Jump to content

- - - - -

Gun Range

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 NakedSquirrel

  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 23 November 2009 - 22:43

This seems to happen far too often, but I'm not sure if a bullet can penetrate an engine block at a range of 400-500m.

It seems that most shots to the engine result in some type of engine failure, regardless if it's a glancing shot or a shot from 500m out. While I'm sure that glancing blows are too difficult to calculate. It shouldn't be too hard to change the maximum effective damage of a bullet at further ranges.

Also, I don't think the engine should be as easy to damage as other parts of the plane. While wood/flesh/bone are easy for a bullet to penetrate, an engine block should take a few good shots to take out.
  • 0

#2 gavagai

  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 November 2009 - 22:59

It's hard to say which part of the engine is being hit. But I think your point is better for showing that there is not enough dispersion in the current ballistics model. Currently it's not hard to score hits from 200m, and the AI shoot from 400m just fine. Historically closing to within 100m (or closer) was necessary to shoot somewhat accurately.
  • 0

#3 BarmyFailure

  • Posts: 26

Posted 24 November 2009 - 15:11

I don't think these old guns can penetrate any engine block, an engine block is really thick, thicked than a tank armor. But an oil hose or a sparkling plug is quite fragile like many parts that makes the engine work around the block (the radiator is in front of the block which is why they invented rotary engines).

Well, according to wikipedia, the effective range of a Lewis MK2 for exemple (witch is comparable to the vickers) was 800 meters. That is at 0 altitude with no relative wind.

Fired from a speeding plane it depends. I would guess that if you fire your guns while chasing the enemy plane (in his 6) at 150km/h, the effective range would clearly be reduced, probably to 200-300 meters. because of the relative wind that will make the bullet loose it's energy quiker thus inflicting less damage.

But in the case of a head on pass, I tend to think that the effective range might be 400-500m as the opponent flies right into the bullet. But still the bullet loses energy to relative wind. In this case my guess would be that the faster plane takes more damage from the bullet (the bullet hits it with more energy (the bullet is faster and the plane is faster too)).

That being said, we must keep in mind that pilots in 1917 - 1918 didn't have as mush combat flight experience than most of us do (the only flew since 1913-1914 for the most experienced). So for most of them, aiming would have been their weak point as it's the harder thing to train without actually being engaged in a dog fight. So I think our aiming (and the AI's) is a lot better than theirs. Which historically would cause them to not even try to shoot from further than 100 m.

I might be wrong, and that's all just educated guesses.

PS : sorry for my english (i tend to repeat the same words often caus i lack some vocabulary).
  • 0

#4 Gimpy117

  • Posts: 1661

Posted 30 November 2009 - 20:30

well i think it would be harder in real life regardless.
just think, you gave the movement of the aircraft,vibration, g's and noise plus your heart is pounding. no wonder it was hard to shoot.
  • 0

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users