PDA

View Full Version : On the .50"s



luftluuver
09-15-2006, 06:38 AM
"A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, what kind of armaments did the P-40 have?

N. G. Our Tomahawks and Kittyhawks had machine gun armaments only, the same on both models. Only large-caliber machine guns. Two synchronized [in the nose] and two in the wings. Browning 12.7mm. Powerful, reliable, good machine guns. In time, relatively soon after we received these aircraft, we began to remove the wing-mounted weapons in order to lighten the aircraft, leaving only the two synchronized guns.

A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were."

from http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

OldMan____
09-15-2006, 07:08 AM
Imagine if that guys had ever flown a plane with real guns. Like the 151/20 or hispanos. poor guy, so deceived just because he never saw true powerfull weapons :P

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 07:18 AM
... I already told you how powerful they were ...

Yeah right.

Must be magic VVS pilots if 2 x heavy machine guns are enough to take down Fw 190s and Ju 88s - not to mention Tiger tanks.

Just more bulls**t Russian Propaganda.

"Dont worry Comrade, our new Lagg 3 fighters will swat their facist Bf 109s and Fw 190s from the skies!"

"But, why then are the veteran pilots already calling the Lagg3 a ' ready made varnished coffin ' ?"

"Silence pilot! dont listen to their treachery, they are not good Communists."

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 07:18 AM
50's on the Wildcat are incredibly powerful, try them vs 109's or Me110's.

Which leads me to believe that it is in fact the 'wobble' on the P51 and Corsair which leads them to seem poor.

The wobble will mean much less concentrated lead on the target.

I find the 50's on the Wildcat more powerful than the 109F4 armament now.

Brain32
09-15-2006, 07:22 AM
I've shot quite a few planes down with two wing mounted .50's on SpitMkIXe only, more of them I have happier I am http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
09-15-2006, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I've shot quite a few planes down with two wing mounted .50's on SpitMkIXe only, more of them I have happier I am http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I know exactly what you mean, they are great 'sniper' weapons when he is pulling away from you.

You can put a few 50 rounds into him from long range to slow him down.

LStarosta
09-15-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
... I already told you how powerful they were ...

Yeah right.

Must be magic VVS pilots if 2 x heavy machine guns are enough to take down Fw 190s and Ju 88s - not to mention Tiger tanks.

Just more bulls**t Russian Propaganda.

"Dont worry Comrade, our new Lagg 3 fighters will swat their facist Bf 109s and Fw 190s from the skies!"

"But, why then are the veteran pilots already calling the Lagg3 a ' ready made varnished coffin ' ?"

"Silence pilot! dont listen to their treachery, they are not good Communists."

You're just pissed coz you didn't win the war.

BBB_Hyperion
09-15-2006, 08:13 AM
If they are so proud of their 50s maybe 1 per plane is enough . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stanford-ukded
09-15-2006, 08:19 AM
LOL! LStar! You cheeky git.

I'll have you know Scotland did win the war. Hardest men on the planet (expect Roland, that is).

LEBillfish
09-15-2006, 08:25 AM
I see nothing absurd about the above statement, as if Japanese planes with only 2 7.7mm guns were routinely killing their foes....Why not others.

Don't get me wrong, it is a bit of bluff and bluster my guess, the reduced guns more likely due to lack of ordinance, range, whatever....But certainly do-able though not the ideal. (notice though he wasn't talking about removing the armor and oxygen like the Japanese though....Now that's confidence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

luftluuver
09-15-2006, 08:29 AM
Did anyone read the link?

Jaws2002
09-15-2006, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:


A. S. Were two machine guns enough?

N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were."[/i]





You missed one little detail:


A. S. Did these sights permit normal precise aiming?

N. G. In our regiment we commenced firing at ranges of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">70€"50 meters</span>, <span class="ev_code_RED">when we could see the rivets</span>. One could not miss with either sight at that range. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEBillfish
09-15-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Did anyone read the link?

No time this morning will try later.........Simply commented on the contents of your post.

R_Target
09-15-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Did anyone read the link?

I read it last week. Fascinating stuff.

As for the .50's, I don't have any real gripes with their hitting power. Proper convergence and a steady hand will do wonders.

One-sided recoil kick on USN planes is bogus, but Maddox has acknowledged this and claims it it will be fixed in 4.06.

IIJG69_Kartofe
09-15-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
N. G. Yes, more than enough. I already told you how powerful they were."[/i]


Yes, enough for a soviet pilot.

...

Because they know how to aim, they don't need to spray and pray ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Chuck_Older
09-15-2006, 09:49 AM
It's interesting that this comes only a few days after a quote from Saburo Sakai was posted, in which he stated that most of his kills came from his machine guns, because he distrusted the cannons

In the P-51B, somehow US pilots managed to get kills in Europe when two or three guns had jammed. I dunno what to say, but these things happened It was possible to shoot down Grummans with 2 7.62mm machine guns, so why's it so impopssible to shoot down a FW 190 with 2 .50s?

Brain32
09-15-2006, 09:57 AM
so why's it so impopssible to shoot down a FW 190 with 2 .50s?
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
And btw I can shoot down a 109 with 2x.50's without much trouble, yes online...

faustnik
09-15-2006, 10:05 AM
When BoB brings more complex systems into the DMs, smaller caliber AP rounds will become more effective.

carguy_
09-15-2006, 10:12 AM
Two 50s on the P63 for example are not enough.Destruction potential same as FiatG50.Mostly because the ROF

Chuck_Older
09-15-2006, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> so why's it so impopssible to shoot down a FW 190 with 2 .50s?
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno. Bad engineering? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lrrp22
09-15-2006, 10:51 AM
As someone who's fired several thousand rounds of .50/7.62/5.56 into many kinds of heavily-built vehicle hulks (deuce and a halfs, 5-tons, Gamma Goats, etc.), I am somewhat baffled by those who think a battery of 4-8 .50 Cal's would have a problem downing *any* WWII fighter in short order. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LRRP

RCAF_Irish_403
09-15-2006, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
When BoB brings more complex systems into the DMs, smaller caliber AP rounds will become more effective.

good lord, i hope so

faustnik
09-15-2006, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
When BoB brings more complex systems into the DMs, smaller caliber AP rounds will become more effective.

good lord, i hope so </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has to Irish, the way I figure it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The developers have to notice that .303 rounds are having little effect if the models are like FB, and will be forced to model the systems that are easily damaged by this type of round.

Let's hope!!!!!!!!

slipBall
09-15-2006, 11:31 AM
I hope different types of amo is figured in with bob dm. Pilot able to choose amo type per round count on belt, or per gun on load out

Grue_
09-15-2006, 11:41 AM
.50's need to be bounced off something hard before they hit the target to be truly effective.

None of the MG's seem to work very well in the sim.

carguy_
09-15-2006, 11:47 AM
Machineguns in IL2 are not a very big issue IMO.It still is presented correctly.Relative performance is ok.First UBB then Browning then MG131,etc.

What puts me off is the effective range.UBB is 300m,fifties is roughly 200m and MG131 is around 80m.Oh and anyone can get up to 5 bomber kills with a twin7mm alone,it just requires 30-60m firing distance.Check that with real life figures.

Kuna_
09-15-2006, 12:16 PM
There are some 'funny' observations made by some armchair pilots here about that interview.

OK the man flew real warbirds in real war and engaged real enemy.
You play the game and think that you know something that can correct his statement or perhaps teach the "poor guy" something.

Better give up clowns, do not make fool out of yourselves bigger than you are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
09-15-2006, 01:51 PM
agreed


ive read many accounts of pilots not even firing their cannons at fighters, they just used the mgs, because they were enough.

i doubt any of the so called experts here do that.

horseback
09-15-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
And btw I can shoot down a 109 with 2x.50's without much trouble, yes online... They just aren't the same guns, even though they are of similar caliber. As I recall, the Germans referred to the MG131 as a 'doorknocker' because it was good only for announcing your presence. Rate of fire, muzzle velocity & trajectory were somewhat inferior to the M2 Browning .50, which was in turn not as powerful than the Soviet 12.7mm. The gap between the MG131 and the M2 seems significantly greater than the gap between the M2 and the UBS 12.7mm in-game, although the UBS is rarely mounted in pairs.

About the original link, it's been around for at least a couple of years. The pilot was recalling events at least 50 years past, and some details are simply wrong. The wing guns on the Hawk 81/P-40/Tomahawk Mk I were light machine guns in the .30 caliber class; only the guns over the nose were .50s, and their rate of fire would be limited by interruptions to allow the prop blades to pass.

But mounted close together and hitting a target less than 100m away, there's a tremendous amount of kinetic energy imparted, and this destructive energy is all the greater because of the proximity of the impact points. This is why the HMGs are modelled in game to be so much more effective at or near convergence, when all the bullets are striking the a/c at one point.

The game, however, doesn't seem to differentiate between nose mounted guns (which in a practical sense, are ALWAYS at convergence) and wing mounted guns' convergence points.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
09-15-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
As I recall, the Germans referred to the MG131 as a 'doorknocker' because it was good only for announcing your presence.

That was the MG17.

The LW thought enough of going to heavy MGs (MG131) to start converting all their fighters to carry them.

VW-IceFire
09-15-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It's interesting that this comes only a few days after a quote from Saburo Sakai was posted, in which he stated that most of his kills came from his machine guns, because he distrusted the cannons

In the P-51B, somehow US pilots managed to get kills in Europe when two or three guns had jammed. I dunno what to say, but these things happened It was possible to shoot down Grummans with 2 7.62mm machine guns, so why's it so impopssible to shoot down a FW 190 with 2 .50s?
If you close to 50 meters only a single .50cal will be all you need to puncture the FW190s fuel tank after repeated hits for maybe 1 second. I was in a P-38J with my cannon out of ammo and two of four machine guns jammed and I was within a few meters of the FW190s tail and I flamed him with a very short burst. I was surprised but at that range...the .50cal will obliterate everything. Its the 500m shooting that makes it worthless and cannons with high muzzle velocity like the ShVAK, Hispano, and MG151/20 useful as the explosive still works.

While the MG17 is worthless except for starting light fuel tank leaks and perhaps splattering oil on the targets windscreen (if its not a LaGG or Yak) the MG131 is pretty good. Some solid hits will cut control cables and mess planes up. But you have to get close and you need to sustain fire on them...a few random hits like you get from cannons is not enough.

Thing is that online...lag and the fact that most people are absolutely terrible marksmen make the guns seem weaker than they are...except the cannons because a few lucky hits (rather than sustained fire from solid gunnery) can still easily net a kill.

Abbuzze
09-15-2006, 03:56 PM
The gap between MG131 and M2 wasn´t only in performance, but also in weight. 17kg vs 30kg..

Hmm even with lower performance 12x 13mm MG would be nice in a P47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-15-2006, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
50's on the Wildcat are incredibly powerful, try them vs 109's or Me110's.

Which leads me to believe that it is in fact the 'wobble' on the P51 and Corsair which leads them to seem poor.

The wobble will mean much less concentrated lead on the target.

I find the 50's on the Wildcat more powerful than the 109F4 armament now.

Yep I agree and have thought this for some time. According to an email a user recieved from Oleg awhile back this issue has been fix in a soon to be released addon. At the time we all thought SoM was going to be out in a week or so. The yaw issues being address in some US planes when firing is worth the price of the addon for me.

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
... I already told you how powerful they were ...

Yeah right.

Must be magic VVS pilots if 2 x heavy machine guns are enough to take down Fw 190s and Ju 88s - not to mention Tiger tanks.

Just more bulls**t Russian Propaganda.

"Dont worry Comrade, our new Lagg 3 fighters will swat their facist Bf 109s and Fw 190s from the skies!"

"But, why then are the veteran pilots already calling the Lagg3 a ' ready made varnished coffin ' ?"

"Silence pilot! dont listen to their treachery, they are not good Communists."

You're just pissed coz you didn't win the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked we did ? 1939 - 1945 only major player to be in from 1939 and win.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif beat that

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by stanford-ukded:
LOL! LStar! You cheeky git.

I'll have you know Scotland did win the war. Hardest men on the planet (expect Roland, that is).

Scottish troops ( including 2 generations of my family ) were at the sharp end in WW1 and WW2 - and were feared by their opponents for their resilience and tenacity and for not wearing any underwear beneath their 'skirts'.

mynameisroland
09-15-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
There are some 'funny' observations made by some armchair pilots here about that interview.

OK the man flew real warbirds in real war and engaged real enemy.
You play the game and think that you know something that can correct his statement or perhaps teach the "poor guy" something.

Better give up clowns, do not make fool out of yourselves bigger than you are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sorry for tring to see past the blatant propaganda.

Every country was involved in an 'arms' race to equip their fighters with more effective armaments. If 2 x .50 cal are enough to Effectively kill your opponets why bother with 4 x 20mm or 4 x 30mm even?

Unless your some sort of Saburu or Marseille 2 x .50 cal or equivalent is not enough to regularly bring down a WW2 sized aircraft.

zbw_109
09-15-2006, 05:57 PM
Slightly off
I remember somewhere reading about a German pilot who sprayed MG rounds at the target and the moment they hit he shot a burst of MG151/20 at them.
Only got 4 kills in 3 years.

HellToupee
09-15-2006, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Every country was involved in an 'arms' race to equip their fighters with more effective armaments. If 2 x .50 cal are enough to Effectively kill your opponets why bother with 4 x 20mm or 4 x 30mm even?


no one thinks it should be any more effective tha cannons just that 2 mgs should not be useless, like 303s in bob downing bombers and such in game 12 303s have a hard time vs a 109 let alone a bomber. Ki43 ki61 mc202 and many others feel like essentially useless planes because u can sit on someones six blast away with accuracy like and ace and alot of the time just run out of bullets.

Frequent_Flyer
09-15-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> so why's it so impopssible to shoot down a FW 190 with 2 .50s?
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno. Bad engineering? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Bad engineering and you can't damage what you can't catch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

OldMan____
09-15-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
As someone who's fired several thousand rounds of .50/7.62/5.56 into many kinds of heavily-built vehicle hulks (deuce and a halfs, 5-tons, Gamma Goats, etc.), I am somewhat baffled by those who think a battery of 4-8 .50 Cal's would have a problem downing *any* WWII fighter in short order. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LRRP

No one doubst that. What anyone reasonable doubt is that in real fighter combat you can hit as many bullets as you can on the ground firing at a truck...

Do you really think 3 or 4 .50 shells would bring down a 4 ton fighter without hitting anything special? On the other hand when you have 20 mm cannons that give 3 times the punch with almost same rate of fire...


Most LW piltos complained that 1 20 mm and 2 mg17 were not enough for the average pilot to have kills. On the other hand mairselles made wonders with that, with a very common practice of shooting the cockpit.


No go online and get a plane with 2 nose .50 get reaaly close and hit a good burst in cockpit and show me how many times it won 't go down.


Exceptions will happen, but we also have exceptions like fighters surviving 3 mk108 hits.. do anyone really think that this was also likely to happen?.

Last week I hit a spitfire 2 times with MK103 (the 103, not 108... THE GUN). And it haply flew away.

So never take worst cases as a general rule example.

Grey_Mouser67
09-15-2006, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
There are some 'funny' observations made by some armchair pilots here about that interview.

OK the man flew real warbirds in real war and engaged real enemy.
You play the game and think that you know something that can correct his statement or perhaps teach the "poor guy" something.

Better give up clowns, do not make fool out of yourselves bigger than you are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sorry for tring to see past the blatant propaganda.

Every country was involved in an 'arms' race to equip their fighters with more effective armaments. If 2 x .50 cal are enough to Effectively kill your opponets why bother with 4 x 20mm or 4 x 30mm even?

Unless your some sort of Saburu or Marseille 2 x .50 cal or equivalent is not enough to regularly bring down a WW2 sized aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not every country raced to improve their arms...namely the US. Several planes started with 4 HMG's and moved to 6 or 8 and then by the end of the war, some planes appeared again with 4 .50's cause 6 were not needed.

I've never, never read an account of a pilot that did not like his .50 cal MG's...someone might have, but not me.

Couple things that I believe to be in error...the general stability of some aircraft that prevent guns from being held on target, ROF of most HMG's on the low end of their firing range and primitive DM's of current computing power...lots of holes in aircraft meant lots of leaking fuel, oil, exhaust, coolent, detonating ammo boxes, exloding oxygen bottles, sharpnel and glass flying around the cockpit and pilots blinded by a cockpit full of undesirable stuff....that IS why they wore goggles you know!

Anyways, there never was a problem with HMG's killing real WWII aircraft...history easily demonstrates that....those Mustangs with those 4 puny HMG's cleaned the sky's of Fw's and 109's in early 44 before the allies had them outnumbered and before the precious fuel and pilots were depleated...it is all in the history books if you can get past the propaganda.

Frequent_Flyer
09-15-2006, 07:53 PM
Grey,

Well said.......Not only in the history books but in gun camera footage. However, the 'usual suspects' will claim the 190 seen exploding before the 4 HMG's is an optical illusion. The 4 .50's on the Finnish Buffalo's even tore apart the VVS aircraft. Therefore, the VVS were qualified to comment from the receiving and the giving end of the .50's

Fork-N-spoon
09-15-2006, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I see nothing absurd about the above statement, as if Japanese planes with only 2 7.7mm guns were routinely killing their foes....Why not others.

Don't get me wrong, it is a bit of bluff and bluster my guess, the reduced guns more likely due to lack of ordinance, range, whatever....But certainly do-able though not the ideal. (notice though he wasn't talking about removing the armor and oxygen like the Japanese though....Now that's confidence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Moreover, the Japanese were shooting down P-47s with this armament. That's simply amazing... I find it very hard to believe yet it's true. Neel Kearby lost his life in a P-47 when a Ki-43 armed with two 7.7mm Japanese machine guns shot him down. The Japanese pilot must have been quite a shot as I would think that the P-47 could absorb hundreds of 30 caliber machine gun ammo, random hits that is and no vital areas struck such as pilot, oil coolers, or engine.

Maybe all the aircraft are simply too durable or all guns are two weak, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Von_Rat
09-15-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
There are some 'funny' observations made by some armchair pilots here about that interview.

OK the man flew real warbirds in real war and engaged real enemy.
You play the game and think that you know something that can correct his statement or perhaps teach the "poor guy" something.

Better give up clowns, do not make fool out of yourselves bigger than you are. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sorry for tring to see past the blatant propaganda.

Every country was involved in an 'arms' race to equip their fighters with more effective armaments. If 2 x .50 cal are enough to Effectively kill your opponets why bother with 4 x 20mm or 4 x 30mm even?

. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


to kill ever larger bombers of course.

and to be more effective against ground targets to i imagine.

LStarosta
09-15-2006, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I see nothing absurd about the above statement, as if Japanese planes with only 2 7.7mm guns were routinely killing their foes....Why not others.

Don't get me wrong, it is a bit of bluff and bluster my guess, the reduced guns more likely due to lack of ordinance, range, whatever....But certainly do-able though not the ideal. (notice though he wasn't talking about removing the armor and oxygen like the Japanese though....Now that's confidence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Moreover, the Japanese were shooting down P-47s with this armament. That's simply amazing... I find it very hard to believe yet it's true. Neel Kearby lost his life in a P-47 when a Ki-43 armed with two 7.7mm Japanese machine guns shot him down. The Japanese pilot must have been quite a shot as I would think that the P-47 could absorb hundreds of 30 caliber machine gun ammo, random hits that is and no vital areas struck such as pilot, oil coolers, or engine.

Maybe all the aircraft are simply too durable or all guns are two weak, six of one, half a dozen of the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese used ground Katana bits in their .30 cal bullets.

Xiolablu3
09-16-2006, 05:34 AM
One pass kills are what the Germans and British were looking for.


They didnt want to have to sit behind a target plugging away, they wanted to be in and out in one go.

Watch movies of 20mm cannons hitting with a good burst and the fighter usually has big chunks falling off with the first hits

Watch footage of MG's hitting and the shooter has to stay behind the enemy a long time to get him to go down unless he catches fire or blows up with a lucky shot.


This:

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/p51_vs_me109.wmv

Versus this :

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/mc205_vs_p47.wmv
(actually a P40 not a P47 and its in slow motion)

Abbuzze
09-16-2006, 06:22 AM
German pilots in africa stated that the 20mm nose cannon was enough. Some of them didn´t fired the MG17 because the effect to the target stayed the same, but the groundcrew had to refill the ammo.
And they fought vs Hurri and P40 - definitivly sturdy planes.


Finnish pilots said the same about the MG151/20.

Lordbutter4
09-16-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I see nothing absurd about the above statement, as if Japanese planes with only 2 7.7mm guns were routinely killing their foes....Why not others.

Don't get me wrong, it is a bit of bluff and bluster my guess, the reduced guns more likely due to lack of ordinance, range, whatever....But certainly do-able though not the ideal. (notice though he wasn't talking about removing the armor and oxygen like the Japanese though....Now that's confidence http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Moreover, the Japanese were shooting down P-47s with this armament. That's simply amazing... I find it very hard to believe yet it's true. Neel Kearby lost his life in a P-47 when a Ki-43 armed with two 7.7mm Japanese machine guns shot him down. The Japanese pilot must have been quite a shot as I would think that the P-47 could absorb hundreds of 30 caliber machine gun ammo, random hits that is and no vital areas struck such as pilot, oil coolers, or engine.

Maybe all the aircraft are simply too durable or all guns are two weak, six of one, half a dozen of the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Japanese pilots attacked and shot down 17's and 25's with this armament as well. I had an article in Air Classics which talked about one sentai equipped with early 43's and some of their engagements against american bombers and fighters.

heywooood
09-16-2006, 10:38 AM
moron the .50's ?

oh yes please

BigKahuna_GS
09-16-2006, 11:56 AM
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Kuna--There are some 'funny' observations made by some armchair pilots here about that interview. OK the man flew real warbirds in real war and engaged real enemy.
You play the game and think that you know something that can correct his statement or perhaps teach the "poor guy" something. Better give up clowns, do not make fool out of yourselves bigger than you are.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



Hehe Well said Kuna
I read that russian pilot's story about 2 years ago. They took off the extra MG's to save weight and make the P40 more competative/lengthing it's career against improving german designs. What is also interesting is that all non-Allison powered P-40 (Soviet MP-105P) were thought to be less powerful and a reduction in overall performance. The exat opposite of the of the Field-Mod P40 in this sim--which is the best performing P40 model.



<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Because there were no spare Allison engines, and the fighters were in great demand, the regiment commander Major A. A. Matveyev, suggested that Soviet-manufactured engines M-105P and M-105R be installed in the P-40Es. More than 40 fighters were duly modified at the 1st Aviation Repair Base of 13th Air Army (at the same time several single-seaters were converted into two-seaters. Naturally, the installation of a less powerful engine resulted in a diminution of the fighter's performance. The maximum speed of a P-40E with the M-105P engine and VISh-61P propeller was reduced by 12 kmh (from 477 to 465 kmh). Therefore the modified fighters were quickly transferred to another regiment (196th IAP).[/COLOR]

[COLOR:BLUE]"The P-40E more or less actively fought here until the end of 1942, and after that was simply accounted for in the regiment, though parked on the apron without engines" </span>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">"From information gathered from interrogations of shot down German pilots from II and II/JG 5 (A. Jakobi, H. Bodo, K. Philipp, and W. Schumacher), it was learned that they considered the Tomahawk to be a serious enemy (they placed only the Bf-109F and the Airacobra above it). The relatively limited success of Soviet pilots was due primarily to their adherence to defensive tactics and insufficiently decisive attacks."</span>

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal. The payment came due quickly, however. At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh. The regiment got rid of them at the first opportunity - on 27 April 1943 they were transferred to 16th Guards IAP (four serviceable aircraft with pilots). This regiment was fighting in Airacobras, and therefore the P-40E pilots gradually transitioned to them. The Kittyhawks were actively employed only in March and April, and in August were handed off to PVO.</span>


Bolillo --the japanese got Kearby not his 47. Unfortunatley for Kearby a golden BB hit him. The japanese were satisfied with their light MG's in China against less sofisticated aerial targets. But when faced with more modern and heavier aircraft the 7.7mm by themselves were not that effective. Hence the upgrade to 20mm and later replacing the 7.7mm with the Ho-103 japanese version of the .50cal in their late war fighters.

The Navy & Marine fighter pilots had no problem making long range head on passes against japanese fighters with 7.7mm and their early 20mm guns. They felt the .50s would out range in distance and rate of fire the japanese weapons on the Zekes. Several Marine pilots like Boyington talk about watching the the slow rate of fire on the japanese 20mm and the muzzle drop of the round while the .50s would have high rates of impact flashes all over the enemy aircraft.

Most of Bud Anderson's 190 kills were while flying a P51B/C with only 4-.50cal. The .50cal did just fine in WW2 bringing down prop fighters and only came into question in Korea in the jet vs jet enviorment but the gun still performed well in it's roll of destroying enemy fighters.


__

BigKahuna_GS
09-16-2006, 12:03 PM
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm
Compare the Field Mod P40 in the sim to this.

Because there were no spare Allison engines, and the fighters were in great demand, the regiment commander Major A. A. Matveyev, suggested that Soviet-manufactured engines M-105P and M-105R be installed in the P-40Es. More than 40 fighters were duly modified at the 1st Aviation Repair Base of 13th Air Army (at the same time several single-seaters were converted into two-seaters. Naturally, the installation of a less powerful engine resulted in a diminution of the fighter's performance. The maximum speed of a P-40E with the M-105P engine and VISh-61P propeller was reduced by 12 kmh (from 477 to 465 kmh). Therefore the modified fighters were quickly transferred to another regiment (196th IAP).


"The P-40E more or less actively fought here until the end of 1942, and after that was simply accounted for in the regiment, though parked on the apron without engines"

"From information gathered from interrogations of shot down German pilots from II and II/JG 5 (A. Jakobi, H. Bodo, K. Philipp, and W. Schumacher), it was learned that they considered the Tomahawk to be a serious enemy (they placed only the Bf-109F and the Airacobra above it). The relatively limited success of Soviet pilots was due primarily to their adherence to defensive tactics and insufficiently decisive attacks."

It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal. The payment came due quickly, however. At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh. The regiment got rid of them at the first opportunity - on 27 April 1943 they were transferred to 16th Guards IAP (four serviceable aircraft with pilots). This regiment was fighting in Airacobras, and therefore the P-40E pilots gradually transitioned to them. The Kittyhawks were actively employed only in March and April, and in August were handed off to PVO.

---

LEBillfish
09-16-2006, 11:57 PM
No, Kearby got Kearby because he forgot his rule of engagement.......He was wanting kills as "the story goes in MacArthur's Eagles" after hearing news of Bong's latest, so took a flight out to sweep Wewak........He and his group dropped 3 bombers, yet instead of extending and checking around, wheeled around for another pass. The escort of 5 Ki-43-II of the 33rd Hikousentai (with 12.7mm guns) was right there......and with him slow turning (the rule to never follow a Japanese fighter through 180 degree's or even less of turn....Though him not following, he turned loss of speed)......and that was that.

Many of the Aces of NewGuinea who met their end did so for the same reason in one form or another..........They forgot the rule.

WWMaxGunz
09-17-2006, 02:37 AM
Gee, imagine 2 50 cals being called enough in 1942-early 43.

BigKahuna_GS
09-17-2006, 11:26 AM
No, Kearby got Kearby because he forgot his rule of engagement.......He was wanting kills as "the story goes in MacArthur's Eagles" after hearing news of Bong's latest, so took a flight out to sweep Wewak........He and his group dropped 3 bombers, yet instead of extending and checking around, wheeled around for another pass. The escort of 5 Ki-43-II of the 33rd Hikousentai (with 12.7mm guns) was right there......and with him slow turning (the rule to never follow a Japanese fighter through 180 degree's or even less of turn....Though him not following, he turned loss of speed)......and that was that.

Many of the Aces of NewGuinea who met their end did so for the same reason in one form or another..........They forgot the rule.


Your right Billfish.

If what is accurate in Bong's book he actually could of had up to 80 kills. It is stated that Bong did not care that he had the record, his main focus was flying combat missions and shooting down japanese aircraft whether he got the credit for them or not. Gun camera placement in earlrier P-38's was too close to the guns and vibrations would sometimes render the gun film
unreadable. Bong gave away kills to all of his wingman, and on many occasions by himself downed aircraft over water with no confirmation and no kill credit. Bong's approach and attitude towards kills and records was completely differnent than many of these other aces seeking glory.

Kearby & McGuire both great fighter pilots wanted the title of "Ace of Aces" and persued it like the Holy Grail itself. They both broke their own rules of engagment in fighter combat and paid the ultimate price. McGuire especially wanted that title so bad that he orderd a stay of full drop tanks while engaged so that he would have enough fuel to complete his free roam mission that would give him enough kills to break Bong's record. What that order did was almost kill the entire 4 ship flight of P38s. Two P38 pilots dead (McGuire and Rittmayer), a third P38 damaged and limping home. A real shame McGuire was a heroic SOB who at his own peril shot zekes off his squadron mates tail from 50ft and in turn mcGuire got shot down two times and survived. Going for the record consumed him and he lost his true focus-- responsibility for survival of his flight of 4 P38s.


McGuire Shoot Down

Interesting reads

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-38/44-24845.html

http://www.aerothentic.com/history/articles/McGuire.htm

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/p-38/44-24845/index.html

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/afp/tmcr.htm

Wartime History
Ace McGuire took this aircraft on his final mission. For reasons unknown, he did not fly his person aircraft, P-38J "Pudgy V" 42-66817. On January 7, 1945 McGuire led four Lightnings "Daddy Flight" taking off from Leyte at dawn on a sweep over Negros Island, looking for kills. That day, he was flying with Douglas S. Thropp, Jr, Rittmayer and Weaver. The group orbited over Fabrica Strip, but did not see any Japanese planes there. Spottin g two Ki-43 Oscars (flown by Mizunori ***uda and Sugimoto). McGuire made a controversial decision to 'hold your tanks' (not drop drop tanks) anticipating further combat. Another Japanese plane, Ki-84 joined the combat.

(Aerothentic comment : as Thropp indicates, the noseart issue has yet to be resolved, as Thropp has indicated. However, the Lightning in which McGuire was lost this day was Pâ"€˜38Lâ"€˜1-LO serial # 44-24845)

14. There was no Daddy Flight call sign used over the radio. They just used each others last names in the clear.

15. They took off at 5 second intervals and did a left turning rejoin.

16. They climbed over Leyte to around 10,000 feet but were in and out of the clouds the whole time. There wasn't much opportunity to look inside the cockpit at the instruments or the time clock.

17. The clouds were very thick and they had to fly close formation to see each other. They did not pull out of formation one at a time and test fire their guns.

18. After a while McGuire started a descent.

19. In the descent Rittmayer flying on McGuireâ""s left wing lost sight of McGuire and pulled his power back. Thropp pulled his power back and stayed on Rittmayerâ""s left wing.

20. This continued for a while more. Time element unknown.

21. By the time they broke out of the clouds McGuire and Weaver were 2 miles or more ahead.

22. McGuire asked over the radio, "Jack are you having any problems?".

23. Rittmayer said "I'm have a little trouble with an engine".

24. McGuire said "Thropp do you have me in sight?"

25. Thropp said "Affirmative".

26. McGuire said "Thropp take the lead and close it up".

27. Thropp does not believe Rittmayer had any problem with his engines.

28. Thropp added power and closed on McGuire and Weaver.

29. McGuire and Weaver did one small turn over Fabrica Strip. They did not hold there for five minutes.

30. Thropp did not see Fabrica Strip and thus did not see any Japanese planes there.

31. McGuire turned to the West with Weaver on his right side.

32. Thropp continued to close on McGuire with Rittmayer still about 1,000 feet behind.

33. When Thropp got within 500 feet Weaver called out "Bogie at 12 O'clock low". Weaver did not refer to the Japanese plane as a Zeke.

34. Thropp saw the bogie but was not sure if he should attack it head on. If you stole a kill away from McGuire you were in big trouble.

35. As soon as the bogie passed under McGuire he(McGuire) went into a left turn. McGuire called "Hold your tanks".

36. Thropp started to follow McGuire to the left but as he looked back he saw the bogie pull up and head right for him. He called McGuire and reported the bogie on his tail.

37. He continued his turn till he was heading South. He climbed toward the overcast deck.

38. He looked back and the bogie was still coming at him. Then it began firing at him.

39. He jinked up, left, then right. He does not believe he was hit.

40. Maj. Rittmayer came smoking in at very high speed and fired at the bogie with an 80-90 degree deflection shot. Rittmayer then overshot to the outside.

41. The bogie pulled up, kicked left rudder, rolled and pulled hard left, reversed his course, and dove on McGuire and Weaver. (This is called a wifferdill. This is a basic fighter maneuver that all air-to-air pilots must master. It involves using the vertical plane to turn around and reverse your direction as quickly as possible, but without losing excessive airspeed/energy.)

42. McGuire and Weaver were still maintaining a level turn in close formation. Weaver was still on McGuireâ""s right/outside wing. They had completed a 270 degree turn to the left and were beginning to head in the original westerly direction.

43. Thropp followed the bogie with his own left wifferdill. He was about to warn McGuire about the bogie heading across the circle towards them but Weaver called first and said "He's on me now".

44. The bogie came downhill fast, accelerating, cutting across the circle, pulling lead on McGuire and Weaver. Thropp then saw the bogie pull up to avoid colliding with McGuire and Weaver. He could not tell if the bogie had fired at McGuire or Weaver but it was pulling enough lead and it was well within range.

45. Thropp closed in on the bogie and when he was in range opened fire with the bogie in his gunsight. After three seconds of fire the bogie disappeared in the clouds heading North towards the ocean. He was disappointed that he missed.

46. Thropp turned left to the West and looked over to his left and saw a burning airplane on the ground. He thought it was Weaver. He thought Weaver was shot down by the bogies gunfire. Who else could it be he thought.

47. Thropp had no idea where McGuire or Rittmayer were.

48. When he looked back to the front the bogie reappeared coming right over his head at a distance of 30 meters. Guns blazing. He had no idea who it was firing on. He did not think the bogie was firing on him. He turned hard left and realized he still had his drop tanks on. His plane was feeling very heavy. He then jettisoned his tanks and turned left doing a 180 to go after the bogie. But he did not see the bogie right away.

49. He flew around for a few seconds and saw a second plane burning on the ground. Then he looked around for any other P-38's to join up with. After a few more seconds and a slow turn to the left he looked to his rear and saw the bogie closing on him again. He thought Son of a *****.

50. He firewalled the throttles but noticed his left engine was not putting out full power. He saw 45 inches of manifold pressure on the left and 55 inches on the right. He headed for the cloud deck while keeping an eye on the bogie.

51. The bogie closed to within firing range. Then it fired.

52. Thropp saw the guns light up and he jinked left, the tracer bullets went wide right.

53. The bogie made a correction and fired.

54. Thropp saw the guns light up and he jinked right, the bullets went wide left.

55. The bogie made a correction and fired again.

56. Thropp saw the guns light up and pushed forward, the bullets went over the top of the canopy.

57. The bogie made a correction and fired.

58. Thropp thought I don't think this is going to work for much longer so he pulled up into the clouds and transitioned to instruments.

59. With his heart beating a million miles a minute he called for McGuire. Thinking what the hell is McGuire doing all this time.

60. But Weaver answered him. It was then that he realized that McGuire and Rittmayer had crashed. He thought "well this has been a damn fine morning!"

61. Thropp told Weaver that he wanted to join up with him but Weaver said he did not want to waste time looking for each other in the clouds and to RTB alone.

62. Thropp returned to Dulag alone, landed, and taxied in.

63. A crew chief came up and asked "where are the others". Thropp said "McGuire and Rittmayer are down and burning". The news spread like wildfire. The whole base knew before Weaver landed 10 minutes later.

64. Weaver arrived and taxied in.

65. Thropp looked over his plane and was surprised to see it had been hit. He could not remember being hit during the dogfight. There was a hole in the left engine turbo-charger and the right tail boom. He could not tell if they were 20mm or 12mm holes.

66. He proceed to the debriefing tent and told the Squadron Intel officer, Lt Hall, what had happened.

67. Later he was called to Col MacDonaldâ""s office. When he came in Col Mac asked him "what the hell happened out there?" There were about 20 people in the room.

68. He told him what you have just finished reading.

69. He did not type up or sign any individual combat report. The combat report with his name on it was made up by someone else.

70. He later saw Weaver's combat report and was surprised to see so much detail in it. He also can not corroborate what Weaver says he was doing after the first engagement with the bogie.

71. He never saw Manapla strip.

72. He thinks the bogie could have shot down McGuire. It was well within range just before McGuire went down.

73. He did not see McGuire increase his turn, snap roll inverted or impact the ground. He does agree that McGuire and Weaver were about 300 feet high.

74. He did not see any ground fire at any time. He did not see the main dirt road that runs from East to West in that area.

75. At the time he could not positively identify what type of Japanese plane was involved. Due to the fact that he mostly had a view of it from the front with muzzle flashes obscuring his view. It appeared to have a green mottling camouflage and big red circles all over it.

76. He did not realize that there were two Japanese planes involved until Carroll "Andy" Anderson contacted him in the 1970's and told him that. He always thought there was just one. But it made sense to him that there could have been two planes not one.

77. He never claimed the shooting down of a Japanese plane that day because after he shot at it for three seconds and it disappeared into the clouds it reappeared and shot down Maj. Rittmayer. So it must not have suffered any damage from his guns. Or so he thought.

78. He talked to Weaver many times after this mishap flight but he did not say what they discussed. Or if they discussed the mishap flight.

79. He wants to talk to the Japanese pilot (***ude) that was involved. If he is still alive.

80. He wants to go to McGuire AFB someday and see Pudgy V. He also wants to go back to the Philippines someday for a visit. He would also like to pay his respects at Arlington.

81. He also wants his story/version to be told.

82. If it can be confirmed that the aircraft he shot at did in fact crash into the jungle and was destroyed, then he would like to get credit for it.

83. He is willing to participate in a documentary film about this incident.

84. He never saw the gun camera film taken from his plane but was told that it showed him shooting at the bogie before it disappeared into the clouds. He was told later that he and Weaver expended 130 rounds of 20mm and 330 rounds of .50 cal. He thinks he had about 200 gal of fuel remaining.

85. He felt that Weaver should have joined up with him on the way back to support him if he developed any more engine problems.

86. He thought the mission may have been unauthorized but found out later that Col MacDonald did allow his Squadron Commanders the authority to launch missions at their desecration. So the mission was authorized.

87. Thropp is planning to do a book/article about this subject matter but wants to see if my project can turn up any eyewitnesses to the dogfight or the destruction of the Japanese plane, or locate the Japanese pilot so he can talk to him.

88. I also sat down with him and drew out the vector diagrams showing the dogfight as he remembers it.

89. As unbelievable as it may seem he said I was the first experienced accident investigator/fighter pilot to ever sit down and discuss all these details about this mishap with him.

90. I told him that if the Japanese pilot is still alive I will arrange for them to meet. I also invited him to visit me and my wife in the Philippines and we will escort him around Clark, Leyte, and Negros.

93. He has not yet achieved closure on this incident that started more than 56 years ago.

94. Mr. Thropp has the highest regard for Maj. McGuire and would never want to bring discredit to his name.


---------

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/afp/tmcr.htm


Thomas B. McGuire, Jr.
His Last Mission
431ST FIGHTER SQUADRON
475TH FIGHTER GROUP
APO 72

9 January 1945

INDIVIDUAL COMBAT REPORT OF CAPTAIN EDWARD R. WEAVER

A. Mission #1-668; 7 January 1945; 431st Ftr Sq; 4 P-38s.
B. Fighter Sweep to Negros Island
C. Time of attack: 0708/I.
Altitude: 1,400 feet
D. At 0620/I, 7 January 1945, I took off as #2 man in a flight led by Major McGuire, of 4 P-38s of the 431st Fighter Squadron. We climbed on course for Fabrica Airdrome on Negros Island leveling off at 10,000 feet. West of Leyte, cloud coverage became 10/10ths at 6,000 feet and remained so to the target area. Over Negros we descended through several layers of stratus clouds breaking out below the overcast at 1,700 feet, 10 miles NE of Fabrica Strip. We proceeded to that strip arriving at 0700/I and circled it at 1,400 feet for about five minutes. Major McGuire then set course at this attitude for the strips on the western coast of Negros. At about 10/15 miles west of Fabrica I saw a Zeke '52' coming directly towards us at 500 feet below and 1,000 yards ahead. By the time I radioed this information, the leader had seen the enemy, he was directly underneath us. Major McGuire, followed by his flight, made a diving turn to the left for an attack. The Zeke immediately dived to the left also and came around on the tail of #3 man, Lt. Thropp, who had previously been instructed by his element leader, Major Rittmayer, to change positions with him. The enemy was on the inside of this very tight turn at 300 feet and fired at Lt. Thropp. I radioed that the Zeke was directly behind us, and Major Rittmayer, in #4 position, fired a burst sufficient to make the enemy turn even more tightly and lose Lt. Thropp. That put the Zeke in range and inside of me, in #2 position. I radioed major McGuire that I was being attacked and increased my turn, diving slightly. The enemy stayed with me, but I was now inside and a little below my leader. At this time Major McGuire, attempting to get a shot at my attacker, increased his turn tremendously. His plane snap-rolled to the left and stopped in an inverted position with the nose down about 30Ӛ?. Because of the attitude of my plane, I then lost sight of him momentarily. A second later I saw the explosion and fire of his crash. The Zeke broke off his attack just before Major McGuire's crash, and climbed to the North. It is my opinion that the enemy did not at any time change his attack from me to my leader. I believe his crash was caused by his violent attempt to thwart my attacker, although it is possible that the Major was hit by ground fire, which had now begun.

When the Zeke broke away to the North, I also turned in that direction and joined the remainder of the flight as #3 man. We all chased the enemy and Lt. Thropp, in #1 position, got in a burst just as the Zeke climbed into the overcast. A second later, as we turned to the South, the Zeke reappeared to the East and headed toward us. It got a burst at Lt. Thropp from 1000 o'clock high and I saw a slight amount of smoke come from Lt. Thropp's left engine. Pulling up my nose, I got a short burst from 30Ӛ? below. Then I followed Major Rittmayer, the #2 man, in a 180Ӛ? turn to the right to pursue the Zeke, who swung around and again attacked from 1000 o'clock high as we jettisoned our auxiliary fuel tanks. I saw hits on Major Rittmayer and again pulled up my nose turning to the right for a burst from 30Ӛ? below. The Zeke, also being closed on by Lt. Thropp who was now above, behind and to the left of me, made a diving turn to the right from him and headed North. Lt. Thropp had continued his turn and started home with a bad left engine. The Zeke swung on his tail and fired just as Lt. Thropp entered the overcast. I was too far out of range to fire as the Zeke also climbed into the overcast, breaking off toward the South. I circled the bottom of the overcast for approximately three minutes waiting for the enemy to show himself again. Thinking that he might be above, I climbed through the overcast and looked for him there for a few minutes. Lt. Thropp radioed that he was all right and on his way home. I then gave up the hunt and set course for my base at 0715/I, landing at 0805/I.

EDWIN R. WEAVER
Captain, Air Corps

Xiolablu3
09-17-2006, 11:46 AM
SOme interesting reading htere, Kahuna. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The P40 in the game is definitely a good sturdy plane. It doesnt excell at anything, but it can do all things quite well. It carries a nice bomb load too. With a wingman you could definitely cause some problems to superior (in theory) enemy planes.

As it was considered 'out of date' even when it entered service, I think it competes quite well.

There are definitely worse planes to be in , in the game.

I would rather be in a P40 than a Hurricane MkI or MkIIb. The 4x20mm of the MkIIc levels the field a bit, but I think on the whole, I would rather be in the P40.

Dtools4fools
09-17-2006, 06:14 PM
. Ki43 ki61 mc202 and many others feel like essentially useless planes because u can sit on someones six blast away with accuracy like and ace and alot of the time just run out of bullets.

????
Usually two single engine fighters no prob in Ki-43 in one mission, one third I might run out of ammo...
****

leitmotiv
09-17-2006, 10:43 PM
As Robert Mikesh reminds readers in his excellent ZERO (Motorbooks), the A6M and Ki-43 were designed for and according to the specifications of the extremely high quality pre-Pearl Harbor Japanese fighter pilots. A pilot like Saburo Sakai could place a burst right into an American cockpit---point fire. Mikesh astutely explains the American theory of armament was ideally designed for deflection shooting---a large uniform battery has the same trajectory and can demolish an aircraft which passes through the saturation of bullets placed ahead of it. The Ki-43/A6M2 Japanese armament theory was designed for expert marksmen who used point fire. After the Japanese first team was largely dead by 1943, the point fire theory collapsed, and the Japanese had a problem which was not solved 'til the Shiden or uniform battery Hayate arrived on the scene with their four high-velocity 20mm cannon.

JG10r_Bull
09-18-2006, 04:43 AM
i have one thing to Say here on this the VVS pilot must be right as B17 waist gunners only had One 50cal MG and thay had no probs downing 109 & 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
09-18-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
And btw I can shoot down a 109 with 2x.50's without much trouble, yes online...

They just aren't the same guns, even though they are of similar caliber. As I recall, the Germans referred to the MG131 as a 'doorknocker' because it was good only for announcing your presence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, the doorknocker was used for 37mm AT guns in the Russian campaign.



Rate of fire, muzzle velocity & trajectory were somewhat inferior to the M2 Browning .50, which was in turn not as powerful than the Soviet 12.7mm. The gap between the MG131 and the M2 seems significantly greater than the gap between the M2 and the UBS 12.7mm in-game, although the UBS is rarely mounted in pairs.
cheers

horseback

Not exactly, the MG 131 was much lighter and much less bulkier (about half the weight and dimensions of the Browning at 17 kg) nice little HMG, that fired at much higher RoF (940ish vs. 750), but lighter projectiles (34 vs 48 gram iirc) at lower muzzle velocity, ie. ballistic, but at the same token it was easily installed to any small place and was electrically fired which made syncronisation simple and effiecient. Lower MV and projectile weight meant that the gun had small dispersion (barrel vibration!) and the MG 131 had unusually high barrel life of HMGs, which in practice again means that there's not such a drastic increase in spread and decrease in MV as with higher ballistic performance guns. Point is, the MG131 (and the UBS) were purpose-designed HMGs to be used specifically on aircraft, whereas the .50 Browning was originally an enlarged WW1 infantry .303 MG, that was originally meant for being used against WW1 tanks and other hard targets from fixed positions, and only later was marginally modified to fit into aircraft. Obviously, an aircraft gun and a infantry heavy MG has to show different qualities.

Of course worser ballistics meant that it was not as good as the Browning when it come to penetrate aircraft armor, yet it was still capable of penetration any kind of armor used on WW2 aircraft, so I doubt there was any practical difference in terms of destructiveness. It doesn't really matter if 6-8mm of armor gets punched through by a projectile that can penetrate 25mm or 'just' 20mm. On light structures dominating aircraft, but would just simply punch through, with the more powerful KE projectile simply making a neater hole, as it only transfers as much energy to the structure it needs to expend to penetrate it - and that amount of E is dependent on the structure , not the projectile.

After all the Brits declined the .50s in the 1930s as they considered they would not give much improvement over even .303 caliber guns, since basically all these non-explosive content MGs do is making small holes in the aircraft. Where caliber came in was when armor appeared in aircraft and .303 calibers could no longer penetrate it, so hence the need to go for HMGs, because of their ability to penetrate increasingly present aircraft armor, not because it was something of an improvement in pure destructive potential.

In that sense I feel the MG 131 was a perfect answer for a problem ('we need a gun to be used on aircraft, ie. needs to be compact, with enough performance to be used relatively short ranges, and can penetrate typical aircraft armor in use, high RoF is preferable over ballistics - we ain't shooting to 1 km away'). It was more than enough to do the job (penetrate armor effectively), and on the plus side, it had high RoF and was no bigger than previous smaller caliber .303 guns so it could be built in their place with little modificatio of aircraft design - it was even used as infantry Squad MG!

Copperhead310th
09-18-2006, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> so why's it so impopssible to shoot down a FW 190 with 2 .50s?
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?
And btw I can shoot down a 109 with 2x.50's without much trouble, yes online... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the 190's are made of rubber and US planes are made of glue. Whater bounces off me sticks to you.
Trust me. having flown BOTH sides for a while now i'm still of the opinion that something is not right. either with the 109/190 DM or the Browning modeling. Either way we're stuck with it. when your sitting 20m dead6 on a 190A-9 in a P-47 and EMPTY all 8 guns and he's still flying.....ya know that there's a problem somewhere.

Brain32
09-18-2006, 09:22 AM
Well I don't know m8, I think I can dig up a track where I nailed the elevator on a 109 from like 500m with only 2 .50's on a SpitMkIXe. 109's are generally very easy to kill with .50, and while you can't expect Hollywood style explosions with the FW190's they are easy enough to bring down too(fuel leaks, engine damage,PK, controls knocked, not to mention what a good burst in a wing does), just because the FW190 is flying in a straight line trying to reach friendly lines and bail does not mean it's not "killed", ofcourse explain that to kill hungry Spit fliers .
Few days ago flying my P47 I nailed 2x109g6as, Dora and A9 in one sortie, according to some people that is downright impossible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I really don't have a problem with .50's, I can't imagine what would they do if they were stronger, I think it would be ridiculous...

Viper2005_
09-18-2006, 09:32 AM
Copperhead, the problem you describe is generally referred to as "missing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fw-190 can't survive accurate MG fire. Thankfully most MG fire is very inaccurate!

JG53Frankyboy
09-18-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
........................ - it was even used as infantry Squad MG!

the MG131 ???????

with its, even from you mentioned, electric fire control............. ?!?!?!?!?

any pictures ?

Copperhead310th
09-18-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Copperhead, the problem you describe is generally referred to as "missing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fw-190 can't survive accurate MG fire. Thankfully most MG fire is very inaccurate!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif@ 20 meters ya don't miss Jack@ss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Even flying crosseyed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

carguy_
09-18-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th: when your sitting 20m dead6 on a 190A-9 in a P-47 and EMPTY all 8 guns and he's still flying.....ya know that there's a problem somewhere.


This is all true provided you achieve 0,5% accuracy.

luftluuver
09-18-2006, 10:19 AM
when your sitting 20m dead6 on a 190A-9 in a P-47 and EMPTY all 8 guns and he's still flying.....ya know that there's a problem somewhere. Naturally you are going miss as it is ~18' between the inner guns on the P-47. In real life convergence was ~250yds. All you might be able to hit is the 190's wings for sure you ain't going to hit the fuselage.

StellarRat
09-18-2006, 10:38 AM
I think you're wrong. That would mean the width of 190 is less the width between .50s on the P-47? I know the 47 was a big plane, but I think the MGs were far enough inboard that wings of a 190 would be sawed off at 20 yards (at least the tips.)

Xiolablu3
09-18-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Copperhead, the problem you describe is generally referred to as "missing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fw-190 can't survive accurate MG fire. Thankfully most MG fire is very inaccurate!

Hehe thats what I was thinking.

Convergence settings maybe?

Lately I find there is a very big difference in hitting at convergence. I can rip planes up with 6x50's on the 'Cats' and find them even more powerful than the 109's 2xmg and 1x20mm.

Xiolablu3
09-18-2006, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Copperhead, the problem you describe is generally referred to as "missing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fw-190 can't survive accurate MG fire. Thankfully most MG fire is very inaccurate!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif@ 20 meters ya don't miss Jack@ss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Even flying crosseyed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At that range most of your fire is going over and under the wings. WIth maybe a bit hitting the thin wings. Nowhere near the fueselage.

Unless you are using 20m convergeance of course :P

FatBoyHK
09-18-2006, 11:06 AM
There is no problem for 50 cals in this game. A half-second snapshot, at convegence, and with some deflection (i.e. not on dead six) can beat every single-engine fighter into a fireball. it is a norm rather than an exception as I do that day in and day out. Yes people take it for granted that 50 cals is porked and don't think it is a threat, and after I saw them in halves they often accussed me for ramming...

But the real problem is, how can you achieve the required shooting solution to obtain the result you want? AT CONVEGENCE WITH SOME DEFLECTION......In this game, you can only do that by surprising your enemy. If he is aware of your presence and is not a hapless n00b, he won't give away an ideal solution for you to kill him. You may get some hits, but they will land all over the plane, which may not even enough to affect its overall performance.

With this in his mind he can hit the break, give up a poor solution for you but in return put you in front of him. To aviod this trap you can keep your speed and zoom away after the overshoot, but this further weaken your ability to hit him in the first pass.

In close dogfight, your nose would be very unstable as you need to change your lift vector very often. With your nose wandering around you can't land multiple hits in a pinpoint, this mean you need more time to do your job, and also mean more chance for reversal, enemy reinforcement, kill-stealing, and out-of-ammo.

I don't know if these issues are realistic or not. May be the game is relistic afterall but it is the players who play it unrealistically, who do so much high G moves that will exhuast theselves within a minutes? Or it is mission related, where those intercepter with BIG guns are those high-alt escort fighter are forced to fight on the deck? Or it may be the FM's problem, as some planes seem to be too unstable? (Mustang anyone? Jug anyone? both are suppose to be very stable weapon platform).

But anyway I don't think it is 50 cal's problem. It light up japanese plane with ease, even with all the issues I just mentioned.

Abbuzze
09-18-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif@ 20 meters ya don't miss Jack@ss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Even flying crosseyed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That´s is one problem of wingguns... here a picture what happens 20m behind an enemy plane.

Convergance is set to 200m.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5169/p47conv200mqk8.th.jpg (http://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p47conv200mqk8.jpg)

I think to be crosseyed would be an advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

StellarRat
09-18-2006, 11:43 AM
Well, I've never missed a plane at 20m in a 47 or a 51. Now, whether or not they stayed in front of me long enough to be destroyed is a completely different story.

Abbuze - I don't see problem in that picture. I don't think a 190 will fly if it losses 1/2 of each wing... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well, maybe with the current DM it would, but not in real life... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
09-18-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Copperhead, the problem you describe is generally referred to as "missing". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Fw-190 can't survive accurate MG fire. Thankfully most MG fire is very inaccurate!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif@ 20 meters ya don't miss Jack@ss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Even flying crosseyed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At that range most of your fire is going over and under the wings. WIth maybe a bit hitting the thin wings. Nowhere near the fueselage.

Unless you are using 20m convergeance of course :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well...IF he's got the pipper centered on the 190's fuselage, that would be true. On the other hand, he could just as easily be aiming just enough off center that he can see that the fire of one wing is centered on his target-and 4x.50 at 20m isn't exactly a light summer rain.

About convergence settings, it is my understanding that 1000 ft (303yds) was the USN standard, but that the USAAF SUGGESTED 250yds.

In actual practice, there were groups that had a single set standard, and there were groups that allowed their individual pilots to set the convergence for their assigned aircraft, and some did favor convergences of 150 yds or less.

In any case-and I've done the math-a P-47 or most other US aircraft with wing mounted ordnance will be getting fuselage & wingroot strikes on either the 109 or 190 within a 200m 'cylinder' (actually, more like a couple of long skinny cones pointing at each other)centered on the convergence point as long as the crosshairs are centered on the target.

Admittedly, this may not work with a 20m convergence, but with a convergence of 150m or more it applies quite well.

cheers

horseback

KIMURA
09-18-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
Well, I've never missed a plane at 20m in a 47 or a 51. Now, whether or not they stayed in front of me long enough to be destroyed is a completely different story.

Abbuze - I don't see problem in that picture. I don't think a 190 will fly if it losses 1/2 of each wing... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well, maybe with the current DM it would, but not in real life... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stellar the closer the distance the bigger the chance to miss. At that close range and with that gun layout maybe 3-4 of the 6 guns fail to hit the target, that's for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also aiming corrections with the controls becomes more difficult.

WWMaxGunz
09-18-2006, 01:05 PM
P-47 guns are over 4 ft below the gunsight and fire upwards to meet the sightline, cross over
and fall back if firing near level.

P-47 guns have 2 different convergences. The lethal zone can be nice and deep.

Who would be stupid enough to slow a P-47 down to try and follow a 109 so closely you could
ram the thing and expect to be able to hold target in a hard turn?

StellarRat
09-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Unfortunately, we don't get a cone pattern with our MGs, I believe they are all aimed at a single point in IL2. With the 47 you can set two different convergences, so you can kind of make a cone. I'm hoping we will be able to set each gun individually in SOW and make whatever pattern we want.

I'm not dumb enough to get to 20 m on purpose, but occasionally I have been able to sneak up to about 50 m on some planes. Even with my convergence set to 150 m, the results are 50 m were fatal. You may have to compensate for a second for over shooting, but the number of rounds on target after that is devastating. You just can't miss.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Not exactly, the MG 131 was much lighter and much less bulkier (about half the weight and dimensions of the Browning at 17 kg) nice little HMG, that fired at much higher RoF (940ish vs. 750), but lighter projectiles (34 vs 48 gram iirc) at lower muzzle velocity, ie. ballistic, but at the same token it was easily installed to any small place and was electrically fired which made syncronisation simple and effiecient. Lower MV and projectile weight meant that the gun had small dispersion (barrel vibration!) and the MG 131 had unusually high barrel life of HMGs, which in practice again means that there's not such a drastic increase in spread and decrease in MV as with higher ballistic performance guns. Point is, the MG131 (and the UBS) were purpose-designed HMGs to be used specifically on aircraft, whereas the .50 Browning was originally an enlarged WW1 infantry .303 MG, that was originally meant for being used against WW1 tanks and other hard targets from fixed positions, and only later was marginally modified to fit into aircraft. Obviously, an aircraft gun and a infantry heavy MG has to show different qualities.

Of course worser ballistics meant that it was not as good as the Browning when it come to penetrate aircraft armor, yet it was still capable of penetration any kind of armor used on WW2 aircraft, so I doubt there was any practical difference in terms of destructiveness. It doesn't really matter if 6-8mm of armor gets punched through by a projectile that can penetrate 25mm or 'just' 20mm. On light structures dominating aircraft, but would just simply punch through, with the more powerful KE projectile simply making a neater hole, as it only transfers as much energy to the structure it needs to expend to penetrate it - and that amount of E is dependent on the structure , not the projectile.

After all the Brits declined the .50s in the 1930s as they considered they would not give much improvement over even .303 caliber guns, since basically all these non-explosive content MGs do is making small holes in the aircraft. Where caliber came in was when armor appeared in aircraft and .303 calibers could no longer penetrate it, so hence the need to go for HMGs, because of their ability to penetrate increasingly present aircraft armor, not because it was something of an improvement in pure destructive potential.

In that sense I feel the MG 131 was a perfect answer for a problem ('we need a gun to be used on aircraft, ie. needs to be compact, with enough performance to be used relatively short ranges, and can penetrate typical aircraft armor in use, high RoF is preferable over ballistics - we ain't shooting to 1 km away'). It was more than enough to do the job (penetrate armor effectively), and on the plus side, it had high RoF and was no bigger than previous smaller caliber .303 guns so it could be built in their place with little modificatio of aircraft design - it was even used as infantry Squad MG!


..... The MG131, by virtue of its low projectile weight and its relatively low MV (which is how it was able to weigh so little), was not remotely in the same ballistic league as the M2 50cal.

(1) In terms of exterior ballistics, the M2 was a better performer than the MG151/20. The MG131 was a worse performer.

(2) An M2 projectile had approximately 2.5 times the energy of the MG131 at the muzzle. This ratio would grow over range due to the much superior velocity retention characteristics of the M2 round. High KE is an AP round's greatest friend in terms of overall damage effect upon a target. To argue that KE was relatively meaningless is nonsensical.

(3) The M2 round, as good a performer as it was, was not able to pierce all fighter armor under all conditions within normal battle ranges. Given its very light weight and its low velocity, there is no possible way that the MG131 projectile could even approach the M2's AP performance.

(4) Within reasonable limits better dispersion does not equal better gun accuracy in combat. A gun with decent dispersion characteristics and much superior ballistic characteristics will be a more effective weapon than a gun with good dispersions characterics but poor ballistics. When you have a one or two second window to shoot, a high velocity flat trajectory weapon is by far the better choice.

None of this is conjecture on my part. All the data has been posted here before. There were very good reasons why the M2 weighed twice the MG131.

Xiolablu3
09-18-2006, 02:19 PM
I guess the Germans were not too concerned with the poor trajectory of the MG131 (in comparison to other 50cals) bcasue it would always be a better trajectory than the Mg151/20.

If there was too much difference then it would be hard to hit with both.

I am guessing that the LW assumed all guns would be fired togther, possibly with the MG131 used for sighting the 20mm. Therefore a trajectory closer to the 20mm would be preferable.

Kurfurst__
09-18-2006, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... The MG131, by virtue of its low projectile weight and its relatively low MV (which is how it was able to weigh so little), was not remotely in the same ballistic league as the M2 50cal.

Yes, as it was meant against light structure aircrafts, which are fired at at short range and does not require tremendeous hitting power, unlike tanks and pillboxes.

Apply the theory to the Soviet UBS, and we see it's flawed.


(1) In terms of exterior ballistics, the M2 was a better performer than the MG151/20. The MG131 was a worse performer.

Maybe we'd need some hard data to decide wheter twice the weight really worths marginal ballistic performance that doesn't really matter at such short ranges and light targets.


(2) An M2 projectile had approximately 2.5 times the energy of the MG131 at the muzzle.

So a hit from an M2 projectile does almost the same damage as 3 from an MG 131.
BS. Besides, your math is just dead wrong, it's more like just 80%.


This ratio would grow over range due to the much superior velocity retention characteristics of the M2 round.

Which is great if you are figthing hard targets at long range. Aircraft are soft targets, fired at short range, though.


High KE is an AP round's greatest friend in terms of overall damage effect upon a target. To argue that KE was relatively meaningless is nonsensical.

To argue based on emotions is pointless. I see you don't grasp much of the whole process, so here's a sketch for you. Let's use an example where Projectile A has 5000 Joule energy, Projectile B has 2500 Joule energy.

They are fired at the same target, which requires 1000 Joule energy to be passed through.
Both projectiles hit the target, and loose 1000 Joule of energy spent on penetrating the target.
Then they both exit the target.
If you want you can calculate how much energy both rounds still has and much further Projectile A will fly, but that's pretty pointless because the only damage they done to the target is that 1000 Joule used when passing through.

Check the theory in practice, shoot a target paper on firing range, I don't get much difference wheter I fire at it with .357, 9mm Para or .38 Wadcutter. All of these are the apprx. same caliber, the 357 being far the more powerful, yet indiscriminatable in it's effect on the paper from the 9mm, and the .38 Wadcutter makes the most 'damage' to it, yet being the weakest for KE.


(3) The M2 round, as good a performer as it was, was not able to pierce all fighter armor under all conditions within normal battle ranges. Given its very light weight and its low velocity, there is no possible way that the MG131 projectile could even approach the M2's AP performance.

I am sure your guesswork has no flaws, but penetration tables show hat the MG 131 AP is capable of penetrating 11 mm armor at 300m when hitting the target armor plate directly, and 9mm when it hits a 3mm dural plate first at 20 degrees off-angle, and then hitting the armor plate 1.5 meters behind it - a typical condition for fighter hits, assuming the armor plate itself is normal to the line of fire. At 20 degrees off angle, you still get 9mm/8mm at 300m.

How much the typical armor on Allied bombers amounted, 4.5-6.5-8mm on fighters, 4mm on bombers vulnerable parts, wasn't it?


(4) Within reasonable limits better dispersion does not equal better gun accuracy in combat.

Correct, as it means more concentrated firepower, ie. higher desctructiveness.


A gun with decent dispersion characteristics and much superior ballistic characteristics will be a more effective weapon than a gun with good dispersions characterics but poor ballistics.

Technically correct. A car with 255 kph top speed is faster than a car with 250 kph top speed.
That is also technically correct.

Speaking of the much superior ballistic characteristics, how much less flight time a M2 round needs vs. a MG 131 round at 300m distance? Using a simplistic approach of constant V (ie. t=300/MV) with M2 ballistic tables (have for the MG 131), I get 0.4 secs (IRL: 0.49sec, from Rechlin ballistic tables) needed for the MG 131, and 0.34 secs for the M2.

Now please go into great lenghts what huge differences 0.06 secs in flight time will make at 300m for an automatic weapon.

While you are at it, add the factor that, firing at a 940/min cycle vs. 650-750 (~= 700/min), or 0.06 sec delay between each round vs 0.085 sec delay within each round actually means that each MG 131 round will be fired with a cumulative 0.025 sec advantage. Ie.

The 1st MG 131 and M2 round is fired at the same time, the M2 round gets there with 0.060 secs earlier.
With the 2nd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.035 secs earlier.
With the 3rd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.010 secs earlier.
By when the 4th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.015 secs earlier.
By when the 5th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.030 secs earlier.
By when the 6th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.055 secs earlier.
By when the 7th MG 131 round is fired, the MG 131 round will get there in the target before the 7th M2 round even leaves the barrel...

By that time about half second has elapsed in real time BTW.

Welcome to the beutiful world of engineering. It's really about more than just making a big gun that fires a big round from a big cartridge. See also HK G11, effect of RoF on ballistics.


When you have a one or two second window to shoot, a high velocity flat trajectory weapon is by far the better choice.

Following that logic, the ideal gun for skeet shooting is a nice old single shot .30-06 Springfield. Yet I recall they rather use slow velocity, 'high RoF' shotguns for that purpose, which points out the flaw of your theory, ie. conviniently ignoring RoF alltogether.


None of this is conjecture on my part. All the data has been posted here before. There were very good reasons why the M2 weighed twice the MG131.

Yes, like it was a 30 old year design even back then in WW2, whereas the UBS, MG 131 were brand new ones with more advanced (lighter) operating mechanisms. You can argue if you want that was because the M2's more powerful round and better ballistics, but then if we look at the Soviet UBS, a gun lighter, much higher RoF and better ballistics, we see that time is the greatest enemy.

@Frankboy, re: MG 131 ground use.

Please do google for 'Panzerfaust' website. It's really a nice one though periodically unavailable for bandwith reasons. I've seen it mentioned there myself, w. picture included. I believe some LW field divisions used it with a bipod, presumable with percussion firing (MG 151 also had both percussion and electric fired versions, the latter being used on the FW 190 as MG 151/20E.).

Xiolablu3
09-18-2006, 03:44 PM
Shotguns are used for skeet shooting purely because of the great 'spread' of the 'shot' in the Shotgun round.

It would be almost imposible and require a hell of a lot of luck to hit a Skeet/Clay Pigeon with a single rifle bullet!

Even a fast firing mg would be incredibly hard to hit one too.

The shot from a shotgun cartridge will spread to 1 foot or more by the time it reaches 25-30 yards, which is why its used for moving targets like running rabbits, pheasants and pigeons.

Try and hit a flying bird with a rifle and it would be almost impossible, not to mention incredibly cruel, as you are likely to maim the bird.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I guess the Germans were not too concerned with the poor trajectory of the MG131 (in comparison to other 50cals) bcasue it would always be a better trajectory than the Mg151/20.

If there was too much difference then it would be hard to hit with both.

I am guessing that the LW assumed all guns would be fired togther, possibly with the MG131 used for sighting the 20mm. Therefore a trajectory closer to the 20mm would be preferable.


..... Based upon the ballistic chart that BB Hyperion posted some time back, the MG131 trajectory was closely matched to that of the Mk108 - at least, as they were fitted in the G6.

p1ngu666
09-18-2006, 05:17 PM
personaly i think the most amusing thing is the russians had a better 50cal than the americans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

... it was meant against light structure aircrafts, which are fired at at short range and does not require tremendeous hitting power, unlike tanks and pillboxes.

Apply the theory to the Soviet UBS, and we see it's flawed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(1) In terms of exterior ballistics, the M2 was a better performer than the MG151/20. The MG131 was a worse performer.

Maybe we'd need some hard data to decide wheter twice the weight really worths marginal ballistic performance that doesn't really matter at such short ranges and light targets.


(2) An M2 projectile had approximately 2.5 times the energy of the MG131 at the muzzle.

So a hit from an M2 projectile does almost the same damage as 3 from an MG 131.
BS. Besides, your math is just dead wrong, it's more like just 80%.


This ratio would grow over range due to the much superior velocity retention characteristics of the M2 round.

Which is great if you are figthing hard targets at long range. Aircraft are soft targets, fired at short range, though.


High KE is an AP round's greatest friend in terms of overall damage effect upon a target. To argue that KE was relatively meaningless is nonsensical.

To argue based on emotions is pointless. I see you don't grasp much of the whole process, so here's a sketch for you. Let's use an example where Projectile A has 5000 Joule energy, Projectile B has 2500 Joule energy.

They are fired at the same target, which requires 1000 Joule energy to be passed through.
Both projectiles hit the target, and loose 1000 Joule of energy spent on penetrating the target.
Then they both exit the target.
If you want you can calculate how much energy both rounds still has and much further Projectile A will fly, but that's pretty pointless because the only damage they done to the target is that 1000 Joule used when passing through.

Check the theory in practice, shoot a target paper on firing range, I don't get much difference wheter I fire at it with .357, 9mm Para or .38 Wadcutter. All of these are the apprx. same caliber, the 357 being far the more powerful, yet indiscriminatable in it's effect on the paper from the 9mm, and the .38 Wadcutter makes the most 'damage' to it, yet being the weakest for KE.


(3) The M2 round, as good a performer as it was, was not able to pierce all fighter armor under all conditions within normal battle ranges. Given its very light weight and its low velocity, there is no possible way that the MG131 projectile could even approach the M2's AP performance.

I am sure your guesswork has no flaws, but penetration tables show hat the MG 131 AP is capable of penetrating 11 mm armor at 300m when hitting the target armor plate directly, and 9mm when it hits a 3mm dural plate first at 20 degrees off-angle, and then hitting the armor plate 1.5 meters behind it - a typical condition for fighter hits, assuming the armor plate itself is normal to the line of fire. At 20 degrees off angle, you still get 9mm/8mm at 300m.

How much the typical armor on Allied bombers amounted, 4.5-6.5-8mm on fighters, 4mm on bombers vulnerable parts, wasn't it?


(4) Within reasonable limits better dispersion does not equal better gun accuracy in combat.

Correct, as it means more concentrated firepower, ie. higher desctructiveness.


A gun with decent dispersion characteristics and much superior ballistic characteristics will be a more effective weapon than a gun with good dispersions characterics but poor ballistics.

Technically correct. A car with 255 kph top speed is faster than a car with 250 kph top speed.
That is also technically correct.

Speaking of the much superior ballistic characteristics, how much less flight time a M2 round needs vs. a MG 131 round at 300m distance? Using a simplistic approach of constant V (ie. t=300/MV) with M2 ballistic tables (have for the MG 131), I get 0.4 secs (IRL: 0.49sec, from Rechlin ballistic tables) needed for the MG 131, and 0.34 secs for the M2.

Now please go into great lenghts what huge differences 0.06 secs in flight time will make at 300m for an automatic weapon.

While you are at it, add the factor that, firing at a 940/min cycle vs. 650-750 (~= 700/min), or 0.06 sec delay between each round vs 0.085 sec delay within each round actually means that each MG 131 round will be fired with a cumulative 0.025 sec advantage. Ie.

The 1st MG 131 and M2 round is fired at the same time, the M2 round gets there with 0.060 secs earlier.
With the 2nd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.035 secs earlier.
With the 3rd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.010 secs earlier.
By when the 4th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.015 secs earlier.
By when the 5th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.030 secs earlier.
By when the 6th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.055 secs earlier.
By when the 7th MG 131 round is fired, the MG 131 round will get there in the target before the 7th M2 round even leaves the barrel...

By that time about half second has elapsed in real time BTW.

Welcome to the beutiful world of engineering. It's really about more than just making a big gun that fires a big round from a big cartridge. See also HK G11, effect of RoF on ballistics.


When you have a one or two second window to shoot, a high velocity flat trajectory weapon is by far the better choice.

Following that logic, the ideal gun for skeet shooting is a nice old single shot .30-06 Springfield. Yet I recall they rather use slow velocity, 'high RoF' shotguns for that purpose, which points out the flaw of your theory, ie. conviniently ignoring RoF alltogether.


None of this is conjecture on my part. All the data has been posted here before. There were very good reasons why the M2 weighed twice the MG131.

Yes, like it was a 30 old year design even back then in WW2, whereas the UBS, MG 131 were brand new ones with more advanced (lighter) operating mechanisms. You can argue if you want that was because the M2's more powerful round and better ballistics, but then if we look at the Soviet UBS, a gun lighter, much higher RoF and better ballistics, we see that time is the greatest enemy.

@Frankboy, re: MG 131 ground use.

Please do google for 'Panzerfaust' website. It's really a nice one though periodically unavailable for bandwith reasons. I've seen it mentioned there myself, w. picture included. I believe some LW field divisions used it with a bipod, presumable with percussion firing (MG 151 also had both percussion and electric fired versions, the latter being used on the FW 190 as MG 151/20E.). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kurfurst,

You seem to be an expert on just about everything, now including ballistics. You're a regular polymath.

Think what you like.

Interested forum members are invited to do their own investigation and draw their own conclusions. All the data I mentioned is in the Ubi archives, along with supporting documentation.

Frequent_Flyer
09-18-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
personaly i think the most amusing thing is the russians had a better 50cal than the americans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Also, very amusing they prefered the P-40 and P-39 to the Spitfire. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I would to

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

... it was meant against light structure aircrafts, which are fired at at short range and does not require tremendeous hitting power, unlike tanks and pillboxes.

Apply the theory to the Soviet UBS, and we see it's flawed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(1) In terms of exterior ballistics, the M2 was a better performer than the MG151/20. The MG131 was a worse performer.

Maybe we'd need some hard data to decide wheter twice the weight really worths marginal ballistic performance that doesn't really matter at such short ranges and light targets.


(2) An M2 projectile had approximately 2.5 times the energy of the MG131 at the muzzle.

So a hit from an M2 projectile does almost the same damage as 3 from an MG 131.
BS. Besides, your math is just dead wrong, it's more like just 80%.


This ratio would grow over range due to the much superior velocity retention characteristics of the M2 round.

Which is great if you are figthing hard targets at long range. Aircraft are soft targets, fired at short range, though.


High KE is an AP round's greatest friend in terms of overall damage effect upon a target. To argue that KE was relatively meaningless is nonsensical.

To argue based on emotions is pointless. I see you don't grasp much of the whole process, so here's a sketch for you. Let's use an example where Projectile A has 5000 Joule energy, Projectile B has 2500 Joule energy.

They are fired at the same target, which requires 1000 Joule energy to be passed through.
Both projectiles hit the target, and loose 1000 Joule of energy spent on penetrating the target.
Then they both exit the target.
If you want you can calculate how much energy both rounds still has and much further Projectile A will fly, but that's pretty pointless because the only damage they done to the target is that 1000 Joule used when passing through.

Check the theory in practice, shoot a target paper on firing range, I don't get much difference wheter I fire at it with .357, 9mm Para or .38 Wadcutter. All of these are the apprx. same caliber, the 357 being far the more powerful, yet indiscriminatable in it's effect on the paper from the 9mm, and the .38 Wadcutter makes the most 'damage' to it, yet being the weakest for KE.


(3) The M2 round, as good a performer as it was, was not able to pierce all fighter armor under all conditions within normal battle ranges. Given its very light weight and its low velocity, there is no possible way that the MG131 projectile could even approach the M2's AP performance.

I am sure your guesswork has no flaws, but penetration tables show hat the MG 131 AP is capable of penetrating 11 mm armor at 300m when hitting the target armor plate directly, and 9mm when it hits a 3mm dural plate first at 20 degrees off-angle, and then hitting the armor plate 1.5 meters behind it - a typical condition for fighter hits, assuming the armor plate itself is normal to the line of fire. At 20 degrees off angle, you still get 9mm/8mm at 300m.

How much the typical armor on Allied bombers amounted, 4.5-6.5-8mm on fighters, 4mm on bombers vulnerable parts, wasn't it?


(4) Within reasonable limits better dispersion does not equal better gun accuracy in combat.

Correct, as it means more concentrated firepower, ie. higher desctructiveness.


A gun with decent dispersion characteristics and much superior ballistic characteristics will be a more effective weapon than a gun with good dispersions characterics but poor ballistics.

Technically correct. A car with 255 kph top speed is faster than a car with 250 kph top speed.
That is also technically correct.

Speaking of the much superior ballistic characteristics, how much less flight time a M2 round needs vs. a MG 131 round at 300m distance? Using a simplistic approach of constant V (ie. t=300/MV) with M2 ballistic tables (have for the MG 131), I get 0.4 secs (IRL: 0.49sec, from Rechlin ballistic tables) needed for the MG 131, and 0.34 secs for the M2.

Now please go into great lenghts what huge differences 0.06 secs in flight time will make at 300m for an automatic weapon.

While you are at it, add the factor that, firing at a 940/min cycle vs. 650-750 (~= 700/min), or 0.06 sec delay between each round vs 0.085 sec delay within each round actually means that each MG 131 round will be fired with a cumulative 0.025 sec advantage. Ie.

The 1st MG 131 and M2 round is fired at the same time, the M2 round gets there with 0.060 secs earlier.
With the 2nd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.035 secs earlier.
With the 3rd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.010 secs earlier.
By when the 4th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.015 secs earlier.
By when the 5th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.030 secs earlier.
By when the 6th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.055 secs earlier.
By when the 7th MG 131 round is fired, the MG 131 round will get there in the target before the 7th M2 round even leaves the barrel...

By that time about half second has elapsed in real time BTW.

Welcome to the beutiful world of engineering. It's really about more than just making a big gun that fires a big round from a big cartridge. See also HK G11, effect of RoF on ballistics.


When you have a one or two second window to shoot, a high velocity flat trajectory weapon is by far the better choice.

Following that logic, the ideal gun for skeet shooting is a nice old single shot .30-06 Springfield. Yet I recall they rather use slow velocity, 'high RoF' shotguns for that purpose, which points out the flaw of your theory, ie. conviniently ignoring RoF alltogether.


None of this is conjecture on my part. All the data has been posted here before. There were very good reasons why the M2 weighed twice the MG131.

Yes, like it was a 30 old year design even back then in WW2, whereas the UBS, MG 131 were brand new ones with more advanced (lighter) operating mechanisms. You can argue if you want that was because the M2's more powerful round and better ballistics, but then if we look at the Soviet UBS, a gun lighter, much higher RoF and better ballistics, we see that time is the greatest enemy.

@Frankboy, re: MG 131 ground use.

Please do google for 'Panzerfaust' website. It's really a nice one though periodically unavailable for bandwith reasons. I've seen it mentioned there myself, w. picture included. I believe some LW field divisions used it with a bipod, presumable with percussion firing (MG 151 also had both percussion and electric fired versions, the latter being used on the FW 190 as MG 151/20E.). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kurfurst,

You seem to be an expert on just about everything, now including ballistics. You're a regular polymath. You have just argued that
flatter trajectory, shorter time of flight, greater striking energy, and greater weight of fire per unit of time are meaningless in assessing the values of an air-to-air machine gun.

Congratulations. I'll alert NATO immediately.

Think what you like.

Interested forum members are invited to do their own investigation and draw their own conclusions. All the data I mentioned is in the Ubi archives, along with supporting documentation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

... it was meant against light structure aircrafts, which are fired at at short range and does not require tremendeous hitting power, unlike tanks and pillboxes.

Apply the theory to the Soviet UBS, and we see it's flawed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(1) In terms of exterior ballistics, the M2 was a better performer than the MG151/20. The MG131 was a worse performer.

Maybe we'd need some hard data to decide wheter twice the weight really worths marginal ballistic performance that doesn't really matter at such short ranges and light targets.


(2) An M2 projectile had approximately 2.5 times the energy of the MG131 at the muzzle.

So a hit from an M2 projectile does almost the same damage as 3 from an MG 131.
BS. Besides, your math is just dead wrong, it's more like just 80%.


This ratio would grow over range due to the much superior velocity retention characteristics of the M2 round.

Which is great if you are figthing hard targets at long range. Aircraft are soft targets, fired at short range, though.


High KE is an AP round's greatest friend in terms of overall damage effect upon a target. To argue that KE was relatively meaningless is nonsensical.

To argue based on emotions is pointless. I see you don't grasp much of the whole process, so here's a sketch for you. Let's use an example where Projectile A has 5000 Joule energy, Projectile B has 2500 Joule energy.

They are fired at the same target, which requires 1000 Joule energy to be passed through.
Both projectiles hit the target, and loose 1000 Joule of energy spent on penetrating the target.
Then they both exit the target.
If you want you can calculate how much energy both rounds still has and much further Projectile A will fly, but that's pretty pointless because the only damage they done to the target is that 1000 Joule used when passing through.

Check the theory in practice, shoot a target paper on firing range, I don't get much difference wheter I fire at it with .357, 9mm Para or .38 Wadcutter. All of these are the apprx. same caliber, the 357 being far the more powerful, yet indiscriminatable in it's effect on the paper from the 9mm, and the .38 Wadcutter makes the most 'damage' to it, yet being the weakest for KE.


(3) The M2 round, as good a performer as it was, was not able to pierce all fighter armor under all conditions within normal battle ranges. Given its very light weight and its low velocity, there is no possible way that the MG131 projectile could even approach the M2's AP performance.

I am sure your guesswork has no flaws, but penetration tables show hat the MG 131 AP is capable of penetrating 11 mm armor at 300m when hitting the target armor plate directly, and 9mm when it hits a 3mm dural plate first at 20 degrees off-angle, and then hitting the armor plate 1.5 meters behind it - a typical condition for fighter hits, assuming the armor plate itself is normal to the line of fire. At 20 degrees off angle, you still get 9mm/8mm at 300m.

How much the typical armor on Allied bombers amounted, 4.5-6.5-8mm on fighters, 4mm on bombers vulnerable parts, wasn't it?


(4) Within reasonable limits better dispersion does not equal better gun accuracy in combat.

Correct, as it means more concentrated firepower, ie. higher desctructiveness.


A gun with decent dispersion characteristics and much superior ballistic characteristics will be a more effective weapon than a gun with good dispersions characterics but poor ballistics.

Technically correct. A car with 255 kph top speed is faster than a car with 250 kph top speed.
That is also technically correct.

Speaking of the much superior ballistic characteristics, how much less flight time a M2 round needs vs. a MG 131 round at 300m distance? Using a simplistic approach of constant V (ie. t=300/MV) with M2 ballistic tables (have for the MG 131), I get 0.4 secs (IRL: 0.49sec, from Rechlin ballistic tables) needed for the MG 131, and 0.34 secs for the M2.

Now please go into great lenghts what huge differences 0.06 secs in flight time will make at 300m for an automatic weapon.

While you are at it, add the factor that, firing at a 940/min cycle vs. 650-750 (~= 700/min), or 0.06 sec delay between each round vs 0.085 sec delay within each round actually means that each MG 131 round will be fired with a cumulative 0.025 sec advantage. Ie.

The 1st MG 131 and M2 round is fired at the same time, the M2 round gets there with 0.060 secs earlier.
With the 2nd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.035 secs earlier.
With the 3rd MG 131 and M2 round fired, the M2 gets there 0.010 secs earlier.
By when the 4th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.015 secs earlier.
By when the 5th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.030 secs earlier.
By when the 6th MG 131 and M2 round fired, the MG 131 round will get there 0.055 secs earlier.
By when the 7th MG 131 round is fired, the MG 131 round will get there in the target before the 7th M2 round even leaves the barrel...

By that time about half second has elapsed in real time BTW.

Welcome to the beutiful world of engineering. It's really about more than just making a big gun that fires a big round from a big cartridge. See also HK G11, effect of RoF on ballistics.


When you have a one or two second window to shoot, a high velocity flat trajectory weapon is by far the better choice.

Following that logic, the ideal gun for skeet shooting is a nice old single shot .30-06 Springfield. Yet I recall they rather use slow velocity, 'high RoF' shotguns for that purpose, which points out the flaw of your theory, ie. conviniently ignoring RoF alltogether.


None of this is conjecture on my part. All the data has been posted here before. There were very good reasons why the M2 weighed twice the MG131.

Yes, like it was a 30 old year design even back then in WW2, whereas the UBS, MG 131 were brand new ones with more advanced (lighter) operating mechanisms. You can argue if you want that was because the M2's more powerful round and better ballistics, but then if we look at the Soviet UBS, a gun lighter, much higher RoF and better ballistics, we see that time is the greatest enemy.

@Frankboy, re: MG 131 ground use.

Please do google for 'Panzerfaust' website. It's really a nice one though periodically unavailable for bandwith reasons. I've seen it mentioned there myself, w. picture included. I believe some LW field divisions used it with a bipod, presumable with percussion firing (MG 151 also had both percussion and electric fired versions, the latter being used on the FW 190 as MG 151/20E.). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kurfurst,

You seem to be an expert on just about everything, now including ballistics. You're a regular polymath. You have just argued that flatter trajectory, shorter time of flight, greater striking energy, and greater weight of fire per unit of time are meaningless in assessing the values of an air-to-air machine gun.

Congratulations. I'll alert NATO immediately.

Think what you like.

Interested forum members are invited to do their own investigation and draw their own conclusions. All the data I mentioned is in the Ubi archives, along with supporting documentation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
09-18-2006, 05:49 PM
blutarski, can u stop that please, your wearing out my scroll wheel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Kurfurst__
09-18-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst,

You seem to be an expert on just about everything, now including ballistics. You're a regular polymath.

Think what you like.

Interested forum members are invited to do their own investigation and draw their own conclusions. All the data I mentioned is in the Ubi archives, along with supporting documentation.

Blutarski,

Unfurtunately for some time you built up a habit of attacking whatever I comment, solely for that purpose and it's clear you're not interested at all in any discussion about the subject : you're just waging a little personal feud which you in the end always leave with a bloody nose, only because that you're unable to support your positions apart from blanket statements and cloudy references to 'supporting documentation', and petty personal remarks. Understandingly, it's difficult to support a position on the subject when you don't have a position on the subject itself, just a counter-position against (my) person, and as result it's naturally doomed for failure. Banging your head against the wall and taking snobish attitude afterwards succeeds you in nothing but getting more frustrated.

As for claiming myself an expert of anyhing, well I never did. I am just trying to learn as much as possible on mechanism of war and weapons, like so many of us around here, why things were developed as they were and I don't want to play the 20/20 hindsight armchair historian like you, who always knows better than the real engineers and guys back then, how to make things 'right', who makes boasting absolute statements and finishing off very complex subjects with brief phrases and the highisly remarks that his PoV is throughly backed up by that mythical 'overwhelming amount of evidence'.

As for your remarks of the G-6/U4 ballistic table - it shows the MG 131 and Motor MK 108 trajectories very similiar indeed, but if anyone looks at the details can see this is because the MK 108 was built in with the gun (tube) being built in with a little angle towards the sky, ie. the MG 131 and MK 108 barrels were non-parellell, the latter pointing a bit up.


Now if you excuse me, I have sort of a revulution here, or at least some serious riot to - some guys just set the TV building on fire because of some remarks from the PM - attend to instead of attempting an intelligent discussion with someone who's not interested in such in the first place.

Just make sure you don't get a heart attack re-editing your post for the umpteenth time for a reeeeally 'proper' rebutall instead of presenting your PoV in an intelligent manner. Or just don't click the mouse if you're so upset that your hands shake. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

luftluuver
09-18-2006, 06:00 PM
How can the MK108 have a positive angle when the engine was mounted at a negative angle? The shell still had to go out the centre of the spinner.

Sergio_101
09-18-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
How can the MK108 have a positive angle when the engine was mounted at a negative angle? The shell still had to go out the centre of the spinner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Actually that's possible Luftluuver. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
Since the barrel does not rotate and the gear box hub
has a hole conciderably bigger than the barrel
is is quite possible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif
But unlikely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst, you have a well deserved reputation for extreme exaggeration
and the occasional bit of propaganda. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
You should not wonder why some "attack" you.
They are just pointing out the facts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio

Sergio_101
09-18-2006, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
personaly i think the most amusing thing is the russians had a better 50cal than the americans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ballisticly identical in most respects. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Russian round has a slightly lighter projectile
starting at a higher muzzle velocity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Down range performance of the Russian projectile
is inferior to that of the US round. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Muzzle energy is nearly identical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No practical difference in air to air use. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
At extreme range the US .50 is superior.
At close range there is no little or no difference. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
blutarski, can u stop that please, your wearing out my scroll wheel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


..... Sorry about that, Plngu. My bad.

Blutarski2004
09-18-2006, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Russian round has a slightly lighter projectile
starting at a higher muzzle velocity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Down range performance of the Russian projectile
is inferior to that of the US round. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Muzzle energy is nearly identical. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No practical difference in air to air use. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
At extreme range the US .50 is superior.
At close range there is no little or no difference. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Sergio


..... I agree with your assessment.

luftluuver
09-18-2006, 08:34 PM
Sergio, it is my understanding the tube was 50mm in dia. That only leaves 10mm (.39"/~13/32") clearance. ((50-30)/2)

Cajun76
09-18-2006, 09:57 PM
Kurfurst likes to paint a picture. Lawyers do that.

The .50cal Browning was designed as an aircraft maqchine gun just after WWI, and also selected for a ground weapon as the Model 1921. It served during the 1920s as an anti-aircraft and anti-armor gun. In 1932, it was updated and adopted as the M2.

As opposed to the slosh that was posted:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Point is, the MG131 (and the UBS) were purpose-designed HMGs to be used specifically on aircraft, whereas the .50 Browning was originally an enlarged WW1 infantry .303 MG, that was originally meant for being used against WW1 tanks and other hard targets from fixed positions, and only later was marginally modified to fit into aircraft.</span>

Additionally, the 750rpm that is usually favored in Kurfurst_'s quotes is the low end of the scale, and since almost all US installations required no synchronization with the propeller, electric firing is nothing special.

No matter how he tries to slice it, the .50 was a great A2A weapon in WWII. I'm not saying it outclasses 20mm and 30mm one on one, but for it's intended targets, the fighters and medium bombers of the Axis, it did quite well.

Sergio_101
09-19-2006, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
Kurfurst likes to paint a picture. Lawyers do that.

The .50cal Browning was designed as an aircraft maqchine gun just after WWI, and also selected for a ground weapon as the Model 1921. It served during the 1920s as an anti-aircraft and anti-armor gun. In 1932, it was updated and adopted as the M2.

As opposed to the slosh that was posted:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Point is, the MG131 (and the UBS) were purpose-designed HMGs to be used specifically on aircraft, whereas the .50 Browning was originally an enlarged WW1 infantry .303 MG, that was originally meant for being used against WW1 tanks and other hard targets from fixed positions, and only later was marginally modified to fit into aircraft.</span>

Additionally, the 750rpm that is usually favored in Kurfurst_'s quotes is the low end of the scale, and since almost all US installations required no synchronization with the propeller, electric firing is nothing special.

No matter how he tries to slice it, the .50 was a great A2A weapon in WWII. I'm not saying it outclasses 20mm and 30mm one on one, but for it's intended targets, the fighters and medium bombers of the Axis, it did quite well.

The .50 BMG was a scaled up version of the .30 BMG. <span class="ev_code_RED">(The Browning was not designed for .303 British, but was adapted to it later)..</span>
.30 cal US is popularly known as .30-06.
When the .50 cal BMG was under development there were no aircraft! None of any kind. The original intent
was to destroy armoured bunkers and fortifications. A short time later those armoured fortifications
began to move, amoured cars and tanks.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Keep in mind that when Col Woytkins and John Browning were working on the .50 cal there were no planes
and there were few motorised vehicles. Using motorised vehicles in war was in the future!.</span>

Truth is that 750RPM is in the USAAF manual. Later in WWII the firing rate was increased, but I doubt there was retrofitting
for eariler models.

The BMG was rather heavy, but it was a very effective A2A weapon. What this sim fails to simulate
is that any hit on an engine by a heavy MG is usualy fatal.
While not explosive a heavy MG round will piss right through any engine bock. Clearances in an engine are
close and a little debris will stop it cold. Most Aircraft engines are of aluminum block/crankcase construction.
Exception is Wright radials which have forged steel crankcases and cylinders. Ask any German fighter pilot.
Wright engines were hard to stop.

Sergio

Sergio_101
09-19-2006, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sergio, it is my understanding the tube was 50mm in dia. That only leaves 10mm (.39"/~13/32") clearance. ((50-30)/2)

Note, "But unlikely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif"
I could not say impossible without a hundred
charts and graphs being posted by Kurfie/Isegrim.

Sergio

carguy_
09-19-2006, 04:14 AM
The BMG was rather heavy, but it was a very effective A2A weapon. What this sim fails to simulate
is that any hit on an engine by a heavy MG is usualy fatal.
While not explosive a heavy MG round will piss right through any engine bock.


Let me tell you another opinion as I have been on the receiving end plenty fo times.PF simulates the AP shell behavior quite good.Against German planes that is without a question.The Bf/Me109 engine when hit will either

-disable machineguns/cannon
-stop engine
-make engine lose power
-put engine on fire

That is pretty good for a game that is 5years old.In the 109 any engine hit is bound to disable it let alone put out of the fight.The problem is that ppl fire from dead six.I think they require the .50cal shell to penetrate the whole tail structure,hit the pilot and the engine like a laser.Well no,depending on distance you fire from the shell will lose its energy when piercing through the airframe.
That results in majority of dead six hits piercing through the tail,the steel pilot shield,wounding or killing the pilot.


If some deflection is applied,the 50cal goes through the airframe and if it does not meet anything vital on its way,it does not make any big type of damage.This can be seen while hitting wings and tail section from above/below.
I do not know why ppl expect to blow of wings and tail section then.

For cripppling purposes,the fifites are maybe the best there is,since they feature in two or more pairs.Why does the FW190 holds better against it is partly explainable.It has a radial engine and there are multiple accounts about it being as tough as the P47 engine.

There is an unknown problem with armor on the 190 too.The 190 did not have belly fueltank armor,nor did it have any stronger armor on the sides of the pilot cabine.In the game,the FW190 survives often even 20mm hits scored on those areas.

Kurfurst__
09-19-2006, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

The .50 BMG was a scaled up version of the .30 BMG. <span class="ev_code_RED">(The Browning was not designed for .303 British, but was adapted to it later)..</span> .30 cal US is popularly known as .30-06.

Yes I know all that, I just mentioned the British choosed their ,303 caliber over the .50 in the 30s - the damage itself was not considered too different to justify higher weight, lower RoF etc.


When the .50 cal BMG was under development there were no aircraft! None of any kind. The original intent
was to destroy armoured bunkers and fortifications. A short time later those armoured fortifications
began to move, amoured cars and tanks.

The Browning M2 appeared in service in 1916 or '17 as I recall. It was aimed for the purpose of fighting the things you mentioned, the [/QUOTE].50cal round is based on the WW1 German Mauser 13mm anti tank-rifle round. The M2 itself is basically a scaled up .30 Browning MG for that round. Which is not surprising, they have the same acestry, the Mauser AT rifle was just a scaled up Mauser bolt up rifle firing the 7.92x57 Mauser IS rifle round. The fabled .30-06 Springfield was introduced with the 1906 Model Springfield rifle - which happens to be a slightly modified, US produced Mauser M1898 bolt rifle, with the .30-06 round itself originating on the original Mauser round (but has a bit longer cartridge and thus a bit more powerful).


<span class="ev_code_RED">Keep in mind that when Col Woytkins and John Browning were working on the .50 cal there were no planes
and there were few motorised vehicles. Using motorised vehicles in war was in the future!.</span>

I am quite sure there were planes figthing in WW1, when the M2 was developed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


Truth is that 750RPM is in the USAAF manual. Later in WWII the firing rate was increased, but I doubt there was retrofitting for eariler models.

Yep, the US Army Standard Ordnance Catalouge notes 650-750 rpm for the .50 Browning M2 (Aircraft).

I agree with the rest of your points, I also get the feeling that sometimes hits and round just go lost or missing and not doing anything.

Brain32
09-19-2006, 04:37 AM
There is an unknown problem with armor on the 190 too.The 190 did not have belly fueltank armor,nor did it have any stronger armor on the sides of the pilot cabine.In the game,the FW190 survives often even 20mm hits scored on those areas.
That is not entirely correct, a 20mm hispano round placed about 1m away from the wingroot towards the wingtip will always kill the pilot, even .303 can kill the pilot of any FW190 with just a bit of side deflection. You can also kill the pilot with .50 aiming at the belly in the place pilot is positioned. Fuel leaks are most common type of damage and whenever one is hit in a FW190 fuel leak is guaranteed. Generally when trying to bring down a FW from dead 6 best deal is to aim for the wing root, with .50's you will rip it's controls with a single burst, with cannons not only controls but a big probability of PK and dewinging.
All engines are prone to heavy engine damage by HMG(the case of the 109 is extreme where you have to quickly evade from him before it explodes and takes you away with it), but from dead 6??? That is absurd, using small deflection, even 5 degrees will help a lot, but one needs to AIM and HIT, I rarely see that, people mostly spraying counting on ammo dispersion...

carguy_
09-19-2006, 05:33 AM
Brain,maybe you are one calm pilot but I think aiming at the wing root is out of the question.

That is applicable only when shooting steady targets with bigger wings such as IL2 but even when you`re shooting a steady flying fighter aiming at the wing root is too hard.

Let alone in a DF when you`re all nervous and shaky.People ALWAYS go for the bigger part which is the main airframe.

Blutarski2004
09-19-2006, 08:42 AM
Let's see if we can set a few things straight without upsetting anyone's delicate sensibilities.

Per Roger Freeman,s "Mighty Eighth War Manual" :

Quote -

The 'point fifty' weighed 64 lbs (30.4 kg) and was 57 inches (1.45 m) long. Muzzle velocity was 2850 feet per second (870 m/s) and rate of fire 750 rounds per minute.

<snip>

These figures were USAAF specimen stated figures, there being considerable variation in battle performance through factors such as the condition of individual weapons, temperature and ammunition feed. In one test as much as 200 rounds per minute difference was recorded between guns in the same fighter. A static test carried out in March 1944 by 4th Group on a P51B with flash hider and muzzle booster attachments gave a wider variation. Without any attachments the gun fired 694 rounds per minute. With a flash hider this was reduced to 677 rpm. When the booster was fitted 857 rpm was attained but after firing 600 rounds in short bursts the rate rose to 949 rpm.

- unquote.


As an interesting aside, the retained velocity of the 50cal M2 AP round at approx 300 yds (+/- 2450-2475 f/s reading from the ballistic graph) was equal to the initial velocity of the MG131 round at the muzzle.

Xiolablu3
09-19-2006, 09:34 AM
I am sure Ricochets are modelled in game, which would explain a lot of the strange pilot kills which happen.

The other day I up-ended a P51D as I landed, so that it was stood on its nose.

I fired the 50 cals and my plane was damaged.

I guess it could be HE rounds, but it sounded like ricochets off the ground to me.

Can anyone confirm why my plane was damged by me firing into the ground>?

rnzoli
09-19-2006, 09:56 AM
^^^ debris or blast

it happened also when i landed an F4F without gear, fired guns continuously, and slowly, after nearly expending all ammunition, damage signs appeared (broken window, engine smoke)

as the plane was nearly horizontal on the ground, no way bullets could have bouced back to me

Kurfurst__
09-19-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Let's see if we can set a few things straight without upsetting anyone's delicate sensibilities.

...snip...

As an interesting aside, the retained velocity of the 50cal M2 AP round at approx 300 yds (+/- 2450-2475 f/s reading from the ballistic graph) was equal to the initial velocity of the MG131 round at the muzzle.

Sounds like an interesting trivia, but what is the time to 300 meter figure?
Then we can make the same comparison as I did before that handles the gun as what it is, an automatic weapon.

Diablo310th
09-19-2006, 10:07 AM
Copperhead....you snake you..LOl j/k check your PM's

Blutarski2004
09-19-2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
As an interesting aside, the retained velocity of the 50cal M2 AP round at approx 300 yds (+/- 2450-2475 f/s reading from the ballistic graph) was equal to the initial velocity of the MG131 round at the muzzle.

... what is the time to 300 meter figure?
Then we can make the same comparison as I did before that handles the gun as what it is, an automatic weapon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... as a rough approximation, about 0.38 seconds to 300 meters, give or take a few thousandths.

Xiolablu3
09-20-2006, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
^^^ debris or blast

it happened also when i landed an F4F without gear, fired guns continuously, and slowly, after nearly expending all ammunition, damage signs appeared (broken window, engine smoke)

as the plane was nearly horizontal on the ground, no way bullets could have bouced back to me

Hi Rnzoli http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stanford said you are in the process of setting up a 24 player version of your COOP server, is this correct and is it going well?

Hope so, cant wait to try it if you get it working.

F6_Ace
09-20-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is an unknown problem with armor on the 190 too.The 190 did not have belly fueltank armor,nor did it have any stronger armor on the sides of the pilot cabine.In the game,the FW190 survives often even 20mm hits scored on those areas.
That is not entirely correct.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too right it isn't.

I posted this some time ago:

"In Aeroplane Monthy, Sept 2004, there is a diagram showing the armour present on F and G 190 models. This shows:

6mm armour beneath the engine
5mm armour below the fuel tanks
8mm armour shielding the fuel tanks from dead 6.

There is 5mm side armour shielding the pilot."

There wasn't a diagram showing A model armour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but I bet you the F model armour isn't modelled at all.

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2006, 10:30 AM
I'm thinking that the value of higher PE hits would be when you hit heavier structure and
engine or guns on the target, also pass-through damage potential.

M2 was all-purpose gun and ammo variants used by US ground, sea and air units for many
purposes. It made logistical sense to have all use the same parts and ammo as possible.
The longer the distance from factory to fight in terms of time, the more sense it made.

If Kurfurst can show that MG 131 was suitable then he also shows that .50's were. What
is the ROF advantage of 2 131's compared to 4, 6, or 8 .50's anyway? And time to 300m
takes more than assuming muzzle velocity all the way out for both guns. That is only
going to make a picture slanted towards the lighter bullet which, is that desired?

I have exterior ballistic tables on civilian catridges but not much on WWII period or later
for military besides 5.56mm used by civilian pieces. By 100 yds all rifle caliber rounds
have their premium velocity scrubbed off and by 300 yds most are down around half muzzle
velocity, at least for the 30 cals. The lighter bullets are the worst but more significant
is the tip and tail shaping -- the same cartridge, same mass bullets with different shapes
may vary greatly in velocity at ranges 50 yds and beyond.

US 50 cal NOW I know is different profile than WWII M2 so correct charts are desired for
any kind of ... whatever is done here. Ditto for MG 131. Data of bullet rise and drop
from gunsight or better, drop from boresight which is available could be used but what I
had seen on the French site (original document scans) ... well just look at the data and
keep simple physics of falling objects in mind, perhaps it is sightline-relative or the
lay of the barrel changed on some shots or possible transcription errors. I am still
glad to have that data... somewhere... and that it was provided at all! Bullet drop data
can lead to time of flight and impact energy but needs to be checked for picture consistent
with physics and itself.

Sergio_101
09-20-2006, 10:46 AM
Kurfurst__

Springfield rifle was the model 1903.
Not 1906. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Springfield rifle was first chambered in 7MM Spanish/Mauser. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Then the "new" .30 cal 1903. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
In 1906 the .30-1903 was shortened a bit and
re named the .30-06....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Face it Kurfurst__, you want so badly to look
intelligent but you screw up a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Development of the .50 cal US round was started in 1903.
Hmmmmm, there were fery few airplanes in those days. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Officially the .50 was based on the .30-03 scaled up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
No German round mentioned. (sorry Kurfurst__). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

John Browning designed a couple of different
automatic weapons. Work on the .50 cal version
paralelled the .30. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Again Kurfurst__, 1903, few airplanes or armoured cars around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But if you want to get anal about it the .50 BMG was
known as the U.S. Model 1921.
There was two more major revisions the one used
during WWII was the M2 version.

Post Allied VICTORY versions are based on the M2.

Hurrah! A german copy has been spyed!
Yes the US model 1903 Springfield is in fact
a nearly exact copy of a Mauser design!
The US was forced to pay royalties on every one manufactured.

Oh, the .30-03 and .30-06 are slightly redesigned 7mm Mauser cartridges.

You got me there Kurfurst__ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Oh, one note, todays US .50 cal ballistics have not changed
since 1934! But there are some new projectiles.

Sergio

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2006, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Oh, one note, todays US .50 cal ballistics have not changed
since 1934! But there are some new projectiles.

Sergio

The bullet tail was not refined since about 1949?

I'm sure that someone here was able to show some interior or exterior differences intro'd
in the 1950's (mid-50's?) perhaps it was rifling of the barrels.

Sergio_101
09-20-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Oh, one note, todays US .50 cal ballistics have not changed
since 1934! But there are some new projectiles.

Sergio

The bullet tail was not refined since about 1949?

I'm sure that someone here was able to show some interior or exterior differences intro'd
in the 1950's (mid-50's?) perhaps it was rifling of the barrels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth is the standard 750gr .50 cal Tungsten cored
bullet is as excellent today as in 1934.

I don't want to sound arrogant or pro US (but I am)
but the US arsenal engineers achieved near perfection.
As far as I know barrel dimensions and rifling twist
are unchanged. (.5100 grove depth/dia, .5000 bore, 1 in 14 or 1 in 15 twist).

What is new is there are a dozen or so different
projectiles in use or development.

A quote From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A wide variety of ammunition is available including ball, tracer, armor piercing, incendiary and saboted sub-caliber rounds. The availability of match grade ammunition has increased the usefulness of .50 caliber rifles by allowing more accurate fire than lower quality rounds."

But the standard Ball and AP ammo remains the same.
HE* rounds have been tested, as far as I know none went into service.

Sergio

*High Explosive

HayateAce
09-20-2006, 04:33 PM
Careful, you may make the Browing M2 out to be some kind of decent weapon. Oleg has worked so hard to show us otherwise.

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

Brain32
09-20-2006, 06:16 PM
HayateAce is right, and here is the definite proof on just how porked .50's are:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/4ff24d07-986f-4af5-ac8f-f511e...rmodelled_50cal.ntrk (http://www.esnips.com/doc/4ff24d07-986f-4af5-ac8f-f511e0a1e272/undermodelled_50cal.ntrk)

(362,2KB)

LStarosta
09-20-2006, 06:45 PM
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/pictures/RN210%2050%20cal%20296x400.JPG

horseback
09-20-2006, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lait/site/pictures/RN210%2050%20cal%20296x400.JPG Caption:

Don't look so glum, Timmy. A little Viagra and we'll be good as new...

cheers

horseback

WWMaxGunz
09-21-2006, 02:57 AM
You can put the flag down Sergio, I'm American and a Veteran.

They made and used 45 ACP rounds with tetryl inside, and IL2 .50's do have small HE power
in the HE rounds, which is mostly IIRC incendiary.

There have been, maybe still are .22 LR with explosive bullets that were for border patrol
use shooting at small planes flying real low. I didn't know about those till Hinckley had
his day.

It does leave me to wonder what-all else is out there? Just this year I looked up the 30-cal
Remington Accelerators and yep they still sell those although I can't see how. So there's
sabot rounds in civilian packages, there should be for the .50 esp the sniper .50's. Only
thing is the whole sabot thing would work better if the barrels were smoothbore and tapered,
just IMHO. You know what rifling started out from way back in the starting days?

Sergio_101
09-21-2006, 03:34 AM
Kurfy, why do you abandon a thread when you
are getting the tar kicked out of you?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Sergio

luftluuver
09-21-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Kurfy, why do you abandon a thread when you
are getting the tar kicked out of you?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Sergio Agh you noticed this as well. Have noticed this for quite some time here that when he is getting pwnd, he disappears or a Mod will lock the thread.

Sergio_101
09-21-2006, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You can put the flag down Sergio, I'm American and a Veteran.

They made and used 45 ACP rounds with tetryl inside, and IL2 .50's do have small HE power
in the HE rounds, which is mostly IIRC incendiary.

There have been, maybe still are .22 LR with explosive bullets that were for border patrol
use shooting at small planes flying real low. I didn't know about those till Hinckley had
his day.

It does leave me to wonder what-all else is out there? Just this year I looked up the 30-cal
Remington Accelerators and yep they still sell those although I can't see how. So there's
sabot rounds in civilian packages, there should be for the .50 esp the sniper .50's. Only
thing is the whole sabot thing would work better if the barrels were smoothbore and tapered,
just IMHO. You know what rifling started out from way back in the starting days?


In theory finned sabot rounds should need no
rifling. But the rotation is the primary
mover in ejecting the sabot shell/wad after
the projectile leaves the barrel.
I know there are smooth bore sabot rounds
for tanks.

Any non fin stabilised projectile such as the
"Remington Acellerator" must have twist to
stabilize.

Those .22 LRs fired at Regan were called
"CCI devastators" if I remember correctly.
Those were usless for anything but shooting
bottles and did little but make a small crack
when hitting a hard object.

Some sources say Hinckley fired "Stingers".
Hinckley himself said that he used Stingers.

Sergio


Sergio