|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2018 14:40:16 GMT
Space combat would be very different to atmospheric combat in one important area; Range of engagement. In atmosphere the maximum engagement range is 100 miles (The AIM-54 Phoenix and the current versions of the AIM-120 AMRAAM). In terms of space combat that is point blank range. Projectile weapons would not be limited in range in the same way as they are in atmosphere. So in theory even a simple M-16 should be capable of hitting a target hundreds of thousands of miles away. However, there are more than a few problems with this. First off you have to account for local gravity wells, then for variations caused by the weapon and its firing that will cause scattering; Which at these kinds of ranges means that you could literally miss a planet. Last off all you have account for the movement of your target and how long it will take for the projectile to reach it. This is, simply, impossible to do. Projectile guns would, therefore, only really be useful at very close ranges as point defense weapons. But not against fighters. Assuming known real world physics and technology the best weapon to use would be missiles. They have the ability to change course to compensate for gravity and target movement. Guns would basically be used to shoot down missiles during their final attack stage (when they would have to switch to using active sensors) either by 'direct' fire or by throwing up a wall of flack and hoping that some of the shrapnel hits the missile(s). Basically think of the way the guns worked in the Reimagined Battlestar Galactica series and you have the idea. Long range protection would come from stealth, medium through ECM, which would probably include decoys, and short range from flack screens. Remember that the distances in question are vastly greater than those on Earth, so simple 'direct' fire against missiles is of questionable use not just because of the odds of hitting anything. But because at the ranges you are likely to hit you would still end up being hit by a cloud of fast moving debris that could cause almost as much damage as the warhead. In fact if the warhead was a solid 'dart' designed to go through armour you could end up being hit by this anyway. In terms of turrets on 'fighters' this is questionable if you are thinking in terms of an F-15, and in fact there is even a question as to if 'fighters' would even be viable in the terms we are used to using the term. It is unlikely that a space 'fighter' is going to be a single seat craft simply due to the workload on the pilot. More over the ranges mean that close in fighter vs fighter combat would be highly unusual, at least in space. 'Dogfighting' would, if it took place, occur over ranges of a thousand miles or more and the limitations of weight (ok, mass) means that such a fighter is most likely going to be incapable of high Gee-Turns either because the structure is simply not capable of such forces or that the engines are just going to be powerful enough to shift the mass fast enough to create such forces. Size is another major factor. Something akin in size to an F-16 or F-15 is simply not going to have the fuel supply to be able to remain on station or patrol any real distance. Further the size of the equipment you could carry is going to seriously limit the effectiveness of a 'fighter'. Sure, its smaller than a 'capital' ship capable of having a flight deck and therefore harder to detect at range. But by the same token a fighters own sensor range and capabilities means that it would end up having to close to a very close range (relatively speaking) before being able to detect their target. Basically looking at things like this you quickly realize that the space needed for fighters, their fuel, munitions, spares and launching/recovery system would be better used to add missile tubes, extra sensors and point defense systems. 'Fighters' are therefore much more likely to be largely self contained starships in their own right. Think less F-15 and more Space Shuttle, only larger. Such craft would have enough internal space to allow a reasonable endurance, range, weaponry and sensor systems. Such 'fighters' could have several crew members, including dedicated ECM, communications and gunner personal. They would forgo the use of an internal hanger, instead connecting to a larger ship though external docking port. This would also allow them to be deployed very quickly, and in such a way that they would automatically be in an escort formation and at the same speed as their parent ship. Now for a 'fighter' of this size turrets would actually be both viable and indeed highly useful. But not for dogfighting, for point defense. Such fighters would typically be deployed to supplement the defenses of the parent ship, not primarily as an offensive force. Their ECM systems and turrets would increase the defenses there. They could be used offensively, closing to fire missiles at a target and then relying on their turrets and ECM to protect against return missile fire. If they ended up running into their counterparts, or being used to try and clear them out to weaken a targets defenses, such combat would be basically be a smaller version of the combat between the bigger ships. With missiles being fired against targets that would be using point defense turrets to try and shoot the missiles down and ECM to confuse missiles. This scale would involve movement that would probably be considered 'dogfighting' but this would be more about avoiding shrapnel and throwing off any gunfire than attempting to get the guns to bare. 'Fighters' may even have missile turrets intended specifically to deal with other fighters, rather than the larger (and presumably better armored) Capital ships. If you wanted to increase sensor ranges you'd be better off using drones, which would be smaller and harder to detect as well as a lot cheaper to make and easier to replace. These may well have some weaponry, most likely small missiles, should they have a chance to fire on fighters or other drones. This is for 'real world' physics and technology, or close to real world technology. If you start adding other technologies you may get different results. Note; Lasers would most likely be part of a point defense system not an offensive main weapon. Lasers scatter, even in space, so have a limited range. Worse however is that unlike firing a conventional ballistic weapon there is a very good chance that firing lasers would result in your target detecting the light and revealing your position. Rail guns may have a similar issue, depending on the sensitivity of the sensors and the distance between the two ships. This is another reason for suspecting that missiles would be the weapon of choice; You can launch them in such a way you don't reveal your position and have their engines kick in once you are clear of that area. Likewise conventional guns may be ideal for point defense as they likewise might be able to be used without revealing your exact location. that is part of why I specified the scenario was based on direct engagement weapons rather than standoff weapons. if you haven't read the Honor Harrington books by David Weber, you would probably find them gratifying. in that universe, space naval battles are essentially missile battles, much as you describe - with small ships really only used as utility vessels or by pirates to ambush civilian vessels. combat is a matter of whether your volume of fire can overwhelm your opponent's layers of defense - ECM, countermissiles, point defense guns, and shielding (based on projecting artificial gravity - the spacedrive used is the "impeller" which at my best understanding essentially creates a gravity wedge that pulls the ship along and has the side effect of effectively blocking anything from hitting the ship through the wedge - but it cannot completely enclose the ship without rendering it immobile and isolated) the standard offensive warhead consists of a fusion powered single use laser which fires at laser-effective range if the missile gets close enough. space battles are frequently expressed in numbers: I.E. ship A launched 10,000 missiles, of which 5,000 were distracted by ECM and wandered harmlessly out in space. of the remainder, 2,000 were destroyed by countermissile batteries and 2500 by point defense cannon. of the 500 remaining, 100 were EW platforms, 300 wasted their energy on the ship's impeller wedge, and 50 simply failed to engage, but the remaining 50 missiles drove their bomb pumped lasers into the vitals of the ship. edit: the smallest warship in that universe is a Light Attack Craft which is essentially a smaller missile platform armed with a mixture of attack and countermissiles; and may be used to transfer personnel between capital ships. but all that aside, assuming you don't have that kind of missile capability, and still use direct fire weapons as primary offensive weapons, then you may still have manned attack craft, in which case you will still have craft whose primary purpose is to engage other manned attack craft, and you will ultimately still have fighters. and while the potential for long range space combat is good, all the reasons you have mentioned plus the fact that real time direct fire combat is really restricted to ranges you can see with the naked eye would mean that dogfighting in space would not take up that much more room than dogfighting in atmosphere. the ships couldn't maneuver that much faster, because we are already at the limit of what the pilot can withstand; and distances can't get that much greater, because it gets that much harder to hit a target with a direct fire weapon at greater ranges. and yes, I am quite aware that modern fighters are built with the intention that they can shoot down opposing aircraft with missiles before they are ever in visual range. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 14, 2018 16:11:39 GMT
Maximum effective range for a projectile weapon would depend on how quickly a ship would be able to change direction or at least location. Assuming that it takes at least a second to do so, and that your guns roughly match the fastest projectiles we have been able to produce on Earth (roughly 28,000 feet per second for equipment NASA uses for testing), that would give you a dogfighting range of just over 5.6 miles. That is effectively beyond visual range, certainly in space.
Larger ships, which no matter the technology would have much slower reaction times than this, could be engaged at much longer ranges than this although you would run into the problem of weapon spread.
Lasers in theory would have a MUCH longer range than this naturally. But do run into both power issues and damage drop off due to scattering effects; most notable of which is the material that will boil off a ships hull and armor when hit. It is also fairly easy to come up with a countermeasure for lasers; Throw a wall of material between your ship and the enemies to scatter the beam.
They might also, ironically, suffer from being too accurate. Any inaccuracies in the targeting system, even a very minor one, would most likely result in missing a target entirely - and with ECM flooding the battlefield this is highly likely.
Basically 'visual' range is relative; technically you may be close enough to see a target with eyes alone. But in reality you'd need targeting assistance to stand any chance of being able to spot a target and fire at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2018 16:27:59 GMT
Maximum effective range for a projectile weapon would depend on how quickly a ship would be able to change direction or at least location. Assuming that it takes at least a second to do so, and that your guns roughly match the fastest projectiles we have been able to produce on Earth (roughly 28,000 feet per second for equipment NASA uses for testing), that would give you a dogfighting range of just over 5.6 miles. That is effectively beyond visual range, certainly in space. Larger ships, which no matter the technology would have much slower reaction times than this, could be engaged at much longer ranges than this although you would run into the problem of weapon spread. Lasers in theory would have a MUCH longer range than this naturally. But do run into both power issues and damage drop off due to scattering effects; most notable of which is the material that will boil off a ships hull and armor when hit. It is also fairly easy to come up with a countermeasure for lasers; Throw a wall of material between your ship and the enemies to scatter the beam. They might also, ironically, suffer from being too accurate. Any inaccuracies in the targeting system, even a very minor one, would most likely result in missing a target entirely - and with ECM flooding the battlefield this is highly likely. Basically 'visual' range is relative; technically you may be close enough to see a target with eyes alone. But in reality you'd need targeting assistance to stand any chance of being able to spot a target and fire at it. thick silver plating is an effective defense against lasers. molten silver is highly reflective. but by visual range I mean if you can't see them, you can't aim at them. and if you can't aim at them, shooting them is only going to be a matter of blind luck. - unless you are using a standoff weapon system, in which case, it isn't a dogfight. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 14, 2018 16:46:32 GMT
Define 'see'.
In regards space combat 'visual' range is going to be more than just the pilots eyes. It's going to be the range of the ships sensors; for 'dogfighting' the range at which the information from the sensors allows for 'real time' information would be the visual range. This probably wouldn't automatically be radar range, as active radar (or similar types of active sensors) automatically reveals your distance and location as much as it reveals your intended targets.
The effective 'dogfighting' range is going to be the range at which your projectile can cover the distance before the target can move out of the way, or significantly change position to throw off your aim. But as noted above in space those ranges are going to be well beyond the effective range of human eyesight. Or at least beyond the range at which you would have any idea how a ship is orientated in relation to you or in what direction it is moving. You can't even make assumptions like 'well, it was heading towards me so I'll aim right at what I see'. Due to the nature of space combat you have no way of telling if the ship is actually heading right for you or actually drifting to the side.
If you want to get an idea of what space combat would be like look more at Submarine warfare than air combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 14, 2018 22:00:29 GMT
It comes down to the "Rule of Cool" yes space combats might been more like submarine warfare in real life take a look at the Expanse series on TV, but dogfights in space are cooler.
I am sorry if that sounds glib, but we know the points you are making Cybermortis but we are examing the fictional trope of spaceships as WW2 dogfighting raft as shown in numerous TV shows and films such as BSG, B5 and Star Wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 1:11:57 GMT
Define 'see'. In regards space combat 'visual' range is going to be more than just the pilots eyes. It's going to be the range of the ships sensors; for 'dogfighting' the range at which the information from the sensors allows for 'real time' information would be the visual range. This probably wouldn't automatically be radar range, as active radar (or similar types of active sensors) automatically reveals your distance and location as much as it reveals your intended targets. The effective 'dogfighting' range is going to be the range at which your projectile can cover the distance before the target can move out of the way, or significantly change position to throw off your aim. But as noted above in space those ranges are going to be well beyond the effective range of human eyesight. Or at least beyond the range at which you would have any idea how a ship is orientated in relation to you or in what direction it is moving. You can't even make assumptions like 'well, it was heading towards me so I'll aim right at what I see'. Due to the nature of space combat you have no way of telling if the ship is actually heading right for you or actually drifting to the side. If you want to get an idea of what space combat would be like look more at Submarine warfare than air combat. clear enough? with significant improvements in electronic warfare, terminally guided munitions may become essentially useless, and space warfare may still be dependent on the mark I eyeball. or with improvements in projected energy weapons, and motive power, you could pack enough power into a small package to have a small craft be a threat to large craft. or you could just have a military doctrine that reduces warfare to individuals shooting at each other. and the bottom line is that relying on AI has a certain handicap in that battles are often won by the person who thinks the least logically; and computers are bad at not thinking logically. and of course, the bottom line is that the myth addresses whether a single person fighter craft is more effective with the guns mounted in a turret, or if a turret gives the pilot too much to keep track of. it does not address whether space warfare will be conducted at standoff ranges or at visual range. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 15, 2018 2:14:17 GMT
A turret adds mass, meaning that a turreted 'fighter' will be outperformed by a fighter without. This is both a question of machinery to move the turret, the connections and that you'd need to provide an additional layer of hull material to protect the weapons during normal flight.
