Heinkels of steel?

[hiro]

convergence with 200 is pushing it for machine guns for me. I like 100 or 150.

Yes, He's are better if you come in from the front. You could spend days shooting from the rear and nothing.


Also diving from on top and spraying the engines / wing root helps but front is best.

Oh and the grip/group of machine guns = firing rate of a minigun. No dice. Stop spreading mis information.


1) If anyone read that Robert Shaw book, he goes into detail (and with a chart) why auto cannons / machine guns were surpassed by Gatling cannon types.

2) I know a chopper gunship pilot who served when they had hueys, before they got the cobras. They tried the 8-10-12 7.62 mm combos with m-60's and other 7.62 machine guns. Then they found out one 7.62mm minigun really waxed the floor and put more rounds on the spot than any of the machine gun combinations.

3) its no mystery why the vulcan quickly became gun of choice for the American fighter / attack planes.

4) the Airforce realized the same thing the army did in #2 when they were developing the spooky . . . and the minigun became weapon of choice.

[Fredfetish]

Ok once again:
1. The loss of energy from tumble effect on 150 meters is negligible if you consider that the cartridge was designed for 400 meter engagements. Your shooting at aluminium skin, how much energy do you need to puncture it anyway? If the tumble effect was so great, wouldn’t it cause and even greater entry hole?

2. Even with ball, the bullet would make a 7 mil entry hole. Ball designed in 1920 is still the same that you get today. If you want to add explosive ammo to the mix (which were available back then as well... just like modern ammo now) that would make an even greater entry hole.
3. This isn't an assault rifle you sling over your shoulder. Even a “modern” assault rifle fires at only 600 rounds per minute. I’m talking about a combined rate of fire of 9600 rounds per minute.



It’s a serious bit of kit which is mounted, meaning stable platform.

4. it’s pretty hard to find any figures on the dispersion for the gun, but I found a reference saying 1 meter per 100 meters. So that is 8 guns filling an area of 1.5 meters with 160 rounds per second on 150 meters.
The point I’m making is that the damage model focus too much on the components that make up the airframe and too little attention is paid to the structural damage incurred. If you lose 2 meters of fuselage area on a 9 meter plane, surely that would be a bad thing?

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by hiro

convergence with 200 is pushing it for machine guns for me. I like 100 or 150.

Yes, He's are better if you come in from the front. You could spend days shooting from the rear and nothing.


Also diving from on top and spraying the engines / wing root helps but front is best.

Oh and the grip/group of machine guns = firing rate of a minigun. No dice. Stop spreading mis information.


1) If anyone read that Robert Shaw book, he goes into detail (and with a chart) why auto cannons / machine guns were surpassed by Gatling cannon types.

2) I know a chopper gunship pilot who served when they had hueys, before they got the cobras. They tried the 8-10-12 7.62 mm combos with m-60's and other 7.62 machine guns. Then they found out one 7.62mm minigun really waxed the floor and put more rounds on the spot than any of the machine gun combinations.

3) its no mystery why the vulcan quickly became gun of choice for the American fighter / attack planes.

4) the Airforce realized the same thing the army did in #2 when they were developing the spooky . . . and the minigun became weapon of choice.

I'm never said it was better that a mini gun. Also, I would think some considerations such as space used, the weight of the guns, separate ammo feeds, the mounting requirements and the fact that you do not need a convergence angle played a significant factor as well in the judgement.
The facts are still that the mini gun fires 3000 rounds per minute and 8 .303's 9600 rounds per minute. How is this misinformation or even hard to understand? Ok, but I'm done on this subject.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Fredfetish

I'm never said it was better that a mini gun. Also, I would think some considerations such as space used, the weight of the guns, separate ammo feeds, the mounting requirements and the fact that you do not need a convergence angle played a significant factor as well in the judgement.
The facts are still that the mini gun fires 3000 rounds per minute and 8 .303's 9600 rounds per minute. How is this misinformation or even hard to understand? Ok, but I'm done on this subject.

Well done, you've made your point, ignored everyone elses, and reality, then decided to go. waste of time. The Brownings do have a theoretical RPM of 9600, but they only have 16 seconds worth of fire so they can''t actually fire 9600 rounds at anything.
They fire roughly 2 kg of ammo per second, that's 32kg in total, against an aircraft that weighs around 9000 kg.

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by winny

Well done, you've made your point, ignored everyone elses, and reality, then decided to go. waste of time. The Brownings do have a theoretical RPM of 9600, but they only have 16 seconds worth of fire so they can''t actually fire 9600 rounds at anything.
They fire roughly 2 kg of ammo per second, that's 32kg in total, against an aircraft that weighs around 9000 kg.

Mr winny 9600 round per minute still makes 160 a second. Yes this is also in theory since I don't have 9600 bullets to divide into equal portions to prove it to you. So in regards to all the arguments I presented, you come up with 32kg compared to 9000kg? Sorry, I’m not even going to comment on how irrelevant this remark is.
Anyway, if you fit the plane all with tracers, this will give you more of an indication of the rate of fire (which is still a bit low considering what is supposed to be spewed)

[winny]

Originally Posted by Fredfetish

Mr winny 9600 round per minute still makes 160 a second. Yes this is also in theory since I don't have 9600 bullets to divide into equal portions to prove it to you. So in regards to all the arguments I presented, you come up with 32kg compared to 9000kg? Sorry, I’m not even going to comment on how irrelevant this remark is.
Anyway, if you fit the plane all with tracers, this will give you more of an indication of the rate of fire (which is still a bit low considering what is supposed to be spewed)

The fact that you think weight of fire is irrelevant just proves that you're only interested in what you think about this. Why is it irrelevant?
My knowledge on the this subject is good.

I'm well aware that the RoF of the 8 x .303 is 160 per second, I'm also well aware that the grouping from a moving platform into a moving target would not be tight or as you put it hitting a 'dime'. There are simply too many variables. Also as I said earlier I'm talking RL.

So, why did the RAF change over to cannons, why did the LW remove AP from thier ammo belts? Why didn't every german bomber that was hit with a good burst not fall appart? Because it's not as simple as you're trying to make out.

What exactly is your point? That you should be sawing aircraft in half?

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by winny

The fact that you think weight of fire is irrelevant just proves that you're only interested in what you think about this. Why is it irrelevant?
My knowledge on the this subject is good.

I'm well aware that the RoF of the 8 x .303 is 160 per second, I'm also well aware that the grouping from a moving platform into a moving target would not be tight or as you put it hitting a 'dime'. There are simply too many variables. Also as I said earlier I'm talking RL.

So, why did the RAF change over to cannons, why did the LW remove AP from thier ammo belts? Why didn't every german bomber that was hit with a good burst not fall appart? Because it's not as simple as you're trying to make out.

What exactly is your point? That you should be sawing aircraft in half?

So one, you seem unable to comprehend anything for yourself. Yes there may and are probably valid points to why, but you haven't presented any. I'll try to refrain from becoming personal hereafter, please also try to do the same.
Yes certain portions of the bombers have become armoured (very small areas though), yes the RAF and LW wanted to make more damage per round or even shoot down the plane in one shot. This doesn’t mean that nothing was happening with the plane whilst under fire from machine guns. The shift had probably more to do with planes having only one or two opportunities to make passes on enemy planes due to fighter cover and bomber formation defensive fire and having to down these planes within these limited opportunities rather than what is currently modelled in COD, namely if it’s not on a vital area, nothing happens.
I compared a mini gun's rate of fire (in real life) with the rate of fire of the Hurricanes and Spitfires (also in real life). I’ve also tried to show that at 1.5 meter variance on 150m is almost of no importance if compared to the sheer volume of bullets being fired. I'm trying to show people that they blatantly except that a mini gun of the same calibre would basically destroy a soft skin target in seconds, but when it comes to WW2, a platform that had 3 times the rate of fire, it is dubbed as inefficient and the game is modelled after this assumption. Why not simulate what the bullet does and then come up with the effect on the plane? Yes, it is not as good as HE, but it is not supposed to be useless, far from the contrary. Some people, me included can easily see the error in this from firing 6 to 7 second burst accurately on the surface of the plane and basically nothing happens. That would account for almost 1/4 of the ammo load and there should be a tare of 7 meters on the enemy plane. Instead, we are told that nothing of importance was hit and as a result had no effect. Well BS to that.
Why is the 32kg vs 9000kg not relevant? (Isn't it 26 seconds, I forget). Firstly those 32 kg worth of bullets if put one next to each other would cover an considerate area. If fired at a wing and none of the planes components were damaged and only skin was removed on both sides, which would leave no surface for lift almost. Secondly, that 32 kg is travelling at subsonic speed while the bomber is doing maybe 300mph. Anyway, it’s not a wrestling contest between the force of the bullets and the force of the bomber to knock the plane out of the air; those bullets penetrate the skin of the plane. Thirdly, the plane is somewhat in motion and I would think that tears would easily form where massive holes or even perforation appear in the surface of the plane due to air pressure against the weakened surface.
I actually do appreciate your opinion on this subject.

[Pyrres]

First of all check how many bullets do actually hit. Then think how small and low powered the bullet is without HE shell. Plus the WW2 .303 bullets were not as effective as modern ones, and as the bullets and guns themself might not be perfecly manufactured the bullets made a sort of shotgun effect, and everyone knows that shotgun is not great gun for sniping. After that think how small the target you can hit is when firing from dead 6. Also as it has been said there is not much to damage exept the skin in the rear part of the plane.

What I´m trying to say is that you shoot a 2second burst, maybe 25% of the bullets hit the target. The bullets might or might not hit anything vital or just fly straigth throught the plane. After most of the bullets have been wasted missing compitely or on tearing just the skin of the plane and not the structure itself will land in the armored parts or parts that might not be vital for flying the plane. Your radio, pneumatics, hydraulics, gunsight, engine parts, parts of control surfaces, lots of internal damage, pilot wounded etc might be missing but the plane is still flying. Think how many times have you been damaged and you have not even noticed you have been hit. This happened also in IRL as many pilots flew home just to notice that a bullet has missed their head just a few centimeters. So even if you can not see the damage does not mean that it is not there. The plane might fly for minutes, or fly for hours but still be damaged beyond repair or crash at landing or under high G load because of the damage.

EDIT: And Fredfetish: Basicly just try to hit something important and the planes start to fall. I understand what you are thinking and going after and you are mainly right, but you don´t take all the effects and things to considerations

EDIT2 Oh and this game is now much much more realistic as the planes do not always disinigrate or blow up but die slowly. Of course I have been able to blow quite many HE111´s with hits in the fueltanks but mainly I move over to the next target after I see smoke or pilot killed.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Fredfetish

So one, you seem unable to comprehend anything for yourself. Yes there may and are probably valid points to why, but you haven't presented any. I'll try to refrain from becoming personal hereafter, please also try to do the same.
Yes certain portions of the bombers have become armoured (very small areas though), yes the RAF and LW wanted to make more damage per round or even shoot down the plane in one shot. This doesn’t mean that nothing was happening with the plane whilst under fire from machine guns. The shift had probably more to do with planes having only one or two opportunities to make passes on enemy planes due to fighter cover and bomber formation defensive fire and having to down these planes within these limited opportunities rather than what is currently modelled in COD, namely if it’s not on a vital area, nothing happens.
I compared a mini gun's rate of fire (in real life) with the rate of fire of the Hurricanes and Spitfires (also in real life). I’ve also tried to show that at 1.5 meter variance on 150m is almost of no importance if compared to the sheer volume of bullets being fired. I'm trying to show people that they blatantly except that a mini gun of the same calibre would basically destroy a soft skin target in seconds, but when it comes to WW2, a platform that had 3 times the rate of fire, it is dubbed as inefficient and the game is modelled after this assumption. Why not simulate what the bullet does and then come up with the effect on the plane? Yes, it is not as good as HE, but it is not supposed to be useless, far from the contrary. Some people, me included can easily see the error in this from firing 6 to 7 second burst accurately on the surface of the plane and basically nothing happens. That would account for almost 1/4 of the ammo load and there should be a tare of 7 meters on the enemy plane. Instead, we are told that nothing of importance was hit and as a result had no effect. Well BS to that.
Why is the 32kg vs 9000kg not relevant? (Isn't it 26 seconds, I forget). Firstly those 32 kg worth of bullets if put one next to each other would cover an considerate area. If fired at a wing and none of the planes components were damaged and only skin was removed on both sides, which would leave no surface for lift almost. Secondly, that 32 kg is travelling at subsonic speed while the bomber is doing maybe 300mph. Anyway, it’s not a wrestling contest between the force of the bullets and the force of the bomber to knock the plane out of the air; those bullets penetrate the skin of the plane. Thirdly, the plane is somewhat in motion and I would think that tears would easily form where massive holes or even perforation appear in the surface of the plane due to air pressure against the weakened surface.
I actually do appreciate your opinion on this subject.

What am I failing to comprehend? Now you're just being rude.

Ok, so why is the car in the video you posted still recognisable as a car? It's not been cut in half, the roof is still on. Have you got a collander at home, it's full of holes but still remains strong. I'm not saying nothing would happen, the crew would testify to that, but history tells me that it was very difficult to bring down Bombers by firing into the fuselage. Engines and wings are a different story.

I do believe all the points I've made are valid. Tumbling rounds, movement, lack of HE, ballistics, historical evidence etc, and the fact that a 9000kg machine can easily absorb 32kg's worth of bullets (providing nothing critical is hit). In theory it would be possible to hit the same small spot and 'cut' through something structurally, but the airframe is a very small percentage of the actual aircraft and the chances of hitting one spot that would make the whole section fail are very small. The airframe is designed to deal with supporting 9000kgs upto 3 or 4 g (if not more) it's strong.

EDIT: I'm not even sure what I'm arguing against. What is the point you're making? (No sarcasm here, just a genuine question)

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by winny

...the airframe is designed to deal with supporting 9000kgs upto 3 or 4 g (if not more) it's strong.

I agree, now I can play the sim again and not worry about it, thank you.

Edit: I forgot to mention Pyrres who also helped convence me. Thanks!