Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

User avatar
KampfKeksKrieger
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 10:15
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby KampfKeksKrieger » Fri 12 May 2017 12:53

Mephistopheles wrote:
What is completely forgotten is the fact that the machine cannon of the FW190 are aligned much closer to the centerline. Therefor they should have an accuracy advantage vs any other aircraft carrying its guns in the wings like the Mustag or p47 or spitefire.

Additionally the HE damage value for the 20 mm cannons is too low. 20mm airborne cannons used diffrent ammo than similiar counterparts used on vehicled for ground combat. often a mixed ammo load out of HE, AP, and Incendiary munition.

In one recorded incident an american pilot was engaged in a dogfight between his squad and a german squad when something struck his aircraft really hard that he had to eject. He believed that he collided with a german fw190 only to found out later that he was hit by an fw190. the Fw190 had huge firepower and dilivered an insane MASS per sec trigger pull down


That sounds useful!
So give the FW190 the damage they deserve :)
Now you have a reason to buff haha

TankHunter
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue 31 Jul 2012 06:00
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby TankHunter » Sat 13 May 2017 04:22

Mephistopheles wrote:What is completely forgotten is the fact that the machine cannon of the FW190 are aligned much closer to the centerline. Therefor they should have an accuracy advantage vs any other aircraft carrying its guns in the wings like the Mustag or p47 or spitefire.

Additionally the HE damage value for the 20 mm cannons is too low. 20mm airborne cannons used diffrent ammo than similiar counterparts used on vehicled for ground combat. often a mixed ammo load out of HE, AP, and Incendiary munition.

In one recorded incident an american pilot was engaged in a dogfight between his squad and a german squad when something struck his aircraft really hard that he had to eject. He believed that he collided with a german fw190 only to found out later that he was hit by an fw190. the Fw190 had huge firepower and dilivered an insane MASS per sec trigger pull down


Only 2 of the 20mm guns are near the centerline. The other two are further out on the wings. So you'd have to separate the 20mm into 2 different weapons. The wing-root guns with slightly higher ACC, and the outer 20mm with lower ACC.
"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them [. . .] They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

User avatar
Mephistopheles
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2016 00:17
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Mephistopheles » Tue 16 May 2017 09:53

TankHunter wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:What is completely forgotten is the fact that the machine cannon of the FW190 are aligned much closer to the centerline. Therefor they should have an accuracy advantage vs any other aircraft carrying its guns in the wings like the Mustag or p47 or spitefire.

Additionally the HE damage value for the 20 mm cannons is too low. 20mm airborne cannons used diffrent ammo than similiar counterparts used on vehicled for ground combat. often a mixed ammo load out of HE, AP, and Incendiary munition.

In one recorded incident an american pilot was engaged in a dogfight between his squad and a german squad when something struck his aircraft really hard that he had to eject. He believed that he collided with a german fw190 only to found out later that he was hit by an fw190. the Fw190 had huge firepower and dilivered an insane MASS per sec trigger pull down


Only 2 of the 20mm guns are near the centerline. The other two are further out on the wings. So you'd have to separate the 20mm into 2 different weapons. The wing-root guns with slightly higher ACC, and the outer 20mm with lower ACC.


Even the Wing mounted 20 mm cannons are closer to the centerline than any of the 50 cal on a mustang.
Image

User avatar
I WUB PUGS
Lieutenant
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 18:40
Location: Monterey California
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby I WUB PUGS » Tue 16 May 2017 18:52

Mephistopheles wrote:What is completely forgotten is the fact that the machine cannon of the FW190 are aligned much closer to the centerline. Therefor they should have an accuracy advantage vs any other aircraft carrying its guns in the wings like the Mustag or p47 or spitefire.


Physical gun location means nothing considering gun harmonization was used on every fighter once designers moved away from synchronized fuselage guns and put them in the wings.
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Markenzwieback » Tue 16 May 2017 19:31

I WUB PUGS wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:What is completely forgotten is the fact that the machine cannon of the FW190 are aligned much closer to the centerline. Therefor they should have an accuracy advantage vs any other aircraft carrying its guns in the wings like the Mustag or p47 or spitefire.


Physical gun location means nothing considering gun harmonization was used on every fighter once designers moved away from synchronized fuselage guns and put them in the wings.

Wrong. Center fuselage mounted guns (BF-109 F-series and beyond, P-38) did not necessarily require harmonization (basically shooting straight ahead in most cases) and had the benefit of concentrated firepower on all distances.

This was one of the reasons why the Russians used this method in all their fighter planes. Increased manoeuvrability was another.
Image

User avatar
I WUB PUGS
Lieutenant
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 18:40
Location: Monterey California
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby I WUB PUGS » Tue 16 May 2017 20:09

Markenzwieback wrote:
I WUB PUGS wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:What is completely forgotten is the fact that the machine cannon of the FW190 are aligned much closer to the centerline. Therefor they should have an accuracy advantage vs any other aircraft carrying its guns in the wings like the Mustag or p47 or spitefire.


Physical gun location means nothing considering gun harmonization was used on every fighter once designers moved away from synchronized fuselage guns and put them in the wings.

Wrong. Center fuselage mounted guns (BF-109 F-series and beyond, P-38) did not necessarily require harmonization (basically shooting straight ahead in most cases) and had the benefit of concentrated firepower on all distances.

This was one of the reasons why the Russians used this method in all their fighter planes. Increased manoeuvrability was another.


They didn't necessarily require it, but they could still use it and did. And firepower diminished over distance anyway which is why guns were laid in various patterns to provide anywhere from a single point to layers like some P-51 pilots having outer guns at 700m, middle at 500m and inner at 300m, or like the first Hurricanes and Spitfires that setup the .303's like shotguns.

Still, the FW190's inner wing cannons being located closer to center doesn't mean anything considering it most certainly used convergence as 20mm losses energy faster and would need to be aligned to converge with the center firing guns.

Even the 109F needed to set some convergence due to the energy loss difference between the MG's and the nose cannon.

For gameplay purposes, given the engagement ranges are seemingly standardized, I don't see at all why one MG should be favored over another in terms of accuracy. Cannons should be just slightly less accurate. It's not like the planes are opening up at 1200m with MG's trying to land lucky shots.





Also, it's a little weird that you cite two center-mounted gun planes (109 and P-38) to address a comment I made specifically about wing-mounted gun planes.......... like the FW190 that had BOTH types and the guns we're talking about specifically are located in the wings........
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Markenzwieback » Tue 16 May 2017 20:49

I WUB PUGS wrote:Even the 109F needed to set some convergence due to the energy loss difference between the MG's and the nose cannon.

That was down to personal preference really. In first hand stories some pilots mention firing MGs and 20mm separate from each other. On the German side that is.

I WUB PUGS wrote:For gameplay purposes, given the engagement ranges are seemingly standardized, I don't see at all why one MG should be favored over another in terms of accuracy. Cannons should be just slightly less accurate. It's not like the planes are opening up at 1200m with MG's trying to land lucky shots.

Standardization should be the way to go for MG and Cannon accuracy. Damage is another thing with different 20mm shell designs and explosive fillings.

I WUB PUGS wrote:Also, it's a little weird that you cite two center-mounted gun planes (109 and P-38) to address a comment I made specifically about wing-mounted gun planes.......... like the FW190 that had BOTH types and the guns we're talking about specifically are located in the wings........

I was simply addressing your first statement.
Physical gun location means nothing considering gun harmonization

And in that regard, centerline mounted guns did get a slight accuracy and usability advantage over wing-mounted ones in practical use (besides the obvious advantage of lighter wings for agility).
Image

User avatar
I WUB PUGS
Lieutenant
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 18:40
Location: Monterey California
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby I WUB PUGS » Tue 16 May 2017 20:51

"Standardization should be the way to go for MG and Cannon accuracy. Damage is another thing with different 20mm shell designs and explosive fillings."

Then we have nothing to disagree on and it's settled. The FW190 wing cannon placement is meaningless.
Image

User avatar
Mephistopheles
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2016 00:17
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Mephistopheles » Wed 17 May 2017 16:21

I WUB PUGS wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:
I WUB PUGS wrote:
Physical gun location means nothing considering gun harmonization was used on every fighter once designers moved away from synchronized fuselage guns and put them in the wings.

Wrong. Center fuselage mounted guns (BF-109 F-series and beyond, P-38) did not necessarily require harmonization (basically shooting straight ahead in most cases) and had the benefit of concentrated firepower on all distances.

This was one of the reasons why the Russians used this method in all their fighter planes. Increased manoeuvrability was another.


They didn't necessarily require it, but they could still use it and did. And firepower diminished over distance anyway which is why guns were laid in various patterns to provide anywhere from a single point to layers like some P-51 pilots having outer guns at 700m, middle at 500m and inner at 300m, or like the first Hurricanes and Spitfires that setup the .303's like shotguns.

Still, the FW190's inner wing cannons being located closer to center doesn't mean anything considering it most certainly used convergence as 20mm losses energy faster and would need to be aligned to converge with the center firing guns.

Even the 109F needed to set some convergence due to the energy loss difference between the MG's and the nose cannon.

For gameplay purposes, given the engagement ranges are seemingly standardized, I don't see at all why one MG should be favored over another in terms of accuracy. Cannons should be just slightly less accurate. It's not like the planes are opening up at 1200m with MG's trying to land lucky shots.





Also, it's a little weird that you cite two center-mounted gun planes (109 and P-38) to address a comment I made specifically about wing-mounted gun planes.......... like the FW190 that had BOTH types and the guns we're talking about specifically are located in the wings........


People tend to forget that during dogfights and the extrememaneuvers they come with the wings whopple up and down. And with the Wings the the MGs move too up and down adding to bad accuracy.
Image

Terracos
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu 26 May 2016 09:50
Contact:

Re: Asymetric balance of Jerries VS allies in Normandy 44

Postby Terracos » Wed 17 May 2017 17:20

Aswell as the recoil in MGs and Cannons in Wings can lead to vibrations. The same also happens in the hull, but the hull is stiffer than the wings that are rather flexible. This leads to a higher precision for hull mounted weapons, but wing mounted weapons during WW2 had the advantage to spread the projectiles in a wider cone. As this sounds like less accuracy it actually helps in hitting moving targets.
Dogfights are a dynamic fight. You cannot hunt flying birds with a sniper you use a shotgun. Now in AA combat its a tradeoff between a small cone (small area, high bullet density) vs a big cone (big area, small bullet density). The small cone is less likely to hit but hits are more dangerous due to multiple impacts and high dmg, while big cones lead to more chance of hitting but in general less bullets hitting the target.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests