PDA

View Full Version : Let's have ballistics for EVERYONE



Pages : [1] 2

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2004, 01:36 PM
I took a few test hops in a Spit offline, just to see how the other half lives. The thing that made my jaw drop most? The gunnery I was able to achieve. Point and shoot, and almost never miss.

I finally figured out how Spit pilots seem to connect with those quick, oil-spattering snapshots online: their guns fire like lasers (like their Russian counterparts).

Meanwhile, as practiced as I am with a Bf109, I can easily miss low deflection shots with a 0.15 convergence a majority of the time. Don't tell me my nose isn't pointing towards the enemy, either, since I'm all too capable of colliding with the target I'm missing with the guns if I'm not careful.

Now, I realize that some of the allied guns had superior muzzle velocities...but if you look at the figures, the difference isn't the sort of difference you'd expect to see at 0.15 range, where the gunsight is full of target. The shells for anything except the 30mm and above guns should travel relatively straight if you're not pulling a lot of G. The one 20mm German gun that should have more dropoff problems is the Oerlikon you find in the 109E models.

In IL-2, the Allies get a "Randy Johnson-style fastball trajectory" while the 109s get a "Barry Zito hook curveball". It would have to bow that much to miss as much as it does.

This 20mm ballistic problem seems to be one of those things like the "109 concrete elevator" the "109 smeared glass" and the "109 snapstall" (which in various IL-2 versions moved from the 109Fs to the 109G2 and then finally disappeared totally, since it never existed in ANY mark of 109); an anecdotal or even non-existant effect that was foisted onto the 109 more heavily than on other planes, for some unnamed reason.

Let's be fair: if you're going to have ballistic effects on German 20mm, put them on the Hispano Suizas and ShVaks, too. And the .50s and machine guns while you're at it.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2004, 01:36 PM
I took a few test hops in a Spit offline, just to see how the other half lives. The thing that made my jaw drop most? The gunnery I was able to achieve. Point and shoot, and almost never miss.

I finally figured out how Spit pilots seem to connect with those quick, oil-spattering snapshots online: their guns fire like lasers (like their Russian counterparts).

Meanwhile, as practiced as I am with a Bf109, I can easily miss low deflection shots with a 0.15 convergence a majority of the time. Don't tell me my nose isn't pointing towards the enemy, either, since I'm all too capable of colliding with the target I'm missing with the guns if I'm not careful.

Now, I realize that some of the allied guns had superior muzzle velocities...but if you look at the figures, the difference isn't the sort of difference you'd expect to see at 0.15 range, where the gunsight is full of target. The shells for anything except the 30mm and above guns should travel relatively straight if you're not pulling a lot of G. The one 20mm German gun that should have more dropoff problems is the Oerlikon you find in the 109E models.

In IL-2, the Allies get a "Randy Johnson-style fastball trajectory" while the 109s get a "Barry Zito hook curveball". It would have to bow that much to miss as much as it does.

This 20mm ballistic problem seems to be one of those things like the "109 concrete elevator" the "109 smeared glass" and the "109 snapstall" (which in various IL-2 versions moved from the 109Fs to the 109G2 and then finally disappeared totally, since it never existed in ANY mark of 109); an anecdotal or even non-existant effect that was foisted onto the 109 more heavily than on other planes, for some unnamed reason.

Let's be fair: if you're going to have ballistic effects on German 20mm, put them on the Hispano Suizas and ShVaks, too. And the .50s and machine guns while you're at it.

Blutarski2004
06-16-2004, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I took a few test hops in a Spit offline, just to see how the other half lives. The thing that made my jaw drop most? The gunnery I was able to achieve. Point and shoot, and almost never miss.

I finally figured out how Spit pilots seem to connect with those quick, oil-spattering snapshots online: their guns fire like lasers (like their Russian counterparts).

Meanwhile, as practiced as I am with a Bf109, I can easily miss low deflection shots with a 0.15 convergence a majority of the time. Don't tell me my nose isn't pointing towards the enemy, either, since I'm all too capable of colliding with the target I'm missing with the guns if I'm not careful.

Now, I realize that some of the allied guns had superior muzzle velocities...but if you look at the figures, the difference isn't the sort of difference you'd expect to see at 0.15 range, where the gunsight is full of target. The shells for anything except the 30mm and above guns should travel relatively straight if you're not pulling a lot of G. The one 20mm German gun that should have more dropoff problems is the Oerlikon you find in the 109E models.

In IL-2, the Allies get a "Randy Johnson-style fastball trajectory" while the 109s get a "Barry Zito hook curveball". It would have to bow that much to miss as much as it does.

This 20mm ballistic problem seems to be one of those things like the "109 concrete elevator" the "109 smeared glass" and the "109 snapstall" (which in various IL-2 versions moved from the 109Fs to the 109G2 and then finally disappeared totally, since it never existed in ANY mark of 109); an anecdotal or even non-existant effect that was foisted onto the 109 more heavily than on other planes, for some unnamed reason.

Let's be fair: if you're going to have ballistic effects on German 20mm, put them on the Hispano Suizas and ShVaks, too. And the .50s and machine guns while you're at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I fully support proper ballistics for ALL sim weapons. If there are any question about the performance of other weapons, they should be fully investigated.

As for the poor perceived ballistic performance of certain German a/c weapons mentioned by Stiglr, one POSSIBLE issue MIGHT be the ballistic characteristics of the German 'minengeschoss' projectile. Such an extremely high capacity HE round would be considerably lighter and therefore would not have the same ballistic coefficient as a heavier conventional AP type round of the same caliber.

Need to do some homework on this.

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2004, 02:58 PM
S! Stiglr!

When you use playback and watch from the target plane back over at yours with you
in the 109... where are your shots going? Under?

If they are more often to the side then it may be because you don't have the 109
flying truely coordinated during those shots.

I have found that watching my shots against drones in playback helps me get a good
feel for where they are going and lets me work my sight picture and 'windage' better.


Neal

carguy_
06-16-2004, 03:10 PM
Imo the problem with nose mounted guns concern all aircraft.Russian single 12mm is the hardest weapon to hit with imo.

VVS and USAAF have airplanes with wing mounted guns and it`s good.Same with the Emil - wonderfull shooting.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 03:49 PM
Im not saying anyone is right or wrong. I have NO experance with the 20MM in a 109. I just wanted to add some data to this.

Spitfire has two guns. Twice the chance to hit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That one is simple.

Lets look at raw data.

MG 151/20 20 x 82 (115 g) 740 rpm 710 m/s 42 kg

Hispano Mk.II 20 x 110 (130 g) 600 rpm 880 m/s 50 kg

First, Hispano has a bigger shell and does more damage. 2nd it has a MUCH higher velocity so it has a flatter arc.

One other thing. I think the belting for the 20MM in the 109 is something like AP,HE,API. So when the AP hits, you dont see the nice big flash! So you may be hitting them 1/3 more then you thing. Also AP does not do the kinda damage as a HE round. AP is for killing pilots or engines were HE is for ripping large holes into the wings and body.

So not only is the 20MM Hispano bigger, has twice the guns, flatter terjectory, but its all HE. So yes, you will hit more with two Hispano's, cause greater ammounts of damage, and visually see all the hits.

That may be the answer to this thread.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2004, 03:51 PM
And exactly the opposite of what the effect should be.

Guns in the nose have fewer issues with regard to dispersion, and since they are aimed by the same forward path the plane is taking, they are *simpler* to aim than wing mounted guns. Of course, you can have many more guns in a wing bank than you can put in the nose (especially because an engine is competing for the same space). It's one of those tradeoff things.

My point is not so much the position of the guns, but the ballistics of the weapon. The 20mm gun in the 109F4 and later should not miss near as much as it does.

As to the difference in velocity, it's 20% in favor of the Hispano. Now, while I agree that would make quite a bit of difference above about 250 yards, it shouldn't make much difference at 150 yards (the range I fire at). Assuming negligible G loads, of course.

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 04:23 PM
Please check the belting of the MG 151/20. I think there are AP rounds mixed in. You would not viaually see the effect of the AP rounds, so as many as half the hits your seeing as a miss, really is hit. When the P-39 had an AP, HE belting, I would NEVER see the AP round hit. Its just so fast, and you dont see any visual effect. Once they switched to an all HE belting for the P-39, I noticed I did hit a LOT more then I thought. Also in recordings.

Try recording a track and then play it back slower. You may notice AP rounds going through the target that you did not notice before.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
And exactly the opposite of what the effect should be.

Guns in the nose have fewer issues with regard to dispersion, and since they are aimed by the same forward path the plane is taking, they are *simpler* to aim than wing mounted guns. Of course, you can have many more guns in a wing bank than you can put in the nose (especially because an engine is competing for the same space). It's one of those tradeoff things.

My point is not so much the position of the guns, but the ballistics of the weapon. The 20mm gun in the 109F4 and later should not miss near as much as it does.

As to the difference in velocity, it's 20% in favor of the Hispano. Now, while I agree that would make quite a bit of difference above about 250 yards, it shouldn't make much difference at 150 yards (the range I fire at). Assuming negligible G loads, of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 04:28 PM
Also, please read this.

From the end of 1940 onwards the MG FF was replaced by the excellent Mauser MG 151/20 cannon, derived from the 15mm MG151. Because the overall length of the cartridge remained the same, the 20mm version fired a heavier projectile with less propellant, and had a lower muzzle velocity than the 15mm. Some weight was saved by reducing the length of the barrel. Again, both 115g and 92g projectiles could be fired.

So it was a light gun, under powered projectile and a short berral. Maybe it did have a good spray to it? How much research have you done into the MG 151/20? I dont see any research or facts. Just assumptions that because it was nose mounted, it should be better.

Try the P-38. It has a nose mounted 20MM Hispano. Its got amazing accuract.

Also remember the egnine creates a lot of vibration in RL, and that will lower accuracy even more.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

No601_prangster
06-16-2004, 04:33 PM
Not a 109 expert myself but I came across this chart the other day.

http://www.ijeremiah.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/109ballistics.jpg

Prangster
No.601 Squadron
Tangmere Pilots
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2004, 06:22 PM
This seems to suggest a dropoff of 15 - 20 cm at 150 yards/meters. Pretty much, where your pipper is aimed or a little below it.

And, it should drop less than one meter all the way out to 300 meters range.

Also, keep in mind that my guns are calibrated TO 150 meters. So, at that range, the shells should fall on the pipper, provided G or turning isn't a factor.

It shouldn't produce gunnery as woeful as 5%, which is what my latest jaunts on the gavca.com site tell me. That's the kind of result I'd expect if I was firing at 500 meters or so.

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 06:53 PM
Then practice, and improve your aim. I will try out the 190 G2 and F4 a little when I get home, but I dont think there is any spacific problem with the Mg 151/20. They were shown to be very accurate with NO spread in-game.

Again, I still think your just not seeing the AP hits. I dont think you have responded to that.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

BBB_Hyperion
06-16-2004, 07:16 PM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fw190a8r2-data1.jpg

Have about the same data.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

BBB_Hyperion
06-16-2004, 07:31 PM
Intresting Gunsight Line btw

from +74.5 cm to about -280 cm = 354 cm on 507 m

is 507 m / 3,54 m =&gt; 89.6 degrees. =&gt; Drop point is 0.4 degrees under 0 angle of the gun sight line.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 07:51 PM
Edit. It is showing dispersion. Dotted lines.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2004, 09:40 PM
Once again Stiglr;

If your shots don't hit then where are they going?
Have you any real idea? I guess if you did then you would hit more often?

The Hispano rounds are crossing the space to the target in 80% of the time
that the 151/20 rounds are. 880/710 is 1.239~ btw, not 1.20 but closer to 1.25.
It amounts to only 1/20th of a second at 150m though and very little difference
in drop if both planes are zeroed at 150m. If anything though, at 150m the 151/20
rounds will have lost a greater percent of their muzzle velocity due to being lighter.

And at 150m, none of that amounts to beans. Which means that either the 151/20's
are porked or you are doing something wrong. And if the 151/20's aren't scattering
badly then you should be able to find out where your shot grouping is going and
correct your aiming, which any competent soldier will do. Of course the soldier
will then realign his gun sights but if he can't then he still finds out where the
shots are going. And with MG's at closer than long range, you don't use the sights
anyway, you watch the tracers from above the LOS and correct your aim.

Have you watched a playback yet? If the smoke from the shots goes off to one side
of your plane, you are not pointing the plane straight ahead. If it goes above then
you are sinking alt while you shoot. If the plane rises in relation to the smoke,
you are climbing while shooting. And if you have any of these relative motions at
the source of your shooting then the slower projectile will make a bigger difference
than beans or mere numbers would present. So... where are your shots going? Or maybe
you would rather just complain?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2004, 10:09 PM
For one thing, Neal, the graphics of the game show the "smoke" from projectiles originating above and behind the plane when they are fired, not from the nose of the plane where they would originate. I've observed this countless times from external view.

So much for the theory of that being accurate.

I posed the question to get response, and people are adding some nice charts and muzzle velocity numbers to the discussion. It still seems to me that, at 150 meters we're talking less than a meter of dropoff. since a plane is normally at least 4 meters in length, and my normal attack approach is a shallow dive into 5 or 7:00, with the pipper just in front of the nose, you'd think I'd be ripping a trail of explosions along the fuselage. I have yet to see a good grouping of explosions from the 20mm. Best is one explosion, a full second pause and then maybe another. And usually the target flies away exhibiting no effects of the "pelting" whatsover.

however, let a Spit cough in my general direction with a stab of the button, and I'm seeing oil, and holes in the wings big enough for a man's head to pass through. And my own trials with those weapons offline show that that kind of pinpoint gunnery is all too common with Hispanos, ShVaks, and any of that "green sh*t" Russian planes fire. It appears they have no ballistic effects whatsoever.

By the way, does anybody have a corresponding diagram showing how much flatter the Hispano round goes, given it's higher muzzle velocity? I'd guess at 150 meters it too would be negligible as far as gundrop goes, and could be more accurate at longer ranges than a MG/151. But would it mimic a Star Wars laser, is what I wanna know.

Gibbage1
06-16-2004, 10:38 PM
OK. I did a bit of testing. I tried the F4, G2, and the G6as just to be sure. But I have come too the conclusion that your aim sucks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I had no difficulty in striking multiple hits at 300M!!! It was even easier at 200M. At 100M I did not even need to aim. Only thing is that my shots sometimes did go high, but I think its because my canon was set at 100M.

I tried the same in my P-38 and I actually hit less times in a row. I think due to the lower ROF.

The targets were friendly P-51's and Spitfires. A few notes.

#1, it took more hits of the MG 151/20 then the Hispano. But thats how it should be.

#2, the nose swayed a LOT on the 109 when firing the canon. So only short birst's were acceptable. I could fire longer in the P-38 without loosing my targeting solution.

Try short birst's with the 109. its a VERY light aircraft and that canon pushes it all around. I was able to get 5 hit birst's before the nose swayed away too much.

We are not attacking you. ITs just that when you come here and make a claim and ask for a change, you better bring ample proof to back yourself up or you will get torn down.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

LuftLuver
06-16-2004, 11:32 PM
I find the 109G2 and the Yak3 to equally be two of the most deadly-accurate gunners in the entire sim.

The G2 hits exactly where you think it will.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

faustnik
06-16-2004, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

#1, it took more hits of the MG 151/20 then the Hispano. But thats how it should be.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that simple. How much of the weight of the Hispano round is explosive charge relative to the MG151s? The Mg151 has a higher rate of fire. More Mg151 shells should be striking the target within a given time the gun is "on target". The Hispano rounds seem to do much more damage than the Mg151 rounds. Not sure if it is right or wrong but, it deserves to be looked at.

The accuracy of the Mg151 is excellent in the 190 wing mounts. Going from the MgFFs in the A5 to the Mg151s in the A6 is a big improvement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Jippo01
06-17-2004, 12:00 AM
Stiglr, you are mixing lead and bullet drop off.

Bullet will be on the pipper in level flight at 150m if convergence is 150m. Bullet drop is very minor issue on this range. Only if you happen to shoot to say 250m (with 150m setting) Hispanos should be significantly better as they have significantly flatter trajectory, and as bullet drop difference between the two grows exponentially as distance increases.

What you are experiencing is difference in lead required. Hispano requires 1/5 less lead as it is faster.

And finally about the smoke trails. They start from the gun muzzles. If you fire parked on a field you will see this. If you fly level you will fly UNDER the bullet flight path as the bullet first heads up, and then drops to the aiming line at convergence distance. Longer the convergence the higher the trails. If you pull positive G the trails will also appear above you plane as it is sliding a bit in the air, or if you push negative G the trails will go under you. Reason why the trails appear behind you is that if you are flying at 500kmk/h, you are travelling 140 metres per second. In one second you are already where your target was just a second before. In .1 of a second you will travel 14 metres which is 5 metres more than the length of a Bf-109.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 12:28 AM
The Hispano had a bigger shell, and a higher velocity. So it should do more dmg. The Germans used a thin-walled shell and packed more explosives in, but this minimized shrapnal. The Hispano shells has much better shrapnal since its not thin walled. It seems to be an equal tradeoff, but the hispano still has a bigger shell AND a higher velocity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

#1, it took more hits of the MG 151/20 then the Hispano. But thats how it should be.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that simple. How much of the weight of the Hispano round is explosive charge relative to the MG151s? The Mg151 has a higher rate of fire. More Mg151 shells should be striking the target within a given time the gun is "on target". The Hispano rounds seem to do much more damage than the Mg151 rounds. Not sure if it is right or wrong but, it deserves to be looked at.

The accuracy of the Mg151 is excellent in the 190 wing mounts. Going from the MgFFs in the A5 to the Mg151s in the A6 is a big improvement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
For one thing, Neal, the graphics of the game show the "smoke" from projectiles originating above and behind the plane when they are fired, not from the nose of the plane where they would originate. I've observed this countless times from external view.

So much for the theory of that being accurate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so fast there. The plane is moving fast. Try sideslipping and firing or firing
during a shallow climb. Unless you have a way of stopping the plane the instant the
shot is made and the smoke way above? Because it don't get behind the plane, the
plane moves ahead and relative to the smoke.

And you still can view playback and take the POV of the target, swing the camera around
till you can see your plane approach and watch in slo-mo where those rounds go. If you
made a full track, .trk file, then you can play it back with arcade set on even though
it wasn't when you made the track, you can see your hits as well. Honest, watching
where the rounds went really did help me, been done that since the start when gunnery
was driving me up the wall. Stop the action, see the view through the sight as the
guns flash and then jump to the target and watch in 1/4 speed where the shots go. It's
the only way I know to pick that up quickly, with arcade set you can guage even easier.

Just trynta help, the shots have to go somewhere and if they're consistant then you can
bring them onto target.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
06-17-2004, 12:36 AM
From my experience I can say it's definately easier to hit something with a ShVak or Cal 50s then with a MG of any type.

My best kill was in a IL2 when I shot at about 400m on an F4 (which was small...really small) and I hit it and removed it's wing. The green stuff is incredible. Just follow the tracers and you CAN'T miss.

You can shoot the red and green tracered bullets always when you "think" it's right wheras you have to shoot the blue rounds only when you "KNOW" it's right (mostly at about 150m or less).

I don't mind that the Hispanos are better and have flatter trajectories and are therefore better suited. But i highly doubt that it's just 20% easier to shoot with them. Generally I think wetsern planes are more or less ok.
Eastern side planes however don't seem to have any of the problems. you can do deflection shots at very strange angles and the RoF combined with the better damage give you a definite edge over the axis side.

The trajectories of the green-ammo are flat to the extreme and the bullet speed is awesome.

Does anyone has guncharts for the ShVaks and their muzzlespeeds ?

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

#1, it took more hits of the MG 151/20 then the Hispano. But thats how it should be.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that simple. How much of the weight of the Hispano round is explosive charge relative to the MG151s? The Mg151 has a higher rate of fire. More Mg151 shells should be striking the target within a given time the gun is "on target". The Hispano rounds seem to do much more damage than the Mg151 rounds. Not sure if it is right or wrong but, it deserves to be looked at.

The accuracy of the Mg151 is excellent in the 190 wing mounts. Going from the MgFFs in the A5 to the Mg151s in the A6 is a big improvement. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True about the bigger charge in 151/20 shell and higher ROF, but only 1 of 3
151/20 shells is HE while... well the old table has 1 of 2 Hispanos as HE and
I think I saw above Gibbage say all are HE. Can anyone say that the extra
weight of Hispano HE shells doesn't count in the model for damage? There is
a formula for kinetic and a value for explosive power. The explosion I feel
must be more but the kinetic is not zero or negligible.


Neal

faustnik
06-17-2004, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The Hispano had a bigger shell, and a higher velocity. So it should do more dmg. The Germans used a thin-walled shell and packed more explosives in, but this minimized shrapnal. The Hispano shells has much better shrapnal since its not thin walled. It seems to be an equal tradeoff, but the hispano still has a bigger shell AND a higher velocity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thicker walled shell would produce more shrapnel but, have less explosive force. Like I said, its not that simple.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
06-17-2004, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

True about the bigger charge in 151/20 shell and higher ROF, but only 1 of 3
151/20 shells is HE while... well the old table has 1 of 2 Hispanos as HE and
I think I saw above Gibbage say all are HE. Can anyone say that the extra
weight of Hispano HE shells doesn't count in the model for damage? There is
a formula for kinetic and a value for explosive power. The explosion I feel
must be more but the kinetic is not zero or negligible.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

I have always had some questions of the IL-2 modeling of AP rounds. They seem to be far less effective than HE but, is that realistic. The P-39 was originally (incorrectly) modeled with half AP and half HE rounds. The AP rounds were really innefective. I would think that they would do major damage to any structure they passed through but, in the sim that was not the case.

Are the 20mm AP rounds of the Mg151 doing the structural damage to their target that they should be doing? All I'm saying is that it is a complicated, and interesting, subject. Statements like "the Hispano should do much more damage than the Mg151" are suspect.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 01:41 AM
At the speeds the 20mm's fire, even the 151/20's cross 150m in about 1/4
second or less counting for drag. Drop one and it will fall .3 meters in
that time (A*T*T/2 with A=-9.81m/s/s and T=.25, check me there). The guns
have to fire up over the sight line and drop back to it, a nose gun doesn't
have so far to rise as a wing gun. At such close range the wing gun bullet
trajectory can't cross the sight line very far in or it would not fall back
over at 150m out. I'd be surprised if the crossing point isn't right at
the convergence. If the round is going to drop only .3m or less for a faster
round and the guns are maybe a meter below the sight line then the angle up
of the guns... the bullets may still be rising past the convergence realistically
and cross back over somewhere farther out. A nose gun mounted on top of the
engine is a different matter. If it was mounted with the muzzle exactly on the
sight line (hypothetical, in real it's impossible by an inch or so) then the
shell would be set to travel up 1/2 the drop and fall back the other 1/2 so a
matter of what, 7 inches high at 75m (not counting drag in the 75m, probably
more by a small amount). Smoke from nose gun tracers set to 150m shouldn't be
very high at all. And nose guns firing past convergence should all have more
drop past the convergence distance. Simple fix is set convergence a little
farther, the extra rise won't be much and think of this -- wing guns inside the
convergence range will always shoot low by more than the nose guns shoot high
inside convergence range if the nose gun convergence isn't too long, enough to
make the rise equal or more the distance the wing guns are below the sight line.

================================================== ===========================

Gotcha -- Oleg posted a Guns and Ammo table quite a while back and you
may be able to find it on a site. Or set up a private topic and give
me your email, I'll send ya copy.

ShVAK -- // APIT - HE (the ammo mix) (note power = explosive)
APIT - mass = 0.0960 - speed = 800.0 - power = 0.001
HE --- mass = 0.0676 - speed = 800.0 - power = 0.0068

MG 151/20 -- // APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG (a-hah Faustnik! 1 APIT + 4 explosive!)
APIT - mass = 0.1150 - speed = 710.0 - power = 0.0036
HE --- mass = 0.1150 - speed = 705.0 - power = 0.0044
MG --- mass = 0.0920 - speed = 775.0 - power = 0.0186

Hispano - Suiza Mk. I -- // HET - AP - HE - AP
HE/HET mass = 0.1290 - speed = 860.0 - power = 0.0120
AP --- mass = 0.1240 - speed = 860.0 - power = 0.0000

Isegrim or Huck (the names keep changing so I lose track) has been kind enough
to show me that power = kg of explosive and the Geramn RDX is, IIRC, 3x TNT
(or is it 2x? I think 3x) which is what the Hispano shell uses.

Note that shells with differing weights and muzzle velocities will travel along
different trajectories. At close range it is not enough to get upset but at long
range and with slow shells (Mk108, MGFF) the effect gets wide. I look at the
tracers and in some cases they will seperate from the HE enough to miss wing
edges or tail ends at medium to long range. Those guns, try aiming a bit high
with the tracers and see if you don't get explosions. Still then the AP and APIT
is wasted, the HE seperates from the MG if you have MG.... shooting from directly
behind at much range at all is a mistake but across wings or along fuselages gets
more efficient coverage.

MG shells:
High explosives make shockwaves that inside a vessel echo and reinforce if the
distance from the vessel walls is correct for the blast. The effect is called
Mach Stem and is very devastating. There's a very factual article on how it
affected a large jet over Lockerbie Scotland, and there's an often circulated
picture of a Brit bomber with enormous hole from test fired Mk108 MG shell, they
both show the value of excess explosive power when *inside* a container just due
to the position of the shell and the walls alone. It's all due to hypersonic
soundwaves. Those MG shells... they are not mainly about fragments. They are
about blowing parts off a plane.


Neal

jurinko
06-17-2004, 02:07 AM
just one remark, the nose firing guns blind you with muzzle flash while the wing-mounted do not. So you can hardly check your aim when firing in 109 as you can correct your lead in Spit/P40/P47 etc.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Neal,

I have always had some questions of the IL-2 modeling of AP rounds. They seem to be far less effective than HE but, is that realistic. The P-39 was originally (incorrectly) modeled with half AP and half HE rounds. The AP rounds were really innefective. I would think that they would do major damage to any structure they passed through but, in the sim that was not the case.

Are the 20mm AP rounds of the Mg151 doing the structural damage to their target that they should be doing? All I'm saying is that it is a complicated, and interesting, subject. Statements like "the Hispano should do much more damage than the Mg151" are suspect.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies about the ammo mixes, I should have checked. As per above.
I don't know if the rounds are doing the damage. I did send along info from the
US Navy site and some others to Luthier to Oleg and the answer was that 1C is
using all that and more. I do see in arcade mode explosions originating inside
the planes.

One thing to face though is that a 20mm shell isn't really that big. The average
man has a thumb width of 25mm, for example. I wouldn't want to be within meters
of one going off either. They should make nasty holes in wings, destroy structure
that they strike and explode against and the pieces of that should pierce skin and
delicate internals but not armor or massive parts. And MG shells should do a
different kind of damage than HE with MG being more effective in just the right
situations, inside a not too wide space and some not too far or close distance
from the nearest wall -- the smaller the shell the much smaller the space because
shockwaves fall off with cube root of explosive or worse, 1/2 shell gets maybe 1/8
the effective blast radius IIRC. It's tricky but that's what delay fuses and the
proper striking angle are about. A 30mm shell is many times more than a 20mm, for
example, the 151/20 MG weighs 0.092 while the Mk108 MG weighs 0.330.

We don't see the actual results of damage by single shells either. Damage graphics
indicate total damage to a part and not what kind of damage. By the time we see a
big hole it's way beyond what a single 20mm will do.

Still, a single 20mm should do way more than any single 12.5mm at the same velocity
at least. It's just that with .50s there tends to be so damn many of them! As
range increases, the difference should be wider too.

Do you also review tracks closely? I watch where my shots go during practice. I
look at the hits and see how many and where. One thing I notice is angle of
penetration especially with shells should be as high as possible, so I work on
deflection when I'm up to flying the sim at all. And I can note that it takes
fewer actual 20mm hits to do the heavy damage than .50's will.

The place where swarms of smaller shots makes a real difference however is in
critical strikes if they penetrate which proper range pretty much ensures. You
get close with a rack of HMG's and you have a good chance of waxing the pilot,
engine, controls, or maybe a control linkage, even swiss cheese a fuel tank or
radiator. With cannon, you have less shots but each fragment hit has potential
(only) of equalling a few or more bullets. Each MG exploded inside... well we
don't know how that's modelled from the graphics. And at long range, the MG
shells may lack the punch to penetrate a close-angle, glancing hit.

There's really so much, even quite a few hits may not characterize the 20's even
more than the .50's just due to wider variance of the 20mm guns and shells. How
do you put a number on them and would you expect to do better than 1C? They may
have made a mistake but in method I doubt it while in code... well 2.0 says it's
possible and it did take actual users to find and point out but we also did have
to come up with valid examples. I know, I sent in one track that got a positive
response about being checked over -- HE blasts inside bomber cockpit and no
damage when pilot and gunner should have been... damaged.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
just one remark, the nose firing guns blind you with muzzle flash while the wing-mounted do not. So you can hardly check your aim when firing in 109 as you can correct your lead in Spit/P40/P47 etc.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree totally. The flashes are more suited to low light situations which is not so much
of the time that day fighters would be active. A big minus for those.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
06-17-2004, 04:12 AM
@WWMaxGunz before I make myself silly I'd like to start a PT on this. Thanks for the input http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW: the topics originator talked about "ballistics" in terms of "hitting at all" and not specifically about damage. So we should stay on topic here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

foxhound31
06-17-2004, 06:18 AM
My 2cents - does using arcade mode help? I was wondering if it really shows a 100% accurate record of where the rounds / fragments travel?

Last night I flew about 5 misions in arcade mode and winterested to see that according to the arrows I was getting more penetrating shots with the mgs from an F2 on an early IL2 than I expected, but that even close delection shooting c.100m was appalling. Using a 37mm armed Me110 the 37mm round seemed to have much flatter trajectory than expected but the burst pattern seemed a bit suspect? Less spherical than I expected. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Asus A7N8X-X, Barton 2500+, 786mb DDR333, XP Home, Ti4800SE with nvidia 45.xx drivers, SB 5.1.

XyZspineZyX
06-17-2004, 09:02 AM
Fox, I don't think you're supposed to FLY in arcade mode, rather to view a track in arcade mode, where you get extra visual cues to show you what happened.

I'm gonna have to try doing this, and see what's up.

Blutarski2004
06-17-2004, 09:12 AM
Prangster & Hyperion - nice posts on the German ballistic charts!

Some info on the Browning 50cal M2 (36-inch barrel):
Initial velocity firing Bullet AP M2 - 2835 fps (864 m/s)
This data USA circa 1948

@ 200 yards -
Striking velocity: 2600 fps (792 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 7 inches (18 cm)

@ 300 yards -
Striking velocity: 2475 fps (754 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 17 inches (43 cm)

@ 400 yards -
Striking velocity: 2350 fps (716 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 32 inches (81 cm)

@ 600 yards -
Striking velocity: 2125 fps (648 m/s)
Bullet drop from bore line: 72 inches (183 cm)


Compare these 50cal bullet drop values with those for the MG151/20 taken from Hyperion's posted chart:

50cal @ 200 yards-------- 18 cm
MG151/20 @ 200 meters---- 50 cm

50cal @ 300 yards-------- 43 cm
MG151/20 @ 300 meters---- 110 cm

50cal @ 400 yards-------- 81 cm
MG151/20 @ 400 meters---- 204 cm

50cal @ 600 yards-------- 183 cm
MG151/20 @ 600 meters---- no data

From this data it is clear that the 50cal fires a very much flatter and hence more accurate trajectory than the lower velocity MG151/20 (OTOH, I do agree with Stiglr that the difference was strictly academic at ranges under 200 yards). Since bullet drop is also analogous to time of flight, it is intersting to note that the 50cal ToF to 300 and 600 yards was the same as that of the MG151/20 to 200 and 400 meters respectively. The M2 50cal was not light; nor did it have the very highest possible rate of fire. But it did fire a comparatively heavy AP bullet at very high muzzle velocity, which made it an extremely accurate and hard hitting air-to-air heavy machine gun. Note for example that the striking velocity of the 50cal AP round @ 400 yards was equal to the initial velocities of some 20mm guns at the gun muzzle.

Another, often overlooked virtue of its use, is that a uniform battery of 50cals (with the exception of the P38) provided American fighters with uniform weapon ballistics, which in turn made effective air-to-air harmonization and gunnery easier.

BLUTARSKI

Edited to correct striking velocty @ 300 yds.

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu June 17 2004 at 01:59 PM.]

faustnik
06-17-2004, 10:02 AM
Neal,

Thanks for the excellent info! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I can't PM you with my email because my PM is locked and the Mods have not been able to fix it yet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It would be great if Oleg could give us new weapon stats since many changes have been made. Doing more testing last night, the Hispano does much more damage than the Mg151 in the sim.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
06-17-2004, 11:05 AM
Rings P.R.O. Doucments Reasearch Page (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/)

From the above web page are the following notes:

MG 151-20
20mm Minegeschoss with 18g PETN
Energy at MV (joules) 27076.19
Energy of HE (joules) 108201.6
Total Energy output 135277.79

20mm HE Mk.1-10.2g PETN
Energy at MV (joules) 46192.19
Energy of HE (joules) 61314.24
Total Energy output 107506.43

107506.43/135277.79= .794

The above source reports approximately 20% more joules of total energy in the 20mm Minegeschoss round over the 20mm HE Mk.1 round.

More importantly, in my opinion. is the difference in HE power.

61314.24/108201.6 = .566

The same source linked above reports an even higher explosive power in the 20mm Mine XM "Compressed" MG 151-20 round with 25g PETN

61314.24/150280 = .408

Ring's page includes documents reporting armament tests.

For example; incendiary rounds did this:

2. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/pro_german_20mm_2.jpg)
There is a fairly high incendiary risk with the H.E.I. ammunition, three fires occurring out of eight rounds fired at a petrol filled self sealing tank in a blenheim wing.

AP rounds do this:

3. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/armour4.JPG)
...the Weight for armour prequired to give protection against solid 20 mm. shot will be prohibitive. ...thicknesses of 9 mm. but this plate weights 15 lb. per square foot and must be used very sparingly. ... We have proved that the 20 mm. solid shot can easily penetrate this plate, and although no figures are available at present it is estimated that even 15 mm. plate would be penetrated by this shot.

I've shot AP rounds myself at armor plate. The round I shot makes a good center punch even after it passed through the steel plate.

Anyway it seems clear to me that AP rounds were used to good effect if the idea was to penetrate anything on the target.

Incendiary round were able to start fires.

HE rounds blew things up.

Ammo selection, it seems, was a compromise.

However, if the idea was to blow things up then the German rounds were possibly more, not less, effective than the British rounds.

As to the Ballistic testing process I've found a very good way to check the games accuracy and damage modeling. It is possible to construct a test with the FMB where two planes are placed away from an Airfield and on uneven ground so as to have one plane aimed at another plane. With this proccedure a plane can shoot one super quick (minimized fire) burst at specific locations on the target plane, at specific angles and at specific distances.

Example:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/goes%20through.jpg

Having said all that, my opinion is that the game has reached a new level of accuracy with the latest patch (not the pre-mature one).

Targets are blowing up more than ever:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Fireball.jpg

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Avoid.jpg

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Thu June 17 2004 at 10:46 AM.]

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 11:34 AM
Did you have any problems hitting with the Mg 151/20?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Neal,

Thanks for the excellent info! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I can't PM you with my email because my PM is locked and the Mods have not been able to fix it yet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It would be great if Oleg could give us new weapon stats since many changes have been made. Doing more testing last night, the Hispano does much more damage than the Mg151 in the sim.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Gotcha -- Oleg posted a Guns and Ammo table quite a while back and you
may be able to find it on a site. Or set up a private topic and give
me your email, I'll send ya copy.

ShVAK -- // APIT - HE (the ammo mix) (note power = explosive)
APIT - mass = 0.0960 - speed = 800.0 - power = 0.001
HE --- mass = 0.0676 - speed = 800.0 - power = 0.0068

MG 151/20 -- // APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG (a-hah Faustnik! 1 APIT + 4 explosive!)
APIT - mass = 0.1150 - speed = 710.0 - power = 0.0036
HE --- mass = 0.1150 - speed = 705.0 - power = 0.0044
MG --- mass = 0.0920 - speed = 775.0 - power = 0.0186

Hispano - Suiza Mk. I -- // HET - AP - HE - AP
HE/HET mass = 0.1290 - speed = 860.0 - power = 0.0120
AP --- mass = 0.1240 - speed = 860.0 - power = 0.0000
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This Table is wrong cause it shows weight of explosive as power = tnt the tnt equivalent is missing thats would be for example nitropenta = 2.21 complete energy and 1.41 for pressure burst . While it would also depend on the kind of the shell setup that can increase effective power by 40 % more with mixed explosives.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 02:48 PM
People have to be careful interpreting what they see in Arcade Mode!

The Arrows do not show complete bullet/shell/fragment paths.
They only show the direction those are travelling in when they hit.
So if the shot gets stopped by some part of the plane, the arrow keeps going.
All you can tell is that you got a hit, if the hit exploded into fragments
and where the impact and explosion occurred. Fragment 'blooms' inside the
plane at least give us an idea about penetration, don't they? ;^)

Arcade is not a perfect tool but it is useful indeed. I watch the target at
1/4 speed as my plane approaches, with a finger over the pause. I see arrows
and I hit pause to take notice of where the hits and misses are and any change
in the damage graphics for what it's worth. Unpause, look for more action, etc.

Hyperion, yes, the table is supposed to show TNT equivalent but really I've
been shown enough to the decimal data on German and others shells to see that
the numbers in the table are the same as explosive weights.

Josf is right in that the German shells used PETN and not as I wrote, RDX.
Note that a large part of the energy (40% of the MG) is kinetic and given at
muzzle. That kinetic energy lessens with range faster than the Hispano shells
so 20% at muzzle will be equal or less by a few 100m, easily.

Blutarski! (LB old buddy!) I think you have one typo on your .50 velocities!
Honest! You have the same velocity, 2600 fps, at both 200 and 300 yards. I
do suspect perhaps 2500 fps at 300 yards? In any case the lost speed at each
100 yard interval and % of start of interval speed (need the right #'s for 200
and 300 yards there) would make interesting info on bullet drag. Really high
speeds drop off very quickly esp with smaller, lighter rounds.
The drops on the 151/20's really surprise me! Are those drops from boresight
or drops from some other line? I only ask because they seem very excessive
just at a glance. The drops do provide time to range at least if boresight
and maybe the other way, and by the time squared formula of drop a little bit
of extra time to range does equal a lot of drop!

Anyone:
--------
Just to show how deceptive bullet drops can be, if you know time to target, here is drop...
If you know drop then you can get time to target, maybe work out speeds with enough data points.

Please check: drop from 0 = .5 *( -9.81 meters/second/second * seconds * seconds ) = X meters

0.1 sec = 0.005m -- rounded to 3 places
0.2 sec = 0.196m
.25 sec = 0.307m, for just .05 sec more there is over 10cm more drop -- this is close range!
0.3 sec = 0.442m
0.4 sec = 0.785m
0.5 sec = 1.226m
0.6 sec = 1.766m
0.7 sec = 2.403m
0.8 sec = 3.139m
0.9 sec = 3.973m
1.0 sec = 4.905m

Kurfurst__
06-17-2004, 02:52 PM
A few comments and corrections.

Re : Spreading and accuracy : the Hispano has significantly higher velocity, thus flatter trajectory and requires less lead.

However, it`s design is bad for spreading itself for the following reasons:

a, powerful gun - high MV/projectile weight means large kickback on the plane, throwing the plane itself around. Especially on a light plane in far wing placements like in the Spitfire.
b, long barrel - which leads to stronger barrel vibration and reduced accuracy of shells fired in bursts

Thus it has flat trajectory, little lead is required, but the spreading is quite big. Frankly, this is how I see in the game.


Re : accuracy on the 109 cannon. I guess this may have something to do that players don`t center the plane, and ifre withoit using the rudder. The use of rudder is essential for accurate shooting! If not used, the plane is travelling slightly sideways while firing, and the kickback of the gun gets a sideways/turnign component, instead of being absorbed by the aircraft travelling directly against it! Try cocpit off mode while firing the MG131s w. and wo. using the rudder, you will see clearly from the tracers what I mean.


Re : Belt compositon. The MG 151/20 was mainly loaded with HE type rounds, 4 out of 5 shells being an explosive type. Hispano used 50-50% setup, half being He/Incendirary type, the rest AP w/o explosive content.

Destructive potential : In the previous thread it was showed quite throughly how the MG 151/20 more than compenstates fror lighter shell weight. Shell weight alone basically means next to nothing. A bit bigger (still tiny, given the size of a 20mm round) fragments, that is. The net effect favour the MG 151/20 for the following:

- much larger percentage of HE shells being used in the belt, which make most if not all of the structural damage
- higher explosive content per shell
- higher ROF
- and the more powerful explosive type used
makes the effect even more pronounced.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 03:05 PM
Gotcha... with ballistics alone I've said all the practical stuff with that
the shots have to be going somewhere and how tight the group is is the most
important part. I spent a lot of time shooting paper for NRA badges as a
kid and the whole idea is to make a tight pattern, find where the shots go,
and correct to move the pattern on target. After that it's just about
making the group tighter.

These planes can be pointing other than the direction they are moving. It
affects the relative motion of shooter and target in a subtle way requiring
lead to correct for if you know how you are flying. If you don't... you miss
until you correct and those muzzle flash graphics screw that all to H. (Way
to go, 1C! Hey, I call em like I see em, and that's a mess!) With enough
track reviews a person might know that at certain speeds the 109 is going to
be left or right and correct a bit. He might check the ball to see if a bit
more attention to rudder is needed but I find the things aren't just so all
the time or maybe it's my **** stick -- a little twist get no change but a
little more and the ball goes way up and yeah I need to change settings AND
get a different control setup.

Aiming is part of ballistics for this discussion, isn't it?
The bits about damage is to show that judging hits by damage is tricky at best.


Neal

Blutarski2004
06-17-2004, 03:14 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Blutarski! (LB old buddy!) I think you have one typo on your .50 velocities!
Honest! You have the same velocity, 2600 fps, at both 200 and 300 yards. I
do suspect perhaps 2500 fps at 300 yards?


..... Neal, you are absolutely correct, and pretty damn close on the estimated proper value. It should be 2475 fps (754 m/s) and has been so edited. Thanks for pointing it out.



In any case the lost speed at each
100 yard interval and % of start of interval speed (need the right #'s for 200
and 300 yards there) would make interesting info on bullet drag. Really high
speeds drop off very quickly esp with smaller, lighter rounds.


..... It is true that absolute loss of velocity per unit time will always be greater for a higher velocity value. But higher initial velocity (all other things equal) will always produce greater striking (or retained) velocity at any point alongthe trajectory.



The drops on the 151/20's really surprise me! Are those drops from boresight
or drops from some other line? I only ask because they seem very excessive
just at a glance. The drops do provide time to range at least if boresight
and maybe the other way, and by the time squared formula of drop a little bit
of extra time to range does equal a lot of drop!


..... The bullet drop data for MG151/20 was read off the German ballistic performance chart posted by Hyperion. The chart shows bullet drop for the MG151/20 measured from the engine axis, which one would presume to be consistent with gun bore axis in the case of the Bf109. The chart is not specific about which ammunition type is represented by the data curve, so that is an open issue. OTOH, it must have been a common ammunition type to have merited a graph of performance.

BLUTARSKI

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:33 PM
I still dont see anyone who agree's with the poster of this thread that the Mg-151/20 is innaccuract. Everyone seems to hit fine but him.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-17-2004, 03:39 PM
If I may also add something to the hispano/Mg151 debate. The Mg151 He shells use more explosives in a smaller shell. That means the shell is less dense, and it even uses less propellent on a shorter berral. All those factors mean the shell wont keep its energy nearly as well as the Hispano. Not only will it effect drip, but distance, velocity falloff, and spread by external factors like wind and tirbulance. If your flying at 400KPH behind an aircraft with propwash and all those other aerodynamic factors, a light 20MM Mg-151/20 shell will be effected more then a 20MM Hispano shell. Short distances this means nothing, but 300+ meters is not a short distance in airial gunnery. The Hispano would be more accurate and hit harder at further distance, were the Mg 151/20 may have better hitting power close it. In IL2 I find myself more willing to use the Hispano's at greater distances then the Mg-151/20. I generally open up at 250-300M in a P-38 and 200-150M in a 109.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

VW-IceFire
06-17-2004, 04:15 PM
I find wing mounted guns easier to hit targets...and thats usually because when I'm doing the comparison its with crazy snap shots where volume of fire (i.e. from 4 wing mounted guns or cannons) is more important than the actual precision of the shots.

Most of the time, I make my shots with 10 degrees of deflection or less and I find myself just as accurate with the MG151/20 mounted 2 in each wing of a FW190 than with the ShVAK, MG151/20, or Hispano mounted on the centerline.

Stiglr, try flying the P-38 and you'll notice that your aim will likely have the same problems. The trickiest thing about the centerline shots is that you have less volume and less chance of hitting if you spray your target...it also means that you have to lobb your shell to convergence...which isn't that different than with the wing guns. Convergence just means that you'll probably be at your crosshair at convergence distance and not necessarily before. I don't know any of the theory behind it...but my feeling is that the MG151/20 is a slightly more difficult cannon to aim because of its lower muzzle velocity but I also know that the MG-FF, Type 97, and the MG151/20 mounted in the wings on any aircraft are easier to hit with than a centerline Hispano on a P-38 or or a centerline MG151/20 on a Bf 109. For me.

This is gunnery skills...not dispersion. You'll find the same thing with the Type 97 on the Zero. Its easier to hit with at least one of the two cannons...but its harder than with a Hispano only because of the muzzle velocity (the Hispano's being very high and the Type 97 being very low).

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Blutarski2004
06-17-2004, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
the Hispano has significantly higher velocity, thus flatter trajectory and requires less lead.

However, it`s design is bad for spreading itself for the following reasons:

a, powerful gun - high MV/projectile weight means large kickback on the plane, throwing the plane itself around. Especially on a light plane in far wing placements like in the Spitfire.
b, long barrel - which leads to stronger barrel vibration and reduced accuracy of shells fired in bursts

Thus it has flat trajectory, little lead is required, but the spreading is quite big. Frankly, this is how I see in the game.


Re : accuracy on the 109 cannon. I guess this may have something to do that players don`t center the plane, and ifre withoit using the rudder. The use of rudder is essential for accurate shooting! If not used, the plane is travelling slightly sideways while firing, and the kickback of the gun gets a sideways/turnign component, instead of being absorbed by the aircraft travelling directly against it! Try cocpit off mode while firing the MG131s w. and wo. using the rudder, you will see clearly from the tracers what I mean.


Re : Belt compositon. The MG 151/20 was mainly loaded with HE type rounds, 4 out of 5 shells being an explosive type. Hispano used 50-50% setup, half being He/Incendirary type, the rest AP w/o explosive content.

Destructive potential : In the previous thread it was showed quite throughly how the MG 151/20 more than compenstates fror lighter shell weight. Shell weight alone basically means next to nothing. A bit bigger (still tiny, given the size of a 20mm round) fragments, that is. The net effect favour the MG 151/20 for the following:

- much larger percentage of HE shells being used in the belt, which make most if not all of the structural damage
- higher explosive content per shell
- higher ROF
- and the more powerful explosive type used
makes the effect even more pronounced.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It's not quite that simple. Weapon and ammunition design involve a number of trade-offs.

The design trade-off costs for a projectile such as the minengeschoss, with very large HE capacity, are several -

(1) Thin projectile walls restrict the initial acceleration (hence initial velocity) which the projectile can withstand. Hence a low 710 m/s (2330 f/s) MV.

(2) A high capacity projectile such as the minengeschoss is very light for its caliber and has a consequently poorer ballistic coefficient which increases ******ation and reduces down range performance. The ballistic coefficient of the 151/20 minengeschoss round is only about 7 pct better than the 50cal API; by comparison, the ballistic coefficient of a 20mm AP round would be over 50 pct better than a 50cal AP.

(3) The damage effect of an explaosive projectile is produced: by (a) kinetic energy, (b) proper fuzing), (c) blast overpressure, (d) fragmentation.

Even HE projectiles impart kinetic energy damage as a result of their striking energy. Since kinetic energy varies as the square of the velocity. A 20 pct reduction in striking velocity will reduce kinetic energy component by about 40 pct.

Although earliest German fuzes were found to be rather too sensitive, they were quickly improved by means of a slightly greater delay which considerably increased the effectiveness of the minengeschoss ammunition.

The superiority of more potent explosive and/or a greater quantity thereof is not linear. An explosive superiority of 2:1 increases effective blast overpressure radius by a factor of about 1.26; a superiority of 3:1 = 1.45 improvement in blast radius. Such overpressure radii increase destructive volume 2x and 3x respectively. This is what the trade-off was made for - blowing out and distorting airframe structure and setting afire nearby flammables.

Fragmentation is also an important feature of overall damage effect. The problem here is that fragment effect is dependent upon average fragment size. But average fragment weight and size diminsh as the ratio between explosive component and projectile casing weight increases. At some point, the fragments become too small to inflict meaningful damage. Hence, the trade-off between blast and fragmentation becomes a balancing act.

Minengeschoss type ammunition sacrificed range, accuracy, kinetic energy striking power, and fragmentation effect in exchange for greatly improved blast effect. The approach makes some sense if enemy bombers were the intended target. Bombers were relatively slow and unmaneuverable, which meant that sacrifices in range and accuracy were less of an issue. Numbers of unprotected crewmen would still remain vulnerable to the smaller fragments. Against fast and rapidly maneuvering fighter targets, IMO, the ammunition would have been less desirable due to its low velocity and poor trajectory.


..... as regards the accuracy of the Hispano 20mm gun, I'd prefer to see some historical documentation addressing its accuracy or lack thereof. The issue is far too complex to draw conclusions founded upon speculation and generalities. Can any UK folks provide any data?

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2004, 05:16 PM
In any case the lost speed at each
100 yard interval and % of start of interval speed (need the right #'s for 200
and 300 yards there) would make interesting info on bullet drag. Really high
speeds drop off very quickly esp with smaller, lighter rounds.

..... It is true that absolute loss of velocity per unit time will always be greater for a higher velocity value. But higher initial velocity (all other things equal) will always produce greater striking (or retained) velocity at any point alongthe trajectory.

&gt;&gt;&gt; Part of my interest is the availabilty of real data at ranges, not times. We also fire
at ranges. The whole upshot is that it gives me a better idea of the effects of speed on
drag. Using your numbers on velocities I get the .5 losing per 100 yds;

235 fps for 8.3% at 200 yds, 250 fps for 9.6% at 400 yds, 225 fps for 9.6% at 600 yds.

Hey, less loss per range at the start. Okay, it took less time but the 400-600 leg took
longer and lost the same % as the 200-400 leg.

***The drops on the 151/20's really surprise me! Are those drops from boresight
or drops from some other line? I only ask because they seem very excessive
just at a glance. The drops do provide time to range at least if boresight
and maybe the other way, and by the time squared formula of drop a little bit
of extra time to range does equal a lot of drop!


..... The bullet drop data for MG151/20 was read off the German ballistic performance chart posted by Hyperion. The chart shows bullet drop for the MG151/20 measured from the engine axis, which one would presume to be consistent with gun bore axis in the case of the Bf109. The chart is not specific about which ammunition type is represented by the data curve, so that is an open issue. OTOH, it must have been a common ammunition type to have merited a graph of performance.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ya gotta watch the drop numbers for if they're drop from boresight or sight line.
Because the two do not compare.


Neal

Blutarski2004
06-17-2004, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ya gotta watch the drop numbers for if they're drop from boresight or sight line.
Because the two do not compare.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Both sets of values are off the bore axes.

BLUTARSKI

faustnik
06-17-2004, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Did you have any problems hitting with the Mg 151/20?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Gibbage, not with the 190.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

TooCool_12f
06-20-2004, 03:26 AM
One thing i've noticed (and nobody talks about it here), is that with german planes "non trimmable" your ball is not centered. As a result, while you see your pipper exactly where it should be, your shells go slightly sidewards (to the right in a 109)

as a result, while you're sure of your aim, you miss.

If you wanna have a good aim, add some rudder to center the ball, or reduce throttle (for the same porpose) and shoot then.. your results should be much better

KG26_Alpha
06-20-2004, 06:19 AM
Just a small comment here fellas.

All the data on gun velocities is fine on paper but in action most aircraft were field modded to the pilots preferences, in belt mixes also these were often pilot tailored.
It still remains though that the original post is correct in as much the comparison between "laser" type weapons and axis "catapault" balistics.

B17 crews used to find FW190's fired 20mm cannon rounds hitting them whilst remaining out of range from the bombers .50cals defense.

20mm seem to "fall" out the end of the barrels to me in IL2 FB AEP at the moment.

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

[This message was edited by KG26_Alpha on Sun June 20 2004 at 05:51 AM.]

[This message was edited by KG26_Alpha on Sun June 20 2004 at 05:51 AM.]

OldMan____
06-20-2004, 07:44 AM
Just know that shvaks 20mm and Mg151/20 have almost the same speed, rof (slightly advantage for shvak) and muzzle weight (slight advanatge for MG) so they should bahave amost identically.

source:http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

mike_espo
06-20-2004, 08:49 AM
Stiglr may have a point: I just started playing again after a couple of month layoff. I mean I am out of practice. Anyway, took off in a zero 21 and killed easily a yak 3 and a LA 5 one hit and the wings come off at 150+m. Historically, the type 99 had horrible ballistic characteristics: low muzzle velocity and low rate of fire. Kills are too easy.

Perhaps all ballistics should be looked at....

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Bearcat99
06-20-2004, 08:49 AM
Not trying to be rude or anything.... but..maybe you are just missing. If I had a beef id go into rcade mode to see where my shots were going before I started insisting the guns were wrong. No offense..... I aim high when using cannon. One thing i agree with you about... it is better to test weapon effectiveness

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

Kurfurst__
06-20-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... It's not quite that simple. Weapon and ammunition design involve a number of trade-offs.

The design trade-off costs for a projectile such as the minengeschoss, with very large HE capacity, are several -

(1) Thin projectile walls restrict the initial acceleration (hence initial velocity) which the projectile can withstand. Hence a low 710 m/s (2330 f/s) MV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. You`d be right in many factors theoretically, but not in practice: In case of the thin walls, this was compensated by high quality steels which were just as strong as the thikcer walls. And, keep in mind that the 2cm MG shells were HIGH velocity, correct MV data is 805 m/sec for them, instead of the 710 m/sec of the also used 'ordinary' thick-walled HE or API of the MG151/20. Logical, you fire a lighter shell with the same propellant power, it will be faster. And in any case, don`t forget that the belt was not only made up by MG shells.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(2) A high capacity projectile such as the minengeschoss is very light for its caliber and has a consequently poorer ballistic coefficient which increases ******ation and reduces down range performance. The ballistic coefficient of the 151/20 minengeschoss round is only about 7 pct better than the 50cal API; by comparison, the ballistic coefficient of a 20mm AP round would be over 50 pct better than a 50cal AP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it`s a downplay. The general trend seems to be that it worths it though, the early moving toward such projectiles/guns in Germany/USSR, and the adoptation of this approach and shell types in the US/UK and others after the war.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
(3) The damage effect of an explaosive projectile is produced: by (a) kinetic energy, (b) proper fuzing), (c) blast overpressure, (d) fragmentation.

Even HE projectiles impart kinetic energy damage as a result of their striking energy. Since kinetic energy varies as the square of the velocity. A 20 pct reduction in striking velocity will reduce kinetic energy component by about 40 pct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KE compenent yes, but not the overall damage factor, that is. Problem is, that increasing KE above a certain point only makes clean penetrations through the light structure easier, and not neccesarily makes better destructive effect. Secondly, the potential kinetic energy is always FAR less than the potential energy of explosives. Just think about that it`s only a few grams of propellant explosives that give ALL the KE to the 90-140 gram projectile itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The superiority of more potent explosive and/or a greater quantity thereof is not linear. An explosive superiority of 2:1 increases effective blast overpressure radius by a factor of about 1.26; a superiority of 3:1 = 1.45 improvement in blast radius. Such overpressure radii increase destructive volume 2x and 3x respectively. This is what the trade-off was made for - blowing out and distorting airframe structure and setting afire nearby flammables.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s correct, however keep in mind the effect is strong because it`s of very concentrated nature.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Fragmentation is also an important feature of overall damage effect. The problem here is that fragment effect is dependent upon average fragment size. But average fragment weight and size diminsh as the ratio between explosive component and projectile casing weight increases. At some point, the fragments become too small to inflict meaningful damage. Hence, the trade-off between blast and fragmentation becomes a balancing act. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To some extent, yes. Again what makes the 'balancing' effect between shrapnel and blast rather theoretical is the actual size of fragments of a small 20mm shell. They are tiny, regardless we speak of thin or thick walled shells. Enough to wound a man, perhaps even kill if hit on a bad spot. But cause real structural damage..? No, they can`t do that, their potential is minimal for that, they always meant to increase the effect, not to be the effect themselves. Cut cables, hole fuel lines, tanks, wound the pilot, that sort of things. If you look at the 'damage' caused by these tiny fragment, you will see it`s neglibable. I have a test report on that, with a heavy German AAA 20mm shell of thick walled type, much more powerful than the aircraft armament of fighters (ie. 146 gram shell, very high MV). But even this one showed that fregmants have so little KE that they will be stopped by 2-3 layers of paper thin light alloy structure already!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Minengeschoss type ammunition sacrificed range, accuracy, kinetic energy striking power, and fragmentation effect in exchange for greatly improved blast effect. The approach makes some sense if enemy bombers were the intended target. Bombers were relatively slow and unmaneuverable, which meant that sacrifices in range and accuracy were less of an issue. Numbers of unprotected crewmen would still remain vulnerable to the smaller fragments. Against fast and rapidly maneuvering fighter targets, IMO, the ammunition would have been less desirable due to its low velocity and poor trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s were theory departs from practice. Some of your conclusions - regarding accuracy - are invalid because you started with wrong data, but apart from that, the practice was also different. In reality, the LW belts orders show that 60% of the belt was made up by M-Geschoss vs. fighters, descreasing to 40% when used against 4engien bombers! Also because that the pct of He/incenidary rounds increased, but I think the reason was that it was easy to cause departure from controlled flight on small fighters due to loss of control cables and structure. The range was not a real issue, fighter vs. fighter engagements happened at close range. If you look at the only two countries (Germany and USSR) that developed specialised a/c armament for the very prupose and not adopting other designs, you will see the trend was to increase the amount of shels leaving the barrel, ballistics beign a secondary concern. Same thing even nowadays, the MVs increased only marginally, if at all, but ROF is improved constantly. This is because agaisnt high speed manouvering targets, true aimed shots are never possible. The solution they seeked was, to employ compact, low kickback rapid firing guns with very powerful shell types ideal for such short range engagements where ballistic themselves are of less importance.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
..... as regards the accuracy of the Hispano 20mm gun, I'd prefer to see some historical documentation addressing its accuracy or lack thereof. The issue is far too complex to draw conclusions founded upon speculation and generalities. Can any UK folks provide any data?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t have HS 404 accuracy data in my head, however I might have somewhere in the archieves. However, you might find interesting the results of German trials between high MV/high mass and low MV/low mass guns in installed conditions (Mg151/20, MK 108, MG FF, MK 103). The MK 103 and MG FF representing the two extremes, but, unlike as anyone would expect, it was the low velocity MG FF that produced the LEAST dispersion pattern, about half as big as the high velocity MK 103... the reason behind that was found that the high MV gun require long barrels, which is vibrated by the powerful ammunition and this greatly reduces the accuracy of the following shells in the burst. Shorter barrels and less powerful ammo is much less prone to this, and it also rocks the aircraft less.. which gives an idea why Germans and Russians developed such guns as they did. Most others just adopted designs that were originated for different roles.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

OldMan____
06-20-2004, 10:05 AM
I used to think longer barrels gave better accuracy. So why sniper rifles are not .50 pistols?

(not wanting flame war.. just want to understand)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

609IAP_Recon
06-20-2004, 01:32 PM
from what I read Stiglr was asking about the distance each gun could fire before dropping off - and I seemed to take from his post that he felt the 20mm dropped off sooner.

(I've ripped wings off at 800m+ but not at 100m+ Always made me wonder)

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2004, 02:09 PM
One thing these charts may be missing...

Guns are harmonized (raised or canted by small degrees) to offset the arc and to hit at the gunsight's convergence point.

I haven't done my "arcade mode" tests yet to see if it's a ball centering issue or whatever... but the above is something to consider.

WWMaxGunz
06-20-2004, 04:06 PM
Paper thin metal on planes? Where? Get a set of micrometers or verniers and have a look sometime at paper, aircraft skin was many times thicker than that.

Fragments from bursting AAA are going to have far less average energy than fragments from shells bursting inside or on the aircraft, unless the AAA is hitting the AC itself! Average energies for AAA represent shells bursting at least a few meters away. The fragments are tumbling and cooling off, they lose more energy in those meters of flight than they have when striking. Up close within centimeters like inside of a wing, be sure that ribs and parts thicker by far than paper will be holed by white hot fragments travelling at supersonic velocities.

Olegs ammo table lists 151/20 MG muzzle velocity as 775 m/s. The shell is light. It will lose speed very quick compared to ShVAK, HS, or even 151/20 AP.

Still, at 100m I would expect them to be on a higher trajectory than the tracers no matter what the convergence. At some point, all 151/20 shell trajectories should either cross or be very close and that would be the ideal range for that gun. Ditto for Mk 108.


Neal

Bastables
06-21-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
I used to think longer barrels gave better accuracy. So why sniper rifles are not .50 pistols?

(not wanting flame war.. just want to understand)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sniper rifles are not fully automatic, meaning no parts are moving as the 2nd or even first round is still in the barrel. Also aimed semiautomatic or bolt-action shots do not have to deal with barrel whipping/flexing after taking the force of the earlier round.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

Jippo01
06-21-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
I used to think longer barrels gave better accuracy. So why sniper rifles are not .50 pistols?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

High accuracy rifles usually have short (in terms of rifles of the same caliber) and thick barrels to minimise vibration. This goes for Sniper rifles too. Problem of vibration still exists even if it is not as pronounced as with automatic weapons.

Short barrels are advantageous to a point where most of the powder has time to burn in the barrel. Beoynd that point loss of MV of the projectile in shorter barrels becomes more of a problem than vibration ever was.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Blutarski2004
06-21-2004, 09:04 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Incorrect. You`d be right in many factors theoretically, but not in practice: In case of the thin walls, this was compensated by high quality steels which were just as strong as the thikcer walls. And, keep in mind that the 2cm MG shells were HIGH velocity, correct MV data is 805 m/sec for them, instead of the 710 m/sec of the also used 'ordinary' thick-walled HE or API of the MG151/20. Logical, you fire a lighter shell with the same propellant power, it will be faster. And in any case, don`t forget that the belt was not only made up by MG shells.

..... The use of stronger steels is of course possible within limits, but the issue is not one of theory. Very thin walled projectiles cannot withstand the very great accelerations in the bore which are associated with high muzzle velocity. The MV figure which I used came from the website of Tony Williams. In any case, the real issue of accuracy is illustrated by the MG151/20 bullet drop data curves posted by Hyperion.



The KE component yes, but not the overall damage factor, that is. Problem is, that increasing KE above a certain point only makes clean penetrations through the light structure easier, and not neccesarily makes better destructive effect. Secondly, the potential kinetic energy is always FAR less than the potential energy of explosives. Just think about that it`s only a few grams of propellant explosives that give ALL the KE to the 90-140 gram projectile itself.

..... For general interest, here is a short compendium of relative peak pressure values for different types of WW2 explosives in use in the US -

Torpex---122.5
HBX------117.5
Minol----115
Tritonal-112.5
DBX------112.5
RDX(B)---110
Ednatol--105
TNT------100
Picratol-100
Amatex---100
Amatol----95



To some extent, yes. Again what makes the 'balancing' effect between shrapnel and blast rather theoretical is the actual size of fragments of a small 20mm shell. They are tiny, regardless we speak of thin or thick walled shells. Enough to wound a man, perhaps even kill if hit on a bad spot. But cause real structural damage..? No, they can`t do that, their potential is minimal for that, they always meant to increase the effect, not to be the effect themselves. Cut cables, hole fuel lines, tanks, wound the pilot, that sort of things. If you look at the 'damage' caused by these tiny fragment, you will see it`s neglibable. I have a test report on that, with a heavy German AAA 20mm shell of thick walled type, much more powerful than the aircraft armament of fighters (ie. 146 gram shell, very high MV). But even this one showed that fregmants have so little KE that they will be stopped by 2-3 layers of paper thin light alloy structure already!

..... I checked my references on 20mm projectile fragmentation performance and US data tends to confirm your position. US M79 20mm HE projectiles as a rule produced fragments too small and of insufficient velocity to pose real risk to airframe structure. On the other hand 20mm shell fragments were effective in an anti-personnel capacity. This statement is quoted from Roger Freeman's work:

QUOTE-
An investigation carried out early in 1943 established that of combat wound causes 40 per cent were flak shrapnel, 40 per cent 20mm shrapnel, 10 per cent machine gun bullets, and 10 per cent fragments of aircraft structure blasted by shell hits.
-UNQUOTE



That`s where theory departs from practice. Some of your conclusions - regarding accuracy - are invalid because you started with wrong data, but apart from that, the practice was also different.

..... MG151/20 MV is then somewhat of a mystery. As mentioned above, I used Tony William's lists MV data.


In reality, the LW belts orders show that 60% of the belt was made up by M-Geschoss vs. fighters, descreasing to 40% when used against 4engien bombers! Also because that the pct of He/incenidary rounds increased, but I think the reason was that it was easy to cause departure from controlled flight on small fighters due to loss of control cables and structure. The range was not a real issue, fighter vs. fighter engagements happened at close range.

..... I do agree the inside 200 meters, trajectory issues are strictly academic. However, according to the ballistic drop data curve posted by Hyperion, the accuracy of the 151/20 suffers at ranges above 200 odd yds, particularly in an environment where most shooting was conducted at unknown ranges.


If you look at the only two countries (Germany and USSR) that developed specialised a/c armament for the very prupose and not adopting other designs, you will see the trend was to increase the amount of shels leaving the barrel, ballistics beign a secondary concern. Same thing even nowadays, the MVs increased only marginally, if at all, but ROF is improved constantly. This is because agaisnt high speed manouvering targets, true aimed shots are never possible.

..... I accept the point you are trying to make, but "never" is a very strong word. 75 to 80 percent of fighter kills were the result of bounces.


The solution they seeked was, to employ compact, low kickback rapid firing guns with very powerful shell types ideal for such short range engagements where ballistic themselves are of less importance.

..... I agree that this is a valid approach. High RoF is a clear asset (provided that enough ammunition is carried). And high velocity weapons have costs of their own (weight, need for stronger mountings, etc).



I don`t have HS 404 accuracy data in my head, however I might have somewhere in the archieves. However, you might find interesting the results of German trials between high MV/high mass and low MV/low mass guns in installed conditions (Mg151/20, MK 108, MG FF, MK 103). The MK 103 and MG FF representing the two extremes, but, unlike as anyone would expect, it was the low velocity MG FF that produced the LEAST dispersion pattern, about half as big as the high velocity MK 103... the reason behind that was found that the high MV gun require long barrels, which is vibrated by the powerful ammunition and this greatly reduces the accuracy of the following shells in the burst. Shorter barrels and less powerful ammo is much less prone to this, and it also rocks the aircraft less.. which gives an idea why Germans and Russians developed such guns as they did. Most others just adopted designs that were originated for different roles.

..... Differences in dispersion patterns are only one component in the issue of gun accuracy. If the dispersion pattern of gun A is half the area of the dispersion pattern of gun B, the mean error of gun B is about 1.4x greater than that of gun A. Provided that this still provides sufficient lethality against the intended target, the difference becomes moot. OTOH, the high velocity gun will give much more accurate shooting (flatter trajectory and lower ToF) at longer ranges - say 300+ yards. From that point of view, the high velocity Hispano and M2 50cals were a good complement to the late war K14 gunsight; together, they enabled effective air-to-air shooting out to 400 yards against fighter targets.

I think we can agree that the minengeschoss concept optimized effect at shorter ranges, which for the greater part of the war was an entirely valid concept. BUT, it was not done without sacrificing in certain other areas.

BLUTARSKI

JG14_Josf
06-21-2004, 11:28 AM
Thanks for the interesting reading.

If a gun is shaking around and the projectiles are not traveling on the same trajectory then this problem increases with distance.

If another gun is less random in bullet trajectory yet all the bullets travel at lower speeds with greater bullet drop then the aiming point can be raised to take advantage of the higher accuracy of the gun that vibrates less.

The gun that moves around and shoots a more random patterm will be less acccurate no matter where the gun is aimed.

A high rate of fire 'shot gun' can hit targets that are close without a need to be very accurate.

Shooting targets at greater distances require that the bullets hit where the gun is aimed, or a lot of luck.

Blutarski2004
06-21-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Thanks for the interesting reading.

If a gun is shaking around and the projectiles are not traveling on the same trajectory then this problem increases with distance.

If another gun is less random in bullet trajectory yet all the bullets travel at lower speeds with greater bullet drop then the aiming point can be raised to take advantage of the higher accuracy of the gun that vibrates less.

The gun that moves around and shoots a more random patterm will be less acccurate no matter where the gun is aimed.

A high rate of fire 'shot gun' can hit targets that are close without a need to be very accurate.

Shooting targets at greater distances require that the bullets hit where the gun is aimed, or a lot of luck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It is a matter of degree. Dispersion area differences between one gun and another are not enough by themselves to judge the efficiency of a weapon. What Kurfurst describes (IIUC) is the difference between a gun shooting 10cm groups at X meters and another shooting 14cm groups at thesdame range. If the degree of lethality within a dispersion area is sufficient to kill the target over the effective aerial gunnery range band, then the weapon is effective and dispersion differences are academic.

Putting that dispersion area upon the target is a completely separate but important issue. High velocity gives two important advantages. High velocity give a flat trajectory of fire, which means that the effective zone of fire along the pilot's line of sight is longer than with a lower velocity weapon. Since aerial gunnery ranges were in those days largely unknown and at best only estimated, this was an important feature. High velocity also gives a shorter time of flight. A short time of projectile flight is a very important factor in whether or not you will hit. The shorter the ToF, the less lead must be estimated. The less the required lead (deflection), the greater the likelihood of hitting.

This all comes down to choices made by the a/c armament designer. In order to optimize either short range or long range performance, something else had to be sacrificed.

BLUTARSKI

p1ngu666
06-21-2004, 01:28 PM
the hispano's do rock the spitfire about alot
the russians made high volocity cannons didnt they?
thinkin of the 37 and 45mm in the game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

BBB_Hyperion
06-21-2004, 02:19 PM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW190A6pzspr.jpg

Here another one with ammo type. I think i have somewhere a dispersion test too.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Blutarski2004
06-21-2004, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW190A6pzspr.jpg

Here another one with ammo type. I think i have somewhere a dispersion test too.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Hyperion, you come up with some great stuff. By way of comparison with the M2 50cal, here are the values for the F82 Twin Mustang M2 50cals harmonized @ 1000 feet range for 15k feet altitude and 295mph IAS -

Guns at 53 inches below pilot line of sight.

Trajectory crosses line of sight for the first time at 1000 ft (305 meters).

Trajectory crosses line of sight for the second time at 2200 ft (670 meters).

Maximum height above sight line is 12 inches (30 cm) at 1500 ft (457 meters).

Measuring the same 83 cm (33 inch) height allowance from the peak of the 50cal trajectory curve, we get a first cut at 440 ft (134 meters) and an estimated second cut at ABOUT 2400 ft (730 meters approx). In that sense the equivalent zones for the 151/20 would be about 420 meters versus about 600 meters for the M2 50cal.

Of course, one must assume that the F82 gun harmonization was configured for use with the postwar K14 and K18 gunsights. Nevertheless, the data show the good performance of the 50cal round for long range shooting.



BLUTARSKI

JG14_Josf
06-21-2004, 04:28 PM
Blutarsky,

I am not sure why you chose my quote to reiterate your point.

I can only assume that you think my statement is in error.

'it is a matter of degree.'

Yes, if you aim at something and the bullet doesn't go where you aim then you will miss by the degree of error between where you aim and where the bullet hits.

The degree of error also increases with range. If the bullet is off by one inch in 100 yards then it will be off more at 200 yards. Another matter of degree.

If the gunsight is harmonized for 200 yards and the gun is consistant, stable, and accurate then it will hit where the pilot aims at 200 yards.

As a matter of degree of accuracy; if the gun does not hit where the pilot aims then it doesn't matter if the trajectory is flat. The less accurate the gun the less it matters how flat is the trajectory.

If the choice is to make a round go farther and faster but this choice is made at the expense of accuracy then as far a gunnery is concerned there is a net loss in the ability to hit the targets in the gunsight.

The same concern applies to any advantages in defelction shooting that could be achieved with a faster flatter projectile. If the gun shoots wild then it doesn't matter where the pilot aims to the degree of the error in accuracy.

If the more stable, slower velocity gun is more accurate then all that is needed for the pilot to utilize the advantage in accuracy is to know and adjust for the proper deflection angle.

If there is error in my thinking please point it out specifically.

The subject of lethality is reported in much of the readily available historical documentation.

I like this one:

"You can have computer sights or anything you like, but I think you have to go to the enemy on the shortest distance and knock him down from point-blank range. You'll get him from in close. At long distance, it's questionable."

Colonel Erich "Bubi" Hartmann, GAF
World's Leading Ace, Luftwaffe
332 Victories, WW-II
(Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw page 13)

or this one:

"My only tactic was to wait until I had the chance to attack the enemy and then close in at high speed. I opened fire only when the whole windshield was black with the enemy. Wait! Wait! - until the enemy covers your windshield. Then not a single shot goes wild. The farther you get away from the enemy, the less impact and penetration your projectiles have. With the tactic I have described, the enemy aircraft absorbs the full force of your armament at minimum range, and it doesn't matter what your angle is to him and wheather or not you are in a turn or any other maneuver. When all your guns hit him like this, he goes down! And you have saved your ammunition"

(Chapter 6: The 300 CLUB, Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe by Toliver and Constable)

In close the differences in accuracy, velocity, ToF, trajectory, etc. between the various WWII guns is less important.

At longer distances I think you will have a tough time gaining any advantage at the expense of accuracy.

Carpet bombing comes to mind.

OldMan____
06-21-2004, 07:22 PM
Just wanna know what would be the true.. so its not whine.. and please.. do not bias.. only think and answer.

Do you really think Mg 151/20 is correct when comparing its damage to ANY other cannon in FB? I mean.. I made 48!!! testes today, with some cannons against some La7 (friendly). Aimed VERY.. VERY well.. so no chance of bad aiming being the cause (hitted really most bullets from really close) and I need from 1.5 to 2.5 seconds of HITTING from a DORA to down a La7 !!! With hispano I need 4 bullets at MOST. With P51 .50 I need about 2 seconds burst to do it. With MK108 I need 3 shots (that is also weird). With Ki84 I don´t need even to say what happens.... B-20 I need 4 to 6 bullets to down one La7.

What is most strange.. with FW190-A8 I need 2.0 second burst to down it.


That really does not seem possible. If that was the true situation in war.. why should not hte germans use slingstones instead of cannons?


I reaaly think a 1 second burst at MOST from a FW should down a LA 7 (considering that I am firing at point blank.. in converg. at 100m ..so cant really miss..and saved track confirms so)



If I am wrong.. please.. someone elucidates me. I wanna know why the hell a 151/20 was so pathetic!!!

Again.. don´t wanna start flame war.. I am not ASKING for changes.. so dont call me anything.. just ASKING FOR KNOWLEDGE...

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

BBB_Hyperion
06-21-2004, 09:15 PM
Oldman you are right. But this goes for all guns.

At first we dont see the effect of the pressure burst effect. No deforming planeparts or damage anywhere near the test reports of these guns. Also we cant even estimate if this effect is at all simulated.

On the belting you find that mg151/20 is equiped with half ap rounds for the use against il2s(as standard eastern front loadout). If that is in all cases 100 % correct i doubt.

The dm is not that complex as it should be. The BoB developement screenshoots give hope however that there is something planned. At the moment there are trigger zones that have different damage textures. The damage received in a part is summed up and when its over the setup limit it shows damage. So when you hit in the same place the damaged is just summed up but the effect on the plane and its structure is not shown.

For the mk108 usage its hardly understandable how a figther can sustain more then 1 hit. Choose a wing section and fire there about 1.75 m^2 area effect is exspected to be damaged. You can estimate how this looks and that a hit takes the fighter out of service. The tracer round without explosive was a training ammunition.

For the 20 mm Shells about 4 to 5 mineshells should be enough for a fighter. That should be about 10 hits in il2 cause of the ammo belting.

But as well other guns have the same problem its the dm not the guns.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
06-21-2004, 09:43 PM
Old Man, how many shots are hitting and what kinds of shells?
With the M2 it's more even but with cannon it's not.
That's why viewing in arcade mode helps so much. One thing I found out
doing that is that those big impressive orange flame explosions I would
see so often from cannon are not HE or MG shells. They don't fragment.
They are incendiaries or tracer rounds with the phosphors being stripped
off by the metal plane skin and flashing right there. One person had
posted a pic of a car wreck being hit by an incendiary bullet and the flash
about filled the inside of the car and part of over the back and roof.
Yet there's been upteen posts over time where those flashes are taken for
HE hits and why don't they do more damage? So if you want to know about
what is happening with your shots then make a track of the entire mission
to get a .trk file, exit FB, change the config file to set arcade on, run
FB and review the track with the POV set on and close to the target just to
see hits and explosions. And... those arrows may go through the plane but
the projectile may have been stopped, the arrows are direction of hits and
fragments only.

Blutarski -- for sure the time of flight is critical when both shooter and
target are moving. Also the point about convergence circles and dispersion.
If the target is 1 foot wide (30 cm) and you can put the group about center
then if the group is 4 inches (10 cm) or 6 inches (15 cm) across is really
moot and I can't figure out how that is hard for anyone to understand... it's
about effective range, dispersal, and target size, right?

Jippo -- target rifle barrels are thick and the rifles are heavy because it's
easier to steady them by hand. Try prone sighting a 8 lb rifle and holding
the front sight on target for a good while. Rest. Now do the same with a 35
lb rifle, if you have the strength which prone shouldn't be such a problem. I
did long ago many, many, many times and the 35 lb rifle wobbles less, be sure.
That's a 50 cal barrel bored to .22 match with thick hardwood stock as opposed
to an ordinary .22 rifle. And with open sights at least, long barrels are
better if only because they put more distance between rear and front sights.
Long distance target rifles that I've seen do not have short barrels.


Neal

OldMan____
06-22-2004, 05:12 AM
So.. how do I turn on this POV?

I undestarnd the DM can cause the problem, but there are weapons that have the expected lethality. So why not just increasing cannon power a little bit would not help?

Started doing this test since other day.. I and a fellow dora spent ALL our ammo in a p38 and it kept flying (badly.. but flying)....of course since was real combat we hitted far less than full ammo.. anyway was a lot of hits on it. When I fly the zero I can have much more kill.. even I am not being any good at it, just because its weapons work better.

The only place where german 20mm cannosn seems to work is when targeting engines.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

OldMan____
06-22-2004, 05:18 AM
Well.. now I have a suggestion.. why not let the player choose in weapon loadout between 2 different bels configurations (lost of AP for one case... lots of HE or else for fighters)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

Blutarski2004
06-22-2004, 08:44 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Blutarsky,

I am not sure why you chose my quote to reiterate your point. I can only assume that you think my statement is in error.

'it is a matter of degree.'

..... Josf, I meant no attack upon you. My use of the phrase which you quoted above was strictly coincidental (altho it is possible that your previous use subconsciously suggested it to me). As for your post, I agree with about 97 pct of what you say. Our differences are quite few.


Yes, if you aim at something and the bullet doesn't go where you aim then you will miss by the degree of error between where you aim and where the bullet hits.

..... Agreed.



The degree of error also increases with range. If the bullet is off by one inch in 100 yards then it will be off more at 200 yards. Another matter of degree.

..... Agreed.



If the gunsight is harmonized for 200 yards and the gun is consistant, stable, and accurate then it will hit where the pilot aims at 200 yards.

..... Agreed.



As a matter of degree of accuracy; if the gun does not hit where the pilot aims then it doesn't matter if the trajectory is flat. The less accurate the gun the less it matters how flat is the trajectory.

.....Agreed.



If the choice is to make a round go farther and faster but this choice is made at the expense of accuracy then as far a gunnery is concerned there is a net loss in the ability to hit the targets in the gunsight.

The same concern applies to any advantages in defelction shooting that could be achieved with a faster flatter projectile. If the gun shoots wild then it doesn't matter where the pilot aims to the degree of the error in accuracy.

If the more stable, slower velocity gun is more accurate then all that is needed for the pilot to utilize the advantage in accuracy is to know and adjust for the proper deflection angle.

..... Quite so for a static target, but I think that you discount the problem posed by low velocity when engaging a moving target. Deflection is the most difficult aspect of aerial gunnery to master. Anything which increases the magnitude of required deflection, like low velocity, is therefore a problem.



The subject of lethality is reported in much of the readily available historical documentation.

I like this one:

"You can have computer sights or anything you like, but I think you have to go to the enemy on the shortest distance and knock him down from point-blank range. You'll get him from in close. At long distance, it's questionable."

..... As an ideal, I fully agree and myself fly as such. But getting in really close cannot always beaccomplished all the time or by every pilot. There are inummerable documented cases of kills scored at 300 yds with simple reflector gunsights. The introduction of gyro gunsights extended effective 50cal range out to 400 yds, with a few kills even scored at ranges up to 700 yds (estimated).



or this one:

"My only tactic was to wait until I had the chance to attack the enemy and then close in at high speed. I opened fire only when the whole windshield was black with the enemy. Wait! Wait! - until the enemy covers your windshield. Then not a single shot goes wild. The farther you get away from the enemy, the less impact and penetration your projectiles have. With the tactic I have described, the enemy aircraft absorbs the full force of your armament at minimum range, and it doesn't matter what your angle is to him and wheather or not you are in a turn or any other maneuver. When all your guns hit him like this, he goes down! And you have saved your ammunition"

In close the differences in accuracy, velocity, ToF, trajectory, etc. between the various WWII guns is less important.

..... Agreed. I have so stated in previous posts.



At longer distances I think you will have a tough time gaining any advantage at the expense of accuracy.

..... I suspect that you have formed a much exaggerated idea of the relative differences in accuracy between low and high velocity machine guns and auto-cannon, and what it means in practical terms.



QUOTE]

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
06-22-2004, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just wanna know what would be the true.. so its not whine.. and please.. do not bias.. only think and answer.

Do you really think Mg 151/20 is correct when comparing its damage to ANY other cannon in FB? I mean.. I made 48!!! testes today, with some cannons against some La7 (friendly). Aimed VERY.. VERY well.. so no chance of bad aiming being the cause (hitted really most bullets from really close) and I need from 1.5 to 2.5 seconds of HITTING from a DORA to down a La7 !!! With hispano I need 4 bullets at MOST. With P51 .50 I need about 2 seconds burst to do it. With MK108 I need 3 shots (that is also weird). With Ki84 I don´t need even to say what happens.... B-20 I need 4 to 6 bullets to down one La7.

What is most strange.. with FW190-A8 I need 2.0 second burst to down it.


That really does not seem possible. If that was the true situation in war.. why should not hte germans use slingstones instead of cannons?


I reaaly think a 1 second burst at MOST from a FW should down a LA 7 (considering that I am firing at point blank.. in converg. at 100m ..so cant really miss..and saved track confirms so)



If I am wrong.. please.. someone elucidates me. I wanna know why the hell a 151/20 was so pathetic!!!

Again.. don´t wanna start flame war.. I am not ASKING for changes.. so dont call me anything.. just ASKING FOR KNOWLEDGE...

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not criticizing your test, just asking a question. Was your convergence set to the range at which you were firing?

BLUTARSKI

Jippo01
06-22-2004, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Jippo -- target rifle barrels are thick and the rifles are heavy because it's
easier to steady them by hand. Try prone sighting a 8 lb rifle and holding
the front sight on target for a good while. Rest. Now do the same with a 35
lb rifle, if you have the strength which prone shouldn't be such a problem. I
did long ago many, many, many times and the 35 lb rifle wobbles less, be sure.
That's a 50 cal barrel bored to .22 match with thick hardwood stock as opposed
to an ordinary .22 rifle. And with open sights at least, long barrels are
better if only because they put more distance between rear and front sights.
Long distance target rifles that I've seen do not have short barrels.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense, Neal, but I do know what I'm talking about. Vibration is an issue.

Long barrels are advatageous for competition shooters because it is better to have the weight in the tip of the muzzle far from the body of the shooter. This gives smoother run in sports where a moving target is tracked, as it does where static target is being shot. Short stubby heavy barrels only wear the shooter down while adding little accuracy from the point of view of stability. This is the reason why for example .22lr moving target rifles have rifling only half of the barrel length and front half of the barrel is just for adding weight. It must be mentioned though that the reason for short rifling is not the tremendous vibration of .22lr round but short barrel time when tracking the target.

In sniping rifles you will note that the bolt frame and barrel are machined from single pieces of metal, and they have minimum number of openings or other things made to them that might reduce dampening of vibration. Sometimes (although quite rarely) even the magazine is left out to increase the accuracy potential of the weapon. Also with such rifles the stock is never allowed to touch the barrel, which is thus kept free floating (vibrating). Barrel is like water hose left free and turned on: it will buckle, twist and turn. We are obviously talking about more subtle movement in case of a rifle barrel, but the fact remains thin walled long barrel will be less stabile during the time bullet is in the barrel than a short thick walled one. And it will do so enough to notice the difference when shooting from benchrest to longer distances.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Blutarski2004
06-22-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
For the mk108 usage its hardly understandable how a figther can sustain more then 1 hit. Choose a wing section and fire there about 1.75 m^2 area effect is exspected to be damaged. You can estimate how this looks and that a hit takes the fighter out of service. The tracer round without explosive was a training ammunition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I agree with the great majority of your post. Just want to make two observations -

Different aircraft have different degrees of structural strength - P47 versus Zero to give an extreme example. This shouls have SOME influence on how a hit will affect the target plane.

