Quote:


Sorry Chomp, if it seems that the never ending saga of the Spit versus the Hurricane seems to annoy some people.
But there are some people who like to keep talking about these things. We don't think that even after 60 or more years, the subject is explored completely.

If that were the case, why don't we all just forget everything about WWII, BoB, Pacific etc. It's all been said by someone! Why don't we just throw our Sims away and do something that's "interesting" and hasn't been done before.

It happens (and I understand that you probably aren't aware of this) that a few people tried to have a thread closed down (some actually asked Mods to lock it) because we were talking about this very same thing.

I suggested to them that every time a new member comes here and wants to discuss this subject, are we going to embarrass and 'howl him down' because WE (the very ELITE US) have already been through that? So no-one else is alowed to take up our valuable time with 'second-hand subjects'. It's all second hand to someone.

It was only last week and the tread ended up going for about 4 or 5 pages, and still pops up from time to time.
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=cafe;action=display;num=10...

This is a Living Forum. It has to be able to 'regenerate' for the new people who come and re-cover the subjects and interesting areas covered by the older members.
We can't decide that any subject is "old hat" just because one or two or even the majority have had their say. Otherwise the Forum dies a little everytime a subject is discussed and considered 'done with'.

How long would it take for it to die because no-one was 'allowed' to bring up the things that someone or a few were 'sick of'.
(Only sujects of a controversial matter or those likely to cause ill feeling and damage the Forum should be closed, locked or 'critisised as being 'unsuitable).

With respect. mate. Hawk and I, and everyone else who wants to, including yourself, will rehash the Spit/Hurri/BoB subjects until the cows come home. (Unless of course, a Mod considers it has become too heated)

Isn't this what all those wonderful Spit and Hurri pilots fought and died for. Just so I could say this without being censored? 

Quote:


I know a pistol round is about .50 cents for a .38.
A .50 cal rifle round would be dearer.

But then the military wouldn't pay that much.
But it still makes alot of money.  

PS This thread has duplicated and it seems that some posts are missing on the other one. I'm not sure if either is complete.

can a Mod have a look at fixing this, please. 

I have to go to bed now, but I'll be back on tomorrow. Actually in about 8 hrs. I'm on dayshifht tomorrow. Very slow, plenty time for SimV.

When I come back on, I want to see some answers as to where they are going to put 20 tonnes of ammo for one minutes firing of this new gun.

Even on the ground it's going to be a major hassle.

The only application that would make any sense to me, is a large Ship. At least they could store the ammo.

I'm going to do research tomorrow on how many .50 cal rounds were manufactured during WWII (I've seen the figure in a site somewhere).
And I'm going to work out how many MINUTES it would take for this gun to spend all of WWII's ammo (.50 cal anyway) 

A worthwhile exercise, I think......................yeah! 

Quote:

Well said Tempest. I know nothing of this Metal Storm you speak of, in fact I know very little about guns in general. Most rates of fire are quoted in units the gun itself could not possibly cope with or carry ammo for. One million rounds per minute is one way of comparing it with other weapons.

I stumbled on this while poking around. Thought it might interest some of you. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
It's an official comparison of the Spitfire Mk XIV with contemporary aircraft dated 15 June 1944. Here's what they say about it compared with the Mustang Mk III (P-51B/C I think).

Quote:

Since the poll opened again, we have another vote for the 4 x 20mm.
That puts that option and the 6 x .50's 'Neck and neck'.

I can't find anything specific on this new gun on the Net yet. So I can't really comment. But I'll keep looking.

I've been continuing with my studies on the different methods used to calculate (as best as possible given all the different factors) the 'effectiveness' of each type of gun and each type of ammo. It's very involved and there is really no way to come up with a difinitive 'number' to class their effectiveness by.

I've just come across an interesting comment. I'm still trying to find something to back it up, because it's a new one on me, and upsets my applecart a bit.

This fellow says that 'tracer' rounds during WWII usually, due to their makeup, followed a different trajectory.
How could this be? That would make them pretty useless for their major purpose.
Although they did have a 'deterrent' value. Also particular types (especially in the Pacific) had the advantage of being able to set fire to ammo and fuel.

I'll keep you posted.   

Honestly, I really think they have more than enough ways to destroy anything that a 'fast firing' gun could.

I mean all their ordinance, i.e. missiles (air to air, SAMs and air to ground), GB's, Harms etc all have very impressive hit ratios. They've got the 'Gunships' to rip people up on the ground. What do they need the thing for anyway?

If you ask me it would be a waste of time and money for such a thing, as it would have no specific purpose that couldn't be taken care of, reliably, by something they already have. 

Quote:


GAU-8 Avenger

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm