THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION

THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding

Message

Commander Stormwolf -> THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 4:44:17 AM)
Greetings, First to say, AE is considered an excellent piece of research and organization on a large scale pacific war simulation - a step above WITP where many factors have been addressed, in particular the mechanics of air-to-air combat. While the mechanics and overall performance of the air-to-air action are correct, the RELATIVE performances of the air-to-air devices are not correct. The primary difficulty is with the RELATIVE accuracy and effectiveness. First the accuracy of the 12.7 weapons is less than it should be, as is the relative accuracy. Historically USN 50 caliber ammo was 450 rounds for the F4F-3 and 500 rounds for the P-38, much more than the 200 rounds for a Ki-44, this disparity must be represented. This does not need to be debated, let us just say I am an old dog of this subject and my views are based on first hand accounts and not the 70 years of confabulation and conjecture of writing since about the subject. The accuracy of the A6M2 is much too high at 22. An ammo supply of 60 rounds and low muzzle velocity will yield an accuracy closer to 4. The effect however needs to be increased, a 20mm round was devastating and was the primary armament of each air force except the US. The problem with the zero's 20mm was that while a good attack position could be achieved by experienced pilots, this could seldom be done by inexperienced pilots, while any decent attack position with a browning-6-pack could cause some damage. The result: early in the war the zero is sweeping the skies, by the time of the philipine sea the disparity in pilots is large and the rookie pilots are not achieving attack positions on US fighters. Hence the large caliber cannon is an "all or nothing" affair. Whereas the 7.7mm could hit all day and cause no major damage (see Sakai's words about fighting the Wildcat) The browning was retained in lieu of larger rounds for two reasons 1) it could fire a large number of rounds before jamming 2) it could fire a large number of rounds accurately which was ideal for the maneuverable planes facing them *see battle of phillipine sea, some hellcat pilots bring down several japanese planes the only difficulty was when facing the armoured japanese fighters such as the Ki-61 and Ki-84, or the Emily flying boat where the effect of the 50 caliber rounds was insufficient. It is known that the formula for weapon accuracy is largely based on rate of fire, however this is considered a fallacy. In some services, such as the RAF, a large number of guns with little ammunition was used as per the doctrine of short bursts from close range. Other pilots preffered fewer guns with more ammo, so the path of the tracers could be used to adjust fire (see Jimmy Thatch complaining about the F4F-4 and its 6x240 rounds versus the F4F-3 with 4x450 "if you miss with 4, you miss with eight" A new formula for these calculations for accuracy is proposed. Accuracy = muzzle velocity (ft/s) x ammo supply x mounting (cowl =1, wing = 1/2) _____________________ _____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _3000_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 500 The 7.7mm effect is reduced to 1, the 7.7mm range is increased to 400 The 12.7mm effect is reduced to 2, the 12.7mm range is increased to 500 The 20mm effect is increased to 5, the 20mm range remains at 500 The 30mm effect is increased to 8, the 30mm range is 500 The 37mm effect is increased to 10, the 37mm range is 500 reliability and rate of fire was already taken into consideration when the ammo supply was fitted, 500 rounds are carried by 7.7 of the zero since it is reliable with that amount, 200 rounds are fitted to the Japanese 12.7 on the tony since that is reliable, 30 rounds of 37mm on the air cobra since that is the amount that could be fired in a reasonable amount of time of an attack position, etc. Images will follow (numbers beside devices are the ammo supply) [image]local://upfiles/28382/88AA88DEA600428EA66B035F12F2C824.jpg[/image]

PaxMondo -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 6:29:34 AM)
Not disputing your numbers here at all. However, do you understand the game engine sufficiently to make the data changes you are suggesting? Nothing you report is new (at least not to me, and I'm not even near the level of expert that Elf and his team are), so I have to beleive that the air team was fully aware of this data. I'm not suggesting they used this data, but likely they used something similar. Given that, and given that the data is in the game the way it is suggests that the names of the fields and exactly how they are used in the game engine may not correspond to common usage. Of course, everyone is free to mod as they please. Your tone suggests that all is in error as it stands. I truly doubt that is the case because the game results are fairly close to reality, given Gary's predeliction for randomness. Just my opinion ....

Erkki -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 10:10:42 AM)
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm Some good stuff there. I'd like to comment some parts of the OP... quote: The browning was retained in lieu of larger rounds for two reasons 1) it could fire a large number of rounds before jamming 2) it could fire a large number of rounds accurately which was ideal for the maneuverable planes facing them Yes and no. The allowed maximum burst length to avoid barrel overheat was actually fairly short, like 3 seconds and then 4-5 seconds of cooling time before the next burst, or 1 second bursts every 2 sec. Secondly, afaik the M2 50 cal wasnt any more accurate than other weapons, but with other HMGs and 15/20/23mm cannons provided much better ballistics than the rifle caliber weapons, making aiming somewhat easier. Gun accuracy itself was usually not an issue, as against a maneuvering target especially the pilot would be unable to shoot far enough to make any difference between the weapons, and the guns had their zeroing range in both vertical and horizontal not set to a "point" in space any way, but a box or a ring, to allow more hitting bursts at the expense of less concentrated fire. If it was up to me, I'd have the "accuracy" and "range" completely removed, as especially against fighter targets the pilot would never be able to hit in a firing position and shoot far enough to make any difference between the guns. Instead I'd have the amount of ammunition, reliability and where the gun is mounted(wing, fuselage), rate of fire to some extent etc. and I think the game already uses many if not all of these within the "accuracy" value. quote: The primary difficulty is with the RELATIVE accuracy and effectiveness. First the accuracy of the 12.7 weapons is less than it should be, as is the relative accuracy. Historically USN 50 caliber ammo was 450 rounds for the F4F-3 and 500 rounds for the P-38, much more than the 200 rounds for a Ki-44, this disparity must be represented. Dont you think we should also take into account that P-51B and C's inner guns, that were installed tilted, worked literally only half the time they were needed until the issue was field-fixed in mid 44? [:)] Maybe we need the gun stats to be plane-specific, many US fighters carried nowhere near the P-38's 500RPG, and often, such as in P-51D, different guns had belts of different length, which had IIRC 34 sec of firing time in the innermost guns but only 17 sec in the 4 outermost guns. IMHO at the moment the game gives out pretty realistic and historical results out of air combat, with the exception of perhaps certain bomber types when they are used in large numbers, as well as the irl piece of junk Hurricane... I would make the game first work where it should, strategic and operational level, and only then look at the minor inaccuracies, there are bigger IMHO "problems" around than marginal effectiveness/accuracy stuff between some aircraft guns.

Erkki -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 10:38:16 AM)
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1231066209?r=1231066209#1231066209 And theres another topic with a nice aerial combat analysis .pfd - the forum discussion itself is also interesting. Hope it gives some ideas. EDIT: OK looks like the.pdf is dead.

el cid again -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 10:48:03 AM)
With all due respect and the intelligent discussion is worthy of a lot of respect as I understand it - ammo supply is not the factor deciding accuracy - I remember reading that accuracy = ROF - rate of fire - which seems an odd name for it - but that is the basic design Effect is - I think - determined by the size of the round - and here there is a lot that can be done. It was done over 3 years of development - and the system worked out works pretty well - never mind it was done for WITP and this is AE. [Testing indicates a k factor change may be warranted Mifune brought the system over into AE databases - and it works rather well. Designed for CHS, it was not adopted (curiously after nominally being adopted it was unadopted a few days later) - so at the suggestion of the CHS coordinator - it was released independently - under the designation RHS (coined by Joe Wilkerson as a variant of RSH - Real Sub Hunter). He had supervised the deveopment of the system - which used defined standards for various things - not merely weapons - but also maneuverability and the durability of aircraft. This results in rather better relative air combat outcomes. Now I am not opposed to adding ammunition supply as a factor - but I am not sure how to do that? In many simulations (I am used to far more detail than we use here) it is assumed that a WWII fighter has enough ammunition for three full firing passes and one more pass with limited firepower. Here you can see that a lower ROF means you get more passes for a lower ammo supply - and that might be a clue how to incorporate it. Obviously we cannot write code. So code is going to assume whatever it does about ammo supply. But we could use a composite value say ROF times Ammo Supply - probably divided by a k of perhaps 10,000 - that is top of the head no evaluation ball park - and then see what we get? Change the k to end up in the right range. That way you will have both factors in the accuracy value - and sort of have your cake and eat it too. I kind of like the idea and may play with the numbers to see what it looks like?

el cid again -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 10:52:32 AM)
While RHS values assumed a .30 cal - and a 7.7 mm is a .30 cal - had a firepower of one and while that worked well enough in WITP - in AE - the value of one results in fighters armed with .30s almost never to be effective - air battles go on for a long time - and with virtually no casualties. So a revised K was applied resulting in the minimum gun value being 2 - and that worked better. .30 cal armed fighters are still pretty ineffective - but not impossibly so. This is not to say your formula is not a good one. It is to say that the minimum value pretty much has to be 2 if planes armed with 2 7.7s are to be of any reasonable military value. Just doube everything from there

el cid again -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 11:09:21 AM)
Mifune - who has tested AE with the RHS system for a couple of years - believes that there is a problem with durability. Making durability defined by objective formulas - and adjusting the scale such that it is generally lower than stock - helps improve attrition rates - and not only in air combat - but also in AAA combat and in operations. Even so - attrition remains dramatically lower than IRL. But if there is a problem in the system - it is that planes are not vulnerable enough. In general, I think a large problem also is that aircrat cannon are under valued. Radical when introduced just before WWII (RTAF may have been first, but JNAF was the first to use them in large numbers - I think) - it became the standard of the world - and even today cannon are used - (but MG - even the Browning 50 - which I love - is not). It is astonishing to me that cannon do not have effect values similar to other weapons - based on weight of shell. Since that is the basic WITP system - it seemed logical to use it. And using it - it seems to work. The matter of 50s being better than 30s is different. Guns are like fishing - lots of opinions. British opinion was that the .30 was better - if you carried twice as many. And historicans conclude in analysis that it is pretty even steven - that 8 30s is about as effective as 4 50s. I got to use both guns - aircaft MG were SOP issue to landing parties in my day (half a century ago) - and I like em both - but the .50 is too heavy to carry around - so was used mainly mounted on boats or ships sides. But nothing quite sounds so good (or so bad) as a 50 (depending on wether it is yours or theirs) in a firefight. But I do not take the position the British were wrong about the 30. And at least in complex computer sims - it appears that the historian's view - both sides were right - is true. I can be as effective with 8 30s as with 4 50s - vs the same target set. John Browning was brilliant - I love all his designs - and I do not see a big problem with the .30 So I guess I quibble with the view the 50 is vastly better. It is not that easy to hit at long range with any aircraft gun - and at practial ranges - the 30s work fairly well until the enemy puts effective armor into his planes. A long range rifleman myself, I find it peculiar that it is so hard to hit at rifle ranges with a fighter plane - but actually trying to do so makes it clear - it isn't easy. I agree with Thatch - if you miss with four - you will miss with eight - but that does not mean I would not prefer to hit with eight. I don't think it is nice to be the target, either way.

Sardaukar -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 11:10:08 AM)
Hmm...not sure if I remember correctly, but wasn't "Accuracy" (in game) = accuracy modified by ROF with undisclosed formula?

Terminus -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 11:14:20 AM)
If you want people to do something, starting out by bragging about your "experience" and claiming that it's "not open for debate" is exactly the back-assward way of doing it.

Erkki -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 11:32:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again as I understand it - ammo supply is not the factor deciding accuracy - I remember reading that accuracy = ROF - rate of fire - which seems an odd name for it - but that is the basic design As it would seem so, its not 1:1 just rate of fire. All 20mm cannons in game have same effect and penetration. However, the in-game accuracy compared to real life rate of fire: Hispano II: acc 26 - ROF ~10 RPS MG151/20: 21 - 12 (in Ki-61-Ic, why is accuracy so much lower when ROF is higher? Also much better explosive shells IRL with very similar ballistics) Type 99-2: 23 - 8 (lower power, lower rof than 151/20 but still better acc?) Ho-1-3: - 26 - 7 Ho-5: 28 - 14 If you compare not just rof but also destructive powers of individual shells both AP and HE it becomes quite clear that the 20mm cannons, as just one example, are not in correct order in the game(the only value differing between them is the accuracy, when IRL, say, MG151/20 and Hispano V were nearly twice as powerful as guns like Type 99-1 or MG-FF). There has to be more than just the ROF within the accuracy value, or we have to agree that the gun statistics in the game are erroneous.

Erkki -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 11:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again The matter of 50s being better than 30s is different. Guns are like fishing - lots of opinions. British opinion was that the .30 was better - if you carried twice as many. And historicans conclude in analysis that it is pretty even steven - that 8 30s is about as effective as 4 50s. Yet the British, Soviets, Japanese or Germans didnt hesitate long when they were given the opportunity to upgrade from rifle cal to HMG and then HMG to 20mm. The only country that didnt introduce 20mm armament on all of its fighters was the USA because those guns couldnt be made reliable enough and keep their weight low enough - afaik the USAAF even built some 200 copies of the German MG151/20 around 1943 but due to apparently logistics, decided to stay in the 50 cal and Hispano.

JuanG -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 4:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again as I understand it - ammo supply is not the factor deciding accuracy - I remember reading that accuracy = ROF - rate of fire - which seems an odd name for it - but that is the basic design As it would seem so, its not 1:1 just rate of fire. All 20mm cannons in game have same effect and penetration. However, the in-game accuracy compared to real life rate of fire: Hispano II: acc 26 - ROF ~10 RPS MG151/20: 21 - 12 (in Ki-61-Ic, why is accuracy so much lower when ROF is higher? Also much better explosive shells IRL with very similar ballistics) Type 99-2: 23 - 8 (lower power, lower rof than 151/20 but still better acc?) Ho-1-3: - 26 - 7 Ho-5: 28 - 14 If you compare not just rof but also destructive powers of individual shells both AP and HE it becomes quite clear that the 20mm cannons, as just one example, are not in correct order in the game(the only value differing between them is the accuracy, when IRL, say, MG151/20 and Hispano V were nearly twice as powerful as guns like Type 99-1 or MG-FF). There has to be more than just the ROF within the accuracy value, or we have to agree that the gun statistics in the game are erroneous. I'm pretty sure ballistics has to play into it as well, in the sense that a high MV round will be easier to hit with than a low MV round, like the 40mm Ho-301. In this regard the Ho-5 is explained, as despite better ROF its relatively low MV degrades accuracy. The Ho-1 and 3 on the other hand had faster MV and thus better accuracy. The real odd one out remains the MG151/20, but I suppose that one may have been artifically lowered to represent maintenance or other issues since its not a native weapon?

Shark7 -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 4:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again The matter of 50s being better than 30s is different. Guns are like fishing - lots of opinions. British opinion was that the .30 was better - if you carried twice as many. And historicans conclude in analysis that it is pretty even steven - that 8 30s is about as effective as 4 50s. Yet the British, Soviets, Japanese or Germans didnt hesitate long when they were given the opportunity to upgrade from rifle cal to HMG and then HMG to 20mm. The only country that didnt introduce 20mm armament on all of its fighters was the USA because those guns couldnt be made reliable enough and keep their weight low enough - afaik the USAAF even built some 200 copies of the German MG151/20 around 1943 but due to apparently logistics, decided to stay in the 50 cal and Hispano. There may be that, but the fact is that the M2 Browning .50 caliber is quite possibly the best HMG ever designed. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is still using the exact same M2 that was available in WWII here in the 21st century. The M2 has not changed since its design in 1919. Keep in mind your standard M2 Browning has a maximum 3 mile range and the ability to penetrate and destroy light armored vehicles, it was ideal as an aircraft mounted weapon in 1940. And what it all comes down to is lead in the air, and most USAAC fighters could put a lot more lead in the air for a longer period of time with 6 M2s.

Sardaukar -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 4:24:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again The matter of 50s being better than 30s is different. Guns are like fishing - lots of opinions. British opinion was that the .30 was better - if you carried twice as many. And historicans conclude in analysis that it is pretty even steven - that 8 30s is about as effective as 4 50s. Yet the British, Soviets, Japanese or Germans didnt hesitate long when they were given the opportunity to upgrade from rifle cal to HMG and then HMG to 20mm. The only country that didnt introduce 20mm armament on all of its fighters was the USA because those guns couldnt be made reliable enough and keep their weight low enough - afaik the USAAF even built some 200 copies of the German MG151/20 around 1943 but due to apparently logistics, decided to stay in the 50 cal and Hispano. There may be that, but the fact is that the M2 Browning .50 caliber is quite possibly the best HMG ever designed. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is still using the exact same M2 that was available in WWII here in the 21st century. The M2 has not changed since its design in 1919. Keep in mind your standard M2 Browning has a maximum 3 mile range and the ability to penetrate and destroy light armored vehicles, it was ideal as an aircraft mounted weapon in 1940. And what it all comes down to is lead in the air, and most USAAC fighters could put a lot more lead in the air for a longer period of time with 6 M2s. And, what was also important, they were not encountering heavily armoured enemy heavy bombers or ground attack planes, that would make cannon armament more attractive option.

Erkki -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 5:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JuanG quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again as I understand it - ammo supply is not the factor deciding accuracy - I remember reading that accuracy = ROF - rate of fire - which seems an odd name for it - but that is the basic design As it would seem so, its not 1:1 just rate of fire. All 20mm cannons in game have same effect and penetration. However, the in-game accuracy compared to real life rate of fire: Hispano II: acc 26 - ROF ~10 RPS MG151/20: 21 - 12 (in Ki-61-Ic, why is accuracy so much lower when ROF is higher? Also much better explosive shells IRL with very similar ballistics) Type 99-2: 23 - 8 (lower power, lower rof than 151/20 but still better acc?) Ho-1-3: - 26 - 7 Ho-5: 28 - 14 If you compare not just rof but also destructive powers of individual shells both AP and HE it becomes quite clear that the 20mm cannons, as just one example, are not in correct order in the game(the only value differing between them is the accuracy, when IRL, say, MG151/20 and Hispano V were nearly twice as powerful as guns like Type 99-1 or MG-FF). There has to be more than just the ROF within the accuracy value, or we have to agree that the gun statistics in the game are erroneous. I'm pretty sure ballistics has to play into it as well, in the sense that a high MV round will be easier to hit with than a low MV round, like the 40mm Ho-301. In this regard the Ho-5 is explained, as despite better ROF its relatively low MV degrades accuracy. The Ho-1 and 3 on the other hand had faster MV and thus better accuracy. The real odd one out remains the MG151/20, but I suppose that one may have been artifically lowered to represent maintenance or other issues since its not a native weapon? Dunno... Any way, that post was only to demonstrate that if the data is actually correct or what its intended to be, theres more to acc value than just rate of fire. quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 There may be that, but the fact is that the M2 Browning .50 caliber is quite possibly the best HMG ever designed. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is still using the exact same M2 that was available in WWII here in the 21st century. The M2 has not changed since its design in 1919. Keep in mind your standard M2 Browning has a maximum 3 mile range and the ability to penetrate and destroy light armored vehicles, it was ideal as an aircraft mounted weapon in 1940. And what it all comes down to is lead in the air, and most USAAC fighters could put a lot more lead in the air for a longer period of time with 6 M2s. So because it was US and because some versions of it are still in use, it has to be good? [:)] There are many WW2 weapons still in use, including Berezin UB(best heavy machine gun of WW2 by many standards), the MG34/MG42's reincarnation MG3, StG44, in a way, in the Kalashnikov series, and the same Oerlikon cannons the German MG-FF and -FF/M and the Japanese 20mm cannons were based on. It can be pointed out that the M2 .50cal was nowhere near the best aircraft weapon of the war. That doesnt say the M2 wasnt adequate, couldnt do the job it was given or wasnt any good, but the best it wasn't. There were multiple reasons as to why the Americans kept to the M2 but I have hard time believing any of them was because the pilots or staff preferred HMG over cannons in actual combat.

Shark7 -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 6:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: JuanG quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again as I understand it - ammo supply is not the factor deciding accuracy - I remember reading that accuracy = ROF - rate of fire - which seems an odd name for it - but that is the basic design As it would seem so, its not 1:1 just rate of fire. All 20mm cannons in game have same effect and penetration. However, the in-game accuracy compared to real life rate of fire: Hispano II: acc 26 - ROF ~10 RPS MG151/20: 21 - 12 (in Ki-61-Ic, why is accuracy so much lower when ROF is higher? Also much better explosive shells IRL with very similar ballistics) Type 99-2: 23 - 8 (lower power, lower rof than 151/20 but still better acc?) Ho-1-3: - 26 - 7 Ho-5: 28 - 14 If you compare not just rof but also destructive powers of individual shells both AP and HE it becomes quite clear that the 20mm cannons, as just one example, are not in correct order in the game(the only value differing between them is the accuracy, when IRL, say, MG151/20 and Hispano V were nearly twice as powerful as guns like Type 99-1 or MG-FF). There has to be more than just the ROF within the accuracy value, or we have to agree that the gun statistics in the game are erroneous. I'm pretty sure ballistics has to play into it as well, in the sense that a high MV round will be easier to hit with than a low MV round, like the 40mm Ho-301. In this regard the Ho-5 is explained, as despite better ROF its relatively low MV degrades accuracy. The Ho-1 and 3 on the other hand had faster MV and thus better accuracy. The real odd one out remains the MG151/20, but I suppose that one may have been artifically lowered to represent maintenance or other issues since its not a native weapon? Dunno... Any way, that post was only to demonstrate that if the data is actually correct or what its intended to be, theres more to acc value than just rate of fire. quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 There may be that, but the fact is that the M2 Browning .50 caliber is quite possibly the best HMG ever designed. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is still using the exact same M2 that was available in WWII here in the 21st century. The M2 has not changed since its design in 1919. Keep in mind your standard M2 Browning has a maximum 3 mile range and the ability to penetrate and destroy light armored vehicles, it was ideal as an aircraft mounted weapon in 1940. And what it all comes down to is lead in the air, and most USAAC fighters could put a lot more lead in the air for a longer period of time with 6 M2s. So because it was US and because some versions of it are still in use, it has to be good? [:)] There are many WW2 weapons still in use, including Berezin UB(best heavy machine gun of WW2 by many standards), the MG34/MG42's reincarnation MG3, StG44, in a way, in the Kalashnikov series, and the same Oerlikon cannons the German MG-FF and -FF/M and the Japanese 20mm cannons were based on. It can be pointed out that the M2 .50cal was nowhere near the best aircraft weapon of the war. That doesnt say the M2 wasnt adequate, couldnt do the job it was given or wasnt any good, but the best it wasn't. There were multiple reasons as to why the Americans kept to the M2 but I have hard time believing any of them was because the pilots or staff preferred HMG over cannons in actual combat. Wow, touchy aren't we? M2 Brownings that were produced in the 1920s were still in service in the 1990s, and are quite possibly still in service...its not some versions, its the same Ma Deuce that was designed in 1919. They may be newly built, the the M2 really hasn't changed. 40mm Bofors guns produced in the 1940s are still in use in some navies, and they are little changed either. Those were a Swiss design if I am not mistaken. The MG-42 is no doubt the best Medium MG design of the era, a design that has been copied and modernized into weapons in use into the late 20th Century (M-60 anyone?) Has nothing to do with being US made, but it does have to do with the M2 being extremely versatile. And if the M2 was so average, why wasn't it replaced? Seems to me that if the M2 wasn't up to the task, the USAAC would have demanded a replacement for it. Remember, even late war aircraft still carried the M2 over the 20mm cannons they could have easily had at that point. For that matter, the early jet fighters still carried a 6 pack of M2s (F-86 Sabre). There must be a reason.

Erkki -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 7:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: JuanG quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again as I understand it - ammo supply is not the factor deciding accuracy - I remember reading that accuracy = ROF - rate of fire - which seems an odd name for it - but that is the basic design As it would seem so, its not 1:1 just rate of fire. All 20mm cannons in game have same effect and penetration. However, the in-game accuracy compared to real life rate of fire: Hispano II: acc 26 - ROF ~10 RPS MG151/20: 21 - 12 (in Ki-61-Ic, why is accuracy so much lower when ROF is higher? Also much better explosive shells IRL with very similar ballistics) Type 99-2: 23 - 8 (lower power, lower rof than 151/20 but still better acc?) Ho-1-3: - 26 - 7 Ho-5: 28 - 14 If you compare not just rof but also destructive powers of individual shells both AP and HE it becomes quite clear that the 20mm cannons, as just one example, are not in correct order in the game(the only value differing between them is the accuracy, when IRL, say, MG151/20 and Hispano V were nearly twice as powerful as guns like Type 99-1 or MG-FF). There has to be more than just the ROF within the accuracy value, or we have to agree that the gun statistics in the game are erroneous. I'm pretty sure ballistics has to play into it as well, in the sense that a high MV round will be easier to hit with than a low MV round, like the 40mm Ho-301. In this regard the Ho-5 is explained, as despite better ROF its relatively low MV degrades accuracy. The Ho-1 and 3 on the other hand had faster MV and thus better accuracy. The real odd one out remains the MG151/20, but I suppose that one may have been artifically lowered to represent maintenance or other issues since its not a native weapon? Dunno... Any way, that post was only to demonstrate that if the data is actually correct or what its intended to be, theres more to acc value than just rate of fire. quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 There may be that, but the fact is that the M2 Browning .50 caliber is quite possibly the best HMG ever designed. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is still using the exact same M2 that was available in WWII here in the 21st century. The M2 has not changed since its design in 1919. Keep in mind your standard M2 Browning has a maximum 3 mile range and the ability to penetrate and destroy light armored vehicles, it was ideal as an aircraft mounted weapon in 1940. And what it all comes down to is lead in the air, and most USAAC fighters could put a lot more lead in the air for a longer period of time with 6 M2s. So because it was US and because some versions of it are still in use, it has to be good? [:)] There are many WW2 weapons still in use, including Berezin UB(best heavy machine gun of WW2 by many standards), the MG34/MG42's reincarnation MG3, StG44, in a way, in the Kalashnikov series, and the same Oerlikon cannons the German MG-FF and -FF/M and the Japanese 20mm cannons were based on. It can be pointed out that the M2 .50cal was nowhere near the best aircraft weapon of the war. That doesnt say the M2 wasnt adequate, couldnt do the job it was given or wasnt any good, but the best it wasn't. There were multiple reasons as to why the Americans kept to the M2 but I have hard time believing any of them was because the pilots or staff preferred HMG over cannons in actual combat. Wow, touchy aren't we? M2 Brownings that were produced in the 1920s were still in service in the 1990s, and are quite possibly still in service...its not some versions, its the same Ma Deuce that was designed in 1919. They may be newly built, the the M2 really hasn't changed. 40mm Bofors guns produced in the 1940s are still in use in some navies, and they are little changed either. Those were a Swiss design if I am not mistaken. The MG-42 is no doubt the best Medium MG design of the era, a design that has been copied and modernized into weapons in use into the late 20th Century (M-60 anyone?) Has nothing to do with being US made, but it does have to do with the M2 being extremely versatile. And if the M2 was so average, why wasn't it replaced? Seems to me that if the M2 wasn't up to the task, the USAAC would have demanded a replacement for it. Remember, even late war aircraft still carried the M2 over the 20mm cannons they could have easily had at that point. For that matter, the early jet fighters still carried a 6 pack of M2s (F-86 Sabre). There must be a reason. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm Pretty good read imho. By early 50s every air force in the world other than the US ones(and those using US made fighters)had their fighters armed with cannons. Why didnt the US ones upgrade until later? I dont know. They definitely were looking for a better gun during the war, Navy even introduced an all-cannon fighter in the F4U-1C, IIRC and I might not, some 300 examples of it (and then there were the P-38, P-61, P-39 and some early P-51s, some even some even went operational). Cannon shoots more lead and more kilojoules per time unit and packs more bang per weight unit and required less ammo(in weight and space it takes) for similar destructive power as a 50 cal. Only thing the M2 did/does better than most WW2 era cannons was, presumably, reliability, and even that can be put to doubt. Logistics must have been one of the main reasons if not the most important one... Only 2-3 guns with 2-3 kinds of ammunition needed per gun in the whole air force, where Germans used like 8 or 9 guns and some of them used even 6 different kinds of ammunition. That the same guns, spare parts and ammunition were also widely used by other branches must have been it, nor was there an immediate need for a better gun, Germans didn't have heavy bombers of their own(and even the mediums didnt fly much after the USAAF 8th, 9th and 15th came to Europe) nor did they use heavily armored aircraft such as Il-2 or Il-10. This topic derailed pretty early, lets not make this another "50 cal is nerfed" or "oleg porked my favourite plane" topic if you know what I mean. [:D] I havent looked onto the rate of fire vs. real life accuracy vs. destructive power vs. amount of ammunition vs. reliability vs. in-game accuracy value much yet but there seem to be a weapon or 2 off at least in the cannons. Does that fact have much effect in the game, at operational or even tactical level? Dont think so but fixing it cant hurt. EDIT: Bofors is Swedish. [;)]

JuanG -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 7:54:29 PM)
Very good read about the subject here. Its not so much that the US didnt want/need a cannon for their aircraft, its that they failed to develop a weapon that worked well enough to warrant is widespread use. And more about the 20mm in US service here.

YankeeAirRat -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 8:19:53 PM)
The reason the US didn't upgrade to cannons during either WW2 or later during the Korean war was that there was the few cannons recieved in into early inventory for use in aircraft such as the F4U-1C, P-51, P-38, P-61, etc was that the cannons were found to have reliablity problems, lower rates of fire and accuracy issues. All of which were tied to the license manufacturing from company in the United States, poor quality control and poor understanding of how to build the cannon (which was primarly a copy of the UK variant of the Hispano-Suza 20mm Cannon). It finally took the USAF to start buying the British variant for the cannon before some issues were cleared up but not all. So excluding a the US Navy/Marine Corps team with their experiences that the .50 cal could not effectively destroy the Kamikaze threat, so most of the fighters in the USAAF/USAF were still .50 cal. The post war US Navy aircraft started to be equipped with 20mm guns since they were more effective in not only destroying ground targets, but also destroying aircraft structure. The F7F-2, F8F-1, AD-1, F3D, F9F, F2H and later aircraft were all redesigned to accept the 20mm gun in place of the original or designed specifically with the guns in place. Where post war a number of the US Military aircraft were designed to accept a revolver style cannon such as a copy of the German MG13 in 20mm. However, even then most of these cannons were still ineffective or had reliability problems. The F8U, A4D, A-7 and A3D all were armed with a copy of the same gun and they had issues were the guns would jam up during high manuvering and high g-stress. That is why in US inventory we switched to the M61 rotary gatling style cannon for nearly all of our aircraft since the gun was first introduced in the F-104 back 1958. I would also note that it wasn't until just after the war started that the USN and USAAF started to phase out the 30cal as standardize armament in both primary or defensive armament on various aircraft. For a large number of them it wasn't that hard to redesign the aircraft structure to switch over to the .50cal. The F2A, P40, P-35, TBD, SBD, SB2U, B-17, B-18, P2Y, PBY, etc all had 30cals as thier primary or used a mix of 30cal and a couple of 50's. That was due to weight issues and with issues in trying to redesign the ground mounted version of the M2 into an aerial mount. The gun that was installed into the wings of the F4F, F6F, P51, P47 and others was not easily converted back into a ground mount. Most of the issues where you heard of ground troops or maintenance personnel taking guns from aircraft and field mounting them was from waist or tail gunner postions and basically welding on the ability to mount the gun into a tripod. The guns in the fueslage themselves had a different reciever design to accomidate the cockpit controls for charging and firing the guns.

YankeeAirRat -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/2/2011 10:02:39 PM)
Oh and the .50cal was still used in aerial combat into Vietnam. B-52D's in the tail guns were equipped with 4x50.cals and were actually able to kill a pair of MiG-21's during the Linebacker raids in 1972.

Roko -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/3/2011 9:55:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki And theres another topic with a nice aerial combat analysis .pfd - the forum discussion itself is also interesting. Hope it gives some ideas. EDIT: OK looks like the.pdf is dead. Analysis of World War II Air Combat Records. 59MB pdf Here it is : http://ebookee.org/Analysis-of-World-War-II-Air-Combat-Records_972392.html

vettim89 -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/3/2011 6:11:56 PM)
As far as the M2's longevity, if ain't broke don't fix it. Is there really any pressing need in an armed service anywhere in the world for an improved 0.50 cal MG? The USA has essentially been using the same 155 mm howitzer for 50 years. That does not mean it is the best weapon in the world because it isn't (the South African one is superior by far). What it does mean that the systems are integrated such that a good (not great) weapon tied to a superior FCS system tied to a well developed logistics system is the best weapon for the USA. I think the same issue fueled the WWII cannon/MG converison within the USAAF/USN/USMC. Yes, the commanders knew a cannon armed fighter might serve their purposes better. However, such a conversion would require so many changes in logistics, tactics, and organization that it was not deemed feasible. By 1944, the USAAF literally had tens of thousands of fighters in the field that were for the most part armed with 0.50 cal MG. The US pilots were all trained and experienced in fighting with MG. The armorers and mechanics were all well versed in repairing and maintaining MG. Unlike most of the other combatants, the US aircraft were all based far away from their supply and technical support sources. I am just saying that using the argument that the M2 was such a good weapon that the US didn't even consider replacing it is an oversimplification.

witpqs -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/3/2011 8:48:38 PM)
A reduction in weight is one objective they were pursuing.

el cid again -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/3/2011 8:55:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 As far as the M2's longevity, if ain't broke don't fix it. Is there really any pressing need in an armed service anywhere in the world for an improved 0.50 cal MG? Actually there is. The Russians tried to go one better using a Czech design of larger caliber. But the PLA fielded (not many years ago) a vastly improved .50 cal that outperforms even the 14 mm guns. As a general rule, a modern gun design can be about twice as efficient as a classical one designed a century ago. The Chinese really like the new .50 - it is far lighter than bigger guns and it is very nice to have the added range and altitude it permits.

vettim89 -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/3/2011 11:19:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 As far as the M2's longevity, if ain't broke don't fix it. Is there really any pressing need in an armed service anywhere in the world for an improved 0.50 cal MG? Actually there is. The Russians tried to go one better using a Czech design of larger caliber. But the PLA fielded (not many years ago) a vastly improved .50 cal that outperforms even the 14 mm guns. As a general rule, a modern gun design can be about twice as efficient as a classical one designed a century ago. The Chinese really like the new .50 - it is far lighter than bigger guns and it is very nice to have the added range and altitude it permits. While I cannot dispute that fact; the point being that the 0.50 is no longer as important a weapon as it was in WWII and Korea. While the M2 may be long in the tooth, it is still good enough to serve the purposes of the US Army. Contrast that with the copying of the MG42 to get the M60 which has then been partially replaced by the M249 SAW. In Western Armies, at least, point defense Air Defnese has largely been ceded to shouldere launched SAM's. Even before those weapons came to be, modern armies (USA, Brits, Warsaw Pact, etc) were using cannon based (Vulcan, Gepard, Zu-23/30) AAA platforms. Again, the point is not whether there are better 0.50 cal weapons in the world but that decisions are not always based on what is the "best" weapon. In WWII parlance, I doubt many US tank drivers thought the M4 was the best tank in the world; however, it was a weapon that could be made efficiently and was reliable. I think the cannon vs MG issue has already been defined in that it was a reliability issue much more than whether a cannon or a MG was the best weapon to kill an enemy plane.

elcid -> RE: THE GUN ACCURACY CORRECTION (10/5/2011 11:27:30 PM)
Given that ammo supply is not defined by the gun but devices are defined at that level we may have a problem including ammo supply. We have to use a typical value for a gun in all planes- or introdue a special gun for every special case (and risk running out of slots). Even so the idea that effect could be defined by ammo supply times shell weight is worthy of investigation. We just have to figure out what is typical for ammo supply? Or in come cases we might use odd guns - a fighter with 2 guns of limited supply might be defined with a single such gun, for example.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.640625