thus low density MG more prone to tumbling than a HE ShVAK round? What influence do the guns themself have? How much spin does the projectile leave the barrel with? etc. etc. Eventually things get complex enough to justify tests - which I'd like to see.

And what you write about the MG 151 - that's what I meant.

Kocur_
02-23-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I am only arguing over the mv because you said it was mediocre. But in fact it was about the only decent attribute the gun had apart from a good rof. I know that mv doesn't mean much, esp. if the differences are as small as they are.

Well you are right - it was among best, but when I think of 20mm cannons I put all Oerlikon FF derivatives (esp. MG FF and Type 99-1) aside, since FF was a very old cannon, in fact with roots in WW1. So if take all of them into account ShVAK was in upper class of 20mm cannons MV but OTOHnot special really. Hispanos shine here.


About the ballistic - I am curious. Nothing else. So I have to ask - where is your data taken from? Also, I think that weight and form factor alone do not dictate ballistics.

Actually they do. What we call 'ballistic properties' can be narrowed to shape of trajectory: the flatter, the better. As gravity pulls all things down equally, the trajectory will be the flatter, the faster a projectile will 'fly'. And only two factors to determine that are: muzzle velocity naturally, as normal projectiles are not propelled once they leave muzzle, and ballistic coefficient. The latter describes aerodynamical properties of a projectile, i.e. how quickly it will lose velocity. Ballictic coefficient is sectional density, which determines how much drag will affect the projectile, mulitpied by form factor, which determies how great that drag is. There are various methods of ballistic calculations in the most spread one, the Siacci method all variables you need to calculate every aspect of trajectory are: MV and BC, plus given values of Siacci's functions taken from tables.


Would poor construcion / manufacturing contribute to unblanced rounds and thus give bad ballistics? How was the construction quality?

Well it would take unapprovably low quality of projectiles to affect their ballistics - they would have to be badly deformed, unbalanced etc. Quality of ammunition, i.e. how tight are tolerances of propellant loads, projectile weights and weight distribution, settling projectile in case affect dispersion but thats another issue. Generally speaking military tolerances of ammo are tight enough to assure, that trajectories of series of projectiles of certain ammo type are almost identical. That ALMOST is dispersion.


Is the lighter and larger thus low density MG more prone to tumbling than a HE ShVAK round?

Tumbling would occur if projectile axis was disturbed and that would take hitting something.


What influence do the guns themself have? How much spin does the projectile leave the barrel with? etc. etc. Eventually things get complex enough to justify tests - which I'd like to see.

Amount of spin is... properhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Tens if not hundrets years of learning by gunmakers - dont worry about spinning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Influence of guns are in two areas: below critical level of weapon condition all the gun can spoil is dispersion. If critical condition is reached, i.e. barrel damaged, bent for instance or rifling worn almost entirely - which would lower MV drastically as gun gas would pass between projectile and barrel walls and would cause lack of spinning - trajectories become unpredictable.

LilHorse
02-23-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
ShVAK standard HE round:

The 151/20, MG-FF HE round - slower
The 99-1, 99-2, Ho-5 HE round - slower
The Hispano II, V - faster

This covers about all popular 20 mm guns of WW2. In terms of muzzle velocity it was about the second best WW2 20 mm cannon - unless of course you compare to some ultralight MG.

FYI, the MG 151/20 also was just an upsized 15mm gun, the Ho-5 an upsized 12.7mm. It's not that the ShVAK was anything special in that regard.

Length alone does not mean much for ballistics. When I asked for info, I was referring to test data.

MV alone does not dicate ballistic properties of projectile. It must be taken under consideration WITH sectional density AND form factor (in which lenght of projectile does matter), as two latter make ballistic coefficient. Who cares about SOLE MV anyway.

Dont belive? Data? There you go:

.........................V @ 600m(m/s)......time to 600m(s)
SHVAK (96g,770m/s)........334................1,22

and: a heavier but slower:

MG FF (117g, 720m/s)......424................1,10

and a lighter, bir slower

MG131 (34g, 750m/s).......337................1,22

not to mention two both lighter and slower

Ho-5 (79g, 730m/s)........328................1.27

MG151/20 (92g, 800m/s)....319................1,25



Oh and FYI MG151/20 was not upsized MG151. In fact MG151/20 was smaller than MG151 because 20mm barrel fitted in THE SAME receiver and everything inside was shorterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ShVAK and MG151/20 have that in common and fact, that their ammo was developed by necking up casing to fit larger projectile with unchanged entire cartridge lenght. ShVAK problem is that its previous version was 12,7mm while MG151 was 15mm. Dont let 2,3mm fool you, its quite a difference in everything else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting.

Couple of questions. The MG FF was an Oerlikon design wasn't it? And the HO figure isn't Hispano is it? I thought from the earlier stats that it was 131g @ 860m/s mv for Hispano.

