PDA

View Full Version : MG 151/20s seem weakened in AEP



Cragger
03-03-2004, 09:51 PM
I regularly fly the Bf-110 now and even with the dual MG 151/20 gunpod bringing the total up to 4 20mms I can literally watch 20mm explosions dance all over Spitfires, Mustangs, 190s, 109s, other 110s and seemingly do no more damage than a .50 hit does.

Has anyone else noticed this, was this an intended change. Just seems so out of place.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

Cragger
03-03-2004, 09:51 PM
I regularly fly the Bf-110 now and even with the dual MG 151/20 gunpod bringing the total up to 4 20mms I can literally watch 20mm explosions dance all over Spitfires, Mustangs, 190s, 109s, other 110s and seemingly do no more damage than a .50 hit does.

Has anyone else noticed this, was this an intended change. Just seems so out of place.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

Fillmore
03-03-2004, 10:19 PM
lol, I don't have AEP but I have been reading the posts and at least one other person thinks the ROF has been increased and the effectiveness as well.

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Cragger:
I regularly fly the Bf-110 now and even with the dual MG 151/20 gunpod bringing the total up to 4 20mms I can literally watch 20mm explosions dance all over Spitfires, Mustangs, 190s, 109s, other 110s and seemingly do no more damage than a .50 hit does.

Has anyone else noticed this, was this an intended change. Just seems so out of place.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png


You should check it in Arcade=1 mode. If it still makes 4 small arrows plus 2 large arrows for a single hit, then it's probably the same as it was before.

Oleg_Maddox
03-04-2004, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Cragger:
I regularly fly the Bf-110 now and even with the dual MG 151/20 gunpod bringing the total up to 4 20mms I can literally watch 20mm explosions dance all over Spitfires, Mustangs, 190s, 109s, other 110s and seemingly do no more damage than a .50 hit does.

Has anyone else noticed this, was this an intended change. Just seems so out of place.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

No changes there.
Really guns and cannons are modelled already so good that we will not almost change it even in the next sim and will take the code for FB/AEP.

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
No changes there.
Really guns and cannons are modelled already so good that we will not almost change it even in the next sim and will take the code for FB/AEP.




That's very unfortunate Oleg. Except for balistics, gunnery is one of the parts that needs serious rethinking. For example the kinetic energy at gun muzzle does not decrease until the impact at all, the projectile has the same energy. Also the differences between HE explosives used in cannon shells are not modelled at all, only the HE explosive quantity is modelled and all are considered as filled with TNT (which most were not). For example a comparison between 20mm Minengeschoss and Hispano Mk1 projectile:

HE energy in real life:

MG151/20: 18g * 2.21(PETN factor) = 39.78g TNT
HS MkI: 10.2g TNT

39.78/10.2 = 3.9 times more powerful!!!

HE in game:

MG151/20: 0.0186
HS MkI: 0.012

0.0186/0.012 = 1.55 times more powerful

When adding to this the never exhausting kinetic energy, suddenly we have a much more powerful Hispano round instead of the other way around.
Also Oleg why haven't you modelled the jammings for wing mounted Hispanos (especially Mk2), this is mentioned everywhere - nobody liked this high velocity gun because it jammed all the time, especially when firing and pulling Gs (in turns); basically wing mounted Mk1 could be used against ground targets and non maneuvering airplanes. This is why all operators excepts the brits removed them from use (Americans did not use wing mounted Hispanos). How can be the most unreliable ww2 cannon become the best cannon in FB?

Oleg do you find ok that planes loose wing with only 2 machine gun rounds? This happens all the times for planes on all sides. This is very dissapointing, a wing should be able to take at least 60 to 100 rounds before falling off. The ideea of modelling damage to wing critical parts like spars and jonction with fuselage was a bad one because it cannot be done with precision, and they are waay to easy to fracture. Machine gun round should be able to do first damage to the engine, then set the fuel tanks on fire and only the last one should be structural damage. It was very hard to do structural damage with machine guns only, on planes that are maneuvering. What we structural damage with machine guns captured on gun camera, is always a long squeeze agains a non maneuvering plane, they got a lot! of bullets before loosing wings. Tune the machine gun round to do more engine damage and much less structural damage. Right now I can cut wings with 2 machine gun rounds but I cannot do the same with 2 cannon rounds. Please fix this.

Another aspect that needs rethinking is control cables damage. In a test done on 500 USN fighters and attack planes NONE were lost because of controls damage though damage to controls was reported. Now a single bullet in the elevator disables half of the fighters in the game. How is that possible? can one single bullet hit and cut the control cables almost all the time? how unlucky should we all be? Unless the tail wasn't peppered with bullets or cannon hits (stangelly again cannon hits are again much less damaging against controls) there is no reason for losing controls.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu March 04 2004 at 03:30 AM.]

BerkshireHunt
03-04-2004, 04:09 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
.When adding to this the never exhausting kinetic energy, suddenly we have a much more powerful Hispano round instead of the other way around.

What were the relative muzzle velocities of these guns? You have totally ignored the real- life kinetic energy of rounds at a given distance to impact. You must take this into account when calculating overall destructive effect.

"Also Oleg why haven't you modelled the jammings for wing mounted Hispanos (especially Mk1)"

Read 'Spitfire On My Tail' by Ulrich Steinhilper or 'The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert' for first- hand accounts of how often German guns jammed (MGFFs in Steinhilper's case MG151/20s in Lipfert's). It happened a lot, even with fuselage mounted guns. If you model it for one you must model it for all - and that just leads to frustration for many.

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:

Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
.When adding to this the never exhausting kinetic energy, suddenly we have a much more powerful Hispano round instead of the other way around.

What were the relative muzzle velocities of these guns? You have totally ignored the real- life kinetic energy of rounds at a given distance to impact. You must take this into account when calculating overall destructive effect.



Kinetic energy of the round have little importance for the distructive force of a cannon round. Faster rounds means only better penetrating round, the difference in speed between Hispano Mk2 and MG151/20 is around 10%, whereas the drop in speed after 300m is around 30% for a regular 20mm round, which makes the initial difference even smaller (I might remeber it wrong, I'll look again for sources). What's funny is that Hispanos (Mk2) as pictured in FB is a very fast RoF cannon whereas it was quite slow in real life, much closer to MGFF than to MG151/20 - another thing to fix about this cannon.




"Also Oleg why haven't you modelled the jammings for wing mounted Hispanos (especially Mk1)"

Read 'Spitfire On My Tail' by Ulrich Steinhilper or 'The War Diary of Helmut Lipfert' for first- hand accounts of how often German guns jammed (MGFFs in Steinhilper's case MG151/20s in Lipfert's). It happened a lot, even with fuselage mounted guns. If you model it for one you must model it for all - and that just leads to frustration for many.



That's why they reduced the RoF on MG151/20. We have the cannons with reduced RoF in FB, they were very reliable. Emils had wing mounted cannons.

Jamming could happen, but in the case of Hispano it happened all the time, all the airforces that used them in wing mount config removed them (except for brits of course). This drastic measure tells everything you need to know about the effectiveness of this weapon.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Thu March 04 2004 at 03:28 AM.]

blabla0001
03-04-2004, 04:38 AM
Another "My German 20mm cannon is undermodelled" whiner.

What's wrong with the MG151/20?

That thing will take appart anything it hits, if you hit it correctly that is.

With the Bf109G2 I need less then a second burst to shoot down a fighter, even the so called "indestructable" Yaks.

And that's just one 20mm cannon.

What a joke.....lmao

Magister__Ludi
03-04-2004, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
Another "My German 20mm cannon is undermodelled" whiner.

What's wrong with the MG151/20?

That thing will take appart anything it hits, if you hit it correctly that is.

With the Bf109G2 I need less then a second burst to shoot down a fighter, even the so called "indestructable" Yaks.

What a joke.....lmao


Your reply is a joke Cappa, like your whole presence on this forum. Still scared about your Spitty forward view?

Read my reply and see what's wrong with MG151/20. Can you read?

blabla0001
03-04-2004, 05:10 AM
Magister__Ludi, at least I can read better then you can aim.

Your presence on this forum is adding what?

So far all I have read from you is whining.

And your response is pretty empty after I read it again.

A lot of pointless bla bla, looks like your anoyed that others don't have problems with the current weapons in this sim.

But like Oleg said, it won't be changed and even imported to some extent into BoB.

So I guess you won't be buying BoB?

But I have a feeling you will buy it and then continue your whining on the forum.

blabla0001
03-04-2004, 05:14 AM
And about the Spit forward view, at least I presented 100% proof in a clear good quality picture so I have nothing to be scared of.

And I didn't open 40 new threads and polls about it either, nor did I flame or whine about it to Oleg (since Oleg didn't build the pit) or any other modeller who created the Spit.

blabla0001
03-04-2004, 05:26 AM
Actually, come to think about it, I didn't even posted the picture I obtained on this forum first since the discussion was going on at Netwings with Gibbage.

Someone else first posted that pic in some discussion over here.

So again, lame empty words on your behalf.

clint-ruin
03-04-2004, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
Read my reply and see what's wrong with MG151/20. Can you read?

I read your reply and I can see that any response you get from Oleg is unlikely to satisfy you. You may well not get one.

Your assumptions about how "muzzle velocity" works and how it affects damage in FB over range/speed drop are incorrect, and I'm pretty sure you will find that "power" ratings are not a straight linear calculation between different rounds.

Of course one hardly expects such basic fact checking from the whiner crowd. Funny how you have such high standards for Oleg..

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BerkshireHunt
03-04-2004, 05:52 AM
I just looked at Magister__Ludi's post history and realised he is Huckebein FW. Some recent posts: "People mainly died in Auschwitz because of disease" (not Zyklon B). "The Spitfire is ugly" (!?)

Writing in Romanian to Zayets was a mistake, Huck. From now on you're ignored.

[This message was edited by BerkshireHunt on Thu March 04 2004 at 07:24 AM.]

blabla0001
03-04-2004, 08:26 AM
"Jamming could happen, but in the case of Hispano it happened all the time, all the airforces that used them in wing mount config removed them (except for brits of course). This drastic measure tells everything you need to know about the effectiveness of this weapon"

So based in this statement the Tempest V and Typhoon planes where practically useless.

Kind of odd since these planes saw plenty of frontline action with good results.
How did they do that with their cannons jamming on every mission?

The same with all the cannon Spitfires, if they had their cannons jammed on every mission how come the Spitfires or nearly any mid/late war British fighter could actually contribute something in the entire war?

BerkshireHunt
03-04-2004, 08:36 AM
Oleg wont be fooled by this guy's stupidity. It's his usual technique- make outrageous statements, back them up with spurious 'proof' and half- truths, try to undermine established fact and then lobby for game changes. Strangely, always to improve German aircraft or reduce the effectiveness of an Allied one.

BerkshireHunt
03-04-2004, 08:40 AM
The same with all the cannon Spitfires, if they had their cannons jammed on every mission how come the Spitfires or nearly any mid/late war British fighter could actually contribute something in the entire war?[/QUOTE]

Magister- Ludicrous (Huckebein) blames Britain for the Russian invasion of Romania. Don't expect him to concede that we did anything right.

blabla0001
03-04-2004, 08:43 AM
Sure looks like it Berk.

Cragger
03-04-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
You should check it in Arcade=1 mode. If it still makes 4 small arrows plus 2 large arrows for a single hit, then it's probably the same as it was before.

Good point I'll try that, just kinda surprised me to pummel planes with all those 20s and have then laugh it off. So use to the Russian cannons.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

Cragger
03-04-2004, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

No changes there.
Really guns and cannons are modelled already so good that we will not almost change it even in the next sim and will take the code for FB/AEP.

Didn't notice your post sir. Apparently I'm just not use to using the MG151 s if no changes where made.

http://redspar.com/redrogue/cragger_sig.png

03-04-2004, 03:48 PM
I think it's a good time to discuss what clint brought up in some other threads.

In the previous day, after got AEP, I made 46 test flights, among them 20 quick-mission builder combat flights with the Ta152H-1, as I was keenly interested in what this plane could do. Every thing was fine, except, in those 20 missions, in more than half(13 flights) of the case the enemy planes required multiple MK108 shots to bring down. 6 of them took 2 shots to kill, 5 of them 3 shots, and in 2 cases it took 3 and 4 shots(the 4 shots were on the P-38L).

I can't believe why I just wrote the details of each flight down, and didn't think of making tracks, but if you guys can take my word for it, that's what happened.

MK108 is a very powerful weapon, and pilot testimonies, anecdotes, recorded data and deep analysis of the gun(done by excellent researchers such as the renowned Anthony Williams) all seems to suggest that generally 1 shot was all it took to bring a fighter craft down.

Maybe I'll have to gather more data, but my guess is, even if I make 100 more flights with planes armed with MK108, the end result in relative percentage, would be largely the same as my initial results of 20 flights.

...

clint brought up a very interesting point in some of the other posts: just how far does the destructive effect of the HE blast reach outside of the hit area?

It could be possible for the target plane to survive multiple hits if the MK108 shells landed detonate pretty much far away vital surfaces, or, if the shells land on flexible parts pretty much independant of other areas; ie.) shells landing directly on the aileron, or one of the horizontal stabs, would allow most of the explosive effect to dissipate away into the air, while taking out only the specific surface it has hit.

However, the flights I've made seems to suggest that the probability of such happenings, seem to be way too high.

If, like clint said, damage inflicted to a certain specific area is accurate enough but the blast effect outside of that specific area is not, then I think that theory explains a lot of the perceived problems or complaints people make.

For instance, it could explain why the ShVAK seems so powerful whereas the MG151/20 seems relatively weak, despite both of the guns were comparable in its effectivity as fighter armament in real life.

If the HE effect in certain shells is not creating enough blast radius to be effective, then naturally, effectiveness as a weapon would rely a lot more on its relative accuracy and rate of fire; an accurate weapon with a faster rate of fire will tend to land more shots on a concentrated surface, which almost never fails to destroy the area completely, to render the target plane completely unflyable.

In most cases it will cause catastrophic strucutral failure - whereas some weapons, such as the MK108 or the MG151 brought into this discussion, might not be producing enough HE effect.

Currently, the tendency noticed in my personal tests seem to indicate that with the MK108, only a hit on the specific areas of forward fuselage will usually render a plane immediately uflyable - in most cases the blast effect killing the target pilot, or causing engine failures.

Almost everytime, hits on the wings or other control surfaces, rear fuselage area, will require a second, third, or even a fourth shot. If it be true, it's quite a disadvantage to a weapon that is already slow in rate of fire, and not very plentiful in ammo load.

Maybe 1C can check how the HE effect is doing?

clint-ruin
03-04-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Kweassa1:

clint brought up a very interesting point in some of the other posts: just how far does the destructive effect of the HE blast reach outside of the hit area?


My personal opinion is that an adjustment of -all- HE rounds to make their fragment pattern disperse out in more of a 'cone' rather than a 'sphere' would solve a lot of these sorts of issues. The adjustment itself is a step away from realism [HEs just explode out everywhere] but the -effect- it would have on plane DMs would probably be more realistic, since the fragments would be more likely to land on the same DM segment.

It's not just the LW weapons, btw. Bf109 can take up to -thirty six- ShVAK hits if you deliberately distribute them all over the seperate sections of a planes DM, at least in V1.21 when I was testing. The old FW-190 DM could take -seven- M4 HE rounds if they landed in the wrong places.

It seems that rounds with good AP properties [high mass high speed] are far more likely to penetrate subsystems than any fragments from any HE rounds are. That said, 'good' AP hits can be shaken off as long as they don't pass through anything important on their way through the plane.

As others have mentioned, what I think we are seeing is less of a problem with the gunnery model and is more related to the way the DMs work. My own tests and JtDs tests have mainly bourne out just how 'right' things are than how wrong things are.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg