Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CrazyDuck

Gun jamming under high G

Recommended Posts

As far as my limited experience with using the guns under high G maneouvering (ground pounder speaking here) goes, I have never observed gun jamming related to high G load (or continuous fire, etc.).

 

However, it's generally known that gun reliability decreased under high G load.

 

Sure guns in reality jammed (and jam) also due to various other reasons (random jamming, continuous fire, faulty ammo, freezing etc etc). Big thing here with "high-g jamming" is that if we had this modelled, this would substantially alter air combat techniques in this sim (online and offline) since firing under high g-load would be avoided due to risk of jamming.

 

Naturally it's very hard (to put it mildly) to simulate this "dynamic proneness to jamming" due to lack of historical data - it would all come down to guesstimations.

However, in my humble opinion, even a common dynamic function (the same for all guns) which would cause guns to jam "here and there" under high G load would be closer to reality than what we have now, with 100% reliable guns regardless of anything apart from physical damage.

 

I know this can be a slippery slope which can lead to opening a can or worms, but I think it would be worth a try.

 

Here's a well known interview with Günther Rall where he explained he chose to fly without gunpods because they tended to jam under high g:

 

Guenther Rall on 109 gunpods jamming

 

Opinions?

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as things are now, gun jams are not modeled at all. Guns can get damaged, and their accuracy can be severely hampered by overheating, but they cannot jam. When/if we ever have real gun jams modeled, high G-load might be a factor.

 

As to how high G-loads would actually affect reliability, I think that would depend a lot on the gun, how it is mounted and how its ammo is stored. I would imagine (but this is just me speculating) that the two "advanced" soviet designs ShKAS and ShVAK would be less sensitive to G-loads in their operation than more conventional designs. In the ShKAS/ShVAK the round travels around the entire breach block in a rotating "birdcage" where it goes through a multi-stage process of being separated from the belt link and aligned perfectly with the breech before finally being fed into the chamber. This gives a very smooth cycling which facilitates a high rate of fire and generally makes the gun quite reliable, but it also means, that when it does jam, it jams hard. I would imagine, that the birdcage and smooth operation would make G-loads less of a factor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

Well, as things are now, gun jams are not modeled at all. Guns can get damaged, and their accuracy can be severely hampered by overheating, but they cannot jam. When/if we ever have real gun jams modeled, high G-load might be a factor.

 

As to how high G-loads would actually affect reliability, I think that would depend a lot on the gun, how it is mounted and how its ammo is stored. I would imagine (but this is just me speculating) that the two "advanced" soviet designs ShKAS and ShVAK would be less sensitive to G-loads in their operation than more conventional designs. In the ShKAS/ShVAK the round travels around the entire breach block in a rotating "birdcage" where it goes through a multi-stage process of being separated from the belt link and aligned perfectly with the breech before finally being fed into the chamber. This gives a very smooth cycling which facilitates a high rate of fire and generally makes the gun quite reliable, but it also means, that when it does jam, it jams hard. I would imagine, that the birdcage and smooth operation would make G-loads less of a factor.

 

It's not just that, the M2 Browning was known to have issues feeding when it was installed at a canted angle in the P-51C and earlier. The D eliminated the problem by having the guns sitting in the wings upright.

Mount geometry comes into play with gun reliability as well. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure high-g reliability would vary between gun types, their installation geometry, their ammo and feed etc. but in my opinion it's still better to have some kind of generic jamming frequency (same for all guns) at certain g-loads compared to perfectly reliable guns. In other words, we already have a common factor of "x jams per million fired bullets" for all guns in the sim, and this factor is currently 0. Any other value (especially one estimated with reason and effort) would be more realistic, in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In RoF guns jammed very often. It may be random to a big degree but it adds some taste for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bies said:

In RoF guns jammed very often. It may be random to a big degree but it adds some taste for sure.

 

They actually didn't. RoF had random, and IMHO too frequent, misfires, which simply required you to recock the gun. No kind of jams were modeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sometimes it jammed for good and reloading didn't help, but it may be just my impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever seen that. Are you sure your gun weren't just damaged or had run out of ammunition?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's what i remember, i would need to open RoF and perform some flights to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Recently I didn't had my gun damage to enemy fire. I do remember that some time ago there was a period where gun damage was very frequent (especially I remember those times on Berloga).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

BTW Recently I didn't had my gun damage to enemy fire. I do remember that some time ago there was a period where gun damage was very frequent (especially I remember those times on Berloga).

 

I think that’s just a coincidence. I’ve had gun damage 3 times today in 3 different aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bies said:

It's what i remember, i would need to open RoF and perform some flights to find out.

ROF just has missfires. You just need to work the levers.

Wings over Flanders Fields had real jams. You had to keep pushing a button and eventually you cleared the jam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bies said:

I think sometimes it jammed for good and reloading didn't help, but it may be just my impression.

 

There have never, ever been jams in ROF. They're all misfires. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

Add jamming guns to BoX and you open a box worse than Pandora´s. The biotching and moaning will never end.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there’s no way to model jamming from acceleration without making it either unrealistic or annoying.

 

Random events with serious consequences are always irritating in a competitive environment. 

 

The only alternative is to always jam guns at a certain acceleration threshold, which wouldn’t feel very accurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Finkeren said:

 

They actually didn't. RoF had random, and IMHO too frequent, misfires, which simply required you to recock the gun. No kind of jams were modeled.

 

I'm certainly no WWI firearms expert, but I know that even modern platforms/ammo have had severe and far too frequent misfire issues.

Hell my buddies AR misfires more than he would like, and my other buddies picks up all the .223 "duds" until he has a magazine full and fires them through his Mini 14 with no problem.

.22 LR can have the same problem. So considering this real life experience, I have no doubt that earlier ammo and gun designed suffered "too frequent" misfires. :)

"too frequent" meaning anything at all if you're life is depending on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long term AR-15 firearms instructor and former SWAT guy, your buddy should take his AR to an armorer. There is no way he should get that many misfires from a well functioning modern rifle. The AR is a "wet" gun in all environments other than sand. Keep it clean and well lubed and he should have less than 1 in a 1000 rounds misfiring in semi-auto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

As a long term AR-15 firearms instructor and former SWAT guy, your buddy should take his AR to an armorer. There is no way he should get that many misfires from a well functioning modern rifle. The AR is a "wet" gun in all environments other than sand. Keep it clean and well lubed and he should have less than 1 in a 1000 rounds misfiring in semi-auto.

 

It's from a few guys, firing a few AR's, and who knows what they're maintenance practices are - and what ammo they're buying.

Mini 14 fires anything all day long.

He's a gunsmith and builds AR's (which anyone can do) but a lot of custom stuff, repairs, etc etc.

 

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many good manufacturers of ARs these days. I put a hundred or so rounds through my gun each month and sometimes outside in dusty desert conditions. I clean my gun about twice a year and it always cycles just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Random events with serious consequences are always irritating in a competitive environment.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

This goes not only for competitive MP environments, but also SP games. Back in 2007 the game 'S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadow of Chernobyl' added a misfire / gun jam mechanism. I was really looking forward to this, since it would add a new layer of realism. But in the end, all it did was creating frustration.

 

You played a mission and were almost done, but low on energy and there were still some enemies left to deal with. You spotted them from a cover, they didn't realize your presence yet. You made a plan in your mind how to take them out, you checked your weapon one last time, mag's full, 30 rounds will do the trick. You left your cover, opened fire...

 

... and then the game decided to give you the digital middle finger by making your gun misfire after the second round, giving the remaining enemies a free kill on you while you were a sitting duck out in the open.

 

Random events can be implemented, as long as their consequences aren't too harsh and can be dealt with in an easy way. I really enjoy the misfire mechanism in RoF, which puts the player into a disadvantage as well, but can be dealt with within the blink of an eye.

 

Things like gun jams however I feel like would do more harm than good.

Edited by Fritz_X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they could be implemented, if we combine the two elements of randomness and safe thresholds. Jams should happen at random, but only if the gun is also put under intense abuse, such as high G-loads or very long periods of constant fire. The thresholds should be well beyond the normal limits. This will help keep occurances down while also punishing people who use their weapons irresponsibly.

 

(Incidently, this is also how I think the engine limits should be handled - to a certain degree it already is, but I think there should be more leeway)

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOFF has random failures implement and players appreciate this layer of realism. I don't have to always shoot down enemy  when I manage to work out firing position. This should be ofc server option like other things are.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

There is one thing they could do with gun jams or overheating of guns. For AAA. You can fly over a tank base, for example on Virtualpilots, and watch AAA fire at you CONTINUOUSLY as long as you just have patience to circle the base. No adverse effects, never running out of ammo and crew must be robots :P I bet 10-15min of firing a 37mm or 25mm AA gun will kill the barrel. 

Edited by LLv34_Flanker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

There is one thing they could do with gun jams or overheating of guns. For AAA. You can fly over a tank base, for example on Virtualpilots, and watch AAA fire at you CONTINUOUSLY as long as you just have patience to circle the base. No adverse effects, never running out of ammo and crew must be robots :P I bet 10-15min of firing a 37mm or 25mm AA gun will kill the barrel. 

It take alot to overheat a barrel, barrels are thick for this reason, it allows them to dissipate heat so they can fire for longer and so they wont warp or cool unevenly. It's unlikely that a 37 will overheat in that short period of time, the rate of fire is rather low and you have to reload. Of course, none of this is really modeled in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I'm certainly no WWI firearms expert, but I know that even modern platforms/ammo have had severe and far too frequent misfire issues.

Hell my buddies AR misfires more than he would like, and my other buddies picks up all the .223 "duds" until he has a magazine full and fires them through his Mini 14 with no problem.

.22 LR can have the same problem. So considering this real life experience, I have no doubt that earlier ammo and gun designed suffered "too frequent" misfires. :)

"too frequent" meaning anything at all if you're life is depending on it.

 

In all my time on shooting ranges, I've come across one dud, and that was a 9x19mm that didn't fire out of a P8.

 

Plus, most load related gun failures in fighters are actually failures to feed, not failures to ignite the loaded cartridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched him load a magazine of .223 carriages into that Ruger (might not have been a full magazine, but a handful of rounds)  that did not fire from the other weapons. The end. 

 As far as the WWI fighter/failure to feed - that maybe, but my comment was regarding both early ammo AND weapons.

 

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the flight-model allready calculates the G-load it should be easy to implent a failure chance to each aircraft under certain conditions.

It will eventually clear if you keep pushing the reload button / handle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

I watched him load a magazine of .223 carriages into that Ruger (might not have been a full magazine, but a handful of rounds)  that did not fire from the other weapons. The end. 

 As far as the WWI fighter/failure to feed - that maybe, but my comment was regarding both early ammo AND weapons.

 

 

Cartridge ammunition has been a thing since the mid-1800s. To call them still an early development in the 40s is a pretty large stretch.

 

The same goes for machineguns - that technology had been around for more than a quarter of a century back then.

 

Hell, you might as well call WW2 artillery an early development going by these standards, even though field howitzers were in mass use as early as 1914-1915.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing where Gambit was referring to 40s weapons being early technology. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Luke.

 

Arguing for the sake of arguing - better things to do today.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Legioneod said:

It take alot to overheat a barrel, barrels are thick for this reason, it allows them to dissipate heat so they can fire for longer and so they wont warp or cool unevenly. It's unlikely that a 37 will overheat in that short period of time, the rate of fire is rather low and you have to reload. Of course, none of this is really modeled in-game.

 

That's (likely) not entirely true. There is a difference between maximum rate of fire and sustained fire. Going back to the AR/M16. The cyclic rate is about 700 rounds per minute while the sustained rate of fire is 12 rounds per minute. You can crank a dozen magazines through an M-16 in rapid succession but you risk shooting the barrel out. Warping is not really the problem here. While the gun will continue to fire well past those twelve magazines the accuracy will diminish and you can cause tremendous damage to the bore. Damaged bore eventually means replacement. There were two reasons the three round burst was implemented on (some) M-16's. The primary one was accuracy but the other was to keep guys from dumping ammo down the tube on full auto. it was wasteful and bad for the gun. The M4 is back to a full auto seer but it's benefit is for another argument.

 

So, you do want to either cool the barrel intermittently or not just keep chucking rounds down range on full auto over extended periods of time. Short bursts of full auto followed by appropriate cooling periods are a better proposition as long as the situation favors it. Not all will.

 

I am not a WWII AAA gunner but I suspect the same would be true for any rapid fire weapon. Especially considering the advances in metallurgy over the ensuing years.

 

And to Pain God - almost all small arms misfires are failures to feed unless the weapon is actually malfunctioning. In small arms this is usually operator and/or magazine induced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

.22 LR can have the same problem.

Boy do I know it. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fritz_X said:

Random events can be implemented, as long as their consequences aren't too harsh and can be dealt with in an easy way. I really enjoy the misfire mechanism in RoF, which puts the player into a disadvantage as well, but can be dealt with within the blink of an eye.

 

Things like gun jams however I feel like would do more harm than good.

 

The P-40 has on/off switches for inner/outer gun pairs as a way (my guess...) to handle jams. (switching a whole pair to keep symmetric fire and accuracy) The switches aren't implemented as now as aren't jams. IMHO it takes away a bit of realism and fun... One could argue that this is detrimental to planes like the Kittyhawk - one advantage of multiple guns is absent.

The P-39 has switches and in cockpit handles to re-cock/unjam machine guns, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

.22's are awesome plinkers but it comes with the territory. Every boy and girl should own at least one.

 

Got the wife an SR 22 for CC, great little pistol, (SR is a great series) but going with a P32 for her next I think for the day she actually CC's, which hasn't happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Got the wife an SR 22 for CC, great little pistol, (SR is a great series) but going with a P32 for her next I think for the day she actually CC's, which hasn't happened yet.

You a ruger man? I only say that because I swore I saw you say something here about owning another kind of ruger. I own both a 10/22 and MK III, and they are just a bundle of fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SR 22, LC9, and looking at a Mini 14.

Just seems to be working out that way.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

That's (likely) not entirely true. There is a difference between maximum rate of fire and sustained fire. Going back to the AR/M16. The cyclic rate is about 700 rounds per minute while the sustained rate of fire is 12 rounds per minute. You can crank a dozen magazines through an M-16 in rapid succession but you risk shooting the barrel out. Warping is not really the problem here. While the gun will continue to fire well past those twelve magazines the accuracy will diminish and you can cause tremendous damage to the bore. Damaged bore eventually means replacement. There were two reasons the three round burst was implemented on (some) M-16's. The primary one was accuracy but the other was to keep guys from dumping ammo down the tube on full auto. it was wasteful and bad for the gun. The M4 is back to a full auto seer but it's benefit is for another argument.

 

So, you do want to either cool the barrel intermittently or not just keep chucking rounds down range on full auto over extended periods of time. Short bursts of full auto followed by appropriate cooling periods are a better proposition as long as the situation favors it. Not all will.

 

I am not a WWII AAA gunner but I suspect the same would be true for any rapid fire weapon. Especially considering the advances in metallurgy over the ensuing years.

 

And to Pain God - almost all small arms misfires are failures to feed unless the weapon is actually malfunctioning. In small arms this is usually operator and/or magazine induced.

 

Barrels will be shot out eventually anyways no matter how gentle you are on the barrel. Barrels are thick in order to prevent overheating and warpage, doesn't have anything to do with the life of the rifling. At the same time it could have a side effect of preserving the rifling but that's not its intended effect; the more the barrel heats up the softer it gets and therefore would make the rifling weaker and easier to gouge out through excessive firing.

 

Cooling is required for any weapon, same is true for AAA. But when the enemy is right above you the last thing you are concerned about is protecting the barrel. 10-15min of  fire from AAA it is unlikely that the barrel would have any significant damage, maybe a little rifling gone but nothing more. 

 

Seeing all this talk about guns makes me think we should start a thread.What do you got and what do you want, I have a gun wishlist about a mile long but no money lol.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...