PDA

View Full Version : Nose or wing mounted guns for general combat?



TinyTim
08-11-2008, 02:42 PM
Not having this discussion in a while I thought about making a poll. What if, on constant overall ammo, you had two options: Nose guns, or twice as many wing guns out of propeller arc (but with half rounds per each gun to keep overall ammo constant), which one would you prefer?

It's basically comparing something like SpitVb/Bf109F4 or HurriMkIIc/La7 (hurri has 91rpg for 4 wing 20mm cannons, La7 has 200rpg for 2 nose cannons).

Myself, I'd go for nose guns. While it is important to have a "throw weight per second" as high as possible once you have a firing solution, I seem to prefer the ability to fire to very long or short distances without convergence issues. For me, it's a lot easier to aim with nose guns - basically, convergence area is everywhere, from your plane to 800 meters away. Lately I've been flying P-38 a lot online, and rediscovered what a punch this plane has! Versus fighters I often even don't use cannon. 4 closely packed fifties are worth 8 far there in the wings IMO. Plus they have 500 rpg.

copet
08-11-2008, 02:52 PM
Doesn't matter, I can't hit with any of em :*(

crucislancer
08-11-2008, 03:47 PM
I always seem to do better with wing mounted guns, particularly in planes with 4x20mm cannon.

mortoma
08-11-2008, 04:00 PM
You should have had a "either one" choice. I would have cast my vote for that option. I can shoot well either way. Gunnery is my strong suit. I'm a marksman.

JSG72
08-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
You should have had a "either one" choice. I would have cast my vote for that option. I can shoot well either way. Gunnery is my strong suit. I'm a marksman.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But are you a flyer?

I tend to shoot a few rounds off with small calibre.
See where they land? and then go for the bigger guns.

Works for me?(Offline Only !)

thefruitbat
08-11-2008, 04:54 PM
nose guns, especially mg151. Much easier to correct if your out of convergance range with nose mounted, plus if you shoot out of convergange with wing mounted, only one gun can be firing to effect, so the other is wasting ammo.

fruitbat

Falcke
08-11-2008, 05:05 PM
4x20mm doesn't count, as there are barely any planes with double nose cannons. Let's just say either a F4 or a spit MkV

WTE_Galway
08-11-2008, 05:09 PM
basically, convergence area is everywhere, from your plane to 800 meters away

.... are we forgetting that with larger calibres vertical convergence can be more important than horizontal ?

crucislancer
08-11-2008, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Falcke:
4x20mm doesn't count, as there are barely any planes with double nose cannons. Let's just say either a F4 or a spit MkV

They count in my book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

b2spirita
08-11-2008, 05:26 PM
I was thinkng of making a thread about this......


Whilst im alright with ether personally i prefer nose mounted guns wherever possible or in the wing roots is also good.

ImMoreBetter
08-11-2008, 05:31 PM
Wings.

I'm an awful shot, may as well make the spread larger.

waffen-79
08-11-2008, 05:39 PM
both, but more in the WINGS, section http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

look at me sig, I always use gondolas when available, I know it creates more drag, hence less speed and manouverability, but the instant I have a firing solution; squeze the trigger and Boom! same for 190 anton series, 2 cannons on each wings, 110? gunpod 2x151

After all, it is your fault if you let a 109 with gondolas sit on your six http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
08-11-2008, 05:40 PM
More the weapons are near the center the better. More centered = less spread = better Track and Snap shots.

Nose everyday, but if not firing through the propeller I prefer near fuselage cannons like the 190's ones; Tempest it's more a "Spray and pray" if you have to make a snap shot.

PanzerAce
08-11-2008, 09:01 PM
Give me wing guns any day. Throw weight > *


I've probably got a 2:1 ratio or better with wing mounted guns.

I_KG100_Prien
08-11-2008, 10:09 PM
I like nose mounted guns for up close and personal point blank shooting in a fighter/fighter encounter, and for long range lobbing when going after bombers.


For ground attack I prefer wing mounted weapons with converge set to about 400m. I like to throw more lead down range when raking ground targets- I.e strafing a convoy.

JtD
08-11-2008, 11:40 PM
I voted nose guns but I'd prefer twice the guns with half the fire duration if there were more bombers to shoot down and if the bombers were at least rugged two engine designs. I'd prefer the Fw 190A for this over the D, so to speak. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

fraidycat1
08-12-2008, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by copet:
Doesn't matter, I can't hit with any of em :*(


Lol, me too... but its fun tryin, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pigeon_
08-12-2008, 04:15 AM
I mostly fly planes with wing mounted guns. Never gave it much thought, really. But now that I am thinking about it, I'd go with nose mounted guns. I like the idea of having more rounds per gun and planes with nose mounted guns feel a bit more stable when firing. It's a shame that I don't like to fly most planes which have nose mounted guns... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

TinyTim
08-12-2008, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> basically, convergence area is everywhere, from your plane to 800 meters away

.... are we forgetting that with larger calibres vertical convergence can be more important than horizontal ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair point. I always set the convergence to 1000m for nose mounted guns. This makes bullet trajectory in the gunsight very flat by my experience, while aiming point offset is practically nil. One also has to consider that nose mounted guns are vertically closer to sighting line than wing mounted ones.

That said, I avoid using higher than 23mm calibre guns in a nose if possible. With Mk108 I agree there might be problems (emerging from its low muzzle velocity), but I rarely/never use them - I can only hit with this mortar from point blank.

Other high calibre cannons seem to have a fairly high muzzle velocity so that their trajectory coincides nicely with the trajectories of other, low calibre guns (i.e. 37mm M4 / .50cal on P-39, 37mm NS-37 / UBS on Yaks...).


Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Falcke:
4x20mm doesn't count, as there are barely any planes with double nose cannons. Let's just say either a F4 or a spit MkV

They count in my book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Fw190A with outer guns removed and Fw190D could also fall in the "nose" category, since their guns are mounted as close to centerline as possible, firing thru the prop arc. Together with La5/7 they present a fair percentage of common twin nose cannon armed fighters.

Bewolf
08-12-2008, 06:11 AM
Nose mounting for me any day. Aiming is much better, especially if tracers are used to correct lead.

I, too, consider the inner cannons of the 190 more or less "nose" cannons, as they are so close to the centerline. This is another point why the 190 is so uber in the firepower department. You can't get much better then that.