Bulletproof Enemy

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Okay. I'm not a WWI flightsim rookie. I flew all three versions of Red Baron for quite a few years, and I think I have a reasonable understanding of what it takes to shoot down an AI aircraft. Enough, at least, to say that, when I'm flying OFF/BHAH, and I'm on a QC mission, and I pump a few rounds into a Nieuport 11 so he slows down his maneuvering, and then I spend the rest of the flight close on his six, expending my entire 1000 round allotment from my Spandaus into all parts of his empenage, cockpit, and engine compartment, from a variety of angles behind, below, and from the side, AND HE STILL REFUSES TO GO DOWN, something might be wrong.

 

This has happened to me a couple times in QC. in contrast, enemy bullets seem to be of the explosive variety; and come at a rate that damages so many parts of my plane so quickly it just can't be right.

 

I was flying a Tross III and chasing a Spad VII all over the sky after pumping 1000 rounds into him. He would not go down! I finally closed in from behind at low altitude, chopped his tail off with my prop, and down we both went. I survived the crash, spent 24 days in the hospital, and when I returned THAT was the only one of my claims that was confirmed!

 

Anybody else experiencing anything like this?

 

Prost!

 

TvO

[gandi 0]

are you getting confirmed hits on the enemy? (turn messages back on in the config setup if you have disabled them- you know, the tedious ones that say 'you hit enemy aircraft')

If not then there's the problem

 

 

is this only closer than 50 yds? (check with labels)

If so, are you using an old .exe file (this happens if you are using an old dated solution to save using your cd)

 

otherwise, I'm out of suggestions/ideas.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Have you got the latest patch and hotfix?

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Yes. The message indicates I fired, say, 30 rounds from a distance of (sometimes) anywhere between 100 to 600 feet (think it lists it as meters or yards, but I'm extrapolating) while traveling at a certain speed, at a certain altitude, etc.

 

The next message will confirm my rounds struck the enemy aircraft, describe the type, give a serial number like 100F, etc.

 

Again and again, until I'm out of ammo.

 

Really not trying to brag, but I'm really not that bad of a shot.

 

Not sure what an old exe. file might be. Brand new XPS Quad Core 2 computer with plenty of space and power, and a new CFS3 / OFF setup. (Probably not computer literate enough to know what an old exe file is, actually.)

 

Latest patch is the one that just came about when I loaded my OFF/BHAH this past weekend: 1.26, right? Yes, I've loaded that, I think. It said save to desktop. I've got an icon there for it. Does that mean it's loaded to the game?

 

I don't know what the latest hotfix is, so I probably haven't loaded it. Where's that?

 

You guys are great! Thanks for the help!

 

Prost!

 

TvO

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Yes. The message indicates I fired, say, 30 rounds from a distance of (sometimes) anywhere between 100 to 600 feet (think it lists it as meters or yards, but I'm extrapolating) while traveling at a certain speed, at a certain altitude, etc.

 

The next message will confirm my rounds struck the enemy aircraft, describe the type, give a serial number like 100F, etc.

 

Again and again, until I'm out of ammo.

 

Really not trying to brag, but I'm really not that bad of a shot.

 

Not sure what an old exe. file might be. Brand new XPS Quad Core 2 computer with plenty of space and power, and a new CFS3 / OFF setup. (Probably not computer literate enough to know what an old exe file is, actually.)

 

Latest patch is the one that just came about when I loaded my OFF/BHAH this past weekend: 1.26, right? Yes, I've loaded that, I think. It said save to desktop. I've got an icon there for it. Does that mean it's loaded to the game?

 

I don't know what the latest hotfix is, so I probably haven't loaded it. Where's that?

 

You guys are great! Thanks for the help!

 

Prost!

 

TvO

 

PS: ABOUT THE MESSAGES...Yes, I'm getting the blue ones when I hit him, and the red ones when he hits me. The messages i was talking about above are those that come through when you review the flight afterwards. It says I'm hitting the target, and sometimes I even see stuff flying off the plane; but it doesn't seem to be having the effect I'd expect from a burst of machinegun ammo.

[+Polovski 414]

Microsoft had a bug no damage hits under 50 yards.. "50 yard bug" in OLDER versions of CFS3.exe (v3.0). so if you happened to replace it that would cause it.

[rabu 9]

TVO: Right click on your desktop shotcut for CFS3 --> properties --> shortcut tab --> find target.

