Heinkels of steel?

[BlackbusheFlyer]

I think there is possibly something slightly amiss with damage modelling. Yesterday during an online battle I managed to ignite the fuel tank of a player 109. He was burning, full on flames and smoke... leaving a huge trail of black smoke behind him. I thought that was it, he is shot down.. but nope. I chase him with no ammo to take screen shots. We chase around for ages, with him still fully on fire until he eventually shoots me down!

We spoke in game and he doesn't know how he was still alive also.

Here is a screenshot after being on flames for some time (5 mins or thereabouts).

[Blackdog_kt]

In regards to the .303s against bombers, in order for them to work like described by previous posters (sawing off parts of the structure by sheer number of rounds alone) you would need to have a perfectly controllable concentration pattern. Such a thing doesn't really exist.

Well, i was a relatively good shot during my time as a conscript in the local armed forces and it's still impossible to put two consecutive rounds through the same exact part of a stationary target a mere 100 meters away, and that's when firing
a) modern rifles with gas regulators that significantly decrease recoil
b) in single shot configuration that further helps with recoil in contrast to full automatic
c) modern ammo
d) from a comfortable, stable, prone position in a controlled environment with no risk to life and limb

No enemy firing back, no vibrating gun platform, better guns and ammo, smaller distances and it's still impossible to hit the exact same spot twice or manage to carefully put rounds one next to the other as if "stitching" the target, unless you just happen to have a one in a million lucky shot. If we could there would be no need for specialised sniper rifles, but it's impossible to put rounds on specific parts of any target with absolute accuracy without using telescopic gunsights and as stable a firing platform as possible with a very low rate of fire.

What happens with the .303s is a hail of rounds where the slightest deviation from optimal conditions hurts the intended concentration of lead on the target...rounds leave the barrel mere tenths of a degree apart and on the way to the target they end up separated by a few meters and you can have 10 rounds fired in a single burst impacting all over the place, from the tail all along the fuselage and even passing over the nose and missing completely. Multiply that by 8 rapid firing guns and you get a lot of swiss cheese unless you hit something vital which for most intents and purposes is human flesh, due to the tumbling effect making the rounds ineffective against metal after the initial hit.

I think the .303s are pretty accurate. I don't even try to aim for fuel tanks or engines anymore, i just come in from the sides, above or head-on and aim for those big sections of plexiglass that every Luftwaffe bomber has where the crew sits. I usually get anywhere between one (if i'm forgetting to target the crew) and three (if i conserve my ammo only for cockpit shots) bomber kills before i run out of ammo.

[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]

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]

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?