.303s can't shoot down a Betty? - Printable Version
+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=275)
+--- Forum: Reference Center (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=278)
+--- Thread: .303s can't shoot down a Betty? (/showthread.php?tid=61330)
+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=275)
+--- Forum: Reference Center (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=278)
+--- Thread: .303s can't shoot down a Betty? (/showthread.php?tid=61330)
.303s can't shoot down a Betty? - dorkfish - 02.05.2009
I've been doing a BF109 career for a few weeks, and thought I would try something different. So I started an RAF one, which only had one campaign; Flying the Hurricane IIb in the Singapore area.
I got in behind a Betty at close range and fired until I ran out of ammo. I saw many hits and some debris, but not even close to going down. Does that sound right? Maybe I'm used to the 20mm on the 109F.
Sorry if not proper forum. Couldn't decide between here and technical help.
thanks.
- Maxisonfire - 02.05.2009
With hurricanes 12 mgs you can burn Betty's engine or fuel tank with single good burst, i belive you just need to get closer to bomber and shoot more accurately :wink:
- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 02.05.2009
harmonise the guns. They are harmonised for 500m generally, which is useless. At that range, the most effective spread is when fired at 500m, and most bullets miss anyway. Any closer to the bomber and the area that the rounds fall in widens far too much, and you're hitting a very large area completely ineffectively.
Harmonise the guns so that they're effective much closer, eg 200-150m, then get up close before blasting away. You'll be closer, so more accurate and will achieve more lethal density. It's very easy to do a large amount of damage like that than to try at 500m, even when the bomber flys straight.
I used to think the hurri sucked and that infinite ammo was needed for any flight as the guns did bugger all. Then i actually set the guns so that they converged much closer... Bam! It was a good aircraft again!
- Karaya - 02.05.2009
.303s or any kind of rifle calibre machine gun for that matter will prove to be rather ineffective against most bombers both in the sim and in real life. There's a reason they put so many of them onto a fighter aircraft. During the BoB many a Luftwaffe bomber came back home with literally hundreds of bullet holes all over but no critical damages sustained, thats why even with 8x.303s they later upgraded the Spitfire to 2x20mm on top of 2 pairs of MGs and the Hurricane finally to 4x20mm.
Of course Japanese bombers should be somewhat easier to bring down than the typical LW He111 or Ju88 but still you'll get the idea.
Try shooting at an angle to the target and not from straight behind as that will be maximizing both the damage you inflict on the target as well as the probability of hitting something vital.
- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 02.05.2009
the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.
- RRuger - 02.05.2009
P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.
That's debatable my friend, a bullet hole is a bullet hole, whether spray & pray or dead center of the convergence.
- RichardH - 02.05.2009
RRuger Wrote:P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.
That's debatable my friend, a bullet hole is a bullet hole, whether spray & pray or dead center of the convergence.
Also, they harmonized their guns at 400yrds since one would get a "shotgun" effect when you hit a target at less than 400yrds, so they believed that you'd have a better chance of hitting the jerry. Good thought, but also a lot less lethal.
- dorkfish - 03.05.2009
Thanks so much for the great replies. I have my MGs set at 500 meters...so I will shorted it to 150-200 for Hurricane career and try tactics other than a six o'clock level attack.
I guess the convergence was not *as* criticize with the 109 that I fly most of the time. being only three weapons with one that does not converge, and the two machine guns being close together.
And you (all) are right. I did notice the bursts where impacting over a very large surface area of the plane.
- caldrail - 03.05.2009
With respect to the posts about harmonisation, I don't think that's the entire reason at all. A focus point for MG fire is all very well but that on;y works at exactly the correct range, which in combat conditions isn't the first thing on the pilot's mind. If he sees a suitable target ahead he'll open fire.
The difference between MG and cannon fire is one of explosive damage - and that's why cannons were more desirable than MG's even at the cost of fewer rounds (size and weight issues). However, the point of MG's wasn't to damage the enemy but to shoot the enemy down. One bullet in the right place will kill a crewman, sever a control run, stop essential systems from working, or start a fire.
Look at it like this. Vespasians Roman legions, during the conquest of southern Britain, had an automatic ballista available to them. We don't know the details, but it fired one heavy bolt after another probably via a hand crank. Brilliant, you might say, but the Roman officers thought it was rubbish. They were killing one man with five bolts when only onewas needed. They saw it as a waste of ammo. so the idea fell by the wayside.
Aeroplanes have a similar problem with harmonisation. That ensures more bullets hit the same spot, but if you hit a non-vulnerable area, so what? Of course, if the salvo does hit a vulnerable area, so much the better I suppose. Then again, different pilots have different psychological tendencies. There will always be those who naturally want to press closer, others that want to stay furter back, others that simply want to fire and get the heck out. Fixed harmonisation won't suit all of these tendencies, and in any case, aircraft were being used in combat conditions with frequent repairs or even replacement aircraft where necesary. Setting up a perfect harmonisation wasn't always possible - though I note some airfields did have that capability even if jury rigged.
So the 'shotgun' method is always present to a greater or lesser degree whether harmonisation is available or not. The motion of an aircraft might spread the salvo across an aeroplane - and in fact, one method from WW1 days was to do exactly that - use your rudder to spray your target with bullets. Since aircraft in those days had very little to aim at that was actually vulnerable (shooting holes in canvas doesn't stop an aeroplane flying) it was considered better to simply spread the salvo around until you did hit something.
You will see aces talk about closing and aiming at their target. These people are by nature competitive, cool-headed, and aggressive. Rather like the western gun fighter, they win out because they fight without regard to their own safety and aim (although I must concede they also usually have better flying skills and superior tactics). Most pilots aren't like that. If you look at statistics, plenty of pilots in WW2 never shot anything down at all.
So I would say that harmonisation in itself isn't 'better', but it is an advantage that a sufficiently aware pilot can take advantage of.
- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 03.05.2009
RRuger Wrote:P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.
That's debatable my friend, a bullet hole is a bullet hole, whether spray & pray or dead center of the convergence.
true,but a l ot of bullets that strike an entire aircraft will likely not do as much as a stream of bullets converging on a single point. Ture, .303 is clearly inferior to 20mm cannon, but even so, a single .303 striking an engine may not do much, but 20 or 30 might.
- AJD-NZ - 03.05.2009
P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:RRuger Wrote:P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.
That's debatable my friend, a bullet hole is a bullet hole, whether spray & pray or dead center of the convergence.
true,but a l ot of bullets that strike an entire aircraft will likely not do as much as a stream of bullets converging on a single point. Ture, .303 is clearly inferior to 20mm cannon, but even so, a single .303 striking an engine may not do much, but 20 or 30 might.
I agree with you "Moggy", 4 Betty's one after the other at 150metres convergence, limited ammo, with plenty left over & Betty's skill level set on average. In the top left pic, you can see the bullets converging, just in front of the betty.
- NathanielGreene - 03.05.2009
P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.
I use 300m with cannon/MG its pretty F****** brutal.
- stansdds - 03.05.2009
I generally fly U.S. aircraft and find that 300m is a good convergence setting. Keep in mind that the guns may still be effective beyond convergence, but the rounds will be spreading laterally and falling below the gunsight's pipper. When firing closer than convergence, the rounds will also be spread wider and impact above the pipper. If you are flying an aircraft like the P-38 where guns are mounted in the fuselage you only need to consider the arc of the trajectory as there is little lateral spread.
- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 03.05.2009
bear in mind, most US aircraft have 50 cals though
- AJD-NZ - 03.05.2009
The subject of this thread is ".303's can't shoot down a Betty", in particular the Hurricane IIb, so all this talk about .50 cal & cannons is largely irrelevant. I suggest that you try 150 - 200metres convergence, especially for attacking ground targets, you can always change back to your original settings. :wink: