I am so tired of this private fewd between me and a friend I decided Id bring it to the FH forum so I never have to listen again..... The arguement is that he claims 3x12mm is equal to that of 1x20mm. I say thats dead wrong. Not only is it a smaller projectile, but I dont think Ive ever heard of a 12mm "exploding" round, that is, one loaded with a true timed explosive. While most all 20mm cannon are exploding. Ive even come to the impass that maybe 3x12mm will do the same impact as a 20mm, but not near the true damamge, especially to a wwII aircraft. The polls are open, lets hear it.....
let's look at startcraft damage model: AP dmg pts HE dmg pts Concussion dmg pts Splash zone 1 well placed 12.7mm is enough to break a longeron 1x20AP is more powerful than 1x12.7AP 1x20HE is not comparable with either 1x12.7AP or 1x20AP HE tears off the hull and brings some damage to the structure, while AP can fatally damage the structure with some luck but cannot damage the hull critically.
silly question... 12mms depend on #s, ap, incierary and balistics. 20mm are just armer pircing gernades for the most part. a machine gun can cut down a advancing line of troops with a barage of bullets. but then so can 1 gernade. bullet for bullet there not compairible. and a mathmaical equision for # rounds per sec, muzale velsity, impact wight. armor piercing abuility and exlposive "he" effect would be next to impossible on a side note i find it intresting that last night i learned the earlie saber jets in korea also had 6 50. caliber guns.
I've heard int he past that the damage modeling of WB (IIRC) could be told a bit like this: 4x 7mm = 1x 12mm, 4x 12mm = 1x 20mm, 4x 20mm = 1x 30mm... thats a big IIRC. However, I'm pretty sure that 4 20mm's do the same damage as 1 30mm (that is: 4 20mm hits to the same surface will cause the same damage as a WB 30mm, 4 20mm in wing, rfus etc, equals 1 30mm there) following this logic you'd need 16 12mm to tear off a wing... which is in fact true... So... in WB, 4 x 12mm should equal 1 x 20mm... Also, the smallest explosive load carrying round is a .50 calibre. However, I don't think they've used .50's with HE warheads, simply because there's no use. .50's were designed to kill by velocity and obstruction force, a bit like using a sledgehammer to crash a matchbox car instead of blowing it up with a firecracker (20mm). I'm sure of nothing though, the 4x y = 1x z , 4x z = 1x q theory seems applicable in WB reality. <Z>
Hmmm this is up in the Air really, but it is a matter of taste. I agree with zemb with his theory he explained above. while a 20mm may hit and explode is very very effective. .50's or 12mm here, will hit, enter and carry on to other possible other critical area's (pilot, control surfaces, engine/coolant/oil/weapons etc. now smaller bullets, can be very effective too, but very close range is needed to be effective. just picture a 1 second burst of each gun. how many rounds come out. 20mms are the most effective becausebigger is better, but rate of fire and velocity matter too. a few hitswith the 20mm do great damage. but .50's/12mm do to. i remember many times in the game using .50's as ...well lets say a saw like effect. I would hit the wing of an opponent and watch as i continue threw the wing until it comes off (remember go with the grain, and not against it to insure no bur remains and a nice clean cut is attained just like wood shop would teach ) very devastating. i used to call it a buzzsaw effect. and that is exactly what it was. 8 303's have the same effect as the .50's/12mm but youmust be alot closer to get the full impact and buzzsaw effect, and it may take a little more time to do. Once again, zembla's formula sounds correct not only for FH but real life as well. 2o mm do damage where they hit big time, but He,AP and incendary .50's do dame where they hit and more beyond. oh and cc gryph sabre jets had 6 .50's also with great effect even then. now allsop, don't get all big headed please, but nice post <S>
What your saying though is assuming a pilot flys straight and you get a good long time to fire down on them. When IRL unless someone is afk, you need to be able to make devestating snap shots, so even though you can fire alot of .50's out there at a blazing speed in large amounts, usually alot will miss in a deflection shot, I put more trust on the 20mm, as if 4x50cal DOES equall 1x20mm, You need to be able to land 4x the amount of shots on the same place "moving target makes this harder"......Otherwise 7.62mm shrkas would be the best weopon around, an amazing velocity and could be used in very fast firing and ammo amounts......but come on........
12mm----------------------20mm Higher rate of fire.----------Higher damage per hit. Higher bullet velocity.-------More massive bullet. Flat trajectory.-------------<20mm has nothing to offset this advantage.> More accurate.-------------<20mm has nothing to offset this advantage.> Gun itself is lighter.---------<20mm has nothing to offset this advantage.> Economic comparison... Ammunition cheaper.--------Needs lower count of bullets, otherwise costlier. Gun itself is cheaper.--------<20mm has nothing to offset this advantage.> Standardized 12mm round.---USA was the only country to benefit from this. All in all, the 20mm has more damage per shot, but with the implications of those advantages it makes it harder for the advantages to be applied-in the form of a hit. In other words, a 20mm does more damage, with the cost that a hit becomes less likely.
i wanna say i like very much MG 151/15 gun in 109f2 its imho best gun in warbirds =] and its nonsense to compare any 7mm to any 12mm to any 20mm to any 30mm. It wise to say this gun is good for you or not, u know how to use this weapon or u dont know. For me almost all japanese guns sucks due their low speed, and bad RoF, and the best are mg 151/15, mg 151/20, and hispano
The u.s. didnt just make 50cal, they had 20mm 30cal and maybe more. 2nd, The entire idea behind the making of most american fighters was "MORE IS BETTER" as in, more guns with more ammo with a greater ROF will allow most anyone to open fire and atleast scratch something. As far as the economics of only having 50cal and then having multiple guns to go on a craft, think.....if they are using just a few modles of gun that work well, how is it not economic? Thats like saying just because we make paper money and "metal" money in america that contries that just use raw metals or products is un-productive...no, were both set in doing it that way so we dont find it as a setback, as in gun production. Finally, I cant imagine the mg 151's flight path to be so awefull if fighters were ordered to open fire from 600 yards ontoo bombers, Id say thats a clue to a predictable flight path.... Do you want to reach out and touch someone today? Or go and punch him in the face? Id rather have the punch than a far touch.
MG151 is indeed a great gun. It's not nonsense to compare 7mm 12mm etc etc, as they're automatically compared, I'd be so blunt as to say a comparisson is crucial. Normally the damage effects are more or less as I say, the factors may change a bit in between, but not too much. Following the logic (as I've read it in the past by people with good sources/expertise to back their claims), a 64 7mm would tear off a wing. Try it in offline mode, be amazed. Really, the 4 factor is pretty close to the real deal. There's no point in saying its nonsense to compare em just to dis me. Also, Ki61 Ki84 guns are pretty good guns. <Z>
KI61b offers an asortment of 4x50cal, their nice, but Id much rather have a set of 50's from the TBF's front guns, damn those things are like 20mm. IMO atleast
This claim does not really support your argument for saying that 20mm has an advantage over 12mm. Let's say that a Luftwaffe fighter with 20mm opened fire on a 100-foot-wide B17 at 600 yards. This would be no more difficult than opening fire on a 33-foot-wide (fighter sized) target at 200 yards, which is what is considered to be well within the no-man's land for fighters in Warbirds-they get blasted within 200 yards (assuming someone has a shot on them). The target would appear to be the same size; sounds reasonable, no? However, as the apparent size of the target would remain the same, the guns of your Luftwaffe fighter would not be proportionally upgraded to be as effective on a target 3 times away. This concept applies to insect life and how it easier for small organisms to fly-for the fluid they fly in to be proportional, it would need to be thinner than the atmosphere for a bird. This is not the case, the fluid being thicker than is proportionally scaled. Thus, it is proportionally easier for small orgainsims to fly and by the same token, wind tunnel tests have to be calculated so the tests simulate a fluid that is on the same proportions of their model. Getting back to my original point, shooting a target at 600 yards would be more difficult than you would think. Increased distance would allow more distance for a projectile to begin its steeper and steeper decent of the parabolic curve it is on. It is more than ten times more difficult to make a full-field-length pass in American football than a 10-yard one. It is more than twice the difficulty to make a basket from 10 yards in basketball than from 5 yards. You must look at proportionality between the two guns-a 12mm gun is proportionally more effective than contemporary 20mm models. Generally speaking, 50 caliber guns were more reliable than larger caliber guns. This is one of the reasons why the Browning M2, has remained in service for more than 80 years in the US military. The only advantage 20mm has over 12mm is that it does more damage per hit. The ballistics of 12mm are better, and that is the entirety of the comparison between the combat effectiveness of the two. Therefore, in all the aspects of technical evaluations, 12mm comes away with all but one advantage. You can go into economical comparison as I did, but .50 cal comes out on top again. Not until well into the post-war era when new technology allowed the 20mm to gain some of the .50 caliber gun's advantages (trajectory, rate of fire in the form of vulcan cannon and accuracy) did air forces make a universal switch to 20mm. But as I said before, a 12mm gun is proportionally more effective than contemporary 20mm models. A 20mm gun usually has longer range, but if you cannot hit the target, what is the use? The maximum range in Warbirds of 12mm and 20mm are very similar. Both do their jobs up to D4-5, but if you fire with any caliber past that, you are spraying. Yes, a 20mm has the longer range, but then again an ICBM that could make two circuits around the globe would never have to travel a longer distance than one that had a range of halfway around the earth.
the browning 50 caliber was the most relible and acurate gun avalible for mass use in american planes. every plane same gun same ammo, same asebly lines same everything, problems with quality avaliblity compatibily reduced big time. abilty to mass produce increased.suposedly 1 reson the 20mm wasnt more comly used in us fighter was it avaliblity, at the time. amiricans were big on stand exuipment.
So now the arguement has turned not twords which does more damage "nice job backing out of the real topic" but on how it was easier to mass produce. If thats the logic than shotguns should be the ultimate war weapon as they take little time to build, need no barrel riffling, can are very realiable and easy to maintain....but sometimes just becuase something is easier doesnt make it better "women". Just to pick on one phrase that "20mm would make a large decending arc" thats why you make a deflection shot, which is a virtue you list to the 12mm. Its like driving a car, If you know the car, you can dive deep into a corner and pull out strong, If you dont, have fun going off the track or being last. The pilots in the luftwaffe had time using these guns and Im sure they had a good Idea how their munitions flew making shots easier. Come on....think about it.
I have new beef to bring to the table. A friend sent me this info in private, and sense he did not post it here, I will assume he doesnt want to be part of this arguement so I will namelessly give the information he gave me. "Have a look at this table. It's a comparison based on the energy data from Tony's site and on the weights for the respective guns and ammunition (including belts and everything). Rounds per gun are scaled for identical total energy. 1x MK 108 - 87 rpg - 111 kg - 221% firepower - firepower per weight: 900% 1x MK 103 - 75 rpg - 210 kg - 180% firepower - firepower per weight: 387% 2x MG 151/20 - 207 rpg - 172 kg - 112% firepower - firepower per weight: 294% 2x Hispano V - 212 rpg - 188 kg - 109% firepower - firepower per weight: 262% 2x Hispano II - 206 rpg - 201 kg - 94% firepower - firepower per weight: 211% 3x MG-FF - 149 rpg - 235 kg - 103% firepower - firepower per weight: 198% 5x MG 151 - 239 rpg - 428 kg - 97% firepower - firepower per weight: 102% 10x MG 131 - 311 rpg - 413 kg - 93% firepower - firepower per weight: 102% 8x ,50 Browning M2 - 250 rpg - 452 kg - 100% firepower - firepower per weight: 100% 25x Browning ,303 - 399 rpg - 549 kg - 96% firepower - firepower per weight: 79% This shows that not only the individual projectile is much more effective for cannon than for MGs, but that the entire battery as mounted in the aircraft is much more weight efficient, too. For example, replacing the 6 x 12.7 mm of the P-51D with 2 x MG151/20 would save 220 kg (485 lbs!) of weight while increasing the firepower by 50% " So assuming that the traits of a 12mm or 50cal are better than a 20mm, It still weights much more in total to have 6-8 50's instead of 2x20mm or even 2x20mm and its mg's in most cases. So If testing was done to which guns are better, and you were given 2x12mm "ki43" or 2x20mm "190a4 lite" even though the ki43 "one upon a time" could outurn and burn with you, but would need considerably more hits than the 190a4 lite would. But becuase of this they added more guns, more guns, more weight, more loading, it all equals to cancel out any virtues of the 12mm. Gun for gun Ill take my 2xmg151.
would u rather have 20 kinds of ammo in your ammo storpile, or 1 kind ammo for almost everything? why u think alot of car compnys are using multiplatforms? ptcrusers bulit on neon frams. mecury tunderbirds and cougers were 75% the same car. its cheaper faster and easyer if u can share compnets. lets say your units only unit to use 30mm guns. your suplies dangreusly low, relifshipment come in thank god last of ammos is already in planes. op the crate its all 20mms. what u gonna do now? just saying amercian miltary likes to stick with stuff they now wrks, and during war tiem it more ecinmical to use a standard ammo then to have eveyplane with difrent ammo. they decised that with multip 12mm setups they could standertise there airforce with a commenly avalible relible and eslaly mass produeced ammo and gun. contracts with gunsupliers might also have efected this. politics is politcs. the 12mm was for most planes an adaquit combination to bring them down. it didnt polverise them in 1 shot but it did tear them up with spead and consitration. im not backing out of anything i said b4 just liek squil u cnat compair the bullets fairly because the way the wrk and kill a planes toaly difrent. per hit a larger bullets always more powerfull, but the number of round in a conitrated area, impacing at a higher rate of fire can have a devistaing efect as well. after all u can get a charlie horse from 1 hard punch or abounch of fast lighterpunches.a fuck dont even know why i bother. maby look at it this way 12mms can shread a plane 20mms punch holes trew it. now i quit this topic b4 i stat beatting head against wall........
