Ares Games
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 583

Thread: WGS Battle of Britain Update

  1. #251

    Default

    It is getting really hot! With the new "303" movie in the cinemas in 2017 we are going to have a very special BoB year - yeah!
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  2. #252

    Default

    I'll let my wife know my Valentine's Day gift is sorted!

  3. #253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    I need a second job!
    There's a vacancy at Portsmouth for a guide on HMS Victory.........

    I need to send 'er indoors out to work
    Run for your life - there are stupid people everywhere!

  4. #254

    Default

    That's a nice update on the Ares site, although not sure what a "Private Officer" is? On the Spitfire squadron pack page.

  5. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guntruck View Post
    There's a vacancy at Portsmouth for a guide on HMS Victory.........

    I need to send 'er indoors out to work
    No problem there gunners. Last time I looked HMS Victory did not have any sails.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  6. #256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    No problem there gunners. Last time I looked HMS Victory did not have any sails.
    Rob.
    Ah perfect part time job for Tim then


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  7. #257

    Default

    Looks like I'll be ordering some more planes very soon, lol.

  8. #258

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    HMS Victory did not have any sails.
    Rob.
    Tim will be pleased---No Sails

  9. #259

    Default

    Did someone posted the link to the Ares Games homepage, before?

    Here you can see the planes we'll get:

    http://www.aresgames.eu/games/ww2-wi...in-starter-set
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 800x600-ww2_wings_of_glory-WGS003A_4.jpg   800x600-ww2_wings_of_glory-WGS003A_3.jpg   800x600-ww2_wings_of_glory-WGS003A_2.jpg   800x600-ww2_wings_of_glory-WGS003A_1.jpg  
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  10. #260

    Default

    I really hope there will be some ace skills included - Spitfires are too weak (BB vs. ACC) and that would be disapointing for new players.

  11. #261

    Default

    I never really understood how we knocked so many Me s down if we were that undergunned, had engine issues in a prolonged dive, and so many rookie pilots.
    rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  12. #262

    Default

    Old discussion, Rob.

    C-Deck has a lot of zeroes.

    B-Deck is steady and deadly.


    At the Con's, the Spitfires are always choosen first. That's not an indicator for weakness.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  13. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan-Sam View Post
    I really hope there will be some ace skills included - Spitfires are too weak (BB vs. ACC) and that would be disapointing for new players.
    There will be cards with special rules for the planes and with ace skills - and plenty of skills in the manual anyway.

    On average, a B is equal to a C. B are for machineguns, so less hit-or-miss (as said, less 0 and trhe same average of points).

    To balance, Spitfires are more agile than Bf.109E, anyway. They already were in Wings of War, and there will be a little change in their maneuvre decks (new A deecks will also have a 60° turn per side, as with Spitfire IX released some time ago). You can still use Wings of War A decks considering them for older Spitfire MkI, with less efficient propellers IMHO.

  14. #264

    Default

    Thanks for clarifying that chaps, and sorry if I brought up an old chestnut. It just reminds me how late I came to WW2. Well after Nexus demise.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  15. #265

    Default

    Yellow Squiggle 5 and White 13 aren't even squadronmates.

    No Tail Symbol = I. Gruppe of Geschwader
    Squiggle " = III. Gruppe
    http://modelingmadness.com/codes/codes.htm

    Based on the standard of 12/Staffel, I'm not even sure White 13 is a real aircraft!
    Historical Consultant/Researcher, Wings and Sails lines - Unless stated otherwise, all comments are personal opinion only and NOT official Ares policy.
    Wings Checklists: WWI (down Navarre Nieuport, Ares Drachens) | WWII (complete)

  16. #266

    Default

    But thirteens were out there - unlucky for some !

    "This photo depicts the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E-4 “Weiße 13”, flown by Leutnant Walter Blume of 7.Staffel / III.Gruppe / JG 26. The four black victory bars on the rudder date the photograph between 25 July 1940 (Blume’s 4th victory) and 15 August 1940 (when Leutnant Blume was lost). Also in evidence are the yellow identity markings introduced by Luftflotte 2 at the beginning of August..."
    http://ww2colorfarbe.blogspot.co.uk/...1_archive.html

    and sometimes unlucky for them...

    "He is wise who watches"

  17. #267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    I never really understood how we knocked so many Me s down if we were that undergunned, had engine issues in a prolonged dive, and so many rookie pilots.
    rob.
    I keep telling you: Cannons in this game are *drastically* over-rated, esp. early-war designs. The reality was: Cannons did not become effective air-to-air weapons until much later in the War, when the aerodynamic problems with the German shells were worked out; and then they had to confront the tendency for the slaves to not bother attaching fuses, or putting explosive in the shells. Add to this the fact that due to different ammo flight-paths, one could not use cannons *and* MGs together, and the explanation for why the Germans lost BoB (and others) becomes painfully apparent.

    But since this doesn't fit The Narrative, no one wants to hear it.

  18. #268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    There will be cards with special rules for the planes and with ace skills - and plenty of skills in the manual anyway.

    On average, a B is equal to a C. B are for machineguns, so less hit-or-miss (as said, less 0 and trhe same average of points).

    To balance, Spitfires are more agile than Bf.109E, anyway. They already were in Wings of War, and there will be a little change in their maneuvre decks (new A deecks will also have a 60° turn per side, as with Spitfire IX released some time ago). You can still use Wings of War A decks considering them for older Spitfire MkI, with less efficient propellers IMHO.
    That is the news!
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  19. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    There will be cards with special rules for the planes and with ace skills - and plenty of skills in the manual anyway.

    On average, a B is equal to a C. B are for machineguns, so less hit-or-miss (as said, less 0 and trhe same average of points).

    To balance, Spitfires are more agile than Bf.109E, anyway. They already were in Wings of War, and there will be a little change in their maneuvre decks (new A deecks will also have a 60° turn per side, as with Spitfire IX released some time ago). You can still use Wings of War A decks considering them for older Spitfire MkI, with less efficient propellers IMHO.
    Very good news!

  20. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    I keep telling you: Cannons in this game are *drastically* over-rated, esp. early-war designs. The reality was: Cannons did not become effective air-to-air weapons until much later in the War, when the aerodynamic problems with the German shells were worked out; and then they had to confront the tendency for the slaves to not bother attaching fuses, or putting explosive in the shells. Add to this the fact that due to different ammo flight-paths, one could not use cannons *and* MGs together, and the explanation for why the Germans lost BoB (and others) becomes painfully apparent.

    But since this doesn't fit The Narrative, no one wants to hear it.
    The lonesome rock in the breaking of waves...

    I knew that Dan-Sam's post would attract your attention.

    Now way to sneak through the Aerodrome with an input that is related to WW 2 cannon.

    I think you deserve a medal for permanent holding this position.


    As long as we can't display factors like superior experience, tactics & pilot abilities, we have to live with this early war axis cannon bonus, Chris.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  21. #271

    Default

    With the Starter set, Commander packs and Squadron packs, I can see this becoming very expensive.

  22. #272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Naharaht View Post
    With the Starter set, Commander packs and Squadron packs, I can see this becoming very expensive.
    It was!

    But SOOOOOOO worth it!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  23. #273

    Default

    I forgot another levelling fact. While Hurricanes and Spitfires are provided with a card for a special optional rule limiting overdives, Bf.109Es have one to limit cannons' ammo.

  24. #274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    It was!

    But SOOOOOOO worth it!
    What that man said
    Run for your life - there are stupid people everywhere!

  25. #275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I forgot another levelling fact. While Hurricanes and Spitfires are provided with a card for a special optional rule limiting overdives, Bf.109Es have one to limit cannons' ammo.
    Great news Andrea!

    Great you made some tuning to the BoB Planes.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  26. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I forgot another levelling fact. While Hurricanes and Spitfires are provided with a card for a special optional rule limiting overdives, Bf.109Es have one to limit cannons' ammo.
    Meraviglioso, bellisemo Andrea.

    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  27. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I forgot another levelling fact. While Hurricanes and Spitfires are provided with a card for a special optional rule limiting overdives, Bf.109Es have one to limit cannons' ammo.
    But how?
    <img src=http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=2554&dateline=1409073309 border=0 alt= />
    "We do not stop playing when we get old, but we get old when we stop playing."

  28. #278

    Default

    Only the cards will reveal Andy .


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  29. #279

    Default

    Just for clarification, the new A decks will be for the new movement deck for all Mk.I/Mk.II WoW/WoG Spitfires going forward? It seems the new A decks will make the old WoW A decks obsolete. Which Mk.Is would you consider as "older Spitfire Mk.I, with less efficient propellers"? Is there any difference in the WoW and WoG Mk.Is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    There will be cards with special rules for the planes and with ace skills - and plenty of skills in the manual anyway.

    On average, a B is equal to a C. B are for machineguns, so less hit-or-miss (as said, less 0 and trhe same average of points).

    To balance, Spitfires are more agile than Bf.109E, anyway. They already were in Wings of War, and there will be a little change in their maneuvre decks (new A decks will also have a 60° turn per side, as with Spitfire IX released some time ago). You can still use Wings of War A decks considering them for older Spitfire MkI, with less efficient propellers IMHO.

  30. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    It was!

    But SOOOOOOO worth it!
    Quote Originally Posted by Guntruck View Post
    What that man said
    What that man said about that the other man said.

  31. #281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teaticket View Post
    What that man said about that the other man said.
    Who said what?
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  32. #282

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    I forgot another levelling fact. While Hurricanes and Spitfires are provided with a card for a special optional rule limiting overdives, Bf.109Es have one to limit cannons' ammo.

  33. #283

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Who said what?
    Rob.
    What's on Second, Who's on First?

  34. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    As long as we can't display factors like superior experience, tactics & pilot abilities, we have to live with this early war axis cannon bonus, Chris.
    Not necessarily -- esp. now with the "special rule" cards coming out. Make a card for most mixed-armament fighters: "Unit may only draw chits of one letter type" (for ex.: A fighter with CCA could draw two Cs, or one A, but not all three at once). For cannon-armed fighters: "If a 0 is drawn, it is returned to the draw pile". There's other possibilities, as well, but these are the most-obvious.

  35. #285

    Default

    Questions:


    What kind of plane cards do the single packs contain?

    For example contains a single Messerschmitt pack 3 plane cards for all versions?
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  36. #286

    Default

    Each airplane pack will have one generic airplane card, plus a sheet of decals and a little leaflet on how to use them to make individual color schemes adding the decals to the miniature. As this one:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	800x600-ww2_wings_of_glory-WGS404A-decal_1.jpg 
Views:	121 
Size:	57.0 KB 
ID:	212368

    There are 3 schemes for the Bf-109E, 5 for each other plane. But the decals allow for several more schemes - I have not the data about this at hand.

  37. #287

    Default

    Interesting and very hobby friendly.

    Now, is it time to discuss selling maneuver decks as product on it's own? :-)

  38. #288

    Default

    Just what we have been waiting for and shouting about.
    I can feel a serious squeeze on my checkbook coming.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  39. #289

    Default

    Why would you limit planes to draw cannin or mg but not both. Did placement have selectir switches for cannin only, mg only and mg/Canon together.?
    I think limiting the Canon ammo is a sensibye way to go.

    I also remember watching a programme on tv about Malta, where a Canadian pilot said that it was only when they received Canon firing spits that they began to shoot d an more aircraft. Time and time again in they would ruffle aircraft with mg fire and rarely only brought it d own if they hit something specific. With c anon they brought down planes with very few rounds.

    109 's could out dive the spit and escape (Battle of Britain) due to engine design.

    I'll heave to now as it's bloody h a rd typing this on my mobile. After all the game is a s simpliyied reflection of combat in either WW1 or 2. We make house rules to increase t h e c complexity according to personal taste.
    See you on the Dark Side......

  40. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angiolillo View Post
    Each airplane pack will have one generic airplane card, plus a sheet of decals and a little leaflet on how to use them to make individual color schemes adding the decals to the miniature. As this one:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	800x600-ww2_wings_of_glory-WGS404A-decal_1.jpg 
Views:	121 
Size:	57.0 KB 
ID:	212368

    There are 3 schemes for the Bf-109E, 5 for each other plane. But the decals allow for several more schemes - I have not the data about this at hand.
    Thanks for that update Andrea. I feel my bank balance getting lighter by the minute


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  41. #291

    Default

    World War 2

    In 1934 the Air Ministry had decided to accept the advice of the Operational Requirements Branch that in view of the increasing speeds of both fighter and bomber aircraft, gun firing opportunities would be brief, so a six or preferably eight-gun battery should be installed in fighters. This of course led to the specification which eventually resulted in the adoption of the Hurricane and Spitfire. Fitting so many guns around the engine wasn't feasible, so they were all mounted in the wings and the complications of synchronisation were dispensed with. The removal of the guns from near the hot engine caused a gun freezing problem at high altitudes, which was addressed, not always successfully, with special lubricants and heating systems.


    Work was also done on improved .303" ammunition. The steel-cored armour-piercing and Buckingham incendiary/tracer (designated B.Mk IV) rounds were based on old designs, but a new incendiary, the B.Mk VI, was developed by Major Dixon, loosely based on the Belgian De Wilde design. In this picture you can see the steel core for the AP bullet and the construction of the famous B Mk VI incendiary.

    In firing tests, the B. Mk VI had a 20% success rate in setting fuel tanks alight, twice that of the Buckingham or the equivalent German 7.92 mm round, and also had the happy side-benefit that the flash of ignition on impact told the pilot that he was on target. Incidentally, the Americans adopted the Dixon design in a simplified form for their .30 and .50 calibre incendiary ammunition, and the British subsequently copied the simplified design as the B.Mk VII. Unlike the practice in other air forces, which used mixed ammunition belts, the RAF preferred to load each .303 fighter gun with only one type of ammunition. The Dixon ammunition was first issued in June 1940 and was at first in short supply, the initial fighter loading being one gun firing Dixon incendiary, two with Buckingham incendiary/tracers, two with armour-piercing and three with plain vanilla "ball" rounds with lead cores. By 1942 the standard loading for fixed guns was half with AP and half with incendiaries.


    As a result of early battle experience, aircraft armour and self-sealing fuel tanks were rapidly applied, and the .303 guns lost effectiveness accordingly. In the Battle of Britain, the performance of.303 ammunition was initially adequate but it was found that the German bombers often survived large numbers of hits. The reason became clear in further tests which involved firing .303 and German 7.92 mm armour-piercing ammunition against the fuselage of a Blenheim light bomber from behind – not the toughest of structures, and with only a 4 mm armour plate protecting the gunner. This AP ammunition could normally penetrate up to 10-12 mm of armour plate, but it was found that the aircraft structure it had to plough through before reaching the armour deflected, absorbed or disrupted the flight of the great majority of the bullets, and of those which reached the armour, very few had enough energy left to penetrate it. Some improvement was achieved by reducing the gun harmonisation range from 400 to 250 yards in order to concentrate the firepower of the RAF's fighters, but it was clear that a more powerful gun was needed. This eventually arrived, just too late for the Battle, in the form of the 20 mm Hispano.

    The Hispano (technically the Hispano-Suiza HS 404) was designed and developed at the French arm of the European Hispano-Suiza company in the mid 1930s. A firing demonstration of a prototype to British officers in Paris in 1936 banished all thought of the Oerlikon; the Hispano was similar in size and weight, slightly more powerful and fired nearly twice as fast. Unfortunately, the processes of obtaining approval to buy the gun, setting up a subsidiary Hispano factory at Grantham (the British Manufacturing And Research Company, or BMARCO), redrawing the gun to imperial rather than metric units, testing and debugging the prototypes, then fitting them into aircraft and debugging the installations, all took too long for the cannon to achieve anything in the Battle of Britain.


    A key problem was that the Hispano was designed for engine mounting, which meant that it would be bolted to a rigid crankcase. An aircraft wing is nowhere near as rigid, and this caused problems with all wing mountings, which had to be fine-tuned to achieve reliable gun functioning. In the initial Spitfire installation, which did see brief use in the Battle, matters were made worse by mounting the guns on their side in order to bury as much as possible of the bulky drum magazine within the wing thickness. The Hispano took a marked dislike to its unfamiliar environment and jammed as often as it fired. Much modification was needed to both the gun and the mountings before acceptable reliability was achieved. Even so, the stoppage rate by 1944 was still three times that of the US .50 Browning. A major improvement was the replacement in 1941 of the original 60-round drum by a belt feed.

    Work was also needed to the ammunition, as it was found that the fuze of the standard explosive shells was too sensitive, causing them to burst on the aircraft skin rather than within the structure where they would do most damage, and plain steel practice shells often proved more effective. By 1941 both a delayed-action fuze and an explosive with added incendiary filling had been developed, but the practice rounds remained in use alongside the HEIs until they were replaced by a new semi-armour piercing round (SAPI) which was essentially an HE shell filled with an incendiary compound and capped with a hard steel tip instead of a fuze. From 1942 on, the standard Hispano loading became 50% HEI, 50% SAPI.


    Compared with other Second World War 20 mm aircraft cannon, the Hispano was a powerful and effective gun, but only averagely fast-firing and unusually long and heavy. Its weaknesses were addressed in the late-war Mk V, shortened, lightened and speeded-up from 600 to 750 rpm. Here you can compare the size of the .303 Browning with the .50 Browning, the short-barrelled Mk V Hispano and the standard Mk II.
    The Hispano Mk V could lay claim to being the best aircraft gun of the war, but this mainly saw action in the Hawker Tempest. What became the standard RAF armament of four Hispanos was also probably the best all-round fighter armament of the war, weighing more or less the same as the standard American armament of six .50" Brownings but being about twice as destructive.


    Sadly the same claims could not be made of the RAF's bomber defensive armament. The initial advantage of the power-operated multi-gun turrets disappeared as the .303 gradually lost effectiveness. Various attempts to introduce more powerful guns virtually all failed; the long and heavy Hispano, which needed substantial support, was far from ideal for the purpose and did not enter service in turrets until very late. The .50 Browning was eventually fitted to some turrets by the end of the war, as well as being used in some fixed mountings, most notably late-model Spitfires which carried two .50 Brownings alongside two Hispanos, apparently because gun heating arrangements were inadequate to keep four Hispanos functioning in sub-zero temperatures.

    These were not the only guns used by British aircraft during the Second World War. Two others deserve mention; the Vickers 40 mm Class S and the Molins 6 pounder. The Vickers was designed around the same ammunition as the naval 2 pounder pom-pom, but the gun was based on a much-developed 1˝ Pdr COW gun. It was originally intended for aerial combat and fitted in a dorsal turret to a much-modified Wellington bomber, but this idea was abandoned. Later, a need arose for a gun capable of penetrating tank armour which could be fitted to ground attack planes. The S gun was duly dusted off and issued with armour-piercing.

