Jump to content

Weapon Damage and Performance Issues and Discussion (RB, Tanks *and* Planes)


Or maybe, unlike in this game, .50 cals were actually really good at shooting things down in WWII?

 

No they weren't. Why you think US was using Hispano's? They couldn't produce a stable cannon until they managed to poop out the AN/M3

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afaik, they could.

They simply didnt want to Change production lines as much as it was needed to produce licensed Hispanos and the M2 was sufficient, reliable and already in production.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they weren't. Why you think US was using Hispano's? They couldn't produce a stable cannon until they managed to poop out the AN/M3

 

Which is totally why the aircraft in the US military credited with the most kills were also armed with 50 cals, the F6F being a prime example. How many US aircraft that had tremendous success used the Hispano?

 

In fact if I remember correctly, the Hellcat set the record for most kills attributed to a single variant of aircraft. The 109 would probably win out, but that thing participated in two wars and had more variants then most nations had planes. The P-51 obviously also had tremendous success, however since that aircraft had a few variants that used the Hispano (even though most used the 50), I'll leave that one out. 

Edited by Chopstorm
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they weren't. Why you think US was using Hispano's? They couldn't produce a stable cannon until they managed to poop out the AN/M3

.50 cals were very deadly to enemy aircraft

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BeiNHKAa5o

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcr3CVVRUuM

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YlxBRLEySo

 

In game, I think the current M2s with the late belts are doing very well.  I like them a lot, and I think they're the closest to be realistic that they've ever been.  I haven't used the early belts much, but I've had mixed success with them.

Edited by xBromanx
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said before this, which is somewhere related;

 

I do not think bomber pilots have anything to complain on their 50s. They do plenty of damage as it is (and far more than the fighter planes). Massive problems come due to fact that 50s cause damage to surface area's or control surfaces but the enormous strength of The Instructor™ helps keeping planes in the air and functional that would normally crash or become severely degraded in flight performance. Just compare difference in flying a plane with wing damage on MA or FRC... the difference is huge.

 

Fact still remains that US couldn't produce a reliable cannon until much later in the war.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is they could but didnt want to.

 

I'm sorry, but please go and research the subject on US cannons during WW2. They managed to produce the AN/M2 cannon but it was severely unreliable (due to their own mistakes by classifying 20mm as artillery fire and producing them under wrong quality standards). It wasn't until the AN/M3 cannon (improved AN/M2, named T31, then further improved) they finally had something reliable at hand. Both were based on the Hispano.

 

They did not stick to M2 Browning because it was better than cannons. They full well knew it wasn't. The M2 browning was considered sufficient.

 

If the US could produce a reliable cannon earlier on, they would of, it was in extremely high demand.

Edited by ThatRedDot
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind to provide your links?

Because I recall my info from a "M2 underperforming"-thread ~1-1,5 years ago, and as I cannot make the Forum search function work, I have no hope finding it again.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you mind to provide your links?

Because I recall my info from a "M2 underperforming"-thread ~1-1,5 years ago, and as I cannot make the Forum search function work, I have no hope finding it again.

 

Google? 

 

The Hispano-Suiza cannon was designed by Marc Birkigt, a Swiss working in France, and was adopted by Britain's Royal Air Force as the Hispano-Suiza Type 404. It later saw service with the Americans as the AN-M2. Both the British and the Americans considered adapting the Hispano-Suiza as an antiaircraft gun, but chose the 20mm Oerlikon instead.
The Hispano-Suiza had a gas operated delayed blowback action. The bolt was locked to the breech until the projectile passed a gas port in the barrel, which operated a piston that unlocked the bolt. The bolt then recoiled under the residual pressure in the barrel, like any other blowback action. However, because the bolt was initially locked in place, it could be made much lighter than the bolt in an ordinary blowback action, permitting a much higher rate of fire. The reduced weight also made the weapon more suitable for mounting in aircraft. 
This novel action was initially rather buggy and required that the cartridges be waxed for clean extraction. The British eliminated the need for waxed cartridges, apparently by using a fluted chamber that allowed a small amount of gas from the fired round to work around the outside of the cartridge and push it away from the chamber walls. The British also found that the action was violent enough to compress the cartridge as it was fed into the chamber, leaving the primer far enough forward that the firing pin occasionally failed to activate the primer. This problem was solved by shortening the chamber length by about 2 mm (0.08"). Improvements were also made to the reliability of the magazine and feed mechanism.
The weapon was designed to be mounted in a hollow propeller shaft, which led to some peculiarities in design. It was extremely long and slim, and it did not come with a fixed receiver, being intended to be mounted directly to the V-block of an inline engine. This required a very sturdy structure when the gun was mounted in wings or turrets, which the British developed as the SAMM cradle. The weapon could not be synchronized to fire through a propeller.
The gun was heavy and was originally fed from a 60-round drum. Smaller drums were devised for flexible mountings, and a 160-round drum was designed for fixed guns, though this was unreliable if loaded with more than about 150 rounds. The somewhat low rate of fire was compensated by an unusually powerful cartridge.
 
