Yanks and their MG's

[BadAim]

Just for the hell of it, I'll throw my $.02 in. Like the old saying goes: The most effective pistol round is the one in the pistol you actually have on you when the $hit hits the fan. The same goes for aircraft armament.

While I suppose there may be some merit in arguing this or that with power or effectiveness of various guns, the fact is that men go to war with the weapons at hand. In WWII they did so with devastating effect, just about every weapon arrangement used during the war killed people effectively when used advantageously by skilled pilots.

Much like the pistol analogy, the main thing that pilots (or any kind of soldier, for that matter) demanded from their armament was reliability, as evidenced by the quick demise of the Hispano on Spitfires during the BOB. This is one big parameter that we don't have in IL2, yet one of the most important.

All that said, I prefer whatever weapons the aircraft I'm flying has, so long as they work when I press the button.

[KnightFandragon]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Just for the hell of it, I'll throw my $.02 in. Like the old saying goes: The most effective pistol round is the one in the pistol you actually have on you when the $hit hits the fan. The same goes for aircraft armament.

While I suppose there may be some merit in arguing this or that with power or effectiveness of various guns, the fact is that men go to war with the weapons at hand. In WWII they did so with devastating effect, just about every weapon arrangement used during the war killed people effectively when used advantageously by skilled pilots.

Much like the pistol analogy, the main thing that pilots (or any kind of soldier, for that matter) demanded from their armament was reliability, as evidenced by the quick demise of the Hispano on Spitfires during the BOB. This is one big parameter that we don't have in IL2, yet one of the most important.

All that said, I prefer whatever weapons the aircraft I'm flying has, so long as they work when I press the button.

All that is true but my definition of work is a gun that can kill the enemy quickly....dogfights are fast, and you dont have much time to aim and down targets before the next target appears or you got a guy on ur ass drilling you so I like guns that kill fast so I can get the kill, and move on. its sooo annoying when you shoot the shit out of something or someone and they dont go down so your stuck shooting them while someone kills you....and while in RL the 30cal was prolly an effective weapon in Il2 it sucks...imo it needs to be upped a little bit, its just a crappy gun. The only thing ive killed w/ a 30cal in less than every round I have was a Zero w/ a frontal engine hit from a Spit MKI. Ive downed a few other fighters but I think it was from either jamming the controls or killing the pilot from the front...but that takes awhile.

[David603]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

All that is true but my definition of work is a gun that can kill the enemy quickly....dogfights are fast, and you dont have much time to aim and down targets before the next target appears or you got a guy on ur ass drilling you so I like guns that kill fast so I can get the kill, and move on. its sooo annoying when you shoot the shit out of something or someone and they dont go down so your stuck shooting them while someone kills you....and while in RL the 30cal was prolly an effective weapon in Il2 it sucks...imo it needs to be upped a little bit, its just a crappy gun. The only thing ive killed w/ a 30cal in less than every round I have was a Zero w/ a frontal engine hit from a Spit MKI. Ive downed a few other fighters but I think it was from either jamming the controls or killing the pilot from the front...but that takes awhile.

Set the MG convergence very short (I use 140m) and then fire from around that range, aiming for the wing roots, cockpit or engine of your target.

Even a Gladiator with 4 .303s or a Bf109D with 4 7.62mm MGs can bring down a lightly armoured opponent in a well aimed 2-3 second burst.

[BadAim]

I suppose your right about the 303 not being very effective against aircraft, it was designed to kill people, it was never very good at destroying aircraft. I don't really think that the 303 in game is all that far off, it always took a steady hand and nerves to take down a bomber with them. It's been pointed out before that the value of sending a bomber home shot to pieces with half the crew dead or wounded may well be greater than a strait up loss, it's certainly just as good if the plane is written off and the crew is rattled to the point of being ineffective.

My point at any rate was that it was the "weapon at hand", nothing more.

The .50 (I'm talking about the round here) on the other hand was designed to penetrate tanks (albeit thinly armored ones), and proved to be effective at "tearing $hit up" including airplanes. I can't tell how many times I've had my 109 shredded by a single burst from a P51. The round is still used today to penetrate heavy targets and "tear $hit up".

The fact is that the .50 (and the excellent Browning machine gun that fired it) was also the weapon at hand and it did it's job well, given the targets it was asked to engage.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by BadAim

The fact is that the .50 (and the excellent Browning machine gun that fired it) was also the weapon at hand and it did it's job well, given the targets it was asked to engage.

The problem is that the .50 did not do it's job well. It was adequate, but nothing more. Bout the USAF and USN wanted 20mm, the Navy so desperately that they were willing to ignore the reliability problems of the US-made M3.

For the USAF the problem was not so much lack of destructive power, as much as weight. They compensated for the lack of power of the .50 by adding more guns, but the Browning was a heavy gun (29 kg). In a plane like the Thunderbolt, it did not matter much, but the Mustang was really pressed to the edge weight-wise. If the Mustang had a Hispano in each wing, it would have had just a little bit less firepower than it did with 6 Brownings, yet would weigh roughly 100 kilo less (depending on whether we are talking Hispano II or V). Imagine a 100 kg lighter Mustang!

[David603]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

The problem is that the .50 did not do it's job well. It was adequate, but nothing more. Bout the USAF and USN wanted 20mm, the Navy so desperately that they were willing to ignore the reliability problems of the US-made M3.

For the USAF the problem was not so much lack of destructive power, as much as weight. They compensated for the lack of power of the .50 by adding more guns, but the Browning was a heavy gun (29 kg). In a plane like the Thunderbolt, it did not matter much, but the Mustang was really pressed to the edge weight-wise. If the Mustang had a Hispano in each wing, it would have had just a little bit less firepower than it did with 6 Brownings, yet would weigh roughly 100 kilo less (depending on whether we are talking Hispano II or V). Imagine a 100 kg lighter Mustang!

Would rather have 4 Hispano V with Tempest style ammo load-outs. At 42Kg each, you would have an armament that weighs 168Kg total, compared to 174Kg for 6 Browning M2s, yet it would have firepower equal to 12 M2s (Going by USN tests that value the Hispano as being 3 times as destructive as the M2).

Heck, you could have 6 Hispano Vs in a Thunderbolt (252Kg) replacing the 8 M2s (232Kg) for firepower equal to 18 M2s, or you could go with just 4 guns and a whole load of ammo.

[Buren]

I never had problems with the Thunderbolt's armament - just set the convergence at like 175 m, zoom on the sucker and let him have it. You can easily down 4 B29s aiming at the engines with extra ammo.

On a side note does someone know how frequent was the 6 gun installation on the Jug? There was an interview posted on simhq forums a very long time ago with a Jug pilot and he was surprised to hear that the 47 had 8 guns - he said they always had 6)

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by BadAim

It's been pointed out before that the value of sending a bomber home shot to pieces with half the crew dead or wounded may well be greater than a strait up loss

I'm curious. What makes disabled bomber getting back home with ½ crew better than it being shot down with entire crew MIA / POW? Or did I misunderstand?

[robtek]

Think about morale.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by robtek

Think about morale.

I'd count losing pilot(s) that take quite some time to train / get experienced + the entire aircraft & rest of the crew worse that the alternative. Also returning even though damaged would raise confidence on the aircraft's ability to 'take us home' despite heavy punishment it received.. like B17 for example.

But what do I know, I wasn't there.