PDA

View Full Version : P-40 guns VS P-47 guns



XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 04:30 PM
Something twiged in my mind this morning. I've noticed that the P-47's guns seem to be a tad less effective than the P-40's guns. It seems strange because its 6 guns VS 8 guns of what should be exactly the same gun (please correct if wrong).

Now there are multiple factors here:

1) The P40 has the guns tighter inside the wing
2) The P47 has two extra more guns for more kick when fired
3) The P47 is bigger overall (thus the guns spaced much further out in relational space)
4) The angles of convergence must be more significant on the P47 than on the P40
5) One of the tests made by someone on this forum discovered a firing rate difference (if I remember correctly)

Now...that all being said, two exta guns should wreak havoc on all targets anyways. And this is true to some extent.

Here is my whatif scenario. What if...the guns on the P40 are not the same as the ones on the P47 (mistakenly so I would assume) and that for whatever reason, perhaps a miscalculation, a typo (hey it happens), or whatever...the guns referenced by the P47's are the same as the syncronized ones on the P39 and thus do not have quite the same hitting power.

Maybe I'm way off the mark. If so, tell me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Perhaps if Oleg or crew can double check all that too. Hey, if they are the way they are supposed to be...I'll be happy. I'm still getting the kills...but it just feels strange sometimes...

(NOTE: This is by no means an attempt to get something modeled beyond what it should be and this is not a complaint - meerly a collection of observations with intention to discover if there is any error or if what is...is)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 04:30 PM
Something twiged in my mind this morning. I've noticed that the P-47's guns seem to be a tad less effective than the P-40's guns. It seems strange because its 6 guns VS 8 guns of what should be exactly the same gun (please correct if wrong).

Now there are multiple factors here:

1) The P40 has the guns tighter inside the wing
2) The P47 has two extra more guns for more kick when fired
3) The P47 is bigger overall (thus the guns spaced much further out in relational space)
4) The angles of convergence must be more significant on the P47 than on the P40
5) One of the tests made by someone on this forum discovered a firing rate difference (if I remember correctly)

Now...that all being said, two exta guns should wreak havoc on all targets anyways. And this is true to some extent.

Here is my whatif scenario. What if...the guns on the P40 are not the same as the ones on the P47 (mistakenly so I would assume) and that for whatever reason, perhaps a miscalculation, a typo (hey it happens), or whatever...the guns referenced by the P47's are the same as the syncronized ones on the P39 and thus do not have quite the same hitting power.

Maybe I'm way off the mark. If so, tell me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Perhaps if Oleg or crew can double check all that too. Hey, if they are the way they are supposed to be...I'll be happy. I'm still getting the kills...but it just feels strange sometimes...

(NOTE: This is by no means an attempt to get something modeled beyond what it should be and this is not a complaint - meerly a collection of observations with intention to discover if there is any error or if what is...is)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 06:28 PM
Sounds like good theories. I noticed in some offline playing against the Mustang that their guns seemed pretty strong. I tried against the "Stang, the Bolt and the P40 and let them get on my six and hammer away and the Thunderbolt's seemed to take longer. I have no scientific date, numbers etc. I am just going by the seat of my pants here and tried it with different planes as mine.

Interesting ideas indeed. The Jug's guns can be visious but it seems as though only at close range and within a few yards of their convergence. Perhaps it is the further distance from side to side causing an increase in the angle for convergence resulting in increase loss of rounds on target as the range is further from convergence.

WYS
AB_Onedoc

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2003, 07:51 PM
Yeah thats a possibility. I know the P51's guns blew the tail off my Dora a few days ago.

I too am going by seat of the pants kind of testing. Someone did a comprehensive test of the firerates somehow...be interesting to see that at work.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 03:24 AM
after seeing hours and hours of .50 caliber guncamera footage from p40s p51ds p47s you really notice how weak they are in il2 FB even for steel point no explosive .50s which the us planes in fb used.

oleg will you checkout some real footage of .50s caliber? They look alot thicker abd pack more of a punch against 190s then they currently do, i dont know if armor levels are out of wack or what, the tails of planes in fb seem to be super armored Im confident you will take a look at things and I hope you post back in here.

p51 guncam
http://www.cebudanderson.com/budguncamerafilm.wmv

luft 44 guncam notice the 108 cannon does not disintgrate planes into nothing in 1 shot

http://www.planestuff.com/lib/planestuff/guncam1.mov

i will try to capture some of my 9mm reel collections so you can see its just not on 1 occassion which you told me previously

I need to setup a videocamera and record off of a projector so I dont know how great quality will be

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 11:46 AM
Hey leadspitter, I have several DVDs about the Thunderbolt with gun camera footage. If you know how I could "lift" that onto my hard drive I could do that and send it to you.
email me at abonedoc@absquad.net.

Thanks
WYS
AB_Onedoc

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 12:24 PM
I agree, the 50 in FB looks a little bit too effective against ground targets and not enough effective against aircrafts!

I know an ex 109 pilot in my area who got once just a few 50's in the wing of his Emil, he told me that these bullets almost broke the wing.

Btw, it's strange, the machine guns of the Brewster are very effective and much more realistic in my humble opinion.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 12:35 PM
Btw, having looked too at many cinegun movies, I've always noticed that aircrafts movements, even in combat, were a lot smoother than in FB. In FB, it seems to me that the aircrafts are a little be too maniable and "nervous". To get in the game some kind of airframe G limitation would be a good thing.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 05:04 PM
www.doom9.org (http://www.doom9.org) i think has some dvd ripping stuff
i iso my dvds with dvd decripter and play off hd so no buzzy dvd drive for me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
use deamon tools to mount the iso
it works for some games, dead handy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 05:18 PM
My guess is that the spreading of the P-47 guns are bigger, for the purpose of ground hosing

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/reincarnation.jpg (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
Are you damned? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/damned/)
<

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 05:43 PM
12,7mm mg ammo with explosive load, that doesnt make the shot almost at all better in performance, maybe even lousier because He content is lighter than lead/steel content, so it loses more energy at longer ranges than normal ammo, and the he content in such small ammo aint much, so it only makes puffs the help seeing if own fire is hitting target. and what we saw on that first gunsight film, FW got hit in its fuel tank, it did ignite on fire, so should many other planes do when hitted, now its almost impossible to ignite planes on fire when hit, no matter what caliber/ammo u use, HEI ammo has no effect at all, most of the cases.

XyZspineZyX
11-02-2003, 09:07 PM
Just a thought to consider-I read in C.E. Anderson's autobiography that as the war wore on, the guns in US fighters were adjusted to fire in a box pattern instead of a convergence pattern, in order to make hitting easier for average marksmen. I'm assuming that by box pattern, it is meant that the guns were adjusted to fire a pattern covering a wider area, almost like a shotgun blast. Maybe the Jugs, but not the P40s, are modeled to fire in this box pattern? Anderson wrote that he preferred the convergence pattern because if you hit where your guns converged, it "tore an enemy to hell." I know that I can destroy enemy planes much more quickly with the P40 than the P47, so maybe the wider dispersion is what is modeled for the Jug.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 02:23 AM
I agree that somehow the P-40 guns seem more effective than the P-47s. Is it the twitchiness of the bolt or some bug that explains this?

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 03:11 AM
It's the instability of the P-47D.

You don't see VVS planes like the Yak or the La, P-39, P-40 'veer off' from target when holding down the trigger. But hold down for more than 1 second in P-47, and the aim goes wild.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 04:40 AM
Multimetal wrote:
- Just a thought to consider-I read in C.E. Anderson's
- autobiography that as the war wore on, the guns in
- US fighters were adjusted to fire in a box pattern
- instead of a convergence pattern, in order to make
- hitting easier for average marksmen. I'm assuming
- that by box pattern, it is meant that the guns were
- adjusted to fire a pattern covering a wider area,
- almost like a shotgun blast. Maybe the Jugs, but
- not the P40s, are modeled to fire in this box
- pattern? Anderson wrote that he preferred the
- convergence pattern because if you hit where your
- guns converged, it "tore an enemy to hell." I know
- that I can destroy enemy planes much more quickly
- with the P40 than the P47, so maybe the wider
- dispersion is what is modeled for the Jug.
-
-

You may indeed be onto something there. Thats something I didn't know about. If this is true and Oleg for instance told us that it was modeled as such - I'm perfectly happy.

I do reject the notion that the P-47's guns were setup for ground attack. Remember that the P-47 was shipped to Europe as the USAAF's primary escort fighter. This role it was doing for quite some time until the P-51D's extra range made the USAAF reconsider the Jug for other roles.

Because it was tough, it naturally became an excellent ground attack weapon. But I don't really accept the notion that the Jug was ground attack first, fighter later. That only happened in somewhat in 1944 and 1945.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 05:16 AM
Why put the box pattern on the P-47 and not on other aircraft. I too have read to fly and fight and Mr. Anderson said he preferred to set his to converge at one point. FB should do the same, since it was basically up to the pilots from what I understand.

XyZspineZyX
11-03-2003, 05:21 AM
With the ammo to unlimited, I can write my own name in the sky with the P-40. With the P-47, all I can do is smudge.

The difference in aiming, between the two planes, is equivalent to that of an artist trying to draw a picture with a fine pencil and a vibrator.

Simply, Soviet planes, refuse to vibrate or shake and effect aim, when the trigger is pulled. That's the difference.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!