One reason .30 (and .50) MGs are too effective

[el cid again]

Another part of my device file review examined the .30 caliber MGs - of which there are many variations. Now this was particularly in the context of AAA weapons - including altitude and range - but I extended it to include weapons on fighter planes when I became aware of the data in the fields. The amazing data is this: WITP rates .30 mgs as effective at 3,000 yards - with an even higher ceiling - except a couple of cases rated at 2,000 yards (apparently to penalize certain nations).

Now to begin at the end, ALL mgs used by aircraft have effective ranges in the 400-900 yard range - including even .50s. 600 yards is the maximum effective range of a .30 mg on a fighter plane. In ground combat, while rare exceptional circumstances may occur, typical engagement ranges are 300 yards and less. [Enough so that the model should be built on the assumption that more range is meaningless: it covers well over 90% of engagements, and possibly more than 99%]. In the AAA role the AAA sights were generally effective to 1,000 yards. Since the game system does not allow for anything but multiples of 1,000 yards, clearly the range rating for these guns should be 1 - not 3.

Putting this in context of medium AAA, the game rating for a 40mm Bofors should be 4 - because at that range the ammunition self destructed. Clearly 20mm Orlikon guns are effective at greater ranges than MGs are, but less than 40 mm - so they should be rated at 2. Similarly, the meaningful ceiling for a 40mm is 12,000 feet (4,000 yards times 3 feet per yard) - and for a 20 mm 6,000 feet (2,000 yards times 3 feet per yard). The data in the fields is vastly greater than this for both range and ceilings. Similar comments can be made for similar weapons in aircraft. When ranges should be on the order of 1,000 yards, they are rated at many. The idea that "tampering with the device file" greatly reduces the killing power of fighters makes sense. But the complaint it is wrong appears misplaced: the weapons ranges are far too great - even if the firepower is perfect. It may be that prooving ground ranges are much greater - but real world battlefield ranges are not. Today gun systems in aircraft are about 100% more effective than they were in WWII. In that era before compensating gunsights and very high rates of fire, when the pilot (or gunner) had to do it all in his head, it was a fine weapon that was effective at 900 yards - a real improvement over the 600 yards of the MG caliber weapons.

[Daniel Oskar]

I agree range should be limited on wing mounted aircraft MGs to whatever distance these weapons are rigged to converge. As for ground based AAMG, the venerable M2 .50 cal has a tracer burnout of around 1800m, and as a result would have some effectiveness out to that distance. I would suggest that a source be found for the tracer burnout distance for the weapons in question, and effective range be adjusted to that distance. Without sophisticated fire control, it is unlikely a man equipped with the mk1 eyeball will hit a moving aircraft without seeing where his rounds are going. My 2 cents.

[jwilkerson]

And for one case, the US 40mm - some ( not all ) of the rounds ( the newer ones introduced towards the end of the war ) had tracer burn out ( which triggered self destruction of those rounds ) at 3 seconds which for 2870 f/s muzzle velocity translates ( rounding down ) to a "2" range in game terms ... the earlier round ( the MkII QF ) did not have the self-destruct capability and hence had a theoretical ( verticle ) range of "7" ... so .. we could have 2 devices ... and have the weapon "upgrade" to a range "2" version from the range "7" version in about early 1944 [;)][:D]

[el cid again]

More details on 40mm:

Interesting ... actually the self-destruct mechanism is not in the fuse, it is in the base of the shell ( and this is true for many similar rounds for both the 37mm AA and 40mm AA guns .. though not all rounds have the self-destructing feature ).

I'm looking at the

40mm Automatic Gun M1 on carriage M2 -- Standard
firing the
Shell, H.E. -T (SD., M3), 40mm, MK. II -- Standard
and using either the
P.D. Fuze, M71
or the
P.D. Fuze, Mk. 27 ( Navy )


The M3 shell uses a slightly more advanced version of tracer composition ( called M3 in this case ) which is simplier than the Composition No.12 system used on other similar shells. Anyway burn time for the tracer compound is 3 seconds, so with a muzzle velocity of 2,870 f/s a flight time of 3 seconds would be 9,000 - 390 or 8,610 feet less the effects of gravity ... or converting to yards this would be 2,870 yards ... again less the effects of gravity ... so actually I'd take the range down to 2,000 yards if it was me !

BTW the intended detonation mechanism, which is contained within the fuse, is P.D. = Point Detonation .. a.k.a. hit the target. So if you hit the target, the fuse detonates the round, if not the tracer composition burns out after 3 seconds and then it detonates the round before it falls back to earth.

Joe

[el cid again]

I would suggest that a source be found for the tracer burnout distance for the weapons in question, and effective range be adjusted to that distance.

Tracer burn out data is available. It is routinely listed with the ammunition types for each MG. However, it appears the effective AA sights - at least for .30 cal - were limited to 1,000 yards. It does appear, however, that the .50 was more highly regarded for AAA use. And I note that as late as 1982 the British were using everything - even automatic rifles - in the Falklands. So while the range is limited, it is not zero.

[Sardaukar]

I tested reducing aircraft weapon ranges to half. It had no effect on air combat or kills.

[jwilkerson]

Oh well, then I wonder if the range means anything for aircraft weapons ?

[Nikademus]

attacks at longer ranges are less likely to destroy a target plane vs. damage it.