PDA

View Full Version : An idea for future + MG151/20



Pages : [1] 2

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 03:58 AM
An idea:

I mostly fly online wars, some wars like Bellum or VOW give detailed statistics about virtual pilot's gunnery (rounds fired, hits, hit ratio).
After I shoot down an opponent I usually check user stat myself. Unfortunatelly user stat command does not count MG and cannon hits distinctly.

I think, it would be a nice idea in Your future sims Mr. Maddox to include more detailed logging of damage inflicted. We have the "arcade" mode which gives us visual clues on the position of round strikes, but it would be nice if we could have a distinction between round types.


Please read the whole text, I promise this is not a "whine" thread.

I feel that one weapon in particular is underperforming. Yes it's the MG151/20.
What makes me say that:

I feel that it should not take 80 hits (by both 20mm and 7.9) to down a Lagg-3 while on the other hand it usualy takes 15 or less hits by similar weapons in the VVS/Allied inventory to down a german plane. My personal record is 3 FW-190 online with 16 hits in a Spitfire MkIX. So 16 hits total, .50cal and 20mm hispano were anough to kill supposedly very tough aircrafts (one of them broke even in half!?!), on the other hand MG151/20 does have a nice eye candy effect but causes very little damage.

As it was said once before there are probably 2 reasons for this:

1) Allied aircrafts are tougher(or german weaker)?: I personally don't see why would that be the case, all fighter ac had similar armor (those that had it), most had self-sealing fuel tanks later in the war and similar construction. OK, some aircrafts like P-47 had air cooled engine which makes it less prone to catastrophic engine failure since there is no cooling system to destroy. Again differences, IMHO, are much more noticable then they should be. I just do not understand why a single .50 cal from 400m range can destroy 109 engine while on the other hand a 20mm MG151/20 HE shell can not destroy LaGG-3 engine (inline liquid cooled). Does not make sense.

2) Allied cannons are stronger?: While allied cannons do in general have better ballistic parameters and ROF, the differencs is not that drastic. Further more it was said that explosive compound used in german HE shells was more efficient, thus making up for less amount of explosive used. The data I read states that 1g of that stuff was equivalent to 1,4g of TNT. Having that in mind, the killing power of a single german and allied HE shell should be very similar. It is not. A member of this community tested the effect of various cannon rounds and came up with a difference of factor 2+ between MG151/20 and hispano.

I'm not getting into "VVS conspiracy" thing at all, but I do believe that this matter should be looked into. I remember the previous FB versions where MG151/20 was performing "as one would expect" and more or less in sync to historical stats (LW records state 5 20mm shells was average needed to down a single engined fighter).

to conclude:


Mr. Maddox I would kindly ask You if You could spare a bit of development time to look into the MG151/20 issue, just add it to the task list, as a sign of good faith to your loyal customers and fans that like to fly all kinds of aircrafts including german ones.

Regards,
15/JG52_Riddler, 15(Croat.)/JG52

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 03:58 AM
An idea:

I mostly fly online wars, some wars like Bellum or VOW give detailed statistics about virtual pilot's gunnery (rounds fired, hits, hit ratio).
After I shoot down an opponent I usually check user stat myself. Unfortunatelly user stat command does not count MG and cannon hits distinctly.

I think, it would be a nice idea in Your future sims Mr. Maddox to include more detailed logging of damage inflicted. We have the "arcade" mode which gives us visual clues on the position of round strikes, but it would be nice if we could have a distinction between round types.


Please read the whole text, I promise this is not a "whine" thread.

I feel that one weapon in particular is underperforming. Yes it's the MG151/20.
What makes me say that:

I feel that it should not take 80 hits (by both 20mm and 7.9) to down a Lagg-3 while on the other hand it usualy takes 15 or less hits by similar weapons in the VVS/Allied inventory to down a german plane. My personal record is 3 FW-190 online with 16 hits in a Spitfire MkIX. So 16 hits total, .50cal and 20mm hispano were anough to kill supposedly very tough aircrafts (one of them broke even in half!?!), on the other hand MG151/20 does have a nice eye candy effect but causes very little damage.

As it was said once before there are probably 2 reasons for this:

1) Allied aircrafts are tougher(or german weaker)?: I personally don't see why would that be the case, all fighter ac had similar armor (those that had it), most had self-sealing fuel tanks later in the war and similar construction. OK, some aircrafts like P-47 had air cooled engine which makes it less prone to catastrophic engine failure since there is no cooling system to destroy. Again differences, IMHO, are much more noticable then they should be. I just do not understand why a single .50 cal from 400m range can destroy 109 engine while on the other hand a 20mm MG151/20 HE shell can not destroy LaGG-3 engine (inline liquid cooled). Does not make sense.

2) Allied cannons are stronger?: While allied cannons do in general have better ballistic parameters and ROF, the differencs is not that drastic. Further more it was said that explosive compound used in german HE shells was more efficient, thus making up for less amount of explosive used. The data I read states that 1g of that stuff was equivalent to 1,4g of TNT. Having that in mind, the killing power of a single german and allied HE shell should be very similar. It is not. A member of this community tested the effect of various cannon rounds and came up with a difference of factor 2+ between MG151/20 and hispano.

I'm not getting into "VVS conspiracy" thing at all, but I do believe that this matter should be looked into. I remember the previous FB versions where MG151/20 was performing "as one would expect" and more or less in sync to historical stats (LW records state 5 20mm shells was average needed to down a single engined fighter).

to conclude:


Mr. Maddox I would kindly ask You if You could spare a bit of development time to look into the MG151/20 issue, just add it to the task list, as a sign of good faith to your loyal customers and fans that like to fly all kinds of aircrafts including german ones.

Regards,
15/JG52_Riddler, 15(Croat.)/JG52

_Neveraine_
10-11-2004, 06:06 AM
I agree on both points however more concrete 'evidence' needs to be provided on the mg151/20.

Keep it civil

F19_Ob
10-11-2004, 06:19 AM
I'm sorry anarchy52 but I have to disagree with u on the MG151/20 being weak.

I flew the 109 only with my wingmate until some time ago and I often tested the effect of a couple of rounds and I tried to make it with two bops, but that sometimes is hard to do online and often 3 or 4 goes off.
Very often I have downed allied planes with that ammount of cannonshells.

In arcade mode u can see that there are atleast two types of MG151/20 cannon effects. the first is the explosive and the other is a solid wich go through the plane destroying everything in its path( the engine). Every third or fourth seems to be a solid although it has a blast on impact.
The reason for why it sometimes takes more rounds is because of the edgehits on elevator, fin and wings. What hapens is that the round explode on an edge on impact but the shrapnel may not hit a single vital spot because most of it goes off outside the plane.
So I belive strongly that these edgehits is what messes it up.

A while back I wrote a post here about "Visual and actual" damage and that there is extensive damage that wont show on the skin and I tested all guns in the game and also how it was to be in a plane taking hits from them.
In my opinion the most effective cannon is the mk108 the german 30mm wich often needs only one hit to kill or cripple a plane out of fighting condition. I put many planes down with single bops with the cannon only, especially on bounces
where I avoided possible edgehits by coming up from behind and below. I also tested in many ac how it was to be hit by one bop and the majority took my controlls or killed me although the skindamage not always showed severe damage.
Many hundred sorties went into this.....(Yes I had the time and it was fun )

----------------------------------------------

That test was in a way my farewel to the 109 and I now have great mix of new favorites, but no longer that top skill u get from flying one plane only....

Vipez-
10-11-2004, 06:21 AM
all the 'evidence' is that you fly online for 15 mins and try first hispano / shvak on german planes, then mg151/20.. the difference is quite huge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

karost
10-11-2004, 06:56 AM
Me too.

in game I got one "evidence" that is MG151/20 in IL2 Sturmovik v 1.2 ..! where is data come from to model this gun , compare to FB/AEP, which one correct which one "wrong" ?


now MG151/20 become a Forgotten gun in FB/AEP , I don't like to use MK-108 to shoot P-51 ,P-47 but we have no choice ,I feel suffer and fun at the same time when playing online .

Regards,

Karost

F19_Ob
10-11-2004, 07:02 AM
sorry vipez but I tested them too.

It greatly depends where U hit, and U can only get arcademode to show the hits offline.
I made atleast some 40 or many more quick sorties on all weapons ( about 2-4mins or so each) where I tried to hit on aproximately same spots and sometimes I had to do many more. (very difficult).

I dont want to sound like I know it all...but I did test them as detailed as I could...... and I used to be an LW fighterjock U know.
I cant ofcourse compare them with the real stuff but its absolutely possible to compare the ones in FB with eachother.
The greatest problem is to get the hits on about the same places with different weapons but I found out that about 40 to 60 sorties may do the job.
Another problem is that all planes "feel" different and it takes time before u shoot aswell as with your favorite.

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
I'm sorry anarchy52 but I have to disagree with u on the MG151/20 being weak.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If this is a joke, it's not funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The reason for why it sometimes takes more rounds is because of the edgehits on elevator, fin and wings. What hapens is that the round explode on an edge on impact but the shrapnel may not hit a single vital spot because most of it goes off outside the plane.
So I belive strongly that these edgehits is what messes it up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, why should only MG151/20 be affected by what you call "edge hits"?
I certainly didn't notice any other cannons having the same problem.
And I'm not talking about "sometimes", I'm talking of "usually". I wouldn't mind if "sometimes" it takes a lot of hits to down a fighter.

Anyway, after testing offline in arcade mode and reviewing online tracks, I must say that it is certainly not the "edge hits".
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
A while back I wrote a post here about "Visual and actual" damage and that there is extensive damage that wont show on the skin and I tested all guns in the game and also how it was to be in a plane taking hits from them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do not think that visual damage is relevant at all at estimating real damage inflicted.

DM is another issue and might be also connected to perception of MG151/20 ineffectiveness. For example: While flying P-51 or P-47 I've experienced that even after taking "massive" damage they still remained controlable unlike let's say FW190 which is almost unflyable after as little as 4-5 .50 cal hits in the wing. I'm not complaining or asking for anything here, I'm just stating what I experienced.

DMs in FB have always been sort of a black magic thing and I've just about lost all hope that the numerous DM issues wil ever be solved (courious bugs like sight falling off when aircraft is hit in the wing, or a round entering the low fuselage, passing through the pilot armor, seat AND PILOT and destroying the engine).
We were promised new advanced DM for BoB. We shall see.

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
Me too.

in game I got one "evidence" that is MG151/20 in IL2 Sturmovik v 1.2 ..! where is data come from to model this gun , compare to FB/AEP, which one correct which one "wrong" ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agree 100%. MG151/20 used to be a VERY different weapon.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 07:38 AM
I have to agree here. The reason I don't fly the Dora is because of the anemic 151/20. Now if that same Dora had two 20mm's that hit like Hispanos that would be a much different story. I know the Hispano and ShVak were superior in some respects, but as someone else said the difference in-game seems to be too much. I can't remember what version it was but I think it was in 1.22 that the 151/20 was more effective and almost on par with the other 20mm's. Just my opinion, but I really miss the 151/20 we had before http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. IIRC even Gibbage said it is really weak.

F19_Ob
10-11-2004, 08:18 AM
Sorry to be a pain in the but mates. I dont mean to be rude or bulsh*t you.

When I made this test I was still very much biased towards the LW planes. One of the reasons why I bothered to put so many weeks (yes weeks) into this was also that I thought the german guns was not so good compared to many of the allied planes (I can admit that now)
My own test proved me wrong.

The visible damage Have infact one strong psychological effect. Too little of it makes u belive that u have inflicted less actual damage than u infact have. If u dont sit in the plane taking damage u cant see this. This part was very important in my test and I sat in many allied planes taking hits from the german cannons.

I tested the guns in several ways.
One way to increase the ammount of similar hits was to set up five friendly LaGG3 (for example) and I myself flew a 109.
Since the planes were now lined up I could determine the same range and angle for every shot but even then I needed atleast 40 sorties to get enough similar hits to be able to make a reasonable comparisons.

Now...Imagine the time it will take to do this with 20 planes on various target planes.
U cant do this in a couple of days...it takes weeks.
Still think I'm Bullsh*tting you?

I did this mainly for my self but also maybe because I'm a bit odd and really enjoy this kind of investigations (it reminds me of being able to work again and that makes me happy)

I wont keep on trying to convince anyone but ask yourselves if U really have tested the planes that u feel can take so much damage as detailed as your favorite mount?


As I stated in my "actual and visual damage" post I still belive that much of the "cannon damage problem" greatly depends on the edgehits ( all cannon planes have this problem not only 109) and also the relation between actual and visual damage. The visual damage refers mainly to the skindamage. Skindamage is not modeled the same on all planes and on some u only see tiny holes when the damage is severe and on others( 109 for example) there is bigger holes for the same damage.
Not strange if there is some confusion.
I also thought a probable fix to this could be to make the skin damage to show a bit earlier, but I also said that I was not at all convinced that this would work flawlessly or fix everything.

Well I think I have stated my view and opinion so I wont rant anymore.

JG7_Rall
10-11-2004, 08:20 AM
*waits for clints track rampage to begin*

I agree 100%. Fly German for a day using this gun and you'll have all the evidence you need

VW-IceFire
10-11-2004, 08:33 AM
Ironic. I just started researching this last night...having felt the interest to look into the MG151/20 and its comparative performance.

First look here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

And then uses these sources:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aep/aep20damagetest.html
http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/
http://www.kurita.sk/PRIVATE/files/il2_guns.zip

Here's my rough conclusion:

All of the sources show that between the three main cannons (ShVAK, Hispano, 151/20) the Mauser does the least amount of damage. This is based on their calculations and not mine. Essentially...it fires the smallest and nearly the lightest shell with a good rate of fire but a lower muzzle velocity.

This tells me why the ShVAK/Hispano are easier to aim and seem to do more damage to target. The best MG151/20 mounts are the Bf-110 and the Bf-109 with no syncronization required (on the FW190 the inner guns are synced).

And my question:

Seeing as it does appear that the MG151/20 was the worst perfomer of the group...the question is then was it as bad a performer in FB/AEP as it was in real life? My suspicion is that were close but it may be a bit on the undermodeled side. Definately, any change to the weapon would maintain the hirearchy already established.

It seems that for the Luftwaffe, the MG151/20 was used for a couple of reasons. Firstly that it was better than the MG-FF. Secondly that it could be syncronized (I've read synced MG-FF was not good at all). Thirdly that you could stuff alot of ammunition in a plane (more than the other two) giving your pilots more time to fire their guns on a target. Fourthly, the MG151 was apparently a very reliable weapon. It worked very well and did its job. The ShVAK is that too but the Hispano had teething problems in its first year until they solved the problems.

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Sorry to be a pain in the but mates. I dont mean to be rude or bulsh*t you.

When I made this test I was still very much biased towards the LW planes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Let me introduce myself:
I flew around 1000 COOP missions online. I fly in a squad since the original Il-2. I'm not biased although my primary aircraft of interest is Bf-109 since I fly in a "historical" squad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The visible damage Have infact one strong psychological effect. I wont keep on trying to convince anyone but ask yourselves if U really have tested the planes that u feel can take so much damage as detailed as your favorite mount?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I personally do not pay too much attention to visual damage as it tends to be misleading, what I do notice is round strikes and their position. Yes I flew a lot of sorties in red planes, both DF servers and I always fly the agressor in our internal squad dogfights.
I became even more convinced that there is something wrong after being on the recieving end of MG151/20.

Concerning visual damage, I really do not care if enemy aircraft shows more or less pretty visual damage (P-40 is very nice in that respect). But when he gets multiple strikes of 20mm shells on the wing or the fuselage I want that to be felt in the aircraft's performance, I want the my opponent to feel it.

F19_Ob
10-11-2004, 09:08 AM
Hi icefire ...this must then mean that the spot where the shell hits is of the greatest importance and therefore must be very difficult to test by shooting like we do since its very hard to hit on the same spot all the time on different ac. One must know the "right" spots on the different ac too. It may not be the same on all.
So If one tests cannons in FB then perhaps 40 testsorties as i described is way too few still.
To me the important thing is that any cannon in fb "can" take a wing off or cripple a plane out of fighting condition with a single bop "if" it hits the right spot.

Although I have compared the 109G6 with 20mm to the La5 with its 2 cannons for ages, I still cant say wich weapon does the greatest damage or wich plane can take more hits.
The 109 have bigger holes showing on the skin though but nowadays I look past that since it do not always reflect the actual damage.

I guess the only way to be absolutely sure is to
ask Oleg specifficly about this.

F19_Ob
10-11-2004, 09:15 AM
anarchy52

Ok mate.....I think we just have to agree to that we disagree on some things and that works for me.
Its ok to have different opinions and its good to discuss it.
Its still an interesting subject.

cheers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
All of the sources show that between the three main cannons (ShVAK, Hispano, 151/20) the Mauser does the least amount of damage. This is based on their calculations and not mine. Essentially...it fires the smallest and nearly the lightest shell with a good rate of fire but a lower muzzle velocity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed on the muzzle velocity and round weight, but:
weight of the projectile:
Hispano 130 g
MG151/20 105 g
Shvak 95 g
___________________________________________
So Hispano shell is the largest, 25 grams heavier then MG151/20, while shvak has the lightest round 10g lighter then MG151/20.

Rate of fire (rds/min)
Hispano MkII 600
Hispano MkV 750
MG151/20 700-750
Shvak 800
________________________________
Shvak has the slight advantage over both guns while MG151/20 has signifficantly higher ROF then early hispano and similar ROF to later model.

Muzzle velocity (m/s):
Hispano MkII 880
Hispano MkV 840
MG151/20 725
Shvak 740-770
_______________________________________
In this comparison Hispano has noticable advantage to both shvak and the MG151/20 due to its very long barrel and long cartridge while.

About the damage:

If we're talking AP ammo, then hispano's high muzzle velocity and heavier round gives it the advantage over both guns no question about it since if we disregard the shape and material used for AP round it's the kinetic energy that counts.
Ek = 1/2 m*v2
MG151/20 and Shvak are very closely matched in this department.


But what about HE shells? The difference between the heaviest and the lightest round is 35g. The thin-walled ("minegeschoss") HE ammo on MG151/20 had more HE content percentage then hispano HE round AND it was filled with "better" explosive. But in FB MG151/20 doesn't come even close to effectiveness of shvak not to mention hispano.

Hispano is only superior when AP rounds are concerned, and has better trajectory, shorter flight distance. In terms of HE rounds MG151/20 and Hispano should be pretty close together. MG151/20 could even turn out to be the better of the two.

karost
10-11-2004, 10:04 AM
I have one "real evidence" for HE gun fire power in MG151/20 see clip this:

BF-109F shooted P-40 (http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/video/video14.zip)

ps. I "not" feel happy to show or see a "real people" was killed in a history air combat
but some people making money for this... that so shame

S!

plumps_
10-11-2004, 10:09 AM
Here are my test missions: Mg 151/20, Hispano, and MgFF vs. B-17 tail fin. (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/20mmtest_15120-MgFF-Hispano.zip) I think it's possible to get some reliable results with this test arrangement using an AI B-17 made stationary with the help of a trick. I slowed down the game and fired single rounds, so the ROF played no role.

The results of my test are the following:

For each weapon there's a standard number of hits required to remove the B-17's tail fin. For the 151/20 that's 22 hits, for the Hispano and the MgFF it's 15. So according to this test the hits from the Hispano and the MgFF in FB are 50 % stronger than those from the Mg 151/20.

Then there seems to be a random factor: Sometimes fewer hits are required to be successfull, but the standard number will never be exceeded.

Some people say that in 1.22 the 151/20 was "fixed". I think that's nothing but a myth. I also played these missions in 1.22. The standard number of hits required was the same as in 2.04. Only the random factor was changed. I.e. it was more often possible to remove the tail fin with far less hits than the standard number. But that was not only the case with the 151/20, but also with the Hispano. The Mauser seemed better, but the Hispano was a killer in 1.22! The relation between the two weapons had not changed, only a general factor that probably applies to all weapons had.

faustnik
10-11-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

All of the sources show that between the three main cannons (ShVAK, Hispano, 151/20) the Mauser does the least amount of damage. This is based on their calculations and not mine. Essentially...it fires the smallest and nearly the lightest shell with a good rate of fire but a lower muzzle velocity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Anthony Williams a leading authority on the subject.
"If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores. Also, the Luftwaffe reckoned that it took about four or five times as many 20 mm shells to destroy a heavy bomber as it did 30 mm rounds. The power relationship here is 3.6 times for the MK 108 and 6.2 times for the MK 103, which neatly brackets this observation."

Try this website:

Cartridge Effectiveness (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

faustnik
10-11-2004, 10:32 AM
Here is the FB difference between the Hispano and the MG151/20.

Hispano:

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


Compare that to:


Mg151/20:

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

anarchy52
10-11-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Here's my rough conclusion:

All of the sources show that between the three main cannons (ShVAK, Hispano, 151/20) the Mauser does the least amount of damage. This is based on their calculations and not mine. Essentially...it fires the smallest and nearly the lightest shell with a good rate of fire but a lower muzzle velocity.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, the source you recommended states the following:

CARTRIDGE DAMAGE POWER (mixed ammo belt)
----------------------------------------------
MG151/20 16
20x82 API 110
20x82 HET 109
20x82 HE(M) 236
Hispano
----------------------------------------------
20x110 HE MkII 201 20
20x110 HE MkV 194 20

Although I do not consider the calculations on that page throughly scientific, I'm no gun expert, but the source you stated shows that MG151/20 and Hispano are pretty closely matched, while MG151/20 HE(M) minegeschoss is noticeably more powerfull then hispano HE.
Among other things, the source did not take into account type of explosive used:

If we assume that germans did use the explosive that was stronger, the two guns would come very close while 20mm minegeschoss would be far more powerful.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Seeing as it does appear that the MG151/20 was the worst perfomer of the group...the question is then was it as bad a performer in FB/AEP as it was in real life?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have real 109 guncam footage. If the MG151/20 was anything like it was in those movies...hordes of red flyers would probably lynch Oleg.

IIJG69_Kartofe
10-11-2004, 11:06 AM
Waaaaa !!!

After 3 years of sending proofs, facts, testimonials, etc ...

There is still people who have the courrage to ask changings for the 151/20 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Total respect!

The thing that amase me is the difference in power between the MG/FF and the 151/20, the first is obviously more powerful than the second.
IRL the germans stop using MG/FF on fighters because of his lack of power against well armoured planes like bombers and replaced them by 151/20.

Courage guys, it takes 2 years to have a real 20mm ammo load in the 109...
In 1 year maybe someone accept to hear what we says here ??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
10-11-2004, 11:30 AM
I am proven wrong then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A fellow on the SimHQ board also pointed out a few of the other contrary examples. I'm no expert...just trying to read into the field a bit to understand. There is an obvious difference between the MG151/20 and all other 20mm cannons. That I knew...if it was real or not I didn't.

So the answer seemingly is that the MG151/20 is then not doing as much damage as it should be. The question then is why? Game bug? Purposely programmed that way (based on other data)? Inability to accurately model explosive round?

Is there then a method to compair the weapon to its real self?

faustnik
10-11-2004, 11:34 AM
Neal (WWMaxGuns) had some great ideas on the difficulties of modeling explosive force within a contained area being at the root of the problem. I'll try to find the old thread for you.

Here IceFire, I found it:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=222109805#222109805

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 06:39 PM
I kinda wish for either knowledge of how it is right or some change made.
I do keep in mind that a 20mm shell is smaller diameter than my thumb is wide,
not exactly huge. The burst still I would expect to affect a hole in sheet
aluminum 10+ cm wide if it was close and if the condition was right for
reinforced shockwaves, the mach stem, then much more damage.

With this line of sims we don't get spot for spot graphical damage. There
may be such in the model we don't see. If I hit the right spots with any
gun or cannon, I get immediate results of kill or cripple. If I hit the
wrong places then a Hispano is just as not good as a 151/20. Thing is that
it is simply easier to hit where I want with any higher shell speed gun.

There is also the business of long range shell spread with some guns that
fire shells of varying mass and initial velocities -- you can hit with some
but maybe not all of what you fire depending on the target aspect (small
from dead 6, large from direct above or below). Of course the better shells
may not be the ones with tracer. And then there is the incendiaries that
make such a nice big fireball when they hit and people think they are HE
or MG... no they aren't. I don't know if it's right, shouldn't they go
inside and bloom? I don't know.


Neal

LBR-GuntherRall
10-11-2004, 09:33 PM
Salute!

Good I saw this topic on Mg 151/20, and as the subject it was very good, and our friend Hoist-Fire, it mentioned tables solved research them, and I found some small mistakes in the comparative ones.
The table mentions: fire power of the hunts, in 1939 / 41 only to illustrate Spitfire and Me 109, only 1 version of each; now we know a lot albeit in 1941 Fw 190 A3 was already operational and it doesn't consist in the table, the same for the hunts F2 and F4, and if I don't already make a mistake Spit existed Mk II, already this completely wrong one for oh.
In 1942/43.

It doesn't mention Spit MK IX, and he stops mentioning Fw 190 A5 and A6 that already used MK 108 in the wings, as campaign modules or no, as in BFs.

The truth and only one: The cannons of 20 mm don't make anything (Mg 151/20) The weapons of the Zero, Ki, are the only weapons of 20mm that make effect, as a companion said soon above, ' I stopped using D9 because their Mg 151/20 don't make anything' and it is the purest true! The pilots of German hunt didn't like to use MK 108 for they make dogfight because it weighed in their airplanes, Fw 190 A7 the more manuvleable of all FWs only had 2 Mg 151/20!

The funniest, and: The apreciators of the German hunts continue flying their hunts tends to spend 100% more of ammunition to drop a simple Yak 1 or Lagg 3 that had wood wings!

Our friend F19 OB, says that it kills any thing with few bursts of Mg 151/20, I only believe sells.
To post pictures, to say that makes that or that and very good....
Somebody mentioned the version 1.22, yes in fact for me it was the best patch of correction of FB, because Fw 190 didn't have rickety motor that he has now, and impressive the amount of existent Bugs after I finish it patch, the funniest and that only bugs that favor the allied airplanes... no and very strange?
As in my earth the oldest say: The hope and it finishes her that he dies, Sr Oleg please doesn't turn off the hopes already hundreds of proofs exist on some modelling mistakes in the German airplanes... I don't believe that it would be a sacrifice just to repair those mistakes giving a fairer dispute to all us, after all the German pilots had much more acclaim than the best allied aces and not always what counts and only the pilot.

A hug to all.

Ice_fire, liked site in spite of those you smooth, very cool and informative! I see you in Hyperlobby! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 02:03 AM
Thank you all for keeping the discussion civilized, argumented and constructive.
I did some testing yesterday with that "shoot the tail of the B-17" mission. Definitely it's not the spread, or the trajectory, MG151/20 simply lacks destructive power. Also it looks like it does not have AP or minegeschoss shells in the ammo belt. While testing spitfire and hurri it is clearly visible that it has 2 types of rounds: HE which makes a nice flower of damage and AP which goes right through the target.

Another idea for BoB:
Guns like static camera objects and static AI aircrafts which would be ideal for testing the damage and weapon models. It should not be too hard to implement.

Now, how do I make this thread to reach Oleg? I mean, this is all fine we had a nice exchange of opinions and data in a civilized manner which is quite rare on this forum, but it's all in vain since only Oleg and his team can make any adjustments in FB. Any ideas? Anyone has a cousin who has a friend which is a neighbour of a guy whose sister knows someone who knows Oleg personally?

pourshot
10-12-2004, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
I have one "real evidence" for HE gun fire power in MG151/20 see clip this:

http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/video/video14.zip

ps. I "not" feel happy to show or see a "real people" was killed in a history air combat
but some people making money for this... that so shame

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not use that film to show how powerfull the german 20mm is as that p40 took a hell of alot of hits, judging by the smoke at the start of the clip he had already been shot up badly and even after that storm of shells it was still flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Infact after seeing that clip I may push to have the p40 DM made stronger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jurinko
10-12-2004, 03:05 AM
try the IXe against LaGG-3 and D-9 against the same LaGG - the Hispanos are cutting the plane to pieces while MG151+MG131 needs much more precise aim and more hits, plus the bad forward view, muzzle flash and dispersion makes the gunnery in Dora much more difficult.
ShVak doesn´t seem much stronger than MG151, but its dispersion is very low and the VVS gunsights are better for deflection shooting than the German ones.

pourshot
10-12-2004, 03:24 AM
Hmm so much for the **** german 20mm this track is 20mm only no MG and I shoot from the worst possible angles (almost dead six), seems ok to me it took much less hit's than that video from Karost.

ps. forgive my bad gunnery skills I dont fly the 109 very often.

109f4 V 4 friendly p40 (http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/uber%2020mm.zip)

JG54_Arnie
10-12-2004, 04:08 AM
hmm, I count 4 confirmed hits in that video, not like alot, might be more hits but you cant tell as there's alot of smoke, but judging by the tracers there weren't many more, if any.

As for the German 20mm. Is this just the effect of the MGFF?
20 MM, MGFF? (http://home.student.utwente.nl/a.j.vansteenwijk/IL2/tracks/20mm.ntrk)

I must say though that the performance varies a lot, but at close range its deadly. Sometimes you can pump a plane full with your 20MM ammo and they fly off as if nothing happens. Possibly a combination of lagg, lag and hits being scored all over the plane. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
10-12-2004, 04:20 AM
AFAIK from the Bf 109 E-4 on the MG FF/M was used which only fired the mine shell. The MG 151/20 seems to use a mixture of different ammunition variants (HE, HEIT, API etc).

JG53Frankyboy
10-12-2004, 04:29 AM
to remind, these , unfortunatyl very old, list of IL2 guns belts

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186


MG/FF
// APIT - HE - HE - MG

APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 585.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 690.0
power = 0.0186

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
to remind, these , unfortunatyl very old, list of IL2 guns belts
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, according to that list MG151/20 and MG/FF are identical?!!?
I do not think so. I wish MG151/20 was like MG/FF in terms of damage...

Also if power is a measure of shell capability to inflict damage then I do not understand why
MG151/20 APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036
has the same destructive power as
MG/FF APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036
same mass, much slower round...

If the weapons are parametrised in config files inside those encrypted FB archives, then it should not take too much effort for developers to change it. If we can't have the ability to change the config files, for obvious reasons of hacks/cheats, maybe we could be provided with a way to at least read out the parameters instead of stepping in the dark so to speak.

Perhaps it could be possible to make a kind of signature protected server validated configs that would enable each server, or online war to have it's own FB engine parameters? If your config has different signature then server's - you get the boot. Would shorten the bugfix cycle considerably.

WUAF_Badsight
10-12-2004, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
all the 'evidence' is that you fly online for 15 mins and try first hispano / shvak on german planes, then mg151/20.. the difference is quite huge http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
I would not use that film to show how powerfull the german 20mm is as that p40 took a hell of alot of hits, judging by the smoke at the start of the clip he had already been shot up badly and even after that storm of shells it was still flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Storm of shells indeed, but evidently only a few hits (4 flashes), rest is obscured by smoke. But I doubt that P-40 made it. You didn't expect it to lose a wing or something? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Actually in all the guncams I've seen there is only a few "wings getting loose" kind of damage (usually wingtank exploding or wing ammo), and not a single "aircraft cut in half".

It's mostly catching fire, engine/cooler/oil/hydraulic system damage or just skin of the ac being torn off (like on that guncam where spit is shooting at german bomber, while getting shot by me-109, 2 hits - one in each wing, and even in that poor quality movie you can see that spit is missing large area of "skin" on the wings, or FW-190: in one guncam it catches fire after being shot from quite a distance, on the other a P-51 is shooting at point blank range, long burst and only small puffs where .50 cals hit).

What I'm saying is that real thing wasn't recorded in Hollywood.

pourshot
10-12-2004, 05:54 AM
I think you should see that film again this time in slow motion it gets many more than 4 hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway I dont think it's a problem with the german 20mm, maybe the hispano and such are just a little to good.(FYI I dont fly cannon planes very often so I'am no expert).

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
I think you should see that film again this time in slow motion it gets many more than 4 hits http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I watched in slow motion, maybe he did recieve more hits, difficult to see due to smoke. That is not really important, it was just an illustration of just how deadly the 20mm cannon was (is).

The thing that would make me very happy indeed is to recieve some kind of response from Mr. Maddox. I would be honored to recieve a direct reply, and I know that He is a very busy man, but since PF is gold, deadline is met, maybe he could be persuaded to drop us a line on the subject.

Can anyone help?

PE_Mosor
10-12-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
to remind, these , unfortunatyl very old, list of IL2 guns belts
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, according to that list MG151/20 and MG/FF are identical?!!?
I do not think so. I wish MG151/20 was like MG/FF in terms of damage...

Also if power is a measure of shell capability to inflict damage then I do not understand why
MG151/20 APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036
has the same destructive power as
MG/FF APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036
same mass, much slower round...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this table power is mass of explosive charge in each round, not kinetic energy of round. Each round hase 3,6 grams of HE, just as in real life.

clint-ruin
10-12-2004, 06:21 AM
As you can very clearly see from the shots of the B-17 test, AP rounds are very very very much more effective at penetrating through a surface and damaging components through a plane. They do bugger all unless they're lined up with something important like a wing spar or an engine, though. Even the 50mm AP rounds from the Me-262/A1 U4 will produce only a tiny puff of debris out of a B17 if they hit dead space. If, however, they are lined up with something important, they're utterly devastating. You can very clearly see the MG151/20s damage spread out over a larger physical area of the B-17 through fragmentation, whereas 1/2 of the Hispano rounds are drilling right through the plane. As far as FB is concerned - an AP through the engine is much more of a worry than HE fragments damaging an area of skin.

The MG151/20 has 4 HE to each API.

The Hispano has 1 HE to each AP.

The Hispano shows only HE impacts with an explosion special effect and almost no visual effect from AP rounds.

The MG151/20 shows every single round as a large explosion effect.

The API rounds the MG151/20 fires are actually very effective - much more likely to start fires than straight AP from the Hispano. But that's 1/5th of your shots.

The MG151/20s different rounds also follow a different trajectory to the tracer. This can result in a large number of misses, even at close range, depending on convergence settings. Don't track only the tracer rounds with your eyes to hit the target - the next 4 rounds will be spit out in a higher arc and then fall down more rapidly than the tracer.

There have been a few games that have tried to do 'volume' damage - something like Red Faction or other games with terrain deformation - usually a very limited pre-fabbed effect. Trying to do this with say 12 Bf-109s in the air firing at targets, with the rounds hitting various sized and strength volumes inside an aircraft, is going to be an interesting coding challenge, at least if the effect is to be consistent. As far as I am aware FB does not take into account the blast pressure effects from cannon rounds - you get one round that hits, causes a certain effect on the DM depending on the kind of round it is, and then fragment damage sprays out from the point of impact if it's any kind of explosive round.

A very long time ago I made a suggestion that the fragment damage could be made a little more focussed - more like a cone than a sphere - this would concentrate fragment damage more on a single section of a DM without neccessarily having to mess around with volumetric damage effects. Other than that, I think that for most rounds, the HE/MGs should be slightly more effective at starting fuel fires. APIs were specifically designed to do this I know, but the difference in 'likelyhood of a fire from a hit' is massively weighted towards APIs and away from HE damage right now.

As it is in FB, the HE rounds are much more effective for buggering up a planes handling, control surfaces, and flying characteristics. 20mm AP will either cripple a plane outright assuming an engine or pilot hit, otherwise, it's very unlikely to do much in the way of damage.

As for the Lagg3 S4-S66 - since its damage model adjustment it's a firebomb. Don't bother hitting the fuselage, go for the wing roots, pilot or engine, it's a 1 to 3 round kill with the 151/20 if you land your shots right. The bum end of most planes in FB tends to be quite tough, don't bother shooting there.

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PE_Mosor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
to remind, these , unfortunatyl very old, list of IL2 guns belts
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, according to that list MG151/20 and MG/FF are identical?!!?
I do not think so. I wish MG151/20 was like MG/FF in terms of damage...

Also if power is a measure of shell capability to inflict damage then I do not understand why
MG151/20 APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036
has the same destructive power as
MG/FF APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036
same mass, much slower round...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this table power is mass of explosive charge in each round, not kinetic energy of round. Each round hase 3,6 grams of HE, just as in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well according to source IceFire provided
HE(M) should have 20,24g of explosive compound not 18,6g. also according to the same source Hispano HE should have only 10,4 g of explosive.


If it's true that jerry explosive was stronger by a factor of 1,4 that would make:
Hispano HE 10,4g
MG151/20 HE-T 3.68g*1.4 = 14,72g
MG151/20 HE(M) 20,24*1.4 = 28.34g

If the explosive was exactly the same:
Hispano HE 10,4g
MG151/20 HE-T 3.68g
MG151/20 HE(M) 20,24g

Still HE(M) is almost twice as powerfull in terms of explosive power to the hispano HE.

I think MG151/20 in the game uses only HE no HE(M) or AP-I (that would explain the B-17 engine screenshot), and without considering the difference in explosive quality, otherwise MG151/20 would be much more lethal then it is right now.

LBR-GuntherRall
10-12-2004, 10:58 AM
Sells these you finish statistics, it is ended that:

Mg 151/20 are modeled in the game with the worst ammunition, or be won't do same effect!

Now only lack somebody to come here and to say that the ammunition HE-M, was not used broadly... would it be ties a joke, would you prefer an ammunition to put an end once and for all to his enemy or would it be playing with the prey?

Another thing, reading the book (THE great hunt, of Heinz Knoke) they abated Blenheims with Emils and with few bursts! And not only the ammunition of MG/FF was weaker and yours harmonizes of much smaller shot than MG 151/20.

In the video presented by Pourshot, it is noticed that the pilot this just shooting with the cannon of 20mm, that it seems to be of a G2 or F4, for the that I saw the missiles they reached the cabin because the apparel reached soon tumbles on the wing.

It is just a subject of getting right the ammunition and their parameters in the game, I have faith me that it is not an ambitious thing.

This topic this very interesting and elucidating, and mainly healthy one.

Best Regards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
10-12-2004, 11:31 AM
This is one of those rare topics that has a lot of consensus. Most pilots that I fly with, and most on this board, feel that the Mg151/20 is too weak. The issue does not appear to be disputed along partisan lines.

1Cs issue is modeling the damage effects of high explosive rounds without getting overly complicated. How much detail can they go into without using all available CPU power for the DM?

The easiest way to deal with the issue is to simply bump up the overall power of the Mg151/20. This might work, but, goes against the 1C tradition of compromising on accuracy. Giving the Mg151/20 mm rounds more power overall might give a more realistic result against Spitfires or Yaks, but, might result in the gun being too effective against IL-2s.

It sure isn't easy for Oleg and crew.

WWMaxGunz
10-12-2004, 11:45 AM
AP hits and travels through in a line until energy is spent or it exits the target.

So blast should make hits on everything close by and not travel? A sphere, not a line?

In reality, the sphere would have less strength on expanding but taking an average
size would still be better than none.


Neal

Jippo01
10-12-2004, 12:24 PM
Here is a video of two 20mm hits on a Spitfire. I'm sure that this plane will not get home anymore, as it is on fire in two places and lost a lot of metal.

Judge for yourselves:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/utok1.mpg


-jippo

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 01:08 PM
here is even more ilustrative guncam.
Target seems to be P-40 again. Enlarge the video since it's size resolution is fairly small. you may watch it in slow motion to get the better idea of the number of hits and damage inflicted to target.

http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/6.avi

Warning: It's not a nice thing to see, it's not a game.


That was an F4 or G2 (I do not remember) with 1 (one) 151/20. Focke-Wulf had 4 (four) of those cannons + 2 machine guns (7,9 or 13mm depending on version). I leave it to your imagination.

Helvik
10-12-2004, 01:48 PM
anarchy52,

Your video is of a p40 being shoot down by a Macchi C.202.

Its been on the net for years...

Helvik
10-12-2004, 02:10 PM
oops forgot what you see is the 12.7mm Italian Breda-SAFAT Machine guns: they all were armed with the multi-effect "S.I.T." - Scoppianti"(explosive) + "Incendiarie"(...incendiary)+"Traccianti" (..tracer)- bullets (a variant of Vickers 12.7mm x 81Sr cartridge).

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Helvik:
anarchy52,

Your video is of a p40 being shoot down by a Macchi C.202.

Its been on the net for years... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it was a fiessler Storch armed with special edition 7,92mm machinegun with tri-cobalt warheads. Let's keep it serious folks.

Helvik
10-12-2004, 03:03 PM
That's a 202 firing on that p40.

Here's another link labelled breda.avi

http://digidownload.iol.it/DgC/breda.avi

I have seen the whole vhs video where that footage came from.

Yous ee it labelled as a 205 vrs P40 on other sites. The fact is that video is of 202 shooting down a P40 not a F4 or a G2.

So if you want to be taken seriously know what you are talking about.

Here's another version labelled "macchip40".

http://www.lordpanzer.com/downloads/MACCHI-P40.wmv

So if want to be taken seriously then I would suggest that you get your facts straight.

Helvik
10-12-2004, 03:11 PM
That second link has been taken down but is contained the exact same footage as the one I linked and the one you linked.

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Helvik:
That's a 202 firing on that p40.

Yous ee it labelled as a 205 vrs P40 on other sites. The fact is that video is of 202 shooting down a P40 not a F4 or a G2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, the aircraft was fireing a single central mounted weapon with HE shells while 12.7s were mounted in pair.
I do not know how to tell which aircraft was attacker in this moovie. I found it as 109F4vsP40.

It MIGHT however be some late version of an italian fighter equipped with 20mm. Guess which cannon they used.
Secondly, this is CERTAINLY not an effect one could expect of heavy mg fire.
After a brief search I found this reference:
http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/205_dis_5.html

Helvik
10-12-2004, 03:35 PM
Yes the Macchi 205 had cannon but thats not cannon and the attacker is not a 205..

Ity's a 202 firing tt's 12.7 breda...

Of all those flashes and hits the visual damage doesnt compare to the 2 hts on the 20mm clip linked above. The p40 got shredded and if you slow the film down you count all the hits.

The 20mm (MG151/20mm) is in the wings on the 205. What you see is the camera offset to the left and 2 lines of fire coming from the cowling guns (not every round is a tracer and what you se is not a steady stream from 1 gun) which on both the 202 and 205 were 12.7mm bredas.

Take it however you want but this forum is not the first to discuss that video. As I said its been around for some time. I first saw it in 2000...

YMMV

Regards,

Helvik

karost
10-12-2004, 04:20 PM
I see vedio from anarchy52's post by use mouse move to play frame by frame I see two tracer moving not from the same line and explosive effect seem like HE explosion not 12.7

first hit to right elevetor then the left cannon hit the left wing and left body and the right cannon pass under the right wing while p-40 roll to the left fast after was hit

explosive HE show same like the vedio that I posted but vedio's speed is slower than the real if we calculate from ROF of mg151/20

I use a Windows Media Player to view this movie so I can use mouse move at the seek bar to view frame by frame.

S!

anarchy52
10-12-2004, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Helvik:
Yes the Macchi 205 had cannon but thats not cannon and the attacker is not a 205..

Ity's a 202 firing tt's 12.7 breda...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Breda 12.7x81SR HE
Round weight: 82g
Muzzle v: 770m/s
Projectile weight: 33g
Explosive content percentage: 2.2%
Explosive content: 0.73g

Not too impressive

If the 0.022 * 33g = 0.73g in Italian 12,7mm HMG could inflict such damage, then 20mm hispano, or MG151/20 which have shells with 13-20 TIMES more explosive would probably sink light cruisers in short bursts. Even MG151/15 has four times as much explosive then breda.

Do You see why I find it extremely difficult to believe it's 12,7mm Breda? It could however be one of later Italian fighters equipped with 20mm (MG151/20).

ImpStarDuece
10-12-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:



If the 0.022 * 33g = 0.73g in Italian 12,7mm HMG could inflict such damage, then 20mm hispano, or MG151/20 which have shells with 13-20 TIMES more explosive would probably sink light cruisers in short bursts. Even MG151/15 has four times as much explosive then breda.

Do You see why I find it extremely difficult to believe it's 12,7mm Breda? It could however be one of later Italian fighters equipped with 20mm (MG151/20). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Statements like this really don't help your cause. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I agree that the Mg 151/20 lack some power, particularly compared to the ShVak and Hispano. I also believe that the Hispano and ShVak are better fighter weapons due to their high MV and ballistic/AP properties.

In my experiance of flying the F4, E4 and G2 109s i find the MG 151/20 suprisingly effective against early war planes. Even twin engined bombers. It is only late war planes and SOME Russian models that the MG151/20 has difficulty with. Yes, I think that the damage should be increased. However it sould only be done so marginally.

All my statements are completely subjective based merely upon my own offline flying time and no objective tests. For me, even with the 4x 20mms of the FW 190, i have always found it more difficult to bring down enemy birds than flying comparatively armed Alied planes.

However, i KNOW that i dont usually don't lead enough in deflection shots and i also know that the rear hemisphere of certain birds are very heavily armoured (comparatively). Lack of lead combined with a lower MV means that often shots that i think will strike the engine area/cockpit end up slapping around the tail to little or no effect.

As for bigger bombers. Well, my jury is still out on that one. I'll run some QMBs and see what happens. Might even do it scientific like.

Helvik
10-12-2004, 07:49 PM
You dont see the "damage". What you see is the hit sprites and the HE flash with some aircraft skin being blown away.

I forget off hand how many fps most ww2 guncams ran at but you can clearly see that the image is in "slow motion". What you see are multiple hits. Compare those to the single hit of 20mm HS in the film that Jippo1 posted above.

Compare the rof (remember that not all rounds are tracers) and the number rof impacts. Also as I said there are 2 guns firing not 1. They are relatively close together in the cowl. I don't know of any Italian plane that had 2 x 20mm in the nose.

Japanese seemed impressed by them, as they bought the ammo design for the 12.7x81SR HE from Italy, and their Ho-103 reportedly used Italian ammo initially until they developed their own.

An Italian fellow over on the AH forum had this to say about that footage:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW Wotan (that's me) nice film.

I have the same film in VHS (the whole one) and you can definitly see there that the destructive power of Breda MGs is, if not impressive, effective and lethal against P40s, Spitfires and Blenheims. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will try to get a copy of it.

Giganoni
10-12-2004, 09:35 PM
Don't think your getting away from the Mg151 when you guys get PF. The Ki-61 I Hei will be flyable and in screenshots it has wing mounted cannons. Those wing equipped cannon were MG 151s imported from Germany. Later on came the Ho-5 20mm and they placed them in the nose. So I'm sure this debate will continue even into PF.

Fehler
10-12-2004, 11:44 PM
The only question I have is, why is there a difference in the MG151/20 from FB to 2.04 AEP? We had the MG151/20 in the game since the first release of IL2. IF damage calculations are based on ammo, rate of fire, weight, etc, then why was there any change in the 151/20 from FB 1.0? And why did it all of a sudden get less lethal in AEP?

If it was accurate then, and it is accurate now, then it shouldnt have changed. But it did, and no one can dispute this unless he is a fool. Fly both versions and see for yourself.

So, again the question is, why did it change? We are not talking about something that new data has been presented like roll rates, climb and sustained turn times, nor are we talking about interpretations of FM like energy bleed or global stall characteristics. Minor tweaks in these areas are very understandable. We are talking about something that has been in the game since day 1, and leaves very little up to interpretation. Perhaps the only thing that one would consider tweaking would be gun shake/accuracy, or tracer color/length/distance to burn out. But hitting power and secondary effects should have remained the same IF IT WAS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE as it was sold to us.

Just as a side note, I dont fly the early 109's much, and probably not at all since AEP came out. So, after reading that someone felt the MG/FF was actually stronger in the game than the 151/20, I decided to start two offline campaigns, early and late. I have to admit, the MG/FF does indeed appear to be better than the 151/20 for some reason, although it is tough to say since I am shooting at different plane types. I guess I could set up some test, like shooting at a friendly C-47 or something to make sure. But it makes me wonder, is it possible that there was a coding mistake which switched these two weapons?

It is probably too late for Oleg to take a quick peek at the issue, but who knows...

Perhaps someone with ties to Oleg could ask him to take a look if he has time on a coffee break or something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

karost
10-13-2004, 12:17 AM
Hi friends, Do you like to read a history of MG151/20 in ORR ? ( please finish your food before read all this ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Let's have ballistics for EVERYONE : June 16 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=710106274#710106274)

Hispano+Fw : April 17 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=519102853&r=519102853#519102853)

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=614100203&r=614100203#614100203" TARGET=_blank>35 MG151 20mm shells to down a fighter?!...or the the totaly

distorted damage model of AEP : March 25 2004</A>

20mm!!! : March 19 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=544105782&r=544105782#544105782)

Hispano 20MM vs MG151/20 : March 18 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=915107582&r=915107582#915107582)

Oleg, MG151/20 : March 08 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=144104562#144104562)

MG 151/20s seem weakened in AEP : March 03 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=514105852&r=514105852#514105852)

20mm Undermodelled? : December 30 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=30310959&r=30310959#30310959)

MGFFM stronger than MG-151/20? : November 25 2003 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=84110763&r=84110763#84110763)


And here .... do you like to read what Mr.Oleg said about MG 151/20 ? just only two short post here:

Oleg_Maddox posted for MG 151/20 : March 04 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=514105852&r=152108852#152108852)

Oleg_Maddox posted "confirm 100%. There was no changes" : March 10 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=568103862#568103862)

please Mr. Oleg ...all we ( your customer ) need is put MG 151/20 and DM close to the "history" that's all.

Regards,

Karost
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HQ1
10-13-2004, 02:06 AM
I think everyone who has fly AEP for several monthes could notice that MG151 is too much less effective than other 20mm cannons in these game.so please Oleg take a look of this!

anarchy52
10-13-2004, 03:04 AM
Well, if despite offline tests, historical data, gun and ammo tables Oleg says it will not change anything not because He has no time or resources to do it, but because he says it's perfect...
Just like that?

Makes me really sad. Why is it that performance gap between blue and red planes grows with every patch? Surelly people who buy the game fly both red & blue planes, so it can not be marketing? Or is it? USAF planes got quite a boost lately.

Mr. Maddox, as much as I admire Your work and enthusiasm, if You intend to continue along the path you have been following lately, I have only one wish or suggestion:

Make Luftwaffe aircrafts AI only because that's the only thing they will be good for anyway. FW's for example are little more then target drones as it is right now.

I hope I haven't offended anyone or hurt anybody's feelings. I must say that reading some posts left me bitter and deeply disappointed. The loud majority that wants to create/keep the unfair advantage of their favorite aircraft has been much more sucessful in reaching Oleg's ears then the quiet minority with charts, documents, calculations and arguments.
Was Oleg offended by the unarticulate, unpolite, idiotic (luft)whiners that this forum has an endless supply of? I know I would be, so I can not hold it against Him...but I think I would not hold the grudge for so long. I'm not the least a vengefull person.

Stating that 151/20 has not changed might even be true, but then something else must have changed to make it the shadow of it's former self. To deny it is just plain hypocrisy.

My faith in objectivity of the developers has been shaken. Again, I appologize for my somewhat emotional post.

269GA-Veltro
10-13-2004, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Helvik:
That's a 202 firing on that p40.

Here's another link labelled breda.avi

http://digidownload.iol.it/DgC/breda.avi

I have seen the whole vhs video where that footage came from.

Yous ee it labelled as a 205 vrs P40 on other sites. The fact is that video is of 202 shooting down a P40 not a F4 or a G2.

So if you want to be taken seriously know what you are talking about.

Here's another version labelled "macchip40".

http://www.lordpanzer.com/downloads/MACCHI-P40.wmv

So if want to be taken seriously then I would suggest that you get your facts straight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's an MC 202 against a P40, but we used exsplosive bullets...as you can see.

2.01 20mm were better....

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 05:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:
It's an MC 202 against a P40, but we used exsplosive bullets...as you can see.

2.01 20mm were better.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

As someone who got involved in something like a 20 page flamewar with people who insisted that things had changed for the worst-possible-worst from 1.22 through to 2.01, but didn't actually want to post any kind of comparison, could I just say - what?

I wish Oleg or Ivan would post about what actually happened with DM effects between 1.22/2.00/2.01/2.04, as far as I know people still aren't allowed to talk about it :&gt;

WUAF_Badsight
10-13-2004, 05:29 AM
i was using the MG151's a lot at the time of the 1.21 patch release

they were finally a decent wepon & using the Mk108,s was no longer necessary

the AEP came out & the MG151 were totally different in hit power . . . . . . they were making less damadge than they ever had done

i havent used Me's or FW's much in v2.04

anarchy52
10-13-2004, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
As someone who got involved in something like a 20 page flamewar with people who insisted that things had changed for the worst-possible-worst from 1.22 through to 2.01, but didn't actually want to post any kind of comparison, could I just say - what?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flame war? I certainly wouldn't call this a flame war. One of the most civilized threads that I've seen on ubi. So far at least.

Post what?
Test missions, real guncamera footage, ammo and gun data, destructiveness calculations?
Did that.

Apart from obtaining a real cannon and an aircraft to blast to pieces, there is little more to be done...(I've seen a video of some guys that actually did that: even their test involving live 20mm HE amo was disputed)

What strikes me odd is that some "developer's advocates" require proof for things that are self evident and upon which large majority agrees, both dedicated red and blue players.

Just to illustrate my point, let's say I wanted to complain about something very simple like FW DM:
3-4 .50 cals in the wing of FW cripples it, and makes it difficult to fly, let alone fight, further more fuel tank leak on FW leaks out all fuel in 2 minutes regardless of the self-sealing fuel tanks or having multiple fuel tanks. That is contradictory to what the books, pilots and engineers say about FW being a tough aircraft.

All FW flyers know that all too well.

But if I wanted to "prove" that I'd have to spend next month making tracks, screenshots, digging up charts, guncams etc. even then some would say that documents I've obtained are invalid, or wrong, or misinterpreted or falsified and that the tracks and tests are made under wrong conditions...look what happened on the "Faber test". A farse.

And even if I could prove that FW loses it's fuel if hit far to quickly or that 4 .50 cal hits in the wing would not degrade the aircraft performance signifficantly to all the sceptics, 50cal-can-kill-tigers looneys and developer advocates on this forum, what then?
Only Oleg can fix it. Not me or anyone on this forum.

I find it a rather stupid waste of time trying to prove that sea water is salty.

I posted in good faith and with honest intentions on the problem that many agree upon.

Wasn't it JFK that said: "Whatever You do, 25% of people will be against it"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I wish Oleg or Ivan would post about what actually happened with DM effects between 1.22/2.00/2.01/2.04, as far as I know people still aren't allowed to talk about it :&gt;
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And if they say: nothing has changed, 20mm is historicaly correct, learn to shoot and fly. you is the problem, FB is perfectly OK.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Flame war? I certainly wouldn't call this a flame war. One of the most civilized threads that I've seen on ubi. So far at least.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not this thread.

On the subject of 'proof' - as has been mentioned over and over, it is much much easier for coders currently working on BOB or taking a break from PF to go through a track file than it is to go through and look for some mysterious problem as described in their second language on ORR.

At some point this got turned around into being "developer advocates are poopooheads because they don't believe me". Not a lot to do with that. Sorry. It is to do with the cold hard reality of trying to code something into the game.

The less you post in your own support of your own requested change the less seriously you are going to be taken when it comes time to actually achieve some kind of change. Put the hard work in and it gets a lot easier.

anarchy52
10-13-2004, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Flame war? I certainly wouldn't call this a flame war. One of the most civilized threads that I've seen on ubi. So far at least.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not this thread.

On the subject of 'proof' - as has been mentioned over and over, it is much much easier for coders currently working on BOB or taking a break from PF to go through a track file than it is to go through and look for some mysterious problem as described in their second language on ORR.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm a developer myself and I understand the difficulties involved.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The less you post in your own support of your own requested change the less seriously you are going to be taken when it comes time to actually achieve some kind of change.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Will You post in support of my change request?
I do not care if I'm taken seriously. The issue I posted about should be taken seriously.

And the person this post was addressed to is NOT reading it.

IIJG69_Kartofe
10-13-2004, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And here .... do you like to read what Mr.Oleg said about MG 151/20 ? _ just only two short post here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=514105852&r=152108852#152108852

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=568103862#568103862

please Mr. Oleg ...all we ( your customer ) need is put MG 151/20 and DM close to the "history" that's all.

Regards,

Karost
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These post comfirm what i'm thinking of the 151/20, they are not really weak but some planes are really too strongs , the better example is the fuselage of the Lagg3, almost undestructible.

As i'said before MG151/20 are weaker than MG ff/M present in the game... Historically incorrect.

BUT... You can easilly cut in pieces some planes with MG151/20...

So IMO we must look in both dirrection, DM of SOME planes (some blues planes have also DM problems) AND effectiveness of MG151/20.

Regards

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Will You post in support of my change request?
I do not care if I'm taken seriously. The issue I posted about should be taken seriously. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion all HE rounds in FB are a bit less powerful than the round would have been in reality.

The 151/20 comes off the worst from this because 80% of the rounds it fires are HE.

There are some other factors that influence peoples perceptions of how the 151/20 stacks up against the ShVAK and Hispano, to do with the visual damage each round produces. The impact effects for all of those rounds are different from each other, both in their sequence and in terms of what's on screen. I've posted a short list of these things at the end of the last page.

I would support a general strengthening of HE effects, but I would want it to be done carefully so as not to completely send HE damage off the other end of the scale. Asking for nonspecific things is a very good way to get dramatic and unwanted side effects, asking people to code in the dark and aim for an end result that people don't seem to be sure of in the first place is not fun.

The first job you have is to watch and understand the DMs and weapon effects. Then ask for something very specific. I think concentrating the fragment damage would probably be the least invasive solution, just from my observations of how the damage is tallied up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And the person this post was addressed to is NOT reading it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is very important to stay polite as well. Oleg does not actually owe you anything, past what's in the box. You are asking for a favour, for him to get some very expensive people to look at some very complex, multimillion line code. Helps if you don't come off like you hate the guy before you even get a direct response.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-13-2004, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
As someone who got involved in something like a 20 page flamewar with people who insisted that things had changed for the worst-possible-worst from 1.22 through to 2.01, but didn't actually want to post any kind of comparison, could I just say - what?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Flame war? I certainly wouldn't call this a flame war. One of the most civilized threads that I've seen on ubi. So far at least.

_Post what?
Test missions, real guncamera footage, ammo and gun data, destructiveness calculations?
Did that.
_
Apart from obtaining a real cannon and an aircraft to blast to pieces, there is little more to be done...(I've seen a video of some guys that actually did that: even their test involving live 20mm HE amo was disputed)

What strikes me odd is that some "developer's advocates" require proof for things that are self evident and upon which large majority agrees, both dedicated red and blue players.

Just to illustrate my point, let's say I wanted to complain about something very simple like FW DM:
3-4 .50 cals in the wing of FW cripples it, and makes it difficult to fly, let alone fight, further more fuel tank leak on FW leaks out all fuel in 2 minutes regardless of the self-sealing fuel tanks or having multiple fuel tanks. That is contradictory to what the books, pilots and engineers say about FW being a tough aircraft.

All FW flyers know that all too well.

But if I wanted to "prove" that I'd have to spend next month making tracks, screenshots, digging up charts, guncams etc. even then some would say that documents I've obtained are invalid, or wrong, or misinterpreted or falsified and that the tracks and tests are made under wrong conditions...look what happened on the "Faber test". A farse.

And even if I could prove that FW loses it's fuel if hit far to quickly or that 4 .50 cal hits in the wing would not degrade the aircraft performance signifficantly to all the sceptics, 50cal-can-kill-tigers looneys and developer advocates on this forum, what then?
Only Oleg can fix it. Not me or anyone on this forum.

I find it a rather stupid waste of time trying to prove that sea water is salty.

I posted in good faith and with honest intentions on the problem that many agree upon.

Wasn't it JFK that said: "Whatever You do, 25% of people will be against it"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I wish Oleg or Ivan would post about what actually happened with DM effects between 1.22/2.00/2.01/2.04, as far as I know people still aren't allowed to talk about it :&gt;
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And if they say: nothing has changed, 20mm is historicaly correct, learn to shoot and fly. you is the problem, FB is perfectly OK. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

^ Agreed. What any LW flier has seen is a [slight but sometimes marked] perceptible decrease in effectiveness of 151/20 since v1.21 and, if Oleg is to be believed, then the DMs must have become stronger to make the 151/20 appear weaker.

Those who don't fly LW often may not notice (or care) but I think there are enough LW fliers commenting on this problem to think that there is an issue here. Let's face it, anyone who has watched the 190 scratch a VVS aircraft knows that there is now a difference as opposed to what we used to have.

Proving it, as you say, is another matter so we have to rely on the developer to indicate what could have happened here through the various patches. If Oleg were to say that DMs were too weak in v1.21 making the 151/20 a-historial in being too strong resulting in a modification or there has been a change which could render the 151/20 to be 'less consistent in it's damage effects' or similar, then that's fair enough - the discussion can be closed.

I just don't buy it that nothing has changed...sorry, Oleg.

Cheers,
Norris

anarchy52
10-13-2004, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
These post comfirm what i'm thinking of the 151/20, they are not really weak but some planes are really _too strongs _, the better example is the fuselage of the Lagg3, almost undestructible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I stated earlier that perception of ineffectiveness comes from 2 things: oponents DM AND weapon's (in)effectiveness

anarchy52
10-13-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Helps if you don't come off like you hate the guy before you even get a direct response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please tell me what did I do to make you think I hate Oleg? Or do not appreciate and honestly admire his work?
Did I insult him?

I do not think Mr. Maddox owns me any personal favors. Every piece of software has an EULA. I think making a trouble report, might improve his product in the end.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
I do not think Mr. Maddox owns me any personal favors. Every piece of software has an EULA. I think making a trouble report, might improve his product in the end. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My impression was that you were fairly steamed at him for not paying the issue sufficient attention. I'm sorry I misread your post. Quite possibly Oleg is NOT EVEN READING the forum, he does have a day job to go to and a kid to look after.

karost
10-13-2004, 06:42 AM
I understand that Mr.Oleg & Team create a good thing for us, when playing this game online with alot of friends out there we( who like LW plane) some time fun and some time suffer when each patch come one by one then and ORR is only one place that we hope to point out what we wonder.

and I agree with clint-ruin if Mr. Oleg would post about what actually happened with DM effects between 1.22/2.00/2.01/2.04 for MG151/20 , not just only two short post which I found since last year.


ps. and please , I don't happy to see one friends use a "real clip file" turn in to flamewar that is so sensitive and danger for the community , coz I am the first one who post that "real clip file" in this thread and I feel sorry if a flamewar light up from that "real clip file"


Karost.

anarchy52
10-13-2004, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
I'm sorry I misread your post. Quite possibly Oleg is NOT EVEN READING the forum, he does have a day job to go to and a kid to look after.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No problem, misunderstandings can happen.

Tell me one thing though:
This forum is called "Oleg's ready room", I thought that it's purpose was to establish a more or less direct communication link between this incredibly enthusiastic community and the developers. If the developers are not reading this forum, what's the use of having it in the first place?

If there is too much idiotic flamewars, uninformed unargumented crusades and personal hatred which creates "clutter" and "noise" that makes it unpractical for the developers to communicate with the community through forum as a media, then perhaps the mods are undermodelled?

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No problem, misunderstandings can happen.

Tell me one thing though:
_This forum is called "Oleg's ready room", I thought that it's purpose was to establish a more or less direct communication link between this incredibly enthusiastic community and the developers_. If the developers are not reading this forum, what's the use of having it in the first place?

If there is too much idiotic flamewars, uninformed unargumented crusades and personal hatred which creates "clutter" and "noise" that makes it unpractical for the developers to communicate with the community through forum as a media, then perhaps the mods are undermodelled? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has a lot less time to browse nowadays due to his new family member and concurrent post-ship work for PF and dev work for BOB, plus whatever business management stuff he gets saddled with at 1C. The first tiny subsection of the Ask Oleg compilation has more Oleg posts in it than Oleg has made to this forum for the entirity of 2004, and that compilation was just a small selection of his responses from 2002!

The other thing that seems to have made him less chatty is that around FB1.0 to 1.1/1.11, a lot of people were extremely rude to him here. I know I wouldn't have taken that kind of hassle from people for long either, no matter who they were. A lot of very good things like JTDs weapons tests, Cirx FW190 cockpit photography, and many more got lost under noisier and ruder posts.

The best way to get your request looked at is to send mail to il2beta@1c.ru - or a link to the thread, or to ask one of the moderators here to ask Oleg to take a look at what you've posted. As far as I know Oleg still tries to "read all", but he might only do that once a month and only have time to respond to some things.

It should also be mentioned that getting two responses from Oleg to any issue on the forum this year is quite rare indeed. He may or may not want to go back and post on it yet again, at least unless someone comes up with something radically new to bring to the table.

karost
10-13-2004, 07:28 AM
Oh... anarchy52 don't call him now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
what I know that mod should do is delete some bad post and remain a good post for our friends for communication ... but he "LOCK all thread" then all good thing that our good friends share each ohter become a useless... that moment made me away from ORR for over a month , just delete a bad post ok, please not lock it.

Regards,

Karost

Brain32
10-13-2004, 12:58 PM
anarchy52 don't loose your nerws, I think you made some impact on this forum with your well wisited post, maybe somebody will take this in concern. At best Oleg and other developers corrected this issue in Pacific Fighters and that is the reason why nobody(of authority) comments this thread. All we can do is hope...
BTW, anarchy52 pozdrav od Hrvatskog "oflajnera" koji je vec X puta postao o tome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
10-13-2004, 01:05 PM
Just to let you guys know. Oleg has received a lot of tracks and data on this subject and is reviewing it. He is in no way ignoring the concerns about the Mg151/20 power and the relative effectiveness of the Mg151 and Hispano. Oleg has plenty of tracks and data, he knows best how to sort it out.

Clint-ruin made a great point in that we don't want to see the weapon over-corrected.

Snoop_Baron
10-13-2004, 04:06 PM
The german 20mm cannons may need correcting or maybe damage models need to be corrected. I don't know. But lets not exagerate and make it sound like things are worse than they are. I run a weekly machine match competition with my squad where every week we have a competition between two plane types. So far two of those competitions included the FW190A9. One was vs the P47-D27 where the FW won by a decent margin. I flew on the FW side for the match and used the default 20mm load out. I didn't find it to difficult to take out the P47s. The second match was just this Sunday. The FW side lost by one pilot. Again I flew on the FW side this time against the 109-G6AS. On my first flight using the default load out I took out 3-4 enemy aircraft. Other than these machine matches I rarely have flown the FW (which is why I chose to fly them). Like I said I haven't flown the FW much, so against other planes and other damage models maybe they are not as effective as they should be.

My point is not to say don't make the German 20mil more leathal, my point is to keep things in perspective. Gun and damage modeling can be difficult to analyze. The best way to get this fixed is to do some serious test of the German 20mil vs many plane types and hitting from different angles.

The angle of the shots could account for some differences. For example when we flew a P63C vs P51 match I noticed the 37mil I could hit some one from behind and get a nice big explosion and do little or no damage. But if I hit from an angle their plane would fall appart. If the same behavior occurs with the German 20mil but not the non-German 20mils this could account for some of this. What differences in damage should we expect with cannons using HE based on the angle of the shot?

s!

VW-IceFire
10-13-2004, 04:24 PM
Snoop...the plane matchups you describe seem to be the best that the FW190 has in comparison with.

We know the P-47 was a tough bird and if I properly spray it with hits it does go down. Meanwhile it does take some critical damage. The 109 as well...MG151/20 makes it smoke fairly quickly. Some others are fairly tough...the LaGG was known for being tough structurally but apparently somewhat flamable and susceptable to high explosive. Its not...it can take lots of hits. The La's too (same aircraft in many ways). The Yak's are an odd bunch...you can hammer away and not knock him out...but you can make his manuverability terrible.

Its just that with the ShVAK, no matter what aircraft you're up against...you have alot more reliability. This applies to the Hispano too. If I nail my target in a Spitfire...I feel confident that I did some serious damage...if I hit him a few times its game over. With the FW190 I fire 4 20mm cannons instead of 2 and sometimes the 2 Hispanos come out on top. I know I'm not hitting with 100% of the firepower but its not quite the same.

That said...in a Ta-152H I once took a La-7 wing off in a single hit (a pair of explosions only). I also did that to a Spitfire and I also lit a La-7 on fire (something I've never seen) and taken a wing off in 3-4 hits. So its not like it doesn't happen...its just very rare http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regardless...I will continue to down my targets with the weapons provided.

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2004, 05:02 PM
The DM in general seems to be affected more by kinetic impacts of bullets, shells
and fragments. And in 2.0 even the fragments were not making damage, found out when
tracks sent in were analyzed and then fixed. Shockwave damage from blasts seems to
be undermodelled or not modelled at all, and that explains about the 151/20 and more
guns thought to be too weak as well.

So if it is the DM then people can write the gun has been made weaker, and 1C can
say with total honesty that no changes were made to the gun. Then people can call
that a lie and nothing gets changed until someone else asks about different things
like the DM. If I take my car to the dealer and say there is something wrong with
the brake pads when really it is the master cylinder, how long before the car is
fixed?


Neal

anarchy52
10-14-2004, 03:45 AM
OK, I'll do a quick summary:

The Problem:

There is a broad consensus among players that MG151/20 in the game is signifficantly less powerful then any other 20mm cannon.

Test mission "shoot the tail of B-17" proves that it takes twice as many MG151/20 shells to do the same amount of structural damage compared to other 20mm cannons in the game.

Historical background, and analysis:

Data on the ammo types used by allies and axis in WWII summarized at:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
does not suggest that there sholud be drastic differences in performance among different 20mm cannons.

- Explosive power:
Data suggests that MG151/20 HE(M) "M-Geschoss ", thin wall HE" should be the most powerfull 20mm HE round in use in VWII:
MG151/20 HE(M) 18,6g of explosive content
Hispano HE comes second with 10,4g.

Interesting reference about M-Geschoss comes from http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The effectiveness of the M-Geschoss was somewhat reduced by the fast-acting fuze, which detonated instantly rather than inside the target's structure, although this was probably more of a problem against bombers than fighters. The British rated the M-Geschoss as about equal with the 20mm Hispano round, which contained much less HE but had a heavier shell fired at a higher velocity and could penetrate more deeply. Delayed-action fuzes for the German shells were introduced in 1941.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, if in HE(M) with fast-acting fuze was as effective as hispano, 1941 introduction of delayed fuses should make them more powerful then british projectiles.

What I do not know is how does the explosive in german shells (nitropenta) compare to that in the british shells.
What kind of explosive did the British use? Could someone shed some light on the subject?


- Kinetic energy considerations:
Hispano is without any doubt the winner in this departement owing to its high muzzle velocity and heavier shell, while the german and russian cannons come pretty close to each other:

muzzle velocity (m/s), projectile mass(g):

Hispano MkII 20x110
HE__________________860 130
Hispano MkV 20x110
HE__________________830 130

MG151/20 (20x82)
API_________________720 117
HET_________________720 115
HE(M)_______________800 92

Shvak,B-20(20x99)
API_________________750 96
HEI_________________790 95

Damage modelling?:

Personal online experience tells me that aircrafts like Bf-109 and FW-190 in the game are quite fragile compared to their counterparts which might further strenghten the impression of ineffectiveness since "the other" side has much tougher aircrafts AND stronger arnament.For example 109's and 190's performance and manueverability loss when hit is much more pronounced then aircrafts like LaGG-3, P-51, P-47 or Spitfire.
However, quick missions offline convinced me that hispano and Shvak are very deadly versus all aircrafts therefore I believe that MG151/20 really is weaker then it's allied counterparts regardless of target aircraft.

Conclusion:
Once this text is refined and concensus reached, it should be presented to Oleg together with the link on this thread.

Feedback is welcome

Atomic_Marten
10-14-2004, 05:09 AM
Hm. That explains why I shoot and shoot and shoot and that dmn LaGG just won't go down...I know it has wooden construction but... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Nubarus
10-14-2004, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Hm. That explains why I shoot and shoot and shoot and that dmn LaGG just won't go down...I know it has wooden construction but... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shoot the wings next time.

anarchy52
10-14-2004, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
Shoot the wings next time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many planes in FB have a "sweet spot". P-51 has it just behind cockpit and if hit there it makes a spectacular fireball, LaGG's "sweet spot" is a small area located in the wing root. If you hit it there the wing will break off and LAGG will catch fire quite violently.

clint-ruin
10-14-2004, 06:47 AM
Yup, I think another large part is that people either conciously or subconciously aim for bits of a plane they know are likely to break the fastest. The Lagg3 S4s wing roots are now very flammable - even pounding the bum off the plane will usually result in both wings catching fire as the tail falls off, just from taking the fragments spraying off the tail. Even before its DM change in 2.04, it was possible to get simultaneous pilot and engine kills on it with one single 15mm 151/15 AP round drilling through the plane.

This used to be much more of an issue in the original Il-2 - lots of planes had places where there was no DM hit zone underneath the model in certain sections. You can still see this kind of thing on the MC202 and others that have been mentioned as 'problem' planes [ie FW-190A series pre AEP 2.0].

karost
10-14-2004, 07:26 AM
Hi, anarchy52

I don't know anything about "sweet spot" this thing is good or bad , and it will change or not , if not can you share me other plane's "sweet spot" like p-47,spitfire, etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OldMan____
10-14-2004, 08:04 AM
the 151/20 is indeed an unique weapon in game. It will be your most loved one and at same time most hated one.

I usually fly with 190A, and find quite efficient 4 * 151/20 guns in short bursts around taregt making a cone of fire. Quite high RPm makes likely to hit.

Some planes like the spit and p51 die easily from 151/20 fire because they catch fire easily. Others, like P47 almost neve catch fire.. so its harder to shot them down with 151/20 guns (wich has as most important effect the incendiary factor).

Try flying a Dora against a P47.. you will take several seconds of fire to shot it down, and even them he will probably not be on fire. While 3 or 4 hispanos rounds would break a large piece of it.

Try doing the same against a spit or P51... you need very few 151/20 rounds to make it catch fire.



It is also completely different using the nose 20 mm from bf109. You can have such precision at close range that any lack of punch is compensated by the capability of choosing the right spot to shot at. Try it. you can shot down an IL2 with 2 rounds when you aim precisely. But if you are using wing mounted 151/20mm.. you will have to use brute force.

anarchy52
10-14-2004, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
Hi, anarchy52

I don't know anything about "sweet spot" this thing is good or bad , and it will change or not , if not can you share me other plane's "sweet spot" like p-47,spitfire, etc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't been flying much with 20mm lately but in my experience you can never go wrong if you aim at the engine and cockpit: if you score you have won the fight if you miss you still might get a shell or two in the wing or tail. As for the sweet spots P-47 has it somewhere behind the cockpit, or somewhere in the tail section, I'm not sure but all of the P-47 fireballs I managed to create were from 6 o'clock . Racking it on the nose will not set it on fire. As for Spitfire, I'd say it's the engine, it is almost as voulnerable to engine hits as the 109, and catches fire very quickly. also you might try the wings since they present a fairly large target. Il-2 also has a sweet spot - the oil cooler box on the underside - if you hit it with even rifle caliber rounds, the oil will leak out and the engine will die in a few minutes without the need to spend your whole ammo load. Exactly like it was in history.

As I said before, I always try to aim at the engine (except for the %$!!#* LaGG-3: did you know that you can hit it from above in the engine with dozen shkas or .303 or MG17 and not cause damage to the engine?)
It also looks like that cooler thingy on the underside on LaGG-3 can not be damaged at all. Tried small caliber shkas and MG17 and medium 12,7 russian, rounds go through it but no damage is inflicted - arcade mode can be very revealing.

Also it was interesting to learn that 5 (five) .50 cals breaks the wing of the Zero.

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2004, 09:56 AM
Most of these sweet spots seem to be gas tanks, but not all gas tanks.
Were some armored or behind/inside other parts that soak up the damage?
Seems the model may be so. HE alone may not hole the armors, be soaked
up by plate(s) in the DM in general and then which plane has plates
where is something to learn. One patch to the next more and more planes
are getting converted or improved internal models it seems -- there are
very many planes and I am sure it's taking a long time to get to them
all.

MG shells start out with good velocity but they are lighter than fragment
HE, less dense, and so drag slows them down much quicker than the others.
This indicates the best range to fire is close for penetration, time to
target and trajectory drop, also to have them in as close a path to the
other shells fired from the same gun as possible. 200m or less, the
difference should not be much at all but then firing at the trailing edge
of a wing or tail from right behind there is not much thickness either.

I read from Hartmann of approaching off to the side flying close to the
path of the intended target on the oblique then making "the rude turn"
hard onto the target and firing from point blank then exiting behind the
tail. I've done it in EAW and it was difficult mostly from having the
restricted view of a sim, you can't see the target always. The shot is
a matter of timing, not aim. If you wait to aim it is gone. The hit
was generally effective though when I did. For him, more so.

Anything with any armorlike in the sim must be penetrated. 7-8mm shots
don't go through much and may be a good way to learn where the plates
are modelled, like the LaGG engines? They also do little to wooden
wings though, just small holes. MG is not much good on plates either.
I've seen in arcade mode that some 151/20 rounds explode inside the
planes, just don't know if the MG shells do.

Whatever goes to Oleg must be clear. What is not known definite must
say else they will check against what is said as certain and if it is
not as stated, the reply will be no, it is not that way or you is wrong.
Better to ask why politely and let them find out? Yes, I would like to
see either different effect or understand why it is good.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2004, 10:03 AM
Anarchy, the 50 cals seem to be going out in groups as one hit.
View damage in arcade mode on slow motion -- if you make a complete track
of a whole offline mission then you can set arcade on for playback even
if it was not to make the mission. The hits come in waves with wide breaks
between, the arrows show it. Maybe it is graphic, I don't think so when
a target can cross what should be a steady stream and sometimes it is hit
bad, other times nothing. This says to me that every .50 hit is really
many .50 hits but there is big gaps in between "shots" that make hits.
With so many guns on each plane firing so fast, it is probably so just
to not kill the framerate?


Neal

faustnik
10-14-2004, 10:07 AM
Do we have good references on belt composition for Mg151? A switch to 50% HE/50% AP would probably yield better results, at least as good as the ShVak. Might be an easier way to improve the situation.

Maybe if we acheive experten status we get the more effective loadout? Hermann Graf got his own personal soccer team, all we are asking for is better ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

gates123
10-14-2004, 11:10 AM
I dont see any problems with a MG151/20. I fly the A6 alot and the A8/A9 with default loads. I can consistently rip spit wings off and LA's in half. I really dont see what the problem is here. I use 125m convergence in the wings and won't start firing till 150m. Most shots are at least a small deflection. I only play online. Again I don't see this worth the 5 pages of complaining and it smells like sub-par gun accuracy and convergence settings.

faustnik
10-14-2004, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
I dont see any problems with a MG151/20. I fly the A6 alot and the A8/A9 with default loads. I can consistently rip spit wings off and LA's in half. I really dont see what the problem is here. I use 125m convergence in the wings and won't start firing till 150m. Most shots are at least a small deflection. I only play online. Again I don't see this worth the 5 pages of complaining and it smells like sub-par gun accuracy and convergence settings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Anybody you disagree with should "learn to fly and shoot". That's original. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Why don't you stop being pompous and read the findings of the posters here.

gates123
10-14-2004, 11:29 AM
To be honest I read this thread and don't care about people's "tests" and "data". I'm just speaking from MY experiences which are...the MG151/20 works fine online. I'm sorry if thats not what you want to hear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

faustnik
10-14-2004, 11:36 AM
It's very obvious that you don't care what others have to say.

gates123
10-14-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
It's very obvious that you don't care what others have to say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Again. Were all intitled to our opinion, especially on this board. I'm not trying to be devils advocate. I'm just voicing my perspective on the topic. Is that so wrong? Oleg said he didn't change the MG151/20's. I'm not gonna argue that he did or didn't. I'm just saying that they are effective enough not to warrant such a backlash. If anything deserves another look its the Spit overheat issue but don't let me digress. S!

faustnik
10-14-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
Again I don't see this worth the 5 pages of complaining and it smells like sub-par gun accuracy and convergence settings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your rude judgement of the other posters in this thread was unwarranted. Your opinion on any aspect of the sim is always welcome, at least by me.

Fehler
10-14-2004, 01:19 PM
Again, fly 1.22, then 2.04. Same gun, nothing was changed, why the HUGE difference in results?

Can anyone offer a definitive answer for this? AKA, quote Oleg or another developer for the exact reason we see such a huge disparity?

Is it correct now? Or was it correct then? Or are neither correct, and just a good guess?

anarchy52
10-14-2004, 01:23 PM
gates, please leave if you don't have anything constructive to say. Take it somewhere else, there is plenty of flame wars and macho bullsh1t on the forum as it is.

clint-ruin
10-14-2004, 02:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Again, fly 1.22, then 2.04. Same gun, nothing was changed, why the HUGE difference in results?

Can anyone offer a definitive answer for this? AKA, quote Oleg or another developer for the exact reason we see such a huge disparity? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK it's just one of those things where Oleg has commented privately but not publicly.

As far as what I have been able to gather, the changes people noticed were to do with a side effect of new netcode in 200/201. I know that what was driving me crazy with this was that every test I'd been doing on gun strength + round strength + hit location strength was showing almost no difference at all versus a -lot- of tests from 1.21. So I'm pretty sure it was nothing much to do with the counting of a round hitting a plane. When I rolled back to 1.21 again and tried a different method - whacking two close together but discreet DM points, trying to add up fragment damage from one to another, there was quite a difference. Tracks from 201 also seemed to show up slightly differently in arcade mode, especially to do with the way round effects would play in a sequence, and which rounds the tracer graphic effect was attaching itself to. JTDs tests on AEP, where a plane was just stuck dead centre in a gunsight and fired on, also showed a difference.

If it was to do with fragment damage being properly counted, this would also explain why it seemed to show up the worst on the 151/20 - 80% of damage from that gun is done by the frags crossing over to multiple locations at once, and adding up.

In terms of info from Oleg that can be publicly posted on this subject - I don't think there's all that much, what correspondance was posted was yanked very quickly.

It would be good to get some word from Oleg, but since he's already gone over it twice and the problem is now apparently fixed, there are a couple of other things I'd be more interested in knowing if we had the choice :&gt;

Atomic_Marten
10-14-2004, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Hm. That explains why I shoot and shoot and shoot and that dmn LaGG just won't go down...I know it has wooden construction but... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shoot the wings next time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey...sorry... didn't know that LaGG have so much engine armor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

gates123
10-14-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
gates, please leave if you don't have anything constructive to say. Take it somewhere else, there is plenty of flame wars and macho bullsh1t on the forum as it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You guys needs to stop overanalyzing. Just because I'm the only who's got enough balls in this thread to say theres nothing wrong with the MG151/20 does not make me some maucho uber self-promoting pilot. All I'm saying is that they are effective enough to rip off wings, pk pilots and slice planes in half online with packetloss. I find them very effective and I enjoy using them. I've played this sim since FB 1.11. German 20mm have always been effective. If the same doesnt happen for some of you then, I am sorry but again I'm entitled to mho and will stand by it. S!

zugfuhrer
10-14-2004, 03:43 PM
The german weapons are inferior to others, and the FW/Me109 damage model is weaker to most allied a/c:s
Make 25 tests, test against a Ju87b, shoot it down using a Me109 and a La3. Se how many rounds you use with thees planes. You will se a significant difference.

By the way, why is there a bigger damage if you hit a a/c from a close distance with a HE? The velocity shouldnt inflict so much.

Dont forget that 3 of 4 shoots from a german plane is a blank.

clint-ruin
10-14-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:
The german weapons are inferior to others, and the FW/Me109 damage model is weaker to most allied a/c:s
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is the kind of, well, idiotic overgeneralisation that tends to make Oleg stay away from this topic. Less of that thanks.


(Q): Could you make a damage model like WW2online has? There are no HP values and predefinded damagable areas.
(A): Even will not try to make the damage like there... Do you like me to make more simple than it is in IL-2? Simple here means that it is modelled by more simple way and in many ways didn't corresponds to real things.
(Q): In WW2online, they model the armor thinkness, interior components of the aircraft, and give each bullet values such as mass and velocity. They then compute how far the bullet penetrates, and what components it damages.
(A): I think we have far more complex things present and modeled in the damage model and in the modeling of shells/bullets. Be sure.
All that you describes above is present and also much more.
(Q): In WW2online, like real life, sometimes you can take down a plane in a single very lucky burst, while other times you can pepper them full of lead without hitting anything important or causing any serious surface damage.
(A): Probably you need to learn more the aerial battles in IL-2.
Becasue such things also present in IL-2. But not by the case and random.... It is done with the modeling of internals of aircraft. Lets say that there is more than 100 main details programmed... And I don't count other not so important, that also modeled.
In FB all things in modeling is also more complex. Even each pice of expoded shell, bomb, etc has calcuilated the trajectory, velosity, decresing of penetration with the distance, etc...
Some time late I will post internal model of construction for aircraft that used for modeling of durability of the each plane. Be sure it is corresponds to real construiction of aircraft in many ways. Of course simplified, but far more complex than in other sims.
Link: 11/29/02 09:49AM

(Q): FlaK/AAA do too much damage! Why don't my 4 20mm in FW do the same???
(A): I'm sorry to say but exploasion warheads of AA cannons modeled with the same attention to details as it was done for aircraft cannons .
Link: 10/19/02 03:53PM

(Q): It's just so **** frustrating to lose engine oil on ONE hit by a small calibre MG while flying a 109 when a YAK can take 20mm shots on the engine without damage.
(A): If you only will have a chance to read Russian, I will show you exactly the same statements about German planes in recals of Russian WWII pilots.
So I'm sorry, I almost don't take in account such pilots recals, except these that corresponds to real construction of the aircraft. I will repeat and will underline, I almost don't take in account such recals of almost any nation if it doesn't corresponds with actual construction of aircraft.
Not the time yet to show how is modelled the constuction of the plane in IL-2 and even more complex in FB.
When will be the right time - I will show. Then you and other simply will think about any comments next time and simply will compare to others who developing sims before to say that something is wrong...
Sure something isn't perfect, but anyway much better than in some others, where such details simply not modelled or were taken from the sky.
Link: 10/30/02 11:15AM

(Q): I tested it firing from IL-2 and Stuka rear gunner into nose of friendly plane readying for take-off. I have found that the same VK 105P (or 105PF) lits very easily in Yak, but definitely not so easy in LaGG. LaGGs were rugged planes, but from the point of construction (they were also quite heavy). The engine vulnerability should be the same, no armor was used to protect it.
(A): That to say that the damage is very different you should also test it by the following way:
1. exactly the same anle of hit
2. exactly the same weapon to hit.
3. exactly the same distance to hit.
Sure they have some differences (LaGG and Yak), but it depends of their construction, location of some details, etc.
Link: 10/29/02 03:55PM

(Q): There are some discrepancies between the damage model of the different aircraft models. The engine of a Yak is possible to quit, but only when hit directly from ahead and only in very rare cases. I know that the cooling system of the 109 was very vulnerable, but was the Yak so strong armoured that it could take so many hits without damage to the engine?
(A): The engine modelled by 40 program modules. Probably you didn't hit the right part (simply thes dts don'e sho many things that are modeled inside the module of engine) As well as durability of VK engines was far more better than DB605 if to speak about common durability of different parts of engines. That is also modelled. But there are not big differences in each engine of the plane. Just some of 40 details has some differences in durability. But not in tymes - just +/- 10-20%
VK-105 and 107 engines were very strong to bullets, comparing to DB-605 that had some details very vulnerable for even rigfle caliber (Radiators of both was vulnerable, but damage of radiators in IL-2 is very simplified, except IL-2 plane itself).
In future sims (becasue we plan to continue with WWII era) we simply will modify in more complex side all the program modules that are about engines, radiators, etc....
IL-2 and then FB is the first attempt to make it so complex.
PS. Yaks has other points that are very vulnerable and average DM is far worse than 109...
Link: 08/29/02 09:14AM

(Q): One 30mm MK108 Bullet made this hole to a Spitfire at a test-field. (image)
(A): Do you like to see how big hole is in Bf-109 that was hitted by single shvak shell? It is almost the same size
Link: 11/01/02 07:06PM

(Q): There is an inconsistence between russian machine-guns and drawn graphics, and german machine-guns and graphics. If all Russian 7.62 green tracer can be drawn, and have every single one of them have a hit impact drawn for them, then why in the interests of the frame rate and PC resources is that possible, but not for the non-tracer MG17 rounds.
(A): That to affirm the things about ShKA, etc you need to be sure that you right. That is first.
The second is that you is wrong. Not each bullet for soviet 7,62 mm MG is drawn! The system is the SAME as for all other MGs in the sim.
But you simply don't take in account that almost all soviet MGs had higher speed/amount of shots per sec/per min even in synchronized mode. Unsysnchronised without special technical limit the SkAS variants was up to 2,880 rounds per minute firng. Normal serial 1,800. Take please in account such thing. Synchronised - 900-1.200. No one German MG had such speed firing across the propeller disk in synchronized variant. Please take it in account once more.
Link: 08/30/02 02:46PM

(Q): The accuracy of the MK108 nose cannon is by far the worst of any gun in the game. Conversely in the P-39 when firing the nose cannon there is much sight shake, but the cannon shells still follow the exact flight path
(A): You should compare ballistic of the cannons. Only then make a questions.
MK108 had one of the worst ballistic comparing to other cannons with similar or higher caliber.
Link: 10/04/02 12:23PM
(A €" other response): Maybe Because of the short barel and low muzzle velocity..Germas used it as bomber killer and used it in large numbers like Me262 to be efective
(A): Not maybe, but as a result of that and several other things.
Link: 10/04/02 12:37PM

[entries added 10. Nov 2002]
(Q): Bullet velocity and damage is not simulated in IL-2 as in real life!
(A): bullet velocity in other weapon processes in IL-2 modelled better than some sims FM in the past. That is the first.
The second is that damage model is not absolutely like in real life. Simply you have not yet PC that to model such thing on home computer. So all developers try to simplify it by different ways that to make it close to reality EQUAL result. I'm sorry to say you, but here you also is wrong. No one prop sim calculates so much in Damage Model like IL-2. Sorry if you still didn't understand it and I need to say it myself here.
I'm tired of some people that really do not understand some basic things.
Link: 08/29/02 07:35AM

(Q): Aluminium burns more easily than wood? I thought the only reason to use wood in aircrafts was its weight advantage and not its durability?
(A): First of all Delta-wood that used on LaGG, La, IL-2, etc had the 700-800?C threshold of burning.
The picture even more complex, because burning may have a case when is present the initial burn.
No time to explain the physics, but in case of Delta-woods that used on these planes, alluminum looks worse.
It isn't simple plywood, but multylayered multi-oriented with special anti-fire wood impregnation. In some cases with some specialimpregnation it simply never burns... But such technology already cost too much, so used some wood impregnation that cost not too much. But still the cost was higher than with aluminium (problem that alluminium manufacture was totally damaged on Ukraine during invasion of Germans and until the time when new alluminum manufactures were build, USSR had not own alluminium. The used that was received by lend lease only! Its why the first Il-2s were fully metallic then partially metallick and again became fully metallic!)
It was used on IL-2, LaGG, La, partially on some details of other Soviet planes.
DB-3 was fully metallic... IL-4 partially used delta wood. Basically the same aircraft, but to shot down DB-3 was more easy.
So here are not present any nonsences. Better to know technology, that something like modern carbon technology.
Now about weight... Here your are also wrong. Just in case of Mosquito it will be partially right... But if to speak about technology that described above, the wooden aircraft will have more weight than fully metallic. That things cearly show with the same aircraft as La-7 1944 and 1945 as well as Yak-3 war and post war production...
So when I read the reference that Soviet planes was so bad becasue they was wooden, I simly smile... Probably because it was advantage of Mosquito?! (sometime in the same source of reference we may read such things!)... Interesting, isn't it? How easy some authors operate with the mind of reader, if to do not tell about real technology, isn't it?
And we speak about cover surfaces, not structual, becasue for structual construction Russians begun to use again metal as soon as it was possible to get "flying" metall in a good amount. (say again in La-5 series. La-5 has mixed metallic-wooden longerons, but final La-5FN series fully metallic.)
The plane that was made with use of delta-wood was basically more durable than others. Say LaGG-3 was more durable than Yak-1. LaGG-3 was even more durable than La-7 (except the engine)
Last: In repair on the field, wooden aircraft is number 1 by raiting.
Link: 11/12/02 12:50PM

(Q): I wish there would be stress damage or something like that simulated in FB. Wings for example do not have armour. One 7.62 bullet goes practically through everywhere it hits. If you hit a wing spar of some Lagg-3 the wing should brake away in next manoeuvre. (A): Do you know why soviet pilots hated SB?
Becasue it was alluminium and burning very easy.. Much more easy than wooden planes (except some part of Yaks that was coveed by erzatz lacquer, that was burning awful and the director of factory that did that replacement of lacquer on production was executed for that).
No armor protection anywhwere on SB... It was possible some time to kill pilot by rifle bullet shooting from the six and bullet was crossed the whole fuselage and stopped in a crew body....
Link: 11/12/02 10:02AM

(Q): Will the AP round do real [sic] damage in FB?
(A): Due to more complex damage model - will
Link: 12/04/02 07:36PM

(Q): Tracer rounds have less of an arc than the normal bullets. So pilots could not use it to aim. Is this feature in il2?
(A): Tha is modelled, but onely for these that really had less.
Look for some of topics here where people tell about damage of traced and non traced shells. Please read my commnets and table posted there.
Link: 08/15/02 08:53AM

(Q): I remember that playing was more fun during 1.03 patch and there was not so many pilot killed cases etc...
(A): Cool. There wasn't changes in damage model of the engines from the release to last update... Intersting dicussion isn't it?
Link: 11/01/02 02:47PM

(Q): As one of the early developers of the Engine Damage models for the Fighter Squadron - Sceamin Deamons Over Europe simulation, I understand and appreciate the extreme amount of time and hard work that must be done for each individual plane and even at times each part of the engines.
Thank you so much for your great attention to detail.
(A): Thank you.
I hope that all will understand it and will understadn how much time we spend for programming of each aircraft...
Link: 10/04/02 09:44PM
[entries added 05 Nov 2002]


That's just a quick search for every time Oleg was quoted as saying "damage" in the Ask Oleg thing.

So I mean .. do you have anything else to say?
Maybe something new?

VW-IceFire
10-14-2004, 04:46 PM
I love the bit about the Delta wood. Because there is so much bias against it and yet Oleg comes out sounding like he knows quite alot about it. I certainly can believe when he says that Delta wood, because of construction, was in many ways more damage resistant than aluminum. I also believe the bit about the Russian engines being tougher...I've read that a number of times.

Good to read what Oleg says. He doesn't talk much about the MG151/20. It didn't used to be as much of an issue. Its still not a huge issue...but its one of interest.

clint-ruin
10-14-2004, 04:53 PM
Icefire, I very much agree that there are some curious things in FBs damage model that I would like to have explained in a bit more detail, or have looked at.

Lack of incendiary ammo for the MG17 and the weird HE/MG fragment-only damage being the main ones.

This is different from saying "ALL OF THE GERMAN PLANES ARE WEAK AND ALL OF THE ALLIED PLANES ARE STRONG AND ALL OF THE GERMAN GUNS ARE WEAK AND ALL OF THE ALLIED ONES ARE STRONG". That is really, really unlikely to get much of a constructive response.

anarchy52
10-14-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
This is different from saying "ALL OF THE GERMAN PLANES ARE WEAK AND ALL OF THE ALLIED PLANES ARE STRONG AND ALL OF THE GERMAN GUNS ARE WEAK AND ALL OF THE ALLIED ONES ARE STRONG". That is really, really unlikely to get much of a constructive response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man I'm furious, I try to have a reasonable and argumented debate on MG151/20 to possibly make a compilation to submit it to the developers and then when the post count reaches critical mass we get: learn-to-fly-and-shoot-i-kill-spits-for-breakfast-in-focke and the VVS-conspiracy-all-russian-overmodelled. What's next? (my guess is either mk108-uber-n00b-sniper-kills-from-800m or another .50 cal-tigerkiller looney).

MODERATORS! WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY WHEN YOU REALLY NEED ONE!?

anarchy52
10-14-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
[I think this is the kind of, well, idiotic overgeneralisation that tends to make Oleg stay away from this topic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

OldMan____
10-14-2004, 07:48 PM
You people have to learn to ignore such things. When someone comes with something so NON constructive.. just ignore it.

Anyway.. the only thing we can test and arguee here is damage in 151/20 and MG FF .. since its knows whos was stronger... so comprare them.. if MG FF is realy stronger than 151/20.. something is wrong. If not.. we can´t say anything..

clint-ruin
10-14-2004, 08:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You people have to learn to ignore such things. When someone comes with something so NON constructive.. just ignore it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, this is a good one:

(Q): VVS modelled with all advantages... LW planes modelled "historical correct"... LW tracer modelled "historical correct"... VVS guns are "über"...
(A): I would recommend you to buy normal joystick, that has not any lufts and work 100% precise, then you'll forget about you stupid input. I will repeat - stupid. And if you'll hate me for that, after that I will repeat, stupid.
Link: 10/06/02 01:01PM

:&gt;

karost
10-14-2004, 10:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
You people have to learn to ignore such things. When someone comes with something so NON constructive.. just ignore it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes...! , I'm agree
when I see some friends with "NON constructive" the best solution is not use emotion , not care and ignore ... that is compromise and perfect tactic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

karost
10-15-2004, 05:35 AM
I see one confuse for MG151/20 in ORR,that is we are talking in a same gun but difference airplane.

some friends test 4x20mm from Fw-190A or Me-110 he may see there is no problem but many friends here (imho) are pointing to 20mm in Fw-190D and Bf-109s (no gun pot).... this is a confuse which we have to becareful...


and I see that we are just focus to a micro analysis ( each plane's quality ) but did not balance with marcro analysis ( just like... a number of plane which made by delta wood was shooted down in war time ) that should have some picture or investigation reports which can use for analysis about DM ....
sorry if my idea look stupid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

S!

WUAF_Badsight
10-15-2004, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gates123:
Again. Were all intitled to our opinion, especially on this board. I'm not trying to be devils advocate. I'm just voicing my perspective on the topic. Is that so wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
wether or not you are effective with any gun in FB is not any indication of what that gun is actually doing

myself i suit wing guns over nose guns , i do better with them

but that dont mean the planes i fly that have wing guns are accurate or not in their DM

OldMan____
10-15-2004, 06:06 AM
Why.. is there any difference among 151/20 in antons and other planes? I never noticed any. In fact if it was to be one.. it would be an advantage to bf109 since its weapon is not syncronized.


Anyway.. I just made a 4 hours test with any planes with 2 20mm cannons that could be fired alone of other weapons.

My impressions. Quite balanced for all cannons as FINAL result. That means.. same effectiveness on bring enemy out of fight. Although german guns usually make less often the impressive cut in half effect. I would say hispano is indeed a little more powerful per shot and more accurate. But overall balanced by rpm. Russian weapons are almost same damage as 151/20 ones. although easier to hit I would say.

Going deeper in subject I noticed that even with same overall effectiveness, all cannons have very different damage results. The hispanos seems to go trough everything until leaving the other side.. no fire.. just chew big chunks of AC fuselage. Russian weapons are somehow simmilar to hispano, but seems to behave better at shorter range. The 151/20 have a very god rate of fire ignition and the best rate of blow everything from sky (on 20mm level.. not trying to steal mk108 glory). But it seems to be innefective when you hit the tail surfaes from dead 6. It just explodes there.. not going though into the fuselage. When aiming to the wing from dead 6 they are really impressive, but not much impressive when comming thought plane of wing.

Final note about 151/20.. they are decieving because you have them firing alongside 13 mm guns (usually) that you cant distinguish among tracers and have a very different ballistics. Noticed I almost ever am hitting with the 13mm ones and missing with the 20 mm ones.


Think that is the situation, cannons are not under or over modelled.. are just different and work their best at different situations.

By the way.. all tests were made against P51D, Spit MK9 and P47. I don´t like using bombers as targets since they are not the target that we are usually complaining about.

anarchy52
10-15-2004, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Final note about 151/20.. they are decieving because you have them firing alongside 13 mm guns...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You could have fired gun only, by either binding a separate button or spending your MG ammo first.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Think that is the situation, cannons are not under or over modelled.. are just different and work their best at different situations.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
&lt;irony&gt;
Yes, MG151/20 works best in situation when you hit the target on convergence range with 1-2 second burst, while hispano works by cutting a plane in half with 3-4 hits.
&lt;/irony&gt;
[QUOTE]

Hispano has 2 types of projectiles: AP and HE, while MG151/20 seems to have only HE judging by arcade mode. Try the test mission posted earlier on this thread so you can accuratelly asses the damage per single round. Shooting at exactly the same target in exactly the same spot, one by one round is much more objective test.

Even though every other round in hispano is AP which is only effective if it strikes a vital spot, otherwise just makes a neat hole (or at least it should) it takes twice as much MG151/20 rounds to shoot the tail of the B-17.

Shooting the AIs in flight is not a scientific test as you can not provide controlled environment:
you do not know where exactly will you hit, what distance, how many rounds etc.
Again, I suggest you try the offline mission posted earlier, set speed to 1/4 and fire one by one round.
Then You will come to very different conclusions. Damage per round of MG151/20 is waaay lower then any other 20mm in the game, nobody said that You can not shoot anything down with it just that it takes too bloody many rounds compared to other 20mm cannons.

VW-IceFire
10-15-2004, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
This is different from saying "ALL OF THE GERMAN PLANES ARE WEAK AND ALL OF THE ALLIED PLANES ARE STRONG AND ALL OF THE GERMAN GUNS ARE WEAK AND ALL OF THE ALLIED ONES ARE STRONG". That is really, really unlikely to get much of a constructive response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man I'm furious, I try to have a reasonable and argumented debate on MG151/20 to possibly make a compilation to submit it to the developers and then when the post count reaches critical mass we get: learn-to-fly-and-shoot-i-kill-spits-for-breakfast-in-focke and the VVS-conspiracy-all-russian-overmodelled. What's next? (my guess is either mk108-uber-n00b-sniper-kills-from-800m or another .50 cal-tigerkiller looney).

MODERATORS! WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY WHEN YOU REALLY NEED ONE!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uhhh...I don't think you understood the context that his post was made in. He was using sarcasm to suggest when arguments would not be effective. He was not saying those things litterally. Thus the whole lead up and the use of quotation marks.

clint-ruin
10-15-2004, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:

Then You will come to very different conclusions. _Damage per round of MG151/20 is waaay lower then any other 20mm in the game_, nobody said that You can not shoot anything down with it just that it takes too bloody many rounds compared to other 20mm cannons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you will find, that after playing with Arcade=1 a bit more, you will discover that the 151/20 is not a weak gun. Its damage on a single component is less than other guns, but it damages multiple components far better than anything else right up to the 37mm T9 and NS37 HE.

As Oldman says, it is more a matter of the damage being different than the damage being lesser. That's why I think it is much more to do with -all- HE shells than just the 151/20 - HE damage issues shows up the worst on this gun, but that's a symptom of what might be a more general problem in the game.

As I said earlier, I think it is important to be as specific and as detailed about what you think the issue is and what the fix you are asking for might look like in its implementation.

If you really want to campaign to fix an undermodelled gun, the 23mm VYa is a much better candidate than even the 151/20 :&gt;

anarchy52
10-15-2004, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

I think you will find, that after playing with Arcade=1 a bit more, you will discover that the 151/20 is not a weak gun. Its damage on a single component is less than other guns, but it damages multiple components far better than anything else right up to the 37mm T9 and NS37 HE.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I barelly restrained myself from mentioning digestion byproducts of cattle after I read this.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As Oldman says, it is more a matter of the damage being different than the damage being lesser.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When I hit with MG151/20 I would like to cause the same kind damage as with hispano or shvak 20mm HE, you know the kind of damage that actually damages the target aircraft.

Data shows that there is no reason whatsoever why MG151/20 SHOULD BE weaker then other guns and offline tests in controlable environment show that it IS much weaker.

You can't be much more specific then that. I do not have the Il-2 source and I do not know what's wrong. If I could I'd fix it myself instead arguing with "lear to shoot" and "different kind of damage" with charts, numbers and offline tests.

I'm getting pissed off by the hypocrisy, bias and just plain ignorance of some people (no, not You).

clint-ruin
10-15-2004, 08:36 AM
Well, obviously there's nothing I could possibly tell you that you don't already know.

Best of luck.

karost
10-15-2004, 08:52 AM
Oh... I think we not have any business in 37mm T9 and NS37 HE 23mm VYa in this thread

that will bring our topic spring away from the main objective of this thread.
we are talking about 20mm and this is what we need to know in game:

muzzle velocity (m/s), projectile mass(g):
==================================
Hispano MkII 20x110
HE__________________860 130
Hispano MkV 20x110
HE__________________830 130

MG151/20 (20x82)
API_________________720 117
HET_________________720 115
HE(M)_______________800 92

Shvak,B-20(20x99)
API_________________750 96
HEI_________________790 95


OldMan____ help us to test in the same direction , event he try to make a compromise conclusoin at the end but in the test he point this :

"The 151/20 have a very god rate of fire ignition and the best rate of blow everything from sky (on 20mm level.. not trying to steal mk108 glory). But it seems to be innefective when you hit the tail surfaes from dead 6. It just explodes there.. not going though into the fuselage"

Thanks OldMan____ for your test S~ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


and this idea is very good too:

"I suggest you try the offline mission posted earlier, set speed to 1/4 and fire one by one round.
Then You will come to very different conclusions."

I admin that, 3 year for play this game/sim , I never try set speed to 1/4 for make a shooting before

I believe many good friends here will interesting to test this procedure with Shvak , Hispano and MG151/20 ( from bf-109 and fw-190D )and share to this community , I think speed to 1/4 will not make a track size too big and we all easy to download to see.

Regards,

Karost

clint-ruin
10-15-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
I believe many good friends here will interesting to test this procedure with Shvak , Hispano and MG151/20 (_ from bf-109 and fw-190D _)and share to this community , I think speed to 1/4 will not make a track size too big and we all easy to download to see.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a distration at all, just that in terms of HE power the MG/HE from the 151/20 doesn't stack up too badly as compared to other, larger HE rounds at times.

Oldman is absolutely, completely and totally correct about HE impacts on thin and shallow angle surfaces in FB. Really messes up the distribution of the frags, they go everywhere and only do tiny amounts of damage to surrounding parts of the plane.

You don't need to record tracks at quarter speed, just record normally, you can alter the playback speed in playback if need be - doesn't make them any bigger.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-15-2004, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you really want to campaign to fix an undermodelled gun, the 23mm VYa is a much better candidate than even the 151/20 :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? The 151/20 is far more prevalent and pretty much the root of all LW aircraft; get this wrong and you may as well write off most of the LW plane..

Cheers,
Norris

clint-ruin
10-15-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you really want to campaign to fix an undermodelled gun, the 23mm VYa is a much better candidate than even the 151/20 :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? The 151/20 is far more prevalent and pretty much the root of all LW aircraft; get this wrong and you may as well write off most of the LW plane..

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check JTDs AEP gun tests for what's up with the VYa.

Just saying, histrionics about the 151/20 in particular doesn't get us anywhere fast. There are other guns with their own issues too. I'm not crusading on this or anything, I think this is the first time I've even mentioned the issue.

edit: just to clarify further - you know how it was really annoying when the .50 cal dispersion was played with, seemingly pretty randomly, and nothing else got any attention? There was some interesting data thrown into that thread on other guns [particularly 10 mils dispersion for the outer wing cannons on the 190A which we don't seem to have implemented either]. I would just like to make it so that if Oleg does take a look at this, he can maybe take a look at the general issue, and not just one specific instance people are yelling about.

karost
10-15-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
You don't need to record tracks at quarter speed, just record normally, you can alter the playback speed in playback if need be - doesn't make them any bigger. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

then why not ? let our friends (who whould like to test this) make his own decision. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

faustnik
10-15-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

As Oldman says, it is more a matter of the damage being different than the damage being lesser. That's why I think it is much more to do with -all- HE shells than just the 151/20 - HE damage issues shows up the worst on this gun, but that's a symptom of what might be a more general problem in the game.

As I said earlier, I think it is important to be as specific and as detailed about what you think the issue is and what the fix you are asking for might look like in its implementation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I think you are right on here. The Mg151 is just more effected due to its belt composition. We should be focusing on HE damage instead of "Mg151" damage.

OldMan____
10-15-2004, 01:48 PM
And again, that is not a general case. It is only somehow problematic when shooting thin stuff like tail from dead 6.

I prefer tests agaisnt IA, since they show a real combat situation. It does not matter is in a static situation.. shot by shot weapon A is better than B, since that is an unreal situation. Important is it is averagely same efficience as any other 20 mm in combat situation, save some specific situations. Something good in testing in flight is, you hit many places.. you can see which kind of shot makes effect at each location. A static test mission is effective only if you make one mission shooting at fuel tank, other at tail spine, other at wing root, other at engine etc... That's because different ammo reacts in different way at different types of target.

Let me give an over exagerated example. You have two targets in real world.. a heap of sand.. and a solid heavy wooden door. You have two weapons.. your bare hands and a 9mm hand pistol. You can go through the door with the pistol, but not with bare hands. But when you shoot at sand with your full magazine you will make much less damage than attacking it with a few moves of your bare hands digging into it.

I keep my view of DIFFERENT damage more important than bigger or smaller damage.

About what I spoke on 13mm guns.. I was talking about combat situation, when you shot all weapons, you usually miss most of your heavy ones. I made my test using only the cannons as I had stated earlier.

clint-ruin
10-15-2004, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
And again, that is not a general case. It is only somehow problematic when shooting thin stuff like tail from dead 6. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the different arcs of the rounds also mess with people doing dead 6 shots with the 151/20. Very often, if you're shooting from even 1m out of convergence, the same burst aimed at the one spot will rake the rudder, fuselage, elevator, horizontal stabiliser, etc. Just as a reference, not as proof, consider the number of times it's mentioned that 109 pilots would close almost to the point of collision before firing. Concentrated hits on the same DM section is what really messes the planes up in FB - if you hit each section only once, you can get in an amazing number of hits.

The last time I went testing this, for instance, I found the high point in the delta for the ShVAK vs Bf109G6 to be something like 37 individual 20mm hits if each DM segment was shot in turn. If you concentrate them on the right segment - wing root or engine - you need as little as one or two hits.

OldMan____
10-16-2004, 05:32 AM
As I said, a singe hit of 151/20 can rip a p51 wing if hitting the wing struct from correct angle.

karost
10-16-2004, 06:08 AM
well.... this is a good friends who dedicate his time to share us his test and his interesting idea and data. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kweassa1 test : March 04 200 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=514105852&r=261108952#261108952) &gt; Almost everytime, hits on the wings or other control surfaces, rear fuselage area, will require a second, third, or even a fourth shot.

Gryphonne test : March 08 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=144104562#144104562) &gt; The MG151/20 seems (far) weaker than it was in 1.22

Gunner_361st : March 08 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=284104562#284104562) &gt; The MG-151/20 seems just fine to me... in Fw-109A4

StevenCappu : March 08 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=500106562#500106562) &gt; He just removed the HE round

Kweassa1 : March 09 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=747105762#747105762) &gt; Rudder/tail/wing surfaces need average of 4~5 shots to fail.

Magister__Ludi : March 09 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=681107762#681107762) &gt; I parked a G2 100m away from a Pe2 ... Almost no HE rounds?

LLv34_Flanker : March 11 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=735107072#735107072) &gt; What is also neglected most of the time is that the HE round does NOT lose it's effectiveness even the range increases.

VO101__Kurfurst : March 13 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=305106472#305106472) &gt; two belt compositions suggested to be used by the Luftwaffes high command

Tipo_Man : March 25 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=614100203&r=614100203#614100203) &gt; Now mr.Maddox could you explain us what makes Hispano cannon 8 - 12 times more effective than MG151/20 ?

Enofinu : April 04 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=614100203&r=240107033#240107033) &gt; later germans found way to compress PETN, and in those 20mm rounds there was 25g of PETN.

BBB_Hyperion: June 17 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=241107474#241107474) &gt; This Table is wrong cause it shows weight of explosive as power = tnt

Blutarski2004 : June 17 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=916109164#916109164) &gt; Minengeschoss type ammunition sacrificed range, accuracy, kinetic energy striking power, and fragmentation effect in exchange for greatly

improved blast effect.

OldMan____ :June 21 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=433105284#433105284) &gt; Do you really think Mg 151/20 is correct when comparing its damage to ANY other cannon in FB ?

Gibbage1 : June 22 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=593108384#593108384) &gt; I did some test's last night and WOW is the Mg-151/20 WEAK!!!

NN_Tym : June 23 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=306101584#306101584) &gt; By checking the eventlog.lst file, I found that 21 shells made it home.

Blutarski2004 : June 28 2004 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=710106274&r=332103015#332103015) &gt; data on explosive blast effects of bombs given in US Department

include other friends who I like to make a link for your good idea about 151/20 but I have to find something to eat ... hope you don't mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , please come and share you data , idea and your test again before the time out..!



Oh...can anybody help me to update this table ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
================================================== ===
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

Regards,
Karost

NorrisMcWhirter
10-16-2004, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you really want to campaign to fix an undermodelled gun, the 23mm VYa is a much better candidate than even the 151/20 :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? The 151/20 is far more prevalent and pretty much the root of all LW aircraft; get this wrong and you may as well write off most of the LW plane..

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check JTDs AEP gun tests for what's up with the VYa.

Just saying, histrionics about the 151/20 in particular doesn't get us anywhere fast. There are other guns with their own issues too. I'm not crusading on this or anything, I think this is the first time I've even mentioned the issue.

edit: just to clarify further - you know how it was really annoying when the .50 cal dispersion was played with, seemingly pretty randomly, and nothing else got any attention? There was some interesting data thrown into that thread on other guns [particularly 10 mils dispersion for the outer wing cannons on the 190A which we don't seem to have implemented either]. I would just like to make it so that if Oleg does take a look at this, he can maybe take a look at the general issue, and not just one specific instance people are yelling about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

The thing that annoys people the most, I think, is that the 151/20 seems to keep changing all the time; we had something effective in v1.21, something useless in v2.0 and something inbetween now. No one actually asked for the change from v1.21 to v2.0, nor did I see much whining about the 151/20 being too powerful in that patch, either...

I'd rather steer clear of the .50 cal problem because, from what I saw, 1C folded under the immense pressure from this forum and even Oleg stated that he wasn't happy with it.

I agree in you saying that there are other problems to be considered. Lots of other ones, in fact and I think we'll have to wait for PF to see what they have actually decided upon...or, at least until the subsequent patch.

Cheers,
Norris

OldMan____
10-16-2004, 07:54 AM
I used to think 151 was too weak, but with time I learned to use it beter. and now think is same effectiveness as hispano.

considering table above (hope is in International units)

151/20 energy would be 0.1150*710*710 = 58kj
hispano energy would be 0.13*860*860=96k

in other words.. hispano should have 1.6 times more kynetic energy than 151/20. So is rather comprehensive it has more damage at armored targets.

Jippo01
10-16-2004, 08:14 AM
Most people are discussing about HE/MG ammunition, so I think it is better not to bring kinetic energy in to the discussion. It is quite irrelevant with HE.


-jippo

OldMan____
10-16-2004, 10:15 AM
No, it not irrelevant, because the bullet that tears plane apart in hispanos is the API one! And even HE ammo has kynetic energy.. its importatn in order to penetrate the plane in order to explode inside it.


Forget about " consider only this kind of ammo", " test shooting at exactly same plane in grounded missions" and stuff like that! We are interested in final results in COMBAt SITUATION! If the bullet gives m,ore damage because it is more cute.. so we must put cuteness in equation!! If Yeallo cammo are imune to 20 mm guns.. we must put in equantion.. desconsidering ANY variable make any annalisys WORTHLESS!!

Jippo01
10-16-2004, 11:58 AM
If you insist then. But if you are going to calculate KE add another division by two to get your calculation right.

And compare KE only on AP and API rounds, HE and MG will penetrate the aircraft skin without any doubt. KE only adds a small speed component to the shrapnel, which then again improves the destructiveness of the round next to nothing. HE damages by blast and shrapnel, and bringing in KE only confuses the matter.

And if you calculate KE for AP round, then make sure you use the V(0) and the projectile weight of the AP, and not the HE round. These two are different and people tend to neglect that.


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 12:59 PM
I believe that what some people say here is not being understood at all.
The ideas are not like stronger or weaker. If they are right or wrong
or partly those is debateable but first need understood to even talk of.

== real HE and MG shells have kinetic, fragment and explosive blast
== real HE and MG may explode on the surface or inside the target
== real HE and MG shells have a short time fuse to explode
== real fuse time is very very short but they move fast fast
== real, when those shells hit they have lost some speed from distance and drag
== real, if there is not enough kinetic and the angle of impact is low, they bounce off
== real, from Butch2K the impact angle must be more than 30 degrees to start the fuse
...... but when the shell goes in I am sure the chance of hitting something at that
...... angle or more is almost certain, only on bounce can I see it not
== real, the more kinetic the shell has after penetrate, the deeper it will get in the
...... time before the fuse finishes and boom. if another thing inside is hit then it
...... must also kinetic penetrate that to go deeper into the target
== real, the deeper inside the shell explodes, the more damage is made

So with those understood, the kinetic is important, the range is important, yes?
The kinetic also makes damage by smashing parts, when they bend and are riveted or
welded to others, those are wrenched, bent, shocked as well. Airplanes are very
connected inside, stiff but thin in most places.

Also some people do not understand that as models are changed from simple DM to
complex, the effects of shells has been different. From IL2 to FB was the first
time and from later posts of Oleg about planes DM's being made more complex, not
all the planes had been fully changed at FB 1.0 or even the first patch, just
enough to go from IL2 to FB I think. Exactly what was done and when is not said,
just I see the posts of changes. Changes mean how they act when hit changes even
when the gun model does not -- it is different for all guns but some guns fire
shots that other guns do not.

Also when Clint mentions about just the fragments damage, it is not about total
effect. He compared fragment damage alone of 151/20 with 37mm shells fragment
damage only using arcade view. He did not say all the same, just fragments so
don't be so quick with negative comment Anarchy, without discussing fragment
damage only.

You shoot a wing, it has parts as real. What is hit and how hit are critical.
Don't just count hits. You only count how much you don't know. Averages from
real histories are made by shooters aiming as they did, when people report good
results they are dismissed quickly but should be part of the average. LW report
of average to kill planes did not say for any pilot or every pilot so many was
needed, they average ALL pilots including experts and rookies. Since the rookies
don't get to even shoot at all so often, who is going to make more shots and the
most effect on average except the better and best marksman pilots.

People who think too little assume too easy what history says, how it got that way.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 01:04 PM
Jippo, there is much more than skin of the plane. In places you want to damage most it
is crowded inside. KE matters to place the explosion.

It is also considered by almost everyone that explosive blast is not modelled or not
as strong enough. Maybe everyone, not almost everyone. Everyone who posts agrees.


Neal

Jippo01
10-16-2004, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Jippo, there is much more than skin of the plane. In places you want to damage most it
is crowded inside. KE matters to place the explosion.

Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will still keep my opinion KE has next to no importance on HE and especially on MG rounds. They will either penetrate the target and explode inside or on the other side, or if it hits armored part it will not penetrate one bit. Projectile will either burst (not damaging the armor) or disintegrate (not damaging the armor).

Normal handgung bullet will penetrate aircraft skin, 20mm will have absolutely no problems doing that.


-jippo

Jippo01
10-16-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
== real, if there is not enough kinetic and the angle of impact is low, they bounce off
== real, from Butch2K the impact angle must be more than 30 degrees to start the fuse
...... but when the shell goes in I am sure the chance of hitting something at that
...... angle or more is almost certain, only on bounce can I see it not
== real, the more kinetic the shell has after penetrate, the deeper it will get in the
...... time before the fuse finishes and boom. if another thing inside is hit then it
...... must also kinetic penetrate that to go deeper into the target
== real, the deeper inside the shell explodes, the more damage is made
Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please see the video link I posted earlier in this thread. Butch2k may say that bullets bounce or that the fuses don't detonate on shallow angles, but in real life they did (and still do). It is not more than 5 degrees impact angle in the video.

KE gets the round to the target and gets it inside. That's it. Inside it doesn't really matter how far it will go before exploding, actually I think that earlier the fuse goes of the better. It might have been a full deflection shot on a thin wing, right?

KE doesn't determine how far a round travels in a aircraft body. If there are no obstructions it's travel will be dictated by it's speed. If there is solid obstruction it will not travel but go off or disintegrate. 20mm has much more KE than a MG or HE shell can handle when something really solid is hit.


-jippo

karost
10-16-2004, 02:00 PM
Hi, WWMaxGunz


to help you faster see this:
http://marvin.kset.org/~riddler/6.avi
http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/video/video14.zip

Oh... and please help us about this.

A)tell us, P40 was hit and "damaged" by ?
1) KE
2) HE(T)
3) HE(M)


B) how many round hit ?


C) what is degree of impact for each bullet. ?


D) what plane shooted P-40 ?


This is what we are talking about ....


S!

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 02:22 PM
Wotan on SimHQ posted a picture of 151/20 hits on the side of a bomber.
I say hit-s- because there are clearly two different places where the
longerons are bent and broken and the skin tearing to match in front
of the place where the rest of the panel was torn and sheared off by
the wind with zero damage to any underlying elements.

What else did the 151/20's damage? Nothing. There is an inside skin
under the outside and longerons and it is not visibly holed. The HE
or MG blew the outside skin open and bent a few ribs then the airstream
did the rest but that was it.

Poking holes in the skin is not enough.
Wings have not only ribs but crossmembers, hat section strengtheners
and spars, in some cases like I think P-47, three of those with different
lengths. Loads of ribs. What else? Wheel wells, wheels and legs, all
the structure to tie them to the spars and frame, all the mechanism to
raise and lower them that's not in the fuselage. Any fuel tanks in the
wing with the protection they had even if it's not armor plate. Control
linkages and parts plus whatever was put with them. Aileron structural
mountings, hinges and the ailerons themselves. How many other parts I
missed? 109's, all the slat parts. Also the weapons, ammo, trays,
mounting structure, hardpoints for underwing mounts and structure....

Yes, it is so simple. You just penetrate the skin and bang the wing must
be heavily damaged like some pictures show. Works every time. Every time
the shot is just like what made the picture at least, on the same part of
the same target.

So we should expect what in a detailed model sim?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 02:36 PM
Karost, I have a 45k dialup. AVI? Maybe an hour to get 16MB if I'm lucky.

There is -a- video of an Italian plane shooting a P-40 up that is being circulated
as Bf-109 or FW using 151/20's lately. Discussion about that is on SimHQ. The
shots are 12.7 with HE and many hits.

Big discussion, many posts about the video, people trying to see it frame by
frame using Media Player (should use a good video editor, VirtualDub is free)
and saying there is many hits not tracers.

When people get excited, they stop thinking, every time.

I've seen photos of extreme damage from 20mm explosive and others of not.
Are only the good ones to be counted? All others are fakes? What is this
and what is that, must be always the best?

That can be simulated easily, no need for internal parts modelling at all.
1 hit = big hole. 2 hits = wing break on random 33%. 3 hits = sure kill.

You know what is mach stem? It happens then you get multiplied effect. If
not then only times one.


Neal

karost
10-16-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Karost, I have a 45k dialup. AVI? Maybe an hour to get 16MB if I'm lucky.

There is -a- video of an Italian plane shooting a P-40 up that is being circulated
as Bf-109 or FW using 151/20's lately. Discussion about that is on SimHQ. The
shots are 12.7 with HE and many hits.

Big discussion, many posts about the video, people trying to see it frame by
frame using Media Player (should use a good video editor, VirtualDub is free)
and saying there is many hits not tracers.

When people get excited, they stop thinking, every time.

I've seen photos of extreme damage from 20mm explosive and others of not.
Are only the good ones to be counted? All others are fakes? What is this
and what is that, must be always the best?

That can be simulated easily, no need for internal parts modelling at all.
1 hit = big hole. 2 hits = wing break on random 33%. 3 hits = sure kill.

You know what is mach stem? It happens then you get multiplied effect. If
not then only times one.


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gotcha you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ..well after you download hope you read this thread again ...
good luck...

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Please see the video link I posted earlier in this thread. Butch2k may say that bullets bounce or that the fuses don't detonate on shallow angles, but in real life they did (and still do). It is not more than 5 degrees impact angle in the video. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under 30 degrees for fuse to not ignite is from Butch. I include that inside it will very
most likely hit something to set it off.

My net is 45k dialup. you seriously expect me to download video? How many meg?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>KE gets the round to the target and gets it inside. That's it. Inside it doesn't really matter how far it will go before exploding, actually I think that earlier the fuse goes of the better. It might have been a full deflection shot on a thin wing, right?

KE doesn't determine how far a round travels in a aircraft body. If there are no obstructions it's travel will be dictated by it's speed. If there is solid obstruction it will not travel but go off or disintegrate. 20mm has much more KE than a MG or HE shell can handle when something really solid is hit.


-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it matters how far inside when you look at the fragments. Also the parts of structure
that break and make other impacts inside.

Unless you only want skin blown off the wing and some bent ribs? In reality, do you
think that an explosion in the center of a target is the same as on the edge? Somehow
an explosion right under the skin just wipes out deep into the target. With tanks, yes
because they are a hard shell with lighter things inside, the explosion is confined.
When you have stronger parts inside than the container, the container opens first and
the blast dissipates at least in that whole direction. So you want deep detonation if
you want the greatest chances to damage.

Seeing as how FB may only model fragment damage, do you think that depth inside the target
is not important? In reality or the sim, depth inside means more fragments not leaving
the target immediately with only small holes in the skin. Does that explain anything of
the sim, like why close range hits do more? Count that only 2 of 5 151/20's are MG, 2
are HE-fragment and 1 is APIT. Someone asked why it could be in the sim ... Fehler?


neal

Jippo01
10-16-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes it matters how far inside when you look at the fragments. Also the parts of structure
that break and make other impacts inside.

Unless you only want skin blown off the wing and some bent ribs? In reality, do you
think that an explosion in the center of a target is the same as on the edge? Somehow
an explosion right under the skin just wipes out deep into the target. With tanks, yes
because they are a hard shell with lighter things inside, the explosion is confined.
When you have stronger parts inside than the container, the container opens first and
the blast dissipates at least in that whole direction. So you want deep detonation if
you want the greatest chances to damage.

Seeing as how FB may only model fragment damage, do you think that depth inside the target
is not important? In reality or the sim, depth inside means more fragments not leaving
the target immediately with only small holes in the skin. Does that explain anything of
the sim, like why close range hits do more? Count that only 2 of 5 151/20's are MG, 2
are HE-fragment and 1 is APIT. Someone asked why it could be in the sim ... Fehler?


neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is the video. Little over 1mb, but well worth it. Clear and good quality:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/utok1.mpg

What are you arguing with me? KE? Your arguments seem to refer to fuse timing, not KE. I was talking about relevance of KE when talking about HE ammunition.

20mm will have enough KE to penetrate AC skin without any problems at any realistic combat distance.

20mm HE(not to mention MG) will not penetrate a lot no matter how much velocity(KE) you put in it. The shell will blow or disintegrate when it hits armor at any realistic combat distance at normal velocities.


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 03:18 PM
This video matches descriptions of the one discussed on SimHQ. Member who has the
full video on tape says it is a Macchi with camera in wing shooting the P-40. I
saw hit to right wing, top of cockpit, fuselage and side in less tha 1/3rd of the
video alone. Nice big incendiary blooms here and there, easy to mistake for big
fantasy explosions if you don't know better. Lots of smoke.

If you think the big bright blooms are from explosions the the very first should
have taken a huge chunk of the right wing which it did not, more probably broke
the wing right there from force alone. Next on top rear of cockpit hood yet the
hood is still there after. More here and there, big bright **fires** that if from
explosions then the plane should be tumbling pieces with that many so.

Gun camera is filmed at high speed, not normal. Very fast. Count the hits and the
tracers. See where the tracers are two side by side streams. Guess the ROF.

Answer this, it is on the internet so what they say it must be true? Not when
there are people with the full tape and the clip has been circulated since 2000.


Neal

Note the TWIN tracer paths from the right. Yes, all the fire is from 2 MG's with
AP, APIT and APHE rounds. Those bullets were also adapted directly by Japan.

What is that clip being hawked as? Go read the discussion on SimHQ, ignore the
Gibbage/Wotan arguement unless you want to be sidetracked... first look for the
discussion of the video then get partisan, well more partisan.

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 04:02 PM
Jippo, I got that one. Lots of guns firing on the target, again the camera seems to
be located in a wing, the right wing. Lots of shots missed but the ones that hit
were good. Quite a few panels knocked clear off which I'd expect anyway from HE
shells. Notice the shape of the panels? Push open a corner into 300+ kph wind
and see how long the rivets or whatever holds... the panels looked pretty much whole
for the most part. The big hits seem to be first the one on the back middle right
wing and then 2nd and almost immediate 3rd to the middle left wing. Pieces off but
not showing much demolishment of wings as some would have it but I guess not you
as you seem to have more realistic ideas of damage. Both spots of right and left
wings were also on fire for at least the short time of the remaining clip so
could they have been incendiary or maybe fuel fires from HE hits?

Why I mentioned KE above is that KE represents speed, not directly but loss of
KE is loss of speed and by square root proportion (mass x vel^2)/2... how this
relates is 1941 Germany added delay to HE/MG to achieve internal explosions. A
very short delay yes, of very high speed shells. Now if the shell has lost half
of its speed between flight and penetration, it will go less far inside as one
that has lost less, which might hit something further in that the other does not
and explode on that. Force of shockwave diminishes with about cube of distance
unless you get the mach stem. Also the fragments will originate from so much
deeper, maybe inches but still a possible benefit. The skin usually sets off the
fuse, doesn't it?

Better yet... examine damage in the sim at slow motion and pause when the arrows
occur, only firing 151/20. Into a Tu wing I have seen where the fragments have
origin on the skin, just into the wing and far into the wing. Also with the
fuselage. FB does model that HE can go deep, explode and send fragements from
where more of those must hit plane parts, bigger chance of vital/critical hits.
It is simple geometry.

From the video you gave (thankyou for the links guys, they were much less bytes
than I thuoght they would be!) can I ask what you think the FB graphical damage
would be like? The wings were how bad? Hard to tell. Fires that I don't see
in FB. Missing panels also we don't see. I know, you know, wait for BoB!

What OB writes is that people don't count the non-graphic damage. He gets one
wing hit from 20mm and the plane is very hard to control. AI of course has no
problem. Plane on the ground, likewise.

At least you don't expect huge 1 meter holes with even most hits, I think?


Neal

clint-ruin
10-16-2004, 04:34 PM
Just some random points here:

There was a quote posted a while ago saying that the 'power' rating on FB gun charts was only TNT. This I think was just a result of a literal reading of Olegs english, plenty of API rounds have nonzero 'power' ratings and make no fragments, or very few fragments. It's not something that scales all by itself, either, I think it scales up with the 'mass' parameter as well for shrapnel effects. So you can get individual MK103, Hispano, T9, and other rounds where one single large fragment of the shell does a lot of damage. Thin walled MGs seem to get smaller, faster travelling pieces - also with lower total distance projection from the explosion.

Now, more Oleg:

(Q): Would you please tell us the details and proofs like the difference between "internal construction" of La-5 and Bf 109 "very heavily armored" La-5FN...
(A): Durability of wooden La-5FN was higher than Bf-109G. And this is right. I need to scan photos of trials some time later if I will have permission from one person that to show the damage on surface on La-5 by MG-151/20 single shot and damage of the ShVAK on the surface of the 109G also by single shot in both cases from 100 meters.
The glass armor plate of La-5FN for the back side also was more stronger for the MGs. On La-5 /La-5F - not the same strong. La-5 even hadn't the front armor glass.
However from the front side the piot was more protected then the pilot of the 109 due to big diameter of the engine. Same on FW in this case.
Probably he is mistaken in the words.
Link: 12/06/02 08:51PM
(A): Once more when you saythat you know which armor was for the pilot on La-5, La-5F and La-5FN please be sure that you know it.
Including the material that used for the armor.
Even teakned armor plate may be more stronger than the wide.
For that you need to know which alloy used for the armor plate.
One sample for you. Armor of Soviet tanks was not so wide as on German of equal class. I speak not about inclined surface, but about alloy that used. Germans never had such quality of allows during the war for using in a wide areas.
Probably you know that Germans never had the molibden in armor steel.... as well as other elements. The was need to invent the leyered armor (I don't mean external armor, but exacly multi-level armor) tha to solve the problem with rere element absence.
Then take 6 mm of the weakness armor place on the IL-2 - no one of Wermacht's MGs was able to penertate with the direct hit from very close distance. Except 13 mm. That is 6 mm of the special ligh weigh armor alloy.
In contadiction 12,7 mm MG was able to penetrate the armor seat of the 109G6 pilot with the +/- 15 degrees to the vertical to the armor surface.
Please.... Don't ask me to spend my time for that...
Link: 12/06/02 09:29PM
(Q): But molybdenum was used in some German armour grade steels. Molybdenum was not used in AFV armour on wide scale later in the war (some plates used it though), because German idea of making armour grade steels were different from Russian ideas..
About the Wehrmacht MGs: it`s hardly surprising to see that a 7.92mm non-AP bullet cannot pierce 6mm armor, when it was not supposed to do so...
An AP 7.92mm bullet cuts through like butter on Soviet 6mm armor, unless angle is unfavourable... simple maths. 7.92AP penterates 8mm at 100m... 8mm is more than 6mm.
Please don`t tell me nonsense that Soviet 6mm armor can hold AP bullet, but German 8mm armor PLUS 18mm of alumnium (which is roughly equivalent to 8-9mm steel armor) can`t.... Is this how it€s modelled in IL-2?
But I have Western Allied evaluation on Bf 109 rear armor from "Aircraft Evaluation Report for Me 109 F" [further details]. This document shows that Me-109 armor was effective from rear, and could withstand ALL 0.303 calibre AP rounds and 70% of 12.7mm AP rounds at 180m and 5 degrees from vertical. ( http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109f_evaluation.pdf )
(A): I know what I said. And I know all about each type of German tanks armor (looking in to the technical reference of the Panzer Academy of Moscow).
And all armor plates modeled in FB, including placement of armor.
In Il-2 it was simplified (anyway modelled more or less but without reference to material what simly steel in most cases with different thickness).
As for alloys probably we know a bit more for tanks. as told you one guy here. for each year and for each model. Here is great tanks museum the biggest in the world with the great archive and research work with field trials for the armor, chemical analisys of armor, etc... Simply I was born in tank envirounment(simply such luck). My father, Doctor of science, was working in that area many-many years in Panzer Academy. So all references are still available for me. You will see that in the one of the next sim the tanks models quality and internal modeling of armor will jamping for the next level.
And I have _very_ detailed blue prints of internals of many Bf-109s. So be sure to upgrade your pC that to use new features about which you ask.
When I told about Wermacht MGs I told about 2 meters distante under vertical angle to surface test. 9 mm also didn't took it. Just was big enough dents on the places of hits. Also such demonstarion took place for the US and UK delegations in 1942 in Moscow. As well as effiency of the weapon such as BRS rokets, VAP-250, and new for that time PTAB 1,5. They were very impressed. However the pilot was superb....for that demonstration. the best from all Il-2 regiments for that time. a bit not fair demonstration if to speak about common level of Il-2 pilots - lowest of all pilots.
MGs removed from captured 109F4 used for the test at that time wasn't able to penertate this armor on a special stand...
What I say you.... Its stated almost each German pilot of that time.
Link: 12/07/02 12:23AM

(Q): Here is another proof that the ROF of MG17 and MG131 are not correct: I fired into the water and some splashes are simply missing. In case of MG131, 50% bullet are missing and MG17 - 66% of bullets are missing.
(A): I will repeat that the system of display of damage holes, ground or water hits has optimization for FPS and that not each bullet displays the hit, but actually each bullet make a registered damage in model.
We don't plan to change it.
Link: 08/15/02 11:14AM

(Q): MGs aren€t modelled correct for MG17/MG131 and Mk108 is a joke too.
(A): Las t my post on that theme. Will be responcible for that theme only after trelease of FB and Only for FB. Thats all and finish.
As for MK-108... Ok, I'm tired of such stupid things. I now say you fair thing, that 108 is modelled better than it was (trajectory a bit better and hit weight is 5% higher). And NS-37 worse that it was. That was done only because of "Lufwhiners"! Thats all what I wanted to say today. I'm really tired of such things.
Link: 08/16/02 03:13PM

(Q): The defective German gun models, most important the MK108 are spoiling my enjoyment of IL-2.
(A): Probably if you don't like MK108 in IL-2 and then IL-2 itslef, you don't need to by any other sim from any company. Becasue no one (at the moment) company was able to make modeling of guns and damage so close to real things result. Please be sure that you know what you try to say and know the things you try to tell here.
Link: 08/19/02 08:17AM
(A €" other response): A visual depiction of the firing rate of 1000 rpm will lead to an immense frame rate drop.
(Q): But if you are so concerned about frame rates then why do you get 1000 rounds per minute for the Russian MG perfectly visualized, but only a rough approximation for the German MG's?
(A): Russian MGs modelled by the same way as German.
But probably you don't know that the ROF (or by other words round shots per second) Russian almost all cannons and especially MGs have higher. Non sinchronized SkAS for example has 1800 rounds per min...(and it is especially limited for such rate, because other versions of SkAS had in 1939 2,500-2800 rounds per min, if not limited especially... Just try to calculate the salvo of four such MG shooting simultaniosly...
And I'm very impressed that someone try to compare MK-108 to NS45 effiency of single shot... I'm very impressed.... that is almost the same that NS-45 single shot compare to AAA 88mm cannon single shot and effiency of damage...
Some peole cycled, I'm sure...
And if the designation T was tankoviy( *ªâé or tank's Yak, or in other also official documents - ²¿¦¥é (heavy)) that doesn't means that Yak-9T was in use against tanks. Main purpose was to shot planes! "T" here is more nickname than the purpose. Be sure! ÷¨²¥ ³ª¨é ¿çª, ÷²á *¥ ÷¨² ²ü ᥥ ª ²?¨?â **¥ ¯¥?¥â¤, ³â¨¤¥²ü ? ç*¨¶³ ²¨µ ¯¥?¥â¤â ?¨¨* .  ¯¨ * ¤¿ ¥ª²?** ¯¥?¥â¤÷¨ª )
That is really the last post on that theme before we will finish FB.
Link: 08/20/02 07:13PM

(Q): Maybe you should change the system by making all bullets visible to avoid such long discussions?
(A): I told many tims that there will be no changes in that item in IL-2. Why not to read it?
If we'll begine to change that module, we'll need to rework at 50 to 100%:
1. Online code and traffic control code
2. Damge module code (especially to decrease level of details of visual damage in online game).
3. etc.
There are 10 to 20 places of code where we'll need to change completely that to make just visible bullets.
So I prefer to leave it item for future sims.
I remeber that I told it already.
I don't plan to build NEW system of fire for IL-2.
As well as I confirm that you really don't understand how it works. and I will not open that secret for other developers. I was able to explain it. Will leave for better time.
Link: 08/15/02 01:51PM

(Q): And if you guys post more criticism, Oleg will replace our MK108 to a MG17
(A): I always very impreed with such conclusions based on some posts of the users that they thing that something is incorrect in that item.
In my eyes your post looks not clever, because already many times explained that such statements completely wrong and looks like kids cry.
MK-108 in 109 has excatly 65 rounds, most effective shells and right ROF of serial production cannon.
Sorry how many times we'll need to repeat it?
Link: 08/14/02 05:15PM
(Q): Yes: ROF is ok, 65 rounds is ok, but only 32 cause damage, the other 33 cause a - nice fireworks and nothing else. But it€s ok. It€s good for game balance.
(A): Yor sarcasm is inacceptable because you also are wrong.
By your statement means that all other weapons had the same problem. ALL! Because their program model of the fire is identical. Do you understand it or you always hear only the whiners of one side?
I'm tired of this "ISSUE". As I told there will be no changes, becasue it is done right and most close to reality comparing to other sims. I'm sorry that you don't uderstand it. Finnish.
Link: 08/14/02 05:35PM

--

Now, some other things I remember Oleg saying but can't seem to bloody find in the forum:

Oleg has said that KE -does- matter for HE impacts. Something about how it's like hitting a bullet with a bullet, moving targets, drag and resistance on the way to target, trying to penetrate oblique surfaces, and for the fuse to go off right. Except I can't find that post he made. If anyone knows the one I'm talking about [could have been made at simhq rather than here], argh, please link it.

edit: my view on the topic - does anyone have data on 20mm HE/MG penetration after travelling say, 100-200m, and impacting a thin reinforced metal surface at less than 10 degrees? Because for dead 6 shots the shot angles start to look really bad for penetration through an aircraft - most of what's facing the nose of your plane is near parallel to the path of your bullets.

faustnik
10-16-2004, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

edit: my view on the topic - does anyone have data on 20mm HE/MG penetration after travelling say, 100-200m, and impacting a thin reinforced metal surface at less than 10 degrees? Because for dead 6 shots the shot angles start to look really bad for penetration through an aircraft - most of what's facing the nose of your plane is near parallel to the path of your bullets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you are saying here but, the skin of an aircraft is very, very light and even at 500 yards muzzle volocity will still be fairly high. Look at rounds fired from a KwK 30 (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html) or other light caliber gun, they don't really start to fall off until 1000meters. But, we are not talking about hardened armor, just heavy aluminum foil. Yes, the minengeschlos will loose volocity quickly relative to other guns but, we are talking relatively short distances and very light materials used in aircraft construction (except for the IL-2 of course! ). Just more food for thought on the subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin
10-16-2004, 06:37 PM
Yup, I've seen videos of them impacting from behind, they seem to go off, just that I think that there's the damage we see on film - lots of bangs, little debris - and then there's the ones we see from static ground tests where there's no relative motion and the impact angle is usually the most ideal, and they seem to be the ones where we get these cool torso sized hole photos rather than fist or head sized.

In any case I don't think that the way FB handles impacts on the elevators, rudder, wingtips, etc, is all that bad - this is the worst case for shells in reality too.

WWMaxGunz
10-16-2004, 07:41 PM
No, not thick tin foil by any means whatsoever.
Aluminum foil is made soft and ductile so you can wrap and crimp the stuff.
It is soft with very low shear, tensile and compressive strengths.
Aluminum alloy that can be formed onto wings and fuselages is not the strongest heat treated
but it's got far more strength per thickness than what foil is!
It's also tightly fastened over a framework, that adds strength.

I'd still like to see what angles and ranges would make a ricochet, less than 10 degrees is
pretty glancing.


Neal

Fehler
10-17-2004, 05:51 AM
This is an interesting discussion for sure, but if I might add, I seriously doubt very many high velocity MG rounds cannot penatrate aircraft skin. Even moreso, that aircraft skin can deflect many of these rounds because of angle of penetration.

In searching for the ideal weapon to carry at work (Police officer) I tested nearly one hundred pistols on several older (And thicker) steel automobile bodies and windshield glass. My tests were condicted to find out which round I would prefer in a handgun given the thought that 99% of my work is performed on the highway, and "If" engaged in a firefight, I would probably need to penetrate automobile framing, sheet metal, and glass.

Even at the oddest angles, I never got a glancing shot on any sheetmetal part of these cars. Once inside, I did see deflection off of things like seatbelt braces, thick frame rails, or areas where multiple layers of sheet metal were welded together.

Keep in mind, these were PISTOL rounds from 9mm to .45 cal.

If you are interested, I decided on the Sig .357 round in a Glock 32. The round I decided on was the Winchester 125 grain, Sig .357 SXT. It was best for expansion in softer materials, but still kept fairly good form through sheet metel, AND had excellent defection characteristics through windshield glass. This, of course was a compromise with the .45 cal bullet because of the greater capacity of the Glock 32.

But my point is, unless we are talking about flying tanks, AKA IL2, explain to me how so many fully jacketed, high velocity, rounds can simply bounce off of aluminum sheet metal?

Sure, anyone that has worked with ballistics can easily understand that explosive tipped rounds really have to have some measure of penetration in order to be effective. But AP ammunition can easilt penetrate aircraft skin, almost regardless of the angle. What they do once inside is another matter all together.

I will say this, though... For my part I really believe that IL2 damage is modeled very well. Gunnery is a little suspect in my opinion, but this is only based on personal logic, not real hand experience. I have fired 7.62mm ammunition from a helicopter, and I never found this a favorable position for accuracy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also, I truly think the dispursion of the earlier 50 cals was correct, the rest of the weapons appeared to me to be wya too accurate. Aircraft are relatively light, moving platforms. Logic would probably dictate that gun accuracy on such weapon systems, especially as crude as they were 60 years ago, would be less accurate than they are depicted in the game.

Nothing is perfect, but for my part, IL2 is probably as close as you can get on a PC.

As far as the 151/20 is concerned, it is not unusable in the game, far from it. It is just not the weapon it was in 1.22. My only question, as stated over and over again.. Why?

OldMan____
10-17-2004, 06:02 AM
I think people over expect on muzzle explosions. Current explosions are OK! a 20 mm shell is not a granade!! IF it does not hit anything fragile it will not make huge damages!!!

Also too many people here seems to disdain the possibility that wood was stronger that alluminium. So complain that german guns should do more damage on russian a planes.

I´ve seen types of wood that here are named IRON wood because they are as strong (traction) as iron bars(type used in building construction) of same weight. Do not underestimate nature. And they are also very hard to set on fire.

clint-ruin
10-17-2004, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
As far as the 151/20 is concerned, it is not unusable in the game, far from it. It is just not the weapon it was in 1.22. My only question, as stated over and over again.. Why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm curious about how aircraft skin would hold up myself - Neal is a lot more familiar with this stuff than I am but I'd love to see some real world data on it. Not the tests for the best cases - tests for the worst cases. We already know from some pretty amazing photos what happens when the round penetrates and detonates under ideal circumstances. But I don't know how well we can apply that to the worst cases.

I very much appreciate your real world observations on this topic by the way.

AP rounds in FB are deflected similarly to the HE penetration. Both kinds can bounce off surfaces, at least, until the HE fuse is triggered. This is not shown in arcade mode - only arrows from the point of impact, and no further ones are shown to illustrate any deflection. This is why sometimes arcade mode can produce some funny looking results, I think. I've had things happen like a 151/20 APIT seem to zing off a B-17s elevator and smack into the #2 engine, killing it outright - but there was nothing there in Arcade mode showing any frags or rounds headed that way.

Agreed on the .50 cal stuff by the way - if that was the right amount of dispersion before, then the other 20/12.7/7.xx mil guns should have been a lot worse than they seem to be in the game if they were scaled to it. But thanks to some excellent diplomacy on Gibbage and other peoples parts it looks like Oleg has absolutely no wish to revisit that particular issue.

re: 1.22/2.00 changes - I think you really will have to ask Oleg directly. All I can really say is that tests seemed to indicate that the problem was to do with the network code not counting fragment damage properly, going by mine, plumps, and JTDs work on the issue. There was certainly no difference in terms of rounds directly hitting the same component over and over in a local, non network game environment. Beyond that - can't really post what little [very little] more I know.

WWMaxGunz
10-17-2004, 09:31 PM
I'm a little amazed Fehler. Thicker... for years now car skins have been around
.010" on economy cars, even a late 70's Civic was that while US was twice at least
for small cars. Early 60's to mid 60's you'd be looking at .06" or more.
There's about no ribs or stiffeners that I know of under that either. You unbolt
a panel at the edges and it comes off AFAIK. Roof ought to be different. Hood
has that cross stiffener under it but I can't remember if it's spot welded to it.
I could take an unsupported sheet of .032 Aluminum and whack someone over the head,
it would bend and they would be hurt but not need a doctor. I add a very few bends
to that let alone a hat section stiffener and it would probably be a concussion to
the unlucky recipient. But then I've never shot guns at any of the work we did.

Oddest angles? I understand the 38 Specials were dropped by at least some police
because of ricochets from cars.

Consider an MG round is low density. They have to take out a lot of metal to allow
for how many grams of much less dense explosive? Then I was saying with range the
shell is going to be a lot slower... but a 45 ACP only has 800 fps at muzzle which
I am sure the 20mm MG has more even over 300 meters just guessing. So I have to
ask just how small these oddest angles were and what year, what car because this is
a surprise to me.

For some reason Oleg also expects close angles to bounce some rounds off. Perhaps that
is only certain planes. Not all planes had the same skin metal nor hardening treatment.
Those are both critical. Car bodies use ductile cold rolled steel or aluminum. The
metal has to be in order to take shape, trim well and not wear out the multi-million
dollar panel dies they use in mass production. Metal feeds in off a roll and bang, you
have a formed, cut and trimmed panel, that fast. They have to sharpen the punches and
dies every so often but those sets have to make millions of parts which you won't get
with hard alloys. For aircraft, at least civilian and I am sure most WWII fighters
the aluminum was also not very hard but not truely soft. It is or was formed by hand
with hammers (know a guy who did that for Boeing) over the ribs and other supports and
stiffeners. Then comes the rivets or welds all by hand. Really hard alloys don't like
to bend but those are =really= hard, you can drive nails with T6 and not scar it up.

There was a WWI German plane with steel skin for ground attack that would deflect rifle
bullets, IIRC. Single engine yet, the stuff couldn't have been boiler plate unless only
in front of the motor perhaps? From what I remember, the skin was corrugated and did
include the fuselage. But then from those times that may have been .08 or .09 steel
hardened after forming and then attached. I have no real idea, it would have added
100's of pounds without even skinning the wings with that kind of thicknesses.

Last note and maybe where evidence of ricochets were noted is that if a shot hit the
skin where it was on a stiffener then that stretch would be many times stronger than
the skin itself.

Still, I can't find any references to bullets or shells bouncing off planes at any
angles at all. Armor, yes, structure and skin slowing down or absorbing energy, yes.
Not having fuel tanks next to skin because a tear in the skin could puncture the fuel
tank but that's about it. So I am wondering why Oleg has this, which planes he has
it for and what reference he has. I think I remember that the IL2 wings skin at
least in certain places is supposed to be able to deflect shots from low angles like
what ground targets would be firing, but I don't know if it's rifle fire or what and
the angle.

There's a great difference in small arms between 200 m and 500 m. 20mm, the ranges
are much farther for AP at least. Might just as well count a hit at normal range as
a penetrate until Oleg comes up with the exceptions for us! I know that a .22 LR can
penetrate the side of at one mans' skull at about 1/2 mile just from a local newspaper
on the guy it hit. I haven't got many illusions on the power of firearm projectiles,
maybe it's time to lose some on the strength of metals.


Neal

WUAF_Badsight
10-18-2004, 01:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
re: 1.22/2.00 changes - I think you really will have to ask Oleg directly. All I can really say is that tests seemed to indicate that the problem was to do with the network code not counting fragment damage properly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this might be oh so very true , because if their is one thing im certian of is that the MG151/20 dramatically became a highly useable gun & did the damadge you would expect of it when the v1.21 patch came out

then v2.0 seemed to go back to worse than ever (which is pretty bad)

what im interested in tho is , why did all other guns also not go thru such a noticable change in hit power & damdge modelling ?

butch2k
10-18-2004, 03:33 AM
Jippo there were indeed lotsa troubles with the M-Geschoss rounds.
The angle and impact speed had to be within a certain range value to ensure proper detonation. If i manage to find the document i'll post an extract.

karost
10-18-2004, 03:43 AM
Yes,for 1.22/2.00 changes..! many friends would like to know why ? and what ? and how ?

I believe that, team work in IL2 original version had done alot of research for FM and DM from many resource which some part of work may not correct but should not big difference like gaping between 1.22 and 2.0

may be Mr. Oleg has that reason but..! that reason not easy for him to show us. (imho)

S!

karost
10-18-2004, 03:57 AM
Hey.... butch2k thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif hope you can find that document.

and that be batter if anyone has the information about "detonation system" which implement in cannon 20mm HE,HE(M) for mg151/20 or cannon 30mm for Mk-108 in WWII please share us here , that would be a good knowledge for me and other friends in this community http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

after I saw a clip movice, the "detonation system" very sensitive to activate explostion.

I think (imho) not only "angle of impact" but speed of velocity from the bullet drop fast after hit a target will make a momentum in "detonation system" moving and trigger explosion.

Edit:

one sample
==========

if you drive a car with speed 180 km/h along and suddenly one big car ( a truck ) moving about 10-15 km/h to cross the road to other side and you can not break in time, all you have to do is turn a car to avoid impact but your left side of your car impact to that truck just about 1-5 degree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif that will make your head nock to window glass not nock to wheel control....

.... well that is my "detonation system" ....
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

OldMan____
10-18-2004, 04:51 AM
Just game experience.. 151/20 is the stronggest 20mm cannon in came with exception os hispanos. It is MUCH stronger that Shvak or the Japanese one. Specially when hitting soft targets.

I just learned to not shoot dead six on tail with any weapons. After it became natural.. I heve few problems crippling planes with german 20 mm cannons.

Do not complain about it.. if there is any problem with it it is not huge. There are many other points that deserve more attention (I wanna antons without bombracks when I remove cannons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , because 2 * 151/20 are enough firepower and I want that weight!!)

Gryphonne
10-18-2004, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just game experience.. 151/20 is the stronggest 20mm cannon in came with exception os hispanos. It is MUCH stronger that Shvak or the Japanese one. Specially when hitting soft targets.

I just learned to not shoot dead six on tail with any weapons. After it became natural.. I heve few problems crippling planes with german 20 mm cannons.

Do not complain about it.. if there is any problem with it it is not huge. There are many other points that deserve more attention (I wanna antons without bombracks when I remove cannons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , because 2 * 151/20 are enough firepower and I want that weight!!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much stronger than Shvak? i must be playing a different game then ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anywas, i guess you haven't tried the 1.22 MG151/20 then.

I don't mind Russian planes using wood and being tougher than all metal a/c in terms of punishment they can take, but 5-6 20mm rounds would seriously mess up an a/c and spook the pilot. As it is now i need like 10-20 (AGAIN! Why can't these guys leave the MG151/20 alone for once?)to do something very nasty, save for pilot kills.

Regards,

Gryphon

WWMaxGunz
10-18-2004, 08:42 AM
If they leave the 151/20 alone for once ... now?

How about try to use it as Old Man says?

What makes more damage, blowing skin off or breaking main structure?
Give me HE that buries into structure then blows up.

2.0, fragments did zero damage. I sent a track in with bursts inside
Tu cockpit, frag arrow through crew and not one hurt. Now they die.
That was ALL fragments, not just 151. Why only 151 got the complaints?


Neal

thompet03
10-18-2004, 09:11 AM
the reason is simple..

Get yourself in a IX and shoot at a d9 and than change to d9 and shoot at IX..

not only that the hispanno is a sniper rifle (go on and caluclate ow much a 20mm drops on 500 meters.. and than verify the hispanno and 151 again ;-) its only about 50cm.. so i dont see much difference for thae main distances of comabt like in fb... )you just need abaout 1/2 of the ammo to shoot a d9 in half.. when the spit just pops out some smoke...and rises behind you to burn your ***

But shure.. 151 and blue guys are simply wrong..

Greets..

faustnik
10-18-2004, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
the reason is simple..

Get yourself in a IX and shoot at a d9 and than change to d9 and shoot at IX..

not only that the hispanno is a sniper rifle (go on and caluclate ow much a 20mm drops on 500 meters.. and than verify the hispanno and 151 again ;-) its only about 50cm.. so i dont see much difference for thae main distances of comabt like in fb... )you just need abaout 1/2 of the ammo to shoot a d9 in half.. when the spit just pops out some smoke...and rises behind you to burn your ***

But shure.. 151 and blue guys are simply wrong..

Greets.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Clint-ruin has already stated, the question is HE damage modeling not the German weapons.

I have a basic question on the logic of the situation. The LW was faced with the difficult task of downing heavy Amercian bombers. I am sure they spent a lot of time and money researching the best way to do that. They came up with high explosive rounds as the best tool for the task. Why wouldn't they have developed higher volocity AP weapons if they were more effective? The Germans certainly had the knowledge of such weapons.

The Soviets certainly found the P-39's high explosive cannon round to be very effective against bombers. The P-39s were supplied with only HE rounds.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/DMComposite.jpg

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I have a basic question on the logic of the situation. The LW was faced with the difficult task of downing heavy Amercian bombers. I am sure they spent a lot of time and money researching the best way to do that. They came up with high explosive rounds as the best tool for the task. Why wouldn't they have developed higher volocity AP weapons if they were more effective? The Germans certainly had the knowledge of such weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different rounds are good at different things. HE .50 cal rounds were developed and used in combat, but I'm sure their penetration wasn't much on the steel core rounds - mainly because they blew themselves up before they got terribly far.

There was also the HEI round for the MK108 - according to Kurfurst only about as damaging as a typical 20mm HE round, -unless- it happened to come into a nice fuel/air mixture, in which case it was rather effective.

Why did they use MGs and HEs? They seemed to go into explosives in a big, big way. Was it because of the poor ballistic performance of the 151/20 and MG-FF, the availability of materials, ease of manufacture, was it a lot scarier than APs [did pilots even know they were hit with APs until something fell off?] if they're hitting you, so on and so forth. There's a lot of things that get done for no obvious combat advantage but may have very big production or psychological advantages. Was the 151/20 generally disappointing as a weapon and needed the HE to give it any effective kick at all? Did they not feel like designing and testing another 20mm on top of the 151/20 and MGFF? I have no idea why for sure, but I can think of a few reasons.

As I mentioned I think the main thing we lack - other than blast pressure - is that I think the HEs should be rather a bit better at setting fuel tanks alight, especially if there is already damage to the inert gas fill/self sealing ability of the tank. At the moment API/HEI are the kings of fuel tank fires, as they should be, but I think the HEs should really be a bit better at it than they are now. The Il2 gun table also shows the MG17 as only having AP/APT rounds, no API, which makes it good for engine and pilot kills but a lot less useful than the Brownings or ShKAS for burning things.

butch2k
10-18-2004, 11:03 AM
About the M-Geschoss :
------------------------
Die Grenzauftreffgeschwindigkeit, für did der zünder für MK108 noch anspricht, ist noch unsicher.
Genaue untersuchungen insbesondere auch kleinen auftreffwinkeln und massnahmen zur verbesserung, erscheinen erforderlich. Die grenzauftreffgeschwindigkeit liegt für senkrechten auftreffwinkel bei 200 bis 250m/s.
Für 200 und 250m/s mindestansprechgeschwindigkeit werden die kampfentfernungen je nach kampfh¶he und gegnergeschwindigkeit für z.Zt. an der front befindliche A-Geschoss und für das B-Geschoss wie folgt eingeschr¤nkt

thompet03
10-18-2004, 11:04 AM
An again..
poor ballsitik of 151.. difference of a 100g bullet fired with 750(151) or 850(Hispano) is only about 50-80cm after 500 Meters... so if you like.. take this by 2,3,4 and you will see that what we have here is a little bit urge..

Greetings..

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 11:14 AM
The difference between the MG FF and 151/20 is something like what, 170m/s depending on the shell? One is regarded as being a distinctly ordinary weapon.

faustnik
10-18-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

Was the 151/20 generally disappointing as a weapon and needed the HE to give it any effective kick at all?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Mg151/20 was seen as a potent, hard-hitting weapon. I think some people tend to confuse the Mk108 and the Mg151. The two weapons were nothing alike. The Mg151 was a very similar to the ShVak in terms of performance.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/CatridgeEffect.JPG

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
No, the Mg151/20 was seen as a potent, hard-hitting weapon. I think some people tend to confuse the Mk108 and the Mg151. The two weapons were nothing alike. The Mg151 was a very similar to the ShVak in terms of performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the 151/20 APIT travels at 710m/s, and the MG travels at 775.

The MG round for the MGFF travels at 690m/s. AP goes 580.

The MK-103 MG round travels at 900m/s. The MK103 AP goes at 752m/s.

The ShVAK goes 800/800 for both HE and AP.

[figures from the il2 gun table here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=26610215&r=26610215#26610215 ]
I think the MV plays a pretty big part in the perception of effectiveness, for hitting the target, hitting the target more than once, hitting the target more than once in the same place, and for penetration/fusing reasons.

Edit: something else that comes out of this - if you are hitting with one shell with the Hispano or ShVAK, all of your shells are going the same way. If you hit once with the 151/20, your next few shots are going to travel differently and might miss. This combined with the hit graphic effect [effectively halving the number of perceived Hispano hits] can make the difference seem pretty stark.

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, the 151/20 APIT travels at 710m/s, and the MG travels at 775.

The MG round for the MGFF travels at 690m/s. AP goes 580.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, just to be totally lame and reply to my own post..

Why, if the MG-FF MG round was only 20m/s off the 151/20s APIT [and if we assume AP is some kind of ******s-only round] .. why on earth would the 151/20 be regarded as so much better?

edit: Mass and 'power', at least going by FB, are identical between the 151/20 and MGFF MG rounds. So .. where is this difference coming from - not talking about FB, but why did pilots want the 151/20 at all over the FF?

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186


MG/FF
// APIT - HE - HE - MG

APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 585.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 690.0
power = 0.0186

faustnik
10-18-2004, 11:56 AM
That's why we have arcade mode, so we can track actual hits.

If you check the chart I posted above, compiled by Tony Williams, you can see the difference in volocity of Shvak and Mg151 is minimal with the Mg151 firing heavier shells.

Again, please do not confuse the Mg151 with the MgFF and especially the Mk108, apples and oranges.

Sorry, I am getting a little off track of the HE damage topic. I just see the Mg151 characterized as a "low volocity" weapon which is incorrect.

butch2k
10-18-2004, 11:58 AM
The MG-FF was the most accurate weapon of its class, achieving sub 2 mils 100% dispersions patterns.

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
That's why we have arcade mode, so we can track actual hits.

If you check the chart I posted above, compiled by Tony Williams, you can see the difference in volocity of Shvak and Mg151 is minimal with the Mg151 firing heavier shells.

Again, please do not confuse the Mg151 with the MgFF and especially the Mk108, apples and oranges.

Sorry, I am getting a little off track of the HE damage topic. I just see the Mg151 characterized as a "low volocity" weapon which is incorrect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if I'm really explaining this well.

MGFF - the MG rounds, which - we think - are the most effective, are travelling just 20m/s slower than the MG151/20s APIT tracer round, which is supposedly a lot less effective than the MGs.

Yet the MG151/20 replaced the MGFF, and it [FF] being a tiny bit slow for aerial combat purposes seems to keep coming up in accounts.

Why's that then? Right now, it seems like the benefit in using the 151/20 over the FF is that the muzzle velocity was a lot greater .. yet muzzle velocity differences that are a -lot- larger than just 20m/s are dismissed when it runs in the ShVAKs favour?

faustnik
10-18-2004, 12:33 PM
30m/s is a very small difference, the ShVak also used a lighter projectile. The Mg151 had a 135m/s advantage over the MgFF with the same weight projectile.

In no way am I saying the ShVak was not a good weapon, all Soviet aircraft weapons were excellent, I am just saying that the Mg151 was as good.

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 12:47 PM
Well, all I'm saying is that it would appear that if they already had one round that could do 700ms - good enough as a spot/AP/tracer/incendiary round, which depends on burrowing through a solid target - and that round was a super-effective .. why go faster and to higher ROF? The Hispano II and ShVAK are pretty close there too ROF wise, but still faster.

The ShVAK AP and HE is 85/90m/s faster than the 151/20AP/HE.

faustnik
10-18-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:


The ShVAK AP and HE is 85/90m/s faster than the 151/20AP/HE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the ShVak is 30/70m/s higher in volocity than the Mg151 with a lighter shell. Force = mass x volocity right?

AP

MG151 720mps x 117grams = 84240
ShVak 750mps x 96grams = 72000

Again, the SvVak, like all other Soviet aircraft guns, was an excellent weapon, but, so was the Mg151. It is untrue to characterize the Mg151 as a low volocity or weak gun.

faustnik
10-18-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
The Hispano II and ShVAK are pretty close there too ROF wise <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ShVak had a ROF than either the Mg151 or Hispano:

ShVak ROF - 800rpm
Mg151 - 750rpm
Hispano - 600rpm

WWMaxGunz
10-18-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thompet03:
the reason is simple..

Get yourself in a IX and shoot at a d9 and than change to d9 and shoot at IX..

not only that the hispanno is a sniper rifle (go on and caluclate ow much a 20mm drops on 500 meters.. and than verify the hispanno and 151 again ;-) its only about 50cm.. so i dont see much difference for thae main distances of comabt like in fb... )you just need abaout 1/2 of the ammo to shoot a d9 in half.. when the spit just pops out some smoke...and rises behind you to burn your ***

But shure.. 151 and blue guys are simply wrong..

Greets.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) I ain't takin sides.
2) What my post said ... in 2.0

You do the calculation, I don't know the speed loss for Hisso AP/HE and 151 AP/HE/MG.
I can say right off that for the 151 MG, it's a lot worse than the rest!

Once you get the drag right, figure the time to target and the drop is by:

1/2 x seconds x seconds x 10m. .5 seconds drop is 2.5m.

What really matters is where you have convergence set anyway, how far from that you
are shooting with how flat a trajectory and how tall the target is.

A close convergence will have the shells still going up at range while a mid to long
will have them crossing back over the sight line. In the latter case if the shells
are not moving fast they will be falling on the steep side for shooting. 10 meters
may not be much compared to 500 or so, but when the target is a wing from behind then
good luck!

If it isn't then you also have shot timing for deflection. Which shells will be easier
to hit with, ones that get to the target quicker or slower?

What happens when your same gun is shooting 3 different types of shells at 3 different
muzzle velocities and 3 different speed loss from drag rates? Just shoot from close
only with close convergence because long range you will get vertical spread. Or you
could fire when flying up or down, gravity won't bend the paths.

Sniper guns.... the same ballistics are used for all the guns. Hisso rounds don't just
have speed, they have mass over the 151's as well.


Neal

OldMan____
10-18-2004, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gryphonne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just game experience.. 151/20 is the stronggest 20mm cannon in came with exception os hispanos. It is MUCH stronger that Shvak or the Japanese one. Specially when hitting soft targets.

I just learned to not shoot dead six on tail with any weapons. After it became natural.. I heve few problems crippling planes with german 20 mm cannons.

Do not complain about it.. if there is any problem with it it is not huge. There are many other points that deserve more attention (I wanna antons without bombracks when I remove cannons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , because 2 * 151/20 are enough firepower and I want that weight!!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much stronger than Shvak? i must be playing a different game then ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anywas, i guess you haven't tried the 1.22 MG151/20 then.

I don't mind Russian planes using wood and being tougher than all metal a/c in terms of punishment they can take, but 5-6 20mm rounds would seriously mess up an a/c and spook the pilot. As it is now i need like 10-20 (AGAIN! Why can't these guys leave the MG151/20 alone for once?)to do something very nasty, save for pilot kills.

Regards,

Gryphon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you need to improve your shooting. I can put almost any fighter (leave P47 and IL2 out of this one) out of action with 4 151/20 20mm rounds.When I am not lucky I need 6 or 8.

I do not like the Shvak cause it dont put things on fire. I usually need to give more shots because I can't be sure of my damage while enemy is flying.

WWMaxGunz
10-18-2004, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
As Clint-ruin has already stated, the question is HE damage modeling not the German weapons.

I have a basic question on the logic of the situation. The LW was faced with the difficult task of downing heavy Amercian bombers. I am sure they spent a lot of time and money researching the best way to do that. They came up with high explosive rounds as the best tool for the task. Why wouldn't they have developed higher volocity AP weapons if they were more effective? The Germans certainly had the knowledge of such weapons.

The Soviets certainly found the P-39's high explosive cannon round to be very effective against bombers. The P-39s were supplied with only HE rounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

American bombers started flying over Germany when?
The 151/20 and MG rounds were introduced when?

The LW developed frontal attacks in response to fighter losses.
There were also the rocket mortars and RM rockets, Schrage Music (sp?), Me-163's, and other
answers. But the 151/20 with MG was out even before the US was in the war wasn't it?
Perhaps the Mk 108 and 103?


Neal

faustnik
10-18-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:

So you need to improve your shooting. I can put almost any fighter (leave P47 and IL2 out of this one) out of action with 4 151/20 20mm rounds.When I am not lucky I need 6 or 8.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, eight Mg151/20mm rounds is going to leave any fighter in bad shape in FB. Four Hispano rounds will do the same amount of damage. The questions are over that disparity.

More than a "sim thing" this is a really interesting subject. Why did the LW use the type of ammo it used? Was HE more effective than AP? How much would deflection angle effect penetration? All these are really interesting subjects for forum conversation without too much worry over the sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
10-18-2004, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

American bombers started flying over Germany when?
The 151/20 and MG rounds were introduced when?

The LW developed frontal attacks in response to fighter losses.
There were also the rocket mortars and RM rockets, Schrage Music (sp?), Me-163's, and other
answers. But the 151/20 with MG was out even before the US was in the war wasn't it?
Perhaps the Mk 108 and 103?


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mg151/20 was first used in summer 1941. This first B-17 attacks were summer 1942.

Yeah Neal, all those factors are important to consider. We also have to consider that the Minengeschloss shell was developed to counter the "heavies". If they were not effective, the LW would have just deleted them from their ammo belts.

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 01:40 PM
Really starting to feel like Josf here. Just don't seem to be able to communicate what it is I'm thinking of :&gt;

To start with - this is only a tangent from -you- asking what they were doing with MG rounds and using them to down bombers :&gt;

My guess is, and I have tried to be careful to phrase this only as a theory, is that - at lower muzzle velocity, it is much better to explode than try to penetrate the target all the way through. As far as I know, the MK103, the 50mm on the Me262A1/U4, and others fired AP rounds at bombers as well - but at much more effective speeds and held speed a lot better than the APIT coming out of the 151/20.

So, let me try this again - just once more - perhaps this is an entirely stupid line of argument and I just don't see what's wrong with it, whatever. But:

If an MG was so effective that it needed only a couple of hits,

If muzzle velocity is unimportant for MG/HE rounds,

.. why re-equip the entire line of fighters with something that fires MGs faster and at higher ROF? Why was the MG-FF replaced, if ~700m/s was sufficient to penetrate a fighter just fine, if the round itself had the some power and weight as the 151/20 MG, etc? Just for ROF and muzzle velocity? If that's true .. then the Hispano II and ShVAK are even faster firing [ShVAK] and heavier/faster travelling [Hispano heavier, faster, ShVAK faster]. So .. what's the deal with this exactly?

Now, maybe the MG-FF is some historically hard-done-by weapon with an unjustified average rep, or whatever, but it just sounds like something doesn't add up here if we're supposed to be in awe of the 151/20 as a gun.

Just to go back to a couple of things:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's why we have arcade mode, so we can track actual hits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, what I was trying to get across though is that there's a group of people who seem to think of the 151/20 as irredeemably stuffed in FB, as compared to the Hispano/ShVAK, and then there's people who regard it as OK, or just strange, and I'd put money that a lot of the people in the first camp are underestimating the actual number of hits the other guns generate.

The other thing is - FBs gunnery is packetised. Not as bad as in Warbirds or Airwarrior, but, somehow, the ShVAKs missing rounds have to be represented. And the Hispano may be closer to 1 round = 1 drawn round at 600rpm than the 151/20 is at 740rpm. Is the Hispano producing visual shells more in line with the packetisation, and is the ShVAK damage being bumped up per-drawn-round-damage wise to account for its unseen greater ROF? Could be worth getting someone to ask oleg about it directly.

butch2k:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the MG-FF was the most accurate weapon of its class, achieving sub 2 mils 100% dispersions patterns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting - that's even more accurate than the nose-mounted .50 cal data Blutaski posted before. In your reading, what do you think the reputation of the MG-FF comes off as [either hard done by or was it really just pretty ordinary - other than accuracy?]? Were pilots happy with it? Do you know why it was replaced?

Also, do you have any other dispersion figures in mils measurements for any of the other guns we see in FB? I know you mentioned you had to pack and repack a bunch of stuff in your move, so I don't mean to make you drag papers out of storage or anything. Just interested.

WWMaxGunz
10-18-2004, 01:47 PM
I don't know why all the comparisons at muzzle velocity unless the target is dead close.

Shells lose speed with range, lighter shells lose quicker, faster loses more until it
slows to same as slower -- those are factors. Shape of the shell, is the tip blunt and
is the rear squared off or boat-tailed?

Don't figure drop by muzzle velocity, you will be wrong.
151/20 MG starts out quicker than 151/20 AP but which will be at 300m quicker?

Does anyone have ballistics for any 20mm shells? Hopefully more than 1 or 2?

It is not so simple as cross section area either, drag is by shockwave - sonic boom
when above mach 1, much more than drag below mach 1.

I did mail to Anthony Williams asking for range to be included in those tables as
weapons effectiveness is not really well measured at muzzle when the rounds lose
velocity at different rates.


Have fun,

Neal

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Don't figure drop by muzzle velocity, you will be wrong.
151/20 MG starts out quicker than 151/20 AP but which will be at 300m quicker?
Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's actually another whole interesting aspect of the issue and one I was going to mention, but the post was already getting very long.

For firing ranges - I don't think we really need to bother much beyond 4-500m comparisons? At least for 20mm stuff. I've mentioned the MG/AP drop differences in terms of aiming the 151/20 before in the thread, and that the Hispano/ShVAKs predictability - every round exiting at the same speed, even if their drop differs due to weight, might still remain an advantage at the kinds of ranges we're talking about.


Now, as for weights..
ShVAK
// APIT - HE
APIT
mass = 0.096
HE
mass = 0.0676

MG/FF
// APIT - HE - HE - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
HE
mass = 0.115
MG
mass = 0.092

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
HE
mass = 0.115
MG
mass = 0.092

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP
HE/HET
mass = 0.129
AP
mass = 0.124


Explosive quality as well as quantity comes in here, MG rounds leading on that score easily. But for APs we're not actually that different in terms of force for the ShVAK vs 151/20 - just that that's 50% of the ShVAKs output and only 20% of the 151/20s, and way in front for the Hispano [also 50%]. This would seem to fit FB giving a lot of weight [ha] to kinetic performance ..

Jippo01
10-18-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

.. why re-equip the entire line of fighters with something that fires MGs faster and at higher ROF? Why was the MG-FF replaced, if ~700m/s was sufficient to penetrate a fighter just fine, if the round itself had the some power and weight as the 151/20 MG, etc? Just for ROF and muzzle velocity? If that's true .. then the Hispano II and ShVAK are even faster firing [ShVAK] and heavier/faster travelling [Hispano heavier, faster, ShVAK faster]. So .. what's the deal with this exactly?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MG/FF
+ good projectiles
+ very light weapon
+ small
+ low recoil

- considerably different trajectory than machineguns
- only drum fed (max capacity 60rds)
- more deflection needed
- lacking range (hitting more difficult at range)


MG 151/20
+ good projectile
+ good rpm
+ good ballistics (more similar to mg's)
+ ammo not limited (belt fed)
+ easier deflection shooting

- slightly heavier weapon (14kg more)
- somewhat larger


I think there is enough reason to change the weaponry.


-jippo

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
I think there is enough reason to change the weaponry.
-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too. That's what I was trying to get at by asking :&gt;

Apart from drum fed ammo issue [glad you mentioned that - I hadn't thought of at all], would it be fair to say then that the pilots firing Hispanos and ShVAKs enjoyed similar, though obviously smaller scale advantages over the 151/20 as the 151/20 did over the MG-FF, speaking in terms of predictability, ballistic performance, easier deflection shooting, etc?

butch2k
10-18-2004, 03:03 PM
For sure it's better than nose mounted M2 since those had a 100% dispersion of about 8mils in the P-38.
The MG-FF was the most accurate of the three 20mm i studied so far, the Hispano being the least accurate in the same condition (nose mounting). This could be caused by the mechanism, and projectile power as well as the mouting (engine vs nose).
The MG-FF had a fairly low velocity and RoF compared to the MG-151/20 and reliance on drum caused some troubles. Moreover a electricaly primed weapon was needed for accurate synchonization, hence the move towards the MG151 and MG151E.

faustnik
10-18-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
For sure it's better than nose mounted M2 since those had a 100% dispersion of about 8mils in the P-38.
The MG-FF was the most accurate of the three 20mm i studied so far, the Hispano being the least accurate in the same condition (nose mounting). This could be caused by the mechanism, and projectile power as well as the mouting (engine vs nose).
The MG-FF had a fairly low velocity and RoF compared to the MG-151/20 and reliance on drum caused some troubles. Moreover a electricaly primed weapon was needed for accurate synchonization, hence the move towards the MG151 and MG151E. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch,

What type of ammo is that with, AP only or a mixed drum? We were all speculating that different ammo types would have different accuracy levels.

clint-ruin
10-18-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

Butch,

What type of ammo is that with, AP only or a mixed drum? We were all speculating that different ammo types would have different accuracy levels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch will know for sure, but, I would think that the accuracy -at convergence- would be the 2mil figure. In combat, though, you don't always get to fire in perfect convergence, and in those cases having your shells diverge radically is really no fun at all.

karost
10-18-2004, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52 :
Well according to source IceFire provided
HE(M) should have 20,24g of explosive compound not 18,6g. also according to the same source Hispano HE should have only 10,4 g of explosive.

If it's true that jerry explosive was stronger by a factor of 1,4 that would make:
Hispano HE 10,4g
MG151/20 HE-T 3.68g*1.4 = 14,72g
MG151/20 HE(M) 20,24*1.4 = 28.34g
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VO101__Kurfurst : (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=144104562&r=305106472#305106472)
Indeed there were two belt compositions suggested to be used by the Luftwaffes high command for the MG 151/20:

1st type of composition :

1 AP, 2 HEI , 2 Mine shells
This belt composition was to be used when facing four engined bombers. This is used in Il-2.

2nd type of composition :

1 AP, 1 HEI, 3 Mine shells
This belt composition was to be used in all other cases.

As you can see, the belt composition changed for preference of high capacity Mine Shells instead incendiary/HE shells when facing smaller aircraft, in fact it was typical on the Eastern Front, but Il-2 models what was chiefly used on the West front, vs. heavy bombers... there it was more advantagous to try setting the large bomber on fire instead of trying to shoot it until it falls apart - much less hits would ignite a fuel tank, then fire does the rest...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu : (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=614100203&r=240107033#240107033)

There were two different minengeschoss ammo in 20mm. other held some 18g of PETN, and it was early model minengeschoss ammo. later germans found way to compress PETN, and in those 20mm rounds there was 25g of PETN.
18g of PETN is same as 39,78g of TNT
25g of PETN is same as 55,25g of TNT

dont know if there were compresses rounds for mk108.
but normal 30mm minengeschoss had 85g of PETN, same as 187,86g of TNT!! over two times more than there is TNT in handgrenade. :O
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a Zero ( not a plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) knowledge about that ( above) and need help to know (below) :

1) what belt compositions in FB/AEP model if compare to VO101__Kurfurst 's data ?
2) what fomular to make a calculation about demange power for KE power in AP plus explosion power in HE,HEI , Mine shells
3) if I open fire one second brush at 200 meter range at B-17 , how much a total demange power will produce for each plane below :
A) 2 x 20mm Hispano MkII (1 x AP+1 x HET in spitfire) ?
B) 1 x 20mm 151/20 (1 x AP+ 2 x HEI + 2 x Mine shells in Bf-109G2) ?
C) 2 x 20mm 151/20 (1 x AP+ 1 x HEI + 3 x Mine shells in Fw-190D) ?

Regards
Karost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
10-18-2004, 09:32 PM
what plane has a nose mounted mg/ff ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
bf110?

btw ive seen hispano at 11rounds a second, but could be later model or sumin

butch2k
10-18-2004, 11:20 PM
Faustnik, test are always made with a single type of munition because munitions of different types do not have the same trajectory :
- Different form factor
- DIfferent weight repartition
- Different weight
- Different iniital speed
etc...
All make for a different trajectory and increase the overall dispersion patern, mostly in the Vertical axis though.

faustnik
10-18-2004, 11:37 PM
Thanks Butch, that's what we all kind of figured. So, the Mg151 would probably suffer the worst dispersion as it had the most varied loadout.

The next question is, at what range does this become an important factor?

Also, what did the LW have to gain from using such a varied belt loadout? If HE rounds were not penetrating into the target a/c, why did they keep using them?

thompet03
10-19-2004, 12:15 AM
you dont have to penetrate such a/c with he rounds to make damage...

Were not talking about flying tanks here.. almost no ac of wwII were realy armoured.. you do very strong damage to internal structure if you hit such wings for ex. And everyone served on an apc knows how powerful a 20mm he is..

Greetings

WWMaxGunz
10-19-2004, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:

Butch,

What type of ammo is that with, AP only or a mixed drum? We were all speculating that different ammo types would have different accuracy levels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch will know for sure, but, I would think that the accuracy -at convergence- would be the 2mil figure. In combat, though, you don't always get to fire in perfect convergence, and in those cases having your shells diverge radically is really no fun at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 mils wide all the way out till shell tumble wherever that may have occurred,
A long way out if I guess right.

As for where the 3 different trajectories cross -- it's going to be affected by the
convergence only by how the paths are initially inclined but that's all the adjustment
there is, the rest is up to the shells. They could have been tuned in tests to have
such a common crossing point but that would also depend on gun elevation which flying
combat your plane never tilts up or down any? Shoot flying straight up or down, all
the shells go the same if you fly the same path, impossible except in fantasy.

Testing the guns from the ground in rapid fire, does the broken air of earlier shots
help to channel later rounds? Flying along, being unable to perfectly follow the
broken air from shot to shot it's always "new air", never "drafting in line" of shells.

Then too, we have a simulation-approximation. Better than nothing!


Neal

butch2k
10-19-2004, 02:15 AM
I collected dispersion data for most of the German weapons as well as US/British MG/Cannon and this for different mountings.

As i said dispersion is measured at 100% meaning that all the shell even the odd ones are considered but only those of a single type. Thus we have knowledge of the intrinsic gun dispersion for a given mounting.

Dispersion for the MG151/20 was as follow (100%/single projectile type) :
3 mils when engine mouted, 7 mils when inner wing mounted and 8 mils when outer wing mounted.
This is the different between a rigid mount placed on the thrust line and a mount placed in a torsion/vibration prone position.

clint-ruin
10-19-2004, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Then too, we have a simulation-approximation. Better than nothing!

Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet again, another whole interesting topic all by itself, both in terms of reality and FBs simulation of it.

FB allows any gun - no matter what it fires or where it is on a plane - to be aimed at a point anywhere from 100 to 1000 metres away. Not every plane had physical space inside the frame to position the guns like that, but it's probably a useful compromise given that for some planes literally every gun might have a different max/min con setting.

I might be wrong on this, but certainly as far as I know, every shell you fire will - eventually - hit that exact spot named in your convergence setting. If the shell is lighter, it'll arc higher and then drop down, if it's heavier it'll go straighter. I don't think we have tumble at all - the same JTD-style dispersion patterns get produced whether the gun is being aimed 100m away or 1000m away.

I have this horrid feeling that finding out for sure is going to involve a lot of testing with ballons at a known height and distance and seeing what the shells do to get there :&gt;

Jippo01
10-19-2004, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

I might be wrong on this, but certainly as far as I know, every shell you fire will - eventually - hit that exact spot named in your convergence setting. If the shell is lighter, it'll arc higher and then drop down, if it's heavier it'll go straighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Faster = straighter

Mass has less relevance only through kinetic energy and ability to retain speed.


-jippo

Jippo01
10-19-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

2 mils wide all the way out till shell tumble wherever that may have occurred,
A long way out if I guess right.

Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually accuracy of a weapon is given always as mils at a given distance - accuracy in mils varies by distance.

And also if a weapon can shoot in a test setting 2 mils it will not achieve it in combat. Laboratory setting is always 'clean' and there are no external hindrance to performance that are affecting the same weapon whilst in combat. Same goes for armor penetration - some people quote laboratory 'best performance' figures far too readily.


-jippo

butch2k
10-19-2004, 07:51 AM
I disagree on the details Jippo,
indeed dispersion is considered fairly constant over the normal combat range, the dispersion being considered as a cone. Yet at very long range ballistic properties can be greatly diminished hence an increasing dispersion cone.

clint-ruin
10-19-2004, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

I might be wrong on this, but certainly as far as I know, every shell you fire will - eventually - hit that exact spot named in your convergence setting. If the shell is lighter, it'll arc higher and then drop down, if it's heavier it'll go straighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Faster = straighter

Mass has less relevance only through kinetic energy and ability to retain speed.


-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but in FB, we seem to see faster+lighter MG shells arc up above the aiming point and then fall down into it, whereas the heavier/slower APIT seems to roll out straight down the barrel through to the conv. point.

Do you agree that this happens? Should it, if it is what's happening?

p1ngu666
10-19-2004, 08:01 AM
hm i dont think its possible for all the rounds of different types to converge, because ud haveto alter the angle of the gun for different types http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

so i guess convergance is set for the standard round type, or tracer.

perhaps someone could do the fire at a smokestack and find out?

p1ngu666
10-19-2004, 08:02 AM
irl, in fb who knows http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

faustnik
10-19-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hm i dont think its possible for all the rounds of different types to converge, because ud haveto alter the angle of the gun for different types http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, they base the convergence on one type of round. I have a feeling that at 200 meters there is little difference on shell drop. I don't think the LW pilots were trained to fire at distances greater than that. FW accounts always warn of firing too early against the heavies because they appear bigger. Perhaps it was the shell trajectory differences that made firing more than 300 meters out ineffectual?

I know there is an official LW distance at which to open fire, I need to find it.

Jippo01
10-19-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
I disagree on the details Jippo,
indeed dispersion is considered fairly constant over the normal combat range, the dispersion being considered as a cone. Yet at very long range ballistic properties can be greatly diminished hence an increasing dispersion cone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I do agree with you, over normal combat range that is. It was mainly a comment to "constant mil until bullets start to tumble" argument - accuracy in mils will detoriate before that.


-jippo

VonHeide
10-19-2004, 11:06 AM
Clint-Ruin,

I have seen a number of posts by you lately and have to ask, What does your sig of Lenin and the cigar chomping dog in the hat mean??

WWMaxGunz
10-19-2004, 02:39 PM
I have a diagram, file named geschossflugbahnFW190A6.jpg, that puts the far
sightline crossing of the MG 17's at 500m and the wing 151/20's at 550m.

Something I picked up from this board a ways back.

Clint, if the different shells all cross the sightline at every convergence
range then there's something not right. I'm not even sure all three types
should cross the same no matter what convergence but any two should have
such a range and possibly three, discounting firing very much to purely up
or down.

What the curve of trajectory is is the drop from the bore line (tilted up
slightly) at any range of the shell. They all drop at the same rate, they
just don't all go the same distance over time. It is complex with the drag
over mach 1 which is why I'd love to have range-ballistics data instead of
endless muzzle velocity and mass tables which are good starts only.

The diagram I have has very few data points and only one shell type for the
151/20. 2 cm Spr.Gr.P.Ub.151. Fired from 120 cm below the sightline, it
crosses the sightline at 135 m, rises to 82 cm above the sightline at around
350-370 m judging from the diagram and then recrosses the sightlime at 550 m.
The variance compared to range is small, compared to some parts of a fighter
the knowledge of high or low with range (extreme close aim high, midrange aim
low) is critical. And -then- there's the shell seperation. But if that
diagram is right then they used the 151's at long range just perhaps with a
different mix of shells. It makes sense to be able to fire at bombers at
longer range, you can start before the MG's can have shots arrive on you.

Another firing factor is closure rate to the target. Where will he be in the
time the shell reaches him? Closure rate changes the effective range by the
rate itself.

There is also how much vertical. You someone is pulling up to fire, the shots
should all be high and moreso with angle upwards as gravity is not oriented as
much (maybe at all) to perpendicular of the sightline. Same with firing aiming
downward, so strafing from a steep dive, the hits should not be near the cross
hairs. On a medium dive angle, the hits should be at the crosshairs beyond the
convergence range possibly well beyond. This is not something groundhog troops
normally have to consider except for AA with iron sights, and timing should be
of a higher concern to them.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-19-2004, 02:41 PM
VonHeide, I think that is a bear and probably Stalin.

clint-ruin
10-19-2004, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
VonHeide, I think that is a bear and probably Stalin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sealab 2021, another bizarre[o] Adult Swim cartoon.

Stalin is the bear. The party bear king. That's Lenin on the left.

The sign in the background says "I haven't eaten sliced bread since I was twelve." :&gt;

http://pod-six.net/faq.html

clint-ruin
10-19-2004, 08:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Clint, if the different shells all cross the sightline at every convergence
range then there's something not right. I'm not even sure all three types
should cross the same no matter what convergence but any two should have
such a range and possibly three, discounting firing very much to purely up
or down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its very much possible that something is not right. From doing tests with the 151/20 I could quite reliably count off hits with the APIT and MG shells, chosing which ones to hit a target with - with long convergence the MGs go really, really high compared to the other shells, so much so that you can flat out miss something directly in front of the gun with them, but still hit with the APIT round.

It would be good to find any documentation on which rounds the sight and convergence were set with exactly, and just how they handled the different shell arcs in terms of training and use in combat. I can't remember ever having seen anything on the subject.

karost
10-19-2004, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Thanks Butch, that's what we all kind of figured. So, the Mg151 would probably suffer the worst dispersion as it had the most varied loadout.

The next question is, at what range does this become an important factor?

Also, what did the LW have to gain from using such a varied belt loadout? If HE rounds were not penetrating into the target a/c, why did they keep using them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi faustnik and friends

I found this...

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm
by Anthony G Williams

Effectiveness
"Comparisons of the effectiveness of the British and German armament are not unlike the comparisons of the aircraft €" each had its strengths and weaknesses. The British armament had a very high rate of fire (160 v. 50 rounds per second for the Bf 109), increasing the chance of scoring a hit. In weight of fire the German guns had a slight advantage (2.0 v. 1.8 kg per second), whereas in total muzzle energy there was nothing to choose between them. The key difference was of course the high explosive in the 20mm shells, which was enough to give the Bf 109E-4 almost double the destructive power of the British fighters. The M-Geschoss were not good at penetrating armour but this was considered a reasonable price to pay for the increased HE blast effect. The Luftwaffe discovered that the most reliable way of bringing down aircraft was the general destructive effect of HE blast within the structure, rather than relying on being able to hit vital but small areas (e.g. the pilot!), which could be, and quickly were, protected by armour. For this reason, AP projectiles eventually disappeared from German cannon ammunition belts except for special purposes ."


That's why Anthony G Williams & Emmanuel open website about"WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS" (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm) to present "Changing the method of calculation"


"In Conclusion, while it is admitted that some elements of the calculations €" especially concerning the relative weighting given to kinetic and chemical damage €" are open to criticism, in practical terms the results stand up quite well. Changing the method of calculation affects some scores but has surprisingly little effect on the overall 'order of merit' of the destructiveness rankings. Where it does have an effect, it is generally to boost the scores of high-capacity HE shells while reducing those of lower-velocity AP cannon shells, which is validated by the Luftwaffe's decision to focus on chemical rather than kinetic energy in developing their aircraft weapons."


faustnik and friends , one thing that we cannot deny... "How many Big Bomb planes and fighter planes was shooted down with HE and HE(M) by Luftwaffe in WWII times " ... and now we are looking for that reason...
S!

faustnik
10-19-2004, 11:12 PM
Thanks for the post Karost, good find! The power of the explosive within an aiframe is Neal's theory for the possibility of causing big damage. It looks like the LW was looking at this angle early in the war.

WWMaxGunz
10-20-2004, 08:29 AM
Earlier posts give Hispano ROF at 600/min = 10/sec x 2 cannon = 20/sec.
160/sec must be including .303's? Or is it later Brit plane with .50's?

Earlier posts give 151/20 ROF at 750/min = 12.5/sec.
50/sec must be including 2 x MG's, MG 17's? Or later MG 131's?

Yes, we look for the reasons.....

There is factors of weapons and ammo weights.
There is factors of fire time.
There is factor of reliability.

Look at what US fighters around the world did with massed .50 cals.

So far everyone here feels that blast effects seem too weak or not done.
Only disagreement seems to be over what the 151/20 should do maximum and
average. There is wide range for opinion.

Compare the 151/20 to Hispano, it is weak.
Perhaps the Hispano is too good? What then?


Neal

Jippo01
10-20-2004, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Compare the 151/20 to Hispano, it is weak.
Perhaps the Hispano is too good? What then?


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My personal, maybe somewhat educated opinion about FB damage model has been for some time that in general AP rounds have been much too efficient whilst in general HE have been way too weak. Especially against wings and other "empty" parts of the plane. Of course if a MG 151/15 AP round can pass through the tail assembly, seat, pilot, firewall and knock out LaGG-3 engine as I have managed sometimes do, it is obviously too strong against hard objects too.

But if a bomber is easier to bring down with P-47 than FW-190 there is something wrong.

But in the end FB DM seems to evolve from patch to patch - it is very hard to make absolute statements.


-jippo

Ps. I think Hispano is OK overall, whilst MG 151/20 should be around 0.90 - 0.95 of the overall efficiency of Hispano with current belt composition. VERY IMHO though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gryphonne
10-20-2004, 11:25 AM
Well, the 151/20 is not fixed in PF (didn't expect it either), although it's easier to hit with it due to reduced muzzle flash, it's actually weaker than the Japanese 20mm (on the 1940 Zero), which AFAIK should not be the case?.

Regards,

Gryphon

WWMaxGunz
10-20-2004, 11:18 PM
Wait for that all important first patch .... 2 weeks?

Jippo! Wings empty of AP effective parts?

Try;

Spars(2), fuel tanks, radiators, wheels/struts/mechanisms/wells, flap mechanisms,
control linkages and brackets have to be solid, weapons, hardpoint structure....

Hit any of those hard and it gets it. If the shot is stopped there then whatever
it is mounted to is also taking the strain/shock which is the KE value, not PE.
If the shot isn't stopped then however much it soaked off is still also taken by
whatever structure holds that part.

Granted that MG rounds have more energy in the blast, the thing is to get the blast
where all that energy is used and not just blown out through the skin and bending
a few ribs or longerons as strikes on a bomber show on a 'good 20mm hits' photo
Wotan posted over on SimHQ. That's why I believe that deeper penetration by HE/MG
shells should make a difference, the deeper the blast when it does go off, the more
of the blast should be soaked by the target.

Also note that AP from behind & level a wing or fuse, or from front & level has a
much greater chance of hitting one or more structural parts including the spars
that hold the whole show up. HE/MG has a greater chance of penetrating well before
exploding in high deflection.

I think that most players shoot from the six or twelve while gun camera shots I see
lots of deflection on turning target or from above or below -- that's from real
pilots. Not all guncam film, like the one you linked to is low deflection almost
a rear shot but not full six.


Neal

Jippo01
10-21-2004, 07:05 AM
I said my humble opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And I still think it that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Most high deflaction hits would be huge overpenetrations at .50 and above - only fraction of the KE would be applied on target.


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
10-21-2004, 08:25 AM
Okay, yah. AP hits from deflect that don't hit parts mentioned will pass through
without much but still the cannon/guns, spars, fuel tank if incendiary or not self
sealing, radiators if in wing (how wide for 109?) with oil cooler, and again the
flaps mechanism and landing gear parts -- not all critical right away. Much less
chance of control linkages and all very narrow parts to get hit, yes. And the
outside part of the wing, what besides spar, aileron, aileron linkage and braces?
Most of the wing there is pretty open I agree. On some planes even the inside
not that much but others... I look at the layered drawings and there is much, it
is perhaps 50% or more 'full' in the inner wing to outer gun.

Do guns ever get k.o.'d from hits? Also the ammo trays of wing guns.

High ROF AP shots that get multiple hits increases chances of good hit(s).
Again, having a bunch of MG's should help but due to framerate the .50's
do not seem to get the stream of hits. Many hit as one like a cannon AP.
I'd rather have the stream but my poor PC would run at 2 FPS! Is the 8
and 12 .303 Hurricanes likewise, bullets as group on one hit?


Neal

quiet_man
10-21-2004, 04:52 PM
A interesting source about 50cal are the 50&lt;&gt;20 discussions during Korea

but to return to the topic, were fuses already discussed?

I would say the fuse can increase (or decrease) damage 3 to 10 times against "soft" targets like planes.

what fuses were used in the war?
Are this differences modelled in the game or only pure weight?

Regards,
quiet_man

clint-ruin
10-21-2004, 09:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Do guns ever get k.o.'d from hits? Also the ammo trays of wing guns.

High ROF AP shots that get multiple hits increases chances of good hit(s).
Again, having a bunch of MG's should help but due to framerate the .50's
do not seem to get the stream of hits. Many hit as one like a cannon AP.
I'd rather have the stream but my poor PC would run at 2 FPS! Is the 8
and 12 .303 Hurricanes likewise, bullets as group on one hit?
Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, can we work out:

How thick the wing was on a say, Bf109, FW190, A6M, etc [I've done a small google for it but all I can find is wing thickness %s],

What the likelyhood would be of a .50 cal round slapping into the spar/longeron/ammo tray/fuel tank inside the wing,

What the likelyhood would be of a dead-on perpendicular hit to something important listed above, how many of those kinds of hits it would take to break through the structural supports.

If that's something we can work out, we might even be able to get some insight into how the DM components are rated for toughness, how the deflection model works, how the packetisation works by comparing our results to the arcade arrorws, etc.

While the MGs and HEs should be great for starting fires or blowing panels and skin off a plane, they don't penetrate far into a target if the fuse works - they're supposed to blow up before they get terribly far. That's where the APs should come in handy, a hit that overpenetrates skin is bad - won't leave much more than 2 2cm holes, but a hit that penetrates armor, structural members, an engine or a pilot is good news. Sometimes a concentrated hit on 2cm of a plane is all you need to break something important.

While we're on the subject of HE damage vs DMs generally, I see the 37mm T9 vs He-111 DM test is still looking pretty weird in FB 2.04.

More data on HE fuses would be good, and any on how FB is modelling them.

WWMaxGunz
10-22-2004, 12:25 AM
I think that we can figure out what's going on with the DM just before the
discovery of life on Mars.....

VW-IceFire
10-22-2004, 11:20 PM
I've noticed that the Ta-152H *seems* (may be placebo) to have better MG151/20's. Is this something historical where the weapon was modified for the Ta-152H and that it functioned better? I seem to do much more appropriate ammounts of damage on this plane...while in the Dora, with the same 20mm armament I seem to do much less?

Placebo, historical, game engine reason?

p1ngu666
10-23-2004, 05:30 PM
i think the 37mm in the yak9ut is dodgy, u tried that clint? just curious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dont the ta152 cannons have less tracer rounds? i havent flown d9 vs 152 for a looong time

Vipez-
10-25-2004, 08:05 AM
"My easiest victory (happened) on the 28th of May 1944. I was based at Malmi. Suursaari sent us a report: buzzing to the west. I was sent to identify. The coastline was covered by a thin veil of cloud, having climbed above it I saw a contrail. I began to climb to it, and when I reached the same altitude the contrail stopped. I kept a sharp lookout and saw a Pe-2. I caught it easily, and because the gunner shot at me, it was an enemy. Since it did not have any chance of escaping, I decided to play cat and mouse. I pulled a 360 degree turn, during which the bomber got about 2000 m away. As I approached again, the Pe went into a slightly left-turning glide. I took aim and estimated that the range was 1000 m. I further estimated that taking into account the range and the turn, the correct deflection would be 8 plane lengths. I decided to test my cannon and pushed the trigger with my thumb as briefly as ever possible. Some pieces flew off from the left wing of the Pe and it went into deeper dive. I thought the bomber is trying to escape, so I followed and more debris flew off from it. The dive became deeper and deeper, I could not follow because my speed was approaching the red line. I had to pull out, but I kept watching the Pe. It crashed near the village of Kuusalu, east of Tallinn. At Malmi I told the armourers to check my guns. They found three spent 20mm cases. " Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories

PE-2 with 3 cannon hits.. guess the German 20mm was not that bad after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PBNA-Boosher
10-25-2004, 10:12 AM
I had a good MG-151/20 victory this morning against Ace AI Spitfires. Since I heard Lt. Dulias speak, I tend to follow his advice while using the Bf-109. Forget the gunsight. Get so close you won't need it. I seemed to be less than 20 meters away from the Spitfire, We were constantly twisting and turning, I had a tough time staying on his tail

THEN he pushed down on his stick and rolled to the right, exposing his engine. I fired a quick, 1/4 second burst with the MG-151/20 and one tracer round left my cannon barrel. It smacked directly on top of the engine in the space between the housing and the prop hub. The Spitfire promptly caught fire. I banked away and the pilot bailed out, and was then killed in the explosion of his plane. Next I took care of his wingman. I used my 7.92mm MG's (I was flying the 109F-4) to force this second Spitfire down on the deck. I kept firing over his shoulder with the MG's and he dove for the ground. I rolled over and followed. This one did not present his engine to me as a target, so I kept softening him up with my MG's until I could get around to his engine. The 7.92's hit the radiator, the wings, the tail, the cockpit, but the pilot was still very much alive. Finally, we were less than 10 meters off the ground when he pulled up so sharply that the tail wheel of his plane struck the ground. he went straight vertical. I Held down my cannon button for 2 seconds, approximately 4 tracer rounds hit the engine housing and cockpit. The Spitfire started burning, the pilot did not attempt a bailout.

The MG-151/20 does seem slightly undermodeled in game, I definitely agree. However, if you get VERY close (I'm talking less than 20 meters) It can be a very lethal weapon. At extrememly close range it is very powerful and accurate. Best of all it's very reliable. I'm not calling myself an Ace. In fact during that very same sortie after shooting down those 2 Spits I myself got nailed 3 seconds later by a nice P-47 driver, who promptly ripped my wings off, leaving my 109's fuselage, with me in it, to skid along the ground for about 700 meters. I very luckily survived, but was a bit shaken.

I guess until we can get more power into these guns, we'll just have to get closer, and take our time with our shots.

WWMaxGunz
10-25-2004, 11:06 AM
Less than 20 meters??? How do you tell? Not "the icon range is .2" by any chance?

The fighters are only about half that long, most wing spans are 10 meters.


Neal

faustnik
10-25-2004, 12:56 PM
I will remake all my Mg151/Hispano/Shvak test tracks over the next couple of days with PF. Maybe some things will have changed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe I should include control surface target tests this time too?

JG14_Josf
10-25-2004, 02:50 PM
Faustnik,

Have you tried creating a mission where planes are spawed on uneven terrain like this:

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

I uploaded the compressed .mis and .properties files to my web site but it didn't work for me to download them from this site:

My site (http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2%20Gun%20Test.htm)

If you are interested I can send the files by e-mail.

It is possible to move the planes around to target different areas for testing. It is also easy to change planes in the FMB for testing different guns.

faustnik
10-25-2004, 02:59 PM
I tried Josf, but, I didn't find it that easy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It took forever for me to line up things exactly as I wanted them. It was easier for me to just set up behind a target in QMB.

I can see the advantage in the ground based method as it might be easier to hit a super-specific spot.

VW-IceFire
10-25-2004, 10:12 PM
Maybe more placebo but the 151/20 against some offline targets using the 109's wing guns (gondolas) seem to be fairly effective.

Not sure if its the overall firepower or what...but they seem different than the outer FW190 guns. I'm thinking placebo...OR...I'm onto something and some of the 151's are working just fine and other's aren't. As in game bug rather than something else. Still, I have no proof. Just wondering if anyone else noticed.

WWMaxGunz
10-25-2004, 10:29 PM
I'm not real sure but are the FW 151's, at least the inners, synchronized and if so
for a rather low ROF? While the 109's gunpod 151's may not.


Neal

faustnik
10-25-2004, 10:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I'm not real sure but are the FW 151's, at least the inners, synchronized and if so
for a rather low ROF? While the 109's gunpod 151's may not.


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw190s inner Mg151 are synchronized with a lower ROF of 500 - 600 rpm.

What I am trying to measure however is damage per hit, something that can easily be counted using arcade mode. Then we have to account for ammo type, energy loss over distance, and all that other good stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
10-26-2004, 12:40 AM
I did some testing with PF tonight (in between carrier landing attempts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) and it does not look like anything has changed in the sim as far as relative 20mm power.

Here is the Mg151/20:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Mg151vFw190test.jpg

Here is the ShVak:


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Laggvs190.jpg


Here is the Hispano:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Hispanovs190.jpg

I was very surprised to see that the ShVak had so much hitting power. Looking at this test brings me back to the idea of the AP rounds doing all the damage. The Mg151 is firing a lot of HE, which appear to do very little damage. The other weapons are firing much more AP, and are really tearing the target up.


********************************

On the plus side LW shotting had become MUCH easier with the reduced muzzle flashes. It's really fun to be able to see the damage the 190's guns are doing as it happens now! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

karost
10-26-2004, 05:27 AM
faustnik , thanks for your test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
seem prove that HE,HE(M) damage power in 151/20 did not move to the right place.

a lot of friends who favor in LW's planes are wait for PF first patch.

all we can do just ... only hope..!

S!

WWMaxGunz
10-26-2004, 08:34 AM
Faustnik;

That did it. From those 3 pictures there should be NO argument that the HE and MG's are
undermodelled. Even if the MG explosions are shallow there should have been... well the
back end of that fuselage should have been chewed off, at least everything but the main
structural members and probably those two! I know the arrow point ends don't mean the
shot or frag actually went that far but the mass of frag blooms just in the back half is
at least a few. On the skin another couple. One ricocheted and burst very close not
quite halfway back from the cockpit. At least one burst *inside the engine compartment*
which considering the shots came from the rear then how did it get THERE without going
through the cockpit??? Quantum tunneling? And that's just from the side shown on the
screenshot! What would I see if you moved the camera and took more? More of the same
I bet, though possibly better count and burst locations determined it used to take me
a lot of camera positions to get counts... I did blip the trigger for much shorter
bursts and did many passes which now I think wasn't good enough method.

Please Oleg, look at these! Even if MG didn't explode, they are not tennis balls!


Neal

faustnik
10-26-2004, 09:46 AM
I'm not done testing yet though guys. Maybe the Mg151's HE rounds are more effective against control surfaces and less armored a/c.

WWMaxGunz
10-26-2004, 03:36 PM
I see fragment arrows coming from inside the plane going out. Not really many out
of all the arrows going in from the rear and out the nose that tells me of many
hits but quite a few. And then there's the one that exploded inside the engine
compartment, how did it get there? The 3D models are all good, the code is, then
which is not?


Neal

p1ngu666
10-26-2004, 04:45 PM
is there armour behind the fuel tank? i think htere is, so if the armour piecing is worse on the mg151/20, then u may just not blast thru enuff...
perhaps u could try to make it universal harder or easier
eg a4(guess its weakest) or f8 (toughest)

faustnik
10-26-2004, 05:31 PM
I will test with a P.11 and an IL-2 next. Should cover the range.

Armor piercing ability would be better for the Hispano, the Mg151 and ShVak would be similar. From that range however, the Mg151 should be penetrating any armor on the A6.

p1ngu666
10-26-2004, 06:58 PM
oks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
irl, a fuel tank fire didnt matter so much in p11, cos pilot could drop the fuel tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
wish we could in fb, useing the drop tank key http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

VW-IceFire
10-27-2004, 07:28 AM
I meant the outer wing guns on the FW190 seem different than the gunpod MG151/20's on the Bf-109.

Infact, when I was testing the 109 against a Yak-1 I found that the outer guns if used alone took out the Yak in a few hits (structural failure of the wing). The inner cannon, despite a very good number of hits (I was aiming for the wings to be consistent seeing as the wing guns were hitting there) it didn't seem to do the same effect. There should be no difference between the hub mounted gun and the wing guns should there be? I'm just asking the question.

My perception was that the explosion (graphically) was bigger on the outer. This is not true for the FW190 outter guns. Its very odd!

faustnik
10-27-2004, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I meant the outer wing guns on the FW190 seem different than the gunpod MG151/20's on the Bf-109.

Infact, when I was testing the 109 against a Yak-1 I found that the outer guns if used alone took out the Yak in a few hits (structural failure of the wing). The inner cannon, despite a very good number of hits (I was aiming for the wings to be consistent seeing as the wing guns were hitting there) it didn't seem to do the same effect. There should be no difference between the hub mounted gun and the wing guns should there be? I'm just asking the question.

My perception was that the explosion (graphically) was bigger on the outer. This is not true for the FW190 outter guns. Its very odd! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Icefire,

Which Fw190A were you using? The Fw190A4 and A5 have MgFF in the outer stations and Mg151 for the inner stations. The A6 and later have Mg151 for both stations.

p1ngu666
10-27-2004, 12:33 PM
could the out cannon pods on 109 have a different mix?
we have eastern front ammo mix on german planes, think they ran more ap rounds cos of il2's.
gunpods where used vs b17's, so that may have more he rounds, or that heM if thats possible

VW-IceFire
10-27-2004, 04:42 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 VW-IceFire:
I meant the outer wing guns on the FW190 seem different than the gunpod MG151/20's on the Bf-109.

Infact, when I was testing the 109 against a Yak-1 I found that the outer guns if used alone took out the Yak in a few hits (structural failure of the wing). The inner cannon, despite a very good number of hits (I was aiming for the wings to be consistent seeing as the wing guns were hitting there) it didn't seem to do the same effect. There should be no difference between the hub mounted gun and the wing guns should there be? I'm just asking the question.

My perception was that the explosion (graphically) was bigger on the outer. This is not true for the FW190 outter guns. Its very odd! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Icefire,

Which Fw190A were you using? The Fw190A4 and A5 have MgFF in the outer stations and Mg151 for the inner stations. The A6 and later have Mg151 for both stations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I'm VERY well aware of that (I just assumed everyone knew that the A-6 and up had MG151/20 outboard cannons). I used the A6, A8, and A9 as my tests. Outboard guns only...comparison to the outboard guns (only) of the 109G-2 and 109G-6 Late and there appears to be a difference. Both in graphics (if you LOOK closely) and in percieved damage.

I find the A-4 and A-5 MG-FF's actually more effective than the 151/20's provided that you hit with them. Which is harder due to lower muzzle....but thats definately not right.

Usually I notice the weakness of the 151/20 on the FW190D-9 which of course has syncronized 151's. I was told to expect that not to count for much difference due to engineering of the 151/20 but at this point I'm ready for anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
10-27-2004, 04:45 PM
IceFire,

The next time you notice the outer/inner gun difference could you keep a track for me please.

thanks,

faust