http://bhlanding.ient.com/warbirdsforum/ |
|
can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can http://bhlanding.ient.com/warbirdsforum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=499 |
Page 1 of 3 |
Author: | Finn [ Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:20 am ] |
Post subject: | can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
Ok.. really tired of this. I put 10 hits on a lancaster with 37mm from a p39. He didn't start shedding parts until I hit him with 50 cals. THen his 4x303 blew me up. The other day, i hit a zeke with 3x37mm and watched it fly away with no damage. I know these were cannon hits because that's all I was shooting. NO MG. Just the cannon. Boom boom boom boom- BULLSHIT! What the hell happened to the 37mm in the p39? Has it been deballed completely? It was specifically designed to kill bombers. In WB, it has trouble killing time. Is there a problem with the way hits are recorded and transmitted to the aircraft being hit? Or did somebody just decide that the 37mm was too good and knocked it back? Either way... Something is VERY wrong, and it needs fixing. |
Author: | grumpy [ Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
Yep I can say bullshit. Nothing has been changed with the 37mm cannon. What has changed is lag, wifi, routers, etc. with the net. Have you made some amcams while you're seeing these problems? I have and you'll be surprised by what you see when you watch the raw video. Yes it's that simple to see what the problem is. |
Author: | bollok [ Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
if I recall correctly several of the heavy cannon in the 40mm range that are classed as ground attack and have reduced effectiveness against airplanes Hurri IID, IL2 and Stuka G for example. (to prevent dweebiness) Could be that the P39 falls into this category Did you try the British version with 20 mike mike ? |
Author: | +VNSLP [ Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
Bollok has a point.....in early days tank buster aircraft were beingused against bombers with devasting results. the ammuniation cannot be modeled, only the weapon so certain tank busters were coded to not do as much damage to aircraft as they do tanks....just as tank guns used against airplanes have been ( or were 3 or 4 years ago) modeled to do not very much damage to airplanes.....the m4 gun on p-39 may be onthat list, and that one is debatable ...but its the likelist explanation....and its been to long for me to remember exctly if it is or isn't. I know Finn has always had some gun issues that can only be explained by connection in the past, so not sure which it is in this case... |
Author: | Pakrat [ Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
Speaking of ammo performances, do we know which types of ammo are being used by which aircraft? I remember some years ago Target and the then dev team were trying to get the HE rounds and/or the AP rounds to function in the game but seemed to be having trouble modeling them.. or something like that. I think they gave up and settled on just' ammo' but i'm not well versed on this subject and may have it wrong., But there were several types of rounds used in the warplanes such as incendiary and tracer rounds as well as the armor piercing and high explosive ones as well as the cannons.. But which is which and which are we using in game? Should it be pilots loadout choice? Sorry if I have this wrong but I do remember this being attempted back then and then shelved.. Curious minds want to know! |
Author: | grumpy [ Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:40 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
When I looked up data on the 37mm M4; it was showing the M4 a rather low muzzle velocity and a low amount of ammo. The P-38 had the 37mm M4 in the first prototypes, but went to the 20mm for some reason besides ammo amount I would think. Then maybe not. Now to find what rounds they used. Pak, If I remember right "cough"; they didn't succeed with the damage values being able to be adjusted properly to get the desired effects. They also played with the .50's back then which made the P-47 kill like it should. It seemed the consensus was these changes wouldn't make good game play. Disclaimer: That was many years ago and my recollection could be off. ![]() |
Author: | +VNSLP [ Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
No ammo files, just weapons files, you model the weapon, and 1 type of ammo for it...and its mainly MV, projectile weight modeled is all, a damage value can be adjusted but its points only applied to the point value of the target. |
Author: | grumpy [ Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
http://p63kingcobra.com/m4_37mm_auto_cannon.html Quote: Ammunition Ammunition was issued in the form of fixed rounds, consisting of H.E. shell, M54, with P.D. fuse, M56; practice shell, M55A1, with dummy fuse, M50; and A.P. shot, M80. The rapid strides in aircraft protection made it necessary to develop an aircraft weapon that would fire projectiles with greater explosive and armor-piercing qualities than smaller caliber weapons. As a result, the 37 mm (1.46 in) automatic gun, M4, was developed and standardized for aircraft use. The 37 mm gun (1.46 in), M4, used the same high-explosive (M54) and practice (M55A1) projectiles as the 37 mm (1.46 in) antiaircraft gun, M1A2, but different cartridge cases are necessary due to the larger chamber of the M4 gun. However, the overall length of the armor-piercing projectiles, M51 and M74, which were used in the M3A1, M5A1 and M6 tank and antitank guns, was too great to permit their use in the M4 gun and the 37 mm (1.46 in) armor-piercing shot, M80, was developed and standardized. M54 37mm Cannon Shell - High-explosive shell, 37 mm, M54 standard This shell used the M56 point detonating fuse. The complete round weighs 1.99 lb (900 g); as fired, the projectile weighs 1.34 lb (608 g). The 0.16 lb (70 g) charge of M2 powder is a Hercules NG formula of single perforated grains with 0.030 in (0.76 mm) web and gives the projectile the prescribed muzzle velocity of 2,000 ft/s (610 m/s). The M54 used a shell-destroying tracer in addition to the point-detonating fuze. The tracer had a burning time of three seconds at the end of which it set off an igniting relay charge of 1.68 gr (0.109 g) of Grade A-5 Army Black Powder which ignited a relay pellet that detonated the charge, destroying the shell before ground impact. The bursting charge of tetryl weighed 0.10 lb (45 g), and the alternate Composition "A" charge weighs 0.105 lb (48 g). The tetryl loading consisted of a 200 gr (13 g) tetryl pellet pressed into the shell cavity under 9,000-10,000 psi (60-70 MPa) pressure and the remainder of the charge of two equal increments pressed under approximately 9,000 psi (60 MPa) pressure. The Composition "A" bursting charge is loaded in the same manner as the tetryl charge, except that the relay pellet with the Composition "A" weighs 36 gr (2.3 g) as against 23 gr (1.5 g) for the pellet used with the tetryl load. Armor-piercing shot, 37 mm - M80 standard The AP shot was a monoblock projectile with a tracer element of three seconds burning time. It did not need a fuse or bursting charge. The weight of the complete round was 2.31 lb (1.05 kg), the weight of the AP shot was 1.66 lb (750 g). The propelling charge was 0.15 lb (78 g) of M2 powder of a Hercules NG formula with a single-perforated grain and 0.030 in (0.76 mm) web. Quote: A. S. Was a 37mm cannon necessary? Wasn't this too large a caliber for a fighter? You had so few rounds of ammunition. And wasn't its rate of fire slow? From an interview with a Soviet P-39 Pilot. - http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm - about 1/3 down page N. G. One cannot say that the 37mm cannon was a disadvantage or an advantage. Look at it from this perspective. The M-6 [this is incorrect; it was M4] cannon had its strong and weak points. One had to take advantage of the strong points and compensate, as much as possible, for its weaknesses. These were the weaknesses: 1. Low rate of fire. 8 rounds/second [this is incorrect; the correct rate is slightly over 2 rounds/second (130 rounds/minute) - J.G.] This is indeed a low rate of fire. 2. The ballistics of the projectile were abysmal. The flight trajectory of the projectile was arching, which required large lead angles. But again this was at long ranges, especially when firing at ground targets. When firing at ground targets we had to apply two rings of the sight for lead. 3. Minimal ammunition supply. Thirty rounds. All these deficiencies could be compensated for by proper selection of firing range. If one fired from 70-50 meters, there was sufficient rate of fire, the ballistics at this range were acceptable, and the lead required was minimal. Thus, all the weaknesses of the 37mm cannon listed above revealed themselves only at long ranges. Now regarding the strengths: 1. The projectile was very powerful. Normally, one strike on an enemy fighter and he was finished! In addition, we fired this cannon at other types of targets. Bombers, vessels at sea. The 37mm cannon was very effective against these targets. It appears there should be 2 different rounds to choose as a load out as the other aircraft that have this option available. The complaints about the weapon is the loopy trajectory, slow firing and small ammo load. With it being a short muzzled, low muzzle velocity weapon this would seem a true description of the weapon. FWIW |
Author: | Robert [ Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: can you say 'bullshit"? I knew you can |
Thank you Grumpy! You are a gold mine of information ![]() Hmm, so if it required 1-2 hits to down an enemy fighter according to the Russian ww2 pilot, then maybe a damage value of 50, like all the other 37 mm cannons, would be more accurate. This since the M4 at 30 damage value currently requires 3 direct hits at the same integral part of the enemy plane to fully destroy it, and currently one will most probably need 6+ rounds hitting home since the hits will often be fairly spread out over a maneuvering enemy fighter. |
Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC-04:00 |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |