[horseback]

Originally Posted by JtD

So, I guess effective range means that beyond 600 yards, the bullets would just fly off to elsewhere, instead of continuing on their paths.

Words mean things. “Effective Range” is a specific term. Effective range means that the weapon in question is not reliably accurate for a given purpose beyond that point; in the case of a .50 caliber M2 heavy machine gun, mounted in an aircraft wing or turret mount, about 600 yards or 5 and one-half soccer fields is its maximum effective range. Other accepted definitions:
-Absolute maximum effective range: This the "this round is not considered lethal after crossing this threshold" distance. Neither of the other two common "maximum range" values will be greater than this. Purportedly, NATO defines this as the point at which the projectile's kinetic energy dips below 85 joules (62.7 foot-pounds). This is typically claimed when recounting that the P90's effective range is 400 meters on unarmored targets, as classified by NATO. It's worth noting that while the P90 looks neater than the civilian PS90, the extra barrel length increases the muzzle velocity and thus the civilian model actually has a longer absolute max effective range.
-Maximum effective range on a point target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a human-sized target 50% of the time. "Point target" is basically a euphemism for hitting a human torso sized area in this context. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).
- Maximum effective range on an area target: This is the maximum range at which an average shooter can hit a vehicle-sized target 50% of the time. In other words, this is the maximum distance at which it would make sense to open fire on a group or vehicle, etc. If this range were greater than the absolute maximum, the absolute maximum would be quoted (a non-lethal hit may be accurate, but it's not effective).

As I recall, the game makes rounds ‘disappear’ after they’ve traveled 1000 meters, which means that while the ai gunners in the Betty can shoot at me when I get within 900 meters and have a chance of the bullets hitting my aircraft, I have to get a bit closer before my bullets will reach them before disappearing.

No point in firing a gun at targets further out. Gunners wouldn't fire at anything too far away, because of their implemented radar, they knew to a foot how far the target was away.

see the above response. AI gunners don’t fire until they know that the bullets might reach their targets; human gunners in small formations and limited ammo supplies had to wait until they had a reasonable chance of (a), hitting their target, and (b) dissuading the attacker (by how close the tracers came, or actually hitting them) from getting closer. The AI routines absolutely make full use of precise knowledge attacking aircraft’s range and directional vectors, but the real life human beings they are supposedly representing could not possibly have done so.

And of course, they were immune to psychological things, so they'd happily get fired at from 601 yards, without returning fire.

Here, we have to keep in mind a few things: first, that the gunner has a limited supply of bullets, second if he’s firing 7.7mm LMG rounds, the farther away his target, the less accurate he will be AND the less damage he will do, and third, how does he figure out how far away his intended target is. Big WWII fighters were generally smaller than modern fighters are today; an F-16 dwarfs a P-38 (and I’ve seen both in close proximity to each other), and a Hellcat doesn’t begin to compare to the size and bulk of an A-10. A Hellcat’s fuselage viewed head-on in flight is about the size of a large SUV rolled onto its side (with the wings added to the roof and belly). From six soccer pitches away that is a pretty small target for the unaided eye.

Automatic fire with a mounted gun sort can't manage to stay within 3 feet over 20 feet distance anyway and gun dispersion changes if a human touches a gun instead of a remote control.

Here, you start with a false equivalency and go on to hysterics. First, the target is moving—constantly and in several random directions at once. Second, the platform the shooter is firing from is also moving, and that movement is also to a lesser degree random and unpredictable to the shooter. Third, you focus on objects 600 yards away somewhat differently than you do if you are focusing on something six and two thirds yards away. You simply don’t perceive these things in the same way, particularly if they are moving.

Gun dispersion absolutely does change when a human being is controlling the handles. Machine guns have this thing called recoil and vibration or gun shake; it is modeled for the wing guns of the fighters—lose even one gun on a wing and see what happens. Even if you have that tiny distant point zeroed in where that Hellcat is going to be when the first bullet gets there, the gunshake will knock your aim askew; you’ve undoubtedly seen videos of some poor sap firing a shotgun or high-powered rifle for the first time and being knocked off their feet by the recoil, so you can imagine what would happen when the same poor sap pulls the trigger on an equally powerful weapon and fires three or six rounds in a split second. Even with the body of the weapon tied to a hard mount, a large portion of that energy still has to go somewhere.

Horseback can't set up a mission where formations support each other, so no one can.

On the contrary, you didn’t specify that the mission you set up was not a QMB; some of us don’t monkey around with the FMB in depth, and QMBs are the quickest and easiest way to go. In any case, my own experiment using QMB and your general conditions got me hit significantly more often by fewer defending aircraft than you report that you were.

Someone programming the game adds if clauses to the AI gunners that make them behave differently depending on the targeted aircraft.

I don’t think that there are necessarily ‘if clauses’ specifically added; I think that there is a clear hierarchy. If the Mustang is classed as being more fragile than the Hellcat, then it must take more damage sooner, and therefore must be hit. My results seem to reflect that; the P-51C tends to vary in altitude and direction more than the Hellcat, even with constant power and prop pitch settings and it is a much smaller target by any measure, but it gets hit more often at the same (ridiculous) distances.

2% is an established figure for gunner accuracy, covering all conditions, because someone on the internet mentioned the figure.

2% was quoted by one poster here from talks with a relative who actually trained as an aerial gunner during the WWII period. It is consistent with other known testimony. If you’re familiar with the actual process of shooting at a target sleeve from another aircraft with a flexible gun from 150-200 yards maximum distance, you would have to think that 2% is a ridiculously high baseline for targeting a maneuvering aircraft approaching rapidly and hitting it from approximately five soccer field lengths away.

Even so, it would be a vast improvement over the current model.

Even though 16 veteran Hellcats can wipe out 16 standard G4M with little loss to themselves, the historical results aren't there because 1 Hellcat can't do the same.

If the Player cannot obtain the same results of his AI wingmen when he is doing exactly the same thing, something is skewing the results. Which of these things is not like the other? Hierarchy.

cheers

horseback