Ammunition power

[R0NNC0]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I cant agree more... that's why when I read about the "disadvantage" of blue planes.. I almost fell out of my chair.... and don't forget the Ki-84Cs..

Heh, be sure. And constant griping that HMG actually does damage to plane.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I don't know how I could cut in 2 late 109s (2 of them in the same mission) simply firing at convergence distance flying a P51... it's like the uber overmodelled K4 that you have to learn to fly, above all to remain at 400m from a US bomber since its .50s will open you (AI can be good to hitting you; it doesn't involve the damage at your plane, ammo data does).

The AP .50 Cal BMG will penetrate about 3/4 inch of steel at 500m. The aluminium that makes up most aircraft doesn't really offer too much resistance. At convergence the 6 Browning machine guns are concentrated in a fairly small area and with enough time on target would literally cut a plane in half. That just comes down to good technique and shooting accurately at the convergence distance

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

At the same time I like to be PKed from 500m by the green ray of death.

There was a general trend to move to larger guns through the war. The object was to destroy aircraft. The pilot is a lot more susceptible to damage than the plane. One lucky shot is all it takes. I think the record for a confirmed ‘kill’ with a .50cal BMG round (from a sniper rifle) is about 2,430 metres. Like I said, if you get hit all it takes is one lucky shot and your history.

cheers.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

At convergence the 6 Browning machine guns are concentrated in a fairly small area and with enough time on target would literally cut a plane in half.

beg to differ ....

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Air...nBoresighting/

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

beg to differ ....

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Air...nBoresighting/

The grist of the document is to say (Sorry for my cruddy paraphrasing) "If you have your guns converged at a single distance (point) you will create an area of overkill at that spot but at other ranges the density of fire will produce excessive dispersion" so to be more efficent "you should converge your guns at slightly different ranges so that you produce a larger area (zone) where you have a minimum lethal density" and it recomends a system of convergence for the guns that creates this zone.

I don't see that this contradicts my statements, which was that if you fired 6 .50 BMG at the same spot on aircraft for long enough you could cut it in half! In fact it explains how it works ( And why a different system should be used to increase your chances of getting a kill at other ranges), even though the circumstances to do this in real life would have been extremely rare.

As far as I can tell in IL2 we use the "point bore sighting" (I think the exception is in the P47 where you can alter one of the pairs of guns by changing the cannon convergence) where the guns are converged on a single point. (I use this for range finding in my skip bombing attacks- fire the odd burst until your rounds converge to a spot and then let the bomb go! It works a treat!)

The practice of converging all guns at some one point along the path of flight, commonly referred to as "point bore sighting", although producing heavy concentrations of fire at certain ranges, produces excessive dispersion at other ranges. Furthermore, heavy concentrations of fire at the selected ranges were found to be undesirable in that bullet densities far in excess of the required lethal density were produced, resulting in inefficient employment of the fire-power available.

Cheers and thanks for the link it was an interesting read.

[R0NNC0]

Although BuOrd makes a recommendation for boresighting, that doesn't mean it's what the squadrons use. The highest scoring USN squadron (VF-15) used a tightly grouped point convergence.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by R0NNC0

Although BuOrd makes a recommendation for boresighting, that doesn't mean it's what the squadrons use. The highest scoring USN squadron (VF-15) used a tightly grouped point convergence.

And I believe several USAAF aces did too. I get the impression that point convergence is something the experienced pilots prefer while it makes it more difficult for the less experienced pilots.

I'm not surprised that there is a range of feelings about how effective the .50cal is and who that corresponds to.

I feel the .50cal is perfectly lethal when I'm aiming properly. My record is still 7 Zeros (A6M3 and A6M5) shot down online by me flying a F6F-5. That is the exception rather than the rule for me ...but its possible. Its also quite possible to keep firing and waste the whole ammo load on one or two Zeros without scoring a definitive kill. I've also done that

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I feel the .50cal is perfectly lethal when I'm aiming properly. My record is still 7 Zeros (A6M3 and A6M5) shot down online by me flying a F6F-5. That is the exception rather than the rule for me ...but its possible. Its also quite possible to keep firing and waste the whole ammo load on one or two Zeros without scoring a definitive kill. I've also done that

This what USMC Medal of Honor winner Jo Foss had to say about shooting with 0.50 cal ...


" Q. How close do you have to come to do effective damage?

A. When we started out, all our shooting was out of range. We would begin on the enemy a quarter of a mile away, and by the time we actually got into range we'd used up our ammunition. Then we started getting in there from 300 yards to 50 foot off, and really started hitting them. Then we moved it down so that we'd shoot right at 100 yards - then you can't miss. If you're off to one side or the other, just kick it on. If you shoot too far off, you scare 'em! If you keep your tracers out of there - the Jap pilot shoots. I've seen him shoot half a mile off; they just keep shooting until they go on range, and they're still shooting whan they pass you. They really get rid of the ammunition! I talked to the boys when a new outfit would come in. When you talk to a man before he goes out the first time, it doesn't do any good; but after he's been out the first time or the first two times, then you can talk to him. He knows what you're talking about. I'd just tell them, "Get in there, really get them in your sights, and really shoot close." I told one group that, and every flight scored on the trip. They'd all had a couple of combats before; they were shooting away out of range - 500 or 600 yards."


The entire interview with him is here ...

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Aircraft/VMF-121/

its well worth a read.

[R0NNC0]

Originally Posted by IceFire

And I believe several USAAF aces did too. I get the impression that point convergence is something the experienced pilots prefer while it makes it more difficult for the less experienced pilots.

Possibly, but some of it could be training too. USN had more thorough gunnery training than USAAF.

Here's Dave McCampbell, MOH winner and leading USN/USMC ace (34 victories) on convergence used in VF-15:

An interesting thing worth mentioning is the boresight pattern of the guns on the Hellcat. Back in training in the U.S., one of the people who had a little combat down in the Solomon Islands didn't like the gun performance, which had a pattern called the Bureau of Ordnance gun-sight pattern. So he went to work and developed a pattern for 1,000 ft. At 1,000 feet, the six guns would concentrate into a 3-foot diameter circle, and he could get 92 to 94 percent of the shells in that 3-foot diameter circle at 1,000 feet. What this amounted to was very concentrated fire at 1,000 feet, where the bullets would cross each other,so you still had basically the same pattern for strafing which you do at much further distance. We found that most effective for shooting down planes. We would start firing in earnest at about 1,000 feet; you may open fire a little further because in flying along, it's difficult to judge 1,000 from 1,200 feet or even 1,500 feet. But at that point, you had a very concentrated fire.

Source: Smithsonian Oral History Collection "Carrier Warfare in the Pacific", ISBN 1-56098-822-3

[DKoor]

Thing is while most weapons in this game work more or less good in the game, they don't really work like in RL... to much discrepancies.
So that is what makes people think that something is wrong.
Granted some of the people have gone so far that mere reading their posts makes me laughing...

Anyhow the key for most of these "problems" with weapons really is - improved DM.
That will make some weapons (or if you like, all of them) more effective, and the LMG/HMG are the ones which will really benefit, as they will be able to damage more stuff on hit...

Looking forward to the Rise of Flight...

[Thunderbolt56]

Originally Posted by DKoor

Anyhow the key for most of these "problems" with weapons really is - improved DM.
That will make some weapons (or if you like, all of them) more effective, and the LMG/HMG are the ones which will really benefit, as they will be able to damage more stuff on hit...

I couldn't agree more. I've been saying this for years. The biggest issue with current weapons is:

1. poor marksmanship
2. Limited damage model

Notice I didn't say "poor" DM. The next-gen sims (both RoF and SoW) should benefit greatly from much more detailed DM. This will enhance (not increase it per se) weapon damage, incidental contact damage, airfoil stress damage due to exceeding aircraft performance limits, etc,. All good things that the current DM we're used to is lacking.