Battle of the Week : Battle of Hoth

[Captain Seafort]

Set by the ground wrenches who had the pilots standing right beside them and worked with them hand in hand on a daily basis. And actually axial guns were not a given.

As far as I recall, hub-mounted weapons were pretty rare

all ME-109's after the C model

Are you just talking about having wing guns or not having axle guns? AFAIK all models of the 109 had MGs on the cowling and a cannon in the hub.

[Mikey]

who had the pilots standing right beside them and worked with them hand in hand on a daily basis.

An important distinction, and one which was never mentioned in reference to the X-wings.

P40 Warhawk

Inaccurate. The P-40E (Kittyhawk) did indeed have 3 .50's in each wing; the P-40 up to the Kittyhawk, known as the Tomahawk, had two .303's in each wing and two co-axial .50's.

P51 Mustang

The P-51 was introduced with two wing-mounted .30's and two co-axial .30's.

Hurricane

Hawker-built MkII-D Hurricanes (as opposed to converted MkII-B's) had a single Vickers or RR 40mm gun - I don't have it to hand, but it presumably could only be mounted on the centerline.

FW190

The FW190, at least through the A-6 model, had fuselage-mounted guns.

those are all the ones just off the top of my head that had guns mounted in the wings.

They all had guns mounted n the wings - I said that most had co-ax guns as well.

Also, with the down right pedestrian velocities of the laser cannon bolts fried by the X-Wing's cannons I'd say that their engagement range would be pretty predictable as in awful fucking close.

That's a whole different canon-v.-intent can of worms.

[Captain Seafort]

An important distinction, and one which was never mentioned in reference to the X-wings.

*Cough*

Pilot says he wants the lasers zeroed to 250m (or whatever) and the ground crew set them up appropriately.

Hawker-built MkII-D Hurricanes (as opposed to converted MkII-B's) had a single Vickers or RR 40mm gun - I don't have it to hand, but it presumably could only be mounted on the centerline.

The IID had a 40mm under each wing.

[Mikey]

Ah, I stand corrected - I thought the MkII-D's only had one 40mm.

[Tyyr]

Are you just talking about having wing guns or not having axle guns? AFAIK all models of the 109 had MGs on the cowling and a cannon in the hub.

Having wing guns period. Also I was counting cowling mounted guns as being axial as well, they're already within two feet of centerline, no real reason to have them converge.

Attempted Nit Picking

Yes, many of the aircraft I listed had axial weapons, but they also had wing mounted weaponry that was zero'd in to converge on the centerline.

That's a whole different canon-v.-intent can of worms.

Canon wise most of your laser cannon bolts traveled slower than a snub 30mm shell in WWII. Canon wise most of your engagements happen at spitting distance. I can't recall instances anywhere in canon (movies, books, games, anything) where we see laser cannons acting like actual lasers which would make having convergence distances measured in kilometers might make sense.

[Mikey]

Yes, many of the aircraft I listed had axial weapons, but they also had wing mounted weaponry that was zero'd in to converge on the centerline.

I wasn't nitpicking, the fact of having a co-ax gun is central to the whole point of making the fact of the convergence of the wing guns absolutely moot to the comparison with the X-wing's lasers. Thus, also, the fact you point out of the prevalence of wing guns is moot when considering all the fighters that also had a co-ax gun. Your listing of all the types that had wing guns would only make sense in that part of the discussion if you meant to say that they had wing guns ONLY, so my refutation of that point is supremely relevant, rather than nitpicking.

Canon wise most of your laser cannon bolts traveled slower than a snub 30mm shell in WWII. Canon wise most of your engagements happen at spitting distance. I can't recall instances anywhere in canon (movies, books, games, anything) where we see laser cannons acting like actual lasers which would make having convergence distances measured in kilometers might make sense.

All true. All of which doesn't speak to my original stance.

[Captain Seafort]

I wasn't nitpicking, the fact of having a co-ax gun is central to the whole point of making the fact of the convergence of the wing guns absolutely moot to the comparison with the X-wing's lasers.

So demonstrate that this is the case and why.

[Mikey]

I wasn't nitpicking, the fact of having a co-ax gun is central to the whole point of making the fact of the convergence of the wing guns absolutely moot to the comparison with the X-wing's lasers.

So demonstrate that this is the case and why.

Demonstrate that co-axial guns shoot straight ahead and not in a convergent pattern? Or that a fighter that has such a weapon isn't an analogy for a fighter that doesn't, in a discussion of convergent wing guns?

Really, man?

*EDIT* I'd love to stay and find some more scathingly sarcastic rhetoric as to how asinine this sounds, but I have to get to a softball event. Enjoy your day.

[Captain Seafort]

Demonstrate that...that a fighter that has [co-axial guns] isn't an analogy for a fighter that doesn't, in a discussion of convergent wing guns?

This, in cases where said fighter also has convergent wing guns. Whether or not they had axle guns is irrelevant to the issue of convergent fire from wing guns.

[Mikey]

Demonstrate that...that a fighter that has [co-axial guns] isn't an analogy for a fighter that doesn't, in a discussion of convergent wing guns?

This, in cases where said fighter also has convergent wing guns. Whether or not they had axle guns is irrelevant to the issue of convergent fire from wing guns.

OK, now I see your confusion. My original point was that fixed convergent guns are self-limiting (I know the X-wing had the torpedoes, but those can hardly be considered to overlap the role of the lasers at all.) The point was made to counter my comment that many WWII fighters had convergent guns; my response was that those cases weren't analagous where those examples also had coaxial guns, because if the wing guns were convergent a coaxial weapon was still extant which wasn't limited by the convergence pattern. So, you are correct in thinking that the presence of a coaxial weapon doesn't change the fact of the wing guns being convergent; but you are incorrect in thinking that this makes any difference to my point.

[Captain Seafort]

My original point was that fixed convergent guns are self-limiting

In what way? The bullets aren't going to vanish into thin air when they reach the convergence point, so the convergence point is merely the point of peak effectiveness, not the only point where the weapons do any damage. Indeed, it's non-convergent weapons that are self-limiting, since by maintaining continuous parallel streams they severely reduce their effectiveness by scattering rounds all over the place rather than concentrating them in a single spot.

[McAvoy]

I think Mikey was talking about the range of that spot where the bullets converge.

But it's better have a more concentrated and perhaps more accurate 'spray' of bullets than not to have them converge.

[Mikey]

My original point was that fixed convergent guns are self-limiting

In what way? The bullets aren't going to vanish into thin air when they reach the convergence point, so the convergence point is merely the point of peak effectiveness, not the only point where the weapons do any damage. Indeed, it's non-convergent weapons that are self-limiting, since by maintaining continuous parallel streams they severely reduce their effectiveness by scattering rounds all over the place rather than concentrating them in a single spot.

While even I, with what is apparently a severe cognitive dysfunction according to some of the responses I've seen, can figure out that rounds don't just fall out of the sky once the focus of convergence is reached; still seem to think that attempted to target a bogey past the point of convergence is completely useless. If you can let me know how that is incorrect, I'd both appreciate the explanation and your uncommon experience as a fighter pilot.

[Tyyr]

If the rounds converge at 250 meters (just for example) that is the most effective range. However at ~500m the round haven't drifted significantly more than if they'd just been pointed forward. The plus side is that because they were set to converge you'll put more rounds into a smaller area for most of that 500m. It's only past that 500m that the rounds will be dispersing more than if they'd been set directly forward. Depending on the effective range of your weapons this probably doesn't matter because actually hitting someone at that range would be almost impossible anyways.

Only after double the convergence range does it start to become less effective than simply having the guns set permanently forward with no convergence.

[stitch626]

And if they have trouble hitting they would do they same thing a sniper does. Take the shot, miss, estimate how far they need to aim one way or the other, repeat. Just a lot faster.