Jump to content

Ehret

Members
  • Content Count

    1370
  • Joined

Community Reputation

442 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ehret

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1004 profile views
  1. Forcing an overshoot is a valid tactic... However, it's the last resort type of thing when you are sure that you won't out-maneuver (or outrun) the enemy. It's far easier to do in a computer game because if it worked then great; if not (got hit anyway or didn't recover) then you can just re-spawn seconds later... no such "luxury" was available IRL.
  2. Ehret

    Spotting.

    I barely can see anything in few km range unless there is smoking or tracers flying. Only when very close (under 1000m or so) planes render but if the target will go further it just disappears (or look that way - the result is the same for me thought). Others have the issue too because as long I keep my plane no smoking I'm rarely getting followed at all and that's when orbiting at 10K ft over hot-spots... When I try this with trailing exhaust plumes it takes just a moment to get a six. That's at ranges in few km only. The old system had problems with the 9.5km visibility sphere and occasional bugs related to clouds. However, it was consistent but the current is anything but. I can get objects (including ships as well) just to be gone at some ranges just by changing the zoom settings... Really?! No one asked for that - only to have extended the 9.5km max visibility so there wouldn't be sudden "on/off" for contacts. Now that's is fixed but we (at least some of us) have "on/off" problem at closer ranges.
  3. "...unless you have a hun on your tail" - 15m of ADI supply for nothing in the game and historic pilots were told to not hesitate after 5m when they were fighting for live(s). Go to QMB and set the "unbreakable" flag - and the stuff start to perform only because you won't subconsciously throttle down all the time. Thanks to the 150 octane boost scaling the BOBP's P-51D has enough of time for 60-67" and that's far more beneficial than peak transient performance. You can now put a competitive fight in time domain aka as tactics. There was a chase in one match where I could stay with P-47Ds in the P-38J at SL. That's how hard people are throttling down in Thunderbolts.
  4. IMHO the Thunderbolt also can be called a heavy fighter... with one (18 cylinder double radial + all air ducks, air-air inter-cooler and turbo) engine but still big and heavy. In the game P-47D has limited use for ADI - only for 5m for straight use but carries 15m of supplies. The WEP has 2600hp in the game but +2800hp settings were also available. But most important are tactics - now with the 9.5km visibility sphere gone it should be possible to use some altitude to good effect. Staying very low without cover of other friendly fighters is ill advised. That's true even if you are driving the 150 octane Spitfire.
  5. Truism by the definition is true... jeez. And you just said it yourself - "It is not only the biglyness that matters." - yet when I provided some ideas and backed up them with something then you object. Go to and complain to the guy from the Vietnam or the WW2 pilots from videos like this. You can see strafing runs with firing times 5-6s and the "walking" I mentioned. This is at 15:38 good example of 5-6s of firing P-47 at target defended by flak. I think you were severely underestimating Allied pilots. Or this at 15:55 strafing for about 10s at targets defended by flak as well. Yes - you right - they all are no match for the P-47s as an attack plane simply because they are vulnerable in-lines. My mistake.
  6. That a higher caliber rounds provides more destructive power that is just a truism. Is 20mm bigger than 12.7mm - yes it is. It's only when you compare complete applications something more elaborate can be said. Otherwise why continue the topic at all - only to repeat such (20mm > 12.7mm) basic assertion? For the Tempest vs the Thunderbolt they are of similar size and both were used to strafe. Imho, there are no better platforms to compare actual historic real life use of 0.50" and 20mm guns than those. It seems that for in-wing mounted armament you can mount up to 4x 20mm or up to 8x 0.50" and so on. They are good match.
  7. That's exactly why because precise aimed fire is so difficult any technique which makes that easier is welcome. Just watch some P-47s gun camera footage where pilots do very long bursts using visible incendiary hits on the ground to direct fire. They can do because they have 400rpg and battery of 8 harmonized guns. Thunderbolt can expend 3200 (4000 in the N) rounds where the Tempest can only 800. If the Tempest driver would strafe the target shooting for 3s then the Jug's one can (and will) for 6s (4.5s only needed for similar destructive result as Tempest's) and use the same percentage of ammo reserves. Or the Jug will be able to strafe twice number of targets on the same sortie for the same time each. (targets don't have to be in exactly the same place strafed at the same moment so don't tell that this must result in extra exposure to AA threats). You arguments is like that a single 1500 pound bomb must be so much better than two 1000 pounders dropped at two different occasions. (The Tempest has 1.5x more raw destructive power; the Jug has twice the firing time) Maybe; maybe not - probably that's depends on the mission which every may differ. Perhaps it was missed but in this video the author talks about tests they performed in the Vietnam. The results was that HE explosion from 20mm alone couldn't disable a truck for good; even 40mm was not satisfactory (can be found in the video comments by the author). They had to mount 105mm cannon in gunships to have reliable weapon for the task.
  8. I counted only one clean shoot at the 9:40 mark in the video. The rest were partial hits or even missed. The Sabre had (as I understand) 4x 20mm rotary cannon prototypes (early M39 I think) so up to 4x 1500 cycling rate/m. Even after the 9:40 shot it's hard to assess the damage. Was it a killed truck? Now those tests were done in safe controlled environment. Add stress, AA fire and average level of marksmanship. The challenge will not be to kill the target but to land hits - any hits. That's easier with in-wing harmonized gun battery like in the Thunderbolt with big ammo reserves. Sure, the maximum damage potential per second is lower but you will have fewer total misses. You can see that in historic gun camera films - pilots were opening fire early and "walking" the burst on the ground to the target.* edit: * do you agree that such modern systems like CCIP are beneficial, right? If so then the "walking" technique serves pretty much the same purpose (but at cost of extra expended ammo which you can afford in the P-47 or P-38) as the CCIP.
  9. The fuse will explode only on contact with the target and shrapnel propagate only from here in a cone pattern so you better get the direct hit. Or increase the shell size dramatically, or use some kind of smart (dynamically timed or proximity) fuses which weren't available for WW2 fighter armament. Otherwise saturation will be necessary just as with MGs.
  10. Yes. The Apache carries the M230 30mm cannon and they often shoot longer bursts to saturate the area. Still, sometimes they need to do more passes to kill and destroy all original targets.
  11. And have the proof that it really happened.
  12. This is interesting video - specific situation but shows that 20-30mm may not work that well against trucks. They needed to be burned to be sure and indeed - machine gun rounds (small and bigger) carry incendiaries. edit: The author commented (just below the YT video) that they tried 40mm and it still didn't kill trucks reliably. The problem was finally solved with the 105mm. The author also said that thought the 20mm had HE filler the explosion/shrapnel on contact with the truck couldn't penetrate the hood or cabin - only windows broke and flattened tires. Otherwise trucks were drivable with new tires.
  13. I just realized another factor - if you are taking fire then the ammo boxes filled with (especially the thin-walled ones) HE shells become a serious liability. Just one unlucky machine gun hit into one of them may obliterate the plane completely.
  14. I just noticed something... it's not only US who employed machine guns. The I16 has quad fast firing 0.30"; the Il-2 - twin 0.30"; the Mig-3 can carry four 13mm MGs; LaGG, Yaks, the Zero with paltry 60 rpg for the 20mm so pilots had to depend on the 0.303s all the time. Many LW's twin engine planes had rifle caliber equip turrets when US bomber carried 0.50" by default. So what is the argument, again? The US planes weren't generally out-gunned by the opposition. And if they were they had other things going for them. There were more important things to worry about. Like effective intelligence services - an example - the double cross system which allowed British to easily fool Germans (you had to use spies to correct fire) into undershooting with the V1/V2. And it goes on and on. Who was "wise differently" and wrong, then?
  15. Allies thought (and Western is still) in terms of force-multipliers. They aren't as flashy or visible as "super-weapons" but they are far more powerful because they make the time to work in your favor. The Liberty ships weren't alone - they benefited from the cavitron which allowed smaller ASW ships and planes to carry effective radars. The Sherman tanks benefited by small "things" like herring-gears, stabilizer, wide choice of reliable engines and standardization of parts. If you would remove the 20mm cannon from the P-38 the combat results wouldn't change much if at all. Remove turbos and counter-rotating props and you would end with a lemon like British did.
×
×
  • Create New...