War Thunder

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Mitchverr » Tue 23 Dec 2014 17:00

Theres also the side thing that it was built when most planes were still not that well armoured and iirc most planes still had only a few machineguns(iirc for a short time it was the fastest and most armed plane out there).

Though personally i always preferred the varient with the 4 20mm guns and 2 40mm cannons underwing that you can find in FH2 :lol:
Image

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: War Thunder

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 23 Dec 2014 17:17

The other advantage is in a turning fight where you might get only a short target exposure, the large number of fast firing .303s will almost certainly get some hits, while less weapons or slower firing weapons, the target might just slip through the proverbial gaps.

I always thought the six .50 cals worked out to be about right until jets came along. Worked quite well on the various USN fighters, and rather handily on the Mustang. The eight the P-47 slung is just awesome levels of excessive.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

anto-shturmovik
Warrant Officer
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2012 15:22
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby anto-shturmovik » Tue 23 Dec 2014 17:44

panzersaurkrautwefer wrote:
Also, wtf the Brits were thinking with eight .303 guns on the hurricane I do not know. I can literally hose these BF 110s with fire for like four seconds and yet they live.


WELL LET ME TELL YOU

In a nutshell the British used their measurement for determining the optimal fighter weapons systems as lead delivered into a target over a set amount of time. The arrangement that put the heaviest amount of lead, into an airplane sized target in the allotted time was the whole mess of .303 guns. In practice it was sub-optimal, although had the unexpected effect of inflicting pretty drastic casualties on German bomber air crew, while leaving the plane still flyable, which left to some awesome moral boosting stories with HE-111s returning with a lone survivor at the controls.


That's not totally true. According to Le Fana de l'aviation HS n.38, the German configuration with 2x7.7+2x 20mm MG FF spits 5.45kgs of lead per 3 seconds burst, the French 1x20mm Hispano +2x7.5mm 5.43kgs, and the British 8x7.7mm only 4.53kgs, being only superior to the P-36 (4x7.7 +2x12.7) and older planes with 2x7.7.

The key factor for the RAF was the space between two bullets. The higher the rate of fire, the higher the probability that at least one projectile hits a plane which goes through the bullet stream.
Image
Image courtesy of Vincent Meslet and Graphic.

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: War Thunder

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 23 Dec 2014 18:00

It was in here at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter:_T ... of_Britain

It talked about a series of experiments involving an old Blenheim fuselage, and the amount of rounds on target. It could be I have it somewhat jumbled, but there was definitely a counting and weighing of bullets coming out of a junker airplane involved in the process. It might have been something weird like number of rounds striking the target in a burst, weight over a longer period of time, weight delivered by emptying the entire ammo supply, dunno.

Clearly was not an optimal configuration in either event, but there was certainly a logic and plan that involved as many guns as possible firing little bullets.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

anto-shturmovik
Warrant Officer
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri 10 Aug 2012 15:22
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby anto-shturmovik » Tue 23 Dec 2014 18:39

panzersaurkrautwefer wrote:It was in here at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter:_T ... of_Britain

It talked about a series of experiments involving an old Blenheim fuselage, and the amount of rounds on target. It could be I have it somewhat jumbled, but there was definitely a counting and weighing of bullets coming out of a junker airplane involved in the process. It might have been something weird like number of rounds striking the target in a burst, weight over a longer period of time, weight delivered by emptying the entire ammo supply, dunno.

Clearly was not an optimal configuration in either event, but there was certainly a logic and plan that involved as many guns as possible firing little bullets.



Mhhh, I don't know this author. He seems controversia, at best. My source is the French translation of Alfred Price's "WWII fighter conflict".

It's possible the experiment was about the number of rounds, not the wieght of lead, though.
Image
Image courtesy of Vincent Meslet and Graphic.

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: War Thunder

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 23 Dec 2014 18:44

He's a bit up and down as far as the issue of some RAF personnel camping out in their bunkers and refusing to return to duty. The rest of the book jives really well with the other books I've read on the topic, but it does spend a lot more time on the RAF and Luftwaffe's preparations for battle than usual (although it does also do a good job on the busting the high claims totals from the RAF, and coming up with a much more realistic loss rate).

Also the fact his other job is a very successful spy novelist means that for history texts, it's quite readable and entertaining.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Killertomato » Tue 23 Dec 2014 19:54

I always thought the six .50 cals worked out to be about right until jets came along. Worked quite well on the various USN fighters, and rather handily on the Mustang. The eight the P-47 slung is just awesome levels of excessive.


They kill things, especially with WT's multirole loadings.

The .303... Coming at a B-25 with 'em feels like trying to cut down a tree by throwing toothpicks at it. Sure, I hit the target, but it doesn't do anything. One would hope it worked better in real life.

It was certainly better than the enormously optimistic standard prewar US one .50 and one .30, though.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Admiral Piett » Tue 23 Dec 2014 20:07

As for wartime designs, no major combatant's aircraft were under armed when it came to downing fighters and other single engine aircraft. The one exception being that the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service (IJAAS) seemed to be totally unconcerned about the wimpy 2x12.7mm Ho-103s on the Ki-43-II and beyond. Even the first couple versions of the Ki-61 did little to bring its firepower in line with the contemporary designs of other major nations. The worst off were the early versions of the Ki-44 since it had been specifically designed as a bomber interceptor, though what bombers were going to be easily downed by four 12.7mm Ho-103s is beyond me. They finally seemed to figure out that they needed to actually put guns on their aircraft when they designed the Ki-84 and upgraded the Ki-61s and Ki-44s they had sitting around, but it took them awhile to do so. The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) picked up on the idea that they would need more punch far quicker for some reason. Hence why all of their designs from the A6M onward had at least two 20mm Type 99s.

User avatar
FireTart
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed 20 Feb 2013 03:20
Location: Hershey Penn
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby FireTart » Wed 24 Dec 2014 07:56

When can soviet tanks into total negation of Shaped explosives?
Get on it Gaijan.

Image
Image

User avatar
trotskygrad
General
Posts: 6444
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 16:09
Location: две тысячи лет война
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby trotskygrad » Wed 24 Dec 2014 09:24

I laughed a bit too hard at that... I'm a horrible person
NEXT TIME I SEE A DAMN FLAMEWAR INVOLVING DARTH-LAMPSHADE, FROSTPOOKY, LONERIFLE, FADE2GRAY, TROTSKYGRAD AND/OR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM I'M GOING TO HAND OUT BANS TO ANYONE USING ANYTHING LOOKING REMOTELY LIKE AN AD-HOMINEM

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests