PDA

View Full Version : The truth about 50 cal. weapons (the truth, not a whine!)

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:26 AM
I do agree that the 50 cal. was not as powerful as it should be pre-patch, but all of you 50 cal. whiners complaining must not really know what it is capable and incapable of! There are a number of concepts which you don't understand, except basic ballistics, where the bigger and faster a round is, the more destructive it is, etc...

Lesson 1: Bullets vs. Cannons

All cannon rounds were bullets but not all bullets were cannon rounds. Yes, it's one of those jobbies. A cannon is really just an explosive bullet with a few complications here and there. Some are more powerful than others, yes, but the 50 cal. is not a cannon. It's a bullet. Meaning one bullet won't do a lot of damage. It punctures a hole, it doesn't explode unless it sparks something flammable. You need a whole lot of the bullets to cause a whole lot of damage. Which brings us to...

Lesson 2: Bullet Spread and Convergence:

Bullet spread is related to convergence. Convergence is setting the guns up so that the bullets connect or cross paths at a certain point. This is also known as concentrated fire. bullet spread is basically how far apart the bullets are. The P-47, from the left-most round to the right-most round is a considerable distance, so the bullets are spread out right from the start. The more guns, the bigger the bullet spread. This goes only for guns mounted in the wings. Guns mounted in the nose have convergence for up and down, not left and right. Since nose guns are already centered, almost no convergence is needed.
Example 1:

plane convergence set to: 20 meters- plane fires at twenty meters at an engine- RESULT: the engine should be thouroughly destroyed or the armor around it should be punctured well.

let's say the plane fired at fifty meters, then the bullets spread out too far and only hit a few times in many different places on the plane, not that effective.

if the plane is firing at 10 meters, then the pilot isn't giving the bullets enough range to converge, so the guns will hit two separate points on the target, say on both wings, but the bullets can't do as much damage because the ammunition wasn't concentrated at one point.

I'm sure you know about deflection shots and the fact that the farther a bullet goes it loses speed and power, so try to set the convergence to small distances. At most 200 meters, at least, 10 meters. In the game: .18 on an icon means 180 meters. When they say height 30 in a mission, it means 300, if they say 300, it means 3000. if they say 3000, you know they're talking feet because you can't get to 30,000 meters easily. I hope this helps with you 50 cal. problems.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:26 AM
I do agree that the 50 cal. was not as powerful as it should be pre-patch, but all of you 50 cal. whiners complaining must not really know what it is capable and incapable of! There are a number of concepts which you don't understand, except basic ballistics, where the bigger and faster a round is, the more destructive it is, etc...

Lesson 1: Bullets vs. Cannons

All cannon rounds were bullets but not all bullets were cannon rounds. Yes, it's one of those jobbies. A cannon is really just an explosive bullet with a few complications here and there. Some are more powerful than others, yes, but the 50 cal. is not a cannon. It's a bullet. Meaning one bullet won't do a lot of damage. It punctures a hole, it doesn't explode unless it sparks something flammable. You need a whole lot of the bullets to cause a whole lot of damage. Which brings us to...

Lesson 2: Bullet Spread and Convergence:

Bullet spread is related to convergence. Convergence is setting the guns up so that the bullets connect or cross paths at a certain point. This is also known as concentrated fire. bullet spread is basically how far apart the bullets are. The P-47, from the left-most round to the right-most round is a considerable distance, so the bullets are spread out right from the start. The more guns, the bigger the bullet spread. This goes only for guns mounted in the wings. Guns mounted in the nose have convergence for up and down, not left and right. Since nose guns are already centered, almost no convergence is needed.
Example 1:

plane convergence set to: 20 meters- plane fires at twenty meters at an engine- RESULT: the engine should be thouroughly destroyed or the armor around it should be punctured well.

let's say the plane fired at fifty meters, then the bullets spread out too far and only hit a few times in many different places on the plane, not that effective.

if the plane is firing at 10 meters, then the pilot isn't giving the bullets enough range to converge, so the guns will hit two separate points on the target, say on both wings, but the bullets can't do as much damage because the ammunition wasn't concentrated at one point.

I'm sure you know about deflection shots and the fact that the farther a bullet goes it loses speed and power, so try to set the convergence to small distances. At most 200 meters, at least, 10 meters. In the game: .18 on an icon means 180 meters. When they say height 30 in a mission, it means 300, if they say 300, it means 3000. if they say 3000, you know they're talking feet because you can't get to 30,000 meters easily. I hope this helps with you 50 cal. problems.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:35 AM
bump

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:37 AM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- bump
-

what the hell?? it was only 6 lines down

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 01:43 AM
There were .50 cal explosive rounds. I have proof. The battle of Midway was started because of 5 HE .50 cal rounds the PBY crew wanted to test out.

gib

I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY flyable.

<center><form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick">
<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="Gibbages IL2; FB PBY Catalina Fund">
<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="1">
<input type="hidden" name="currency_code" value="USD">
<input type="hidden" name="tax" value="0">
<input type="image" src="http://gibbageart.havagame.com/donations.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!">
</form></center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:47 AM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:

- Lesson 1: Bullets vs. Cannons
-
- All cannon rounds were bullets but not all bullets
- were cannon rounds. Yes, it's one of those jobbies.
- A cannon is really just an explosive bullet with a
- few complications here and there. Some are more
- powerful than others, yes, but the 50 cal. is not a
- cannon. It's a bullet. Meaning one bullet won't do a
- lot of damage. It punctures a hole, it doesn't
- explode unless it sparks something flammable. You
- need a whole lot of the bullets to cause a whole lot
- of damage. Which brings us to...

I guess you never heard of the API round for the 50 cal M-2 it was quite common and used a lot. It exploded when it hit something.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:00 AM
I'm talking the .50's we have ingame, not in real life.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:15 AM
Nice job with the explanation Boosher. What you wrote makes perfect sense. Even a Blonde would agree to it. I enjoyed reading it man.

How do you guys post pictures here?

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:18 AM
Agreed....

But my fear is this discussion will never end..

rgds

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:21 AM
Good up to one point. The primary .50 load on US aicraft in WW2 was API (Armour Piercing Incidiary), which means on hitting a fuel tank (which makes of a majority of an airframe) it has high probability of causing a fire, especially when'introduced' in volume.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:33 AM
good point cragger. this completely invalidates the threads main point . cragger gets "POST OF THE DAY AWARD" and gives us even more reasons the 50s are undermodelled. good job.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:21 AM
In multiplayer I just hosed down a HE-111 with the P47(all 8 guns), I saw a ton of debris coming off it, but all that happened was a single smoking engine, and I used all my ammo.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:22 AM
Did the Russian's possess this API ammo though? (In either their Lend-Lease planes or their homegrown planes?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought that we were introducing into the world an invention which would make further wars impossible..."

Orville Wright, 1917

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:41 AM
all the techno talk about balistics and stuff dosent mean much to me iv seen actual fotege of p-51 and 47 from the cockpit cams during dog fights in ww2 and those guns were devastating. iv seen p-51 on the tail of a 109 or 190 "i dont know wich but a short burst tore it to pieces. iv also seen p-47 makeing ground attacks on boomers sitting at air fields and with about a 2 sec burst the boomers went up in flames. so im preaty sure the guns in f.b arnt as powerful as in real life. i can empty my 50s into the back of a enemy plane and parts will start flying past me but he acts as thayrs no damge. on the other hand iv destroyed tanks with a few sec. worth of shooting.

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:43 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- There were .50 cal explosive rounds. I have proof.
- The battle of Midway was started because of 5 HE .50
- cal rounds the PBY crew wanted to test out.
-
- gib
-
- I am now accepting donations to help get the PBY
- flyable.
-
-
-
-
-

really? I was under the impression that decoded Japanese political transmissions (codename PURPLE) led the US intel boyos to know when and where the japanese were coming and be there to meet them . . . . although any PBY stuff is cool. Can you point me to where i can read more? what if i asked you real nice-like?

hehe.

about the explosive part . . . have you ever heard of a tracer? its basically a bullet thats on fire. If that hits a fuel tank the only thing the pilot of the target can do is yeal 'FUBAR' at the top of his lungs. So it goes.

The_Blue_Devil
08-23-2003, 06:03 AM
A tracer is a normal bullet with a phosphorus tail.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySigII.gif> </center>

<center> http://www.361stvfg.com </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 06:12 AM
The_Walnut wrote:
- In multiplayer I just hosed down a HE-111 with the
- P47(all 8 guns), I saw a ton of debris coming off
- it, but all that happened was a single smoking
- engine, and I used all my ammo.
-
-

What were your convergence settings and how far away were you

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:29 AM
If you can't shoot down a plane in FB with a 2s (and that's a long time) burst of .50s, you're doing something wrong. Especially if shooting at 109s.

Look at your convergence, train on friendlies in QMB....

<Center>

http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:47 AM
Salute

You have a lot of confidence in your ideas.

However, I think you may get some enlightenment from having a look at this site, written by someone who is an acknowledged EXPERT in analyzing exactly how effective WWII aerial weapons were:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

You will note that he doesn't say the a .50 calibre M2 is the best weapon ever, but he does say that a LOT of them grouped together were very effective.

And also look at the values he calculates as to the various fighter aircraft's armament effectiveness.

And then look at how effective these weapons are in FB.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:13 AM
WOOHOO the Hispano V efficeny KICKS @SS!!!! its Rof is just a half a point under the .50 M2. well i guess we can say Oleg sure got the Hispano right in FB. thats one powerful cannon!
but yeah the .50 is still weak, have to empty almost an entire mag from a P40 to down a FW190...and that only makes him smoke. oh and for all u convergence freaks i was between 400 and 200 meters away with a convergence of 300, throughout the dogfight against the 190.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:17 AM
A tip for the .50's is to aim for the engines, especially on multi engine planes. It really shreds them.

http://www.geocities.com/bs87cr/Wurger2.txt

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:24 AM
no not really if ur lucky u get the engine to stop after a 3-4 sec burst and then maybe u get it to smoke and eventually flame, but thats after u've spent almost half ur ammo on the damn thing. the FW makes the .50 look like 303s

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:44 AM
Lesson 1:
Please don't preach lessons about things you obviously have very little knowledge or experience. .50 cal/12.7mm/13mm clas weapons fire projecctiles that vary quite a bit in performance and ballistics. They are also various types of projectile types that commonly includes AP, API, HEI, HE, APHE, as well as good old solid core ammo. The .50 caliber the US used routinely had a high percentage of API rounds, which provided their own source of ignition, the following statement is completely untrue..

"it doesn't explode unless it sparks something flammable."

Lesson 2:

Concergence can be set such that the dedensity of the rounds is reasonable close to the maximum dispersion of a single gun firing from the same mounting at the convergence distance.

"The P-47, from the left-most round to the right-most round is a considerable distance, so the bullets are spread
out right from the start.

The "considerable distance" you mention is less than the wing span of ANY targets it fired at, and the whole concept of convergence (or harmonizing) meant that the individual guns were each sighted to fire slightly inward so that at the convergence they would be focused. Some pilots liked a "spot harmonizing" meaning at the guns focused on a small are for max bullet density, while others setup a large box pattern to give them more chance of at least getting some hits on the target with less aiming accuracy required.

"The more guns, the bigger the bullet spread."

Incorrect, the number of guns has NOTHING to do with the "spread" The dispersion is related to the max dispersion of the gun type used, on a similar mount, and the variable oscillation of the recoild effects. The inherent stability of the plane type while firing is also a major concern..and the P47 was very large AND stable, which favored its gun platform stability compared to other types.

Lesson 3:

Typical WWII convergence was about 250M.. early war Brits found that the typical standard of 400-500M was too far for practical combat.

Bullets fired at a convergence of 250M will create a verylikely hit pattern on planes of similar size anywhere from 0 to 2X the convergence, as the target range increases, the pattern will lessen but at 3X convergence it still will be effective due to the very high density of 6-8 .50's

The longer the convergence, the shallower the inward cant of the guns, meaning the further out the bullets DIVERGE after passing convergence.. The bullet pattern and density remains the same whether you are shooting at a stationary target at 0' or at a target requiring deflection

10M as a convergence is not physically possible BTW.. but of course being an expert you know that <G>

Hopefully anyone who actually want sto know about this topic would get some actual reference material on the subjeect and get it right.. basically what you have said is utterly untrue and based on incorrect assumptions and guesses apparently.. but to each his own.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:48 AM
Fordfan25,
Remember that most films you see that are dramatic are because of a secondary detonation of some type that causes a strtuctural failrure on a wing etc. Fuel burns, Vapors explode in general.. fuel tank hits that do compromise the tank usually create a uncontrolled fire, not an explosion..then the fire causes a massive structural failure OR an eventual explosion condition.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:26 PM
but these cameras were fitted to thee best pilots and they know were u hit th plane they probs had the converstion set to max density and were at the perfect range

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:33 PM
fiestapower wrote:
- but these cameras were fitted to thee best pilots
- and they know were u hit th plane they probs had
- the converstion set to max density and were at the
- perfect range

-
-

Do you mean to suggest that only the best pilots had the luxury of having gun cameras fitted to their aircraft?!?!?!?

"cannons fire bullets"
Uh, let me ask: is this a technical description? A contemporary definition or a period correct definition?
I am not an armorer, but I am gonna do a quick look-see for clarification. It is my understanding that a canon and a "gun" are inherently different due to several factors, including the tpye of round expended. I'm very busy today, but I'll do a bit of research to satisfy myself on the matter.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:44 PM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

according to this website (read it's credentials for yourself, don't take my word for it) a bullet cannot be hollow. A lot of other interesting things concerning this discussion too.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 02:57 PM
I put the link on my account signature.
Reply to this post and click on "Add Original Post to Body Text" to see how to write it down.

http://www.goblins.net/immagini/Logo/tdglogo_eng.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 03:04 PM
Oh my lord ...

Mars is closing in at us at exponential rate ..

and we will combine not only the .50 argument, tracer fire and ballistics / forumn physics in one thread ..

we will all have lo-mac before this is through

where is RBJ ?????????????????

CC

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:54 PM
fordfan25 wrote:
- all the techno talk about balistics and stuff dosent
- mean much to me iv seen actual fotege of p-51 and 47
- from the cockpit cams during dog fights in ww2 and
- those guns were devastating.

In documentaries on TV they like to show you the more
dramatic footage as it is still a form of entertainment.
You can't argue from a few spectacular instances of
gun camera footage that this was the norm. Notice that
I am NOT arguing that the .50 was not effective, I am
just pointing out the problems with relying on a TV documentary and gun camera footage without further information (how the documentary was written, statistical
information, etc).

After all, I am sure there exists gun camera footage
showing a P51 firing lots of .50 ammunition at something
and failing to knock it out of the sky. In the same way,
this does not prove that the .50 was ineffective.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:57 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- And also look at the values he calculates as to the
- various fighter aircraft's armament effectiveness.
-
- And then look at how effective these weapons are in
- FB.

On the whole things don't seem too bad with the patch
in terms of relative effectiveness.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 04:59 PM
Biggs22 wrote:
-- but yeah the .50 is still weak, have to empty almost
- an entire mag from a P40 to down a FW190...

The Fw190 is a tough plane. If you look at the
overall effectiveness of the P40 against a range
of targets in FB it seems pretty reasonable, certainly
plausible. Looking a range of targets takes away issues
with regard to relative toughness of targets, and any
bugs in that toughness that may affect individual
aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:06 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- You will note that he doesn't say the a .50 calibre
- M2 is the best weapon ever, but he does say that a
- LOT of them grouped together were very effective.
-.

I do agree here, but you also have to look at what I said about bullet spread. No matter how many .50's you have, if you can't concentrate the fire, you're not going to get much effect. That's why convergence is important for these weapons.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:08 PM
the fw190 was a tough plane, it should be able do take as much or a bit less damage then the P-47. If you hit it in the right spot though, it will explode quickly, this is true with any plane.

-
- Biggs22 wrote:
--- but yeah the .50 is still weak, have to empty almost
-- an entire mag from a P40 to down a FW190...
-

-
-
-

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:11 PM
- Typical WWII convergence was about 250M.. early
- war Brits found that the typical standard of
- 400-500M was too far for practical combat.

Actually that was 250 feet, not meters. The metric thing hadn't started there yet. The good pilots (read: good shots) generally set their convergence to even less, typically around 150-200 feet in order to ensure a dense pattern.

Also, .50's (or .303's in the case of the Brits) only work well at much closer range than cannons. Cannon damage is from the explosion of the shell, bullet damage is from the velocity of the bullet. So a cannon shell only has to hit a target to damage it, while a MG bullet has to be moving very fast to do its optimum damage.

To do damage with a MG in FB you really have to be within 200 meters, preferably within 150. Yesterday I managed to shoot down 2 I-153's with just the two 109E MG's by shooting at under 100m. (granted they just smoked and lost engine power before crashing, but.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

I hope I'm not coming across as being self-righteous or preachy, that's not my intention. Good hunting.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:11 PM
"http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

according to this website (read it's credentials for yourself, don't take my word for it) a bullet cannot be hollow. A lot of other interesting things concerning this discussion too. "

Where? That's a big place. I don't see any reason a bullet cannot be hollow, and many handgun bullets are. (Sort of)

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:13 PM
- "The more guns, the bigger the bullet spread."
-
- Incorrect, the number of guns has NOTHING to do with
- the "spread" The dispersion is related to the max
- dispersion of the gun type used, on a similar mount,
- and the variable oscillation of the recoild effects.
- The inherent stability of the plane type while
- firing is also a major concern..and the P47 was very
- large AND stable, which favored its gun platform
- stability compared to other types.

Actually he does have some level of point here, in
that wing mounts are much more subject to vibrations
induced in the wings by the recoil than fuselage mounts.
Increased numbers of guns of the same time will tend
to induce more vibration due to recoil. Also wing mounts
are subject to flexing of the wing. So notwithstanding
the fact that the P47 -as a whole- is stable, an important
factor is how flexible the wings are.

- Bullets fired at a convergence of 250M will create
- a verylikely hit pattern on planes of similar size
- anywhere from 0 to 2X the convergence, as the target
- range increases, the pattern will lessen but at 3X
- convergence it still will be effective due to the
- very high density of 6-8 .50's

With .303s the RAF reckoned on a 20foot diameter
dispersion pattern at, if I remember correctly, 400
yards. After an RAF study of 845 downed aircraft
(hits on the pilot being the most important factor
in the aircraft being downed - which is why I suspect
that the excellent pilot protection is the source
of the P47's survivability) the conclusion was that
at short range non explosive rounds were effective
with high bullet density, but that at longer ranges,
explosive rounds were more useful.

This appreciation
of the report is based on someone else's reading of it
(I'll see if I can track down the web link, but I had
to replace my hard drive last weekend, so I am not sure
I have it any more). Ideally I'd like to get round to
seeing if the HMSO have a copy. It seems that the USN
came to a similar sort of conclusion later in WW2, and
also went the cannon route, but that the USAAF, in
adopting the M3 .50 went the route of increasing bullet
density.

Apparently the report is one of the reasons why the
RAF stuck largely with .303s for bombers - apparently
at the shorter engagement ranges prevalent at night a
4 .303 tail turret had a high bullet density (more guns,
and guns firing faster) that overrode the advantages
of .50s. Other factors were available stocks of .303s,
continuation of existing production, and the difficulty
in fitting .50s to turrets. Later in the war when the
RAF returned to daylight raids, the twin .50 tail turret
became more common.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:16 PM
thanks for helping me, they were shooting me down for not listing API, but we don't have those ingame, I've been trying to help ingame.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:21 PM
I put forward that convergance has more to do with hitting the target through one gunsight then with concentrarting damage, as the size of the bullet pattern is always very large when fired from an aircraft.

"I am not an armorer, but I am gonna do a quick look-see for clarification. It is my understanding that a canon and a "gun" are inherently different due to several factors, including the tpye of round expended. I'm very busy today, but I'll do a bit of research to satisfy myself on the matter."

Actually, in technically super correct military jargon, all GUNS are cannons, and nothing else in the whole world that shoots anysort of progetile is a "Gun." Only cannons are "guns." Of course, no one else uses that jargon.

Message Edited on 08/23/0304:26PM by GreySaber14

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 05:58 PM
GreySaber14 wrote:

- Actually, in technically super correct military
- jargon, all GUNS are cannons, and nothing else in
- the whole world that shoots anysort of progetile is
- a "Gun." Only cannons are "guns." Of course, no one
- else uses that jargon.

Acually, actually super correct military jargon would list the broad category as GUN, with sub categories such as Cannon, Rifle, Musket, Carbine et al ... projectile has nothing to do with it .. whether your talking cannon balls or BBs (.177 caliber round bullet)

All cannons are guns, the reverse of this is not correct

CC

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:04 PM
Someone wrote:

"guess you never heard of the API round for the 50 cal M-2 it was quite common and used a lot. It exploded when it hit something. "

That is nonsense, API rounds, otherwise known as "armour piercing incendiary" rounds, are not expolosive at all.
If they hit something flammable, like gasoline of jet fuel, they can set it on fire, but they themselves do not explode, the fuel does!!! Or at least it may burn if hit. I have both AP and API rounds for a 30.06 rifle, ( don't own a rifle of that calibre though )
and if they were explosive, they'd be illegal to own in the United States!! But they are legal as far as the ATF is concerned. You can buy them at those "politically incorrect" gun shows!!! But they are getting hard to find. I have a live .50 calibre round too, but it's only FMJ, not AP or API.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin - 1755

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:33 PM
Just as an aside does anyone else notice that the P_47s 50 cals are less effective than the P_40s or even the Hurricane's. Another observation is that he AI P-47 needs only a half second burst to utterly destroy an opponent (109 or 190) while I can hose them down for a couple of seconds at the right convergence at 200 m and they crash land with no kill credit for me. The AI seems supermodeled or Player version is undermodeled. FWIW I was shooting at lame ducks that were flying straight and level and in arcade mode so I saw lots of hits.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:44 PM

- Also, .50's (or .303's in the case of the Brits)
- only work well at much closer range than cannons.
- Cannon damage is from the explosion of the shell,
- bullet damage is from the velocity of the bullet.
- So a cannon shell only has to hit a target to damage
- it, while a MG bullet has to be moving very fast to
- do its optimum damage.

- I hope I'm not coming across as being self-righteous
- or preachy, that's not my intention. Good hunting.

no ur not being selfrightous or preachy because if u were u'd have to have some fact in ur argument. .50 cals are no the equvalent of .303s at all. a 50 cal is 12.7 mm the .303 is a mere 7.7mm. and the 50 cals API round was more then enough to peirce aircraft armour at 300 meters. Obviously if ur firing on a target 500 or 600 meters away the effect is goin to be minimal at best for mgs but at teh effective range of the 50 cal it is still very weak.

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:49 PM
one question how come in a p-47 i can take out tanks most of the time in one pass with the guns. and thay blow up yet it takes all most all my ammo to down a plane. and im talking close up with the convergence set at about 200.0.some times the enemy plane will go up in a few sec but most of the time i score LOTS of hits and parts are flying past me. now i have no experience in combate and have only seen my step dads father fire his 50. rifel once.but i have alot of experience with hunting rifles mainly 308 and 270s and i can tell you a 270 will drill a hole through any aircraft aluminum out thayr as a fact iv seen a 44 mag put a hole through a 350 chevy small block i just dont understand how 8 50s can not help but rip an air plane to pieces

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 07:54 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- the fw190 was a tough plane, it should be able do
- take as much or a bit less damage then the P-47. If
- you hit it in the right spot though, it will explode
- quickly, this is true with any plane.
-
well actually from what ive experienced in FB1.1b the FW takes way more 50 cal hits then the P47 does, i flew a P40 last night against a P47 and at 270 meters away i sent a 3-4 second burst at the left wing of the Jug and it ripped off soon after. i was also flying against FW190A9s that night too and never once was i able to duplicate that kind of kill. mind u i did down the the FW190s but not after using up close to an entire mag of ammo...im sorry i dont have any tracks
WHERES THE AMMO COUNTER WHEN U NEED IT..that would make this argument alot easier.

Message Edited on 08/23/03 06:57PM by Biggs22

Message Edited on 08/23/03 06:59PM by Biggs22

Message Edited on 08/23/0307:00PM by Biggs22

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:05 PM
rgr shoot a Mk108 at the ground it explodes machine guns dont, nothing new to me, but valuable to some maybe

<center>I know my name is spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:27 PM
>>>That is nonsense, API rounds, otherwise known as "armour piercing incendiary" rounds, are not expolosive at all<<<

You are correct in saying that API = Armor Piercing-Incendiary, but the AP family of rounds was quite large & mixed belts were very common.

There were .50/12.7mm explosive rounds widely available to both sides in WWII. The US color code for High-explosive = olive drab with yellow markings & early WWII yellow with black markings.

The AP family included:

Armor Piercing-Incendiary, Armor Piercing-Tracer, Armor Piercing-Tear Gas, Armor Piercing-Explosive, Armor Piercing-Incendiary-Tracer, Explosive-Incendiary, Explosive-Tear Gas, Incendiary-Tracer, Hi Explosive-Incendiary-Armor Piercing ("Multi-Purpose"), Hi Explosive-Incendiary-Armor Piercing-Tracer ("Multi-Purpose-Tracer")

The Tear gas thing was abandoned as a bad idea, was supposed to make bad things happen to the aircraft crew. Problem was the goggles & oxygen masks prevent that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zeke

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:35 PM
Biggs22 wrote:
---
- well actually from what ive experienced in FB1.1b
- the FW takes way more 50 cal hits then the P47 does,
- i flew a P40 last night against a P47 and at 270
- meters away i sent a 3-4 second burst at the left
- wing of the Jug and it ripped off soon after. i was
- also flying against FW190A9s that night too and
- never once was i able to duplicate that kind of
- kill. mind u i did down the the FW190s but not after
- using up close to an entire mag of ammo...im sorry i
- dont have any tracks
-
- WHERES THE AMMO COUNTER WHEN U NEED IT..that would
- make this argument alot easier.
-
-
If you put a 3-4 s burts on your opponent, either he was not moving at all, or a lot of them missed.

As for the ammo counter, you can always write > user STAT in the chat box to see how many rounds you fired and how many hit...

I'm just saying

<Center>

http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 08:58 PM
I think the problem is not that the DM of the .50 is overestimated, but that the durability of fighter AC is overestimated.
Consider the common occurrence of wing loss to combat damage. What happens here is not that the MG actually knocks the wing off the plane, rather the structure is damaged or deformed and the stress already on these members snowballs and causes the wing loss. The wing root of an AC is under the most stress of any portion of the AC. And the superstructure is not solid metal, but more of an I-beam design w/ holes to cut down on weight. The strength of these members is in their shape, so damage that would deform them would cause structural failure.

It's like the empty soda can. If you balance properly, a person can stand on an empty soda can and the can will support the weight. If you thump the can it will instantly collapse. The thump would not be sufficient to damage the can ordinarily, but under stress, even the slightest change in shape causes structural failure.

<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif
<font size= 2>

"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 09:30 PM
"Acually, actually super correct military jargon would list the broad category as GUN, with sub categories such as Cannon, Rifle, Musket, Carbine et al ... projectile has nothing to do with it .. whether your talking cannon balls or BBs (.177 caliber round bullet)

All cannons are guns, the reverse of this is not correct"

Incorrect CC! In proper military jargon the word GUN is restricted to artillary. Nothing short of artillary is a "Gun." A rifle is not a "Gun" it is a rifle. A pistol is not a "Gun" or even a handgun. It is a pistol. A revolver isn't a handgun either, it is a revolver. A shotgun isn't even a gun, it is a shotgun! A gun is a peice of artillary.

Oh, this is a hold over from olden days when you had only muskets and 'guns' and nothing else used this newfangled black powder. Same as pointed tipped (Spitzer) BALL ammunition.

Message Edited on 08/23/0308:37PM by GreySaber14

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 10:27 PM
-- Typical WWII convergence was about 250M.. early
-- war Brits found that the typical standard of
-- 400-500M was too far for practical combat.
-
- Actually that was 250 feet, not meters. The metric
- thing hadn't started there yet. The good pilots
- (read: good shots) generally set their convergence
- to even less, typically around 150-200 feet in order
- to ensure a dense pattern.

This reminds me about one thing I have cursed in this game. Why convergence canâÂ´t be set lesser than 100 meters? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Or is here some way, editing .ini file for example?

I would like to try same convergence what Finnish figter ace Ilmari Juutilainen used. His convergence was usually 30m. That provided him nearly 100 air victory without losing any plane by enemy fire. Most common convergence among top aces of FAF was 50-150 meters.

----------------------------------------
"Only Finland - superb, nay, sublime - in the jaws of peril -
Finland shows what free men can do."
Winston Churchill 1940
<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/~aval2/F19_Kunkkula.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 10:44 PM
I will add some funny but information, but this info is not really relevant to the thread here:

In the game Unreal II you get a pistol at one point that is shooting .50 caliber rounds which, as we all know is about 13mm, but due to a translation error (that translator did not get info on that caliber I am sure) this caliber is introduced as 50mm, now that would be something, would it not? /i/smilies/16x16_robot-very-happy.gif

<p align="center">http://hometown.aol.de/Deathbrng/Sigfinal.jpg</p><p align="center">'Hmmm? I wonder what the red button is for........'</p><p align="center">HL Nick = BLUE_Schnitter</p>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 10:49 PM
- This reminds me about one thing I have cursed in
- this game. Why convergence canâÂ´t be set lesser than
- 100 meters?

Guess that's adressed to unregulated wing mounted guns. If convergence is closer than 100 meters the bulletstrems would cross the prop circle. Just a guess./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/sig2.jpg

"Kimura, tu as une tÃÂªte carrÃ©e comme un sale boche!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:06 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- In the game: .18 on an icon means 180 meters.

Someone corect me If Im wrong but I was preaty sure that

.50=Fifty Meters (50m)

if that is the case

.18=Eighteen Meters (18m) not 180m ?

P.S. I Fly P39 alot & it does very well and it only has 1 50cal in the nose I get stuff smokin & catchin fire all the time so with 6 of them you should be kicking major arse

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ÓšFJ-M ÃÅ“ R D ÃËœ Ó¡[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:32 PM
WHHAAAAAA ?.50 = 50 cal = 1/2 inch .......im going to wade in here ..for what reason im not sure, i have personaly fired about 20,000 rds of M2 hb (fmj and tracer) and ill tell you it tears sh*t up iv also fired about 500 rds from DSHK 12.7 it also is a nice weapon but did apeare to me to have the "tear up" effect that the ma duce had.....i know that if you know much about the things im speeking of does not seem right but that was my perception maybe rate of fire ......but to think that a .50 is in any way a punk is ludicruos i agree a small hole = no to little damge in the wing /fuselage but if it ( the .50) hits a engine it will f**k sh*t up and it does not take much knowledge to know that a cracked cylinder block will very soon fail

http://mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/images/wallpaper/me262sharkt.jpg
U.S. infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
08-23-2003, 11:46 PM
AFJ_Murdoc wrote:
-
- Boosher-PBNA wrote:
-- In the game: .18 on an icon means 180 meters.
-
-
- Someone corect me If Im wrong but I was preaty sure
- that
-
- .50=Fifty Meters (50m)
-
- if that is the case
-
- .18=Eighteen Meters (18m) not 180m ?
-
-
- P.S. I Fly P39 alot & it does very well and it only
- has 1 50cal in the nose I get stuff smokin & catchin
- fire all the time so with 6 of them you should be
- kicking major arse
-

Correction:

.50 in the game = 500m
1.0 = 1 km
.18 = 180 m

<Center>

http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 12:53 AM
NN_Veverka wrote:
- If you put a 3-4 s burts on your opponent, either he
- was not moving at all, or a lot of them missed.
-
- As for the ammo counter, you can always write > user
- STAT in the chat box to see how many rounds you
- fired and how many hit...
-
- I'm just saying

he was in a banking dive to the left. i was leading him when i fired it was a perfect deflection shot. it was closer to 3 seconds not 4. and they all hit, im guessing 80% hit his wing, maybe the first half secong missed if any at all. Im just trying to amke a point the DM of the Jug cant take mg fire from a .50cal like a FW can, this is wrong. if i can do this to a P47 with 6 mgs why cant i do it to a FW with 8 mgs. either the hitting power of the .50cal needs to go up or the DM for the FW need to be made weaker. the more i fly the more i think the FW190 DM needs to be tweaked

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 01:08 AM
I took the wings out of a FW with a 2 s burst of 50s, sometimes, I spend all my ammo on a FW or a Jug.....

Each planes has its weakness. Find it and aim for it.

"They all hit", then "I guess 80% hit his wing"

type > user STAT next time, And you'll see all your bullets didn't hit. Especially in a deflection shot.

<Center>

http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 01:26 AM
does any body here remember this sory..........p47 pilot out flown by a fw 190, the 190 dumps his load into the 47 but the 47 takes the load. and goes home. and keeps flying, was this gabreski?(i cant remember)....the 190 pulls beside and saluts....if so do you remember the pilots? please send info ........yes i know this is not how things were in general , just curious

http://mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/images/wallpaper/me262sharkt.jpg
U.S. infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:16 AM
i dont have any info but yeah i remember it, there was a painting of the "salute" between the two planes the painting is called "Not my turn to die" by Jim Laurier check it out at Stenbergaa.com under americans in Europe

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 06:54 AM
I don't know who had the picture of the german rounds attached to their post a few weeks ago, but did you see the size of the freakin mk103 shell? Holy shiite! I would much rather be hit by the .50 than any of the big german rounds. How about a pic of the p39s shell? That has to be a big bastard.

Jumoshwanz

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2003, 04:27 PM
Biggs22 wrote:

- no ur not being selfrightous or preachy because if u
- were u'd have to have some fact in ur argument. .50
- cals are no the equvalent of .303s at all. a 50 cal
- is 12.7 mm the .303 is a mere 7.7mm. and the 50 cals
- API round was more then enough to peirce aircraft
- armour at 300 meters. Obviously if ur firing on a
- target 500 or 600 meters away the effect is goin to
- be minimal at best for mgs but at teh effective
- range of the 50 cal it is still very weak.

I was just noting that .303's and .50's need to be moving fast to do their maximum damage while cannon shells do not. Their properties are basically the same, the .50 is just larger.

From www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm: (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm:)
"if the projectile is primarily relying on HE blast or incendiary effect, the velocity with which it strikes the target is almost immaterial. Provided that it hits with sufficient force to penetrate the skin and activate the fuze, the damage inflicted will remain constant. In contrast, AP projectiles lose effectiveness with increasing distance."

"The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall. The Browning also makes an interesting comparison with the Japanese Ho-5, which was basically the M2 slightly scaled up to take 20 mm cartridges.

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon."

I'm not trying to knock .50's here, they were very powerful, but took a bit more finess than cannons wrt range and hit location.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 03:48 PM
Just back from holidaty, so maybe this is old news, but just finished reading Bud Fortier's book on his WW2 P47/P51 service in NW Europe. Several points of interest come out of his book -

1. The descriptions of his victories appear to have been quoted from his wartime post mission de-briefings, in which it was very common to see quotes like "two second burst at 200 yards". That equates to about 250 rounds expended from an eight gun battery of WW2 period M2 50cal aircraft MG's firing about 850-900 rpm. Assuming 15-20 pct hit rate, that means somewhere around 40-50 hits on the target a/c. Typical observed results would range from the target just trailing smoke/glycol/etc, outright destruction or explosion, or the target a/c spiralling down out of control due to pilot disablement.

2. 50cal API ammunition was not introduced into Fortier's fighter group until (IIRC) February 1944.

3. 50cal tracer ammunition was not useful as an aiming aid because its ballistic performance was poorer than regular AP ammunition due to its lighter projectile weight. This caused the tracers to fall below the AP bullet stream at anything but the very shortest ranges. As a consequence, tracers were used mainly as advisories to inform the pilot that he was down to his last fifty rounds per gun.

4. Fortier states that he and his fellow pilots were quite pleased with the performance of the K14 gyro gunsight. This sight reliably increased effective air to air shooting ranges out to 400 or more yards. He does not, however, mention whether gun convergence ranges were altered to reflect this increas in effective range.

One of the difficulties in evaluating 50cal weapon performance in FB is that FB virtual a/c targets do NOT react in the same manner as in real life. When was the last time an AI target offered anyone an opportunity to fire a full two second burst?

Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 06:55 PM
-- Typical WWII convergence was about 250M.. early
-- war Brits found that the typical standard of
-- 400-500M was too far for practical combat.
-
- Actually that was 250 feet, not meters. The metric
- thing hadn't started there yet. The good pilots
- (read: good shots) generally set their convergence
- to even less, typically around 150-200 feet in order
- to ensure a dense pattern.

Actually, you're both wrong. The convergence was set to 250 yards. Just prior to the start of the war No.1 Squadron commander P.J.H."Bull" Halahan had quietly changed the the gun convergence from the recomended 400 yards to 250 yards. The results in their gunnery practice were dramatic as was the squadron's effectivness in France early the next year. After that the standard was changed to 250 yards.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 07:18 PM
Ya know, dragging this rotting, stinking horse carcass outta the grave is getting a tad OLD.

All ya'll know better than to debate the issue since people will believe what they wanna believe.

Roy Baty
IV/JG51 MÃÂ¶lders

- Col. Saito

Hunter82
08-25-2003, 07:49 PM
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive5.jpg

<center><FONT COLOR="white">[/i]</FONT>
<center><FONT COLOR="white">Hunter82 wrote:
"I did not have technical relations with that question"
[/i]</FONT>
<center> Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com/) </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:29 AM
bump

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:36 AM
do agree here, but you also have to look at what I said about bullet spread. No matter how many .50's you have, if you can't concentrate the fire, you're not going to get much effect. That's why convergence is important for these weapons

Remember that MANY aircraft were shot down by ground based .50 cal class weapons, as well as single .50's in bombers as well.. a single .50 is nothing to sneeze at..but obviously the more guns, the more likely to get higher hits which in turn increases the odds of hitting a vital area.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:43 AM
The gunners with the single .50's also had the control directly in their hands, they weren't fixed, usually, and it was possible to take the gun and elevate it, etc... Also, these men trained for months to know the vitals of each aircraft. That's what they aimed for. Also, it took a number of passes usually to down the a/c with that single gun! Yes, I do agree that with more guns, there is more of a likelyhood of hitting something, but just hitting it isn't usually enough. One bullet won't tear a wing off, It takes hundreds! THis is why fire concentration and convergence are needed. Those hundreds of bullets could be sprayed randomly, hitting all over, or they could all hit one point and rip off a wing, kill all in the cockpit, etc... Which would you pick?

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>Heaven is a place where the French are the cooks, the British are the butlers, the Germans are the mechanics, and the Swiss are the politicians. Hell is a place where the British are the cooks, the French are the butlers, the Swiss are the mechanics and the Germans are the politicians.<center>
<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Fly High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 05:30 AM
Aim for the vitals in air combat is a load of hooey. You are hard pressed just to hit the bugger. (Well, maybe against slow bombers with crappy gun positions. but mostly just try to hit him.)

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 08:21 AM
watch some gun camera footage boosher, I recommend the dvd called "gun camera footage of wwii" its all planes, shows alot of 108 cannon 20mm and .50 cal. I think you will see things in a different way after watching an hour of footage of a few hundred different gun cam reels especially of the .50s

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:31 AM
Re: dispersion

Interesting, that the Germans made some tests with built-in armaments in aircrafts, to determine the amount of spread with various caliber and MV guns. The result is the exact opposite of the exceptiations, it was the LOW velocity, SMALL shells that had the least dispersion over area, at approx. the following rate:

Gun / Factor of dispersion

MG FF : 1x
MG 151/20: 1.8x
MK 108 : 1.5x
MK 103 : 2x

The report itself said that the reason is probably that the high muzzle velocity`s gun`s long barrel`s vibrated a lot more after a few shots fired than short, stubby barreled guns like the MK108, which throw off the later shell`s trajectory in the salvo. Also, high MV guns, because of greater rotation speed, have greater deviation sideways because of greater torque forces.

Of course, this applies only to DISPERSION, 'good' ballistics (ie. flat trajectory, short travel time etc...) favours the large caliber, high MV guns. But their dispersion is greater! Especially if mounted far off from the centerline, or in a light fighter.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:37 PM
To elaborate on Isegrim's comments -

Weapons with relatively long thin barrels are indeed subject to "whip" (i,e, - flex) when discharged. This behavior is even considered in the fire control solution of the largest naval rifles. When firing, MG's develop a frequency of vibration which contributes to the size of the target beaten zone. Oddly enough, manuals for ground-mounted MG's recommend that the elevation and traverse mechanisms NOT be fastened down tight, as this condition increases dispersion at the target.

As regards exterior ballistics, high muzzle velocity generally promises flat trajectory and short time of flight. However, large caliber projectiles enjoy a much superior ballistic co-efficient in comparison to small projectiles (matters of physical form being equal). At longer ranges, a large caliber projectile fired at a moderate initial velocity may well travel further and retain more velocity (hence more striking energy) than a smaller caliber projectile fired at a higher initial velocity.

Blutarski