Yanks and their MG's

[KnightFandragon]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

On the other hand, having only fast firing light guns (like for example .303s) is very easy to take and correct aim, but commits you to a tracking shot, with all the dangers it brings due to target fixation.

Lol .30 cal guns and smaller to me are like pickles and sauerkraut, they make me gag and throwup a little bit just seeing them mentioned......ive used them alot seeings how the Spitfire is my fav plane in IL2 and I can tell you idk how to kill anything with them. They are just barely enough to let the enemy know your behind them.......I once flew the Hurri MkIIB??(one with 12 30cals) against an empty B29 on unlimited ammo for like 20+ minutes and never shot it down before I was totally convinced that 30cals are useless and I wish I could get them off my planes. when I got done w/ that B29 it had sooo many bullet holes in it that when it got to base the ground crew coulda mistaken it for that months supply of ammo it had so many casings on it...prolly like 20,000+ rounds I put into it. Then I did the same thing to an He111 but not shooting it nearly as long but I still only shot that plane down when I think I killed the pilots. And the 30cals is my only real complaint with the Spit, good plane but its got 30cals. my next new favorite, finding out that 25 and 50% fuel makes a plane hella more manuverable is the Corsair F4U1C. I always liked the Corsair ever since I had a toy of it, it looks cool and after over a year of flying IL2 and keeping my planes at 100% fuel and seeing the Corsair as a flying rock and deeming it junk, I finally realized my awnser had been slapping me in the face all along. Soo, I lowered it to 50% fuel load and was actually able to make a Black Out inducing turn with out stalling...i was like..wow...its a mircle, low fuel settings do work....now that F4u1C is like almost my dream plane. It has good turn radius, its fairly fast and has 4 cannons.....its only problem is its engine overheats fast.

[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.

[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.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by whatnot

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?

Aside from morale ...

One of the huge issues the US had in Iraq was better body armor and combat medics meant the proportion of casualties KIA was down massively which is clearly a good thing but the number of wounded shipped home and looked after in hospital for sometimes years after went up substantially.

Its the same logic that resulted in anti-personal mines designed to maim rather than kill.

As far as the 0.303 cal in game goes, if you attack an early war bomber (blenheim, ju88, he111) in a historically fashion - from the side above below or headon - you can get acceptable results. Admittedly the he111 is a touch more immune to 0.303 cal than most of the others but its still not hard to knock out an engine or even set a wing on fire.