The British initially produced the Type 404 as the Mark I. This proved unsatisfactory due to the small magazine capacity and a tendency for the gun to jam during high-G maneuvers. The Mark II was fed from a disintegrating link belt and was less prone to jam, and it saw extensive use. The Mark V was also belt-fed and had a shorter barrel that could be entirely contained in a fighter wing. This avoided the mechanical stress and freezing problems arising from the protruding barrel in Mark II installations, at some cost in muzzle velocity (about 80 fps or 24 m/s).
The British were anxious for American manufacturers to produce the weapon, which was expected to be in high demand. However, the Americans failed to adopt the British modifications, continuing to use waxed cartridges and failing to shorten the chamber to avoid misfires. It became evident that the AN-M1 had so high a misfire rate that it was unusable, but only after 56,410 had already been manufactured. The AN-M2 shortened the chamber by 1mm and made some other improvements for reliability, but American-manufactured Hispano-Suizas remained sufficiently unreliable that the gun came to be disliked by most American pilots. The gun averaged one jam every 1500 rounds under good operating conditions, but twice that rate under dusty conditions. The gun was more vulnerable than the Browning to cold temperatures at high altitude. Those installed on the SB2C were particularly notorious for jams, although the problems were largely worked out in the SB2C-4 and may have been due as much to poor maintenance as anything else in the earlier SB2Cs.
 
Part of the continuing difficulty with the weapon was bureaucratic in origin. Under U.S. Army regulations, a weapon of over 0.60" (15mm) bore was considered artillery, and so the Hispano-Suiza was manufactured to artillery tolerances. This made for badly fitting parts, a fault that was long concealed by the practice of putting a heavy coat of lubricant on the cartridges. Postwar, the weapon became highly reliable, suggesting that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the weapon. It was simply rushed into production before it had been completely debugged.
Some 134,663 AN-M1 and AN-M2 cannon were manufactured in the United States. Almost none of the M1 and only a fraction of the M2 produced were ever mounted in aircraft, and production ceased in February 1944. No use was ever found for the AN-M1s, but the Navy developed an improved lightweight version of the AN-M2, the T31, which like the British Mark V used a shortened barrel. The T31 could be converted from existing AN-M2 cannon, and some 32,346 were so modified by May 1945, when conversion ceased. New production of the T31 (not from conversion of the AN-M2) became the AN-M3, and this designation is used by most authors for conversions as well. Over 90% of 20mm cannon mounted in U.S. aircraft were mounted in U.S. Navy aircraft.  
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how effective that 50 caliber armed fighters were in comparison to their cannon armed counterparts, I do not think you can make the argument that cannons were "better".  At least not for WW2. More guns, more ammo, and for quite a while better reliability (in fact I think that's still the case) was what the M2 brought to the table compared to all WW2 variations of the Hispano. 

Edited by Chopstorm
  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

They did not stick to M2 Browning because it was better than cannons. They full well knew it wasn't. The M2 browning was considered sufficient.

 

...

Uhhh....no?

 

You're right on everything but this.  Yeah, 1 M2 Browning vs 1 20mm cannon, the M2 was worse.  But 6-8 Brownings vs 1-2 20mm, the Browning was very competitive.  

 

The US didn't just "settle" for the M2 Browning, they preferred them, as there were many advantages that the M2 Brownings had over most cannons.  

  1. Lighter weight and smaller size, so you could carry more guns
  2. Lighter and smaller ammo, so you could carry much more ammo.  US pilots often had enough ammo to engage enemy fighters, AND THEN go on ground strafing missions.
  3. They were perfectly adequate for destroying fighter-type aircraft.  For heavier aircraft, the .50 would probably be inferior, but the US didn't fly against those as often.
  4. Better ballistic qualities than most cannons, which made aiming easier, especially at longer ranges. 

The US didn't need a cannon, so they didn't stress the need to design their own.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html

 

The table on that site gives a comparison of each of the guns used during WW2, with two different quality ratings used by the Russians to compare the weapons of WW2 and their efficiencies.  I don't know how reliable their systems are, especially since they have two different systems that give two wildly different relative ratings, but if we look at the system that gives the M2 Browning the worst relative efficiency (the M rating) we see:

 

M2 Browning - 19.9

 

MG 151/20 - 30.2

ShVAK - 30.2

B20 - 50.7

Hispano MK II - 26.0

Hispano Mk V - 38.7

Ho-3 - 34.6

Ho-5 - 43.0

Type 99-1 - 43

 

It seems that the M2 Browning had roughly 2/3 the efficiency of their contemporaries, and it isn't until you get to late war cannons that it drops to 1/2 - 2/5 the efficiency.  

 

Comparing something like a 6 M2 Browning configuration to a single MG 151/20, the M2 Brownings would be 4 times as efficient.  

 

Of course, this doesn't take into account things like ammo type, which would greatly boost the rating of most cannons, or things like ammo count which would benefit the M2 Browning, but it gives kind of an idea of how the guns compare.

Edited by xBromanx
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me 50's are doing ok against fighters. I have killed a La-7 with less of 200-250 rounds in P-47. :P

 

 

My problem is with bombers. They just............ eat 50.cal. Same goes for cannons. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny thing that Russian pilots considered 50cals superior to their cannons

and even america hating war historicans admited 50cals were well made... they were capeable of ripping some armores and they simply devastated planes controls, coolants and engine with single burst... here they just simulate christams tree.... after funny thing is that in Sim. P-47 can kill BF with 1 second burst while P-51 that hase only 2 less 50cals can spray 700 rounds into it only to demage it landing gear..... for me it seem more that they work deffirent with every plane, decided only by how much gaijin like the plane....

Edited by MatSK
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny thing that Russian pilots considered 50cals superior to their cannons

and even america hating war historicans admited 50cals were well made... they were capeable of ripping some armores and they simply devastated planes controls, coolants and engine with single burst... here they just simulate christams tree.... after funny thing is that in Sim. P-47 can kill BF with 1 second burst while P-51 that hase only 2 less 50cals can spray 700 rounds into it only to demage it landing gear..... for me it seem more that they work deffirent with every plane, decided only by how much gaijin like the plane....

Someone did bring up the point that the instructor keeps planes afloat that would normally have collapsed (which is something I am currently kicking myself for not thinking about). That's probably why you're experiencing such a difference in the damage between the two modes. 

Edited by Chopstorm
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If .50s are doing different damage based on the vehicle they're mounted on, that's a problem. Actually, I'm led to understand that's true between tanks and planes, at least.

Tank .50s do more damage, or so I have heard.

Tank .50s can 1 shot a goddamn bomber

They are super ridicilous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone did bring up the point that the instructor keeps planes afloat that would normally have collapsed (which is something I am currently kicking myself for not thinking about). That's probably why you're experiencing such a difference in the damage between the two modes. 

 

You can try, if you have a JS... setup FRC and do a test flight against Ai... get damaged on one wing, maybe inner wing crit or wing yellow/orange or something (somehow, cus Ai sucks) and fly off... level your plane and switch to FRC and see what happens. Or try in custom battles with a friend, maybe easier.

 

On MA you can still fly, somewhat easy, possibly even land.

On FRC you will not be able to keep your plane in the air and simply crash.

 

You see also on YT videos of sim battles. As soon as one scores a crit, any crit, the fight is over. The other will crash. This is not the case in MA mode.

 

50 cals lack the stopping power to blow whole sections of a plane off, they can, but cannons can do so much faster/easier. But 50s would have sufficient damage to so severely damage another plane that it would go down.

 

But there's Instructor, which offers a state of the art, modern, "fly-by-wire" system that will do everything possible to accommodate your flight path even if it means putting your plane in a 90 degree bank and using your rudder as elevator and still providing enough lift to keep flying level.

 

If one cannot see how broken that is.................. 

Edited by ThatRedDot
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said before this, which is somewhere related;

 

 

 

 

Fact still remains that US couldn't produce a reliable cannon until much later in the war

 

 

Stupid Americans, all we ever managed to do was construct 14,000 ton cargo ships in 42 days on average and deploy a nuclear weapon from a highly advanced long-ranged bomber.  

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try, if you have a JS... setup FRC and do a test flight against Ai... get damaged on one wing, maybe inner wing crit or wing yellow/orange or something (somehow, cus Ai sucks) and fly off... level your plane and switch to FRC and see what happens. Or try in custom battles with a friend, maybe easier.

 

On MA you can still fly, somewhat easy, possibly even land.

On FRC you will not be able to keep your plane in the air and simply crash.

 

You see also on YT videos of sim battles. As soon as one scores a crit, any crit, the fight is over. The other will crash. This is not the case in MA mode.

 

50 cals lack the stopping power to blow whole sections of a plane off, they can, but cannons can do so much faster/easier. But 50s would have sufficient damage to so severely damage another plane that it would go down.

 

But there's Instructor, which offers a state of the art, modern, "fly-by-wire" system that will do everything possible to accommodate your flight path even if it means putting your plane in a 90 degree bank and using your rudder as elevator and still providing enough lift to keep flying level.

 

If one cannot see how broken that is.................. 

 

I fly a little bit of sim now and then, so I know what you're talking about. My brain just never attributed it to instructor. I know that you can usually fly level somewhat decently with a damaged wing in sim, but the moment you try to make anything more then a gentle turn, you'll go spinning into the dirt.

 

Makes me kind of wish that instructor was nerfed a little bit, but I wouldn't know how that would affect the game. I know planes wouldn't be able to helicopter quite as well as they do now since rudder control wouldn't be as automated, but I'm not naive enough to believe that all the changes would be positive ones. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much more going on than just the size of a round when deciding what it can and can't do.  For instance the MK 108 has a 30 mm projectile that will travel at 1770 F/S while the M2 BMG 50 cal. API will travel at 2930 F/S.  The MK 108 had a cyclic of 660 (later improved to 880), while the 50. has a cyclic of 450 to 550 rounds per minute.  

Also there seems to be some miss understandings as to what is inside a 50 caliber round.  so here is some help with that.
w-368-p47-50cal-chart-2-268x506.jpg

 

As you can see there is a decent amount of incendiary mixture in an incendiary round (on short notice and without lengthy study I could only come up with one source for this) which is a mix of 50% barium nitrate and 50% powdered aluminium/magnesium alloy (known as IM#11) for a total of about 30 grains.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much more going on than just the size of a round when deciding what it can and can't do.  For instance the MK 108 has a 30 mm projectile that will travel at 1770 F/S while the M2 BMG 50 cal. API will travel at 2930 F/S.  The MK 108 had a cyclic of 660 (later improved to 880), while the 50. has a cyclic of 450 to 550 rounds per minute.  

Also there seems to be some miss understandings as to what is inside a 50 caliber round.  so here is some help with that.
w-368-p47-50cal-chart-2-268x506.jpg

 

As you can see there is a decent amount of incendiary mixture in an incendiary round (on short notice and without lengthy study I could only come up with one source for this) which is a mix of 50% barium nitrate and 50% powdered aluminium/magnesium alloy (known as IM#11) for a total of about 30 grains.

:facepalm: how did you find this cross section image, I tried to find this kind of image for M23 for months and can't find anything. And M2 has a cyclic rate about 800-880 rounds/min

Edited by sxpp
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid Americans, all we ever managed to do was construct 14,000 ton cargo ships in 42 days on average and deploy a nuclear weapon from a highly advanced long-ranged bomber.  

tbf iirc the cargo ships had all sections delivered premade and the time was then only counted to put the stuff together instead of "from scratch" just sayin

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while the 50. has a cyclic of 450 to 550 rounds per minute.

That's the rate of fire of the infantry m2. Not the an/M2 50 cal. A quick Google search tells me that the an/M2 50 cal has a rof of around 700-850.
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...