Aircraft Weapons, their Pro Allied slant in WiTP

[Brady]

Aircraft weapons designe and aplication in WW2 followed two diferent but equiley efective schools of thought. One focused on the idea of killing what was in the plane, the piolet or the engine. The Other was intent on Killing the plane.

1) Killing whats in the Plane: To acheave this weapons like the US .50 cal were employed largely just by Allied forces who were equpied with US equipment, and those equpied with the 20 mm Hispano. These weapons were large and Heavy and their ammo was heavy. They were efective killing tools, though as the war progreased most Enemy Aircraft including the Japanese had Armor in vital areas that was capable of defeating the .50 cal. These weapons fired High velocity rounds whose ammo chanin compasation was largely AP, the intent was to blugen their way into the aircraft and Kill the engine and the piolet.

2) Killing the plane. Prety much every other combantant in WW2, Japan, Germay, Russia, Italy, adopted this method, which focused on firing Largely HEI rounds at reasionable velocitys, optimised for efecive shoting ranges in the 400 meter range or lower. Studies indicated that prety much all combat took place withen this range*. So waht we see in the wepaons field by these countries are for the most part Light compact and very efficient weapons with High rates of fire, and whos ammo chain compasation was largely HEI in compasation, Japanese Ammo chanis were 4 HEI 1 APT in make up, German chains Varied but tended to have more AP rouinds depending on the gun, MK 103's were prety much all HEI, MG 151 tended to fire more of a mix. Italian Guns tended to be the worst preforming of the lot, while Some Russian Guns possed stagering ROF's. These weapons and their ammo were largely talyored at defeating the plane, that is blowing it apart.

Some Quotes from Tony Williams excelent book, Flying Guns WW II, ISBN 1 84037 227 3:


p.149:

"Overall the USN and the USAAF stand out for their adhearance to the .50 cal, even when the airforces of all other nations adopted 20mm or even 30mm cannon as aramament, at least for fighter aircraft. This has led some to conclude that if the USAAF and the USN prefered the .50 browning, this must of been the best weapon available, better than the 20mm cannon. This view has resulted in claims of extreamly high preformance for this weapon, somtimes far beyond the reasionable. It was also common to underestimate the preformance of other nations weapons."

"(ref 50 cal), it's high MV and gave it a long effective range, good armor penatration, and excelent accuracery, but a penatility was paid in the form of relaively high weight and barrel wear and a modest rate of fire. In 1940 modifications were made to increase the RoF from 400-600 rpm to 750-800, but this remained run of the mill by wartime standards: rates of fire for HMGs varied between 700 and 1,050 rpm"

"Even at 800 rpm barrel wear was a sevear problem, piolets and gunners were instructed to fire short bursts...a gun could fire a burst of 75 rounds without damage, but after that a gun was restricted to 25 round bursts....this problem was not solved untill January 44"

"The US Navy concluded that a single 20mm Hispano was the equilvent to three .50 guns, the 20mm also had better Armor penatration and did not suffer so much from over heating"

"At the end of the war some German and Japanese aircraft carried armor that was fairely effective aganst the 12.7mm projectiles. In some aircraft the USN and the USAAF did use the 20mm Hispano AN-M2, but although crews appricated the greater destructive power of the larger gun, they complained about it's reliabality."



* This is whear the Weight of the US .50 cal weapons becomes a mark aganst then, while efecive and capable of firing to ranges acuraterly well beyond 400, it was largely usless, since as noted above and readly refrenced, combat just realy dident hapen at longer ranges.

So as we can see from above when considering the the 50 call Browing as a n aircraft weapon when compared to it's contempoarys, it is very heavy by comparasion, a very undersiable carasteric in a aircraft gun, it has what at the time would be considered a lower RoF for when compared to it's contempoarys, and it was operating under sever firing restrictions for a big part of the war, and then later in the war had it's effectiveness decreased by the aplication of better armor on enemy planes designed to defeat it. The single bigest reasion it was used to the extent it was had more to do with this:


"The real advatages of the .50 were in it's great reliabality and it's standaradisation....the use of a single type of gun greatly eased suply and traing problems..."

Than it realy being a great aircraft weapon, their are many other WW2 aircraft weapons that would be considered "better" over all.

After WW2 in Korea for example, US planes9with 50 call guns) were commonly considered underguned when compared to Soviet fighters.

"When the USA entered the war it had fallen behind in the development of arament for combat aircraft, because very limited resources had been available between the wars, it already had howeaver a very good heavy machine gun in the Browing .50 cal M2,....The intruduction of more powerfull or more modern weapons remained limited to a relatively small number of aircraft..."

Now some Quotes detaling the efect's of HE and HEI type ammo:

p. 40 Flying Guns:

"The Luftwaffe discovered that AP amunation was not ushually as effective as HE, partialy because the armored parts of an aircraft were small and not often hit, partly because of eratic of the eratic preformance of AP described in the nexct section. It was discovered that to be more productive to maximise the HEI content to inflict balst damage on the aircrafts structure......Starting in the late 1930's Germany developed the minegeschloss."

" The German aproach represented a compleatly different philosophy from that of the USAAF. Instead of using the kinetic engery of large numbers of high velocity AP Bullets to destroy the target, the luftwaffe relied on blast effect of large quantities of HE detonating withen the structure. Both aproaches seemed to work well"

" The 30mm HEI M-Geschoss, fired from a MK 108, was tested on a Spitfire fusalage, of 10 rounds fired 3 resulted in a score of imeadately lethal, seven probably lethal"

" The Germans discovered that a wing hit on a B-17 resulted in a whole 100 x 175 cm. It was noted that the ammunation did not have much effect on heavy bomber fuslages (presumably becuase of the larger volume for the explosion to disapate into), but inflicted serious aerodynamic damage to the wings by blowing off the surfaces, and that the incendary content was very effective in starting fires."

"German tests reflected these results, and also reveiled signafagant diferances in the efect of mine shels on depending on the construction of the aircraft. Stresedskin aloy monocore structures were the most vulnerable to being blow apart. Steal structures clad with thin aluminium were less affected as the cladding quickly split, relessing preshure before it had much time to damage the structure, and fabric covered structures, such as the wellington bomber, were damaged least of all. It was not only the blast which inflicted the damage; after the war the Americans test fired a MK 108 shel into the tail of a B-24 at a typical angle, caracteristic of a tail interception by a 262. The Spray patern of very heigh velocity, very small fraements, cut most most if not all of the controle cables and many longerons. It was assesed that the tail would have seperated if the plane had been in flight."

" Japanese cannon projectiles varried between the heavy (IJN 20mm Type 99 projectiles weighed around 128 g, the IJA's Ho-1 and Ho-3 up to around 127-136 g) to the very light (IJA 20mm Ho-5 as little as 79 g). AP Projectiles were cannon type ( i.e. solid steal) rather than using subcaliber cores. HE shels generaly had a modest filling ratio, although the little 79 g Ma 202 HEI used in the Ho-5 managed an impresive- for a non M-Geschoss- fifteen percent charge weight ratio."

"The actual preformance of AP projectiles in battle can vary considerably from that acheaved on test. In particular, passing through the thin aluminum aircraft skin can induce yaw, i.e. disturb the streight flight of the projectile away from traveling point to first, so that it fails to hit the armor head on, theryby significantly reducing it's penetrative abailitys. In fact the degrees of obstruction caused by aircraft structures is such that armor much thiner than therory indicated nescessary was often found to give satasifactory results."

The weight and the HEI content of Japanese Type 99 (MK I and II used the same projectile) resulted in a letality comperable with that of the Hispano.

.................

Ok SO whats all this about anyway? Well....

When you look at the data base for WiTP and start to compare how the Guns are rated in the game you will see some Interesting figures like:

Device # 161-0.5in Browning MG:

Range 4
Penatration 2
Accuracery 29
Efect 3

Device # 168-20mm Hispano Cannon

Range 5
Penatration 3
Accuracery 26
Efect 4

...........

Device # 191 20mm Ho-5

Range 5
Accuracy 28
Effect 4
Penatration 3

Device # 188 20mm Type 99 Cannon

Range 5
Accuracery 22
Efect 4
Penatration 3

Device # 189 20 mm Type 99 MK II

Range 5
Accuracery 23
Efect 4
Penatration 3


..............

The Big Problem here* is the relative values of the Weapons, The Cannos are only slightly more efective than the .50 cal, they should be at least twice as efective, acording to Tony the Hispano and the Type 99 should be Three times as efective, presonaly I feal the Ho-5 should be twice as efectve not Three thimes as a .50 cal. in game terms. This is why their is a pro allied slant, not that I for a sec. beelave it is intentional but the end result is the same as if it were.

As noted on another thread, the Second Bigest determiner in A to A resulation is the Gun Values of the planes, while Japanese Planes should be as efective if not more in terms of lethality (depening on plane type and gun package) they are on average 30 to 50% less lethal than they should be vs their aponets.





* or is it hear Mogami?[:)]


..............

O- The Type (( MK II should be a tad more acurate, their should be a bigher distinction between the MK and the II, Say a 24 for the MK II, accuracery wise.

[wild_Willie2]

I agree.....

[rtrapasso]

Opinions on the US 50 cal vary wildly. There were WW2 pilots and gunners who swore the .50 cal was SUPERIOR to the 20 mm cannon. Now, i don't happen to believe that, but it will show you how different people hold to vastly different opinions.

The .50 cal did not have to try to defeat heavy armor for most of the war in the Pacific, so arguments as to penetration of the .50 cal vs. 20 mm. are not persuasive. Yes, if the US had to attack targets built as heavily as the B-17, etc., they probably would have been better off with the 20 mm. - however, they were shooting at Zeros, Nates, Oscars, Bettys, etc. for the most part where the .50 cal worked just fine.

[metto_x]

According to my experience in flight simulators, there's one positive thing about the .50 cal. over cannons that was not mentioned: recoil. When shooting at fast moving targets it's often hard to hit with the first projectiles, thus you spray a bit more and "walk your fire" into the enemy plane. If you fire low-recoil rounds like the .50 cal., this is easy, but with multiple 20mm and especially with 30mm guns you have to readjust your sights if the first round doesn't kill, which often means that the enemy can escape your sights.

[rtrapasso]

The higher rate of fire with the .50 would also help in this respect (adjusting your aim).

[Brady]

rtrapasso-

I am not trying to dispute the fact that the US.50 cal was good at what it did, rather that in the Game the 20mm Hispanos and Japanse 20mm's (and I supose russian though I did not look at them) should be far more efective than they are.

Openions are like a.. Holes everybody has them, right?, All you nead do is the math to see the diferances, and Tonys Quots above clearly show what doing the math will prove out.

"The higher rate of fire with the .50 "

So using this logic the Ho-5 should be the most accurate wepaon listed above? Depending on the Model of .50 Cal the Ho-5 had the same rof or Higher.

The Ho-103 also had a Higher ROF than the US 50 cal.

See this link:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-pe.html

[rtrapasso]

So using this logic the Ho-5 should be the most accurate wepaon listed above? Depending on the Model of .50 Cal the Ho-5 had the same rof or Higher.

The ROF is not the SOLE determinant of accuracy - as noted above the recoil is going to effect things too, as does the muzzle velocity, shell ballistics, barrel stiffness, flight characteristics of the airplane (including weight, how the guns are mounted), etc., etc., etc. I mention ROF because if there was say 0.5 seconds between rounds (as might be expected with some of the heavier cannons such as the Ho-203 from the link you gave), it is going to be harder to figure where the next shell is going to go as opposed to up weapon that is putting out 5 rounds per second. Making corrections in deflection shots might be easier with a faster firing weapon.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Brady

rtrapasso-

Openions are like a.. Holes everybody has them, right?,

True enough![:D] However, these were opinions given by people who used the weapons, so some weight should be given to them. These opinions were based on real-life experience, not from what SHOULD be based on results from a test range comparison.

As for the numbers, it seems to me that these are things worked out on a test range. As for the Navy BuOrd saying that one gun was three times more effective than another based on test range results, well, these were the same folks that claimed that the Mk 14 was a terrific torpedo in 1941 - based on test range results. We know how well that worked out.

[Brady]

rtrapasso-

As you point out their are many variables, to consider for determing accuracery, which is not rely a focuse of the topic at hand, that being the respective lethality of MG and Cannons and it's efect on the A to A resulations of the basic WiTP game.

If your point is that because it would be easer for a Higher rof weapon to acheave a hit, because the piolet could spay and pray like some tard in a flight sim who couldent shoot to save his life...

I would say that, the opertunity to fire and hit in A to A comabt was limited at best and all aircraft had a suficient chance of obtaining a hit with their guns and their respective tactis and traing optimised what would be best for their planes. It should be noted that for about half the war US piolets were restriced in the duration of the burst they fired from the 50's because of reliabality isues, short bursts only was the rule of the day, this was not enirely resolved untill near wars end.

"hese were opinions given by people who used the weapons, so some weight should be given to them"

Actualy the last person I would trust when it came to giving me a relable assesment of Aircraft, weapons or tuna fish is the guy responsable for it, or who flew, or made it. I have read so many absurd things writen and said by vet's relative to their Planes or guns that it is comical, I think my favorate is the guy on a documentary that said he used his .50 cals to kill German tanks by bouncing the rounds off the road under them in to the hull armor under the tank! I do think they warent listing to but It neads to be taken with a grain of salt.

"As for the numbers, it seems to me that these are things worked out on a test range. As for the Navy BuOrd saying that one gun was three times more effective than another based on test range results, well, these were the same folks that claimed that the Mk 14 was a terrific torpedo in 1941 - based on test range results. We know how well that worked out"

Tonys Book and the sight(which is his) are well referanced,, and many countries including the US drew the same conclushions.

[witpqs]

Brady,

Your sources assert that the .50 cal has a longer effective range than the 20mm or 30mm, but the WiTP values you cite give it a shorter effective range.

I feel compelled to point out that a higher rate of fire will almost certainly yield more hits, even in shorts bursts, without spray and pray. Whether the greater number of hits is more effective than the alternative you are arguing for is a different matter, but categorizing it as 'spray and pray' is just dismissing a valid point. I'm sure some spray and pray happened, but it isn't the point of the comparison.

[Big B]

The Browning HBM2 had a considerably farther range and flater trajectory that the 20mm guns in use by other aircraft during WWII (and a much higher ROF).
When I was in the service I saw .50 rounds cleanly penatrate the side armor of M108 and M109 Self Propelled Guns.
I would disagree with you therefore about the .50 being overrated and the 20 & 30 mills being underrated. In contrast, the stories of FW190s blazing away at P-47s - AND FAILING to destroy them are numerous. So I don't see aircraft cannon being underrated in WitP.
Don't forget that the average ROF of an American aircraft with the usual 6x.50s would be 4,800 rds per minute, or 80 rds per second! That is so much higher than any pair of contemporary 20mm cannons as to make the probability of achieving hits much greater, and having many times more multiple hits.

The only thing that IS out of whack is that the Browning .50 has been shorted on range in comparison with 20s and 30s..

My opinion - and yes I know - everybody's got one!

B

[Mike Scholl]

The problem with Brady's intiial arguement is the old "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" story. They can be massaged in almost any direction you care to go. Brady raises some legitimate points, but also ignores that the games ratings for Japanese aircraft durability are rather inflated in relation to Allied ones as well. All of these factors are interrelated, and the program has to produce reasonably historic results no matter how the numbers and ratings are fed in.
This one falls down in this area in several ways, producing some very ahistoric results at times. Fixing these problems is going to call for more than some statistics of guns and cannons. It really needs to start with an accurate analysis of the historical air-to-air combat results.

[Brady]

witpqs-

"Your sources assert that the .50 cal has a longer effective range than the 20mm or 30mm, but the WiTP values you cite give it a shorter effective range"

The .50 cal certainly has a longer range than many wepaons of it's day, some exceptions existed, one being the 20 mm Hispano, but this longer range is a mute point, since prety much all air to air combat
took place under the 400 mark. WiTP does apear to give many wepaons questionable ranges, since I am not entirely clear as to what these ranges mean in game vs real world terms I avoided comenteing to them directly, and since they to may nead adreasing I also wanted to keep maters simple by saving this for later.

"but categorizing it as 'spray and pray' is just dismissing a valid point"

This was directed more toward the comment above( that refered to Flight sims), but you do rase another interesting point here, that is the less efective in terms of lethality .50 cal would nead more time on target to efect the desired result than the comparably far more leathal 20 mm's would. In the examples above you have a Japanese 20 mm with the smae rof as the US .50 cal, and you have twice the lethality, so you can easly see how one H0-5 is worth two .50 cal's.

..........

Big B-

"The Browning M2HB had a considerably farther range and flater trajectory that the 20mm guns in use by other aircraft during WWII (and a much higher ROF). "

Bud, Not true,you nead to look at the referance I listed above, here it is again for you:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-pe.html

Also ammo changed since WW2 and the angles and ranges you were experancing were optimal for the time and ammo.

You are intitled to your openion and do respect that, but your wrong, at least acording to my referance source who hapens to be one of the formost experts in this field.

............

Mike Scholl-

I havent looked at Japanese aircraft ratings since the game came out but from I recall some neaed to be uped because types that Historicaly had armor dident get it in game, but I belave this was changed.

I am sighing clearly a referance, who is as objective as anyone could ask for in this regard.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Brady



Big B-

"The Browning M2HB had a considerably farther range and flater trajectory that the 20mm guns in use by other aircraft during WWII (and a much higher ROF). "

Bud, Not true,you nead to look at the referance I listed above, here it is again for you:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-pe.html

Also ammo changed since WW2 and the angles and ranges you were experancing were optimal for the time and ammo.

You are intitled to your openion and do respect that, but your wrong, at least acording to my referance source who hapens to be one of the formost experts in this field.

............

Brady,
The only Japanese 20mm gun that is in the class of a Browning .50 as far as ROF goes is the Army Ho-5 (Type 2) gun with it's 750-850 rpm-rof, all the rest are only half the rof of a browning .50.
What I said was that no pair of 20mm's would come close to the ROF of a typical American fighter plane with 6x.50s (at least 4800 rds per min/ 80 rds per second).

All the rest of the 20mm guns listed are typicaly in the 400 rds per minute catagory, and they have mostly considerably lower muzzle velocities (according to the page you referanced)
Since most WWII fighters only carried a pair of 20mms - That is why I said their chance of hits/multiple hits would be so much lower than a typical American fighter with 6x.50s.

B

By the way - do you figure there is any chance of actually getting something like this CHANGED in WitP? I kind of thought after all this time that these posts are nice for conversation but have ZERO chance getting the game changed (unless we are talking about bugs).

[ChezDaJez]

<snip> while Japanese Planes should be as efective if not more in terms of lethality (depening on plane type and gun package) they are on average 30 to 50% less lethal than they should be vs their aponets

Oh, I can hear the Allied fanboys now!

I would agree that cannons of all nations tend to underrated in WitP, particularly the Type 99. It's accuracy is already penalized, probably because of the differences of its ballistics when paired with the 7.7mm mg. I don't know enough about the differences in shell construction between the Hispano 20mm and the Type 99 20mm to know which should be rated higher for effect.

The effect of a single 20mm hit is far greater than a .50cal hit. I would think the effect rate should be roughly 50% greater than represented in the game.

Hey, something we agree on!!![:D]

Chez

[Brady]

"The only Japanese 20mm gun that is in the class of a Browning .50 as far as ROF goes is the Army Ho-5 (Type 2) gun with it's 750-850 rpm-rof, all the rest are only half the rof of a browning .50.
What I said was that no pair of 20mm's would come close to the ROF of a typical American fighter plane with 6x.50s (at least 4800 rds per min/ 80 rds per second)."

The only other two worth considering (Japanese Aircraft Cannons) are the Type 99's, they may have half the rof, but they fire much more potent rounds, their lethality is on a par with the Hispano rounds, the Ho-5 fires smaller rounds.
The standard Japanese army Fighter gun package was two Ho-5's and Two Ho-103's, all 4 of these guns are equil to or grater than the .50 cal in terms of ROF and the Cannon rounds are easly twice as deadly. So while they dont match the standard 6 pack of .50 cals in total rof, they dont have to. Thier rounds being more lethal means they dont nead to spend as much time putting rounds into the target to get the same efect.
The Type 99's being far more deadly nead even fewer hits to acheave the same result.

With weapons that fired HE/ HEI rounds as their primary ammo type, and not relying on penatration to acheave a kill MV is not a big deal, their trajectorys were stable out to 400, as they were designed to be, use beyond that range was deamed pointless, and after that range they begane to falter in the acuracery departent, so the Added MV was not neaded when compared to the US .50 cal.

I wouldbe nice if it could be changed for the beterment of the stock game, but honestly I doubt they will. Their are a few things I would realy like to see changed, that the players cant change since their hard coded,but that is another topic.

[Sharkosaurus rex]

How many extra planes do you think the Japs would have shot down if they used the exact copy of the US .50cal? I don't think it would have helped them at all to use 6x.50cal on their planes. The six mg suite would not have coped with the difficulty/heavy armour of US 4EB. They would have struggled against the B25 and B26 as well, 6x.50cal could have coped with some of the lighter British medium bombers.

The US were able to use the .50cal on their planes because they faced easier prey. In Europe the German bombers had mostly been dealt with by the RAF and the USAAF as used as escorts almost exclusively. And German bombers crossing the coast would have been handled by the RAF- Spits with 2 cannon 2mg. The Americans in the PAcific had only deal, in the main,with Jap bombers that were much easier. But if the Axis tried to use .50cals they wouldn't have been able to destroy many of the bombers.

Though the US used the .50cal in a-2-a it might not continued in exclusive use if a trouble free 20mm cannon had available to them. But the US had used weapons because of their maintaince or standardisation benefits or geared up factories that US generals and businessmen didn't want to re-tool to something better because of delays in production. (Look at Sherman tank... the US made many thousands knowing they were not up to on paper specs to their German foes.) Clues that the .50cal wasn't necessary the best a-2-a weapon. Wildcats had to be upgraded to 6x.50cal. P47s used 8xmg because they might have needed to be used against German bombers. (But as it turned out they didn't). P38s were issued a 20mm cannon because they were expeced in intercept bombers too. The British used the P40 only in Africa were there was not much chance to encounter German bombers, but the Spitfires in the UK were German bombers.

I'm sure that if the USAAF encountered tougher bombers and they had ready access to a reliable 20mm they would have used it. But they weren't forced to change their armament as their opposition were weakly defended with inadequate armour and weak 7.7 (7.79mm) mg. (How would a 6x.50cal suite shoot down a Stumovick?) Later in the war the US had large enough air superiority they could have shot down all the Jap planes with only 2x.50cal.

[witpqs]

Brady, 'time on target' needed has more factors than you are allowing for as others have pointed out. Those certainly include lethality, ROF, accuracy (of the weapon), accuracy afforded by the gun platform, # of weapons firing, and possibly others.

As Sharkosaurus Rex points out (basically) 'what is your target?' If US fighters were going after the equivalent of B-29's, a different set of tools would be needed.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Brady


....

I wouldbe nice if it could be changed for the beterment of the stock game, but honestly I doubt they will. Their are a few things I would realy like to see changed, that the players cant change since their hard coded,but that is another topic.

Well, I agree with you - though we may disagree with THIS particular topic - I think we are both fans of the same thing - REALISM as defined by physics or HARD DATA.

In my life I have seen and experienced many things that realivetly few people have ...

Going over the side of an AP, down an old fashioned cargo net into a waiting LCP in the early morning swell of the Pacific off San Clemente Island, and circling for two hours while waiting to make a run in for a beach assault (and watching the guys in my platoon getting sea-sick). Then being filmed by California News KTLA 5 comming off that LCP and dissapearing under the sea as I misstepped off the ramp and went to the bottom over my head in the surf, then struggling to the beach (and glad no-one was really shooting at me!).

Been on the bridge of the Destroyer Fletcher DD992, while doing flank speed manuvers and doing what everyone else was doing at the time - holding on to some life line strung through the overhead because she healed over so much no-one could stay on their feet. Then wathcher her live fire her Phalanx 20mm, and 5"L54 at sea.

Seen snow covered fields (4-6" deep with powder) catch fire and burn like wild fire when we were shooting our company's M-60 MGs at -35degs below zero - never thought a snow covered field could burn.

Watched .308 tracer striking vehicles 700 meters away, heard them hit like a mad sledgehammer - then dissapear into the clouds and every direction imaginable (and very happy not to be on the receiving end!).

Just to name a few...

I've been able to experiance more than the average Joe...and I share with you the desire to see things changed to fit what we believe they should be, what comon sense tells us is right, but I'm not holding my breath anymore.

Cheers Mate![:)]

[Brady]

witpqs- I am not trying to argure over whearther or not the US. 50 cal was a good choice for the US or not, or wheater it was a good weapon. I am mearly pointing out that in WiTP the .50cal is to close to the 20 mm Aircraft cannons in terms of lethality. In fact the diferances are minamal, and they should not be. Unfortunatly the game does not acount for things like:

Gun Placement: All Gun types are represented equily, that is alowances are not made afik for wing engine or cowl mountings, so planes with ming mounted guns dont suffer from accuracery isues compared to Cowl mounted weapons that were common on many planes.

Reliabality-Some weapons like the Hispano in US service were notiriously unreliable this is not factored in either.

What this real boils down to I think in the end for many is this, a qoute from Tony Williams book above:

"Overall the USN and the USAAF stand out for their adhearance to the .50 cal, even when the airforces of all other nations adopted 20mm or even 30mm cannon as aramament, at least for fighter aircraft. This has led some to conclude that if the USAAF and the USN prefered the .50 browning, this must of been the best weapon available, better than the 20mm cannon. This view has resulted in claims of extreamly high preformance for this weapon, somtimes far beyond the reasionable. It was also common to underestimate the preformance of other nations weapons."


.......................

Big B, Thanks[:)]