A compromise would be a gun mounted on a gimble. Which wouldn't have the same range of motion as a turret, and you'd probably run into some accuracy issues with weapons that have recoil. But for rapid fire weapons at short to medium range would be more than good enough. It also doesn't significantly add to the mass of the craft in a way a turret would. It would also be able to move and track targets a lot faster than a turret as less mass is having to be moved - which in turn means a smaller motor and hence less mass as you are only moving the gun and not its entire 'shell'.
Another question would be if such a craft was intended to operate, or at least be capable of flying within, an atmosphere. If so Turrets could cause issues with reentry and aerodynamics. A gimble based weapon however could be stored inside the craft until needed. Eliminating this problem. It would, naturally, mean that the weapon is more fragile as it would lack any significant protection when deployed. But this might be offset by the ease of replacing the weapon if damaged. The lower addition to the mass of the craft and hence better performance and that its less exposed during none combat flight.
The short lived 1990's series 'Space; Above and Beyond' had a fighter called the Hammerhead with this kind of design. Might be worth checking it out.
And no. There is no particular reason you couldn't have such gimble mounts covering the rear and sides of a craft. Although for a single seat fighter you'd probably limit such weaponry to a rear mount to allow the pilot to fire at anyone trying to chase them if they have to withdraw from combat. Depending on the technology you could even set such a rear mounting to automatically fire at targets in the rear.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 2:41:50 GMT
A turret adds mass, meaning that a turreted 'fighter' will be outperformed by a fighter without. This is both a question of machinery to move the turret, the connections and that you'd need to provide an additional layer of hull material to protect the weapons during normal flight. A compromise would be a gun mounted on a gimble. Which wouldn't have the same range of motion as a turret, and you'd probably run into some accuracy issues with weapons that have recoil. But for rapid fire weapons at short to medium range would be more than good enough. It also doesn't significantly add to the mass of the craft in a way a turret would. It would also be able to move and track targets a lot faster than a turret as less mass is having to be moved - which in turn means a smaller motor and hence less mass as you are only moving the gun and not its entire 'shell'. Another question would be if such a craft was intended to operate, or at least be capable of flying within, an atmosphere. If so Turrets could cause issues with reentry and aerodynamics. A gimble based weapon however could be stored inside the craft until needed. Eliminating this problem. It would, naturally, mean that the weapon is more fragile as it would lack any significant protection when deployed. But this might be offset by the ease of replacing the weapon if damaged. The lower addition to the mass of the craft and hence better performance and that its less exposed during none combat flight. The short lived 1990's series 'Space; Above and Beyond' had a fighter called the Hammerhead with this kind of design. Might be worth checking it out. And no. There is no particular reason you couldn't have such gimble mounts covering the rear and sides of a craft. Although for a single seat fighter you'd probably limit such weaponry to a rear mount to allow the pilot to fire at anyone trying to chase them if they have to withdraw from combat. Depending on the technology you could even set such a rear mounting to automatically fire at targets in the rear. enclosed turret, gimbal mount, pivot mount. all are options. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 2:49:52 GMT
I don't know if it changed with Disney's acquisition, but Y-wings used to have a light ion cannon mounted behind the cockpit, which most pilots would lock aimed directly behind in order to fire on ships behind them. in contrast, the model of airspeeder used on hoth had the gunner facing backwards with aimable rear firing weapons in addition to the fixed forward firing weapons. not sure exactly what the logic was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 15, 2018 11:26:58 GMT
The Y-Wing was originally designed as a two seat fighter-bomber, with the rear position being filled with a gunner. (The fighter combat in the first film was based on WW2 footage of carrier combat in the Pacific in WW2. In fact Lucas used actual footage to inform the effects guys and as a story board in places. As such the Y-Wing was based on American carrier bombers which had a rear gunner).
The 'later' versions of the Y-Wing, meaning those actually seen in the films, including Rogue One, were single seaters. The cannon could still be rotated by the pilot. But they tended to keep it locked forward on the not unreasonable logic that the pilot wasn't likely to hit anything when trying to fire over his shoulder.
The airspeeder's rear 'gun' was actually, at least on Hoth, a cargo tow cable. (It's even identified as a 'harpoon tow cable') This was being used to connect cargo containers together with the cable (by means of a special disk rather than an actual harpoon) to allow them to be moved around. The Hoth base was still being set up at the beginning of Empire, and the Snowspeeders were being used as cargo tugs hence why they were still fitted with the tow cable system during the battle.
I can't remember if Snowspeeders were civilian airspeeders that had been modified for combat use. Or a military design that on Hoth had been modified to fill a transport role. I'd guess more the former than the latter, based on the history and background behind the Rebel Alliance and its equipment.
I would imagine that normally the rear gun was actually a heavy blaster, similar to the tripod weapon Stormtroopers are seen to be trying to set up to stop the Falcon or indeed the gun the Falcon herself is seen to deploy to stop them. This would make sense as both a defensive weapon against hostile aircraft. (Tie fighters lack shields and the high rate of fire is going to be somewhat disconcerting). And as an offensive weapon during strafing runs, as the rear gunner would be able to spray troops with fire after the speeder had passed over them to reduce the amount of return fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 15, 2018 12:43:39 GMT
According to Legends canon the Incom T-47 Airspeeder was a civilian craft for industrial use with just the tow cable equipped, it was modified into the Snowspeder for military use by the Alliance on Hoth.
The guns they carried are light vehicle blasters that they were not designed to carry, not the same star fighter type mounted onto front line fighters such as an X-Wing or Y-Wing.
Come to think of it this might explain why in Rouge One X-Wings are able to destroy AT-ACTs quite easily but in the battle of Hoth the Snowspeeder guns were mostly ineffective against them, IIRC they coupe de grace an already downed AT-AT.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2018 14:06:08 GMT
towing cargo with an airspeeder by shooting it with a towline seems an awful lot like a case of "we want to do this in a movie, what explanation can we come up with for how that is possible?"
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 15, 2018 16:02:47 GMT
towing cargo with an airspeeder by shooting it with a towline seems an awful lot like a case of "we want to do this in a movie, what explanation can we come up with for how that is possible?" It. was problay never explained by Lucas Film for the film, a lot of the background of Star Wars is retconnned from the WEG Star Wars RPG from 1987 and the later novels, some is now regarded as Legends canon and some like Grand Admiral Thrawn (from the Timothy Zahn novels) subtlety changed by Disney. You are right the director of the movie thought is was cool,and it was later explained. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 15, 2018 19:16:21 GMT
The logic within the SW universe is that antigravity technology (repulserlifts) is cheap, reliable and universal. So larger cargo containers are often fitted with them to make them easier to move around. What they lack however is any form of propulsion, that has to come from something else. Snowspeeders themselves use repulsers, which is why they were able to take off vertically without incinerating the hanger crews, but have to use separate engines to provide any significant forward speed.
Normally cargo containers would be loaded onto repluser skiffs (like the ones seen around Jabba's sail barge), using the containers own repulsers to make them easier to move. Then the Skiff, which has an engine to provide thrust, will travel to the unloading point.
On Hoth the Alliance lacked enough skiffs, so used the airspeeders in their place; Which was what they were designed to do in their civilian guise anyway.
The fact that the 'Snowspeeder' was basically a cargo tug originally explains why it might make for a decent combat craft. Such a craft was probably heavily overpowered as as such could accept the addition of armor and weapons while retaining decent flight performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2018 0:45:30 GMT
The logic within the SW universe is that antigravity technology (repulserlifts) is cheap, reliable and universal. So larger cargo containers are often fitted with them to make them easier to move around. What they lack however is any form of propulsion, that has to come from something else. Snowspeeders themselves use repulsers, which is why they were able to take off vertically without incinerating the hanger crews, but have to use separate engines to provide any significant forward speed. Normally cargo containers would be loaded onto repluser skiffs (like the ones seen around Jabba's sail barge), using the containers own repulsers to make them easier to move. Then the Skiff, which has an engine to provide thrust, will travel to the unloading point. On Hoth the Alliance lacked enough skiffs, so used the airspeeders in their place; Which was what they were designed to do in their civilian guise anyway. The fact that the 'Snowspeeder' was basically a cargo tug originally explains why it might make for a decent combat craft. Such a craft was probably heavily overpowered as as such could accept the addition of armor and weapons while retaining decent flight performance. and don't snowspeeders use reaction thrusters for propulsion? I guess that's why they need such a long towline, then? and they couldn't have used the snowspeeders to move material around hoth base - they had the base mostly assembled before they had the speeders adapted for the cold. wookiepedia says the cargo moving application is legends, and canon has it the craft was built as a patrol craft. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 16, 2018 2:22:55 GMT
I came across an article that examined the speed of weapons fire in Star Wars, it had some interesting results. It found that ground weapons, blaster bolts had an average speed of 80 MPH. Space combat had weapon speeds of 300 MPH!
This actually drastically changes the combat when you look at it. In space terms, that is SLOW!!!! It would take a turbolaser shot 20 minutes to traverse the diameter of the 1st Death Star! That explains why space combat is so close. When it it would take hours for shots to travel even a thousand miles. In that time, there is no way the ship would be there. So the only option is to get in closer. It also explains the need everyone has to spray-n-pray by shooting all over the place. Additionally, on the ground, blaster bolts are only the speed of a moderate fastball in baseball. Suddenly Jedi defecting bolts with a lightsabre is not nearly so impressive. Any good baseball player would have a good shot at doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2018 4:52:00 GMT
I came across an article that examined the speed of weapons fire in Star Wars, it had some interesting results. It found that ground weapons, blaster bolts had an average speed of 80 MPH. Space combat had weapon speeds of 300 MPH! This actually drastically changes the combat when you look at it. In space terms, that is SLOW!!!! It would take a turbolaser shot 20 minutes to traverse the diameter of the 1st Death Star! That explains why space combat is so close. When it it would take hours for shots to travel even a thousand miles. In that time, there is no way the ship would be there. So the only option is to get in closer. It also explains the need everyone has to spray-n-pray by shooting all over the place. Additionally, on the ground, blaster bolts are only the speed of a moderate fastball in baseball. Suddenly Jedi defecting bolts with a lightsabre is not nearly so impressive. Any good baseball player would have a good shot at doing it. they did test that on a later episode of mythbusters. but is your math right? 20 minutes to traverse the diameter of the original death star at 300 MPH makes the death star 100 miles across? I guess that's the consensus on the size. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 16, 2018 21:48:53 GMT
According to here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_StarDeath Star I is 100-160Km (62.5-100 miles) in size. That would put transet time at 12.5-20 minutes. Death Star II is 160-900 Km (100-562.5 miles) in diameter. That would transet time from 20 to 112.5 minutes. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 17, 2018 2:46:16 GMT
According to here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_StarDeath Star I is 100-160Km (62.5-100 miles) in size. That would put transet time at 12.5-20 minutes. Death Star II is 160-900 Km (100-562.5 miles) in diameter. That would transet time from 20 to 112.5 minutes. yeah, I looked it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 17, 2019 14:48:53 GMT
A quick, and late, addition to some of the above notes/thoughts.
It has been pointed out that with Tanks you don't want to secure the machine guns too tightly. Rather you want the MG's to have a little play so they spray rounds in an area not in one specific point.
Although I've not seen anything specific stating that the same holds for fighter guns. I do recall that the manuals for the MK I Spitfires guns showed the guns firing in a cone both individually and as a group. So it seems that the logic is the same; with guns firing at small targets you want the guns to fire over an area and the easiest way to do this is not to have them secured too tightly.
|
|