Kocur_
02-23-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by LilHorse:

Couple of questions. The MG FF was an Oerlikon design wasn't it?

Its all started with a guy named Becker who invented 20mm automatic cannon based on API blowback principle during WW1. It even saw little use. After WW1 Becker moved to Switzerland and produced his cannon under Semag firm. That company banckrupted and rights to cannon went to Oerlikon, which, like Semag was a Swiss firm, but under German management and with German capital.Three versions of 20mm cannons were derived: from least poweful to the most: FFF, FFL and FFS. Now German company Ikaria bought licence for FFF, modified it for slightly more powerful cartridge, and such weapon was adopted by German military as MG FF.

Different versions of Oerlikons were also bought by UK, US, France, Japan etc.


Originally posted by LilHorse:
And the HO figure isn't Hispano is it? I thought from the earlier stats that it was 131g @ 860m/s mv for Hispano.

No, Ho-5 ammo has nothing to do with Hispano and was considerably weaker than the latter. Japanese Army 20x94mm cartridge seems to be stretched German 20x82mm.

JtD
02-24-2006, 07:55 AM
Thanks for the interesting smalltalk, Kocur.

Think all is solved - except for that the Ho-5 to my knowledge was an upsized 12.7 M2 Browning gun (12.7x99 cartridge). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
02-24-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by JtD:

Think all is solved - except for that the Ho-5 to my knowledge was an upsized 12.7 M2 Browning gun (12.7x99 cartridge). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ho-5 was upscaled .50 M2 indeed. But that doesnt mean, that Ho-5 ammo was developed the same way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Tony Williams, among other things owner of FAMOUS ammo collection says 20x94mm cartridge is just longer German 20x82mm for MG151/20. That isnt surprize, as we know Japan imported MG15/20 with ammo.

JtD
02-24-2006, 08:16 AM
Boy, wouldn't believe you alter an US machine gun and change German ammuntion to come up with your own unique cannon. Crazy folks, over there.

BigganD
02-24-2006, 08:19 AM
Put the weapon convergence distance at 180m
It kills the pilot,fuel leaks,smoking aircraft.. and so on.
I have no problem with 50cal, just get close and spray.

Blutarski2004
02-24-2006, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Boy, wouldn't believe you alter an US machine gun and change German ammuntion to come up with your own unique cannon. Crazy folks, over there.


..... Actually it goes in a big circle. The 50cal cartidge of the M2 Browning was derived from the German 13.4mm TuF cartidge design of the late WW1.

Cute, huh?

VMF-214_Pappy
02-24-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
How much the aircraft slows down is up too the FM.

But we are not talking about slowing down an aircraft. We are talking about bringing it out of the air compleatly.

Slowing down/degrading performance is a DM issue. Slowing down due to wing racks/ordonance is an FM issue.
.50 cal in game is grossly overmodelled in terms of effect of hits on flight performance (best example would be 190 and it's wing dip/loss of speed when hit).
Loss of control cables/rods is too frequent for almost all planes and weapons, this is probably due to out of scale controls hit "boxes".

For "taking out of air completely" you should go for cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you nuts. Have you actually flown any allied planes with .50cals.Until 4.04m I had to place a full 1second burst into a 190 just to get it leaking and watch it fly away. Yes it slowed it down and cause it not to be able to manuever but after 2 or 3 more passes it still flew on.

Now with new 4.04m I seem to get kills on first pass. Now 8 .50cals coming out of a p47 is gunna land a whole lot of bulllets on a aircraft. The problem is now with the historically correct un-synced guys they all dont hit at same time and same spot. I am happy with 4.04m .50cals so far but previous patches they were ****. U land a 1 second burst with a 109 or a fw190 and the plane is coming down or exploding into nothing (another DM bug, what plane vaporizes into thin air on fuel tank hit in the real world is beyond me)

Point is it takes patience to earn a kill with .50cals. You dont get 1 shot wonders, 1 shot de-wings,1 shot explosions. You got to make your opponenet suffer a slow painful death instead,this giving his wingman time to get on your 6 and kill you while your trying to down this FW190 DU plated tank

VMF-214_Pappy
02-24-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
From what I read in the first post. This is exactly what he did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Exactly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
My english is bad so maybe some of you didn't understand.
50 cal is not a distruction weapon for explosions or such things.
In RL I think that the 50 cal made swiss cheese of the ennemy aircraft. Probalbly most time the fuel tank burned or the pilot was hit.
It makes many holes and destroy the internal of the plane ( tank, oxygen bottles, pilot,...).
In the game the main problem is probaly the not precise DM. Wait for tbob. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try watching some P47 guncame footage from time to time than speak. Yes they dont do heavy structural damage,but heavy machine guns do create structural damage.Light machine guns make holes leaks and fires. And 6 or 8 .50cals should be plenty of firepower to knockdown and WW2 fighter.Only during Korea was 6 .50cal armament shown to not be effective enough vs the Mig15, but they still got the job done.