Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2447 Excellent

1 Follower

About unreasonable

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2063 profile views
  1. Light AA is less dangerous than it used to be after the changes in a recent update 4.001: 73. Simple ground vehicles have realistic gun aiming speeds;75. Simple AI tanks and guns have a delay between initial aiming and opening fire and between destroying a target and engaging another; I have tested it quite a bit and even on normal AI the results are now plausible. You should have no problems on low. 20mm LAA is the most survivable: it gets the most hits but it is usually possible to RTB after one hit. The 37mm LAA get fewer hits, but more kills. They also produce airbursts, which the 20mm does not do. We do not have a 40mm Bofors or an allied 20mm AA gun yet, so if you are doing a campaign for the Germans you could use the 61-K for the Allies: it is the closest in performance to the Bofors, though not quite as good, but I doubt it makes much difference, as being hit in a fighter by the 61-K is fairly hard to survive. Alternately or in addition you could use the German 20mm Flak 38: the Allies still had 20mm LAA in their inventory, but by the period of the BoBP map the Bofors was the primary weapon for both UK and US LAA units. Since the UK and US both used bofors variants as their main LAA gun in defence of airfields it is a bit strange that this was not included in the BoBP release, but I assume that it will make it's way into BoN. Better late than never.
  2. Where did you get that? It is not true and seriously misleading. From "Tigers in Combat" by Schneider: Bt 101: 1st June 44 In training near Amiens 37 operational out of 45 on hand. So that gives a fairly standard serviceability rate for when not moving fast or in combat of ~80% It only takes a loose connection in the radio set for a tank to be non-operational for the day. By 12th June the 1 and 2 companies have reached assembly area in Normandy, with 8 and 6 Tigers operational respectively: 8+6 = 14 / 26 = 54% - so that is an indication of serviceability after long approach march on tracks (from Paris). Two other Tiger Battalions were attached to the German forces facing the British/Canadian sector in Normandy arriving a little later. They were in action in that sector almost constantly and heavily involved in all of the major actions.
  3. I am sure that the total number of shells that hit would be closer to the straight line: P-38s were taking multiple hits much more often, not only from different bursts but from the same burst. In my old P-47 tests looking at individual aircraft the hits per burst that hit looked like this: I am sure that if I could do the same for a range of planes we would see a strong size effect. But my old plane at a time test no longer works with the new nerfed gunner AI, (which is a relief )
  4. Having run the mission 20 times to get a reasonable average for the G-4 here is the updated comparison: The % of planes hit is very close as you would expect. Double the samples and I would expect these to converge a bit more. Doing a G-4 to K-4 pixel comparison the G-4 is about 1.5% smaller on my chosen angle: slightly larger tail and prop vs no tail wheel. Given our margin of error and uncertainty about how prop hits are modeled, the same size. Hard to say if the difference in the Downed figure is significant: on it's own perhaps not, but I do think the damage differences are real. Finally, because I know JtD loves graphs here is the revised hit/size graph with a power fit regression and an arbitrary straight line.
  5. I do not have that one but if it is the same format as the Camel manual I have from the same line of books, it is less of a spoof and more of a disappointment. They are not really owners' manuals at all but a fairly typical plane survey with lots of pictures, most of which I have seen elsewhere, with fairly general text about origins, use and variants. Almost no technical detail. If that does not apply to the WW2 birds I would be happy to be corrected, since as things stand I will not be buying any more of that series.
  6. No problem - we have all done it, or not read the thread before replying. The G-4 was used in my tests from about 3.007, so before the K-4 was released, the later tests for this post were specifically a BoBP set comparison. After posting the comparison, I thought it would be worth checking the G-4 in 4.002 Not enough rounds yet to have reasonably stable averages, but the planes hit percent is very close to that of the K-4 so far. The damage is a little different, with G-4s more less likely to survive a hit with only Light damage, so slightly higher Downed and Lost (due to fuel leaks). This could just be chance: I will post the results when I have completed my sample. The K-4 was significantly heavier, but I am not an expert on 109 types: if anyone is, is the K-4 known to be structurally stronger, or in particular have better fuel tank protection?
  7. Honestly, this is all nonsense. You went to great lengths to avoid the point and you are still doing it. The logistics argument is a complete red herring, I cannot believe that you are persisting with this. The US introduced any number of alterations to their weapon systems, and entirely new weapon systems, during WW2. If the RAF could manage it with an equally wide global deployment and far fewer resources, it would not have been at all a problem for the US. The fact is that they wanted to do this, because, the Hispano was not just good "on paper" - it was good "in practice", in RAF fighter aeroplanes. The RAF could have chosen to use the 50 cal exclusively on it's later marks: it chose not to because the Hispano was objectively better when manufactured properly. The US understood this and tried to manufacture it for widespread use: and failed. It would have been good in practice in US fighters too if they had not made a mess of it. It is the attitude that refuses to listen to people who have already got a working gun and insist that their own version should be produced to lower specifications that I referred to as NIH. But if you will not be convinced by a USMC officer who was closely involved in WW2 weapons procurement issues, you obviously will not be convinced by me. But to cap it all you are attributing to me quotes made by someone else. Please correct and desist. Thank you.
  8. I fairly sure the flak will target a particular plane, starting with the first one that comes into it's "Attack Area - Air" command, which is a cylinder, so fighters could enter it first even if they are actually further away in a straight line from the guns. It will then stick to firing at that plane until it is out of range or shot down, then look for the next target. If the escorts were at some point ahead of the bombers, as they often are in career flying their racetrack pattern, then they could trigger the flak first which could still be firing at the escorts when the bombers are overhead. I could be wrong about that mechanism, but I have seen flak target the bombers, scoring hits, while on escort missions in career. It would be better if the flak could give priority to bombers, I agree. What was not right was the old style laser guided flak, even on low AI settings. You may find it immersive to have lots of flak bursting very near, but if it is you are likely to be hit. Careers are unplayable if probability of death or capture per sortie gets ridiculously high. If you want more close bursts set your SP mission flak to "High" and lobby your favourite server to do the same. I do agree that a box barrage option would be good: instead of the guns tracking individual targets they would fire as fast as possible into a defined area as long as any enemy was in it. LAA guns currently stay facing in the direction of their last target after it has moved out of range: I would rather they reverted to their original heading: think of it as a priority arc. Flak has improved greatly in plausibility over the last year or two but there is still more that could be done.
  9. That is what happens when you drive a Ford Consul. Maybe get out more, a little less gaming and YouTubing?
  10. Read Chinn's book, or at least the relevant chapter. His take on it is that the rational choice was to switch from 50 cals to 20mm cannon. The US tried to do that before and during WW2 and mostly failed, for reasons to do with their own procurement system, not the Hispano. Which is why in 1944 they had 35,955 guns in storage classified as unserviceable because they had been built with the wrong chamber length. On the logistics justification: I cannot take this at all seriously. The British used 50 cals and 20mm concurrently for years without having logistical problems just because they started using cannons. Given that the US logistics chain transported tens (hundreds?) of thousands of types items all over the globe, having another weapon system would not cause any difficulty at all. In fact the US forces did use 20mm cannons in some aircraft (some P-38s and other models), so this issue obviously did not put them off.
  11. The drawbacks were a consequence of US procurement procedures, not of the gun. The US started the process of licencing the 20mm Hispano under licence from 1940, and wasted a lot of time before they could make it work. They should have had no trouble having it ready for mid/late war planes such as the P-51. You will find a very detailed account of the episode in "The Machine Gun: History, Evolution and Development by G.M.Chinn (USMC) which you can download here: https://books.google.co.th/books?id=V6yoH6LeSNkC&pg=PA575&lpg=PA575&dq=US+licensing+of+hispano+cannon&source=bl&ots=dqn9GOwodF&sig=ACfU3U15XXGEbtVi5b_f0Ft0VIQ6qallmw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD5N-x2_LmAhUCbisKHe-tBoIQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=US licensing of hispano cannon&f=false
  12. No it does not! It shows the effects of the changes to AI in update 4.001: 73. Simple ground vehicles have realistic gun aiming speeds;75. Simple AI tanks and guns have a delay between initial aiming and opening fire and between destroying a target and engaging another; Watching the AI during many runs of the test mission these changes are very clear. In the tests done with the same DM and AI, the number of planes hit correlates extremely well with the size of the aircraft. I would expect that if you counted the number of hits, the correlation would be even closer. I changed the size index a little from the one given in the table earlier by using a single image for each plane so as to get the P-38 in on a consistent basis. There is no single definitive measure of relative "size" in this context: it depends on the angle from which shells are coming.
  13. I do not think the RAF test shells were breaking apart, just that the fuze was not reliable enough to always (or usually) get the required lag in detonation, but I do not have the original source document, just the discussion in this article. The RAF post war tests were with a different gun, different round, presumably different fuze and perhaps even aircraft skins of different thickness, so I suppose your scenario could be possible, but it seems to be a stretch. AFAIK slower rounds are more likely to ricochet, other things being equal. If it were true, silly of the RAF to look for a faster gun/round combination rather than reverting to a slower one: but everyone on the internet knows that British officers were/are all blithering idiots. Our game does have ricochets, but I am not sure how systematically that applies, or if large cannon shells ricochet. I have spent the last couple of weeks watching 20mm LAA hit planes in my Airfield Defence test mission and I do not recall seeing any ricochets there: perhaps they do not occur with cannons, or with HE rounds? The RNG of damage done after a hit should take into account the range of possibilities if you do get a successful hit. I have made the case before that the test pictures we have all seen of Spitfires disintegrating are of optimum results from the 30mm MS, and should not be taken as the only result, or even as the average result. This piece of data supports that view rather strongly IMHO, but maybe the Aden's rounds just had particularly bad fuzes. British workmanship.
  14. Great film. I can even forgive the casting of the Yank lead actor, Cliff Robertson, since he actually owned and flew a Spitfire. Here is the theme music in MP3....633 squadron theme.zip
  15. Everything in war time weapon development is a "stop gap measure". Tanks on both sides were continuously up-armoured and up-gunned: you took whatever seemed to work at the time. Standard early Shermans were first used by the British at El Alamein where they were considerably superior to almost everything the Germans had. The Firefly's 17lb gun had better armour penetration than either the Tiger's 88 or the Panther's 75. The Tiger and Panther gun were not guaranteed to penetrate Sherman front armour, according to the German Army's own weapons R&D section. "A Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 report estimated[90] that with the M4 angled 30 degrees sidewards, the Sherman's glacis plate was invulnerable to shots from the Tiger's 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56[91] and that the Panther, with its 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70, would have to close in to 100 meters (110 yd) to achieve a penetration in the same situation.[92" Fireflies may have been priority targets, but they had lower attrition rates due to the way they were used. Lacking an HE round, but with outstanding anti- armour capabilities, they were used in overwatch positions while the standard models were forwards. Which, BTW, was how German commanders were encouraged to use their Tiger companies. All allied tank crews in Normandy and after took high casualties, but this was not just specifically to do with Tigers or Panthers, which were fairly rare and constantly under air attack anyway. The real problem for tankers was advancing into areas infested with AT guns and later on hand held weapons with HEAT rounds that could penetrate anything. Edit cut - uncalled for: grumpy old man syndrome.
  • Create New...