A rigid formula of one 30mm hit = loss of any fighter would be excessive. There are verious examples of fighter surviving 37mm and 40mm AA hits and making it home. I do not say that such a hit would not be severe, only that it should not be assumed to uniformly be a fatal hit.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
06-22-2004, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Blutarski -- for sure the time of flight is critical when both shooter and
target are moving. Also the point about convergence circles and dispersion.
If the target is 1 foot wide (30 cm) and you can put the group about center
then if the group is 4 inches (10 cm) or 6 inches (15 cm) across is really
moot and I can't figure out how that is hard for anyone to understand... it's
about effective range, dispersal, and target size, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Neal, it only took you six lines to say what I've been spending multiple lengthy posts attempting to explain.

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2004, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
So.. how do I turn on this POV?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Use the view keys! Set the playback toggles to let you manipulate the views and time.
External from enemy plane, is it shft-F2 or ctrl-F2? Pause is P, [ & ] control time.
When your plane gets into position to shoot or just as the firing starts, hit pause.
Jump external to the other planes and slew the view around with the mouse till you find
the one your plane is shooting at or gonna shoot at. Hold the left mouse button down
and zoom in pretty close, making sure you can see your plane too. If time ain't 1/4
then tap it down to 1/4 speed and then hit the pause key (toggle) to resume action.
When you see hits, pause to study, unpause for more, etc. One pass ain't a study so
do some watching. You can also check your sight picture just as the shots start.
With pause you can look down from the sight and check the ball and your speed. Then
switch view back to target, let it run and see how that done. Do that a few practices
and see if you don't get a better feel for where the shots are going.


Neal

OldMan____
06-22-2004, 11:00 AM
Lol.. I had not understoo what you meaned by POV (hard to understand abreviations when not in your mother language)


Will do this tonight. But as I said.. I am NOT missing.. I came 100 Meters close at 1/4 speed.. and saw tons of debris falling.. so I HITTED A LOT!!!


Anyway.. remember my tests were made against a FRAGILE LA7.. not a P47!!! So a Mk108 should brake down an La7.. at MOST 2 should do it.


I am really disapointed since there is no fun in playing LW planes due to this kind of problem (no I am not biased .. I am not german.. In fact
Brazilian Pilots flew P47 during WW2 (squadrons mixed in American Air Force).

But is quite frustrating... If this does not changte.. everyone will not want to play LW planes anymore.. so only reds at servers etc...

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

JG14_Josf
06-22-2004, 11:53 AM
Blutarski,

Thanks for the specific response. I do not consider your responses as being personal attacks. Not at all. However there are specific contentions concerning my communicated perception. I see things a certain way and you contend with that communicated perception.

When there are differences in perception it is important to be specific when communicating these perceived contentions.

If we are not specific then instead of communicating, instead of reaching an understanding, all that is done is for us to state that we contend.

Argument for the sake of argument is, in my opinion, undesirable.

To be more specific I think that we need to assume less.

'I think that you discount the problem posed by low velocity when engaging a moving target'

I think that you are wrong. I do not discount the problem posed by low velocity when engaging a moving target. My earlier post made reference to both the need to adjust for increases in bullet drop, ToF, etc. and that the differences in ballistics between most WWII guns is relatively insignificant at the ranges where these guns are effective.

This leads me to wonder where the following comment is inspired:

'...I suspect that you have formed a much exaggerated idea of the relative differences in accuracy between low and high velocity machine guns and auto-cannon, and what it means in practical terms'

Why do I have to be the one who has formed an exaggerated idea? How is it that I am exaggerating my ideas to such a high degree as to be labeled 'much exaggerated'? It sounds as if I am so far exaggerated as to be off the charts. I am not only exaggerated, I am 'much' exaggerated. Why?

When you 'think' and 'suspect' things that are in error it does not attack me. I know the error; you think and suspect my thoughts and ideas to be what they are not. I have no problem with this personally. However the idea that is being expressed with the words I choose to use is being attacked and therefore it is appropriate for me to make an effort to communicate better.

"We always underestimated our range"
Air Vice-Marshal J.E. "Johnnie" Johnson. RAF

"I gained in experience with every plane shot down, and now was able to fire in a calm, deliberate manner. Each attack was made in a precise manner. Distance and deflection were carefully judged before firing. This is not something that comes by accident; only by experience can a pilot overcome feelings of panic. A thousand missions could be flown and be of no use if the pilot had not exchanged fire with the enemy.
Major John T. Godfrey, USAAF 16.33 Victories, WW-II

"Go in close, and then when you think you are too close, go in closer."
Major Thomas B. "Tommy" McGuire, USAAF
Second Leading U.S. Ace, WW-II
38 Victories

"I am not a good shot. Few of us are. To make up for this I hold my fire until I have a shot of less than 20o deflection and until I'm within 300 yards. Good discipline on this score can make up for a great deal."
Lt. colonel John C. Meyer, USAAF

"As to gunnery passes, the best was when you dived with speed, made one pass, shot an opponent down quickly, and pulled back up...The secret was to do the job in one pass; it could be from the side or from behind and I usually tried to open fire at about 150 feet."
Major Erich Rudorffer, Luftwaffe Seventh Leading Ace, WW-II
222 Victories (13 on One Mission)

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Looks%20high.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Just%20a%20little%20late.jpg

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Tue June 22 2004 at 11:11 AM.]

Blutarski2004
06-22-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Blutarski,

Thanks for the specific response. I do not consider your responses as being personal attacks. Not at all. However there are specific contentions concerning my communicated perception. I see things a certain way and you contend with that communicated perception.

When there are differences in perception it is important to be specific when communicating these perceived contentions.

If we are not specific then instead of communicating, instead of reaching an understanding, all that is done is for us to state that we contend.

Argument for the sake of argument is, in my opinion, undesirable.

To be more specific I think that we need to assume less.

'I think that you discount the problem posed by low velocity when engaging a moving target'

I think that you are wrong. I do not discount the problem posed by low velocity when engaging a moving target. My earlier post made reference to both the need to adjust for increases in bullet drop, ToF, etc. and that the differences in ballistics between most WWII guns is relatively insignificant at the ranges where these guns are effective.

This leads me to wonder where the following comment is inspired:

'...I suspect that you have formed a much exaggerated idea of the relative differences in accuracy between low and high velocity machine guns and auto-cannon, and what it means in practical terms'

Why do I have to be the one who has formed an exaggerated idea? How is it that I am exaggerating my ideas to such a high degree as to be labeled 'much exaggerated'? It sounds as if I am so far exaggerated as to be off the charts. I am not only exaggerated, I am 'much' exaggerated. Why?

When you 'think' and 'suspect' things that are in error it does not attack me. I know the error; you think and suspect my thoughts and ideas to be what they are not. I have no problem with this personally. However the idea that is being expressed with the words I choose to use is being attacked and therefore it is appropriate for me to make an effort to communicate better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


.....Fair comment indeed.

I had formed the impression that you believed that a low velocity mg with a smaller mean error was a superior all-around air to air weapon. If I was mistaken in that, then I confess to having been victimized by my own erroneous perceptions.

From there it was a short and simple step off the deep end ...:-)

BLUTARSKI

Gibbage1
06-22-2004, 01:07 PM
I did some test's last night and WOW is the Mg-151/20 WEAK!!! I dont know if this is accurate, but it does not seems so.

I took a FW-190 A8 with dual Mg-151/20 gunpods. Thats a total of 6! 20MM's and went up against 4 He-111's 4 TB3's and 4 B-17's with unlimited ammo. I was pumping hundreds of 20MM rounds into these bombers!!!! Im talking solid hits, aircraft COVERED in explosions, and it still would not go down. I did manage to kill all but 2 B-17's before my engine died and my vision was beat-red from the pilot being woulded. But man it was tough to take things down. He-111 took the most hits of all the bombers. Is there a command to count hits?

Then for grins I took a Hurricane IIc with 4 hispano's. Stuff just fell appart with 1/3 to 1/2 the hits. Hispano's have a much lower ROF then the Mg-151/20. With the 190 and gunpods I am hitting at about 72 rounds per second of 20MM. Hispano's at 40 per second, but the hispanos were taking stuff down at least twice as fast. Amazing. Now I know why people cry so much! I was downing these bombers with 6 .50 cal in a P-51 faster then a FW-190 with 6 20MM. But I did have more aim in the P-51 and went for pilots and fuel tanks.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Kurfurst__
06-22-2004, 01:35 PM
Yep, and I have no idea why the 151 went wrong with AEP. In the last FB patch, it was so fine, as were the Soviet 20mm as well, everybody said it`s 'perfect! dont touch it'. It was the first time when the 20mm become a REAL alternative to the MK 108 vs. fighters. Usually a short, concentrated solid burst finished enemy fighters off.. not anymore. :/ I am hearing rumors this being related to the anti-cheat code, and the program loosing packeges, ie. many shells are 'lost' and do no damage at all, especially online.. the irregular ineffectiveness of the MK 108 is understandable, as was pointed out, and checked with arcade mode, usually it happens when the non-explosive incendinaries hit and do a lot of fireworks, but little damage. The M-Geschoss rounds are always devastating..

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

OldMan____
06-22-2004, 04:36 PM
So I am not crazy. Indeed MK151 is too weak. And how does the dora flyers stay in this one.. hopeless? And who does not want to use the MK108?

If that is an anti cheat feature.. its a VERY bad made one, since it incorporates an UNBALANCING effect that is FAR worse than many cheats.. in fact is the same as everyone else using a cheat of almost invulnerability. Although I can understand how dead recon mechanism could cause such problems sicne I faced something similar in game I work now. But it IS possible to correct it.

I really won´t buy PF because of its contents..(since interesting Jap planes are already there.. and see no need for even more allied planes) but I would buy for a some corrections on muzzle flashes, Mk151 cannons, somo FM etc.. So please Oleg and tem, reconsider your priorities. Rushing new games while keeping old one clearly defectives is a perfect way of loosing clients forever (word of someone that almost made this mistake once)


If bullets are lost lets say 30% of time.. then Increase the power of each one...

I also played FB wiothout AEP.. and it was INDEED very good. I am seriously thinking about uninstalling AEP while this is not corrected http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

faustnik
06-22-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did some test's last night and WOW is the Mg-151/20 WEAK!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, can you get this fixed too? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Gibbage1
06-22-2004, 05:46 PM
I dont know if the Mg-151/20 was historically this week. From what I read, it was a good gun. But I remember reading a Luftwaffa report that said 40 20MM MG-151/20 is the average of what it took to take down a bomber. I want to find the number count on my hits if possible and do some more test's. But I would say thats a good benchmark. I say that about 40 hispano hits does the job in FB, but I can only guess.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did some test's last night and WOW is the Mg-151/20 WEAK!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, can you get this fixed too? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WWMaxGunz
06-22-2004, 07:41 PM
Gib, you can set up an MP game on your PC as if hosting without being
connected to the net at all. Set up a test mission for COOP and fly
as the only non-AI. At the end you can console for stats and get total
hit count or you can console with every target downed and get hit count
logged if you have a log file set up in the config, as with normal MP.


Neal

Bastables
06-22-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont know if the Mg-151/20 was historically this week. From what I read, it was a good gun. But I remember reading a Luftwaffa report that said 40 20MM MG-151/20 is the average of what it took to take down a bomber. I want to find the number count on my hits if possible and do some more test's. But I would say thats a good benchmark. I say that about 40 hispano hits does the job in FB, but I can only guess.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did some test's last night and WOW is the Mg-151/20 WEAK!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So, can you get this fixed too? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The report states 20hit not 40.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

faustnik
06-22-2004, 10:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont know if the Mg-151/20 was historically this week. From what I read, it was a good gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, we either have a situation where the Hispano is too strong or the Mg151 is too weak. I don't really care which way they go, but, make the weapons more similar in damage.

With regard to testing Gibbage, the most similar mounts would be the P-38, Bf109G2 and the Yak-9 for 20mm comparison. I will spend some time testing and making tracks tomorrow night.

Maybe two birds can be killed with one stone by examining damage effects of the 20mm on the B-17 engines and wings.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

alarmer
06-22-2004, 11:32 PM
Thank you guys for your efforts. When you have some hard proof as in tracks etc hopefully you will post them to Oleg aswell.

Fehler
06-23-2004, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I did some test's last night and WOW is the Mg-151/20 WEAK!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a FW flyer, I have gotten more and more frustrated with gunnery in this game. Prior to AEP, everything seemed fine. The 50 cals seemed a touch too weak, and MG's pretty ineffective, but the cannon all seemed to do what they were supposed to do.

After AEP, all I can say is WTF? If you take a FW190 D-9 up and fly it against other aircraft, you begin to understand how bad the 20mm's really are. I have actually had better success shooting the MG's at different aircraft than the crappy 20mm's.

To really understand the diferences, fly 2.01 then, if you have hard disk space, fly the last patch prior to AEP. The differences are night and day.

All I can continue to ask is Why? I can understand tweaks in flight modeling as better documentation comes to light. But how can something as old as IL2 original need changing nearly 3 years later? Obviously this couldnt have been intentional. Perhaps anti-cheat measures, or netcoding, but something HAS changed.

For the life of me, I dont understand why we cant go back to pre-AEP cannon damages. Why cant we revert back to when you could swoop down on some unsuspecting pilot, fire a good burst of 20mm into his wing root and the thing came off! Now, he puffs a little smoke, hangs on his prop and damages something vital as you try to zoom climb away.

To illustrate this, I was flying online yesterday. I dove on a P-40 in a FW190 D-9 '44. I fired into his engine cowling, cockpit, and wingroot at point blank range. I hit with at least ten 20mm rounds and did nothing to the plane. Later he hangs on his prop and fires a burst from about 500 meters. I hear "Plap", see a hit on my wing out near the tip, and I am now leaking fuel, lost most of my instrumentation, and have to use nearly full left rudder to keep the plane stable enough to try and escape. I finally crashed on landing as I couldnt keep my plane level, even after all three wheels were on the ground and UNDER stall speed!

This is the norm since AEP. That's why I just roll my eyes when someone posts about the "Ineffective 50 cal." And posting anything about the damage affects of a German gun quickly and solidly bring retribution from others with name calling and counter-whining.

The truth is AEP is so buggy, I am thinking about calling Orkin to go fumigate 1C's workshop for him! I personally dread another patch as some things appear to degrade with each subsequent "Fix."

I didnt try the leaked thing, as I never do. But to hear people woeful of an even weaker MG151/20 only makes me wonder what the heck is going on over at 1C.

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

NN_Tym
06-23-2004, 01:58 AM
Here is a series of tests I made :

I took an empty B17.

Then took a fighter. Emptied it from any light ammo, by firing in the air. Then I pressed home to shoot at the Fortress. I always aimed for the wing root.

First test, with a FW190A8/R1. Took me one short burst (less than one second) to set the B17 ablaze, spinning to its death. By checking the eventlog.lst file, I found that 21 shells made it home. I could not make the burst any shorter... Looking at the track, I found out that only the two outer guns were firing. There are MG151/20, aren't they ?

Second test, with a Spitfire IXc. Same situation: could not make the burst shorter. It took 9 shells to down the B17. I guess, the slower ROF came into play. Or my aim is better with the FW190... I don't know.

Third test, with a Yak9. It took a little longer burst (less than 2s anyway). And I had 23 shells making it home to down the B17.

I can provide the eventlog file along with the trhee tracks. All made with AEP 2.01.

I have the feeling, too many poeple take some whining for face value without testing it...

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2004, 02:16 AM
When I first checked out the guns in 2.0, the 190 20mm were far faster
at destroying fighters than the P-51 MG's. I'd take a 190-A5 just to
have fun blowing things out of the air. It wasn't as bad as the 4x20mm
Hurri and the 12x303 Hurri also rocked but not like the 4x20. All shots
were close range. I also used the 109G with the 151/20 and noticed it
was very weak so I did some tests and sent tracks in showing exploding
shells inside Tu-2 cockpits making no effect (shots from front on merge).
Now we have a change, fragments make damage.
I made the tracks and checked them not just for how many hits but where.
I didn't come up making claims until I checked then I sent tracks to 1C
where they actually counted. Getting stirred up over "seems" ain't enough,
or I sure hope the days of "balance by vote" or worse are over.
You just want to count hits then it's time for hit boxes and aerial D&D.


Neal

NN_Tym
06-23-2004, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
When I first checked out the guns in 2.0, the 190 20mm were far faster at destroying fighters than the P-51 MG's. I'd take a 190-A5 just to
have fun blowing things out of the air. It wasn't as bad as the 4x20mm Hurri and the 12x303 Hurri also rocked but not like the 4x20. All shots were close range. I also used the 109G with the 151/20 and noticed it was very weak so I did some tests and sent tracks in showing exploding shells inside Tu-2 cockpits making no effect (shots from front on merge).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't understand if the Bf109G test was 2.0 or 2.1. Did you just use the nose gun ? Did you use gondolas ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now we have a change, fragments make damage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean in 2.1, correct ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I made the tracks and checked them not just for how many hits but where.
I didn't come up making claims until I checked then I sent tracks to 1C
where they actually counted. Getting stirred up over "seems" ain't enough,
or I sure hope the days of "balance by vote" or worse are over.
You just want to count hits then it's time for hit boxes and aerial D&D.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you compare different weapons on the same target ? Did you compare the same weapon on different parts of the plane ?

For exemple, I tried the MG151/20 and had no problem setting the wing of a Tu2 on fire. But I am not accurate enough to pinpoint the pilot on the merge.

faustnik
06-23-2004, 09:33 AM
The tests I have been doing are with a/c armed with single cannons in arcade mode. The a/c I used were the Bf109G2, P-38 and Yak-9. I slowly eased up behind a B-17 and fired into the inner starboard engine. The Hispano would flame the engine with one short burst, the ShVak and the Mg151 required "twice" the hits to achieve the same effect.


Raking steadily along the length of the wing of the B-17, the radical difference in the hitting power of the FB Hispanos relative to the Mg151 and ShVak is obvious.

As Neal ponted out, exact numbers of hits to exact locations need to be recorded. Given a little time, this should be possible.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

mike_espo
06-23-2004, 10:09 AM
Ballistics on type 99 cannon for the zero 21 is incorrect.

Trajectory is the same as the 7.7mm machine guns. This is a gross error. The muzzle velocity of the type 99 cannon was half that of the 7.7mm machine gun. about 750m/s vs 1500m/s

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

"Fatte vede che ridemo!"http://www.flying-tigers.net/caccia%20WW%20II/g50.jpg

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 03:19 PM
Faustnik. Can you do me a favor and do the same test VS He-111? I fly a lot of QMB's against fleets of bombers and find the He-111 takes a LOT more damage then the B-17. Can you tell if you find the same? I cant seem to light the He-111's tanks or engine nearly as easy as the B-17.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The tests I have been doing are with a/c armed with single cannons in arcade mode. The a/c I used were the Bf109G2, P-38 and Yak-9. I slowly eased up behind a B-17 and fired into the inner starboard engine. The Hispano would flame the engine with one short burst, the ShVak and the Mg151 required "twice" the hits to achieve the same effect.


Raking steadily along the length of the wing of the B-17, the radical difference in the hitting power of the FB Hispanos relative to the Mg151 and ShVak is obvious.

As Neal ponted out, exact numbers of hits to exact locations need to be recorded. Given a little time, this should be possible.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

faustnik
06-23-2004, 03:32 PM
Yeah, no problem.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 03:38 PM
Thanks. Im at work right now. My boss looked at the screenshot and said "Nice aim". Lol.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
06-23-2004, 03:46 PM
Gib, your pic shows a few 20mm (around 10) and maybe 100 MG hits in the wing. With this you killed both engines. What more do you expect? You have 2 probable 20mm in the fuel tank on the right, but it did not light up.

I can make easily pics with around 100 20mm hits on B-17 running with no problems at all (no smoke, no fire) even though the wings tanks and engines are like porcupines.

And remember Germans made statistics on heavy bomber wrecks on the ground and found that 20 20mm or 3 to 5 30mm hits on average were enough to down a B-17. 40 hits that you quote is incorrect.

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 04:06 PM
I never fired the 20MM so dont tell me whats in my screenshots. There were a LOT more then 100 hits in the wings with NO fuel leaking and NO fire and yes, the engines WERE running. The engines were running till the aircraft hit the ground because the two elivators broke off. So dont tell ME whats in my screenshots. Also this was the 2nd pass and the 1st pass arrows had already vanished.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

That is about 300 bulletes through the enine, and its still running. Again, this was my 2nd pass!!!!

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/b1702.jpg

Thats 5 bulletes through the engine and its stopped cold.

This is another thread. All I did was ask him to test with 20MM's. If you want to run through the B-17 toughness thread again, go post there.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 04:07 PM
double

PunicaDUSK
06-23-2004, 04:12 PM
There's no problem to me to down a he-111 with .50...

A few hits in a engine and it will burn (2.02)
With MG 151/20 you'll need about 1s burst (A6).

...

Magister__Ludi
06-23-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I never fired the 20MM so dont tell me whats in my screenshots. There were a LOT more then 100 hits in the wings with NO fuel leaking and NO fire and yes, the engines WERE running. The engines were running till the aircraft hit the ground because the two elivators broke off. So dont tell ME whats in my screenshots. Also this was the 2nd pass and the 1st pass arrows had already vanished.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

That is about 300 bulletes through the enine, and its still running. Again, this was my 2nd pass!!!!

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/b1702.jpg

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, there are around 15 hits in each engine and each will smoke to death. In about 5 minutes both will stop. Therefore it will be counted as a kill.
I though that there were 20mm hits because there are many bullets bounced. Also there is no way to be 300 hits in that image. About 100 well spaced hits (or 200, if it was the second pass) on a medium bomber won't do any structural damage. But they can light the engine or fuel tanks. In general in 15-20 MG hits should contain enough incendiary hits to light the fuel tanks (some more hits are required for the engine). In this case I agree that a fire should be somewhere. Nevertheless you will get a kill credit anyhow.

I can post pictures with B-17 having enough 20mm hits to down 10 of them. Same for B-25.

BigganD
06-23-2004, 04:45 PM
Stiglr I agree with you !! I hope they make the bullets miss more in the BoB, somthing like stress fire..hehe harder to hit, so the bullets flys abit unaccurate.ANd the planes are to wild, i hope they fix the roll rate in bob, make it much slower. And when you start turning, the turn starts slowly and gets faster, i hope they make that to !

"Get close .. when he fills the entire windscreen ... then you can't possibly miss." Erich Hartmann

p1ngu666
06-23-2004, 04:54 PM
for what its worth i find the mk108 very deadly but i hardly use it.
the german 20mm was soaked up by a LA7, i was in a F8

this was online, hardly a good test btw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 04:57 PM
I dont see anyone posting test's to prove this. I did. I took 4 B-17's and 4 He-111's. The B-17's took on average of 20 .50 cal's to down. The He-111's took HUNDREDS. The B-17 clearly has an area on the wings that is EXTREAMLY flamable. He-111 does not. Please post a track were you can hit the He-111 with about 20 HMG hits but the pilot and bring it down.

Its easy to say the He-111 is easy to take down, but I dont see anyone posting proof. I DID!!! So put up, or shut up. Also, take this into the B-17 thread. This is about Ballistics. I just wanted someone other then me to test 20MM hits on the He-111 extensivly to confirm the differances in power instead of testing on 1 airframe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I never fired the 20MM so dont tell me whats in my screenshots. There were a LOT more then 100 hits in the wings with NO fuel leaking and NO fire and yes, the engines WERE running. The engines were running till the aircraft hit the ground because the two elivators broke off. So dont tell ME whats in my screenshots. Also this was the 2nd pass and the 1st pass arrows had already vanished.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/he11102.jpg

That is about 300 bulletes through the enine, and its still running. Again, this was my 2nd pass!!!!

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/b1702.jpg

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, there are around 15 hits in each engine and each will smoke to death. In about 5 minutes both will stop. Therefore it will be counted as a kill.
I though that there were 20mm hits because there are many bullets bounced. Also there is no way to be 300 hits in that image. About 100 well spaced hits (or 200, if it was the second pass) on a medium bomber won't do any structural damage. But they can light the engine or fuel tanks. In general in 15-20 MG hits should contain enough incendiary hits to light the fuel tanks (some more hits are required for the engine). In this case I agree that a fire should be somewhere. Nevertheless you will get a kill credit anyhow.

I can post pictures with B-17 having enough 20mm hits to down 10 of them. Same for B-25.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 05:05 PM
Online test's can be rather IFFY at best. Packet loss and lag can both screw up results of any test's. It may look like you hit, but weather the server said you did or not is another story. I use TS a lot and know of many times were I see my wingman hit an aircraft with his Mk-108 and he did not. Also the other way around. He would say he hit the wing and I saw the shell fly wide and not hit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
for what its worth i find the mk108 very deadly but i hardly use it.
the german 20mm was soaked up by a LA7, i was in a F8

this was online, hardly a good test btw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

KG26_Alpha
06-23-2004, 06:35 PM
Hmmmm
As an online bomber pilot flying a He111 you can trust me when i say this that the He111 is not that tough, the B17 would be able to possibly rtb also you are not taking into acount the ability to defend. You would be very lucky to get that close to a B17 without catasrophic damage to your plane, it would be a suicide run.
Try a FW190 with 20mm's in enemy setup in a coop mission.
Things are very different "online".
Stiglr original post still stands IMHO.

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2004, 06:39 PM
&gt;Originally posted by NN_Tym:
&gt;&gt;Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
When I first checked out the guns in 2.0,.....

&gt;I don't understand if the Bf109G test was 2.0 or 2.1. Did you just use the nose gun ? Did you use gondolas ?

Only 2.0 and no gondolas. Just firing cannon to see cannon damage.

&gt;&gt;Now we have a change, fragments make damage.

&gt;You mean in 2.1, correct ?

Yeppers.

&gt;&gt;I made the tracks and checked them not just for how many hits but where.

&gt;Did you compare different weapons on the same target ? Did you compare the same weapon on different parts of the plane ?

I was just looking at 151/20 damage which was said to be really poor
and found real evidence of problems. Later checking found the same
problem with all explosive rounds. This was with 2.0.

&gt;For exemple, I tried the MG151/20 and had no problem setting the wing of a Tu2 on fire. But I am not accurate enough to pinpoint the pilot on the merge.

Tu-2 from the rear was one tough target in 2.0. Especially the engines
which are guarded by the gear as Clint Ruin pointed out through some
screen shots.

Nailing the pilot? All you have to do is pound a few cannon rounds through
the front of the cockpit and the exploding rounds inside will show fragments
through him and the gunner with any luck at all. Start firing from 500m to
600m out when merging as the target is closing range on you and keep your
plane coordinated which with a 109 can be done at good but not high speed
without a lot of rudder -- the 109's have trim tabs set for some speed, I
forget but it's findable.


Neal

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 06:45 PM
I can send you a track with me in a P-38 vs 12 B-17's and I take no more then a few glancing hits. Its all in how you approach. If your getting shot down by a single bomber, then you must be parking on his 6.

I have seen a few He-111's go down to lucky hits, but most of the time they sop up more damage. Try it yourself. Put in a QMB with 4 B-17's and 4 He-111's as friendly and take up your fave aircraft. The He-111 will eather take more damage then the B-17 or about the same. It should be the other way around. The B-17 in IL2 is exactly what you would emagin a betty bomber to be line. A zippo lighter. 1 strike light. The B-17 DID have projected fuel tanks, as did the He-111 but the He-111's fuel does not leak or catch on fire NEARLY as easy as the B-17. I have proved this with screenshots. Prove me wrong.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Hmmmm
As an online bomber pilot flying a He111 you can trust me when i say this that the He111 is not that tough, the B17 would be able to possibly rtb also you are not taking into acount the ability to defend. You would be very lucky to get that close to a B17 without catasrophic damage to your plane, it would be a suicide run.
Try a FW190 with 20mm's in enemy setup in a coop mission.
Things are very different "online".
Stiglr original post still stands IMHO.

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mike_espo:
Ballistics on type 99 cannon for the zero 21 is incorrect.

Trajectory is the same as the 7.7mm machine guns. This is a gross error. The muzzle velocity of the type 99 cannon was half that of the 7.7mm machine gun. about 750m/s vs 1500m/s

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really think you should check that figure for the 7.7mm MG.
1500 m/s is over 4500 fps! Even the 30-cal "Accelerator" Sabot
bullets (25 cal projectiles inside 30 cal sleeves) only get
out the barrel at about 4200 fps. Modern 30 cal range high
velocity rounds might get near or to 3000 fps with 2700-2800
fps (900 m/s) being more normal for fast military 30 cal. The
best WWII 30 cal show in the 900 m/s range. How did the Japanese
have such technology to achieve 1500 m/s bullets while no one
else could touch it?


Neal

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 07:04 PM
I looked it up.

Type 97 7.7 x 56R (11.3 g) 1000 rpm 750 m/s 11.8 kg

The type 97 was an improved Vickers MG from WWI. The Japanese were famous for copying other country's guns. There 20MM was a copy of the .50 cal browning enlarged to use 20MM ammo. Ho-103 was almost a bolt for bolt copy of the M2 with a higher ROF and smaller round. Nothing in WWII even came close to 1500M/S. The highest was the German BK-5 50MM at 917m/s. It was only installed in some Me-410's and proposed for the Me-262. You can fly it in IL2 as the Me-262 U-4?

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

WWMaxGunz
06-23-2004, 07:05 PM
Gib, I know you see arrows clear through the engine nacelles but;

That don't mean the bullets went clear through. The arrows are not
the bullets, only the direction they were heading when they hit.

It *seems* like the HE-111 engines had thick armor in the rear of
the engine nacelles or possibly like the Tu-2, the gear and mechs
are situated behind the engine and stopping the shots. Gear and
mechanisms tend to be very heavy and tough. For some reason I am
wondering if the gear actually get damaged in the model and won't
be usable to land, also if enough hits can actually chew them up
to where they won't block passage of later rounds through to the
engine IF indeed it is the gear blocking the shots at all.

Oh, and yeah the B-17 fuel tanks catch like they have phosphor
coatings and no self-sealing whatsoever which given that US fighters
had that long before then doesn't make any sense and might be an
oversight on the part of 1C. Modellers don't do DM's, do they?


Neal

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 07:23 PM
Thanks for the landing gear explination. Its possible. I will test this out more when I get home. Maybe make some strikes from the side and bypass the gear. I think the game engine works that a bullete wont damage 2 objects. So it stops when it hits the first object. That could be wing spar, fuel tank, cables, anything. I will double check my projects at home, but I dont remember a spacific landing gear damage box. I know I have seen landing gear shot off before, but its so very rare.

As for who puts the damamge model in, Oleg did most of them. I did my own damage boxes for my most recent project for PF. Even things like radio gear and ammo drum got its own damage box. But I dont remember anything for landing gear. If there is no landing gear damage box, then there is nothing in the game that should stop the bullete unless there is armor plate behind the engine or the engine is just way too tough. I will check it out.

Thanks for bringing that up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Gib, I know you see arrows clear through the engine nacelles but;

That don't mean the bullets went clear through. The arrows are not
the bullets, only the direction they were heading when they hit.

It *seems* like the HE-111 engines had thick armor in the rear of
the engine nacelles or possibly like the Tu-2, the gear and mechs
are situated behind the engine and stopping the shots. Gear and
mechanisms tend to be very heavy and tough. For some reason I am
wondering if the gear actually get damaged in the model and won't
be usable to land, also if enough hits can actually chew them up
to where they won't block passage of later rounds through to the
engine IF indeed it is the gear blocking the shots at all.

Oh, and yeah the B-17 fuel tanks catch like they have phosphor
coatings and no self-sealing whatsoever which given that US fighters
had that long before then doesn't make any sense and might be an
oversight on the part of 1C. Modellers don't do DM's, do they?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 07:25 PM
Also, does anyone have an He-111 exploded view diagram? I want to check were its vitals should be.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-23-2004, 10:44 PM
I just checked. There are NO hit boxes for the landing gear. There are collision boxes if you collide with something, but no hit boxes. So there is nothing stopping the bulletes from behind the egnine. And aluminum skin does not count as armor http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This is what a damage box system looks like in IL2. The only other explination I can offer is that the wing spar is acting as armor. But with all those holes in it the spar should buckle like a rubber hose. Eather the wing spar on the He-111 is overmodeled, or the engine is overmodeled. Its one or the other. But something is NOT right with the He-111's damage model.

http://www.gibbageart.com/images/dmbox.jpg

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

KG26_Alpha
06-24-2004, 02:52 AM
@ Gibbage

This is off the the topic totally fella..

I think you need to stop playing around in QMB with arcade mode and fly the He111's for real yourself.
I have 3 tracks you are welcome to pm me your e-mail, im no P38 pilot but i have no problem smoking He111 engines with those .50's.

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2004, 06:33 AM
Gib, just look at a landed 111 and see where the gear is and goes up into.


Neal

IKG26Redcoat
06-24-2004, 07:36 AM
As a bomber pilot I can assure you that the HE111 isnt that tough. You can ask anyone who shoots me down on a regular basis, lol
Seriously though, I always thought the damage model on the HE111 was pretty good. It may be able to stay in the air a good while, but you are not taking into account the amount of damage to control surfaces and engines that the skill of the dedicated bomber pilot then has to deal with. I dont know about the B17 because I havent flown it yet. When we get a flyable I'll let you know, but untill then I sugest you sit your **** in a HE111 and jump in a coop and stop whining. Sick to death of bloody red fliers who want German targets instead of aircraft to fly against. Stop crying when blue doesnt lie down and die for you and get on with it.

There are a lot of people, who say, that bombing can never win a war. Well, my answer to that, is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.
Sir Arthur Harris
CinC Bomber Command

Magister__Ludi
06-24-2004, 08:09 AM
Well Gib, I tried your supertough He-111 with your superweak 0.50s.
Just a couple of shots and the engine was gone. This is the results on first try, I just got close and open fire with MGs only.
Unfortunatelly Photodump puts its logo on the clock. The images are separated by aprox 10 seconds each.

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/He111_1.jpg

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/He111_2.jpg

http://www.photodump.com/direct/dan_oprea/He111_3.jpg

KG26_Oranje
06-24-2004, 08:15 AM
Hi gib,

man u most be playing a div IL2 versian!!!
I`m not a fighter pilot buht a He111 pilot online.
Online in coop and DF game`s i need good escorts to scare atackers away.
If i`m under atack by P-38/P-40/A.I.Hawks/Mustangs/P-47 and ahter fighters , than i`m dead for 99% and i dont use the gunners to shoot back i leave that to A.I. .
Many .50 hits kill my pilot / Engine`s or damige controls.
U need prove? get out ure test program and fly wiht us online in he111.
I invite u to join the KG26 to expiriance it in praktice.
The p-38 is online to most dangeres he111 killer (Human players)

Sorry mate i think u are totally on a side trail.
Oh fuel leak?
Set it up in 50% fuel u get it in one shoot.

Again come over to join us in coops and expiriance it ure self online.
Greatings
And dont chance the p-38 anymore its a great plane.
I/KG26_Oranje

faustnik
06-24-2004, 09:32 AM
Here are some shots from Mg151 vs. Hispano damage testing:

Mg151
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151test.jpg

In every test, the Hispanos rounds did over twice the damage that the Mg151 rounds did.

Hispano
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/HispanoTest.jpg


In related news...

I tested the weapons on three diferent bombers, the B-17, the B-25 and the He111. The B-17 was by far the weakest of the three. The B-25 and He111 are tough as their reputation say they should be. The famously tough B-17 is a real wimp in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

KG26_Oranje
06-24-2004, 09:45 AM
Now test it wiht tailgunners shooting back!!!!
I ges u have more trobbels than to kill the b-17 vs he111.
Best prove is still online , we are more shoot down than rtb in the He111.
I/KG26_Oranje.

faustnik
06-24-2004, 10:29 AM
KG26,

We are discussing the modeling of Mg151 vs. Hispanos. Sorry for drifting into bomber DM. We are not trying to nerf your He111s. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

KG26_Alpha
06-24-2004, 10:35 AM
S! ALL

Yes this thread is way off topic as i mentioned earlier, but did you expect us He111 drivers to let this go!!!! hehe
Lets get back to our 20mm catapault ballistics shall we ? now its proven the He111 is VERY vunerable.
Keep smiling everyone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2004, 11:39 AM
How far off topic? Part of the original post was about results!
The discussion has to be able to go far anough to cover points raised.

Faustnik... I see a lot of HE fragments at the back end only of the
nacelle being targetted in the 151/20 pic while with the Hispano the
frag origins look to be much further towards the front and the engines
themselves. And I remember reading that the DM does have carry-through
damage if the projectile has energy left over from destroying one part.
So I wonder if the heavier and higher KE shells of the Hisso are going
farther through to cause the engine damage, especially the AP shots,
where the 151/20 is being exploded, deflected, absorbed at the back of
the nacelle if not totally then at least a lot more?

There is also some other possible element I can't name. How can Gib shoot
a ****load of rounds into the HE-111 and not do much, then a few into a
B-17 nacelle and do a lot, then you fire a ton of bigger shells into a B-17
nacelle and get diddley yet a few Hisso rounds gets a lot and I keep seeing
the same basic thing of one person gets bad results then another gets good?
It's almost like an RNG is at work (random number generator, they tend to
be very unrandom at times for long runs) and influenced by I dunno what?


Neal

faustnik
06-24-2004, 11:52 AM
Neal,

The Hispanos did leave explosion fragments too it is just that there are so few Hispano rounds in that shot (all that was needed to flame the engine) that they are less apparent. Notice the Mg151 hit engine has not even started to flame up yet!

What you are saying sure makes sense though. Since we know that the Mg151 is firing more HE rounds, maybe it is the AP rounds of the Hispano that are killing the engine so quickly?

Oh, my results were not random, they were very consistant. I don't think it is the result of a random generator or somthing like that, but, I could be wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
06-24-2004, 12:30 PM
I see the fragments arrows of exploding rounds in both pictures.
What I think I see is the Hisso HE rounds look like they are
exploding more to the front of the nacelle than the 151/20's.
Quite a bit more. I'm just looking back along the visible frag
arrows and guessing where they converge. The Hisso frags seem
to be coming from the front 1/3rd while the 151 frags from the
back 1/3rd just as a rough guess.

The thing about RNG's is they're not random. Sometimes they seem
to get stuck cranking out values in a certain range for example.
That's what I'm wondering about but just wondering, trying to
consider the unlikely when the likely answers are not working so
well.

It might be more likely that AP just works out a lot better than
HE with the current DM system. In that case it's going to be very
hard to come up with the kind of evidence Oleg requires to get a
change of the order needed (pretty much a rework of at least a good
part of the DM code) to "fix" this to match expectations. It may
be closer to reality than some people want to believe. Note the
use of the word "may".


Neal

NN_Tym
06-24-2004, 12:46 PM
One more test :

A disarmed B17 (set to blue level). With cannons shells alone, I need one burst with Bf109G2, Yak1b and P38J.

I aim at the area just between the inner right engine and the fuselage. With both the Bf109G2 and P38 I get 100% tank burning, with the Yak I get it 50%of the time, sometimes only heay black smoke. I guess the Yak lacks incendiary...

Now, hom many rounds it represents, I yet don't know, and somehow don't care as one burst is one burst... I cannot fire any shorter.

I think the shells are more dangerous when grouped, but I cannot tell for sure.

My main problem with the Bf109 it that it is very sensitive to throttle setting, so if I throttle back or forth, the planes rocks, and the aim is difficult.

The B17 seem rather weak, but I would seldom be allowed to close that much against an armed Fortress, and I should fly much faster, making my aim much more difficult. I also doubt I could place as much rounds in the same location...

Gibbage1
06-24-2004, 12:58 PM
People keep saying "Ya, B-17 is weak if you can get close" but I dont find its guns to be any thread. I can kill 8 in a row with almost no damage to myself if you do it right. Read up on Luftwaffa tactics on how they delt with the B-17's and use it. It works! If you sit behind it, your going to die.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

faustnik
06-24-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:


I aim at the area just between the inner right engine and the fuselage. With both the Bf109G2 and P38 I get 100% tank burning<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question that Gibbage and I are asking in regards to the B-17 is "why is it so vulnerable in that spot?"

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Magister__Ludi
06-24-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:
One more test :

A disarmed B17 (set to blue level). With cannons shells alone, I need one burst with Bf109G2, Yak1b and P38J.

I aim at the area just between the inner right engine and the fuselage. With both the Bf109G2 and P38 I get 100% tank burning, with the Yak I get it 50%of the time, sometimes only heay black smoke. I guess the Yak lacks incendiary...

Now, hom many rounds it represents, I yet don't know, and somehow don't care as one burst is one burst... I cannot fire any shorter.

I think the shells are more dangerous when grouped, but I cannot tell for sure.

My main problem with the Bf109 it that it is very sensitive to throttle setting, so if I throttle back or forth, the planes rocks, and the aim is difficult.

The B17 seem rather weak, but I would seldom be allowed to close that much against an armed Fortress, and I should fly much faster, making my aim much more difficult. I also doubt I could place as much rounds in the same location...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


All this discussion is centered on effects on bombers without defensive fire. If you turn on the defensive fire you have zero chances to get closer than 400m to a B-17 without having your engine fatally hit. Because bomber gunners are real snipers, all their rounds hit in a very small area in front of the engine, which happens to be the area where each hit is lethal for the DB605 engine. A couple of hits from the bomber and the Bf-109 engine is dead. Same for Bf-110.

When you fly P-38 an interesting change happens. Gunners are still snipers, but they will concentrate all their hits in the nose, instead of the engine like with Bf-110. This jams the some guns, but you still can fly. It will take a lot of passes before both engines will suffer terminal damage (that does not necessarily means they stop at once, but they'll stop in a couple of minutes). With Bf-110 it takes only 2 passes to have both engines dead (unless you already exploded from the first engine fire).

This underlines one of the greatest weakness in defensive fire modelling. The defensive hits are extremely concentrated on a small area of the attacker, which makes it highly unrealistic. Instead of having hits peppering the wing from one edge to another of the attacking fighter, all gunners hits are concentrated in a very small area on the engine.

Magister__Ludi
06-24-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
People keep saying "Ya, B-17 is weak if you can get close" but I dont find its guns to be any thread. I can kill 8 in a row with almost no damage to myself if you do it right. Read up on Luftwaffa tactics on how they delt with the B-17's and use it. It works! If you sit behind it, your going to die.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So it works everytime, right? Then it should be no problem to down 4 B-17 with Bf-110 with default armament (2 tracks please, 2.01 version). It should be no problem, Bf-110 has 2 cannons in the nose, more than enough to land 20 hits on each bomber. In '43 Bf-110 was a very successful daylight bomber destroyer (in '44 Bf-110 was retired from this role because of fighter escort bombers got), you should have no problem replicating their record.

Gibbage1
06-24-2004, 01:27 PM
Lol. Your so wrong. I will post a track of me taking down 12 bombers. 4 He-111's, 4 TB3's and 4 B-17's all enemy in a P-38. I have done this MANY MANY MANY times. Once without getting a single hit on my own aircraft from ANY of the bombers. Its all on how you do it.

But that does not negate the fact that the B-17 is by far weaker then all 3. All it takes is very few hits in the wings to light it up. The same can not be done in almost any bomber except maybe the early VVS stuff other then the TB3. Why are the B-17's wings so much more flamable then the He-111's?

If your getting hit by a bombers defensive turretes, your doing it wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:
One more test :

A disarmed B17 (set to blue level). With cannons shells alone, I need one burst with Bf109G2, Yak1b and P38J.

I aim at the area just between the inner right engine and the fuselage. With both the Bf109G2 and P38 I get 100% tank burning, with the Yak I get it 50%of the time, sometimes only heay black smoke. I guess the Yak lacks incendiary...

Now, hom many rounds it represents, I yet don't know, and somehow don't care as one burst is one burst... I cannot fire any shorter.

I think the shells are more dangerous when grouped, but I cannot tell for sure.

My main problem with the Bf109 it that it is very sensitive to throttle setting, so if I throttle back or forth, the planes rocks, and the aim is difficult.

The B17 seem rather weak, but I would seldom be allowed to close that much against an armed Fortress, and I should fly much faster, making my aim much more difficult. I also doubt I could place as much rounds in the same location...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


All this discussion is centered on effects on bombers without defensive fire. If you turn on the defensive fire you have zero chances to get closer than 400m to a B-17 without having your engine fatally hit. Because bomber gunners are real snipers, all their rounds hit in a very small area in front of the engine, which happens to be the area where each hit is lethal for the DB605 engine. A couple of hits from the bomber and the Bf-109 engine is dead. Same for Bf-110.

When you fly P-38 an interesting change happens. Gunners are still snipers, but they will concentrate all their hits in the nose, instead of the engine like with Bf-110. This jams the some guns, but you still can fly. It will take a lot of passes before both engines will suffer terminal damage (that does not necessarily means they stop at once, but they'll stop in a couple of minutes). With Bf-110 it takes only 2 passes to have both engines dead (unless you already exploded from the first engine fire).

This underlines one of the greatest weakness in defensive fire modelling. The defensive hits are extremely concentrated on a small area of the attacker, which makes it highly unrealistic. Instead of having hits peppering the wing from one edge to another of the attacking fighter, all gunners hits are concentrated in a very small area on the engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-24-2004, 01:30 PM
I dont have much experance on the 110 but I will try it. My main concern is that its a rather slow aircraft for my bomber tactics. I will add the gunpods since the Mg-151/20's are so weak.

The 110's sent up against B-17's often had gunpods, rockets, or Mk-108's. Thats why those options are in the config.

I think it will be an interesting challage. I will add 4 B-17's and 4 He-111's for comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
People keep saying "Ya, B-17 is weak if you can get close" but I dont find its guns to be any thread. I can kill 8 in a row with almost no damage to myself if you do it right. Read up on Luftwaffa tactics on how they delt with the B-17's and use it. It works! If you sit behind it, your going to die.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So it works everytime, right? Then it should be no problem to down 4 B-17 with Bf-110 with default armament (2 tracks please, 2.01 version). It should be no problem, Bf-110 has 2 cannons in the nose, more than enough to land 20 hits on each bomber. In '43 Bf-110 was a very successful daylight bomber destroyer (in '44 Bf-110 was retired from this role because of fighter escort bombers got), you should have no problem replicating their record.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
06-24-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont have much experance on the 110 but I will try it. My main concern is that its a rather slow aircraft for my bomber tactics. I will add the gunpods since the Mg-151/20's are so weak.

The 110's sent up against B-17's often had gunpods, rockets, or Mk-108's. Thats why those options are in the config.

I think it will be an interesting challage. I will add 4 B-17's and 4 He-111's for comparison.


Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



2xMG-151/20 pod should be alright. Don't forget to put the gunners on Veteran (Ace if you want http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Cockpit on.

Climb before meeting the bombers, do not start the attack before you have 1000m in height above them and at least 2km distance. It's mandatory to have over 500km/h when you are in gunners range if you want to survive one pass. Take evasive action at 400m. Put the convergence at 500m, there is no way you'll get closer than this.

Gibbage1
06-24-2004, 04:42 PM
We will see. I will tell you my tactics.

First pass is head on. Go for the cockpit. As the Luftwaffa instructed there pilots. That sometimes nets me a kill there. Just after I pass, I pull hard and do a half-loop and invery so now I am above the bombers. Then I re-gain speed and dive down from on top and on the side. Go for the wings and engines, dive below them and then climb up in front at 90 degrees, roll 180 and re-aquire my target and dive again. Repeat as needed. I think I only will need 5-6 passes to kill a group of 4 bombers. My best time on it is 4 passes to kill 4 B-17's in the P-51 D-20. Maybe my gunner will get some shots in as I climb in front of the formation.

This tactic meeps the turretes rotating and they cant track me fast enough. The only time I get hit is if I misjudge my dive and come in too shalow. Also side slashes work well. These are all luftwaffa tactics and they work well.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

JG52_Meyer
06-24-2004, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lol. Your so wrong. I will post a track of me taking down 12 bombers. 4 He-111's, 4 TB3's and 4 B-17's all enemy in a P-38. I have done this MANY MANY MANY times. Once without getting a single hit on my own aircraft from ANY of the bombers. Its all on how you do it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I see....50s undermodelled, He111s too tough uh?

Gibbage1
06-24-2004, 09:00 PM
Meyer is desperatly grasping at straws. Did you not know that the P-38 is also armed with 20MM? Also I fly those with unlimited ammo most of the time because of how tough the He-111 is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:


I see....50s undermodelled, He111s too tough uh?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-24-2004, 10:13 PM
OK. So I made the track. Took a few times, but I did it.

First, I dont have much experance with the Bf-110. Aiming it is rather new to me. But I did OK. On the first few try's the B-17's were ripping me up! I could not get or keep the speed I needed to evade there guns. I tried about 5 times and the last B-17 always nailed me because by then I was going too slow.

So then I took up the 190 D9 with only 2 20MM's and I was doing OK but it was not flying like it should. So I checked and I was flying with 100% fuel!!!!

After changing to 25% fuel and trying the 110 again, I nailed it first time!!!

I shot all 4 B-17's down with VERY few hits. So then I went onto the 4 He-111's. They had flown off while I was taking the B-17's down and it took some time to catch them. I filled 1 He-111 with 2x the 20MM's it took to take down the B-17's and it peeled off. I though I got a pilot kill or sometihng and contenued on to the formation. Then I ran out of fuel!!! Final dive, I filled 1 more He-111 with a TON of 20MM's. A lot more then the B-17's took. Then I did a quick check and the first He-111 was still flying and trying to catch the formation!!!! So two He-111's took at least DOUBLE the damage of all 4 B-17's and still flew with no problem.

If you watch this track and still think the B-17 is tougher then the He-111, your high!!! I was able to down each B-17 with only a few 20MM hits. He-111's would not go down.

http://www.gibbageart.com/b17vshe111.zip

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

NegativeGee
06-24-2004, 11:03 PM
On the topic of He-111 durability, I came across this page in my browsings:

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

Go too the "WEAPONS TESTING AXIS&ALLIED" section.

Then read the first two pages of "Trials with 20mm HEI ammunition against Heinkel wings and Jumo 211 engines from direct astern, May 1941" and see what you think (the rest of the document is a list of the effects of each individual round fired in the test).

Does not deal with 0.50 M2 shots, but interesting nonetheless.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

NN_Tym
06-25-2004, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:
One more test :

A disarmed B17 (set to blue level). With cannons shells alone, I need one burst with Bf109G2, Yak1b and P38J.

I aim at the area just between the inner right engine and the fuselage. With both the Bf109G2 and P38 I get 100% tank burning, with the Yak I get it 50%of the time, sometimes only heay black smoke. I guess the Yak lacks incendiary...

Now, hom many rounds it represents, I yet don't know, and somehow don't care as one burst is one burst... I cannot fire any shorter.

I think the shells are more dangerous when grouped, but I cannot tell for sure.

My main problem with the Bf109 it that it is very sensitive to throttle setting, so if I throttle back or forth, the planes rocks, and the aim is difficult.

The B17 seem rather weak, but I would seldom be allowed to close that much against an armed Fortress, and I should fly much faster, making my aim much more difficult. I also doubt I could place as much rounds in the same location...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


All this discussion is centered on effects on bombers without defensive fire. If you turn on the defensive fire you have zero chances to get closer than 400m to a B-17 without having your engine fatally hit. Because bomber gunners are real snipers, all their rounds hit in a very small area in front of the engine, which happens to be the area where each hit is lethal for the DB605 engine. A couple of hits from the bomber and the Bf-109 engine is dead. Same for Bf-110.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The discussion is about a supposed weak MG151/20... WHY do you change the topic ?

Can you produce a proof that the MG151/20 is not as powerful as it should be ? Can you describe a test that could be reproduced, proving the supposed unhistorical weakness of this gun compared to other 20mm in the game ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When you fly P-38 an interesting change happens. Gunners are still snipers, but they will concentrate all their hits in the nose, instead of the engine like with Bf-110. This jams the some guns, but you still can fly. It will take a lot of passes before both engines will suffer terminal damage (that does not necessarily means they stop at once, but they'll stop in a couple of minutes). With Bf-110 it takes only 2 passes to have both engines dead (unless you already exploded from the first engine fire).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is this has to do with the supposed MG151/20 weakness ?

You have a problem with the P38, then start another topic. This topic is about the supposed weakness of the MG151/20.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This underlines one of the greatest weakness in defensive fire modelling. The defensive hits are extremely concentrated on a small area of the attacker, which makes it highly unrealistic. Instead of having hits peppering the wing from one edge to another of the attacking fighter, all gunners hits are concentrated in a very small area on the engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again what about the result of my test ? Does it show the supposed weakness of the MG151/20 ?

I tried to make a test that would compare the destructive power of the various 20 mm in the game, as some poeple out there stated that the MG151/20 was weak... So far, I have not found any proof that this is true. On the contrary, I found that the MG151/20 is as destructive as any other 20mm cannon in the game.

Rather than change the topic, could you give me a test that would prove that the MG151/20 is so weak after all...

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 01:27 AM
Well if you want to get nitpicky, this thread was about the ballistics of the Mg-151/20 and the accuract of the weapon. This was proven to be correct in terms of the BALLISTICS. During my test's I found that the Mg 151/20 was totally weak compaired to the Hispano, and that the B-17 was weak.

Now, were in YOUR post do you address the issue of this thread? I dont see you mentioning Ballistics ANYWERE in your reply. So you yourself are GUILTY of what you accuse Ludi of. Troll.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:
Once again what about the result of my test ? Does it show the supposed weakness of the MG151/20 ?
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 01:36 AM
I never realized this, but look what I have sitting on my desk

http://www.gibbageart.com/mg151.jpg

An MG 151/20 shell!!! No kidding! I baught this a few months ago.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

NegativeGee
06-25-2004, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

An MG 151/20 shell!!! No kidding! I baught this a few months ago.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it WW2 vintage?

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

kubanloewe
06-25-2004, 02:38 AM
20mm MG151 ?

here take a look
http://www.munavia-21.org/20x81mauser151.htm

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

kubanloewe
06-25-2004, 02:44 AM
here you can see a comparison how large the different ammunition is..

http://www.munavia-21.org/AMMOS/AMMOS-1665.JPG

http://home.arcor.de/kubanskiloewe/g14gutspruchsig.jpg
"Finde den Feind und schiesse ihn ab alles andere ist Unsinn"
Rittmeister Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

NN_Tym
06-25-2004, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Well if you want to get nitpicky, this thread was about the ballistics of the Mg-151/20 and the accuract of the weapon. This was proven to be correct in terms of the BALLISTICS. During my test's I found that the Mg 151/20 was totally weak compaired to the Hispano, and that the B-17 was weak. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well let's list the problems.

1. Ballistics are no more of an issue with the MG151/20. Point taken.

2. You FOUND the MG151/20 was weak compared to the Hispano...

What does that mean ? Does it mean more shells are needed for the same result ? Does it change with type of the target ? Does it change with the distance ?

Did you prove it ? How ? I fail to see where. I'd like to see some tests, tracks, documents. Anything but a lonely assertion...

Was it historical ? Was the Hispano a better gun ? What were its strong points ? Its weak ones ? How do you suggest one should test to see if those characteristics are skillfully reproduced in the simulation ?

3. What the fact that the AI gunners are supposed to aim at the engines of the Bf110 and the nose of the P38 has to do with any part of the topic raised so far ?

OldMan____
06-25-2004, 06:50 AM
You arethe type of guys that just like to create confusion aren't you?

The P38 nose issue is VERY simple.. The AI aims at MIDDLE of oponent... so when you get aligned behind a bomber it will hit the NOSE of your plane (in most cases that is ENGINE), in P38 it is not.. so AI aims at INEFECTIVE place when targeting a twin engine.. can you understand that?


Gibage1 made clamims about Mk151 after I puted in doubt the accuracy of power on this cannon . I made several tests as was reported, counting bullets and stated that a A8 (suposely the most armed fighter of WW2) has far LESS firepower when compared to Spitfire with twin hispanos.

Just test it.. The hispanos were new to be stronger individually when compared to MG151 cannosn, but NOT 2 or 3 times stronger as ANYONE can test!!!

Juts go witha dora behind a FRIENDLY LA7.. at point blank and shot individual shots (NOT bursts.. so you cant count).. do the same with a spitfire.. you will see Spit needs 1/4 the bullets that a Dora needs to shot it down. SIMPLE!!

Obviously.. an extremely accurate shot can kill any lpane with any weapon. But THAT IS NOT the NORMAL case. You need a GENERIC shot to compare.. not a GODLIKE shot.. that you can't make in combat.

I can shot down any fighter with ONE 151 shot.. as well as with hispano but that must be a PERFECT shot. That is not a valid parameter to compare, since in war that NEVER happened. You need to simple get close and shot in a general logical target area and compare the results.

In general Spitfire has MUCH more firepower than an Fw190. THAT is WRONG.. as anyone knows.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

NN_Tym
06-25-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Juts go witha dora behind a FRIENDLY LA7.. at point blank and shot individual shots (NOT bursts.. so you cant count).. do the same with a spitfire.. you will see Spit needs 1/4 the bullets that a Dora needs to shot it down. SIMPLE!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I tried that. I programmed my joystick button to press once the firing key. Still, it gave me a small burst, rather than a single shell fired.

So I set up a multiplay session, in order to have my hits recorded.

With the Spitfire V, I need between 9 and 2 hitting shells to flame the La7. But I needed to fire from a greater distance than the FW190D9 to achieve fuselage hits. I guessed I fired at convergence range : 150m for me. In fact, enabling icons, I found I was below this distance.

With normal burst the result is about 9.

With the FW190D9, I started from 18 and lowered to 5, depending on the flaming of the fuel tank or a lucky shot (broken fuselage) .

With bursts, I get an average of 18. It's easier to aim at such short distance with the FW190 for me. Though in combat, it seems easier with the Spitfire.

I could fire from a shorter distance with the FW190 because the guns were closer to the center-line. I was at about 80 metres I guess (the icon is hidden by the plane at such distance).

So it seems I need more hits with the MG151/20... But the gun has a better rate of fire, so if I aim carefully, I guess more hits will be made with the german gun.

Anyway, I think the "one shot" method is not good, because each shell is different in the belt and it reacts differently with the area aimed.

Blutarski2004
06-25-2004, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Juts go witha dora behind a FRIENDLY LA7.. at point blank and shot individual shots (NOT bursts.. so you cant count).. do the same with a spitfire.. you will see Spit needs 1/4 the bullets that a Dora needs to shot it down. SIMPLE!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I tried that. I programmed my joystick button to press once the firing key. Still, it gave me a small burst, rather than a single shell fired.

So I set up a multiplay session, in order to have my hits recorded.

With the Spitfire V, I need between 9 and 2 hitting shells to flame the La7. But I needed to fire from a greater distance than the FW190D9 to achieve fuselage hits. I guessed I fired at convergence range : 150m for me. In fact, enabling icons, I found I was below this distance.

With normal burst the result is about 9.

With the FW190D9, I started from 18 and lowered to 5, depending on the flaming of the fuel tank or a lucky shot (broken fuselage) .

With bursts, I get an average of 18. It's easier to aim at such short distance with the FW190 for me. Though in combat, it seems easier with the Spitfire.

I could fire from a shorter distance with the FW190 because the guns were closer to the center-line. I was at about 80 metres I guess (the icon is hidden by the plane at such distance).

So it seems I need more hits with the MG151/20... But the gun has a better rate of fire, so if I aim carefully, I guess more hits will be made with the german gun.

Anyway, I think the "one shot" method is not good, because each shell is different in the belt and it reacts differently with the area aimed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


.....After reading Ring's PRODOC site, it seems that the best tactic against the He.111 is to attack from ahead.

BLUTARSKI

faustnik
06-25-2004, 09:34 AM
Actually NN_Tym we have shown that the Mg151 takes on average twice as many hits to do the equivalent damage of the Hispano. I have made several tracks demonstrating this which have been submitted to Oleg.

What we are not sure of, and what we were discussing here, is if that is accurate or not.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Blutarski2004
06-25-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Actually NN_Tym we have shown that the Mg151 takes on average twice as many hits to do the equivalent damage of the Hispano. I have made several tracks demonstrating this which have been submitted to Oleg.

What we are not sure of, and what we were discussing here, is if that is accurate or not.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I would suggest that you need to compare the ammunition types of the two guns versus the type of target. From what I read in Ring's site, the He.111 was well armored (fuselage-wise at least) against attack from the rear. If FB models the 151/20 as firing lots of those hi-capacity M-geschoss HE rounds, they will not produce much effect against such armor plate. OTOH, the Hisso 20mm was a high velocity auto-cannon firing lots of AP rounds which would generally go right through such protection at average gunnery ranges. On that basis, I could conceivably buy an apparent 2:1 performance discrepancy between the Hisso and the 151/20.

To test if this theory is correct, try attacking the He.111 from ahead, where (again according to Ring's prodocs site) there was no armor protection. The 151/20 should then presumably be more effective.

Another possible point is whether FB modelled German 20mm HE ammunition with the early instantaneous fuzes. If so, it was historically determined that the round would detonate immediately upon touching anything, even cockpit glass, and consequently waste a lot of the effect to the outside atmosphere. The Germans modified their fuzing as a result. It is really necessary to understand the assumptions made by FB when they modelled the respective guns and ammunition.

BLUTARSKI

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 11:49 AM
Dont get all agro on me. Im just taking part of this interesting thread. If you read everything, I did prove that the Mg-151/20 is a lot weaker in the game then the 20MM Hispano. As much as 2X. A FW-190 A8 with 6 20MM took more time in downing a bomber then a Hurricane 2C with 4 20MM. My test was repeated on other systems and proven. Nobody disputes that it taxes TWICE the Mg 151/20 then it does Hispano.

Here you are, getting all agro and stirred up about getting off topic, and so far not a single one of YOUR post's are ON topic. If all your going to do is scream and cry "get back on topic" then please go away. We were having a nice thread till you came it. Your NOT a mod, so your NOT qualified to go around to thread and yell "off topic!".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_Tym:

Well let's list the problems.

1. Ballistics are no more of an issue with the MG151/20. Point taken.

2. You FOUND the MG151/20 was weak compared to the Hispano...

What does that mean ? Does it mean more shells are needed for the same result ? Does it change with type of the target ? Does it change with the distance ?

Did you prove it ? How ? I fail to see where. I'd like to see some tests, tracks, documents. Anything but a lonely assertion...

Was it historical ? Was the Hispano a better gun ? What were its strong points ? Its weak ones ? How do you suggest one should test to see if those characteristics are skillfully reproduced in the simulation ?

3. What the fact that the AI gunners are supposed to aim at the engines of the Bf110 and the nose of the P38 has to do with any part of the topic raised so far ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 11:53 AM
I dont agree with that statement. The 20MM hispano was a more powerful gun then the MG 151/20. The shell was bigger, it had a bigger charge, and the berral was longer. The Mg 151/20 was rather low velocity and had a short berral. So a Spitfire whould have more firepower then a FW-190 D9, bt not an A8. Your statement included all models of FW. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I think historically the Hispano was abot 1.1 to 1.2x more powerful then the Mg-151/20, but not 2-3x as it is in-game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
In general Spitfire has MUCH more firepower than an Fw190. THAT is WRONG.. as anyone knows.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 11:58 AM
I think the toughness of the He-111's wing is due to its spar acting as an armor plate. Wing spars on bombers were very thick considering the load that was put on it. It would have stopped most, if not all HE rounds but the AP rounds should go through it but loose a great part of its KE energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Actually NN_Tym we have shown that the Mg151 takes on average twice as many hits to do the equivalent damage of the Hispano. I have made several tracks demonstrating this which have been submitted to Oleg.

What we are not sure of, and what we were discussing here, is if that is accurate or not.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... I would suggest that you need to compare the ammunition types of the two guns versus the type of target. From what I read in Ring's site, the He.111 was well armored (fuselage-wise at least) against attack from the rear. If FB models the 151/20 as firing lots of those hi-capacity M-geschoss HE rounds, they will not produce much effect against such armor plate. OTOH, the Hisso 20mm was a high velocity auto-cannon firing lots of AP rounds which would generally go right through such protection at average gunnery ranges. On that basis, I could conceivably buy an apparent 2:1 performance discrepancy between the Hisso and the 151/20.

To test if this theory is correct, try attacking the He.111 from ahead, where (again according to Ring's prodocs site) there was no armor protection. The 151/20 should then presumably be more effective.

Another possible point is whether FB modelled German 20mm HE ammunition with the early instantaneous fuzes. If so, it was historically determined that the round would detonate immediately upon touching anything, even cockpit glass, and consequently waste a lot of the effect to the outside atmosphere. The Germans modified their fuzing as a result. It is really necessary to understand the assumptions made by FB when they modelled the respective guns and ammunition.

BLUTARSKI<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
06-25-2004, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont agree with that statement. The 20MM hispano was a more powerful gun then the MG 151/20. The shell was bigger, it had a bigger charge, and the berral was longer. The Mg 151/20 was rather low velocity and had a short berral. So a Spitfire whould have more firepower then a FW-190 D9, bt not an A8. Your statement included all models of FW. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I think historically the Hispano was abot 1.1 to 1.2x more powerful then the Mg-151/20, but not 2-3x as it is in-game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
In general Spitfire has MUCH more firepower than an Fw190. THAT is WRONG.. as anyone knows.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Hispano cannon was more powerful than MG-151/20, but the shell wasn't. The destructive force of the HE shells comes from the rapid gas expansion when HE mixture detonates. I don't have the exact values with me, but the explosion energy of the 20mm Minengeschoss shell is somewhere between 2 to 4 times more powerful than Hispano shells. I can post exact values when I'll get home.

There were only 2 advantages of Hispano cannon: slightly better balistics of the shell due to higher muzzle velocity (but not much better becase Hispano shells are significantly heavier) and better penetration (though this is not really important for a 20mm shell, MG-151/20 had a better penetration than 0.50s anyway, how much better do you need just to get the projectile inside a plane?). Those 2 advantages were countered by the higher recoil of the gun, which made impossible to shot accuratelly longer bursts. MG-151/20 recoil could not to felt by the pilot, in fact pilots could not tell from inside the cockpit if Mk108 fires or not, all German fighter mounted cannons had very low recoil.

Blutarski2004
06-25-2004, 05:10 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
There were only 2 advantages of Hispano cannon: slightly better balistics of the shell due to higher muzzle velocity (but not much better becase Hispano shells are significantly heavier)

..... In the case you bring up, weight is actually an advantage to the Hisso projectile. You misunderstand the fundamentals of exterior ballistics. For two projectiles of equal caliber, shape, and initial velocity, the heavier projectile will always deliver superior ballistic performance. A heavier projectile of equal caliber, fired at a higher initial velocity will have yet more greater ballistic superiority.


and better penetration (though this is not really important for a 20mm shell, MG-151/20 had a better penetration than 0.50s anyway,


..... MG151/20 AP very likely will have penetration superior to 50cal AP, even with somehwat inferior initial velocity. The M-Geschoss effectively had no armor penetration capability. Hence the mixed use of the two types. OTOH, the Hispano AP round, firing a heavier projectile at a considerably higher initial velocity, would be hugely superior in penetration to the 151/20.

151/20 AP, 117 grams @ 720 m/sec
151/20 HEI, 115 grams @ 735 m/sec
151/20 M-Gesch, 95 grams @ 755 m/sec
151/20 M-Gesch XM, 104 grams @ 705 m/sec

Hisso 20mm Ball, 125 grams @ 867 m/sec
Hisso 20mm HE Mk 1, 130 grams @ 860 m/sec
Hisso 20mm HEI/T, 120 grams @ 867 m/sec
Hisso 20mm AP Mk2z, 140 grams @ 808 m/s

50cal AP M2, 43.3 grams @ 880 m/sec
50cal Incendiary Mk 1, 41 grams @ 899 m/sec


how much better do you need just to get the projectile inside a plane?).


..... Getting inside the airframe is one thing (enough for an HE round). For an AP round there are a lot of internal systems, etc, often behind some degree of armor, which are good targets for a high kinetic energy penetrator.


Those 2 advantages were countered by the higher recoil of the gun, which made impossible to shot accuratelly longer bursts.


..... This inaccuracy story is repeated like it is some sort of divine truth. Any kind of evidence to support this allegation would be nice to see. And if the Hisso did in fact have a greater disperion, it still might be meaningless in practical terms since the real issue would be the size of the dispersion pattern at the anticipated shooting range versus the size of the target. If the mean error was 500 pct greater, there is an argument to be made; if it was only 50 pct greater, the argument is moot.



MG-151/20 recoil could not to felt by the pilot, in fact pilots could not tell from inside the cockpit if Mk108 fires or not, all German fighter mounted cannons had very low recoil.


..... Not all German a/c weapons were low recoil. The German Mk103 30mm was an extremely powerful gun.

BTW, if you want to check on HE energies for the above mentioned ammunition (and many others) visit Ring's prodocs site; a very good database is provided ("weapons info")

BLUTARSKI

faustnik
06-25-2004, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
OTOH, the Hispano AP round, firing a heavier projectile at a considerably higher initial velocity, would be hugely superior in penetration to the 151/20.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blutarski,

In your opinion, is it possible that the Hispano would did over twice the damage as the Mg151 as is the case in FB?

I agree the Hispano should have somewhat better penetration. But the degree to which it is better in FB seems excessive.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 06:28 PM
You still have not responded to your own challange. You challanged me to shoot down B-17's with the Bf-110. I did. Watch the track yet? Or ya just going to sweep that under the carpet because I called your bluff? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif After all those minutes of hard work flying, and nobody even cratiques my flying? Not even the "Im an He-111 pilot and it is weak" people are talking now. Only so much proof you can deny.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
06-25-2004, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
There were only 2 advantages of Hispano cannon: slightly better balistics of the shell due to higher muzzle velocity (but not much better becase Hispano shells are significantly heavier)

..... In the case you bring up, weight is actually an advantage to the Hisso projectile. You misunderstand the fundamentals of exterior ballistics. For two projectiles of equal caliber, shape, and initial velocity, the heavier projectile will always deliver superior ballistic performance. A heavier projectile of equal caliber, fired at a higher initial velocity will have yet more greater ballistic superiority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No misuderstanding, just writing at high speed. I lost from sight that both projectiles have the same caliber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yes, Hispano shells have better balistics and better penetration. My bad.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and better penetration (though this is not really important for a 20mm shell, MG-151/20 had a better penetration than 0.50s anyway,


..... MG151/20 AP very likely will have penetration superior to 50cal AP, even with somehwat inferior initial velocity. The M-Geschoss effectively had no armor penetration capability. Hence the mixed use of the two types. OTOH, the Hispano AP round, firing a heavier projectile at a considerably higher initial velocity, would be hugely superior in penetration to the 151/20.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that M-Geschoss round does not have armor penetration capability. But this does not apply to HEI round, which may not penetrate thick armor grade steel, but it did penetrate engine blocks before exploding, especially on close range. This is one important effect that has to be simulated. M-Geschoss did not need to penetrate the engine to disable it. The force of explosion simply removes all ancilary systems outside the engine block, damaging it instantly.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
how much better do you need just to get the projectile inside a plane?).


..... Getting inside the airframe is one thing (enough for an HE round). For an AP round there are a lot of internal systems, etc, often behind some degree of armor, which are good targets for a high kinetic energy penetrator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This common place image that ww2 planes, especially bombers, were armored fortresses is completelly false. Most bombers did not have any piece of armor, until very late in the war, when some armor was installed for some of the crew positions (not all), and that was it.

If we talk about bombers, again German bombers used armor the most. Not only that crew were better protected than on any other bombers, but sometimes even engines were armored. Here a special mention must be made about Junkers engines. Since mid war years Junkers engines on various planes could use armored cowlings. Planes like He-111, Ju-87, Ju-88 or Fw-190D had armored cowlings. This is somewhat an unique feature specific to Junkers engines. With the exception of Il-2 and Hs-129 I cannot remember other ww2 plane that got armored engine cowlings.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Those 2 advantages were countered by the higher recoil of the gun, which made impossible to shot accuratelly longer bursts.


..... This inaccuracy story is repeated like it is some sort of divine truth. Any kind of evidence to support this allegation would be nice to see. And if the Hisso did in fact have a greater disperion, it still might be meaningless in practical terms since the real issue would be the size of the dispersion pattern at the anticipated shooting range versus the size of the target. If the mean error was 500 pct greater, there is an argument to be made; if it was only 50 pct greater, the argument is moot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What inaccuracy? that Hispanos have significantly higher recoil? Not only that Hispanos recoil is mentioned in pilot accounts, but the cause of higher recoil should be clear. Hispano round uses more propellant (just look at the cartridge) in order to push a heavier projectile at higher muzzle speed than MG-151/20. That means that blow back is more powerful, so bigger recoil is transfered to the airframe. Since Hispanos were larger than MG-151/20 but had the same weight, it is possible that blowback mechanism was less efficient in absorbing the shock because of lighter weight. That would not help eighter.

German fighter cannons were designed to have a recoil as small as possible so that a light fighter would remain steady when firing. Me-262 pilots could not feel the 4 x 30mm cannons firing from the nose! It was a simple trade: worse ballistics for longer bursts. And IMO it was worth it, because unless you are real sniper that hits on the first burst, longer bursts can help you hit more.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
MG-151/20 recoil could not to felt by the pilot, in fact pilots could not tell from inside the cockpit if Mk108 fires or not, all German fighter mounted cannons had very low recoil.


..... Not all German a/c weapons were low recoil. The German Mk103 30mm was an extremely powerful gun.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mk-103 was not a fighter cannon, it was a ground attack weapon. It was tried against bombers with mediocre results. It's ridiculos to see that in AEP it takes much fewer hits to kill bomber to Mk103 than to Mk-108. This again is caused by incorrect modelling of HE effects in Il-2 series. Here any cannon that has higher muzzle velocity kills with much less hits that cannons that use more powerful HE content. This was incorrect from the day one in this sim and it's still not rectified. What's even more saddening is that Oleg wants to port the whole gunnery modelling without modifications into BoB.

Magister__Ludi
06-25-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You still have not responded to your own challange. You challanged me to shoot down B-17's with the Bf-110. I did. Watch the track yet? Or ya just going to sweep that under the carpet because I called your bluff? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif After all those minutes of hard work flying, and nobody even cratiques my flying? Not even the "Im an He-111 pilot and it is weak" people are talking now. Only so much proof you can deny.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, Gib I didn't watch it, I'm still at work.
Have you set the gunners on Veteran (or Ace)?

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 07:26 PM
I think they were vet. But I dont think it matters for the gunners. The vet/ace thing is pilot skill.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You still have not responded to your own challange. You challanged me to shoot down B-17's with the Bf-110. I did. Watch the track yet? Or ya just going to sweep that under the carpet because I called your bluff? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif After all those minutes of hard work flying, and nobody even cratiques my flying? Not even the "Im an He-111 pilot and it is weak" people are talking now. Only so much proof you can deny.

Gib

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, Gib I didn't watch it, I'm still at work.
Have you set the gunners on Veteran (or Ace)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 07:30 PM
One thing people need to realize is expanding gas is not modeled in IL2. Just shrapnal. Drop a bomb in arcade mode. All you see is arrows. You can be on top of a bomb and not have it damage you as long as an arrow does not hit your aircraft. I think the MG-151/20 is modeled with less shrapnal and/or weaker shrapnal because of its thin walled design would produce less shrapnal and weaker shrapnal. So in IL2, explosives dont mean squat. Only shrapnal put out by them.

Gib

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

faustnik
06-25-2004, 07:58 PM
Gibbage,

If that is true, then the Mg151/20 is getting a raw deal, since it's main method of destruction is not being modeled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif The Mg151's "shrapnel model" might be bumped up to compensate.


Oh, good shooting against those bombers Gibbage! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That first .50 round missed your head by a foot! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Gibbage1
06-25-2004, 08:35 PM
So THATS were those landed. As you can see, I looked all around my aircraft when the first bullete hit. I could not find it! I need to replay the track.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Gibbage,

If that is true, then the Mg151/20 is getting a raw deal, since it's main method of destruction is not being modeled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif The Mg151's "shrapnel model" might be bumped up to compensate.


Oh, good shooting against those bombers Gibbage! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif That first .50 round missed your head by a foot! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

plumps_
06-25-2004, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think they were vet. But I dont think it matters for the gunners. The vet/ace thing is pilot skill. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All aircraft in the track are set to 'Average' (open the .trk file in Notepad, they all have 'Skill 1'; 0 is Rookie, 2 is Veteran, 3 Ace).

The skill level does affect the gunners, OTOH personally I don't see the point in flying against dozens of Veteran or Ace gunners.

I do agree that the B-17s are a slightly too easy to shoot down, but the DM will be tweaked in 2.02, according to the leaked Readme file. In the He-111 they probably forgot to implement some hit zones for the fire effect. I don't understand why you make so much fuss about it, we've always had to live with that kind of inconsistencies in the damage models; if you didn't notice this earlier you were probably flying for the side that wasn't affected.

Just remember that the Pe-2 got a decent DM only in AEP 2.01; before that it was a flying tank for years. Where were you then?

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

[This message was edited by plumps_ on Fri June 25 2004 at 09:00 PM.]

faustnik
06-25-2004, 10:29 PM
Plumps, in case you missed it, Gibbage is trying to help the LW pilots by pointing out the relative weakness of our Mg151.

Why don't you also consider that the DMs of some of the bombers need to be fixed.

Of course, Gibbage might be saying the Mg151s are too weak because he is a such well known Luftwhiner. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

plumps_
06-25-2004, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Why don't you also consider that the DMs of some of the bombers need to be fixed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you hear me contradict this? I'm just a little bit annoyed by the disproportionate relation of a certain flaw in FB on one hand and the noise level on the other.

BTW I can't understand ANY of those people who try to get improvements only for ONE side. I paid for ALL aircraft in the sim, no matter what side, and I want them ALL to be perfect for my money. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

Gibbage1
06-26-2004, 01:07 AM
I fly mostly US aircraft. I never really liked the German ones because they have very little servivability. I can bring a P-63 home with a few canon hits, but not a 109. I also HATE the German cockpits. Hard to see out of. Bf-110 is fun though. But underpowered unless you have the Mk-108's. With 4 centerline 20MM it has less hitting power then my P-38. Thats not not right. No wonder that I could get splashed by 20MM and stuff fly.

I like historical toughness. For better or worse. My baby is the P-38 and I tested it like crazy during the beta. It had a roll rate like the FW and I had Oleg fix that. It had no compresability, and I had Oleg fix that. P-38L had K-14 gunsight and I had Oleg fix that. J had dive flaps and I had Oleg fix that. In 2.01 Oleg gave them fire extinguishers and I had Oleg fix that. If I was a true "Ameriwhiner" I would not have fixed all those errors in the beta. But sinec I mostly fly US aircraft and my base of knolege is US aircraft, I find the most problems in US aircraft. But you dont need to be very knolageable to see how underpowered the Mg-151/20 is.

Also as another test, I verified that damage is ONLY CAUSED BY SHRAPNAL! I planted a mistel in the middle of a bunch of trucks. Not all were killed. Some in the middle were spaired because they were not hit by shrapnal when others 100's of meters away were killed. Even some as far away as 500M died when trucks 50M away did not.

Faust. Can you test out and see if the Mg 151/20 does indeed have less shrapnal then the Hispano? I will be away tomorrow at an IL2 Lan Party so I cant do the test myself.

We may have nailed the true problem of the German 20MM. Once thats done, we can send the report to Oleg and hope to get it fixed. Along with the B-17.

P.S. B-17 and Mg 151/20 are still weak in the current 2.02 build I have.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by plumps_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Why don't you also consider that the DMs of some of the bombers need to be fixed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you hear me contradict this? I'm just a little bit annoyed by the disproportionate relation of a certain flaw in FB on one hand and the noise level on the other.

BTW I can't understand ANY of those people who try to get improvements only for ONE side. I paid for ALL aircraft in the sim, no matter what side, and I want them ALL to be perfect for my money. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

faustnik
06-26-2004, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Faust. Can you test out and see if the Mg 151/20 does indeed have less shrapnal then the Hispano? I will be away tomorrow at an IL2 Lan Party so I cant do the test myself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhh, yeah, I'll try to figure that out.

Maybe Neal or someone else with a method of testing the shrapnel can help me out with a good test procedure?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
06-26-2004, 06:08 AM
I sent info in long ago through Luthier on shockwave damage of explosives.
The reply was that they already had that and more and were using it. There
is a sphere created by high explosives of hypersonic shockwave, hard sound
in essence that vibrates solids as well as making very high instantaneous
pressure. The pressures push, pull, push very, very hard. That sphere goes
just so far out and then drops off faster than the cube root of distance. It
is like a solid physical thing that lasts very short time. The shock is
sound travelling faster than sound by the force of the explosion, the speed
is described as hypersonic which is more than a couple of mach. There is
enough time of wave travel for reflected waves (besides what transmits through
material) to bounce back from one inner wall and reinforce/interfere the other
side of the explosion which is known as mach-stem and multiplies the force of
shock greatly but only IF the explosion is situated at proper distance from
the containing walls. That force is enough to create the famous British Mk108
round damage test photo. Gasses alone is one thing but only if contained and
able to build pressure like a low explosive device (firecracker or old time
bomb or grenade -- very old time) but the plane in the photo was not damaged
that way as the gasses had ways to vent off. With high explosives the shock
begins inside the explosive and continues out -- you can place plastique or
the like against metal and the main force blows into what it is placed against
unlike low explosives which are gas pressure based. There is gasses in a
shocwave through air but the shockwave is gone long before the gasses.

MG rounds especially should in the right places blow holes but nothing like
the Mk108's. The shockwave sphere is much smaller, the spaces it best effects
are much smaller than the back end of a bomber for instance. When an explosive
round strikes a metal part not able to stand to the shock, that part should
become shrapnel in its own right.

To accurately model all that... I guess make a sphere of appropriate size, check
everything inside for damage and if damage exceeds by some large factor then that
part becomes fragments. My guess is that it is beyond the sim and all but the
newest PC's if they are capable at all. Even just making the spheres and checking
parts for strength versus explosion is much. Shockwave, like gasses does work by
square area only in a more complicated way through vibration and even more by the
possibility of mach stem. Simplified, the parts hit would get hit by the area in
the sphere they present and no real model of mach stem unless parts of the plane
were coded as being "right" for such and such class of shells. That's a LOT of
computing power even simplified, then multiply it buy so many hits per second.

In the old hitbox way of DM's these things all got turned into factors. It is
simple but very homogenous and never anomalous results once the factors are set
right. Of course one persons 'right' does not suit everyone, always the case.
Still it is a fast way and does leave open the possibility that for this kind
of damage a sim could have a hybrid DM where explosions are as factors only.

.................................................. ......................

I for one can't say that's not in the DM since damage graphics don't reflect what
is done at all. I see an explosion in arcade on a clean wing and a few fragments
go flying yet the wing graphic shows many bullet holes more than the fragments.
Did the fragments make the damage that resulted in the graphics or was it from
fragments and explosive force?
Hit with a big AP round, the wing may show lots of little bullet holes and we only
see one arrow. I take that to be internal damage where the AP struck something
solid. I can't say for 2.01 yet, upgraded my PC and still waiting on the finally
ordered 120G hard drive to complete my day. In fact, most of my ideas on damage
graphics comes through the sim since IL2 and I don't see changes except for more
holes or less and the 2.0 fragments doing nothing... which hmmmmmmm and yes I
think showed lots of bullet holes on explosive strikes to wings and body, which
indicates explosive force damage at least in 2.0 was modelled.

Confused? I am now a little.


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
06-26-2004, 08:33 AM
WWMaxGunz can you also send me this info for simulation purposes. Special of interest the pressure burst peak and vs distance deforming effect for the different ammo types.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
06-26-2004, 10:05 AM
I'm not seeing the formulae pages that I had before and I don't have a nice
library for that nearby. I remember some books at the Drexel U library though...

Cut & Paste not being something I can work on this forum, I'll give you some links.
If you dig in the FAS site, you will find formulae but not sure all you want/need.

*** www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/warheads.pdf (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/warheads.pdf)

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm)
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/)

On the Lockerbie bombing, there's controversy over if the mach stem formulae was
applied correctly to determine the distance of the bomb from the AC skin. Was it
25 inches or was it 12 inches. Two sources dispute mach stem and one is about the
whole business as a Zionist Plot against Libya. The other is an expert who isn't
sure that mach stem effects apply because they were first conceived from nuclear
weapon studies and there involve waves reflected from unyielding surfaces. The
FAS DOD pages, if you go to the warheads pdf and look at the blast warheads section,
they do have the basics about mach waves.

Good hunting.


Neal


*** www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_503157.hcsp (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_503157.hcsp)

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/teknik.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/teknik.html)
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/mach.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/mach.html)
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/lockapg.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/lockapg.html)

plumps_
06-26-2004, 11:11 AM
I made a test mission:

20 mm vs. B-17 tail fin (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/20MMvsB17tailfin.zip) [Edit: That's a mission, not a track]

There are three versions in the zip file: P-38 L, Spitfire V, and Bf-109 G-2. They all aim at the tail fin of an AI B-17 which I made stationary with the help of a trick i explained in the Mission Builder Forum (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=50910533&m=662107824).

My first result is that at short distances the MG 151/20 seems to have 75% of the Hispano's power concerning infliction of structural damage. It usually takes 15 hits from the Hispano to remove the B-17's tail fin vs. 20 hits from the MG 151/20. I slowed down the game to 1/4 speed so I could count single shots.
I didn't notice any obvious differences with shrapnel, I didn't look at it very closely, though.

You may try to edit the mission to aim at other parts of the aircraft (or different aircraft), I don't have enough time for this at the moment.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

[This message was edited by plumps_ on Sat June 26 2004 at 11:40 AM.]

[This message was edited by plumps_ on Sat June 26 2004 at 12:40 PM.]

faustnik
06-26-2004, 12:25 PM
Plumps,

All the tests that I have run show the Mg151 had .5 or less the power of the Hispano on all types of a/c targets.

I'll check your track, thanks for posting it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

plumps_
06-26-2004, 12:36 PM
There's no free lunch. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

That's not a track, it's three missions you have to play yourself. You'll get your own results and you'll be able to change the mission setup if you don't like it.

The results may be different if the bullets have a longer way to travel.

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

JG14_Josf
06-26-2004, 01:13 PM
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/goes%20through.jpg


Plumps,

Earlier in this thread I posted the picture above and this explantion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As to the Ballistic testing process I've found a very good way to check the games accuracy and damage modeling. It is possible to construct a test with the FMB where two planes are placed away from an Airfield and on uneven ground so as to have one plane aimed at another plane. With this proccedure a plane can shoot one super quick (minimized fire) burst at specific locations on the target plane, at specific angles and at specific distances. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That test was done back when the FW190's had a simple damage model. Note how the ground behind the FW appears to be disturbed. I could empty the entire magazine from an LA5FN through that area in the FW fuselage.

I think the guns on the LW planes have improved enough to make them effective. For that reason I have not returned to test damage modeling.

Before the damage model improvements this occured often:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/First%20hit.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Second%20Hit.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Third%20Hit.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Fourth%20Hit.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Fifth%20Hit%202.jpg

and this:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/47%201.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/47%202.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/47%203.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/47%204.jpg

In the old days it was common to dump 5 30mm rounds into a fighter plane to bring it down.

Experiences like that inspired me to construct the Full Mission Bulider ground test shown in the first picture with the FW getting shot behind the canopy.

Now the game has changed and it is more common to shoot down a plane with one 30mm like this one:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Just%20a%20little%20late.jpg

In the past 20mm's were like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/1stpass.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/2ndpass.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/3rdpass.jpg
That one Yak took 4 good passes before it went down. Note the 2 well grouped hits on the cockpit in convergence range. After the 3rd pas the Yak was still pulling enough Gs to make vapor trails.

20mm are now like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/p47b.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/p47c.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/p47f.jpg

That P-47 went down

Ofline tests like this:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/acumulative.jpg

Do not account for net traffic, lag, lost packets etc.

I have track files that show my shots clearly missing yet the target takes dammage.

It is possible to run a track file and see quite different results each time the track file is replayed. A hit can be seen once and then not seen the second time the track file is played.

Overall the game has made progress in gun lethality. This increase in overall damage ability has been accomplished without completely taking away the random factor of gunnery. It is not now a sure thing to down a plane even with multiple hits, but it is more likely that multiple hits do record significant damage. One hit 30mm rounds can now destroy a plane and such examples are more common, but targets can still survive 30mm hits and keep on flying.
It is easier, in my opinion, to disable a plane in one pass with 20mm guns now.

The off-line test proceedure nails down the variables. But for practical considerations, at least for on-line players, the net code can't be ignored.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sat June 26 2004 at 12:30 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
06-26-2004, 01:30 PM
Incendiary rounds cause big orange flash explosions.
Watching with arcade on can show this as they don't fragment but do make a fireball.

Good pics, Josf! Nice work on the shots, esp the grounded planes.
Are the tracks made with the same patch as you watch them in, the ones that change?
Also, are they full .trk tracks or partial .ntrk tracks?


Neal

plumps_
06-26-2004, 01:37 PM
Argh, that's what happens when you don't get enough sleep. I just re-read my earlier posting and found that I had confused the cannon types in the text. You should have noticed that it didn't make sense. It should say:

----------
My first result is that at short distances the MG 151/20 seems to have 75% of the Hispano's power concerning infliction of structural damage. It usually takes 15 hits from the Hispano to remove the B-17's tail fin vs. 20 hits from the MG 151/20. I slowed down the game to 1/4 speed so I could count single shots.
I didn't notice any obvious differences with shrapnel, I didn't look at it very closely, though.
-----------

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

plumps_
06-26-2004, 02:00 PM
Josf, we're trying to compare the current damage effects of MG 151/20 and Hispano 20 mmm. Your test mission might be useful for that purpose. Do you offer it for download or is it just for your private use?

-----------------------------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)
My Missions (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/missionen-en.html)

faustnik
06-26-2004, 02:45 PM
I'm trying to examine the difference in explosive effect and shranel between the Mg151 and the Hispano. I can't find any visual difference in behavior.

Here are the Mg 151 shots:
First I tried a "soft" target:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/bf109vp11.jpg

Then a "hard" one:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg115vIL2.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151vIl2.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151vIL23.jpg

Then the same with the Hispano:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/p38vp11.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/p38vIL21.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/p38vIL22.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/p38vIL23.jpg

I could see no visual difference in explosion tracking arrows and no difference in the depth that the round penetrates before exploding. In all cases the Hispano did more than twice the damage of the Mg151.

So, basically, i couldn't find anything useful for our investigation, sorry. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

NN_Tym
06-26-2004, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
All the tests that I have run show the Mg151 had .5 or less the power of the Hispano on all types of a/c targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you describe the tests please ?

faustnik
06-26-2004, 04:36 PM
Tym,

I performed the tests in QMB. Using either a Bf109G2 for Mg151/20, or a P-38J for the Hispano 20mm, I slid up behind unarmed target planes (set to "rookie" so they just fly straight) and fired into specific areas. With "arcade mode" enabled, I was able to later view the recorded tracks and count how many rounds hit the target areas and compare how much damage they did. The "arcade mode" feature of FB is great for this, making for some very interesting testing.

I have only been able to determine that the Hispanos do much greater damage than the Mg151. The other big unanswered questions are:

- Why do the Hispano do more damage than the Mg151/20?

and

- How much more damage should the Hispano be doing relative to the Mg151/20?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG14_Josf
06-26-2004, 06:00 PM
Neal,

I started seeing changes in track files when I set up a hot key to start and stop track file recording during a flight. The files generated in this manner have a .ntrk extension.

The one track file I saved from a few patches ago that shows a clear miss from my FW to a P-39 where the P-39 takes damage is an unknown extension because it has since been renamed.

The possibility exists that that track file was viewed first and then named 'shooter seen miss but damage done' after a patch change. It is an old track file. However I ususally vew my track recordings in a timely manner and that track file was saved for that specific discrepancy.

I've since seen similar odd things even during game play.

Last night in a dog fight server my wingman saw me hit a P-51 with a 30mm that showed up on his computer as a huge orange ball. I saw no such hit. On my end the hit showed up as a few small pieces of debris.

Save as (http://mysite.verizon.net/Desktop/Gun%20Test%20Mission.rar)

Above is my gun test mission. If the link doesn't work it may be due to my inability to publish a usable web site.

I can mail it upon request.

josf.kelley@verizon.net

WWMaxGunz
06-26-2004, 06:13 PM
It looks to me like the Hisso frag blooms from inside the wing on the IL2 were from
more the front of the wing than the 151 frag blooms from inside the wing. I saw one
151 bloom forward of mid wing and the intersection of the frag arrows is clearly on
the surface of the wing, not inside. It looks to me like the Hisso HE rounds are
modelled as penetrating much deeper, like closer to or on the spar before exploding.
The 151 frag rounds look like they should remove control surfaces and destroy cables
and linkages more than spars and main structures. There's also that the Hisso shots
did break that wing. The hits on the P-11c... that thing should have been butchered
by all those 151 rounds even if the frags didn't blow clear through. Death of a
thousand cuts at the very least, how could it not have cut controls unless maybe
the AI's have simplified DM to go with the simplified FM.


Neal

KG26_Alpha
06-26-2004, 07:27 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You still have not responded to your own challange. You challanged me to shoot down B-17's with the Bf-110. I did. Watch the track yet? Or ya just going to sweep that under the carpet because I called your bluff? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif After all those minutes of hard work flying, and nobody even cratiques my flying? Not even the "Im an He-111 pilot and it is weak" people are talking now. Only so much proof you can deny.

Gib

You was offered to fly online with us in a He111 mission to see how important it is to have esorts as these things rarely make it home after a bomb run from flak damage and pilots killed add to the fact that these were early war designed and put up against any kind of late Russian aircraft they go down likw a sack of spuds.
Also it was shown that the engines are vunerable with a few hits in the same QMB "arcade" format of pics posted, you went from 151 testing into B17 damage and then He111 damage.
Please stop testing off line and put the planes in a coop mission B17's with Aircraft loaded with Mg 151/20 in full real settings.
The origianl post was about the 151/20 if i remeber that far back lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

WWMaxGunz
06-27-2004, 03:05 AM
Testing online is subject to lag, lag, lag, lag. People actually see different
versions of what goes on to some degree or another online. This is true for any
online flying sim, any online game with decently fast uninterrupted action so
don't bother blaming this sim. The best you can do in MP is run on a fast LAN.
Next best thing is everyone run from the same local ISP with good connects.

Playing out coops online doesn't do diddly to measure relative DM's. Gib
wrote that he had no real problems avoiding defensive fire and he showed it.
Now it's like "You meet me and the boys at the corral if you're a man."? LOL!

Josf, I don't trust anything but a full .trk to be repeatable and manipulable
during playback. Learned that from Oleg when I first sent .ntrks to show the
exploding P-40 last year. So I FMB anything I'm going to run and record, get
it done quick, exit and record the whole mess. So far, it's been consistent
for me but then I ain't seen everything.


Neal

KG26_Alpha
06-27-2004, 09:23 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Testing online is subject to lag, lag, lag, lag. People actually see different
versions of what goes on to some degree or another online. This is true for any
online flying sim, any online game with decently fast uninterrupted action so
don't bother blaming this sim. The best you can do in MP is run on a fast LAN.
Next best thing is everyone run from the same local ISP with good connects.

Playing out coops online doesn't do diddly to measure relative DM's. Gib
wrote that he had no real problems avoiding defensive fire and he showed it.
Now it's like "You meet me and the boys at the corral if you're a man."? LOL!

What are you talking about ?
We fly exclusively online as a squad with pilots from all parts of the world and have no lagg issues with the exception of unknown pilots joining missions we hardly ever have "strange goings on" in coops, if your ending comment was aimed at my "fly with us" offer it was intended that the He111 was flown in formation on a typical bomb run then realise the pointless of the way this thread is going.

http://www.freewebs.com/kg26/

WWMaxGunz
06-27-2004, 02:38 PM
Never been hit by someone not actually shooting at you, but off to the side?
With pilots from all over the world in the same arena? What world is that?
You have any idea what the ping is between US, Russia and Australia?
Light is fast, but only so fast and them satellites are about 1/7th second
up minimum (you, on the equator and close underneath) plus down plus all
the relays between plus the ground end of the net... yep no lag there.

On earth we see good missions and bad ones online. We find FB very acceptable.
That's because we know the realities. If a server gets bad, it's time to find
another one. Bad lag that makes problems does happen to some people at least.


Neal

OldMan____
06-27-2004, 03:37 PM
CAn anyone confirm my tests? In order to evaluate if the steted behavior has a MG151 failture I testes the MG FF in the 190A4 and was surprised to state it is MORE POWERFULL per shot than the 151/20!!! (although the much higher ROF of 151 makes if far more lethal).

Can anyone teste this again? If this is confirmed there is something wrong.. since MG FF used cartridges that were lighter and with LOWER speed.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

faustnik
06-27-2004, 04:40 PM
Oldman,

I tested the MgFF and did not find it more effective than the Mg151. It is still not near the Hispano in power. This is an important finding however, as the MgFF has a projectile even larger than the Hispano. So, it must be the extra volocity that is giving the Hispano it's power.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/MgFFtest.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
06-27-2004, 06:08 PM
Getting somewhere! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here are test shots with the Mg151/15. This is a light shell with a high volocity.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151.152.jpg
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151.15.jpg

As you can see this shell is at least as effective, possibly more, than the Mg151/20. So the explosive effect of the Mg151/20 is having little effect on its target. This is contrary to German testing which found explosive effects to be very damaging to aircraft.

I also would like to know exactly what this spot is on a B-17. Even a light shell to this spot flames the a/c.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/B17damage.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Magister__Ludi
06-27-2004, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Getting somewhere! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here are test shots with the Mg151/15. This is a light shell with a high volocity.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151.152.jpg
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151.15.jpg

As you can see this shell is at least as effective, possibly more, than the Mg151/20. So the explosive effect of the Mg151/20 is having little effect on its target. This is contrary to German testing which found explosive effects to be very damaging to aircraft.

I also would like to know exactly what this spot is on a B-17. Even a light shell to this spot flames the a/c.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/B17damage.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com is recruiting_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, it's funny to see that Mg151/20 is less powerful than Mg151/15 or MG/FF. The reason is simple, only kinetic energy is considered for the force of the shell. This basically makes Mg151/20 useless since the force was comming from explosion of the shell which we now see that is not modelled. Very sad http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

We should open another thread to request that explosion force to be modelled, this is mandatory if we want to say that Il2 series has a realitic gunnery model. Until it will be modified (if it will) we know than German cannons are porked.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2004, 08:14 PM
You *can't* be serious? You mean to say that the explosion is only eye candy??

Not even my conspiratorially-leaning mind would come up with that.

What about the Mk108? Surely it's not just KE that sometimes makes this a one-shot weapon? Surely the very large explosion is what does most of its damage?

Or, are we implying that only the 151/20's explosion is neutered?

faustnik
06-27-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You *can't* be serious? You mean to say that the explosion is _only_ eye candy??



- Gibbage thinks that shrapnel damage is modeled but, not explosive force. The Mk108 might be putting out a lot of shrapnel as it obviously does a lot of damage.



Not even my conspiratorially-leaning mind would come up with that.


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


What about the Mk108? Surely it's not just KE that sometimes makes this a one-shot weapon? Surely the very large explosion is what does most of its damage?

Or, are we implying that only the 151/20's explosion is neutered?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


- Since most of the force of the Mg151 is due to explosive effect, it seems much to weak relative to the Hispano. It could be a possible explaination for why the two similar weapons have such a large difference in damage done.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Magister__Ludi
06-28-2004, 12:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You *can't* be serious? You mean to say that the explosion is _only_ eye candy??

Not even my conspiratorially-leaning mind would come up with that.

What about the Mk108? Surely it's not just KE that sometimes makes this a one-shot weapon? Surely the very large explosion is what does most of its damage?

Or, are we implying that only the 151/20's explosion is neutered?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



C'mon cut it off with the conspiration bull. It's just bad modelling and unwillingness to correct it.

Mk103 is much more powerful in this sim than Mk108, though Mk-103 belt does not contain M-Geschoss (at least now, in the initial shells list there were MG shells in Mk103 belt), only AP/HE shells with much less HE content than Mk108 shells. In this conditions Mk108 should take much less hits to down planes but it is exactly the other way around. Mk103 should only penetrate more and have better balistics.

WWMaxGunz
06-28-2004, 01:32 AM
Is it possible that KE is low and the KE of slower shells is not enough to penetrate far
enough into the target for the explosion to do significant damage? Simply an unbalance
in modelled KE with modelled hardness of airplane parts can do that and it's not any simple
matter to change or "fix" if that is so.
I look at sites where both KE and explosive power are listed and 151/20 MG still have a
high percentage of total power at muzzle as KE, like 40%.
It is also possible that blastwave power itself is not modelled or undermodelled, how to
know these things? We have no yardsticks or force measuring tools. I see a hit and I
see a change in the graphics. How much is KE, how much fragment and how much blast? No
way to tell except that in 2.0 the fragments did nothing and even then the DM's were
tweaked for 2.01 so you can't make compares.
What use is making claims? We can only present findings and ASK for them to be looked
at. Making claims may and probably will get the whole case ignored. Judge Wapner was
that way... where's the papers? Got no papers, you got no claim, case dismissed. So
best to not make claims you can't back and just ask nice they look better into it.

In the end, we have to accept the sim for what it is alone. Know how it plays and
either play it or not. But no harm in asking is there? We know what claims, ^cough,
bar, cough^ will get.


Neal

faustnik
06-28-2004, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

C'mon cut it off with the conspiration bull. It's just bad modelling and unwillingness to correct it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ludi,

How can you say Oleg is unwilling to correct it? We don't know how it is modeled for sure (at least I don't) so, it is way too early to get worked up about it. All my testing and posts have more to do with a fascinating subject than a cry for changes. My findings and ntrks have been sent to Oleg. If it is incorrect, I'm sure it will be fixed at some point. It took a while for tests to be presented and changes made to the .50, lets give this some time.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Blutarski2004
06-28-2004, 11:31 AM
What follows is a very rough extrapolation from data on explosive blast effects of bombs given in US Department of the Army TM9-1907 (1948) Ballistic Data Performance of Ammunition:

Bomb Type--Gross Wt--Wt of TNT----20 lbs/in2 pressure
AN-M30 GP----100 lb------54 lb----26 ft radius
AN-M57 GP----250 lb-----123 lb----35 ft radius
AN-M64 GP----500 lb-----262 lb----46 ft radius
AN-M65 GP--1,000 lb-----530 lb----60 ft radius

By comparing the above values, a rough trend emerges - As explosive weight is reduced by a factor of 10, the 20lb/in2 blast pressure radius is reduced by about 55 pct. Taking a BIG RISK by extrapolating this mathematical trend down to very small weights of HE, we obtain the following -

530 lbs TNT = 60 ft radius
54 lbs TNT = 26 ft radius
5.4 lbs TNT = 11 ft radius
0.54 lbs TNT = 4.8 ft radius
0.054 lbs TNT = 2 ft radius

0.054 lbs = 24.5 grams in metric weight. A 151/20 M-Geschoss contained 20 to 28 grams of explosive content, depending upon type/model. Therefore one might cautiously speculate that such a round would produce a 20 lb/in2 blast pressure wave out to something on the order of 2 foot radius from the point of detonation. Under suitable conditions, 20 lbs/in2 blast pressure will hurl a standing man into the air at an initial velocity of 25 ft/sec and will damage structural steel columns and web facings.

A major X factor in this is the question of fuzing. Instantaneous fuzes will initiate detonation immediately upon the projectile touching the aircraft exterior. A good deal of the blast effect will presumably be dissipated into the open atmosphere in that case. A fuze with slight delay, permitting detonation of the projectile inside the airframe will be more likely to cause the sort of effects speculated above.

The effect of a 20mm M-Geschoss round on armor plate can be estimated, based upon the following rule of thumb formula: W pounds of TNT will defeat standard armor plate of a thickness equal to the cube root of W. Therefore, a 20mm M-Geschoss round with about 0.054 lbs of explosive will be defeated by armor greater than +/- 10mm. Lesser thicknesses of armor, although defeated, will still keep out the vast majority of blast effect.

For whatever all that is worth. These calculation might be off by a very considerable margin, but they at least give an idea of what order of magnitude we ought to be discussing.

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Mon June 28 2004 at 10:42 AM.]

Magister__Ludi
06-28-2004, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:

C'mon cut it off with the conspiration bull. It's just bad modelling and unwillingness to correct it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ludi,

How can you say Oleg is unwilling to correct it? We don't know how it is modeled for sure (at least I don't) so, it is way too early to get worked up about it. All my testing and posts have more to do with a fascinating subject than a cry for changes. My findings and ntrks have been sent to Oleg. _If_ it is incorrect, I'm sure it will be fixed at some point. It took a while for tests to be presented and changes made to the .50, lets give this some time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This error was not observed for the first time. I complain about for more than 1 year to no avail.
What's good now is that more people agree that we have a problem. Maybe Oleg's team will pay more attention in the next sim.

Magister__Ludi
06-28-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

0.054 lbs = 24.5 grams in metric weight. A 151/20 M-Geschoss contained 20 to 28 grams of explosive content, depending upon type/model. Therefore one might cautiously speculate that such a round would produce a 20 lb/in2 blast pressure wave out to something on the order of 2 foot radius from the point of detonation. Under suitable conditions, 20 lbs/in2 blast pressure will hurl a standing man into the air at an initial velocity of 25 ft/sec and will damage structural steel columns and web facings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Keep in mind that 1g of PETN was equivalent to 2.1 or 2.3g TNT (I don't know which, I don't have the tables with me). So if the weight of HE mixture is correct, then you have ~55g of TNT in a 20mm M-Geschoss shell.

Blutarski2004
06-28-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

0.054 lbs = 24.5 grams in metric weight. A 151/20 M-Geschoss contained 20 to 28 grams of explosive content, depending upon type/model. Therefore one might cautiously speculate that such a round would produce a 20 lb/in2 blast pressure wave out to something on the order of 2 foot radius from the point of detonation. Under suitable conditions, 20 lbs/in2 blast pressure will hurl a standing man into the air at an initial velocity of 25 ft/sec and will damage structural steel columns and web facings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Keep in mind that 1g of PETN was equivalent to 2.1 or 2.3g TNT (I don't know which, I don't have the tables with me). So if the weight of HE mixture is correct, then you have ~55g of TNT in a 20mm M-Geschoss shell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... A quick check on the web revealed a calculated order of merit of PETN = 2.21 TNT. By my very rough calculations, this would increase the effective 20lb/in2 blast pressure radius by a factor of +/- 1.35 or around 2.7 ft.

We still do not have enough information to come to any confident conclusions. Considering all the unknowns involved, the best I'm willing to claim is that we are in the correct order of magnitude.

BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2004, 02:33 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is it possible that KE is low and the KE of slower shells is not enough to penetrate far
enough into the target for the explosion to do significant damage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At 150 meters? NO. A lack of penetration power would count only on the outer edges of the shell's travel (and of course the beginning muzzle velocity, and we can all agree that all 20mms have enough ooomph to penetrate all but the thickest armor of WWII [and even modern] planes).

*If* this charge is true, it would be a pretty blatant piece of bias (or, to be politically correct, convenient oversight). Allied 20mm shells explode and hurt the plane but the German ones don't.

Blutarski2004
06-28-2004, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
we can all agree that all 20mms have enough ooomph to penetrate all but the thickest armor of WWII [and even modern] planes).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not necessarily. It is pretty clear that the 151/20 M-Geschoss round did not have very good AP performance. Don't get me wrong, it does seem like there is something strange with the modelling of 20mm damage. Judging from commentary here, it seems as if kinetic energy is counted or emphasized and chemical (HE) energy is disregarded or discounted. Very hard to say for certain though, without knowing the bases upon which the weapons effects are evaluated for modelling.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
06-28-2004, 03:57 PM
Here's one bit of historical data which probably indicates the real world damage effect of a 20mm M-Geschoss round -

QUOTE-
The control console and the forward side of the instrument panel had suffered major damage. A great hole had appeared in the fuselage to my right, stretching from the right of the intercooler controls to just aft of my seat. It was about three feet long and some twelve to fourteen inches high.
-UNQUOTE


Taken from the following website -
http://www.southernoregonwarbirds.org/b17a.html

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
06-28-2004, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
At 150 meters? NO. A lack of penetration power would count only on the outer edges of the shell's travel (and of course the beginning muzzle velocity, and we can all agree that all 20mms have enough ooomph to penetrate all but the thickest armor of WWII [and even modern] planes).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In REALITY, yes. Are we discussing reality or a model?
I see 151/20 fragments coming from centers within wings and bodies of planes and I see
the Hisso shell fragments coming from inside places and the Hisso fragment arrows bloom
from places farther into the wings and bodies from where the shots come. Golly gee,
the main structure, engine, cockpit and more important parts are farther to the front.
Is it that the 151 HE shells are not penetrating due to less energy or perhaps the
fuzes go off sooner or perhaps the fuzes are all the same timing but the Hisso shells
travel further through the plane in that same amount of time?

It is a complex model with parts and properties. Everything behaves systematically.
You can have systematic anomalies without someone pressing a "screw the LW" button.
People can be doing their best to accurately make a working model and believe, maybe
rightfully, that they have done a very good job. But you don't so they are evil?

Somewhere there must be German documents and for some reason, I bet Oleg has copies.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
06-28-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Here's one bit of historical data which probably indicates the real world damage effect of a 20mm M-Geschoss round -

QUOTE-
The control console and the forward side of the instrument panel had suffered major damage. A great hole had appeared in the fuselage to my right, stretching from the right of the intercooler controls to just aft of my seat. It was about three feet long and some twelve to fourteen inches high.
-UNQUOTE


Taken from the following website -
http://www.southernoregonwarbirds.org/b17a.html

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seems a bit like something blew a 12 to 14 inch hole up a bit front and the rest
peeled back in the wind... the over 200mph wind.

How can I guess that? Well the hole was right next to his leg and if a blast made
the whole hole then his leg would have been burger, wouldn't it?


Neal

Magister__Ludi
06-28-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Here's one bit of historical data which probably indicates the real world damage effect of a 20mm M-Geschoss round -

QUOTE-
The control console and the forward side of the instrument panel had suffered major damage. A great hole had appeared in the fuselage to my right, stretching from the right of the intercooler controls to just aft of my seat. It was about three feet long and some twelve to fourteen inches high.
-UNQUOTE


Taken from the following website -
http://www.southernoregonwarbirds.org/b17a.html

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seems a bit like something blew a 12 to 14 inch hole up a bit front and the rest
peeled back in the wind... the over 200mph wind.

How can I guess that? Well the hole was right next to his leg and if a blast made
the whole hole then his leg would have been burger, wouldn't it?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have seen pictures from Mg151/20 test and they show that the 20mm M-Geschoss does a hole of aprox 3 feet in diameter in the skin, blow away the ribs and bend the spar (without hitting it). With 2 M-Geschoss on a wing, the aircraft would be next to impossible to keep in the air (due to asymmetric lift and drag, with nearly all the skin on the wing peeled off). No way someone could continue the fight with this kind of damage. And probably it was impossible to crashland the plane too, because of high speed needed to maintain the aircraft aloft.


http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/0122.jpg

alarmer
06-29-2004, 02:15 AM
Nice picture Ludi, very nasty damage.

Keep at it guys this has been the highlight thread in Olegs ready room for quite along time.

Very intresting and informative reading.

WWMaxGunz
06-29-2004, 04:03 AM
True. Are those holes typical? They must be surely, the propaganda pictures show
even more massive holes of the exceptional damage examples.

I have heard of one account of a P-47 made it back full of holes and badly damaged.
It had taken full MG load of a FW, IIRC, after already greater damage and wasn't
there cannon hits to it? There is even a picture. So... how many times should that
happen in the sim? All the time? Half? 20%? P-47's are not hard to bring down in
the sim at all, hit right. Should that account and picture prove otherwise? Or the
many accounts of P-47 toughness? Or the people who post those but ignore the other,
downed P-47's?

We don't have skin peeling back in the sim. What sim does?

I guess it could be said that some sims do in the way that all damage is averaged
to come out that every hit meets some expectation or there's a close-averaged random
that allows the words random damage effects while still keeping expectations fed.

The size of the hole in the skin of the plane depends on a few factors.
I don't see in the sim the holes I would expect in reality though from 20mm.
Yet if the ground AAA gets a whiff of me, I get those holes very quickly if I
manage to dodge enough not to be shot down.
I expect on some average that internal explosions of MG rounds in the wings should
cause not only holes but bent and torn ribs, fouled or broken control lines/linkages
all from the explosion blasts. But how many, I do not know.

With so many factors it is only real to expect a wide variance in hole sizes and
damage which is why I question the pictures as typical. If there are no pictures
of larger damage then is that because bigger damage caused such terrible wrecks
that no picture could be made or is it that none was found because those existing
are the biggest and best examples?

How often was holes like that made from single 20mm MG round hits? It may be like
saying that because some infantry had killed an enemy soldier with one bullet that
hit then most bullets hit must kill enemy soldiers. Easy to find examples of dead
soldiers with one wound or of one wound but that was not the majority.

Only thing I seem to come out with is that FB doesn't *seem* to have ways to have
these events happen. I can't say it does or doesn't because I don't know of the
frequency it should happen. Posting pics and saying this is what they should do
comes across to me as saying that should be typical damage. We don't see a single
MG round do this ever in the sim that we can say. We do see wings blow off or tails
or whole planes even blow up but we don't see big holes from one hit. Is it in the
model at all or just not how we expect to see?

With all the hits in screenshots, I am feeling pretty strongly that *in the sim* it
is either a -very- low probablity event (possible in reality, no?) or not happening.
Pictures like that one don't prove anything but what *can* happen. There are gun
camera shots where it does not. There are pictures of planes that made it back with
20mm holes that made hand sized holes only, or bigger, and written accounts of those.

With all that in mind, I can only ask -Oleg- and not make claims. If I sent Oleg a
lot of pictures and something that began to sound like a demand, I would expect to
be ignored.

Hey LB... don't send .ntrk files! When tracks from myself were accepted and used, I
had first sent ntrks and was replied that ntrk files do not contain full information
so to do the tracks over as full tracks only, .trk files. If you didn't get a reply
like that or confirmation that the tracks are being used then either they are already
at work on the issue or have it on the to-do list or might never address it as they
had determined the model accurate.

Y'all keep plugging! I'd go on =averages of many hits= because from the screenshots
and hitcounts, that is the by far best evidence of very weak 151/20 shells vs the DM.
Let 1C decide if the results are reasonable but give them room to do so. You have no
choice in the matter of who decides so posting as if things are any different... well
if someone came up to you and tried that, would you give them courtesy and quick
satisfaction redoing a job you well felt you had done correctly?


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
06-29-2004, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

0.054 lbs = 24.5 grams in metric weight. A 151/20 M-Geschoss contained 20 to 28 grams of explosive content, depending upon type/model. Therefore one might cautiously speculate that such a round would produce a 20 lb/in2 blast pressure wave out to something on the order of 2 foot radius from the point of detonation. Under suitable conditions, 20 lbs/in2 blast pressure will hurl a standing man into the air at an initial velocity of 25 ft/sec and will damage structural steel columns and web facings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Keep in mind that 1g of PETN was equivalent to 2.1 or 2.3g TNT (I don't know which, I don't have the tables with me). So if the weight of HE mixture is correct, then you have ~55g of TNT in a 20mm M-Geschoss shell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... A quick check on the web revealed a calculated order of merit of PETN = 2.21 TNT. By my very rough calculations, this would increase the effective 20lb/in2 blast pressure radius by a factor of +/- 1.35 or around 2.7 ft.

We still do not have enough information to come to any confident conclusions. Considering all the unknowns involved, the best I'm willing to claim is that we are in the correct order of magnitude.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The complete energy output fpr nitropenta is 2.21 of tnt. The peak overpressure energy alone is about 1.42 of tnt.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Bastables
06-29-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
True. Are those holes typical? They must be surely, the propaganda pictures show
even more massive holes of the exceptional damage examples.

I have heard of one account of a P-47 made it back full of holes and badly damaged.
It had taken full MG load of a FW, IIRC, after already greater damage and wasn't
there cannon hits to it? There is even a picture. So... how many times should that
happen in the sim? All the time? Half? 20%? P-47's are not hard to bring down in
the sim at all, hit right. Should that account and picture prove otherwise? Or the
many accounts of P-47 toughness? Or the people who post those but ignore the other,
downed P-47's?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read the anecdote again, it has an Fw190 expending the last 2 secs of his 2cm ammo with only a few hit, which the American pilot felt through his seat armour connecting. The 190 pilot proceeded to empty the rest of his 7.9mm load into the P47.

Most air forces had decided by the late 1930?s that rifle calibre machine guns were poor aircraft weapons, which is why we have German, Soviet and French/British 2cm cannons.

Why you?re introducing an anecdote of how tough late war aircraft are verus 7mm to 8mm machineguns I?ll never know.

The hand sized holes are more in line with 2cm AP or even HE-I as opposed to M-Geschoss shell hits.

The pictures are of german testing of new more effective fusizing first used in 2cm cannons shells in late 1941/42. Not propaganda, neat trick trying to discount it though with out actully attempting to read the text.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

Blutarski2004
06-29-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The complete energy output fpr nitropenta is 2.21 of tnt. The peak overpressure energy alone is about 1.42 of tnt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thanks for that info Hyperion. You are either a chemist or a much better web researcher than I am.

I'd like to re-iterate that these blast radius values which we are discussing should be considered theoretical at best. Quoting my currently favorite aphorism, 'we don't know what we don't know'. My estimations and assumptions might prove to have been complete bull****. And the behavior of blast is an extremely complex phenomenon, especially with respect to targets such as airframes which were built to withstand somewhere between 6 and 12 G's of stress.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
06-29-2004, 08:39 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bastables:
The hand sized holes are more in line with 2cm AP or even HE-I as opposed to M-Geschoss shell hits.

..... A very good insight. It should be remembered not to make assumption when analyzing photos.


The pictures are of german testing of new more effective fuzing first used in 2cm cannons shells in late 1941/42.

..... Also good stuff. Thanks.



Bastables,

I got the sense from your post that you were a little angry with MaxGunz. I don't think MaxGunz has any agenda here. I think he was just tossing out ideas for discussion. This has been a very cordial and friendly thread so far - very little flame. It would really be good to continue in that way.

Thanks.

BLUTARSKI

JG14_Josf
06-29-2004, 10:01 AM
Blutarski,

I got the sense from your post that you are a little angry with Bestables. I don't think Bestables has any agenda here. I think he was just responding in kind. This has been a very cordial and friendly thread so far-very little flame. It would really be good to continue in that way.

Thanks.

Blutarski2004
06-29-2004, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Blutarski,

I got the sense from your post that you are a little angry with Bestables. I don't think Bestables has any agenda here. I think he was just responding in kind. This has been a very cordial and friendly thread so far-very little flame. It would really be good to continue in that way.

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If my post created the impression that I was angry with Bastables, I can only apologize and assure him that it was not my intention. I am not angry with anyone, least of all Bastables. I desire only to keep the so far pleasant and polite nature of this thread.

BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2004, 10:56 AM
MaxGunz wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We don't have skin peeling back in the sim. What sim does?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've flown Sturmos that have had coils of aircraft skin rolling back off the wing after a hit. I don't know if the peeling skin itself has a specific affect on aerodynamics, but I suppose that'd be taken into account by the entire hole.

WWMaxGunz
06-29-2004, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
Read the anecdote again, it has an Fw190 expending the last 2 secs of his 2cm ammo with only a few hit, which the American pilot felt through his seat armour connecting. The 190 pilot proceeded to empty the rest of his 7.9mm load into the P47.[\QUOTE]

That was the last plane to attack it, no? The picture and the whole point as if it wasn't
clear enough is that pictures and anecdotes can be brought up to show amazingly damaged
planes that made it back so why not expect that in the sim? Because it's not always or
even usually the case. But OTOH, good shots of shell damage, HOWEVER obtained, should be
proof enough of a norm to expect. Uh-huh.

[QUOTE]Most air forces had decided by the late 1930?s that rifle calibre machine guns were poor aircraft weapons, which is why we have German, Soviet and French/British 2cm cannons.[\QUOTE]

Which still doesn't prove how much damage a 151/20 MG shell *should* do. We've seen how
much one *can* do. Do you know the difference?

[QUOTE]Why you?re introducing an anecdote of how tough late war aircraft are verus 7mm to 8mm machineguns I?ll never know.[\QUOTE]

By now you should, and you should be smart enough to drop the focus on 8mm MG fire. It's
about using pictures and stories of certain events to try and establish those as what we
should expect as average. It don't work that way.

[QUOTE]The hand sized holes are more in line with 2cm AP or even HE-I as opposed to M-Geschoss shell hits.[\QUOTE]

AP with a diameter less than 1" now makes hand sized holes? Are you *absolutely* sure
that 20mm MG shells made 25+cm holes with even 1/3rd of all hits on fighters? I'd like
to see something more full than a picture here and there of a set-up shot. Those tell me
what *can* happen and I think *should* happen in the right circumstances which is reasonable
to expect.

[QUOTE]The pictures are of german testing of new more effective fusizing first used in 2cm cannons shells in late 1941/42. Not propaganda, neat trick trying to discount it though with out actully attempting to read the text.[\QUOTE]

Really? Not propaganda at all? They got the same result from all kinds of angles every
time they tried and here is one picture as proof.

I've already stated that the 151/20's don't seem to be strong as they should be. But that
word is SEEM since I can't say for sure.

The sim is a complex model but it is also CONSISTANT. So if you find an angle or approach
that does not work, it will do so consistantly. Just as the Me323 with the super strong
underframe needed for the model to work on takeoff and landing was used time and time again
as a target from the same angle by people trying to prove another German cannon was being
slighted. Oh sob. Finally the real problem was noted and was there a change or was it
just understood? Now we have something new that does not work as expected. Maybe you can
find a picture of a TEST SHOT FROM THE REAR OF A WING MAKING THE SAME KIND OF HOLE? That
would apply more than the picture shown just as the P-47 with the 8mm bullet holes does not.

My entire arguement is that there seems to be a case but if it is not made right then the
wrong things will be checked if anything gets checked and when the check proves false, the
chances of further looking at are greatly diminished. Coming up with every possible example
and possible answer might be good when hosing down a fire but it don't apply to developing
any kind of code. Following demands with tweaks and quick fixes has not helped this sim.

[QUOTE]In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice story. Gottfried was of course fighting a superior pilot and the circumstances were
such that all else was equal. That proves that the 109's were so much better then, Oleg
should do whatever is needed to make the sim as so. How could so many other pilots not
have seen and understood what Gottfried did? The others are all morons to be sure.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
06-29-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
MaxGunz wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We don't have skin peeling back in the sim. What sim does?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've flown Sturmos that have had coils of aircraft skin rolling back off the wing after a hit. I don't know if the peeling skin itself has a specific affect on aerodynamics, but I suppose that'd be taken into account by the entire hole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Woah! For real? That has to be a graphic, and one I've never seen but then I haven't
spent much time in IL2's since before IL2-1.04 or 1.2 IIRC. And I've seen some whopping
big holes in my wings before, but each graphic is per plane model, no?

I'm not thinking about the aerodynamics so much as the extra damage beyond the hole
first created. That would be really nice to see. But first we would have to have
a single explosive hit able to create a hole or tear to peel back from? Maybe not.
Maybe just with so much damage in one place the hole is automatic.

Last time I ran gunnery tests with 151/20, I found that I got MUCH better results
with deflection shots hitting the sides and top of the fuselages and oblique on
the wings instead of edgewise. I look at the photo of the damaged wing and wonder
how the shot placed onto that rear edge. And I don't read German so the caption
does me no good at all. Was the wing up as in the picture and the shot made into
the top or bottom surface or was the wing laid flat and the shot made from the rear?

If I could wish one thing for the sim right now it would be a tool where you could
set up two planes with one as the target for the other. The target plane could be
set at any orientation and range. The firing plane could be set for any convergence
and vary the aiming point from target center to anywhere on or close to the target.
And then we could blast away with arcade set on to see as much as we can and show it.
At least that's close to how it's done down at the ordinance yards. But then they
get to measure the results as well.


Neal

faustnik
06-29-2004, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

If I could wish one thing for the sim right now it would be a tool where you could
set up two planes with one as the target for the other. The target plane could be
set at any orientation and range. The firing plane could be set for any convergence
and vary the aiming point from target center to anywhere on or close to the target.
And then we could blast away with arcade set on to see as much as we can and show it.
At least that's close to how it's done down at the ordinance yards. But then they
get to measure the results as well.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a great idea! I'd love to see that.

*****

One item that might be easy to change in the sim is our loadout. If the Minengeschoss rounds are not proving effective in the 1 AP to 3 HE loadout we have now, maybe a 1 AP to 1 HE loadout would be better. Certainly there is historical precident for this loadout option.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
06-29-2004, 01:06 PM
ooo think ive seen that, wingroots i belive.
im wondering if that round was placed in wing and then fired.
if it explodes outside, takes path of least resistance, ie the air around it, if it punctures aircraft, u will have a vent hole...

its hard to say
i wouldnt mind more tracer ammo in the mix tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

JG14_Josf
06-29-2004, 01:39 PM
FMB guntest.rar save as guntest.rar then unpack in IL2 missions directory (http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Guntest.rar)

The above link is the best I could do to post the FMB track files.

If the link is right clicked and if the save as option is selected then the .rar file can be download to desk top if the file name is changed to read 'Guntest.rar'.
If the file is not renamed then it is saved as a web page, at least it went that way when I tried to download it.

Once the file is on desktop it can them be extracted into the IL2 missions derectory. I chose to use this directory:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>C:\Program Files\Ubi Soft\IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles\Missions\Net\coop\2 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once those files are loaded into the missions directory they can be edited with the FMB.

It is possible to change the location and plane type in the FMB so as to set-up a specific gun test.

I used that same FMB mission file linked above to set-up this test:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/acumulative.jpg

The picture above was taken with a different plane set than the plane set that is loaded in the FMB files linked above.

Note: The FMB file linked above has a 109 firing at a P-47. The P-47 in the file linked above will try to take off, that may be fixed by removing the fuel in the target plane in the Full mission builder. The P-47 also rolled down the hill after the gun test began. It is possible to move the planes around to reposition the planes so that they don't roll down the hill.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Tue June 29 2004 at 01:14 PM.]

p1ngu666
06-29-2004, 03:35 PM
www.rarsoft.com (http://www.rarsoft.com) iirec for winrar http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Enofinu
06-29-2004, 04:26 PM
pls mates, dont make this as an flame war or name calling fight. cos u all are good fellas with good thinking capability http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
so, let it be fair without "harassing" other mates who post something what they think :P

Cheers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))

Bastables
06-29-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:
Read the anecdote again, it has an Fw190 expending the last 2 secs of his 2cm ammo with only a few hit, which the American pilot felt through his seat armour connecting. The 190 pilot proceeded to empty the rest of his 7.9mm load into the P47.[\QUOTE]

That was the last plane to attack it, no? The picture and the whole point as if it wasn't
clear enough is that pictures and anecdotes can be brought up to show amazingly damaged
planes that made it back so why not expect that in the sim? Because it's not always or
even usually the case. But OTOH, good shots of shell damage, HOWEVER obtained, should be
proof enough of a norm to expect. Uh-huh.

[QUOTE]Most air forces had decided by the late 1930?s that rifle calibre machine guns were poor aircraft weapons, which is why we have German, Soviet and French/British 2cm cannons.[\QUOTE]

Which still doesn't prove how much damage a 151/20 MG shell *should* do. We've seen how
much one *can* do. Do you know the difference?

[QUOTE]Why you?re introducing an anecdote of how tough late war aircraft are verus 7mm to 8mm machineguns I?ll never know.[\QUOTE]

By now you should, and you should be smart enough to drop the focus on 8mm MG fire. It's
about using pictures and stories of certain events to try and establish those as what we
should expect as average. It don't work that way.

[QUOTE]The hand sized holes are more in line with 2cm AP or even HE-I as opposed to M-Geschoss shell hits.[\QUOTE]

AP with a diameter less than 1" now makes hand sized holes? Are you *absolutely* sure
that 20mm MG shells made 25+cm holes with even 1/3rd of all hits on fighters? I'd like
to see something more full than a picture here and there of a set-up shot. Those tell me
what *can* happen and I think *should* happen in the right circumstances which is reasonable
to expect.

[QUOTE]The pictures are of german testing of new more effective fusizing first used in 2cm cannons shells in late 1941/42. Not propaganda, neat trick trying to discount it though with out actully attempting to read the text.[\QUOTE]

Really? Not propaganda at all? They got the same result from all kinds of angles every
time they tried and here is one picture as proof.

I've already stated that the 151/20's don't seem to be strong as they should be. But that
word is SEEM since I can't say for sure.

The sim is a complex model but it is also CONSISTANT. So if you find an angle or approach
that does not work, it will do so consistantly. Just as the Me323 with the super strong
underframe needed for the model to work on takeoff and landing was used time and time again
as a target from the same angle by people trying to prove another German cannon was being
slighted. Oh sob. Finally the real problem was noted and was there a change or was it
just understood? Now we have something new that does not work as expected. Maybe you can
find a picture of a TEST SHOT FROM THE REAR OF A WING MAKING THE SAME KIND OF HOLE? That
would apply more than the picture shown just as the P-47 with the 8mm bullet holes does not.

My entire arguement is that there seems to be a case but if it is not made right then the
wrong things will be checked if anything gets checked and when the check proves false, the
chances of further looking at are greatly diminished. Coming up with every possible example
and possible answer might be good when hosing down a fire but it don't apply to developing
any kind of code. Following demands with tweaks and quick fixes has not helped this sim.

[QUOTE]In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice story. Gottfried was of course fighting a superior pilot and the circumstances were
such that all else was equal. That proves that the 109's were so much better then, Oleg
should do whatever is needed to make the sim as so. How could so many other pilots not
have seen and understood what Gottfried did? The others are all morons to be sure.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh no I understand exactly what you are doing. You?re equating an outlier of a P47 surviving a battering by mostly 7mm as equal to pictures and statements of German testing and design of a more effective 2cm fuse in the early 1940?s. I?d be more inclined to go with the latter as the mean point of 2cm MG damage as opposed to silly irrelevant anecdotes.


Fist or double fist sized holes are more in line with standard 2cm shell hits from traditional Hispanio AP/HE, ShVAK AP/HE and German AP/HEI shells or shot or even in some cases 2cm MG/FFM shells with the older fusing). Since you?re the one positing that thin walled mine shells are not really any better at causing damage than older shell designs, do prove it. Of course it means that the adoption of every air force post war and present day of MG type shells for air to air work

Again I don?t see the link of describing fist sized holes as obviously caused by 2cm MG shells, this is called a non sequitur or ?it does not follow.? Non-sequiter is a logical fallacy.


The gottrified story/sig is meant to show how silly anecdotal evidence is= there is always an outlier that point?s in the other direction? Or simplified: Just because he beat a spitfire it does not follow that from this single incidence that the G14/AS is utterly superior to the Spitfire.

In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2004, 05:49 AM
&gt;&gt;Originally posted by Bastables:
Oh no I understand exactly what you are doing. You?re equating an outlier of a P47 surviving a battering by mostly 7mm as equal to pictures and statements of German testing and design of a more effective 2cm fuse in the early 1940?s. I?d be more inclined to go with the latter as the mean point of 2cm MG damage as opposed to silly irrelevant anecdotes.

&gt;Then you did not get my point or it seeems to have followed the resoning supplied.

&gt;&gt;Fist or double fist sized holes are more in line with standard 2cm shell hits from traditional Hispanio AP/HE, ShVAK AP/HE and German AP/HEI shells or shot or even in some cases 2cm MG/FFM shells with the older fusing).

&gt;It depends entirely on how and where the hit is made but that would be my guess in a
good situation.

&gt;&gt;Since you?re the one positing that thin walled mine shells are not really any better at causing damage than older shell designs, do prove it.

&gt;Where did I state THAT? Funny, I did state somewhere that I'd expect the big hole in
a best situation and something along the lines of 30cm wide in others but not all where
I now go so far as to say that sometimes even an MG shell should not cause so big of a
hole in the plane. These things are not handgrenades and even poorly placed grendes
don't blow such holes.

&gt;&gt;Of course it means that the adoption of every air force post war and present day of MG type shells for air to air work

&gt;Present day explosive shells go beyond WWII in terms of effect.

&gt;&gt;Again I don?t see the link of describing fist sized holes as obviously caused by 2cm MG shells, this is called a non sequitur or ?it does not follow.? Non-sequiter is a logical fallacy.

&gt;If the shoe fits..... Of course you don't read too well so you just keep ascribing me
as saying those MG rounds are only good for the fist sized hole and I'll keep writing
that the RESULTS VARY.

&gt;&gt;The gottrified story/sig is meant to show how silly anecdotal evidence is= there is always an outlier that point?s in the other direction? Or simplified: Just because he beat a spitfire it does not follow that from this single incidence that the G14/AS is utterly superior to the Spitfire.

&gt;Well it doesn't. And it depends entirely on which model Spitfire as well and to what
attributes you wish to emphasize which in combat depends on much. Utterly superior?
Give me a break! Sounds like it must be better at EVERYTHING and since you don't
specify which Spitfire then I guess that means of any model up to when the G-14 was
used which was the end of the war, or just to when Gottlieb had his epiphany?

&gt;Funny, the story tells me of another fighter pilot who after a vistory, believes
entirely in his plane. There's P-38 pilots who said the same kinds of things. There's
P-47 pilots likewise and SO MANY Mustang pilots that felt that way that a legend has
been built up and echoed by people I'm sure you don't agree with at all.

&gt;Maybe you can understand. Just because in a set test an MG round blew a large hole in
the trailing edge of a wing doesn't mean that's going to happen with every hit at every
angle and range.


Neal

Magister__Ludi
06-30-2004, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

&gt;Maybe you can understand. Just because in a set test an MG round blew a large hole in
the trailing edge of a wing doesn't mean that's going to happen with every hit at every
angle and range.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, it definitelly should. A 20mm M-Geschoss has enough energy to penetrate the thin skin of an aircraft from any angle and any range (even higher than 500m). And once it goes through the skin that's the damage you'll find: a 3 feet diameter hole in the skin and unarmored components (ribs made of steel were blown off without trouble, only the spar survived with a bent).

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

&gt;Maybe you can understand. Just because in a set test an MG round blew a large hole in
the trailing edge of a wing doesn't mean that's going to happen with every hit at every
angle and range.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, it definitelly should. A 20mm M-Geschoss has enough energy to penetrate the thin skin of an aircraft from any angle and any range (even higher than 500m). And once it goes through the skin that's the damage you'll find: a 3 feet diameter hole in the skin and unarmored components (ribs made of steel were blown off without trouble, only the spar survived with a bent).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I do believe that the M-Geschoss seems to be rather under-modelled in terms of damage effect, I would hesitate to say that any HE round would always produce X amount of damage. From what I have read, blast effect is influenced by a wide variety of factors and can be extremely unpredictable. While an AVERAGE degree of damage was to be reasonably expected in a statistical way, the effects of individual hit were almost certainly distributed in a bell curve fashion.

BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Wed June 30 2004 at 07:29 AM.]

Enofinu
06-30-2004, 08:29 AM
Blutarski, remember that same thing applies with AP rounds we shoot, not everytime they hit vital parts/components while hitting the plane, actually in many cases, AP rounds would made only holes on planes skin and nothing more, penetrating hole and exit hole. so ap rouns are modelled wrongly too. i at least wonder why AP round is able to cut wing from the fighter at high deflection shot when using yak9T, i cant believe that i hit the main spar every time.

Blutarski2004
06-30-2004, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
Blutarski, remember that same thing applies with AP rounds we shoot, not everytime they hit vital parts/components while hitting the plane, actually in many cases, AP rounds would made only holes on planes skin and nothing more, penetrating hole and exit hole. so ap rouns are modelled wrongly too. i at least wonder why AP round is able to cut wing from the fighter at high deflection shot when using yak9T, i cant believe that i hit the main spar every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I basically agree with what you say. Although the internal structural scheme used in FB a/c is suited to model AP and frgmentation damage, there does seem to be a certain amount of scripting ivolved as well - i.e., a single bullet in the wingtip of certain a/c seeming to always cause loss of aileron control.

The problem is that, without knowing the assumptions underlying FB weapon effect and damage modelling, it is extremely difficult to make any reliable analysis of what is correct and what is wrong.

BLUTARSKI

SeaFireLIV
06-30-2004, 09:13 AM
Oleg, use the eveidence YOU find from YOUR research.

I have no wish to fly SOMEONE ELSE`s version of the simulation. I don`t want to fly Stiglr`s IL2/Fb, I don`t want to fly Gibbage1`s IL2/FB. I wish to fly the sim as created by whoever made it, in this case Oleg. It is as simple as that.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Yakgirlgo.jpg
Time to Escape!

Want to see more? go here: http://seafire.dreyermachine.com/
(Fantasy sections for mature viewers only).

faustnik
06-30-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Oleg, use the eveidence YOU find from YOUR research.

I have no wish to fly SOMEONE ELSE`s version of the simulation. I don`t want to fly Stiglr`s IL2/Fb, I don`t want to fly Gibbage1`s IL2/FB. I wish to fly the sim as created by whoever made it, in this case Oleg. It is as simple as that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Seafire,

Nobody here is trying to force their opinion on Oleg. We simply found an issue that we think should be looked at and pointed it out after carefully testing it. Your post is completely out of place. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

JG53Frankyboy
06-30-2004, 10:49 AM
well , i also think that the maddox team achived a lot of good informations from community members to get the game "straight" , isnt it ?
the last i can remember:
- changing from 80 to 65 rounds in mk108 K4/G10/G14
- 60rounds instead of 125 in 20mm A6M2
- no highblower in A6M2
- 300rpg in G.50
-Hurribomber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
- straight firing BK3.7 in Bf110
-wrong supercharger settings in P-51 release
and im sure there a A LOT more !

and sometimes, yes, the crowd is to loud http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
06-30-2004, 11:25 AM
If blast effect is not modeled then the game is not accurate.

Blast effect is what made thin walled high explosive rounds effective.

If that is the truth then why would it matter who delivered it?

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2004, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
Blutarski, remember that same thing applies with AP rounds we shoot, not everytime they hit vital parts/components while hitting the plane, actually in many cases, AP rounds would made only holes on planes skin and nothing more, penetrating hole and exit hole. so ap rouns are modelled wrongly too. i at least wonder why AP round is able to cut wing from the fighter at high deflection shot when using yak9T, i cant believe that i hit the main spar every time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right.

Many times we've seen 3D interiors of IL2 and it seems like the path of bullets, etc,
should be traceable as to what gets hit. I am seriously wondering though if the AI
has simplified DM as well as FM and maybe the problem is there, that the AI DM's need
looking at as opposed to player DM's. Wellllll, in some things the player DM's have
places like 190 gunsights were (I read Ta still has that?), seems far too easy to hit
a critical part.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

&gt;Maybe you can understand. Just because in a set test an MG round blew a large hole in
the trailing edge of a wing doesn't mean that's going to happen with every hit at every
angle and range.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, it definitelly should. A 20mm M-Geschoss has enough energy to penetrate the thin skin of an aircraft from any angle and any range (even higher than 500m). And once it goes through the skin that's the damage you'll find: a 3 feet diameter hole in the skin and unarmored components (ribs made of steel were blown off without trouble, only the spar survived with a bent).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Main Spar?

I look at that picture and look and wonder what wing from what plane that is?
Leading edge is angled back and then curves strongly to the tip and the trailing
edge is straight and those 2 sticks on the right are from a frame used to hold
teh wing up? Machineguns wouldn't be so far out and pointing backwards would
they? Because the main spar is up front on the wing and the hole is up at the
top part of the picture which looks a LOT like the trailing edge of a wing like
P-47 perhaps. Looks almost like a flap and surrounding has been blown off. I
also see 2 ribs clearly and the shadows of the crossmembers.

.........................
I'd say they should just look to see if any effect is working in the code and
then if it is, please check it.


Neal

faustnik
06-30-2004, 01:51 PM
One thing that I have wondered about is the effects of damage to an aircrafts outer skin. I'm sure HE rounds would have much more effect on this outer skin than anything else. Once the skin is ripped up wouldn't the extreme force of 300 mph winds tear much of the skin away, like a tin shed in a hurricane? The loss of lift effect with this type of wing hit is modeled in the sim. Shouldn't a round like the 20mm Minengeschloss cause this type of damage very easily?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/B17tailhits.jpg

In this picture you can see that blast effects (from whatever hit this bomber) tore off more skin than it destroyed structure on the rudder.


****************
After today's unfortunate posting by Oleg, I almost feel we need a disclaimer on this thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This thread is in no way intended to force or coerce the developers of this sim into altering any aspect of the sim. Opinions contained in this thread are intended for examination by the developers as a source of possible ideas for improving the simulation only.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Wed June 30 2004 at 01:29 PM.]

Gibbage1
06-30-2004, 03:18 PM
Im not trying to make it Gibbages IL2. Oleg is trying to make the most realistic flight sim ever, and we are trying to help him make it historically realisitic. The .50 cal M2 having more spread then a shotgun is NOT historically realistic. It was not the worst HMG in WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Oleg, use the eveidence YOU find from YOUR research.

I have no wish to fly SOMEONE ELSE`s version of the simulation. I don`t want to fly Stiglr`s IL2/Fb, I don`t want to fly Gibbage1`s IL2/FB. I wish to fly the sim as created by whoever made it, in this case Oleg. It is as simple as that.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Yakgirlgo.jpg
Time to Escape!

Want to see more? go here: http://seafire.dreyermachine.com/
(Fantasy sections for mature viewers only).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

XyZspineZyX
06-30-2004, 03:44 PM
SeaFire only likes the status quo because it favors HIS planes and the side HE wants to win. It's pretty simple.

Anything else that goes contrary to that kind of thinking, whether correct or not, is just not open for discussion.

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2004, 07:36 PM
Faustnik! The whole rear gunners position is about gone! Is that white framework the guy
on the right has his hand on, is that maybe for mounting the gun?

That damage could have come from many things or even multiple things. Those bombers had to
fly a gauntlet run and some very large shells got lofted at them. Flak so thick you could
walk on it? There was 88mm and 128mm (88 Flak 37 and 128 Flak 40) that I know of.

Found a neat site for German vehicle and guns pics. It's got data but how accurate I can't
say. The gun tables are neat at least but it's land based, an ASL site. And I haven't
looked at the other sides yet. Base page is www.wwiivehicles.com (http://www.wwiivehicles.com). As I write, some nice
pics there.


Neal

faustnik
06-30-2004, 09:23 PM
Neal,

Yeah it could have been anything, fighter or AA, maybe even a rocket. I just wanted to point out how the explosice effect tore up the skin more than the framework.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2004, 11:47 PM
Oh yeah. And the wind effect. Although B-17's didn't make 300mph, did they?
So it doesn't take as much to peel and tear. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also the air up high
is thinner.

It's not just the strength of the skin but how it's attached, method and if say
rivets then how close. I bet that fighter skins were made fast better and were
stronger just because of the speed and stresses the fighters do as opposed to
bombers, but maybe bomber skins were not weaker considering flak. I worked in a
precision sheet metal shop 20-25 years ago with engineers who did aircraft. Lou
prost, who I still know worked for Curtiss-Wright making planes before he signed
up. He and Dave, the other engineer talked of at least civ planes of the time
having .020" to .030" aluminum skins and a lot of the internals the same. That's
not very thick but you put a few bends in it and tie some parts together, it gets
very stiff and amazingly strong. One really fast shock in the right way though,
and those fasteners will shear. It's like a martial arts blow. Flat thin aluminum
does not have a lot of strength by itself.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
06-30-2004, 11:48 PM
After the latest from Oleg, does anyone feel they have enough data to get a change?


Neal

faustnik
07-01-2004, 09:30 AM
I do think the tracks that I sent Oleg were good enough to show the different effects of Mg151/20 and the 20mm Hispano in the sim. As far as if it is correct or not, that's up to Oleg.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
07-01-2004, 09:38 AM
We can hope so.

Jippo01
07-01-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Really? Main Spar?

I look at that picture and look and wonder what wing from what plane that is?
Leading edge is angled back and then curves strongly to the tip and the trailing
edge is straight and those 2 sticks on the right are from a frame used to hold
teh wing up? Machineguns wouldn't be so far out and pointing backwards would
they? Because the main spar is up front on the wing and the hole is up at the
top part of the picture which looks a LOT like the trailing edge of a wing like
P-47 perhaps. Looks almost like a flap and surrounding has been blown off. I
also see 2 ribs clearly and the shadows of the crossmembers.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a He-111 elevator plane, isn't it. Not a wing at all.

But big hole no matter what it is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)