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">70â€"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.![]()
I read it last week. Fascinating stuff.Originally posted by luftluuver:
Did anyone read the link?
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.
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?
So why is it so impossible to damage anything with mg131?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?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno. Bad engineering?![]()