 

Then, with the actual CFS3.exe right click --> properties --> version tab and note the version

Edited March 10, 2009 by rabu

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Uhhh, well...I'm not sure what i did...might have done something to get the 1.26 patch to kick in from the desktop position when I opened OFF this time...also changed planes to a D-VII as recommended when I asked "where's my hands and feet?" in another thread...and that's made quite a bit of difference.

 

I just QC'd a couple Spad XIII's and managed to put them down. Still not blowing them apart and flaming them as I see in Polovski's movies, but maybe that's just me.

 

On the last kill, after slowing him down a bit, I just closed in close enough to hear him scream when I blasted him, and down he went: exploding in a ball of flame.

 

Muuhahahahahahaaaa! Very satisfying! (Yes, I know that's sick!)

 

I'll try the suggestions you made.

 

Next, a better joystick, a set of rudder pedals, and one of those TrackIR setups and this is really going to get HAIRY!!!!

 

Thanks for all the help guys!

 

Prost!

 

TvO

Edited March 10, 2009 by Todt Von Oben

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Microsoft had a bug no damage hits under 50 yards.. "50 yard bug" in OLDER versions of CFS3.exe (v3.0). so if you happened to replace it that would cause it.

 

Sorry to say I wouldn't know old from new CFS3. All I know is I bought a two disk set by a company called XPLOSIV that's in a red clamshell case and it's called Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 "Battle for Europe". Sound like the one that has the bugaboos?

[rabu 9]

Sorry to say I wouldn't know old from new CFS3. All I know is I bought a two disk set by a company called XPLOSIV that's in a red clamshell case and it's called Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 3 "Battle for Europe". Sound like the one that has the bugaboos?

 

Again,.. TVO: Right click on your desktop shotcut for CFS3 --> properties --> shortcut tab --> find target.

 

Then, with the actual CFS3.exe right click --> properties --> version tab and note the version

[Fortiesboy 3]

Again,.. TVO: Right click on your desktop shotcut for CFS3 --> properties --> shortcut tab --> find target.

 

Then, with the actual CFS3.exe right click --> properties --> version tab and note the version

 

Rabu S! - If he is flying OFF BHAH, the cfs3 exe doesn't come into it, does it ? He is flying the OFF exe , as installed, yes? and so the 50 yd bug is well and truly history.

 

As it happens, I too, am experiencing a lack of wings coming off etc. in 1.26+ hotfix. I HAVE A qUAD CORE i7 computer like OVS' and it is fast.

I spent today doing a series of tests in QC - SE5a Versus Dr1 and Pfalz III. They were rookies and i had on all the messages to see what hits i made. I used trackir on and off, and the effects up to 5.

I had players weapon on normal and strongest,

But there were only one or two occasions- all day- when a plane exploded or a wing came off. In fact, once!

Most spiralled out of control but went in intact.

 

I tried guns on easiest and hardest, believing that hardest was the old "tightest" re spread.

That setting gave me more hits, according to the blue messages, than easiest.

 

However, there were many occasions when i fired many rounds into him , and smack on target according to the "tube" ( Se5a),

that were NOT registered. - I found that strange. Then another burst shortly after showed some hits.

 

After modding the damage, I got wings coming off.

 

I stress this is for QC only, which I play mostly ( for various reasons ) -I haven't seen what happens in campaign yet,

but it is still not easy to get bits ( big bits ) flying off -lol.

 

Still, it is the best sim by far- and will be for a long time

[77Scout 3]

Rabu S! - If he is flying OFF BHAH, the cfs3 exe doesn't come into it, does it ? He is flying the OFF exe , as installed, yes? and so the 50 yd bug is well and truly history.

 

The csf3.exe might come into it if, as euphemistically mentioned above, he has illegally bypassed the need to have the CD in the drive (has been known to happen), or maybe if something was way messed up with the install (not likely).

 

p.s. I know there was a rule back at SOH not to mention 'crack'...is that the case here too or can we speak plainly? Just wondering why we are all beating around the bush in discussing this.

[Over50 0]

Yes. The message indicates I fired, say, 30 rounds from a distance of (sometimes) anywhere between 100 to 600 feet (think it lists it as meters or yards, but I'm extrapolating) while traveling at a certain speed, at a certain altitude, etc.

 

The next message will confirm my rounds struck the enemy aircraft, describe the type, give a serial number like 100F, etc.

 

Again and again, until I'm out of ammo.

 

Really not trying to brag, but I'm really not that bad of a shot.

 

Not sure what an old exe. file might be. Brand new XPS Quad Core 2 computer with plenty of space and power, and a new CFS3 / OFF setup. (Probably not computer literate enough to know what an old exe file is, actually.)

 

Latest patch is the one that just came about when I loaded my OFF/BHAH this past weekend: 1.26, right? Yes, I've loaded that, I think. It said save to desktop. I've got an icon there for it. Does that mean it's loaded to the game?

I don't know what the latest hotfix is, so I probably haven't loaded it. Where's that?

 

You guys are great! Thanks for the help!

 

Prost!

 

TvO

 

Downloading and saving the patch to the desktop is only the first step. If this is all you've done, then NO the patch hasn't been installed.

[+Polovski 414]

Er yeah once you download a patch, you have to unpack it first (see download page for instrutions). THEN find the file you unpacked it to, and run it to INSTALL the patch.

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Any chance that at extreme ranges, aside from the arc of trajectory, that .30 Caliber Bullet only has enough power to hole canvas. Might as well use a BB gun at point blank range

 

Could you have learned your RB3D shooting tricks, with RB3D bullets ?

 

Hi Al,

 

Well, first of all, we're not talking about extreme ranges here. In the game, I'm catching the opponent at ranges of 100 to 200 yards with my distant shots: usually head on or from the side in deflection. I know with the aircraft motion and the engine shaking the gun around, not all rounds will be on target. But I am getting the blue messages that say I've hit his plane.

 

Then, he'll slow down a bit and I'll get on his six, and there I'm hitting him from anywhere between, say, fifty yards to darn near right on top of him. Again, I'm getting messages saying I'm hitting the target, so we know the bullets are finding their mark.

 

About machinegun effectiveness: The Spandau fired a 7.92 X 57mm cartridge. The M-60 I carried in Viet Nam fired a 7.62 X 51mm cartridge. Not exactly the same, but pretty much in the same ball park, and certainly close enough for this comparison.

 

From experience, I found the M-60 to be effective at close or distant range. It will shoot through medium cover (bushes, wood, etc.) at combat distances with no problem. At 400 meters, it will go through the sheet metal of a truck and bust a hole in the engine block. Even at ranges from 1300 to 1500 meters, it can still be effective. Generally, you'll be arcing your bullets and watching where your strikes kick up dirt, like when firing from one hill to another, for example. But if you hit a soldier out in the open under those conditions, you're going to spoil his day.

 

I think a Spandau would be pretty close to about the same, more or less. So, I think we can rule out this type of bullet not having an effect when they are on target. Considering the construction of WWI aircraft, a dual brace of Spandau's should chew up a plane without much trouble.

 

As for Red Baron shooting tricks: what is there besides deflection shooting (leading when engaging from the side), and firing straight on (as in from the rear or head on)? These are standards for air combat, and have been the same when I played RB, Luftwaffe Commander, or Heroes of the Pacific. Apparently the same for OFF, too.

 

Regarding Red Baron bullets: I felt the number of rounds fired, versus the damage I inflicted, seemed to be fairly reasonable. I'd say the same for the other air combat games I've played, too. My reason for bringing up this thread is that I don't feel like that's what I'm experiencing with OFF; especially when I compare my game experiences with what I see other guys doing in Youtube videos.

 

I think the OFF game itself is pretty good; that's what leads me to think there's something wrong about the way I have it set up.

 

And after reading what Rabu, Polovski, and the other guys have said here, I think the problem is I don't have the 1.26 patch properly installed, for one thing. Will look into that and the other points mentioned, and get back to you guys with the results, but that will be a day or two from now, I think. Work priorities, you know! :yes:

 

Thanks again, everyone, for all the help. It's nice to know that everyone is dedicated to seeing everyone else enjoy the experience of OFF/BHAH.

 

Prost!

 

TvO

Edited March 11, 2009 by Todt Von Oben

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Cartridge size and bullet diameter have no bearing whatsoever on ballistics. It's apples and oranges, they're both fruit but it stops right there. In this case they both send a projectile downrange, and they both go BANG when the primer is hit . Period. From then onward there can be no comparison.

 

In order for your viewpoint to have any merit, we must believe that all bullet, cartridge, propellent, metallurgy, and barrel rifling ceased to be developed after 1917

 

Unfortunately we are always on the lookout for more effective methods to kill our fellow man

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

No others have reported your problem, within OFF. Therefore one can only surmize, it ain't the game

 

Sorry Al, but you're wrong on all accounts.

 

1. Cartridge characteristics have everything to do with bullet performance; and there are huge differences in the performance of dissimilar cartridges.

 

2. I never said no advancements have been made since 1917; you implied that all by yourself. I only said that the cartridges used in an Mg-08 and an M-60 are similar enough to know that, when you're shooting from moderate to close distances through canvas towards a man, a fuel tank, or an engine, the results produced are generally comparable. And that's true.

 

3. Whether or not the development of arms is unfortunate is (again) your opinion; is off topic; and is a moot point in any event. Guns are a fact of life in a World where those of us who want to live in peace and freedom find ourselves defending against those who want to deny us that right. I own guns to protect myself and other decent, law-abiding, respectful people from those who would attack us. Accordingly, I don't think the development and improvement of firearms is a bad thing at all. In fact, I see technological advancements that improve my odds of surviving a gunfight as being very fortunate, indeed.

 

4. If you'll read through the other threads, you'll see that other people have experienced similar problems that were resolved by the 1.26 patch. And if you'll re-read my posts, you'll see that I've already accepted that I believe the problem I'm experiencing is due to my incorrect installation of the patch; not the game itself.

 

Prost!

 

TvO

[Over50 0]

So then you're saying that a .30 calibre Machine Gun in 1917, where we must estimate the projectile speed at 2000 ft per second. To have the destructive force of a full metal jacketed 7.62 NATO, or as us civies refer to it a .308 Winchester, which leaves the muzzle at around 2700 ft. per second and can hit it's target at 300yds by holding 4inches high.

 

They're Both .30 cal weapons, but that's where it ends. Anytime we're talking a rimmed cartridge, we're talking low comparative velocities

 

The sighting blade on your M60 was probably graduated to 800 yards

 

Wouldn't try that with a Spandau

 

Please, and no offense, but remember guys - this IS a game.

[Bullethead 12]

I used to have the same problem of hosing a plane down thoroughly and not knocking it down. However, my last 3 kills were scored with a combined total of 19 hits spread between them (9 on the 1st, 6 on the 2nd, 4 on the 3rd) out of about 250 rounds fired in total. I'm using the normal bullet strength.

 

All these kills were scored in high deflection snapshots at ranges averaging about 200 feet, hence the low hit percentage. Average burst size was only 6 rounds (I'm flying a Pup). I was firing at the top of the enemy most times, sometimes from slightly behind as well, as the enemy turned hard across my nose. I always had a clear shot at the pilot and that's what I was aiming for. I never saw any hit graphics (smoke puffs, pieces flying) and none of these 3 planes caught fire. All, however, immediately went out of control and quickly crashed (all fights were at less than 1000 feet). I have realistic sounds set so can only hear my own engine, but I figure I must have hit the pilot each time.

[Todt Von Oben 0]

Please, and no offense, but remember guys - this IS a game.

 

For sure, O-50. All good!

[Todt Von Oben 0]

I used to have the same problem of hosing a plane down thoroughly and not knocking it down. However, my last 3 kills were scored with a combined total of 19 hits spread between them (9 on the 1st, 6 on the 2nd, 4 on the 3rd) out of about 250 rounds fired in total. I'm using the normal bullet strength.

 

All these kills were scored in high deflection snapshots at ranges averaging about 200 feet, hence the low hit percentage. Average burst size was only 6 rounds (I'm flying a Pup). I was firing at the top of the enemy most times, sometimes from slightly behind as well, as the enemy turned hard across my nose. I always had a clear shot at the pilot and that's what I was aiming for. I never saw any hit graphics (smoke puffs, pieces flying) and none of these 3 planes caught fire. All, however, immediately went out of control and quickly crashed (all fights were at less than 1000 feet). I have realistic sounds set so can only hear my own engine, but I figure I must have hit the pilot each time.

 

Hey Bullethead!

 

I've seen your posts, like where you pointed out the difference between the gun's published cyclic rate of fire and the reduced number of projected rounds imposed by the interrupter gear; so I figure you also know another factor effecting the number of rounds arriving on target is the fact that these guns were mounted on a vibrating airframe that spread the bullets around a bit. I think there's a setting in the Workshops that allows us to adjust the bullet spread? Concentrate or diffuse the cone of fire? I've gotta check that out.

 

The problem I've addressed in this thread is that lately, it's looked to me like I'm on target; and the messages indicate I'm scoring hits; but they don't seem to be having the effect I'd expect.

 

I've seen other guys make similar observations in the thread about the 1.26 patch, and after they got it working right, the problem went away. I've come to believe that I don't have the patch installed correctly yet. I'm hoping things will normalize when I do. Won't know till this weekend, though. (Work priorities.)

 

Interesting correlation to your story: I was having the aforementioned problems in a Tros D-III. When I took someone's advice and tried a D-VII, it was different. I closed on his six and opened up at less than 100 feet, firing as I continued my approach. I know I hit the pilot because my spinner was about fifteen feet from his elevator when I heard him scream; after which his plane went out of control and crashed.

 

Gotta make sure my patch is loaded right; do some tweaking in the Workshops; and I think once I get it dialed in it's all gonna be good.

 

Prost!

 

TvO

[Bullethead 12]

I've seen your posts, like where you pointed out the difference between the gun's published cyclic rate of fire and the reduced number of projected rounds imposed by the interrupter gear; so I figure you also know another factor effecting the number of rounds arriving on target is the fact that these guns were mounted on a vibrating airframe that spread the bullets around a bit. I think there's a setting in the Workshops that allows us to adjust the bullet spread? Concentrate or diffuse the cone of fire? I've gotta check that out.

 

The motor was just one source of dispersion. There are a host of factors that add to MG dispersion, most of which affect ground-mounted guns as well as those in WW1 planes :).

 

I use the normal dispersion, which I think is quite wide enough. Have you ever just fired your guns on the ground, without even starting the motor? You'll see your tracer scattering out over a fairly wide area. It's especially visible from the external view in front of your plane. Look down your own barrel and see how the bullets come at you differently every time. While there's no way to tell for sure, it looks to me like the best you can hope for with normal dispersion is that a bullet will hit somewhere within about 3-4 feet of your point of aim at about 100 yards (IOW, within a circle 6-8' wide). That's about the same as I could do back in the day firing the old 7.62mm M60 off my shoulder, without benefit of any sort of gun mount, so I'd think airplane guns should shoot a bit tighter. But OTOH, I'm a Marine; maybe flyboys just inherently can't shoot as well?

 

Regardless, I'm quite sure that in their quest for realism, OBD set their system up so that normal dispersion most closely matched what they considered the most realistic, taking all the various factors into account. They know far more knowledgeable about the subject of WW1 airplane guns than I am, so I take their word for it.

 

The various patches always seem to install just fine. Remember, each patch includes all the previous fixes, so even if somehow something got hosed to begin with, putting in the latest patch should set it right.

[Bullethead 12]

Unless those guns were syncronized to fire at the exact same instant, accuracy goes out the window. And bullet spread should be set on wide. The exception would be the SE5, two guns, but one in the fusilage, one on the wing ( TIGHT )

 

Hmmm..... I dunno. Don't you have that backwards? Shouldn't the SE5 be wider than any other 2-gun fighter? I mean, the Lewis had more leverage to throw the plane around, and because it was in a different place from the Vickers, it would have had to have been converged. That is, at 1 fixed range both guns would be hitting the same point, but everywhere else, the'd be some distance apart.

 

But anyway, I don't think having twin fuselage guns would make any real difference compared to 1 gun. The guns are mounted practically on the airlpane's centerline, so have very little leverage to exert their push.

 

Consider most WW2 fighters with guns out in the wings. They weren't firing at the same time, had much more leverage, were often of larger caliber, and there were more of them. So if multiple guns exterted a large scattering influence, it should have been something you'd have read a lot about from WW2 air combat. But the only time I've heard it mentioned is when all the guns on 1 wing jammed, and then spoiling the aim was the least of the pilot's worries. The recoil would actually yaw the plane out of control until he quit firing.

[Todt Von Oben 0]

The motor was just one source of dispersion. There are a host of factors that add to MG dispersion, most of which affect ground-mounted guns as well as those in WW1 planes :).

 

True. Even on a sandbagged tripod with a T&E there's gonna be dispersion for a variety of reasons. Just thought I'd throw that A/C engine vibration thing out there to see if it seemed to you that the game takes that into consideration.

Have you ever just fired your guns on the ground, without even starting the motor?

 

Yes, but only for the heck of it and without any analysis value intended. Just fooling around, I must admit.

You'll see your tracer scattering out over a fairly wide area. It's especially visible from the external view in front of your plane. Look down your own barrel and see how the bullets come at you differently every time.

Ha! Now THERE'S a HELL of a good idea! (And also something you'll never do more than once in real life. ) That never even occurred to me, but I am DEFINITELY going to try it. Thanks!

While there's no way to tell for sure, it looks to me like the best you can hope for with normal dispersion is that a bullet will hit somewhere within about 3-4 feet of your point of aim at about 100 yards (IOW, within a circle 6-8' wide). That's about the same as I could do back in the day firing the old 7.62mm M60 off my shoulder, without benefit of any sort of gun mount, so I'd think airplane guns should shoot a bit tighter.

I think that kind of impact density at 100 meters firing free-gun is pretty realistic. Standing up with the 100-round assault pack, and with the weapon pushed a little out in front of you, leaning into it aggressively, and using what they call "Quick Kill" target engagement technique: you can get pretty good at putting the rounds where they need to go.

 

Obviously, accuracy improves on the bipods, or on a tripod with a T&E, so yeah: I think the results of a rigid mount on an aircraft should be better than free gun until that aircraft movement and engine vibration thing comes into play. Then things should spread out a bit.

 

So all things considered, if we're seeing a similar spread under both conditions, then I'd think we're doing pretty good in either case.

 

But OTOH, I'm a Marine; maybe flyboys just inherently can't shoot as well?

 

The Marines are legendary for their marksmanship. I've never done a study, but I wouldn't be surprised if the best shots among aviators are in the Marine Air Wing.

 

Regardless, I'm quite sure that in their quest for realism, OBD set their system up so that normal dispersion most closely matched what they considered the most realistic, taking all the various factors into account. They know far more knowledgeable about the subject of WW1 airplane guns than I am, so I take their word for it.

 

The various patches always seem to install just fine. Remember, each patch includes all the previous fixes, so even if somehow something got hosed to begin with, putting in the latest patch should set it right.

 

I believe you. I, too, think they've done a fine job.

 

I know nothing about installing computer patches, but I'm pretty sure I botched it somewhere along the line. We'll know this weekend. Actually, I'm pretty optimistic I can get if figured out.

 

You still in the Corps? I worked in the 0331 section (M-60) for two classes at 2nd BITBN in Camp Pendleton back in early 1970. Overseas with Bravo 1/9, 3rd MARDIV; and Mike 3/1, 1st MARDIV. Drop me a PM sometime if you feel like yackin'. I'd like to hear what things are like these days.

 

Prost!

 

TvO

 

 

Edited March 13, 2009 by Todt Von Oben

[Todt Von Oben 0]

On the subject in general of what causes bullet dispersion on WW1 aircraft firing machineguns:

 

There was a TV show not long ago...on the Discovery Channel maybe...where they got into analyzing who really shot Von Richthofen down. Was it Brown in the air; or Popkin or Bewie (sp?) on the ground?

 

They did some computer analysis; fired lasers at actual aircraft; etc. You've probably seen it.

 

Didn't that program get into what the prime causes of bullet spread on an MG fired from this kind of airframe was?

 

Did they actually do one demonstration where they fired a gun mounted on the cowling of a vintage aircraft at a target, to show how few rounds actually hit their mark?

 

Didn't they also do something similar using computer simulations?

 

I wish I could remember exactly what they said about the pros and cons of aircraft mounted machineguns.

What I do seem to remember is that the forces involved tended to spread the rounds out a lot; and from any appreciable range, one would be lucky if a small percentage of his bullets found their mark.

 

Did anybody take the time to record that program? Any specs available from the research those guys did?

 

Prost!

 

TvO

[Bullethead 12]

Didn't that program get into what the prime causes of bullet spread on an MG fired from this kind of airframe was?

 

I don't recall that part of it too well. IIRC, my thought was that it weakened their argument, because it was belaboring a minor point. Their best argument was MvR's autopsy ;).

 

I do, however, have an RAF diagram from WW2 showing the patterns of the 8 guns of a Spit Mk I when converged at 350 yards. This resulted in 75% of the bullets hitting within the diameter of an HE111 fuselage at 400 yards.