    It saw service in the Hurricane IID (with one slung under each wing) and was an alternate armament for the Hurricane Mk.IV, which otherwise carried rocket projectiles, conversion between the gun and rocket armaments being quite rapid. The S gun performed very well in North Africa, South-East Asia and in 1943/44 over northern France, flying from bases in England. Compared with the rocket projectiles more usually associated with "tank-busting" the S Gun was far more accurate, scoring in practice shoots around 25% hits compared with 5% for the RPs (and according to Operational Research, the peculiar flight characteristics of the RPs made them very difficult to aim, which meant that in action, pilot stress caused the hit rate against tanks to decline to 0.5%). Unfortunately, the S gun wasn't powerful enough to penetrate the latest tanks, and the Hurricane Mk.IV was withdrawn from the European theatre only three months before D-day.
    The RAF continued to show interest in airborne anti-tank guns, leading to the development of the DH Mosquito FB XVIII (better known as the Tsetse). This carried an army 6 pounder anti-tank gun fitted with an autoloader developed by the Molins company. This combination worked very well, scoring a 33% hit-rate against tank-sized targets, and the 57 mm ammunition was far more effective than the 40 mm, but the RAF changed its mind and handed the planes over to Coastal Command for anti-U-boat work since it was the only gun which could reliably penetrate a pressure hull.


    In 1946 a Tempest fitted with a pair of Vickers 47 mm Class P anti-tank guns was tested, but after that official RAF interest in powerful ground-attack guns disappeared for good.

    Gunsights also developed, the pre-war reflector sights being supplemented by gyro sights in the last couple of years of the War in order to make deflection shooting easier, as without them average pilots were unlikely to score hits unless they were directly behind their targets.



    See you on the Dark Side......

  42. #292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Пилот View Post
    Interesting and very hobby friendly.

    Now, is it time to discuss selling maneuver decks as product on it's own? :-)
    My biggest gripe, the unavailability of spare decks.

    Ares are really missing out with this, if I am paying Ł13 + for a model with deck, I will certainly pay Ł5 for a deck and plane card like the original format for the game.
    Also they could produce plane cards for aircraft not yet modelled, like Mosquitos, Hampdens, Halifaxs, Wellingtons, Battles, the list is endless.
    WGF is the same, so many aircraft

    Lest we forget

  43. #293

    Default

    I quite agree John.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbiggles View Post
    My biggest gripe, the unavailability of spare decks.

    Ares are really missing out with this, if I am paying Ł13 + for a model with deck, I will certainly pay Ł5 for a deck and plane card like the original format for the game.
    Also they could produce plane cards for aircraft not yet modelled, like Mosquitos, Hampdens, Halifaxs, Wellingtons, Battles, the list is endless.
    WGF is the same, so many aircraft
    See you on the Dark Side......

  44. #294

    Default

    Quite right John.
    I would much rather pay Ares for a set of cards than Cannon for stacks of printer ink, and then have the bother of Designing, cutting and gluing fronts and backs of home made decks together. They must have lost at least Ł150 of my money that way so far at a fiver a deck for aircraft that they don't produce never mind the ones they do.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  45. #295

    Default

    I understand that Ares upgrade The maneuver Decks.

    Like they' ll do for The Zero in The Pacific starter.


    See it as A Privileg that you own The old, Original ones and further generations Will Play with The new ones.
    Voilŕ le soleil d'Austerlitz!

  46. #296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marechallannes View Post
    I understand that Ares upgrade The maneuver Decks.

    Like they' ll do for The Zero in The Pacific starter.


    See it as A Privileg that you own The old, Original ones and further generations Will Play with The new ones.
    ............... just so long as we can see the arrow against the background!!!!!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  47. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    ............... just so long as we can see the arrow against the background!!!!!
    Quite so Tim Those of us with failing eyesight salute you .( Where are you , you moved again!)


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  48. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Why would you limit planes to draw cannin or mg but not both. Did placement have selectir switches for cannin only, mg only and mg/Canon together.?
    "STAND BACK, I'M ABOUT TO TRY SCIENCE!" ;)

    The short answer is: Physics.

    The long answer is: The trajectory of a bullet (or shell) is a parabola, based on two factors -- the first is horizontal velocity, the second is vertical velocity (downward). "As you know, Bob," when objects are allowed to fall freely, they fall at the same rate until they reach their respective maximum falling speeds; so for all practical purposes, the vertical component is the same for all weapons. Thus, the important factor is "How far does the bullet travel horizontally for a given vertical-component length?". (I'd provide drawings, but I'm not good at it.)

    If, for example: Gun A's horizontal travel is 2x that of Gun B's, A's parabola is going to be drastically different from B's -- which means if both are fired at once, there is a *very* small interval (at point-blank range) where both bullets will be "hitting" the same bit of airspace; as range extends, the parabolas separate, so that only one of the pair can hit a given bit of space. Thus, two weapons with different trajectory profiles cannot be used together, as they cannot hit the same target at the same time. Blasting away with both at once means one of them isn't likely to hit; thus, one of the chit draws is wasted.

    Real-world example: The Me-109E4, with MG17 (905 m/s, best case) and MG FF (700 m/s, best case); the gap should be painfully apparent.

  49. #299

    Default

    Well, as far as I know this would be true if you had weapons left to shoot straight ahead. But elevation and direction of weapons could be modified to make bullets converge to a target at an optimal distance. As far as I know, for guns and machineguns of the Bf-109E it was at 200 meters ahead of the plane. For Spitfires, the same problem was for the 8 machineguns: Initially left to spread around hoping to get a target more easily, they were later fixed to converge on a single spot to be more efficient hitting - often at 250 yards ahead of the plane.
    Quite an old problem. Already faced by WW1 planes with, as an example, a machinegun on the fuselage and one on the upper wing. As on the Se5a whose weapons were made to converge, as far as I know, 45 meters ahead.
    Last edited by Angiolillo; 11-27-2016 at 21:10.

  50. #300

    Default

    NSS!

    Pardon my bad typing on my mobile (on computer now). I take your point, however if firing at very close range I would want to fire all my guns, long range probably only the mg's.

    My reference, again from a primary source, namely a Beaufighter pilot, when he stated that he tried to select the correct firing solution on his gun selector, but in his rush switched his guns to safe and didn't fire anything. he then went on to explain the 3 settings:

    a. Machine Guns only.
    b. Canons only.
    c. Both together.
    d. Safety.

    I don't require physics lessons or ballistics lessons nor trajectory nor gravity lessons (had enough of that in the forces). Only to play a game that is fun. If there are others who wish to work out the detailed ballistic trajectory and % chance of # bullets arriving in the same space as the target, with optimum deflection etc etc then crack on. (AH, thats what all the different coloured chits are for...now I get it)

    I would also have thought if I had two sets of weapons firing at different ranges, rate of fire etc (whatever the physics is) I would perhaps want all my bullets to hit the same piece of air, ie get on a ground range and tweak whatever needs tweaking to gain this effect, Andrea explains it more eloquently than I.

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    "STAND BACK, I'M ABOUT TO TRY SCIENCE!"

    The short answer is: Physics.

    The long answer is: The trajectory of a bullet (or shell) is a parabola, based on two factors -- the first is horizontal velocity, the second is vertical velocity (downward). "As you know, Bob," when objects are allowed to fall freely, they fall at the same rate until they reach their respective maximum falling speeds; so for all practical purposes, the vertical component is the same for all weapons. Thus, the important factor is "How far does the bullet travel horizontally for a given vertical-component length?". (I'd provide drawings, but I'm not good at it.)

    If, for example: Gun A's horizontal travel is 2x that of Gun B's, A's parabola is going to be drastically different from B's -- which means if both are fired at once, there is a *very* small interval (at point-blank range) where both bullets will be "hitting" the same bit of airspace; as range extends, the parabolas separate, so that only one of the pair can hit a given bit of space. Thus, two weapons with different trajectory profiles cannot be used together, as they cannot hit the same target at the same time. Blasting away with both at once means one of them isn't likely to hit; thus, one of the chit draws is wasted.

    Real-world example: The Me-109E4, with MG17 (905 m/s, best case) and MG FF (700 m/s, best case); the gap should be painfully apparent.
    See you on the Dark Side......

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •