"Should". A machine gun is much like a shotgun. At anything further than point blank range the vibration causes bullets to go pretty much everwhere but where they're aimed. I've fired .50s, and it's pretty funny to watch. The cute sewing-machine-like stitching seen in movies is nothing like the real deal.

Adding more guns compounds the problem. The sympathetic vibration transmitted from the guns to the wing makes the wing itself shake, and this is transmitted back to each gun, causing them to vibrate in odd directions. More bullets overall are put out in the general direction of the target, but less bullets from any single gun actually hit. Still, the trade-off was obviously worth it.

Couple that with the fact that an enemy plane is rarely sitting still in relation to the shooter, and it takes a very good pilot to shoot down his opponent with a single burst.

Speaking of arcade mode: Here is the same trick maneuver shown in "Red Tails", attributed to the German squadron leader "Pretty Boy", then copied by the American hotshot, Joe "Lightning" Little:

http://youtu.be/TuipnDc7dms

Years ago I pulled a stunt similar to this in European Air War, in a Hurricane. Those were the days! :woot:

BANG!!!....YOUR DEAD!!!

Not that bad and not laser beam either.
0.5 well stabilized on tripod should shred any thing at 800ft.
On aircraft wing,i don't know but should work better than tripod i think.
Its one of its merits-the accuracy.

Commonly called a stall turn. As described a very effective but potentially disastrous maneuver. As shown it the graphic absolutely impossible. The plane needs to climb until it is almost out of speed, followed by an intentional controlled stall. If they did it that way in the movie then they didn't talk to any pilots who've actually done it.

Yes that bad. The barrel is rifled. As the bullet travels down it the barrel vibrates in a circular pattern. The next bullet is fired almost instantly, and is affected by the rotation already imparted. Yes, a tripod-mounted gun will shred anything at 800 feet, not because of its accuracy but because of the volume of lead being sprayed over the whole area. The chance of an individual being hit by automatic fire is fairly low.

The same is true with airborne guns, except that the plane itself is also bouncing around. The the more guns, the less the accuracy. This is offset by the fact that six times as many bullet are filling the area. It becomes a statistical game. Don't think for a second I'm dissing the .50, or it's use in aircraft. It was an effective, devastating weapon. First, though, you have to hit the target. The Germans did just as well with a single MG151/20 and two MG131s, all mounted in the nose.

As much as i remember the spread area is not very big at those distances.
I got to shoot this gun occasionally at rusty vehicles at the range-that's my experience with this gun.

I was thinking about effectiveness when one gets the correct aim not about the difficulty in doing so in fast airplane which was tricky under combat conditions.
So obviously the more guns you have correctly aimed at this split second the more lead gets to the target.

To my knowledge having the guns in the nose made it easier to put most bullets in a target without worrying about the range vs focus point therefore it sort of compensated sometimes.
With the cannon one or two hits could be enough.
It probably also made for more stable platform than wing under load.:yep:

As I said, I've shot them too. What I remember is watching targets while others shot, usually at 100 yards. For every bullet that hit the target five or six hit all around it. Of course a one-second burst puts out about 12 rounds total which would mean only 2 or 3 hit a man-sized target. Assuming a solidly mounted gun would double that, it would indicate 4-6 hits on the target at 100 yards. That is devestating. That's plenty for a man. Six guns would put out 72 rounds in one second, maybe more. At the same ratio that would imply as many as 30 hits on the target at 100 yards. Even if factoring in vibration problems that would indeed shred an aluminum aircraft. At 300 yards, however, the problem is compounded, even more so if there's any deflection involved.

About 5% of all pilots scored 95% of the kills. Gun camera footage seems to show that most "shredding" shots come from very close. Longer-range shots, even with the guns sighted for "convergence" it starts to come down to random chance how many bullets hit where they were aimed. It's much like naval gunnery, which in World War 2 had an average hit rate of about 7%.

I think the six-fifty combination is just fine, because a good pilot is able to shoot at 200 feet, not 800, and at that range the mass of bullets is indeed devestating.

I haver not seen the movie so I don't necessaryily agree with you. If I like you judged the movie from just the trailer I'd have to rate it below par. But I don't rate movies like that. I prefer to watch them in full before I review them. But that's just the way I do things. :yeah:

After the mediocre reviews I'll probably see it anyway, just because I haven't been to the theater for awhile and I'm a sucker for airplanes. Sometimes ya just gotta!

Pew....again i was not talking about the problems and statistics behind air combat.
Similar statistics is true when in comes to ground fire fight.
In nutshell i was saying that 0.5 is highly accurate gun very far from 'shotgun at point blank range' and i hold to this view.

The problem with il-2 .50s was the ammo belting. It was almost all ball until modders fixed it. Simply putting in the proper US belting makes a big difference, particularly in the PTO. US belting for aircraft should be almost all API instead of the all ball, with the occasional tracer Oleg gave them (the jap 12.7mm MG in the Oscar was belted with HE rounds, and in many cases playing I found the 2 oscar guns to be more effective than 6 US fifties in the stock game).

Tangent No. 476 (and now counting)
 

But the best way to judge anything is to first look at it and determine if it strikes your fancy or not. Just like books, man. Some book covers are awesome to look at, and other book covers are just so bland that one must wonder what form of life could possibly look upon such a travesty without vomiting! The same principle applies to movies. Some movie trailers are worth looking at while others are just boring and/or sappy in a Disney or Ken Burns or Ridley Scott or chick-flick sort of way (et cetera ad nauseum). I have found that the more glorious the movie trailer, the more glorious the movie. If the trailer reeks of unbelievable BS and/or is (most especially) thrown together with a weed whacker, some sparklers and a few gallons of gasoline in Micheal Bay's basement, the movie is most assuredly going to be a hands-down winner with "ALL THUMBS UP, BRO!!" cascading down from even the harshest of critics. :yeah:

Believe me, dude. I know what I are talking about. I'm an movie expert. :smug:

I found that to be true with another Russian Programmed Game called Fighter Ace. In the beginning of FA 1.0 the P51's 6 fifty cals didn't kill as well as they did later in the game when they uped the firepower on them. There was a lot of discussion like this in the FA forums and eventually they changed the damage that was done by the Fifty's and improved them a lot. A lot of players who use to fly the Me 109 K4 got made as they also downgraded the explosive power of the 30 mm shells and changed their tragectory from lazer accurate to water hose type ballestics. The 30 mm shells were slow and dropped right out of the barrel after firing due to their slow velocities and slower rate of fire.

And the argument about the type of ammo loaded in the belts helped to pursuade the owner and the programmer to change the way they modeled the US Fifty Cals.

Just got around to go watch it and i absolutely loved it, fck the media reviews!

Sure there were some inaccuracies, some over the top scenes and some cheesy moments but i still really enjoyed it.

Over the top is typical of Lucas. And creative liberties will always be taken in films. Even well regarded movies like Das Boot, and Tora Tora Tora had innaccuracies.

I have yet to see it, but it is on my schedule. These men were very underestimated due to racial problems. But were just as successful, if not near superior to other units during the war.

It kinda means more to me than some other airmens accomplishments, as these men fought for a country who saw them as "nig...(uhh you know)" (I ask that I am excused for nasty word, simply conveying what they were seen as in a blunt matter) When these men were just as valiant, and important to the war effort as anyone else.

And my greatest respect was that they fought for a country that held them (generally) in contempt and as inferior. (at this time)

Thank you airmen for your service.:salute: