PDA

View Full Version : FYI: some FB weapons tests



JtD
12-19-2003, 05:28 AM
Hi!

I have done some testing with basically all guns that we can fire in FB.

You can look it up here:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html

There are some interesting results. If you have any questions, remarks or comments to make, please do so.

JtD
12-19-2003, 05:28 AM
Hi!

I have done some testing with basically all guns that we can fire in FB.

You can look it up here:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html

There are some interesting results. If you have any questions, remarks or comments to make, please do so.

michapma
12-19-2003, 05:41 AM
This is a fantastic work. Thank you very much for the time invested! Good stuff.

Mike

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

tenmmike
12-19-2003, 06:10 AM
that is outatanding work sir!!..NOTE i havent completly looked throug your entire post just yet. this week i picked up FLYING GUNS WW2 development of aircraft guns.ammunition and installations 1933-1945..it just out a few months .and is considerd the definitive work of its kind..if you have any questions this book may answere id be glad to assist also i know that your doing a FB weapon review but ill help on the rl side if i can

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

otipher
12-19-2003, 06:29 AM
Very impressive suite of tests. I doubt 1C did such detailed systematic testing (otherwise why would the discrepancies uncovered be in FB)?

I'm always torn between the "but its just a game" and the "its a simulation" camps. However, Oleg seems to have made it his mission to mirror historical fact as closely as possible, and in that spirit this kind of systematic testing during development is essential.

Good job 1C for in general providing such an accurate simulation, but how about going the extra distance, and addressing or at least responding to some of the issues raised in these test results?

Otipher

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

I have done some testing with basically all guns that we can fire in FB.

You can look it up here:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fbg/weapons.html

There are some interesting results. If you have any questions, remarks or comments to make, please do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
12-19-2003, 07:12 AM
So stuff that needs to be fixed it seems are a greater range for the Hispano MK II but with a little less explosive power (maybe they went a few points over to try and model the kinetic power), fix the UBS so that its range and hitting power are a little more accurate, and tighten up the FW190's so that they aren't as fragile as at present. It seems they tried to fix the .50 cal immunity and killed the rest of the plane too...

And the Yak's aren't impossible to kill like I had been saying all along.

Thanks for the systematic testing procedure. May lay to rest a few of complaints on here. On the other hand, some will never listen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg

Hristo_
12-19-2003, 10:18 AM
This post is far too important to be here. It belongs to ORR.

JtD
12-19-2003, 12:54 PM
I am glad you like it. :-)

Does anyone know what kind of ammunition the UB guns used?

I still don't know.

georgeo76
12-19-2003, 12:59 PM
Awesome work! thanks!

http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/alex.jpg
"Oh bliss, bliss and heaven. Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh. It was like a bird of rarest spun heaven metal, or like silvery wine flowing in a space ship, gravity all nonsense now. As I slooshied I knew such lovely pictures."
Fiend's Wings (http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend)

DONB3397
12-19-2003, 01:44 PM
Nice work and valuable. Thanks for the effort. I agree with your conclusion that the Brownings are 'undermodeled.'

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!

clint-ruin
12-19-2003, 02:17 PM
Once again, excellent work JtD.

On the hitting power tests - I'm not sure if you've given this a try, but I found that parking a fighter on an airfield nose up, with a bomber parked right in front of it to be the best way to test weapons. I haven't tried using the Stuka wingtip as you have so I don't know how it compares. Different weapons tend to have differing hitting powers depending on the surface they hit, how well they can get to the internals, the splash pattern of the fragments of canon rounds, etc, from my experience. The 15mm F2's cannon makes a poor showing in testing but from experience it's quite a deadly weapon if it's given an internal component to eat. Here's a snap I took earlier of a MK108 hit:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/mk108disperse.jpg
Things like that are, I think, more likely to leave someone with a bad impression of the FB gun/damage model than anything else. Without arcade mode on it's hard to tell what's happening sometimes. With arcade mode on it makes a bit more sense - the shells fuse seems to explode it a second after having contacted the tailplane. Which as far as I can tell is entirely the right behaviour for the shell, but it would certainly look weird unless you knew what was going on under the surface. I think you might have been running into something similar with the wingtip power tests - the very low numbers would quite possibly be the ones where a round managed to break through the wing and carry on through the supporting spar, the high numbers are likely to be the ones where the wing had to be taken off under sheer force of fire. However since you got rid of those from the final numbers it probably balances out in the end.

Again, thanks for running so many tests and putting them into a form that's useful. Hopefully Oleg can incorporate some of the suggested adjustment work into the paid addon, a lot of the weapons haven't seemed to be adjusted much since the original Il2.

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

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Fri December 19 2003 at 01:30 PM.]

SKULLS_LZ
12-19-2003, 02:43 PM
This is a brilliant study JtD, thanks for sharing this. I do have a question about cannon range, in regards to Hispanos. I read that you are measuring range based on where exactly the tracers disappeared; I wonder if you confirmed that the Hispanos are actually incapable of hitting something past .90 Km? I'm thinking *maybe* the tracer propellant is actually modelled separately from the actual projectile, hence the projectile may continue travelling after the tracer is no longer burning? Maybe just wishful thinking on my part http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The .90 limit is very surprising in light of my experience with this weapon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my "Free Wing Removal" program. Offer valid while my ammo supplies last.

Vipez-
12-19-2003, 03:32 PM
Excelent research.. i kinda have same conclusions as you did. Good work

-- Vipez

LeadSpitter_
12-19-2003, 06:16 PM
did you try these tests online or offline, p51d p47 and p40s wings come of from 1 108 middle wing hit or wingroot hit for me everytime, even the green shvaks rip them off and usually wing or tail hits deflect into the engine of the p51d and kill it instantly. Yaks or la7s which take a couple of 108 cannon hits which is completley unrealistic. and take more damage then 190s and p47s which is completely wrong, the 190 and p47 should not have increased damage models as a solution to the problem but the yak and la7 should have a weaker damage model. But its olegs sim hes gunna do what he wants unrealistic or not.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt

p1ngu666
12-19-2003, 07:46 PM
wow, awsome work dude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
vipez, i dunno how u decide effective range, but guns can fire a long way.
ww1 guns had a range of 3miles :O
surprisinglingly range has got less and less, genrally

Jaws2002
12-20-2003, 01:07 AM
Fantastic work JtD. Finally we have something to show about the 12.7mm Russian MG.From the numbers I see there, looks like the bullets accelerate between 200m and 500m like a rocket.The range of this guns is wayyyyyy over all similar caliber guns. Great job, thanks.

tenmmike
12-20-2003, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
wow, awsome work dude http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
vipez, i dunno how u decide effective range, but guns can fire a long way.
ww1 guns had a range of 3miles :O
surprisinglingly range has got less and less, genrally<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> p1ngu666
maximune rang has no relevence to max effective range..to think a ww1 lewis gun is more effective the a .50 m2 is ludicrus.......or i misinterpeted your statment

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

JtD
12-20-2003, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>clint-ruin wrote:

On the hitting power tests - I'm not sure if you've given this a try, but I found that parking a fighter on an airfield nose up, with a bomber parked right in front of it to be the best way to test weapons. I haven't tried using the Stuka wingtip as you have so I don't know how it compares. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be a good idea. Easy setup, no aiming. :-) On the other hand I found bombers to have very complex damage models, I have been trying to shoot off the wingtip of a B-17. Once I needed 1 hit with MK 108, the other time it were 60 (or so). It seemed to depend a lot on critical hits and therefore very random, while the JU-87's wingtip is largely immune to critical hits, but seems to have accumulated damage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> clint_ruin wrote:

Different weapons tend to have differing hitting powers depending on the surface they hit, how well they can get to the internals, the splash pattern of the fragments of canon rounds, etc, from my experience.
*cut a bit*
I think you might have been running into something similar with the wingtip power tests
the very low numbers would quite possibly be the ones where a round managed to break
through the wing and carry on through the supporting spar, the high numbers
are likely to be the ones where the wing had to be taken off under sheer force of fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The damage model is really complex, I agree. But luckily it seems to have very little effect on the wingtip, where I think "the sheer force of fire" is always the matter. No internal components (wing spar) to hit there.

Imho the difference comes from the different shell typs, tracers won't do much, AP goes through, HE works best. (Just my opinion, based on nothing.) Also, the elevator is a seperat "hit zone" and sometimes absorbs the damage, esp. when firing small rounds.
I don't know what's wrong with me, but I appear to have thrown away the raw data when I cleaned up my room the other day (sheet of paper, full on both sides - goes to the bin). :-( So I have done the same test again with a ShVAK of a YAK 3, giving the cannon a damage value of 167. (169 in the original test, very good correspondance.)
The actual numbers of hits were: 6-8-8-5-4-6-7-3-7-6-6-5. I have to take out an 8 and the 3, giving it a hit total of 60, an average of 6.0. All accepted numbers are within +/- 33% of that average, which is quite okay. No criticals/internals in the Ju's wingtip.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>SKULLS_LZ wrote:

I do have a question about cannon range, in regards to Hispanos. I read that you are measuring range based on where exactly the tracers disappeared; I wonder if you confirmed that the Hispanos are actually incapable of hitting something past .90 Km? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, kind of.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> SKULLS_LZ wrote:

I'm thinking *maybe* the tracer propellant is actually modelled separately from the actual projectile, hence the projectile may continue travelling after the tracer is no longer burning?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't have this idea while I tested, but it was brought to my attention in the German forum already. So I did a few quick tests, not with all weapons and not very precisely. I found that:
- Tracer rounds completely disappear when the graphically disappear. There is no "burn out".
- Guns with mixed ammunition sometimes have rounds that go further than the tracer. This is true for MK 108, for example. Every second round exceeds one km.
- I wasn't able to hit the ground with Hispano from 1 km altitude firing down, so I guess all of it's shells disappear at 900 meters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LeadSpitter_ wrote:

did you try these tests online or offline
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My damage tests were online, as were most other tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> LeadSpitter_wrote:

p51d p47 and p40s wings come of from 1 108 middle wing hit or wingroot hit for me everytime<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly what a MK 108 should do to a fighter wing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LeadSpitter wrote:

even the green shvaks rip them off<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think a single ShKAS or ShVAK hit will rip off an undamaged wing...maybe I test it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>LeadSpitter wrote:

and usually wing or tail hits deflect into the engine of the p51d and kill it instantly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my test a dead engine did not count as kill. I had P-51 loose there engine maybe 3 times during my tests, but this wouldn't keep me from blowing it up. The P-51 has a vulnerable engine and so has the Bf 109 and the IL-2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> LeadSpitter wrote:

Yaks or la7s which take a couple of 108 cannon hits which is completley unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This only happens on odd occasions. (take a look at clint_ruin's picture) I have flown with MK 108 and usually a hit meant a kill, also with Yak's and La's. Imho the Yak is very much where it should be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> LeadsSpitter wrote:

and take more damage then 190s and p47s which is completely wrong<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my test the P-47 beat them all. My online impression supports that result. I am not good in La-5F oder P-47D-27 (which I fly most of each family), but usually I survive in P-47 much longer than in La-5F.

[This message was edited by JtD on Sat December 20 2003 at 04:57 AM.]

F19_Ob
12-20-2003, 09:37 AM
Thnx for making the effort to do these lists.
with my own comparisons i got some answers on yak3 guns...thnx again

Josf_JG14
12-20-2003, 12:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=prply&s=400102&f=23110283&m=97510506&x_popup

The above web page is a source for information on the subject of WWII weapons.

P.S. As far as I know bullets do not continue to accelerate after they leave the gun barrel.

UBS (s) 2.20 755 822 746
UBK 2.20 748 828 730

WUAF_Badsight
12-20-2003, 01:35 PM
OMG , what a lot of testing ... you deserve a pat on the back for this dude

veru informative

Hristo_
12-20-2003, 06:07 PM
From shooter's point of view...Yaks and Lavochkins DO survive 30 mm hits. And quite regularly, I might add.

JtD
12-21-2003, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Josf_JG14:

P.S. As far as I know bullets do not continue to accelerate after they leave the gun barrel.

UBS (s) 2.20 755 822 746
UBK 2.20 748 828 730<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely correct. Like I said on the page, this is due to timing errors. The first number is too low, basically with every gun. This is one reason why you should only look at relative performance. I made that mistake with every gun and it kind of evens out.

SkyChimp
12-21-2003, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I am glad you like it. :-)

Does anyone know what kind of ammunition the UB guns used?

I still don't know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Soviet UB(S) fired the 12.7 x 108. It fired API rounds. The gun weighed 52kg. Had a cyclic rate of fire of 1,050 rpm (800 rpm when synchronized). Had a muzzle velocity of 860m/s. Muzzle energy of 19,200 joules.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ATR1.jpg

The 12.7x108 is the 7th from the left. For comparison, the .50 BMG is the one all the way to the right.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

JG14_Josf
12-21-2003, 09:41 AM
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

JTD,

The above web page is a source for WWII weapon information. The author has done a lot of research.

Thanks for posting your work.

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

Above is another kind of test.

How about a challenge?

Post a picture of a plane that survives the most fire power?

I've seen a P-51 take 3 30mm hits but until now I have not recorded on-line tracks.

Jippo01
12-21-2003, 02:03 PM
Very interesting. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

Ps. about UBS rounds:

AP-t (in Skychimps picture) is a steel core brass coated round of about 50g weight. It has slightly more power than .50 BMG on the M2, but basically is very comparable.

Here are two fired 12.7x108 bullets compared to cm ruler and a 9mm(9x19) handgun round:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/127.jpg

[This message was edited by Jippo01 on Sun December 21 2003 at 01:14 PM.]

kyrule2
12-21-2003, 03:18 PM
Thanks for the testing, well done. And THANKS for proving that the 190 is too fragile now. Could you please post this in ORR room so we can keep it at the top.

Thanks again.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-21-2003, 03:37 PM
Altough these tests are a little off from my personal combat experience (virtual, not in real-life! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) But, clearly alot of work went into this and I think you did a great job!!

Together with the load-out guide on mudmovers.com, this is what we need to determine the personal plane that will suit us most.

Jippo01
12-22-2003, 11:18 AM
Bump for JTD


-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)

JtD
12-22-2003, 01:06 PM
Thank you for the info on UB rounds. Helps me a lot.

Regarding DM of Yak's: They will indeed survive MK 108 rounds, however, a P-47 survives more. I did put two rounds into a P-47 wing root and it kept flying, I could only manage one with Yaks. They lost the wing after the second hit (to the same wing root).

Thx for the link JG14_Josf, I already had a look. This site indeed gives you a good overview.

Jippo01
12-22-2003, 01:30 PM
Just crossed to my mind:

Accuracy wise at least the Russian 7.62mm AP ammunition has noticeably weaker accuracy than for example Finnish FMJ rounds. They have problems with quality in terms of the steel core being not perfectly centered in the bullet. This of course introduces instability to the flight path and reduces accuracy.

And I doubt that the quality control in Russia 1943 was not at least better than what it is today! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Russian weapons shouldn't be any more accurate than their counter parts. Maybe it should even be the other way round?!?


-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)

Hristo_
12-22-2003, 01:32 PM
bump

and a suggestion to mods to move this thread to ORR...thanks

SKULLS_LZ
12-22-2003, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKULLS_LZ wrote:

I do have a question about cannon range, in regards to Hispanos. I read that you are measuring range based on where exactly the tracers disappeared; I wonder if you confirmed that the Hispanos are actually incapable of hitting something past .90 Km?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, kind of.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SKULLS_LZ wrote:

I'm thinking *maybe* the tracer propellant is actually modelled separately from the actual projectile, hence the projectile may continue travelling after the tracer is no longer burning?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I didn't have this idea while I tested, but it was brought to my attention in the German forum already. So I did a few quick tests, not with all weapons and not very precisely. I found that:
- Tracer rounds completely disappear when the graphically disappear. There is no "burn out".
- Guns with mixed ammunition sometimes have rounds that go further than the tracer. This is true for MK 108, for example. Every second round exceeds one km.
- I wasn't able to hit the ground with Hispano from 1 km altitude firing down, so I guess all of it's shells disappear at 900 meters.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks again JtD. I have myself tested in QMB, and it appears you are exactly correct that the Hispano 20mm "ceases to exist" at exactly 900 meters. Although this is certainly a gross and inexplicable inaccuracy, I imagine there may be a benefit regarding frame-rates, i.e. fewer projectiles in the air = less CPU load. As someone who often flies the Hurri IIc, the problem to me is only academic, since with the limited ammo load, I would never attempt to fire at a target beyond 750 meters, usually I hold off until within 400.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my "Free Wing Removal" program. Offer valid while my ammo supplies last.

faustnik
12-22-2003, 01:55 PM
Interesting tests JTD. The damage tests are incredibly different from my experience in FB. Maybe it's just a difference in aiming points???

One of the biggest mysteries for me in IL-2/FB is the accuracy and power of the ShKAS. IF the ShKAS was able to achieve 1800rpm, I would not expect it to be very accurate at that ROF. I would also expect a very short barrel life with rapid degredation leading to reduced accuracy and muzzle volocity.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Wetwilly87
12-22-2003, 01:59 PM
Great work man, ive been complaning that the MG17's are just to weak, im mean come on its on early German planes and without cannons your plane is a pea shooter to planes with heavy mg's and better mg's.

http://www.kitreview.com/reviews/images/re2005bookreviewbg_1.jpg "The beautiful fighter of the war"

tenmmike
12-23-2003, 01:18 AM
well it was well known that the early 109 were undergunned ..2 mg's ? hell thats ww1

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991