Matrix Games Forums

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-Wa ... 72392.html

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.

A reduction in weight is one objective they were pursuing.

[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.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

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.