PDA

View Full Version : Browning .50 cal mg



mole_boy
04-27-2005, 09:07 PM
Hey everyone.
Does anyone else agree that the .50 m/g is too weak in the game I think so, it doesn't seem much more powerful than thje weak .303's fitted to british aircraft.

Fennec_P
04-27-2005, 09:13 PM
Say, why don't you answer your own question.

Make a mission vs. a dozen IL-2s. Play the mission with a HurriMKI, then play the mission again in a P-47.

Perform the same test with a variety of other target planes.

Note the differences between the 30 and 50cal guns.

p1ngu666
04-27-2005, 09:36 PM
us navy said 3.3 .50cal was equal to a single hispano http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hopefully mixed or ripple fire will be added to 50cals and other guns and this will make them abit more effective

ImpStarDuece
04-27-2005, 10:14 PM
Someone mentioned the magic words; .50 and too weak!

Grab some popcorn people this is going to be a long one. Any bets on number of pages? Last time, with a little egging on from me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ,this went to 6.


As for me, I dont find the .50cals weak at all. Used up close and personal, in controlled bursts and with limited deflection they are great!

Wings snap, engines flame, tailplanes fall apart, alierons and elevators get perforated and fuel tanks spout instant leaks.

If you look at pilot accounts they usually refer to multiple, second long bursts to bring down a 109 or 190. The 'Clobber College' P-51 combat school in the ETO (run by the 356th I think, my memory for USAAF units isn't great) recommended firing multiple 1 second bursts between 200 and 50 yards. You can't expect fighters to explode at the mere sniff of a .50 cal when plenty of them can take multiple 20mms to the wings and mainplane (fuselage).

I can fly a QMB in a P-51 vs a dozen MC.202 and get between 6-8 of them before my outer guns alone run dry. I usually get one more with a really concentrated burst from the two remaining guns as well.

Put me in a P-47 with extra ammo and if I am accurate and flying just right I have enough ammo to get all 12.

Actually, if you give me your email I can post a track of me in a P-51 downing 7 opponents in one sortie with ammo still left.

RiesenSchnauzer
04-27-2005, 10:36 PM
You can shoot all of those down set on Ace?

Fennec_P
04-27-2005, 10:49 PM
The ones without tailguns, yeah :P

Though, if you're using limited ammo, you probaby won't even get 2 or 3 with the Hurri.

Which is my point. 30 cals are weak compared to .50. All .30 is good for is starting fires or wasting pilots, but does nothing against armor or structure.

Hristos
04-27-2005, 11:03 PM
I'll just say one word: "Tiger !" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
04-27-2005, 11:07 PM
Been to this debate, done it, got the T-shirt. They work fine...aim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm the guy who flies the F4U-1D instead of the 1C just to show people I can kill just as many planes as they can with 6 .50cal.

Gibbage1
04-28-2005, 12:01 AM
I just did a bunch of test's. UBS (Russian HMG) has about the same power of the M2's. I flew a Yak-3 and a P-39 Q-10 vs friendly bombers and I they did about equal dmg, with the UBS being able to light of fuel tanks a lot easier. But US M2's had very little incendary content in real life, so this represents history as the UBS's had a lot.

Badsight.
04-28-2005, 12:04 AM
i dont get damadge happening really unless im close

the gun is useless for over .3 hits

works great on Japanese crates (except the Ti-Val)

but M2 means shoot at .2 in FB

then again , i cant stand MGs , gimme cannon anyday anyplace

lbhskier37
04-28-2005, 12:12 AM
Why would you shoot at over 300m anyway? YOu just trying to let the guy know you are there?

IIJG69_Kartofe
04-28-2005, 02:38 AM
Hmmmm ....

<span class="ev_code_RED">I' m absolutely shure this "impression" of weakness is a pure effect of lag ...</span>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sorry i couldn't resist ...

This an easy response used so many times in other threads about weapon effectiveness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fennec_P
04-28-2005, 02:53 AM
Every time I see one of these threads, I'm reminded of a particular co-op mission I played.

It was P-47s vs 109G6s and FW-190A5s. I was in a P-47.

I got 3 kills that mission. 2 FW-190 and a Bf-109G6. Engine kill, pilot kill, and de-winging respectively.

I noticed that all the kills came pretty easy, so I checked my USER stat at the end. I had fired about 400 bullets, 5 of which hit. I got 3 kills with 5 hits.

jurinko
04-28-2005, 03:00 AM
browning are tasked to shoot at Japanese, 109s and 190s. All those can be torched easily (Japanese), irreversibly damaged / smoked (109s) or crippled beyond flyability (190) very easily.

LLv34_Stafroty
04-28-2005, 05:53 AM
Mole_Boy, why dont you just learn to fly and shoot before whining.

Hristos, i like ur word "tiger" alot D:

Simmer2005
04-28-2005, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by LLv34_Stafroty:
Mole_Boy, why dont you just learn to fly and shoot before whining.

Hristos, i like ur word "tiger" alot D:

YO Mole_Boy. This is to be expected. Maybe somebody should try to help the issue instead of flamming right away. Mole, set your convergence to 200 no more than 250 no less then 175. Wait for the opportune moment around ..20 -.30 away and then hit with a quick burst. You will cripple the plane enough to come back in behind and then hit it again. Usually the second blast will do the job. I have also seen the first blast nail the boogie quite well. The fifties are ok but I agree that they nned to be changed. The fifties did not all fire at the same time, rather they fired from the outside in series. Other than that, with convergance set to the above, it is the same as hitting the plane with Cannon. Think off al the lead hitting the same spot at the same time.

NorrisMcWhirter
04-28-2005, 06:16 AM
Simmer has given you the best advice. He's also made an important point in that the .50s are more than sufficient for *crippling* enemy fighters, if not setting them alight/removing wings.

Just don't, like some people, expect a Hollywood-style 30 Megaton explosion caused by shooting from 500m with the wrong convergence.

Battle of Britain pilots found that their guns weren't much use over 400 yards so they had the convergence set to much closer in; I suggest you do the same.

Norris

PS: As mentioned, you should be able to destroy Tiger tanks with them, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
04-28-2005, 06:25 AM
Too weak?Why do you think it is oo weak.In fact why would anyone think such a thing?

The dmg case might be connected to .50 firing order but bullets itself are very efficent.

Atomic_Marten
04-28-2005, 07:08 AM
I found .50s to be very deadly in range .15 to .40. With reasonable gun convergence. If closer, many hits will miss, if farther result is the same. So set your gun conv. in .18-.35 range and spray out some bandits in right range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.(it's like shotgun-effect to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

BTW this is ORR, not General Discussion..

AlmightyTallest
04-28-2005, 08:18 AM
lol, I can now say I've been there and done that and I got the T-shirt when it comes to .50 cals and this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The only reasons I can see the .50's aren't working like some think they should is probably explained in one of my old PF threads here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/5671059482/r/5671059482?a=tpc&s=400102&r=5671059482&m=5671059482&f=26310365

I think it may have had something to do with the Zero's damage model, but info and tracks were sent to Oleg for his review.

WWMaxGunz
04-28-2005, 10:56 AM
It's the careful tests, screenies and tracks that have me convinced how serious
and right ole moleboy is.

Irish_JG26
04-28-2005, 04:10 PM
S~

I did some serious testing with 12 friendly Dakotas DC3's as the test subject. Made runs with a Bf109G6 with 30mm nose cannon, with FW190A5 with all 4-20mm wingguns functional, and with the P51D mustang. Gun convergence on both the 109 and the P51 were set to 250m and on the 190 set to 150m. Results were that in almost every case the P51 and the 190 were each able to down 4-6 aircraft and damage several others before ammo ran out. Usually the 109 would match that or get about one less kill. I found the .50 cals to be devastating and easy at closer ranges that were near to the convergence distance. The cone of fire from them is impressive making it the plane of choice for gunners who lack the skill to hit something moving across the sky.

Throw in the added variable of a live pilot jinking & jiving while you try to nail him and the .50 cal equiped AC have a large advantage to others. That said, I still thing the .303's in the Spitfire are very effective at closer ranges. They are really good for high deflection shots and can pk the pilot or riddle the cooling system easily. You don't get the spectacular kills as you might from a cannon rd. but if you hose em they will go down.

Both .303's and .50's take longer bursts to get quick kills and might cause frustration of the target won't hold still but that is not a weapon issue so much as a pilot skill issue http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Irish

Diablo310th
04-29-2005, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Why would you shoot at over 300m anyway? YOu just trying to let the guy know you are there?

Because at 400+ mph you better start pulling the trigger before 300m if your in the Jug.

Diablo310th
04-29-2005, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
I found .50s to be very deadly in range .15 to .40. With reasonable gun convergence. If closer, many hits will miss, if farther result is the same. So set your gun conv. in .18-.35 range and spray out some bandits in right range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.(it's like shotgun-effect to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

BTW this is ORR, not General Discussion..

Those convergence ranges are fine if your T&B in something like a Stang. if your'e in a Jug B&Z you had better be shooting farther out than that unless you can get total suprise on someone. I find very rare to be able to get that close without being seen tho.

OldMan____
04-29-2005, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
I found .50s to be very deadly in range .15 to .40. With reasonable gun convergence. If closer, many hits will miss, if farther result is the same. So set your gun conv. in .18-.35 range and spray out some bandits in right range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.(it's like shotgun-effect to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

BTW this is ORR, not General Discussion..

Those convergence ranges are fine if your T&B in something like a Stang. if your'e in a Jug B&Z you had better be shooting farther out than that unless you can get total suprise on someone. I find very rare to be able to get that close without being seen tho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.50 is really really convergency bound. I just lt is at 400 because If I change it to 250-300 as I would like.. I will forget to make it back to 450 when back in my FW190. Anyway.. just test in the P38.. it minimizes de convergence problem. On it .. 4 .50 are quite deadly if you mange to hit more than 1/2 second burst.

BSS_CUDA
04-29-2005, 08:30 AM
convergence on the 38 "should" not make a difference. but it does. I had mine set @ 275 originally but I was screwing around and lowered it to 110 for the mg and 175 for the cannon, now I rip wings off regularly. I see alot of offline testing being spouted around. offline and online things do not behave the same, in my experience, and the stats pages will back me up it takes 4-5 times as long to get a kill with the 50's as it does with almost any other weapon. thats one reason I fly the 38 exclusive when its available. the 50-20 combo is devestating, the 50's alone will keep your K-D ratio way down because you spend too much time on target. then your tagets teammate swoops in behind you and with a tap of the trigger blip your tail is gone and he's onto the next target. I think if we had the option of AP or incendiary rounds alone or in combo, as it was in RL, then the 50's would be MUCH more devestating

ImpStarDuece
04-29-2005, 09:25 AM
Actually convergence on the P-38 should make a difference.

Convergence is not just limited to the horizontal plane. There is also the vertical to consider.

A .50 bullet is ballistically very good; fast and flat. But 'flat' is a relative term. Even the .50 has an arced trajectory.

When a round is fired it goes out of the barrel at a slight upward angle and then lets gravity take over. So the .50 rounds travel over the horizontal plane that you want your rounds to hit and then back down through that plane.

So convergence also sets the arc of the round. A 50m convergence will see the rounds arc through a point 50m in front of the plane. A 250m convergence will see the rounds arc through a point 250m in front of the plane. Obviously the rouns set at 250 are going to have to arc higher and longer to arrive at their convergence point, hence they have a more 'lofted' trajectory.

Atomic_Marten
04-29-2005, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
I found .50s to be very deadly in range .15 to .40. With reasonable gun convergence. If closer, many hits will miss, if farther result is the same. So set your gun conv. in .18-.35 range and spray out some bandits in right range http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.(it's like shotgun-effect to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

BTW this is ORR, not General Discussion..

Those convergence ranges are fine if your T&B in something like a Stang. if your'e in a Jug B&Z you had better be shooting farther out than that unless you can get total suprise on someone. I find very rare to be able to get that close without being seen tho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on that. For P47 convergence needs to be higher. There is no point to set conv. to let's say .20, and then in dive spray from .60k http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

On Mustang I tend to set it to ~270, but that really depends on tactic being used. For instance, some of the regular P51 guys (I'm not one of them BTW) set the gun conv. to 180 -- if I'm not mistaken, MapleTiger was suggesting to me that this conv. is working for him even in BnZ dept. But to be able to do that, he must be very good at gunnery&last minute corrections..


BSS_CUDA:
I see alot of offline testing being spouted around. offline and online things do not behave the same,

That is totally correct.

WWMaxGunz
04-29-2005, 11:48 AM
You can set two convergences for P-47 as half the guns are on the cannon trigger.
Possibly one set at 400 for BnZ starting shots (you get longer effective range when
you have a high closing speed) and the other at 200 to switch to as you get in there.
Only trouble is training yourself to hit the right trigger and timing, and you "only"
get 4 guns firing at a time!

Mysticpuma2003
04-29-2005, 01:30 PM
This works for me, P-47 Gun and Cannon convergence at 200.

Boom and Zoom drop in from above shoot at wings, fuselage, engine tail.
Now you may not get destruction first time, but most guys who have had this happen to them (being attacked by this tactic) will (hopefully) agree that the plane that is recieving this attack will not be happy after. Usually smoking, very often trailing fuel and almost certainly with an oily cockpit after the first pass.

Then you can stalk your pray for the final kill.

I would say that the '47 works incredibly well in pairs, so try and find a wingman if you can.

Lastly, a bit more daring is either of these attacks, drop in from alt using B'n"Z, but about 15 plane lengths behind. Keep going down, until you have enough speed to bring the '47 back up underneath. If you're lucky, he's on his own and he never saw you hurtle down, you'll be in his blindspot (109's and 190's mainly) and can 'shark' him from the deep and chew him to pieces.

The other is the B'n'Z, but coming in from and angle of 45 degrees to the left or right from behind. Swoop in at speed and you should have (if you're fast enough) the whole length of the left or right of the plane to aim at, raking the side from engine to tail in one-fell-swoop. This is usually fatal for the plane and sometimes the pilot.

Last quick tactic for B'n'Z in '47. Don't shoot at planes from behind. They'll not suffer too much damage and be usually quite flyable and able to out manuevre you. B'n'Z all the time, usually with teamwork and if ever you get the chance to attack a He-111 come in fast, from high and from the front, eight out of ten times you'l kill the pilots stone dead and can then carry on climbing back to altitude while the gunners flounder around trying to get a fix on you.

.50 mg weak......NO WAY!

OldMan____
04-29-2005, 02:50 PM
Also do not attack a FW190 from head on. The ring armor is incredbly efficient at deflecting any kind of bullet at very shallow angles. Aim just between cockpit and wings (most vulnerable spot)

LStarosta
04-29-2005, 03:56 PM
Here we go again. Inferior pilots blaming their equipment. Go figure.

Covino
04-29-2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Here we go again. Inferior pilots blaming their equipment. Go figure.

Exactly. All this gun whining from all sides has brought up the strengths of practically all weapons in the game. Now I can shoot down 7 aircraft in a mission with only MG's. I remember when the game used to be a challenge, before the whiners ruined everything...

Xiolablu3
04-29-2005, 06:06 PM
It depends what u are shooting at.

For fighters they are fine, for bombers they are pretty poor.

Very easy to use tho, which is I suspect why the US continued using them for so long.

A German bomber pilot from the Battle Of Britain said of the .303's
'There were so many bullets flying out of the British planes that they were bound to hit something.'
This is true of the .50 cals too I guess.

MS_Siwarrior
04-29-2005, 07:45 PM
Ive got my money on after 6 pages it will get locked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
04-29-2005, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by MS_Siwarrior:
Ive got my money on after 6 pages it will get locked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I say 4 and it fizzles. There is no fire in the forums any more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif.

If this was post 4.0 I would be betting on 7 though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

bigchump
04-30-2005, 07:24 AM
This was my 50 in Vietnam:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/50.jpg
Anyone who says this weapon is not accurate doesn't know what they are talking about, period.

OldMan____
04-30-2005, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by bigchump:
This was my 50 in Vietnam:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/bigchump/50.jpg
Anyone who says this weapon is not accurate doesn't know what they are talking about, period.

8 of them in a pair of wings in a plane shaking is supposed to be a little bit worse than this firmly mounted one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

bigchump
04-30-2005, 11:04 AM
A ring mount on a bouncing / turning track vehicle is anything but a firm shooting platform.

However, with four of 'em mounted inches apart (P-38), I wouldn't expect the shotgun-like tracer dispersal that I see.

PlaneEater
04-30-2005, 11:30 AM
Remember that the science and metallurgy of gunsmithing came a long way between 1945 and 1965, bigchump. There wasn't a *huge* difference, but it's also wrong to say there wasn't a difference *at all* between M2s built in different eras.

Yours was also (probably) a 42" heavy barrel, as opposed to the 36" aircraft barrels.

bigchump
04-30-2005, 03:03 PM
PlaneEater, you're right about the barrels. They were brand new 42 inch (1968).

The weapon was old, I had crossover plates that would allow right / left loading.

The ammunition was another story - most of it was leftovers from WWII.

Nonetheless, I still wonder about the shotgun dispersal effect. Don't they use the 50 round in a sniper rifle now?

Aaron_GT
04-30-2005, 04:21 PM
Just after WW2 the USAAF measured dispersion in the P80. It was 8 mils. Or put another way at 400 yards most of the shots are going into an area more than 3 yards across. Flexible mounts on B17s had dispersions about 3 times worse than that. The projected replacement for the M2 has a dispersion of 1.5 mils and the M82 is a bit better than that. I am not sure what the dispersion of a standard M2 on a tripod would be, but probably somewhere between 1.5 and 8 mils.

Xiolablu3
04-30-2005, 07:51 PM
There is the Barret .50 Sniper yes, but its more for taking out light vehicles (a .50 in a Jeep Engine block for eg.)

.50 was considered an Anti Tank Rifle in WW2 :P

LStarosta
04-30-2005, 08:32 PM
There are several places where you can get a rifle built on the Mauser action reworked for the .50 BMG.

ImpStarDuece
04-30-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by bigchump:
PlaneEater, you're right about the barrels. They were brand new 42 inch (1968).

The weapon was old, I had crossover plates that would allow right / left loading.

The ammunition was another story - most of it was leftovers from WWII.

Nonetheless, I still wonder about the shotgun dispersal effect. Don't they use the 50 round in a sniper rifle now?

The Barret fires a .50 with a special type of powder, doesn't it? It has a more even burn and less of a spike in pressure? I'm sure I read about hand made ammo for the .50 used as a sniper rifle in Vietnam as well. There was a USMC sniper who had something like 60 confirmed with a tripod mounted, scope sighted .50cal.

fordfan25
04-30-2005, 10:08 PM
thay also make hunting rifles in the .50bmg. grizzly big bore is one. you can buy them in eather bolt action or sim-auto for between 2000$ and 4000$ U.S. ill stick with my .30 cal carbine for hogs and my old 30-30 winchester for bearsand more reptile like critters.

HotelBushranger
05-01-2005, 03:35 AM
I really don't get it. There is nothing wrong with the .50 cals, people are probably just using them wrong. I bet they are all dead 6-ing into an Il2 or similar heavily armed aeroplane. Try high 3 or 9 attack, and when the opponents in a climb, you can kill anything, wings off, pilots dead, controls wrecked, flaming/black engines. Today in a B-25, I downed Spits, 110's 109's and Ki-84's from half second bursts on the top 2 x 50 turret. It can be done.

fherathras
05-01-2005, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
There is the Barret .50 Sniper yes, but its more for taking out light vehicles (a .50 in a Jeep Engine block for eg.)

.50 was considered an Anti Tank Rifle in WW2 :P



http://www.ndu.edu/nwc/nwcCLIPART/US_ARMY/Equipment/Weapons/Rifles/fRifle50calSniper2.jpg

civildog
05-01-2005, 01:42 PM
Not again!!!!??????

The horror, the horror.....

fherathras
05-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by CivilDog:
Not again!!!!??????

The horror, the horror.....



you had a wee bit to many drinks tonight, huh?

mole_boy
05-01-2005, 11:59 PM
Sorry I didn't realise this debate had been done so many times and I don't feel that .50 is weak just that it is not as strong as in combat reports where american pilots scored hits at 800m , which resulted in a kill. LLv34_stafroty get a life. I can fly I can shoot I do score kills and if have nothing better to do than piss me off are abviously a very big loner.

Jagdklinger
05-02-2005, 12:15 AM
I eyed this post for a few days without checking it out, but in the end I could not resist having a peek...


the cone of fire from them is impressive making it the plane of choice for gunners who lack the skill to hit something moving across the sky.


Very easy to use tho, which is I suspect why the US continued using them for so long.

Naturally I fixated on these comments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Formula: 50 cal = spray n' pray

Btw, how about we start up another MG151 thread?
...and Hristos, I haven't seen a Spitfire thread for awhile - are you sick?

On a more useful note, I've noticed 175m convergance seems about right for that fancy P-51 gunsight.

Abbuzze
05-02-2005, 04:47 AM
The mainproblem of the 0.50 is, that most people simply overestimate thair aiming!!
Easy offline test, open il2 folder, then conf.ini
set "arcade=1".
Now if you play offline you will see every single hit as an arrow stuck in the enemy.
I´m pretty sure most pilots will be surprised how few real hits they score...

I think NO 109 will looks like this way and still fly after been hit in a good way by 6x 0.50 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Mig3_1jpg.jpg

LLv34_Stafroty
05-02-2005, 10:56 AM
was it goodKnight film where he killed really nicely some 109:s and 190:s with stang, only short burst in right time and voila.

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
8 of them in a pair of wings in a plane shaking is supposed to be a little bit worse than this firmly mounted one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Supposed to be? I doubt it.. Here is why.


Col Leonard "Kit" Carson from his book PURSUE & DESTROY pg 73:
Incidentally, firing the guns did not noticeably slow the airplane down; the velocity loss was less than one mile per hr. What the pilot felt was the vibration of the six guns recoiling. When worked out, a P-51 weighing 9,000lbs. and going 300mph. (440tf. per second) had a kinetic energy of 27 million ft. pounds. That of all six guns firing simultaneously (actually, they don't; they fire at random with respect to each other, but for our purposes, let's lump their kinetic energy together) is about 75 thousand pounds. Thus the speed differentiation is negligible.

Taking

27*10^6/75*10^3 = 360

That is the kinetic energy of the plane is 360 times greather than all 6 guns firing at once.. and in RL they didnt fire all at once.. And you would have us belive that these guns caused the 5+g wings to shake like leafs in the wind.. thus causing alot of aimming error? Sorry, but given a choice Ill stick with Carson and Math over your unfounded *supposed to be* statement.

WholeHawg
05-02-2005, 11:46 AM
IMHO I think the 50s are fine, If i get a full 1 second burst on a fighter, w/6 50s, inside of 250m, its going down 90% of the time. I dont even bother shooting outside 250m. To me this seems close enough to my perception of reality.

And lets be honest, thats all most of us here have to go on. Few, if any of us, have ever been in a WWII Fighter shooting a 50 cal at another WWII fighter. And those that have, left us with stories that may have been documented years after they happened.


It's difficult to build a simulation based on human perception in the heat of combat. I have read stories of 800 yard kills etc. but its hard to verify these reports. Pilots under the stress of combat have a tendency to exaggerate circumstances hence the advent of the gun camera.

The only reliable thing is physics/ballistics information, which is well documented on the Browning 50. The only variable that is harder to quantify is structural integrity of each aircraft I have no idea how Oleg created the damage model but I can tell you it has gotten a lot better since the early days!!

I guess when its all said and done we're all here for the same reason, to enjoy the best **** Simulation out there. Mole_boy is entitled to his perception as much as the next guy.

Aaron_GT
05-02-2005, 01:19 PM
Supposed to be? I doubt it.. Here is why.

The wings shake and twist, though. This was a problem with other planes (e.g. Spitfire) with regard to accuracy, so I can't see it not being an issue with some planes fitted with .50s in the wings. The .50 has no special sauce in this department, except that 6 guns firing lighter projectiles at a slightly higher rate of fire might vibrate the wings in a slightly smoother way than 2 guns and 2 cannon at a lower rate of fire (e.g. Spit IXe).

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The wings shake and twist, though. This was a problem with other planes (e.g. Spitfire) with regard to accuracy, so I can't see it not being an issue with some planes fitted with .50s in the wings. The .50 has no special sauce in this department, except that 6 guns firing lighter projectiles at a slightly higher rate of fire might vibrate the wings in a slightly smoother way than 2 guns and 2 cannon at a lower rate of fire (e.g. Spit IXe). Disagree 100%

TAGERT.
05-02-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by WholeHawg:
And lets be honest, thats all most of us here have to go on. Few, if any of us, have ever been in a WWII Fighter shooting a 50 cal at another WWII fighter. And those that have, left us with stories that may have been documented years after they happened.


It's difficult to build a simulation based on human perception in the heat of combat. I have read stories of 800 yard kills etc. but its hard to verify these reports. Pilots under the stress of combat have a tendency to exaggerate circumstances hence the advent of the gun camera. Agreed 100%

fordfan25
05-02-2005, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The wings shake and twist, though. This was a problem with other planes (e.g. Spitfire) with regard to accuracy, so I can't see it not being an issue with some planes fitted with .50s in the wings. The .50 has no special sauce in this department, except that 6 guns firing lighter projectiles at a slightly higher rate of fire might vibrate the wings in a slightly smoother way than 2 guns and 2 cannon at a lower rate of fire (e.g. Spit IXe). Disagree 100% </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



i cant beleave im going to say this but i ....cough erk...agree...with ...god help me.... tagert. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuckyBoy1
05-02-2005, 10:32 PM
Oh no!... not another .50 thread!...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Luckyboy1/poisonous-evil-rubbish.jpg

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 04:17 AM
"Disagree 100%"

And your supporting evidence is what, exactly?

TAGERT.
05-03-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Disagree 100%"

And your supporting evidence is what, exactly? It was in the post prior to yours, which was more than the *feeling* you provided in responce, that I disagreed with, wrt the P51. To be clear, not saying no error due to vibration, just not as much as your *feelings* thinks there is, but that is just my opinion based on the *math* I provided.

TAGERT.
05-03-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
i cant beleave im going to say this but i ....cough erk...agree...with ...god help me.... tagert. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL! Hey even a broken clock is right twice a day! No reason not to agree with it when it is right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 09:39 AM
"but that is just my opinion based on the *math* I provided."

The maths you posted was relevant to the overall forces on the P51 but not at all relevant to the structure of the wing of the plane and the possible stresses imposed on it and twisting moments and vibrations possible, for which you need to do a thorough structural analysis of the components, not just a comparasion of overall momenta.

Blutarski2004
05-03-2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Just after WW2 the USAAF measured dispersion in the P80. It was 8 mils. Or put another way at 400 yards most of the shots are going into an area more than 3 yards across. Flexible mounts on B17s had dispersions about 3 times worse than that. The projected replacement for the M2 has a dispersion of 1.5 mils and the M82 is a bit better than that. I am not sure what the dispersion of a standard M2 on a tripod would be, but probably somewhere between 1.5 and 8 mils.


..... Aaron, the 8 mil value you give is the USAF post-war dispersion value (I have a copy of that fighter gunnery manual) for the 100 percent dispersion pattern. The USAF value for 75 percent of shots is 4 mils. The value for the 50 percent zone would be about 2 mils.

Full point convergence would put 50 percent of shots fired into a circle about 2 feet in diameter at a range of 1000 feet (approx 300 meters). 75 percent of shots would fall into a circle about 4 feet in diameter.

If a fighter target spends even one half of one second in the 50 percent zone circle of a fighter shooting 6 x 50cal, it could expect to be hit by 15 to 30 rounds or so. If 3 x 50cal do equal 1 x 20mm auto-cannon, then this equals 5 to 6 x 20mm hits, which fits nicely with wartime estimates of 20mm effectiveness against single-engine fighters.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 12:21 PM
Thanks for that Blutarski.

An interesting figure is also that if you imagine a WW2 fighter (roughly 10m long or a little less) at 300mph in a full deflection shot then it is going at about 135m/s, or in other words it is in the stream of rounds for 0.07 seconds. Assuming that the plane tracks through the sights then your going to get the whole 75% range over the length of the plane, or a bit more. It equates to only about 5 50 cal hits from a P51 or only 2 20mm hits from a 4 cannon set up.

Using a 4 cannon set up then you'd need about half the time on the target area to put around 5 20mm shells on the target as from 50 cals. So if you are super accurate like Marseille then the cannon is probably better, but if you have to bracket the target then you'd need to fire, maybe 1/4 second either side, so you'd use a 1 second MG burst versus a 3/4 second cannon burst. If you had the MG bays of the average US fighter filled with 20mm cannon rounds you'd get about 40% as many based on volume, but that would mean only 50% as many bursts given some bracketing.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 12:22 PM
P.S. that assumes that you could hold the sights dead on target for either of 1/4 second or 1/2 second. If the target is just passing through and will only spend 1/4 second whatever you do it makes cannon a surer kill. All depends on the situation/skill of the pilot I suppose.

fordfan25
05-03-2005, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
i cant beleave im going to say this but i ....cough erk...agree...with ...god help me.... tagert. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif LOL! Hey even a broken clock is right twice a day! No reason not to agree with it when it is right! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



LOL. i might have to cancell the hit i put out one you. man what a wast of 5 bucks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Blutarski2004
05-03-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
P.S. that assumes that you could hold the sights dead on target for either of 1/4 second or 1/2 second. If the target is just passing through and will only spend 1/4 second whatever you do it makes cannon a surer kill. All depends on the situation/skill of the pilot I suppose.


..... I agree with your calculations re a full 90 degree deflection shot with no pursuit curve. It would take a lucky engine or pilot hit to score a kill under such conditions. Another reason why full deflection shots were so difficult.

BTW, after wading through all the quoted after action reports in a recent book on 8AF fighter aces, the typical "ace" kill was a 2 or 3 second burst from 300 yards down to 100 or 50 yards, depending upon the rate of closure. The vast majority of these attacks were from the 5 to 7 o'clock arc of the target. That would be somewhere between 100 to 300 rounds expended, depending upon the type of fighter and the length of burst.

Average ammunition expenditure was between 250 and 300 rounds per kill for an ace pilot.
Assuming that the typical fighter kill required about 15-20 x 50 cal hits, those aces were shooting with somewhere between 5 and 15 percent accuracy.

Shooting ranges beyond 300 yards only appear with any regularity in conjunction with use of the K14 gunsight. From the reports, it seems that the K14 extended effective shooting range out to 400 yards or so when used by a skilled shooter.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 03:18 PM
BTW, after wading through all the quoted after action reports in a recent book on 8AF fighter aces, the typical "ace" kill was a 2 or 3 second burst from 300 yards down to 100 or 50 yards,

That's interesting as that's the sort of approach I take - fire from outside convergence and then try and walk the fire onto the plane as I go through convergence range. I probably wait until I am closer than 300 yards (convergence set at 150). I sometimes have a problem with not breaking in time which I need to work on. Target fixation. I average around 10% accuracy according to the gun stats, so that seems to fit too.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2005, 03:23 PM
It would take a lucky engine or pilot hit to score a kill under such conditions. Another reason why full deflection shots were so difficult.

It's also probably why there is rarely any armour on the side of the cockpit. It sounds like the pilot would be rather exposed but the chance of actually getting hit (with speed up) is actually pretty slim.

Dead 6 shots are also hard to get a good clean kill with at times as there isn't much to hit in the rear fuselage and the pilot is armoured from behind. Structural hits on the tail or on the wing roots are probably the best to hope for here. Apart from the P39/63 - the rear engine would be vulnerable (seems it in IL2 as well!). Would a 20mm hit or 3 50 cal hits be better?

It would seem that the most effective shot in terms of not hitting empty space in the rear fuselage and reducing deflection would be the 3/4 attacks that the aces seemed to like. **** hard to pull off except against a bomber-sized target though!

TAGERT.
05-03-2005, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The maths you posted was relevant to the overall forces on the P51 Which is more than you provided by the way, And imho it gives you a good *feeling* (ie numbers to back up your feelings) for how SMALL the gun forces are RELITIVE to everything else that is going on.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
but not at all relevant to the structure of the wing of the plane and the possible stresses imposed on it and twisting moments and vibrations possible, for which you need to do a thorough structural analysis of the components, not just a comparasion of overall momenta. Right back at yah.. With regards to your *feelings* on the subject.

TAGERT.
05-03-2005, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
LOL. i might have to cancell the hit i put out one you. man what a wast of 5 bucks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Hard to hit a moving tagert... I mean target! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
05-04-2005, 12:05 AM
the vibration from MGs causes dispertion above & beyond the dispertion rate fron the weapon , all adds up , & is measured in mils

Badsight.
05-04-2005, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by bigchump:
However, with four of 'em mounted inches apart (P-38), I wouldn't expect the shotgun-like tracer dispersal that I see. start the game off line with arcade mode enabled

fire at a static object & look at your bullet strikes

you will see nothing like a shotgun effect , the dispersion of M2 fifty cals was altered to match other .50 cal guns in the game back before PF was released

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 03:27 AM
Tagert, the energy of the plane doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how fast the plane is going to the vibration of the wing caused by the firing of the guns. Looking at the energy of the plane is an irrelevancy. What matters is a structural analysis of the structure of the wing relative to the forces imposed upon it by the firing of the weapon. The speed of the plane is only relevant in terms of determining whether the plane as a whole is slowed by firing the guns (the effect will be very tiny) but this isn't at all relevant to modes of vibration which are determined by the the forces and wing structure. Looking at the overall energies makes as much sense as looking at the speed of the car someone is firing a gun from and using that to determine whether the recoil of their 9mm pistol is a factor in their accuracy. Here, as in the wing gun system, the important thing is the structural composition of the system (pistol, arm, man sitting on seat, car) and the forces, not the kinetic energy of the car-man-pistol system.

HellToupee
05-04-2005, 04:00 AM
i rember before we got the batteries of .50s the arguments were that they would have a shotgun effect and that that was good :P.

butch2k
05-04-2005, 07:31 AM
Blutarski the 8 mils dispersion value comes from the 1944 Gunnery manual, dispersion value taken from an M2 fired from the P-38.
http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/disperion-patterns-extract2.jpg

LuckyBoy1
05-04-2005, 07:45 AM
I must confess, I haven't bothered reading the several pages of dribble on the subject that has already been hashed over again and again.

I can tell you that in general, the game makes too much of larger caliber weapons. All that extra energy might be grand when attacking tanks or buildings or emplacements, but on aircraft and their thin skins, it was mostly wasted. As a result, the game makes too much of the scaling of round weight.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Luckyboy1/pity.jpg

TAGERT.
05-04-2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Tagert, the energy of the plane doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how fast the plane is going to the vibration of the wing caused by the firing of the guns. Looking at the energy of the plane is an irrelevancy. Disagree, but to be crystal, never said it matters, I just presented it to give a *feel* for the forces of the guns relative to the whole plane. Since the structural design would have to deal with this kinetic energy in such a way as to not fall apart I think it does give a good *feel* for it.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What matters is a structural analysis of the structure of the wing relative to the forces imposed upon it by the firing of the weapon. Ok, so let me see if I understand you correctly.. It is ok for *you* to make a statement that *you feel* there would be *a lot* of error due to the gun forces with NO supporting evidence, but when *I* make a statement that *I feel* there would be *a little* error due to gun forces based on the supporting evidence of the relative kinetic energy, you in turn demand a detailed structural analysis? Huh? Ok, didn't realize there was a double standard here.. Ill try and keep that in mind.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The speed of the plane is only relevant in terms of determining whether the plane as a whole is slowed by firing the guns (the effect will be very tiny) but this isn't at all relevant to modes of vibration which are determined by the the forces and wing structure. Looking at the overall energies makes as much sense as looking at the speed of the car someone is firing a gun from and using that to determine whether the recoil of their 9mm pistol is a factor in their accuracy. Here, as in the wing gun system, the important thing is the structural composition of the system (pistol, arm, man sitting on seat, car) and the forces, not the kinetic energy of the car-man-pistol system. Apples and Oranges in that your example has a *meat bag* between the gun and the frame of the car. Nice try though! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In summary, what ever the structural analysis *is* it would have to deal with the *forces* due to the *kinetic energy*, therefore I still think it gives you a good *feel* to point out the relitive differences. But feel free to disagree! But if your goal it to "convince me otherwise" you will have to present more than you have tuss far, falling back on some doubee standard where I have to present proof and you dont does not convince me otherwise! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-04-2005, 09:46 AM
I give up, Tagert. It is pointless to try and talk sense to you at times. But I will try one last time...

" Since the structural design would have to deal with this kinetic energy"

It deals with forces, not kinetic energy.

"Ok, so let me see if I understand you correctly.."

Well, obviously you don't....

" with NO supporting evidence"

The evidence is that the RAF and the LW determined that vibration and other structural effects on the wings were an issue on accuracy. That's the supporting evidence. Granted this was in relation to cannons rather than 50 calibre guns, but there would still be likely to be some effect. Also wing twist due to aerodynamic FORCES (not some woolly 'kinetic energy' notion) was an issue. How much were 50 cals in a P51 affected? I don't know, but the gunnery manuals indicate that the dispersion in aircraft was greater than the dispersion of the same guns in a bench test.

"you in turn demand a detailed structural analysis?"

No, I mostly noted that your analysis was ignorant of physics and noted that structural analysis of the forces involved is the correct form of analysis not some random throwing around of the term 'kinetic energy' without reference to the actual physics of the situation. The other evidence is that two other air forces, in their planes, determined that there were issues. This suggests that there may be an issue which either additional documentation could solve, or a full structural analysis of the situation.

"Apples and Oranges in that your example has a *meat bag* between the gun and the frame of the car. Nice try though!"

It is to show the absurdity of comparing kinetic energies when forces and the structural components are the important factors. In this case 'the meat bag' is simply an extreme - a very flexible structural component.

In physics we don't have "*forces* due to the *kinetic energy*" we have forces due to the change in momentum of a body or due to gravitational acceleration which is in no way dependent on the kinetic energy of the body. There are NO forces due to kinetic energy itself.

Please go and read some books on physics.

Blutarski2004
05-04-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by butch2k:
Blutarski the 8 mils dispersion value comes from the 1944 Gunnery manual, dispersion value taken from an M2 fired from the P-38.

ftp://olefebvre@mapage.noos.fr/disperion-patterns-extract2.jpg


Butch, that 8 mil 100 percent zone is also quoted in my 1952 USAF Fighter Gunnery manual as a standard value for aircraft mounted weapons. No distinction is made in the text with respect to the weapon being wing or fuselage mounted. The 8 mil value is shown in several gun convergence diagrams. The manual itself discusses F47, F51, F80, F82, and F84 (IIRC).

For what it's worth ...

butch2k
05-05-2005, 02:37 AM
Yes i know Blutarski, but the value has been clearly measured from a P-38 as indicated in the extract i posted. The manuals seems to disregard the type of mounting, which i find quite strange. Indeed wing mounting is inherently less stable than fuselage mounting.

For instance here are the values one could get for MG/FF and MG151/20 mounted in different positions :

MG-FF Engine mounted (Bf 109F-1 actual test)
= 2 mils

MG-FF Wing mounted (Bf 109E-3 actual test)
= 3.5 mils

MG 151/20 Engine mounted (Bf 109G-6 - theorical max)
= 3 mils

MG 151/20 Wing mounted - inner (Fw 190A - theorical max)
= 7 mils

MG 151/20 Wing mounted - outer (Fw 190A - theorical max)
= 8 mils

butch2k
05-05-2005, 02:41 AM
Sorry i realized that i had not correctly posted the manual extract.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/disperion-patterns-extract2.jpg

Blutarski2004
05-05-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by butch2k:
Yes i know Blutarski, but the value has been clearly measured from a P-38 as indicated in the extract i posted. The manuals seems to disregard the type of mounting, which i find quite strange. Indeed wing mounting is inherently less stable than fuselage mounting.

For instance here are the values one could get for MG/FF and MG151/20 mounted in different positions :

MG-FF Engine mounted (Bf 109F-1 actual test)
= 2 mils

MG-FF Wing mounted (Bf 109E-3 actual test)
= 3.5 mils

MG 151/20 Engine mounted (Bf 109G-6 - theorical max)
= 3 mils

MG 151/20 Wing mounted - inner (Fw 190A - theorical max)
= 7 mils

MG 151/20 Wing mounted - outer (Fw 190A - theorical max)
= 8 mils


..... Butch, I agree that your data clearly indicate that 8 mils dispersion was measured for the M2 50cal as fired from the nose mounting of a P-38. What remains unknown is whether that value applied or not to the M2 in a wing-mounted configuration. The only currently available evidence at hand is this 1952 USAF fighter gunnery manual which implies, by omission of any qualifying remarks to the contrary, that 8 mils was a standard 100 pct dispersion zone value to be used for harmonization of the 50cal in a variety of different US fighter aircraft weapon mounting positions. US wing construction of the period was extremely heavy in comparison to those of other nations, so it is possible that the 8 mil value applied to wing-mountings as well.

I also hesitate to draw an equivalency between the stability of engine-mounted weapons and that of weapons simply housed in the open nose structure of an aircraft such as the P38. To my mind, they are not by any means of the same nature.

The German data which you have quoted is useful but not conclusive. For example, the 109-E3 wing-mounted MG-FF physical test result of 3.5 mils dispersion (assume 100 pct dispersion) is quite consistent with an 8 mil dispersion for a wing-mounted M2 50cal. These two values fit the exterior ballistic generalization that dispersion is inversely proportional to weapon caliber, i.e. -a doubling of weapon caliber will halve the mean error.

The large 7 and 8 mil 20mm wing-mount dispersion values given in the German data are all identified as theoretical maxima. In order to truly weigh them, it would be necessary to know exactly what assumptions were made about conditions necessary to produce those estimated maximum dispersion values. It is also fair to ask what the expected >>average<< theoretical dispersions would be compared to the >>maximum<< theoretical estimates.

Forgive me if I am sounding like an attorney, but I think it is important to scutinze the data as carefully as possible. All in all, I will say that it is an interesting matter that merits further investigation before we can come to a fully confident conclusion.

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I give up, Tagert. It is pointless to try and talk sense to you at times. But I will try one last time...

" Since the structural design would have to deal with this kinetic energy"

It deals with forces, not kinetic energy.

"Ok, so let me see if I understand you correctly.."

Well, obviously you don't....

" with NO supporting evidence"

The evidence is that the RAF and the LW determined that vibration and other structural effects on the wings were an issue on accuracy. That's the supporting evidence. Granted this was in relation to cannons rather than 50 calibre guns, but there would still be likely to be some effect. Also wing twist due to aerodynamic FORCES (not some woolly 'kinetic energy' notion) was an issue. How much were 50 cals in a P51 affected? I don't know, but the gunnery manuals indicate that the dispersion in aircraft was greater than the dispersion of the same guns in a bench test.

"you in turn demand a detailed structural analysis?"

No, I mostly noted that your analysis was ignorant of physics and noted that structural analysis of the forces involved is the correct form of analysis not some random throwing around of the term 'kinetic energy' without reference to the actual physics of the situation. The other evidence is that two other air forces, in their planes, determined that there were issues. This suggests that there may be an issue which either additional documentation could solve, or a full structural analysis of the situation.

"Apples and Oranges in that your example has a *meat bag* between the gun and the frame of the car. Nice try though!"

It is to show the absurdity of comparing kinetic energies when forces and the structural components are the important factors. In this case 'the meat bag' is simply an extreme - a very flexible structural component.

In physics we don't have "*forces* due to the *kinetic energy*" we have forces due to the change in momentum of a body or due to gravitational acceleration which is in no way dependent on the kinetic energy of the body. There are NO forces due to kinetic energy itself.

Please go and read some books on physics. wow.. looks like pointing out the double standard struck a nerve? Sorry if I upset you.

Aaron_GT
05-05-2005, 09:54 AM
What double standards? My frustration is due to your lack of understanding of physics, my degree subject.

carguy_
05-05-2005, 10:01 AM
Hey Tagert do you have a degree in this too?Cuz it looks like you don`t know what you`re talking about.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
What double standards? My frustration is due to your lack of understanding of physics, my degree subject. What part of the double standard did you not understand?

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Hey Tagert do you have a degree in this too?Cuz it looks like you don`t know what you`re talking about.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Poor carguy.. you still upset? Get over it son!

fordfan25
05-05-2005, 10:17 PM
guys give it up. TAG knows every thing about everything that he thinks he knows about. thats why hes allways right about the things that he knows hes right about when he knows that he knows every thing about. lol j/k TAG

TAGERT.
05-05-2005, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
guys give it up. TAG knows every thing about everything that he thinks he knows about. thats why hes allways right about the things that he knows hes right about when he knows that he knows every thing about. lol j/k TAG What do you mean j/k! You were right on the money up until that point! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the double standard defintion, if needed I can go back and cut-n-paste what I said the 1st time if it will help anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

fordfan25
05-05-2005, 10:22 PM
lol your right TAG. "and when your right your right. and you, your always right."=space balls. the greatst comedy ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif