PDA

View Full Version : MG151/20 Ammo belt loading - Here`s your answer guys.



Pages : [1] 2

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 10:25 AM
Greetings,
Here are the results of my conversation with Oleg about MG151/20 weapons. As you can see, difference between MG151 gun pods vs Other MG151 weapons exists and it was a good find http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

From Oleg Maddox:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I was wrong telling people that they are one the same in code. I checked myself the archive of codes and found that there was a change right before FB release due to fact that users sent us the OKL/LW order doc for the loadouts of shell types for the gunpods of Bf109s (there was all loadouts like we model now). In the doc described different loadout for nose mounted and for gunbods of Bf109. The description tells it is for the the shooting in bombers and practically listed Il-2 and ...4 engine bombers.
So my guys simply did new weapon type especially for Bf109 gunpods, which is really the same MG151/20, but with other type of shells (don't remember, but it seems that they are all HE). In code it looks like a new classes of weapons...
So it is historically correct.

In all other cases we really use the following system:

If we model the specific type of cannons or MG, then we use this cannon or MG on all planes where it was installed with only difference in amount of ammo and synchronization. Ammo type load in this case is one the same.

That to escape such situation in future like with these gunpods, we plan to make adjustable loadout of cannons and MGs for the BoB series. But user may change it only in case if he is commander of a squad (maybe even in the case of Wing commander) or if he is playing in simple dogfight only.
In all other cases the load of ammo type will be defined in missions (by other words by new fuctions in FMB)
But in the current sim it will be as it is. The code type limit us to make such function already now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That pretty much sums it up.

Cheers!

fherathras
02-24-2005, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

That to escape such situation in future like with these gunpods, we plan to make adjustable loadout of cannons and MGs for the BoB series. But user may change it only in case if he is commander of a squad (maybe even in the case of Wing commander) or if he is playing in simple dogfight only.
In all other cases the load of ammo type will be defined in missions (by other words by new fuctions in FMB)
But in the current sim it will be as it is. The code type limit us to make such function already now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



GREAT NEWS!

Diablo310th
02-24-2005, 10:41 AM
thanks Ivan.....that settles that issue. I can't wait now for BoB when I can fly my Jug loaded out with enough API to really roast planes with. Zeke on the BBQ. roasted Ki84, toasted Messers, and fried Bird(Butcher). Yummmy...sounds like a good meal.

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 10:54 AM
Well, i can see toasted Jugs... be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

x__CRASH__x
02-24-2005, 11:10 AM
Can someone translate that for me? Are we getting a fixed belt load for the 20mm in FB?

Mysha76
02-24-2005, 11:15 AM
Good news? Maybe Im not good in English.. But I see that Oleg M doesn¥ want any changes in PF. Despite the fact, that some M-g shells in nose (and FW winx) guns are missing...

tigertalon
02-24-2005, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Well, i can see toasted Jugs... be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was seeing them in my dream until now... How exactly do you see them, if Mg15120s stay the same? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Oleg said, that we will not get the function of choosing the ammo belt in PF. I can live with that. But, isn't it historically incorect for non-gunpod Mg151/20 NOT to contain minengeschoss rounds? So, if it isn't, would it be too hard to change the code for non-gunpod Mg151s?

AFAIK there were three possible loadouts for Mg151/20: APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG (like it is in game for gunpods), APIT-HE-MG-MG-MG, and APIT-HE-MG. All three contain MG rounds. And btw, MG shell is contained already in MgFF. In game it is on 4th place in 4-shell sequence, counting from tracer: APIT-HE-HE-MG.

So, are we getting MG shells for Mg151/20 or not?

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 11:20 AM
Well, let me put it this way: Above post is an explanation of WHY gunpod ammo belt load is different from other MG151s, as was noted.

Whether current ammo load for wing mounted 151s or nose mounted ones is correct or not...is another story. As Oleg stated, ammo loads for other MG151s are based on documentation. So... if you have other documentation, please share. That`s all i can add, really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
02-24-2005, 11:22 AM
I can't find any good news either... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Is it just Mysha and me ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Mysha76
02-24-2005, 11:25 AM
CrazyIan, you are convinced, that credible documents about LW canon belts content will lead to change in PF? In other words, we can still hope...?

So, now we need the information from Mr.Oleg about
non gunpods canons belt content in PF. Am I wrong TT?

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 11:27 AM
Credible sources do wonderfull things. It was always the case.

JuHa-
02-24-2005, 11:42 AM
Thank you for the info - we weren't crazy after all!

p1ngu666
02-24-2005, 11:58 AM
think the mine shells where on early planes equiped with mg151, because they didnt exist then
i am however, entirely unsure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jurinko
02-24-2005, 11:59 AM
ok guys can anyone present credible docs about the presence of MG shells in normal ammo belt composition? To get some of those in MG 151..

Btw the BoB option to change the ammo composition will be great. an we also change non-historical combinations (like AP or HE only) or only few preset combinations?

johann_thor
02-24-2005, 12:03 PM
ahemm ..... so in the next patch engine-mounted 20mm cannon on bf109 will have its correct ammo ??!! we knew the problem .... we want a solution http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 12:07 PM
You missunderstood Johan. Ammo belt composition of nose mounted and wing mounted MG151s is coded according to source that Oleg has. Same applies to MG151 gun pods. They are different loadouts. Basically nothing will change. Unless someone can provide credible document that says otherwise.

Atzebrueck
02-24-2005, 12:12 PM
The following document has been handed out to Luftwaffe pilots.
http://rafiger.de/Homepage/Pages/Schiessfibel.html

On page 32 the "Schießfibel" tells its reader, that the standard loadout, being effective against all planes, is meant to be:
3*Minen (MG) + 1*Brandgranate (I or HEI) + 1*Panzerbrandgranate (API)

jurinko
02-24-2005, 12:14 PM
one real life experience is, when La-5FNs from 1st Czechoslovak fighter regiment come to help the Slovak National Uprising, their first mission was to attack the airbase of Luftwaffe in Piestany, western Slovakia. They shot some Bf 109s on the ground but saw no fire. After they come back, they found out that Soviet armorers, dunno why, loaded pure AP ammo into their Shvaks.

Diablo310th
02-24-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Well, i can see toasted Jugs... be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Ivan....I've seen enough of that. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth so I don't prefer it. Just doesn't sit well in the stomach. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

tigertalon
02-24-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
3*Minen (MG) + 1*Brandgranate (I or HEI) + 1*Panzerbrandgranate (API) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holy cr@p, that's even stronger than our gunpods!

tigertalon
02-24-2005, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
The following document has been handed out to Luftwaffe pilots.
http://rafiger.de/Homepage/Pages/Schiessfibel.html

On page 32 the "Schießfibel" tells its reader, that the standard loadout, being effective against all planes, is meant to be:
3*Minen (MG) + 1*Brandgranate (I or HEI) + 1*Panzerbrandgranate (API) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good read, indeed! For the lazy ones I took out page 32. Here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Mg151shellcomposition.jpg

Sturm_Williger
02-24-2005, 01:32 PM
From reading Oleg's answer, I get the impression that the document he had was specifically referring to changing the loadout on the nose cannon when gunpods were used. This was just programmed as default nose cannon loadout even when Pods weren't used.

That's my reading of it and that means it was just a simple mistake, ie. changing the loadout across the board instead of just when gunpods were used.

Therefore, if sufficient documentation can be provided showing that MG rounds WERE used normally, Oleg is reasonable enough to correct things - only shortage of patches-to-be could influence this, Oleg has always come through in the past. A lot of people seem to forget that Oleg also strives for historical accuracy.

Here's hoping http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Atzebrueck
02-24-2005, 01:39 PM
Not really about the loadout, but interesting, nevertheless:
http://www.munavia-21.org/indedoc/Lw-Ammos.htm

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 01:45 PM
Let me clarify all that again...

1) Initial release of IL-2 Sturmovik had THE SAME ammo belt composition for all MG151 weapons.

2) Right before release of Forgotten Battles, Oleg received documentation from reliable source that gunpods on BF109 series had different composition of ammo belt. According to this document loadouds of MG151/20 gunpods were changed, while other MG151 loadouts remained the same.

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

p1ngu666
02-24-2005, 02:10 PM
ta ivan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Choctaw111
02-24-2005, 02:12 PM
When Oleg says that we can change the ammo belt composition is he talking about just selecting what type of belt we want such as all API or API mixed with HE in general or can we place individual rounds in the belts to suit our needs? I would love to be able to choose the inidividual rounds for the entire belt. I do not want to be stuck with a tracer in every 5 rounds or whatever the case may be. I want to put the tracers and other ammo types in the belt where I see fit. If I want a tracer in every 5 rounds or 10 or even 20 rounds I would like to be able to do this in JUST ONE GUN and leave tracers OUT of the other guns if I want to and place the other API or HE wherever I want in each individual gun.

jurinko
02-24-2005, 02:16 PM
Interesting enough, the recommended ammo composition against heavy bombers has MG-HEI-API and against all other targets it has more explosivo load MG-MG-MG-HEI-API. I would say the contrary is better - more MG against bombers..
Against armored vehicles (or IL-2s) they took pure AP(I).

I rememmber that back in FB V1.1beta the single nose MG 151 was quite powerful.. like with the gunpod combination we have now. Or some global DM has changed, dunno.

Fish6891
02-24-2005, 02:21 PM
Well even though its not everything I hoped for I'm glad we got an answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Question though, should someone provide info from a credible source that would change our MG151/20 loadouts for the better.....

Is it something we should pursue or is Oleg saying he will not change what we currently have?

Mysha76
02-24-2005, 02:42 PM
CrazyIvan, the document posted here (above) is not enough for Mr.O?
One (old) man in my country is expert at 20mm aircraft cannons. Im going to contat him. Maybe he has others sources...

And can Mr.O give us ammo composition in belts and nose canons, which we have currently in game?
For comparing and testing.

chaikanut
02-24-2005, 02:51 PM
Hmmmm... Just in time to silence the disbelievers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That will keep everyone occupied looking for different belt loadouts.

Anyway, what is everyone so excited about? The man said that nose cannons are correct, gunpods have HE only. One way or another, the guns are not changing.

VW-IceFire
02-24-2005, 02:56 PM
So the vasty majority of our MG151/20s are essentially designed for more AP rather than HE work.

Interesting...

quiet_man
02-24-2005, 03:06 PM
Oleg ones stated that on eastern front different loadout with more AP was used

so we need a document specificaly for eastern front loadout

someone something?

quiet_man

Atzebrueck
02-24-2005, 03:17 PM
from http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
20 mm (MG-FF, MG 151/20)

* 2 Minengeschoß m. Zerl.
* 2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl
oder Brandgranatpatronen
* 1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl
oder Panzerbrandgranatpatrone (Phospor) o. Zerl.

Here the Minengeschoß appears for the first time. A version of the 20mm M-Geschoß with tracer did not exist, so tracer was used on HE/I (Brandsprenggranatpatrone) or pure incendiary (Brandgranatpatrone) rounds. The latter was apparently a new development in 1944, intended to replace the less effective HE/I. The fifth round was a semi-AP projectile, explosive or incendiary. Apparently the main reason this was used instead of a solid AP round was that a solid projectile would have been too heavy.

It was recommended that more AP or semi-AP ammunition would be loaded when the probable targets were well-armoured attack aircraft such as the Il-2. On the other hand, against the four-engined bombers of the RAF and USAAF the high explosive types were more effective.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds as if we got a special load out against the IL2. That's like giving us HE shells, if we are supposed to shoot at a T34.
We have only one belt composition for all German planes with which we are supposed to fight against different kind of targets.
Wouldn't it make much more sence to give us the more common standard loadout where either 2 or 3 out of 5 shells were a Mine shell ?

The easiest solution would be to use the gunpod loadout for the other MG151/20, too.

BBB_Hyperion
02-24-2005, 03:50 PM
Can we still have the ammo belt composition how it is modeled ? The Information that it is different doesnt help much at all to compare the 2 types http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Is a Mine Shell Present on the standard Mg151/20 or not ?

If yes i would like to know what is modeled on the gunpods that makes it much more effective http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway thx for the effort of looking into it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif cleared some things but not all.

WWMaxGunz
02-24-2005, 03:55 PM
From Oleg Maddox:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So my guys simply did new weapon type especially for Bf109 gunpods, which is really the same MG151/20, but with other type of shells (don't remember, but it seems that they are all HE). In code it looks like a new classes of weapons...
So it is historically correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From TT's posted sreenshots it is looking like the 109 gunpods get AP-HE-HE-MG-MG and all
others get AP-HE-HE-AP-HE with no Mine shells.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In all other cases we really use the following system:

If we model the specific type of cannons or MG, then we use this cannon or MG on all planes where it was installed with only difference in amount of ammo and synchronization. Ammo type load in this case is one the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 151/20 non-109-gunpod ammo is what has been seen to be changed and the gunpods got
the ammo mix from before.

Could it be they changed the wrong ammo mix? Nose guns do not now show any Mine shells
in those screenshots. Nor do 190 wing 151/20's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> From Ivan;
That pretty much sums it up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sum is still not complete by those screenshots.

chaikanut
02-24-2005, 04:20 PM
To tigertalon:

If the table you posted is correct then Oleg is wrong on wht he said/programmed. Again, you will need tests to be sure on belt compositions and whether the killer gunpods are not an artifact of higher ROF/ convergence ( I remember someone saying that the nose cannon has lower rate of fire, dunno why), the fact the you have TWO guns instead of one, not so good gunnery and comparisons between different damage models. And after all a full HE belt should be equally or less powerful than what we have now depending on the area hit(3MG, 1HE, 1AP right?), since MG is 1.3 times more powerful than HE. And where does the tracer come from?

crazyivan1970
02-24-2005, 04:22 PM
Allow to disagree Gunz, it does sum it up as far as gunpods vs wing/nose mount theory goes. They are different.

Now, whether IL-2 series has correct loadout and what it uses is another story. I will try to get belt information tomorrow if i can stay up till 6am again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
02-24-2005, 04:32 PM
That still doesn`t answer me something.

Why the LW instead of copying the gunpod ammobelt into the nose gun did leave the pathetic innefective ammobelt for fighters?

Another stupid LW decision?

Not so,maybe current DM is too limited to resemble those effects that made LW actually leave the old anti fighter ammobelt.


And frankly this is not an eastern front sim since FB came out duh!Why do we still have eastern ammobelt?

Would it be wrong to search for docs that present most effective MG151/20 nosegun ammobelt used by LW in WWII and put that ammobelt in the game?


They have just...put it all aside.

Mysha76
02-24-2005, 04:37 PM
Thx Ivan, its important information. a) we will know, if M-g shells are presents in nose canons belts b) we can check hist. sources and compare with it.
Its maybe easier, than to make a tests of both guns.

Charos
02-24-2005, 05:11 PM
Firstly thanks to Oleg for attention to this issue and also to Ivan for acting as liaison.

The BOB direction of Ammo loadout is the only REAL solution to this problem, great to see Oleg going in this direction which mimics reality.

Thanks Ivan, If you could get the modeled Ammo composition off OM this would help out immeasurably.

Minen shells were used to my understanding on all 20mm from introduction of the MG-FFM on aircraft series production starting with the BF109E4, this flowed on thereafter with the MG 151/20 as well.

In the HORRIDO manual by Galland which was written about July-August 1944 the Brandgranatpatronen are used which replaced the less affective HE-I shells with pure incendiary.

It seems against the Heavies it was a better strategy to set them on fire than to blow them apart.

The best compromise we could have in IL2-PF is to go with a ANTI FIGHTER loadout with higher minengeschoss for the hub canon and FW190 wing canon and take PODS for anti bomber missions.

The Vast majority of encounters are FightervFighter in this game so to have a loadout low on or none at all minen shells is going to severly impact the German 20mm affectiveness.

In a FW190 - 12 out of 20 shells being Minengeschoss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif for Anti Fighter gets my Vote. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tigertalon
02-24-2005, 05:48 PM
A SOLUTION MAYBE: (Ok, I know there is a lot of "maybe"s in this post, but maybe that's the case)

Remember, when in my test of Mg151/20 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=5) I said it looks like that ammo composition is RESET after 3rd shell in non-gunpod Mg151? So, from APT-HE-HE going back to AP-HE and not to MG-MG.

That is maybe CORRECT, because from the chart I posted on the top of page 2, we can clearly see that against 4 engined bombers there ARE 3-shell sequences, not 5!!! There is maybe a bug, where the devs forgot to put every 3rd shell as a tracer and not every 5th, when they were changing the code for pods. And finally they by mistake switched gunpod and non-gunpod ammobelts.

If this is the case, we would have correct ammobelt for non-pod 151: APT-HEI-HEI-MG-MG and almost correct for pods: APT-HEI-HEI (should be APT-HEI-MG).

LeadSpitter_
02-24-2005, 07:55 PM
point and case get the same 8 guys to post 20-40 posts on the same issue have them keep bumping up the thread and whine and oleg will change it.

Its a great thing mg151 20mm getting stronger but hope the fixed other weapon types as well which I doubt they did for some reason but can be wrong.

Thanks for the post ivan and oleg.

WWMaxGunz
02-24-2005, 11:22 PM
LS, how about something based on data or a track or screenshot instead of what you do?
TT made good tests of what the game does. Can you refute them? I think not. So you
just blather away in the face of that as if it was never posted nor any like tests made.

Go on, and the donkey that rode you in.

WWMaxGunz
02-24-2005, 11:37 PM
If there are 2 different 151/20's in the code then perhaps 1C can relook a bit, one is
for attacking IL2's by name and 4 engine bombers and the other for general use then to
change the 151/20's in the anti-bomber FW's like A8 model to use the anti-bomber mix?

Yes, Ivan, allow to disagree... I was only commenting that the evidence shown is not
matching that the non-gunpod 151's are by the old method. We have the document that
Oleg posted back when IL2 first came out, it is where the mix APT-HE-HE-MG-MG is from.
If that had not changed then there would have been no "issue". But there has been
such and I am not sure that 1C hasn't cranked up the MG shells effect because of it
and all the while those shells have been missing, so the complain and turn them up a
little more while everyone is confused... the gunpod #4 and 5 shells are very killer.

Only 1C knows all of what has been done, I am just hoping they know which things they
have been doing to?

Abbuzze
02-25-2005, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
point and case get the same 8 guys to post 20-40 posts on the same issue have them keep bumping up the thread and whine and oleg will change it.

Its a great thing mg151 20mm getting stronger but hope the fixed other weapon types as well which I doubt they did for some reason but can be wrong.

Thanks for the post ivan and oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leadspitter, reminding to a "failure" is called whining now??? Interesting I will repost your post sometimes when the thread is about the 0.50! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oleg_Maddox
02-25-2005, 01:36 AM
Please pay attention.

In my mesage I told that we will have something new in BoB. But in Il-2 series we will not change ammoload for the weapon. No for perhabs and no for possbly...

We have to do a lot of things - new code for the next sim series beginning from BoB (and that alsow ill cover all possible theatres in time).

Say Il-2 series was in development beginning from 1998 (officially started programming the simulater itself, but the work started really earlier). Now is 2005. 2001-2005 - the life of the porduct on the market. I would say very long life for the code that was created before 2001 (that also shows how it was advanced for its time).

Currently we have a lot of other things in development for the PF and FB+AEP+PF.
You may see the post about it on the top of that forum room.
I hope you understand that this work is:
1. To satisfy large amount of users and their hopes to see the planes that was done in additional by third party. We should stop this really long time ago, but we understand that third party did large research and work (I dont count that they was learning technology, etc) and we gave additional time for them to finish what they really can finish till mid of April.
2. Reading that mentioned post, please be sure that the amount of work that we take for ourselves with third party is greater than someone spend for commercial MS add-ons and even for the stand alone sims. So please be patient. We do a lot of work that to please the community even when we haven't already any time for this due to complete re-switch for the new sim-series coding. Better to say we simply respecting the third party developers that did really nice job (I mean these that match our technical specs for modeling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

So we only and maybe will check several 37 mm guns (US/USSR) in code to look for posible bug in whch we are not sure.
Other forces will be directed that to finish with third party models programming, correcting of models, etc and putting them in add-ons in time... Don't expect them all at once.

There is in total:
planes (see list in the mentioned topic + will be even more surprises)
more than 30 new vehicles (in time)

Also we need to solve the problem of release of 1C russin market add-ons and be ready for western market localizations http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I don't promise, but it really may happens by one or other way.

Oleg_Maddox
02-25-2005, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
point and case get the same 8 guys to post 20-40 posts on the same issue have them keep bumping up the thread and whine and oleg will change it.

Its a great thing mg151 20mm getting stronger but hope the fixed other weapon types as well which I doubt they did for some reason but can be wrong.

Thanks for the post ivan and oleg. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leadspitter, reminding to a "failure" is called whining now??? Interesting I will repost your post sometimes when the thread is about the 0.50! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nobody even plan to change there anything.
The post was about to confirm the differences of guns for nose mounted and gunpods of Bf109s.

Thats all.

butch2k
02-25-2005, 01:40 AM
Translation of official German Doc dealing with ammo belt composition.
-----------------------
C. BELTING AND PREPARATION
1. GENERAL
(1) The deciding factors for the choice of type of ammunition are:
a) The attainment of the greatest possible effect
b) The reasonable ammunition expenditure corresponding to the supply situation

(2) The unit commander, based on the knowledge of the individual types of ammunition, must strive to achieve the best degree of effect in combat by his choice in belting ammunition. At the same time he must understand that ammunition expenditure must be within the limits of the existing supply situation.
(3) The manufacture of ammunition will immediately incorporate in its production process any new knowledge gained at the front or from experimentation. The troops must be aware of the fact however, that at the appearance of a new effective type of ammunition, manufacture can not be changed over at once. The large supply of existing stocks of previously manufactured types of ammunition can not simply be thrown away but must be used up.
(4) New types of ammunition at the start will always be "scarce items." The supply command must be so elastic, however, as to make them available to the troops (in this case under the concept of issuing the newest stocks first, and utilize the older type of ammunition as a reserve and to fill out shortages.
The effort of Development to provide the troops with more effective means of fighting is defeated if these are not issued until the old stocks are used up.
This is especially true of ammunition, wherein an improvement is made within the same type of ammunition.

II. BELTING
Based on combat experiences in conjunction with comparison and effectiveness tests, and in line with the supply situation, the following suggestion for belting the various types of ammunition can be given.
(1) 13mm weapons (MG 131)
1 13mm Br.Spgr.L€Spur o.Zerl (HEIT not self-destroying)
1 13mm Pzgr.L€spur o.Zerl or 13mm Pzbrgr.Patr.(Ph)El o.Zerl (APT or APIT not self-destroying)
(2) 15mm Weapons (MG 151, MG 151 electric primer).
1 15mm Br.Sprgr.L€Spur m.Zerl (HEIT self-destroying)
1 15mm H.Pzgr.o.Zerl (AP not self-destroying.)


(3) 2 cm weapons (MG 151/20, MG 151/20 electric primer, MG-FFM)
a) Fighter Aircraft on Western Front.
1 2cm M.Gesch.Patr.151 m.Zerl (M-projectile, self-destroying)
1 2cm Brgr.Patr.L€spur 151 m.Zerl (Incendiary Tracer self-destroying)
1 Pzgr.Patr.L€spur 151 o.Zerl (APT not self-destroying)
b) Fighter Aircraft on Eastern Front,
3 2cm M-Gesch.Patr. 151 m.Zerl (M-projectile, self-destroying)
1 2cm Brgr.Patr.L€spur 151 m.Zerl (Incendiary Tracer self-destroying)
1 Pzgr.Patr.L€spur 151 o.Zerl (APT not self-destroying)
c) Night Fighters
Same as a) or b) except for night tracer in place of tracer or without tracer or night tracer.
d) Night Fighters with oblique mounted weapons will belt only M-projectile rounds.
e) Bomber, ground-attack, and fighter aircraft in attacking ground targets, ships and boats,
3 2cm M-Gesch.Patr. o.Zerl (M-projectile, not self-destroying)
1 2cm Pz.Sprgr.Patr.o.Zerl (APHET not self-destroying) or 2cm Br.Sprgr.Patr.o.Zerl (HEI not self destroying) or 2cm Pzbrgr.El (or Ph) o.Zerl (API not self destroying)

(In place of the M-projectile rounds and armor-piercing incendiary rounds it is better here to use up existing stocks of high-explosive-incendiary rounds and armor-piercing high explosive rounds),
(If, due to shortages, self-destroying ammunition is used, an attack altitude of at least 800 meters in horizontal flight must be kept.)

(4) 3 cm Weapons (MK 103)
a) Fighter Aircraft.
1 3cm M-Gesch.Patr.L€spur m.Zerl (M-projectile/tracer, self destroying)
1 3cm Bgr.Patr.103 El.o.Zerl (Incendiary, not self-destroying)
b) Bomber, ground-attack, and fighter aircraft in attacking
ground targets.
3 3cm M.Gesch.Patr.o.Zerl (M-projectile not self-destroying). (Here it is preferable to use up 3cm Spgr.Patr.o.Zerl (HE not self-destroying.)
1 3cm Pz.Sprgr.L€spur.o.Zerl (APHET not self-destroying)

In attacking boats
3cm Pzbrgr.Patr.L€spur o.Zerl (APIT not self-destroying)
c) Aircraft for attacking tanks.
1 3cm H-Pzgr.Patr.L€spur.o.Zerl (Special core APT not self-destroying)
Note. - In the case of shortages of some types of ammunition the ammunition listed in parentheses, whose manufacture has been stopped, is to be fired.



In fighting armored ground-attack aircraft such as the IL 2 up to 50% AP ammunition should be belted (however not for 4 motor bombers, since the best results are obtained with blast and incendiary effect against the nacelle.)
(Editors note : this apply to all ammo from 13mm to 30mm where AP shots are available, this is not clear enough given the current tabulation)

(5) 3 cm Weapons (MK 108).
a) Day fighters and night fighters will belt
1 3cm M-Gesch.Patr.o.Zerl (M-projectile not self-destroying) or 3cm M-Brgr.Patr.108 El m.Zerl (M-projectile Incendiary self destroying)
1 3cm Bgr.Patr.108 El. O.Zerl (Incendiary not self destroying)
(or only M-projectiles)
b) Night fighters with oblique mounted weapons will belt only
M-projectile rounds.
Nightfighter munitions use night tracer (Glimmspur).


(6) 3. 7 cm Weapons (3. 7 cm Flak 18, 3. 7 cm Flak 43)
a) Aircraft for attacking ground targets and landing operations,
2 3,7cm Sprgr.Patr.L€spur m.Zerl (HET self-destroying)
1 3,7cm M-Gesch.Patr.L€spur m.Zerl (M-projectile/tracer self-destroying
1 3,7cm Br.Sprgr.Patr.L€spur m.Zerl (HEIT self-destroying)
b) Aircraft for attacking tanks.
Only 3.7cm H.-Pzgr.Patr.L€spur o.Zerl (Tungsten core AP not self-destroying
(7) 5 cm Weapons (5 cm BK).
a) Aircraft for attacking air targets.
Only 5cm M-Gesch.Ptr.Gl€spur BK m.Zerl (M-projectile/night tracer self-destroying)
b) Aircraft for attacking ground targets.
1 5cm Sprgr.Patr.BK o.Zerl (HE not self-destroying)
1 5cm Pzsprgr.Patr.L€spur BK o.Zerl (APHET not self-destroying)
(8) 7.9mm aircraft weapons.
a) MG 17 (Fighters)
5 S.m.K-v (AP - high velocity)
4 P.m.K-v (API - high velocity)
1 B.-Patrone-v (Observation cartridge - high velocity)
and before the last 50 rounds of the belt (as counters)
10 S.m.K L€spur 100/600 (APT high velocity) for day fighting
or
10 S.m.K Gl€spur (APT high velocity night tracer) for night fighting
b) MG 17 (for ground attack use)
MG 81 (flexible and in auxiliary container)
MG 15
2 S.m.E (SAP)
2 S.m.K L€spur 100/600 (APT)
or
2 S.m.K.Gl€spur (APT with night tracer)
2 P.m.K-v or (1 P.m.K-v and 1 B.-Patrone)

Werre_Fsck
02-25-2005, 01:53 AM
Nothing new under the sun.
A bug that hinders the most used LW cannon and "nothing can be done." I'm getting tired of this BS... I just cannot believe it's that much work to simply change composition of ammo belt.
Most probably you'd have to change one array that represents the ammo used.
The problem lies herein: it would make MG-151/20 a real contender and that's taboo.

I'd pay for this simple fix.

Bill_Door
02-25-2005, 01:53 AM
Well - great

Reminds me a lot at the discussion about the muzzle flash.
No argument is to "questionable" to avoid giving in that OM maybe has get something wrong!

Just in case somebody does not remember:

<span class="ev_code_RED">"The four acts of MG denying"</span>
- First act: There is no problem with muzzle flash
- Second act: It is "historical" correct.
- Third act: Ok, but it is not total wrong, it is just the right effect (night) at the wrong place (day)- but it is impossible to change.
- Fourth act: We fond a way to do the impossible. Worship us!

And here we go again:
- first there is no difference between gunpods and nosemount
- then, (but just after the difference is proven one dozens times and there is no way to deny it), yes there is a difference, but it is historical correct.
- What will be the next stage? Let me guess, "ok, it is not total right,but also it is not realy wrong. And it is impossible to change it. Game engine not work this way and school physic is not enough. Be sure.

Only difference this time. Due to the upcomming of BoB i am afraid there will be no fourth act in this case!

At least, the "not changing" is also a very strong argument to get people buying his new product.
Marketing forever! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Please pay attention.

In my mesage I told that we will have something new in BoB. But in Il-2 series we will not change ammoload for the weapon. No for perhabs and no for possbly...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Oleg, thank you very much for taking a closer look at this topic. And, BTW, thank you for fixing Mg17s in Bf109 in Fw190 fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Anyway, as you posted above, there will be no changes to ammobelts in Il2 series. But what if we prove that it is wrong? (looks like it is, at this moment)
So, addon goodies are more important to implement compared to old inacuracies?

Werre_Fsck
02-25-2005, 01:55 AM
Oh and while I'm at it (raving with foaming mouth ):
Leadspitter, do you HAVE to whine in every MG-151/20 thread about "the same 8 guys?" If .50 shot marshmallows I'm sure you'd jump in and demand a patch. Oh wait - you already did.

Oleg_Maddox
02-25-2005, 02:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Please pay attention.

In my mesage I told that we will have something new in BoB. But in Il-2 series we will not change ammoload for the weapon. No for perhabs and no for possbly...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Oleg, thank you very much for taking a closer look at this topic. And, BTW, thank you for fixing Mg17s in Bf109 in Fw190 fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Anyway, as you posted above, there will be no changes to ammobelts in Il2 series. But what if we prove that it is wrong? (looks like it is, at this moment)
So, addon goodies are more important to implement compared to old inacuracies? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you will find that it is wrong.

1. Because there are many documents in LW official orders or in VVS or in any other AF that show different ammoload for different fronts, different year or even month of the war, etc. You will show me one, then I will show you 10... or even more.
2. If you understnad item 1 above and understand that we have no ability to model them all in this sim, then probably you will be agree that we have the best possible compromise for that case.

Wait for the next sim.
in Il-2 series will be no changes in weapon loadouts and ammoloads. This is my last word about this. Trust me.

Werre_Fsck
02-25-2005, 02:22 AM
"probably you will be agree that we have the best possible compromise for that case."

I for one didn't sign any "blindly agree to anything from Maddox" license agreement.
So I disagree - not having MG at all is unrealistic and puts MG-151/20 in real disadvantage.

Ingenious really. We got the G6 fixed, got the glass cleaned, got rid of the muzzle flash... so "accidentally" the MG-151/20 got crippled just to keep LW in its place. Oh well, it's been like this since day one.

(Wonder if there are 10+ documents in some ultra-secret VVS archive about the FW fuel bug being realistic too.)

Hunde_3.JG51
02-25-2005, 02:24 AM
...(rolls Dora back into garage and throws a tarp over it).

Very disappointing news, but how upset can you be towards the creator of the best flight sim ever. The new upcoming content sounds great and BOB will be amazing. Still, I wish something could be done (as the majority seem to agree that the 151/20 is underpowered), and the fact that the 37mm will be looked at is going to tick some people off (myself excluded as I want all guns to be correct).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, it looks like "be sure" has been replaced by "trust me."

BBB_Hyperion
02-25-2005, 02:27 AM
Thx very much Butch2k can you post the date of this document as well thx in advance.

T - Tracer bullet
AP - Armor-Piercing bullet
APT - Armor-Piercing with Tracer
API - Armor-Piercing Incendary
APIT - Armor-Piercing Incendary Tracer
HE - High-Explosive shell
HEI - High-Explosive Incendary shell
HET - High-Explosive with Tracer
HEIT - High-Explosive Incendary Tracer
MG - M-Geschoss, thin-shell High Explosive

Old Il2 Code has sequence

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

Western Front according to document.
MG - HET - APT

Eastern Front according to document.
MG - MG - MG - HET - APT

(check for translation errors if some correct sequence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Thats almost the same we get from the Schiessfibel (on page 2 of this thread)

Now we have this increased AP load against il2s. How would that look just curious.

HET - MG - AP - MG - APT ?

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I don't think you will find that it is wrong.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It just makes me wonder if it is correct that MG shells are ONLY in 109 gunpods. (IMO it is not)

They are completely missing from all other Mg151/20s in game. In every document I saw up to now, Mg151/20 had MG shell in composition. In other words, I saw no documents where 151 would NOT have MG shells, so:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You will show me one, then I will show you 10... or even more.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be glad to see at least one (and not necessarily 10, considering that I already provided one on page 2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)...

LEXX_Luthor
02-25-2005, 03:14 AM
Great News http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Oleg:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the load of ammo type will be defined in missions (by other words by new fuctions in FMB) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
NEW AND BETTER FMB.... Thanks Oleg. Mission Builder is the core of any flight sim.

Abbuzze
02-25-2005, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:


Nobody even plan to change there anything.
The post was about to confirm the differences of guns for nose mounted and gunpods of Bf109s.

Thats all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First I understand, that your company have to do a lot of work, and it is also concentrated to BOB, cause you have to earn money- if you would not do this, your company will get insolvency, and we all would have to fly CFS4... for God´s sake let this not be happen! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But the simple question is - do we have a realistic or historical correct beltload? It would be nice to have a mineshell in the belt, like it is allready modelled for the gunpods.
And if you just take one of 10 possibilities of a beltload like you say in one of the posts obouve, why did the most used MG151/20 got one without any mineshell?

Would it be to much work to switch from one weaponclass to another, if it is allready modelled?

That´s all I want, a historical correct simulation. No possibility to switch between different belts ammo or something.
And I think most players think in the same way.

Thanks!

Oleg_Maddox
02-25-2005, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
...(rolls Dora back into garage and throws a tarp over it).

Very disappointing news, but how upset can you be towards the creator of the best flight sim ever. The new upcoming content sounds great and BOB will be amazing. Still, I wish something could be done (as the majority seem to agree that the 151/20 is underpowered), and the fact that the 37mm will be looked at is going to tick some people off (myself excluded as I want all guns to be correct).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, it looks like "be sure" has been replaced by "trust me." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry,

Il2 Code has sequence of nose mounted MG151/20(No changes from the time of publication of the table values that we model in a sim - with which all was agree couple of years ago. Taht table lost on my PC and I have no time yet to extract again all the data from the source code.)

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

Western Front according to one of documents:
MG - HET - APT


The fist one has more destructable result.
Please take this in account.
So its not underpowered.

As for 37 mm. We are not sure yet that there is the bug.
We will check. We simply was looking yesterday the tracks with many weapons test ONLINE and found that only in online confirmed transfer of 3 types of 37 MM cannons is only possible the bug.
The speech is not about corection of cannon, but about possible bug and correction of online trasfer prioritet (we have many prioritetes of transfer for online game plane for the cases of lost packs. And the weapon there is N1 - no looses must be. But the its a separat online code and maybe we missed it in the past like it was once already with these cannons...).
Hope you understand it. My speech was not about correction of penetration or explosive load.

JG54_Arnie
02-25-2005, 03:34 AM
Edit: didnt see Oleg's post yet here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Reply to Abbuzze:

But from what I read about it so far, point is also that the pilots or managemant back in the war, could pick from certain belts and decide which one would be most usefull for each mission? Or for a certain task that the group or squadron, or whichever level it was decided on, has to perform.
But in game we cannot pick our own belt config and have to use the one Oleg built in, which is what according to Oleg's documentation the current setup? But which is wrong according to the documents/info we can read in this thread so far? And since we now also have different fronts to fight on, shouldnt the beltconfiguration be a middle way in between the belts used on the eastern front and those on the western front? Or was there that much difference there?

And by reason, why would the most used belt configuration be one that doesnt work well on any target, compared to the loadout with MG shells? As the difference seems to be that you need only a tip of the trigger with the MG shells but a 2 second long burst to do the same damage with the MG-less loadout.
Was it that they couldnt produce enough MG shells? Cause I cant think of any other reason?

And thanks for spending the time here Oleg! Really nice to see you posting again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

As to your last post Oleg, the "bug" found in the other thread and sent to you before shows that no gun but the gunpods on the 109 has the MG shells? : Obviouse difference in explosive power, graphically the MG shell isnt showing but on the gunpods. For the 151/20 that is.

Werre_Fsck
02-25-2005, 03:40 AM
<quote>
Il2 Code has sequence of nose mounted MG151/20(No changes from the time of publication of the table values that we model in a sim - with which all was agree couple of years ago. Taht table lost on my PC and I have no time yet to extract again all the data from the source code.)

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

Western Front according to one of documents:
MG - HET - APT

The fist one has more destructable result.
Please take this in account.
So its not underpowered.
</quote>

If the ammo load on nose mounted really was APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG we would not be having this discussion... clearly what we have in game does not reflect this weapons data (that was posted years ago.)

If there is a new patch coming, or an upgrade, or whatever, surely it would not be much work to just correct the ammo load?

Against all odds, I remain wishful.

jurinko
02-25-2005, 03:41 AM
Oleg, this is the part from the ammo types you presented some 2 years ago.
---------------------
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
----------------

Yes it is close to the ammo sequence for the Eastern front, which was posted by butch2k - AP-HE-MG-MG-MG.

But the problem is, we have no MG shells in cannons in Fw 190, Me-110 and nose cannons in Me-109. Our present combination (APIT-HE-HE-AP-HE) is maybe the one against IL-2 or lightly armored units but against aircrafts it weakens the efficiency of Mauser considerably.

Strange enough, on the other side the MK103 as A2G weapon has 75% of its load High-explosive, so it is ineffective against armored objects which it should be used against. But that´s another story..

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Il2 Code has sequence of nose mounted MG151/20

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg,

this composition is ONLY in gunpods. Trust me on that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mg151/20 test (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=5)

Charos
02-25-2005, 04:31 AM
Thanks Butch2k, thats the best read I have seen on German Ammo loadouts to date http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I think everyone here agrees with you Oleg that until BOB its simply not possible to model every ammo loadout in IL2-PF.
But shorely a compromise can be reached where we can get the HUB BF109 canon and the wing mounted FW190 canon to include the MG shells to mimic the Fighter load outs mentioned earlier.

All front line fighters included MG shells in there belts - why wouldnt they its a knock out punch.

Some 95% of kills are all Fighter v Fighter, the condolas can be used to hunt bombers. Its not a perfect solution but its a compromise because as you know we are unable to select the right ammo for the job.

The luftwaffe only REALLY has one weapon and thats the MG 151/20.

carguy_
02-25-2005, 04:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Well,at least the issue has been looked into.Thank you for giving it some of your time, Oleg.

I guess the final answer is no...not ever in this sim at least.

IMO bragging about MG151/20 isn`t reasonable anymore since no changes will ever be done here.

However I hate so see someone say "no" to MG151/20 whereas other (allied duh) weapons are being further looked at.


I think it would be a good call to post official "We come to a decision that any works on the code regarding weapons in all planes have come to an end and will never be looked into in this sim again".

Sincerely,if we get last no on the topic and they got ok on theirs you can be sure we`ll keep beating this now a dead horse issue, be sure.

JG52_Meyer
02-25-2005, 05:11 AM
Simple question to Butch2k:

was the ammo belting on the Mg151/20 gunpods different than the ammo belting on the engine/wing mounted Mg151/20?

TIA

Bill_Door
02-25-2005, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Wait for the next sim.
in Il-2 series will be no changes in weapon loadouts and ammoloads. This is my last word
about this. Trust me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello Mr. Maddox,

thank you for your statement.
I just got three easy to answer questions for you:

1.: was it common for LW-Fighters to use MG-shells in MG151/20 ? Yes or No

2.: Is it right that there are no MG-shells used in the actual MG151/20 in
- Me109 nose mounted or
- FW190 wing mounted ? Yes or No

3.: Did you still think of your product as a "historical correct" flightsimulation ? Yes or No

If one of the answers is "No" then I totally understand why you won't care about this topic anymore.

But if your answers to all three questions are "Yes" then I really don't understand your
"This is my last word about this."
position. Trust me!

NVP1
02-25-2005, 05:38 AM
Just a quote in Oleg's native language:
http://forum.sukhoi.ru/showthread.php?p=443645#post443645
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arthur=SF=TopAce:
"ля нµмÑ"*µ² эÑ"о нµ Ñƒ´¸²¸Ñ"µлÑŒно, ¸бо ² ºÑ€Ñ"лÑŒµ²Ñ"Ñ... 20 мм µÑÑ"ÑŒ м?'н³µÑˆоссÑ", ? ² моÑ"оÑ€-¿ÑƒÑˆº?Ñ... 20 мм - нµÑ" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oleg, and you know the guy well,don't you,Sir? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NVP1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arthur=SF=TopAce:
"ля нµмÑ"*µ² эÑ"о нµ Ñƒ´¸²¸Ñ"µлÑŒно, ¸бо ² ºÑ€Ñ"лÑŒµ²Ñ"Ñ... 20 мм µÑÑ"ÑŒ м?'н³µÑˆоссÑ", ? ² моÑ"оÑ€-¿ÑƒÑˆº?Ñ... 20 мм - нµÑ" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody...., please.... translation...., curiosity is killing me...

Oleg_Maddox
02-25-2005, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
Oleg, this is the part from the ammo types you presented some 2 years ago.
---------------------
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
----------------

Yes it is close to the ammo sequence for the Eastern front, which was posted by butch2k - AP-HE-MG-MG-MG.

But the problem is, we have no MG shells in cannons in Fw 190, Me-110 and nose cannons in Me-109. Our present combination (APIT-HE-HE-AP-HE) is maybe the one against IL-2 or lightly armored units but against aircrafts it weakens the efficiency of Mauser considerably.

Strange enough, on the other side the MK103 as A2G weapon has 75% of its load High-explosive, so it is ineffective against armored objects which it should be used against. But that´s another story.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be good if you will send me this table on PF address.
The I will not spend the time to extract this data and converrt again from source code in readbale format, like above.

Agains armored targeds would be effective APx shells but not the explosive, of couse it is right if explosive shells are not 152 mm caliber from ISU-152.

Russian_Ivan
02-25-2005, 06:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arthur=SF=TopAce:
"ля нµмÑ"*µ² эÑ"о нµ Ñƒ´¸²¸Ñ"µлÑŒно, ¸бо ² ºÑ€Ñ"лÑŒµ²Ñ"Ñ... 20 мм µÑÑ"ÑŒ м?'н³µÑˆоссÑ", ? ² моÑ"оÑ€-¿ÑƒÑˆº?Ñ... 20 мм - нµÑ" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which means:
It is not surprising for the Germans, because there are Minengeshos in the wing's 20mm (guns), but absent in the nose gun.

jurinko
02-25-2005, 06:07 AM
OK Oleg, the table is on the way.

JtD
02-25-2005, 07:53 AM
Mr. Maddox, thank you for looking into the subject. I am looking forward to BoB for yet another reason.

Butch2k, I second Abuzze question regarding the date of the very interesting document you provided. Tank you for this.

VW-IceFire
02-25-2005, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
...(rolls Dora back into garage and throws a tarp over it).

Very disappointing news, but how upset can you be towards the creator of the best flight sim ever. The new upcoming content sounds great and BOB will be amazing. Still, I wish something could be done (as the majority seem to agree that the 151/20 is underpowered), and the fact that the 37mm will be looked at is going to tick some people off (myself excluded as I want all guns to be correct).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, it looks like "be sure" has been replaced by "trust me." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We can still do a pretty good job with the MG151/20 anyways. We'll just have to be twice as accurate. We do know that we can down IL-2s and other armored planes better than the average and now we know what the exact composition of the belt is...we can be smarter in shooting. This is a belt composition better suited for penetrating armor. So...aim for the engine block.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-25-2005, 08:43 AM
Hi Oleg

"Wait until the next sim"

Nice assumption in expecting people to buy it when you're inflexible on this important issue - especially when you have changed other items to be non-historical (in your own words).

If it's obvious that other loadouts did exist for fighter to fighter, why is there not going to be a change? After all, either of these loadouts would be correct and both would be historical. As you've been in the spirit of releasing mini-patches of late, why isn't it possible to provide a one where the G2 pod loadout is used for the 109 nose/190 wing cannons just so people can make comparative tests vs other cannons (hispano/shvak/old 151/20) ?

Or are there other issues, e.g. those of marketing, which make you reluctant to change it?

Cheers,
Norris

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
...(rolls Dora back into garage and throws a tarp over it).

Very disappointing news, but how upset can you be towards the creator of the best flight sim ever. The new upcoming content sounds great and BOB will be amazing. Still, I wish something could be done (as the majority seem to agree that the 151/20 is underpowered), and the fact that the 37mm will be looked at is going to tick some people off (myself excluded as I want all guns to be correct).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, it looks like "be sure" has been replaced by "trust me." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We can still do a pretty good job with the MG151/20 anyways. We'll just have to be twice as accurate. We do know that we can down IL-2s and other armored planes better than the average and now we know what the exact composition of the belt is...we can be smarter in shooting. This is a belt composition better suited for penetrating armor. So...aim for the engine block. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi ice,

it is just my feeling, that MGs are superior to other shells in any way shape or form. If you shoot at Il2 with only shells no.4 from pods or only shells no.4 from Fw wing cannons, the former will be much more devastating... Will test though...

carguy_
02-25-2005, 09:17 AM
Aim for the engine block?!Are you kidding?

Sorry,done it a milion times and flew allied planes when I was hit in this spot with MG151/20.Never have I lit the engine up,if there`s any damage,is the grey thin smoke which suggests oil pressure loss which doesn`t impact planes at all in the game.Saying that propeller hub MG151/20 ammobelt is AP biased is simply not true.

I`ve done it with 12mm machineguns plenty of times but MG151/20 just creates small explosions on contact with plane frame and doesn`t penetrate at all.If what you say is true the engines should explode/stop working and the armor plate behind the pilot should be of no obstacle for AP biased ammobelt.I don`t remember when it was the last time I`ve made a PK with the cannon though it has a BIG tendency to blast off ailerons/elevators immediately which suggests HE rounds hitting.

And yes I`m such a terrible shot that I fire from ranges smaller than 140m and the main plane frame is what I hit 90% of time.

So I ask if the bullet is meant to penetrate,not blast half of the aircraft why are there no PKs or engine failures when hit by propeller hub MG151/20?

crazyivan1970
02-25-2005, 09:32 AM
I just want to make a quick note to SOME posters. If you don`t change your tone, this would be a last time i am doing this. You got your answer, i would suggest to act like grown men about it. Because i have no desire to stay up to 4am negotiating your problems and then come to this. Note, i said SOME posters.

VW-IceFire
02-25-2005, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Aim for the engine block?!Are you kidding?

Sorry,done it a milion times and flew allied planes when I was hit in this spot with MG151/20.Never have I lit the engine up,if there`s any damage,is the grey thin smoke which suggests oil pressure loss which doesn`t impact planes at all in the game.Saying that propeller hub MG151/20 ammobelt is AP biased is simply not true.

I`ve done it with 12mm machineguns plenty of times but MG151/20 just creates small explosions on contact with plane frame and doesn`t penetrate at all.If what you say is true the engines should explode/stop working and the armor plate behind the pilot should be of no obstacle for AP biased ammobelt.I don`t remember when it was the last time I`ve made a PK with the cannon though it has a BIG tendency to blast off ailerons/elevators immediately which suggests HE rounds hitting.

And yes I`m such a terrible shot that I fire from ranges smaller than 140m and the main plane frame is what I hit 90% of time.

So I ask if the bullet is meant to penetrate,not blast half of the aircraft why are there no PKs or engine failures when hit by propeller hub MG151/20? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're saying that you've never lit up an engine by firing at it with the MG151/20? I'll admit it to be weak for what its doing but I'm trying to make the best of a situation and I'm not being sarcastic in any way.

The gun still works...just not as effectively or in some cases, as historically as we'd like to see it. Its chambered for specific eastern front operations only and not for the more generalized scenarios that we now employ it in.

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2005, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Please pay attention.

In my mesage I told that we will have something new in BoB. But in Il-2 series we will not change ammoload for the weapon. No for perhabs and no for possbly...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no need at all to make a new ammo load.
We have seen the 109 gunpod version is the correct shells, APT-HE-HE-MG-MG by your table
from arcade=1 screenshots posted here. Composition is correct with that gun.
Only thing, that gun is supposed to be the others and 109 gunpod AP mix is what the others have.

Do you think just possibly that the links have been switched or the wrong gun was changed?
That is what we are seeing exactly.

How hard to fix? The table of the gunpod, or link to it for the others and what is the others
to the gunpod? Not rocket science, only a little care and two looks, would that require a
person very long then they are dragging feet. I would go for switch the tables or links if
there is a place where there are only TWO of them and not one for every gun on every plane.
And for me, it is impossible to believe that since it is in code and ONE code per gun, there
is not the place to switch those blocks of source and ALL is fixed.

widgeon
02-25-2005, 10:14 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Il2 Code has sequence of nose mounted MG151/20(No changes from the time of publication of the table values that we model in a sim - with which all was agree couple of years ago. Taht table lost on my PC and I have no time yet to extract again all the data from the source code.)

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

Western Front according to one of documents:
MG - HET - APT


The fist one has more destructable result.
Please take this in account.
So its not underpowered. end quote.



It would seem that there is still is mis-communication here. Or perhaps I'm not understanding correctely?

I thought it was proven that the 109 NOSE, and 190 WING cannons do NOT have the explosive MG shell in the ammo belts?

Could someone make this clarification. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
02-25-2005, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Please pay attention.

In my mesage I told that we will have something new in BoB. But in Il-2 series we will not change ammoload for the weapon. No for perhabs and no for possbly...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no need at all to make a new ammo load.
We have seen the 109 gunpod version is the correct shells, APT-HE-HE-MG-MG by your table
from arcade=1 screenshots posted here. Composition is correct with that gun.
Only thing, that gun is supposed to be the others and 109 gunpod AP mix is what the others have.

Do you think just possibly that the links have been switched or the wrong gun was changed?
That is what we are seeing exactly.

How hard to fix? The table of the gunpod, or link to it for the others and what is the others
to the gunpod? Not rocket science, only a little care and two looks, would that require a
person very long then they are dragging feet. I would go for switch the tables or links if
there is a place where there are only TWO of them and not one for every gun on every plane.
And for me, it is impossible to believe that since it is in code and ONE code per gun, there
is not the place to switch those blocks of source and ALL is fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For once, Max, I am in total agreement http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't understand why this change cannot be made either. Supposedly, the code is there and tested - it would theoretically require a relatively minor modification to do it and it could be 'beta'd' in a mini-patch.

If the above is the case but it still isn't done, it opens a whole can of worms as to reasons why the developer won't make the change.

Ta,
Norris

JG7_Rall
02-25-2005, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Aim for the engine block?!Are you kidding?

Sorry,done it a milion times and flew allied planes when I was hit in this spot with MG151/20.Never have I lit the engine up,if there`s any damage,is the grey thin smoke which suggests oil pressure loss which doesn`t impact planes at all in the game.Saying that propeller hub MG151/20 ammobelt is AP biased is simply not true.

I`ve done it with 12mm machineguns plenty of times but MG151/20 just creates small explosions on contact with plane frame and doesn`t penetrate at all.If what you say is true the engines should explode/stop working and the armor plate behind the pilot should be of no obstacle for AP biased ammobelt.I don`t remember when it was the last time I`ve made a PK with the cannon though it has a BIG tendency to blast off ailerons/elevators immediately which suggests HE rounds hitting.

And yes I`m such a terrible shot that I fire from ranges smaller than 140m and the main plane frame is what I hit 90% of time.

So I ask if the bullet is meant to penetrate,not blast half of the aircraft why are there no PKs or engine failures when hit by propeller hub MG151/20? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're saying that you've never lit up an engine by firing at it with the MG151/20? I'll admit it to be weak for what its doing but I'm trying to make the best of a situation and I'm not being sarcastic in any way.

The gun still works...just not as effectively or in some cases, as historically as we'd like to see it. Its chambered for specific eastern front operations only and not for the more generalized scenarios that we now employ it in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! Icefire

Oleg himself has stated that this sim is no longer restricted to the Eastern front and has definitely shifted somewhat to the western front (and even more recently to the pacific theater). So there is no reason why we should be limited to an ammunition belt that was designed to bring down IL2's or whatever else.

While I appreciate the time Oleg took in investigating this issue and also the time Ivan spent getting Oleg to do so, his (Oleg's) response is a huge slap in the face. We've had this crappy (relatively) gun long enough and shouldn't have to wait until 2006 or whenever to get a proper MG151/20. Oleg's certainly made accomidations to other groups coughalliedcough, so after 14 pages of proof that the non-gunpod 20mm's aren't correct, why can't Maddox Games take the time to just give all /20mm's the same belt? It's not like they'd be making a new gun, it's just switching the gun belt from the current one to one that already exists!

I totally understand that Oleg's looking to move onto BoB, and I support that because I'd like to see some more progress made on this new and awesome sim. However we'll probably be playing FB + AEP + PF for a long time to come, while we wait for BoB and even after. So we should definitely have the REAL 20mm now that we know what's wrong with the in-game one. If BoB were coming out tomorrow, maybe I'd be willing to give it up, but it simply isn't fair (for lack of a better word) that we've a) had to wait so long for a gun that works b) found a BUG (yes BUGBUGBUGBUGBUG) in the gun along with tons of proof to back it up and c) can't even get it fixed because Oleg seems to think it's some massive undertaking in order to fix it. Part C is even more true when you consider how Oleg is willing to keep adding planes and keep tweaking allied plane performance but wont change our **** gun!

I've always tried not to label IL2 or Oleg as biased in any way, but when it comes to issues like this along with tons of other stuff which has really screwed the axis over, it's easy to see why some people do. You pride yourself in having the most realistic flight sim, don't you, Oleg? So please, in regards to the 20mm, make this sim as accurate as can be. Please fix our gun.

tigertalon
02-25-2005, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Please pay attention.

In my mesage I told that we will have something new in BoB. But in Il-2 series we will not change ammoload for the weapon. No for perhabs and no for possbly...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no need at all to make a new ammo load.
We have seen the 109 gunpod version is the correct shells, APT-HE-HE-MG-MG by your table
from arcade=1 screenshots posted here. Composition is correct with that gun.
Only thing, that gun is supposed to be the others and 109 gunpod AP mix is what the others have.

Do you think just possibly that the links have been switched or the wrong gun was changed?
That is what we are seeing exactly.

How hard to fix? The table of the gunpod, or link to it for the others and what is the others
to the gunpod? Not rocket science, only a little care and two looks, would that require a
person very long then they are dragging feet. I would go for switch the tables or links if
there is a place where there are only TWO of them and not one for every gun on every plane.
And for me, it is impossible to believe that since it is in code and ONE code per gun, there
is not the place to switch those blocks of source and ALL is fixed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, Max

dunno if you did, but check out top post on page 2 of this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Might be interesting reading for you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Holtzauge
02-25-2005, 01:59 PM
I saw that the dev teams argument for better performance for the pods was that they had a higher content of MG in the belting than was used for the fixed 151/20 and that there seems to be some IRL data to support this.

I'd really like to see or get the source referenced because it seems to go against other data that seems to make sense: the Shiessfibel.

Now in the Shiessfibel it is stated that for all other a/c than 4e bombers there should be a high content of MG. For 4e bombers it is recommended to lessen the loadout of MG and increse Brandgr and Panzerbrgr.

Now what would be the reason to fit pods on? Why the extra drag and weight? My guess you are going after the heavies in which case the loadout should be more like the one recommended for 4e with less MG content in the belting.

I'd rather think the loadout of a lot of MG in the pod is the anomaly and not the other way around.

Oleg/dev team: What are the sources for the high MG loadout pods please? the Shiessfibel loadout seems to make sense. Why load out the pods with something other than what is recommeded for the 4e? Or are we to assume that the pods in the sim are modelled with a loadout to go after other fighters?

Hunde_3.JG51
02-25-2005, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
...(rolls Dora back into garage and throws a tarp over it).

Very disappointing news, but how upset can you be towards the creator of the best flight sim ever. The new upcoming content sounds great and BOB will be amazing. Still, I wish something could be done (as the majority seem to agree that the 151/20 is underpowered), and the fact that the 37mm will be looked at is going to tick some people off (myself excluded as I want all guns to be correct).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif, it looks like "be sure" has been replaced by "trust me." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry,

Il2 Code has sequence of nose mounted MG151/20(No changes from the time of publication of the table values that we model in a sim - with which all was agree couple of years ago. Taht table lost on my PC and I have no time yet to extract again all the data from the source code.)

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

Western Front according to one of documents:
MG - HET - APT


The fist one has more destructable result.
Please take this in account.
So its not underpowered.

As for 37 mm. We are not sure yet that there is the bug.
We will check. We simply was looking yesterday the tracks with many weapons test ONLINE and found that only in online confirmed transfer of 3 types of 37 MM cannons is only possible the bug.
The speech is not about corection of cannon, but about possible bug and correction of online trasfer prioritet (we have many prioritetes of transfer for online game plane for the cases of lost packs. And the weapon there is N1 - no looses must be. But the its a separat online code and maybe we missed it in the past like it was once already with these cannons...).
Hope you understand it. My speech was not about correction of penetration or explosive load. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg, I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way, I am saying that I hope you fix the 37mm whatever the problem may be (if there is one). Some may be upset at this, but not me ("myself excluded" in above post).

As for my comment about the majority feeling that the 151/20 is underpowered, this holds true but now I have a better understanding as to why this may be the case. Whether it is simple ammo composition or a bug I'll let others discuss that.

Oh, and the "be sure" being replaced by "trust me" was just a joke, it was not meant in a malicious way.

Just wanted to clarify this for you and any moderator who may have taken my post the wrong way.

Thanks for everything, I hope all is well.

Badsight.
02-25-2005, 02:56 PM
Oleg_Maddox
Rank: Creator of IL-2 Sturmovik
Date: 08/14/02 12:56PM



Here is the direct table of shells and bullets from source code of IL-2.
Comments:

power - here is the TNT, that also modelled (as well as pices of shells).

T - Tracer bullet
AP - Armor-Piercing bullet
APT - Armor-Piercing with Tracer
API - Armor-Piercing Incendary
APIT - Armor-Piercing Incendary Tracer
HE - High-Explosive shell
HEI - High-Explosive Incendary shell
HET - High-Explosive with Tracer
HEIT - High-Explosive Incendary Tracer
MG - M-Geschoss, thin-shell High Explosive

such line destinated the sequence of shells/bullets:
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API


Table itself.
==========================


Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

M4
// HET - (APT/HET)

HET
mass = 0.604
speed = 612.0
power = 0.044

MG 131
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.035
speed = 710.0
power = 0.00148

AP
mass = 0.034
speed = 750.0
power = 0

MG 15
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.0128
speed = 760.0
power = 0

MG 151
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.057
speed = 960.0
power = 0.0019

AP
mass = 0.072
speed = 859.0
power = 0

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 17
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 810.0
power = 0

MG 81
// AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 920.0
power = 0

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

MK 103
// APT - MG - MG - HE

APT
mass = 0.502
speed = 752.0
power = 0.0

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 900.0
power = 0.072

HE
mass = 0.455
speed = 800.0
power = 0.024

MK 108
// HEIT - MG

HEIT
mass = 0.455
speed = 500.0
power = 0.024

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 525.0
power = 0.072

NS-37
// HEIT - APT

HEIT
mass = 0.735
speed = 900.0
power = 0.0406

APT
mass = 0.760
speed = 880.0
power = 0

NS-45
// HEIT - AP

HEIT
mass = 1.065
speed = 780.0
power = 0.052

AP
mass = 1.000
speed = 850.0
power = 0.0

PaK40
// HEIT

HEIT
mass = 6.800
speed = 770.0
power = 0.680

ShKAS
// APIT - API - T - API

APIT
mass = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0.0005

API
mass = 0.0096
speed = 871.0
power = 0.0005

T
massa = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0

ShVAK
// APIT - HE

APIT
mass = 0.096
speed = 800.0
power = 0.001

HE
mass = 0.0676
speed = 800.0
power = 0.0068

UBS / UBT
// APIT - AP - HEI

APIT
mass = 0.0448
speed = 850.0
power = 0.001

AP
mass = 0.051
speed = 850.0
power = 0

HEI
mass = 0.0428
speed = 850.0
power = (0.00114+0.00128)

VYa
// SIT - API - API

SIT
mass = 0.195
speed = 890.0
power = 0.0156

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008


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

If you'll ask why some bullets has TNT, its because they had explosive in warhead.



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

Shot2Pieces
02-25-2005, 03:18 PM
After trying the 109 with gunpods, I doubt I would even bother flying the 190 again except against sturmoviks. Killing yaks and La's can be done in a 1/2 second burst with the 109, while the 190 needs 2 secs+. Versus fighters the 190 now has no advantages over the 109 w/gunpods except it is more survivable (unless it gets a .303 in the wings that is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and has better high-speed maneuverability.

p1ngu666
02-25-2005, 03:41 PM
oleg, if u could post some of the ammo mix documents that would be great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

perhaps u could make mg151 have a selective, but always useful loadout, whatever the target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

like - APIT - HE - MG -

remmber italian and romian planes also use mg151 i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

imo mg151 gunpods should be left as they are now, for use as bomber busters.

mg shells shouldnt be that effective against il2's, but il2's are now really fragile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
tb3 also, a big shame i feel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

oh oleg, sorry i havent sent u stuff, lost camera, had personal issues, but i found camera, and went to fleet air arm museum, lots of pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i hope to get pics off to u tomoz, one i know for sure will make u go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-25-2005, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oleg, if u could post some of the ammo mix documents that would be great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

perhaps u could make mg151 have a selective, but always useful loadout, whatever the target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

like - APIT - HE - MG -

remmber italian and romian planes also use mg151 i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

imo mg151 gunpods should be left as they are now, for use as bomber busters.

mg shells shouldnt be that effective against il2's, but il2's are now really fragile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
tb3 also, a big shame i feel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

oh oleg, sorry i havent sent u stuff, lost camera, had personal issues, but i found camera, and went to fleet air arm museum, lots of pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i hope to get pics off to u tomoz, one i know for sure will make u go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you forgott the Ki-61-Hei http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
sure , not so much were build (800 MG151/20 were delivered, sourced saying around 388 Hiens were modified) but this canon armed Hien "has" to replace the canon (Ho-5) armed Ki-61Tei , the model that made the half of the whole Ki-61-I production http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stoyanov
02-26-2005, 05:10 AM
So my question is a bit OT....
Why when u put mk108 in the nose,of lets say bf-109g6 Late u cant take a drop tank too?
Anyone has an answer for that?!

Charos
02-26-2005, 06:02 AM
Well after my little test I fully agree with Tigertalon's view on the IL2 MG151/20 Ammo loadout

IE: 109 gunpods get AP-HE-HE-MG-MG and all
others get AP-HE-HE-AP-HE with no Mine shells.

Here is my little test: WARNING USE 8X Game speed on these tracks or you will be there all day (Sorry for that) nothing really happens till about 10-15Mins into each track.

I wanted to test on a friendly AI aircraft instead of a stationary AC as they seem to have a more complex damage model. Its good enough to compare anyway.
___________________________

Method:

BF109G6 Late utilised to fire perpendicular at VERY close range to Friendly AI B-29 Bomber vertical stabiliser.

Test1:

Was with the HUB Mounted MG 151/20, this took some 38 rounds to cause the crew to bail from the B-29.

Test2:

Same relative position as above but this time just utilising the Port Wing MG151/20 Gondola canon on the Friendly AI B-29, this took some 13 rounds to cause the crew to bail from the B-29.

Notes:

The HUB MG151/20 canon loadout fired was as follows:

#1 = AP #6 = AP #11 = AP REPEATED UP TO ROUND #38
#2 = HE #7 = HE #12 = HE
#3 = HE #8 = HE #13 = HE
#4 = AP #9 = AP #14 = AP
#5 = HE #10 = HE #15 = HE

The condola MG151/20 canon loadout fired was as follows:

#1 = AP #6 = AP #11 = AP
#2 = HE #7 = HE #12 = HE
#3 = HE #8 = HE #13 = HE
#4 = MG #9 = MG
#5 = MG #10 = MG

Conclusion:

The HUB Mounted MG151/20 and possibly the Wing Mounted MG151/20 in the FW190 (did not test) is totally devoid of ANY MG ammunition which by the above test is causing the gun mounted in this fashion to underperform between 200 to 300% over the same gun mounted in the Gondola's with different ammunition loadouts.

MG ammunition was commenced with the 20mm MG FFM in the BF109E4 and was used from then on, so all 20mm in IL2 should be useing at least some of this ammunition.

The MG151/20 is THE Luftwaffe Gun of WW2 - the current loadout with no MG shells is clearly wrong and greatly impacting gameplay.


Download the TWO TRK Files here:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trentelliott/IL2/MG151_20_Test.rar

p1ngu666
02-26-2005, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oleg, if u could post some of the ammo mix documents that would be great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

perhaps u could make mg151 have a selective, but always useful loadout, whatever the target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

like - APIT - HE - MG -

remmber italian and romian planes also use mg151 i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

imo mg151 gunpods should be left as they are now, for use as bomber busters.

mg shells shouldnt be that effective against il2's, but il2's are now really fragile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
tb3 also, a big shame i feel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

oh oleg, sorry i havent sent u stuff, lost camera, had personal issues, but i found camera, and went to fleet air arm museum, lots of pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i hope to get pics off to u tomoz, one i know for sure will make u go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you forgott the Ki-61-Hei http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
sure , not so much were build (800 MG151/20 were delivered, sourced saying around 388 Hiens were modified) but this canon armed Hien "has" to replace the canon (Ho-5) armed Ki-61Tei , the model that made the half of the whole Ki-61-I production http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u got me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
haveto fly with ya sometime mate, would be fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lw fliers should dig up belt mix docs, and choice one thats good alrounder, imo

http://www.uploadit.org/gallery/12934 < my quick and easy mg152 test to show explosions in a "fair test" environment, whilst maintaining my lazyness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2005, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
Hi, Max

dunno if you did, but check out top post on page 2 of this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Might be interesting reading for you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I saw but I tell ya, pulling for something different than anything there already is useless.

What is there already is 109 gunpod code/data with correct by IL2 ammo for all but 109 gunpod,
and all other 151/20's code/data that is correct by 1C for 109 gunpod.

Those code/data exist and work already, just switched to wrong in game gun types.
A simple confusion needing a simple fix.

And I have been noticing in the question/answers dance that never do we hear from Oleg or
Ivan anything referring to the tests you have run and the screenshots you have posted.
It is like a political dimension, point something out directly and the answer is that we
are not listening! Always something else is addressed. We cannot have extra belt mixes,
it is impossible to code say NADA about just put back the mix we had that is told to us
it has not changed! The tests you made show the change clearly, so it is ignored. I can
get this from a shrub in the capitol.

Copperhead310th
02-26-2005, 10:20 AM
Oleg Posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As for 37 mm. We are not sure yet that there is the bug.
We will check. We simply was looking yesterday the tracks with many weapons test ONLINE and found that only in online confirmed transfer of 3 types of 37 MM cannons is only possible the bug.
The speech is not about corection of cannon, but about possible bug and correction of online trasfer prioritet (we have many prioritetes of transfer for online game plane for the cases of lost packs. And the weapon there is N1 - no looses must be. But the its a separat online code and maybe we missed it in the past like it was once already with these cannons...).
Hope you understand it. My speech was not about correction of penetration or explosive load.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok so if i understnd Oleg Right the N1 37mm Cannon is not as affective as it should be due to packet loss. ???? Ok so by correcting the packet loss of the 37mm N1 cannon my
P-63 "Should" be abel to down a FW-190 in 1 or 2 hits instead instead of the 5 or 6 is currently takes. and the problem is that the shells are connecting but the packet loss is causing the hits to not register. that's my understanding of what Oleg said.

and if i'm write could it not be possible that this same packet loss issue is affecting...say....the browning M2 .50 call as well? it simply doesn't have the destructive power as any other heavy MG in the Sim. PERIOD.
currently when i run out of ammo on a 190 or ta-152 i simply slide my canopy back and toss marshmellows at the LW guys. that always seems to be much more effective. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I don't see the promlem with the 151/20's. this is from the reciving end of them. which i catch a LOT of 151/20 rounds so i know. i've had 151/20 pepper me up without a scratch only a few times. but most of the time it hits you so hard it d@mn near flips me belly up! and that in a P-47 for Gods sake. so all the 151/20 crying is hogwash. never the less.......

Oleg would it take a lot of time and manpower to go back and take a good hard look at the net codes for the MG 151/20 and Browning M2 .50 Cals. This is assuming that like the N1 37mm cannon they are a seperate online code.

I'm speaking only of Online code.
off line i can find nothing at all wrong with ANY weapon in the game. and belive me i've been looking. i don't think that any players will argure with me that the m2 .50 caliber offline is compleatly differant than online. and from what i've seen it's the sam with all cannons and mg.
Offline no problems. No packet loss. rounds are affective. offline all weapons *APEAR* to have 50% more destructive power than online.

just my thoughts on the subject.

Copperhead310th
02-26-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oleg, if u could post some of the ammo mix documents that would be great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

perhaps u could make mg151 have a selective, but always useful loadout, whatever the target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

like - APIT - HE - MG -

remmber italian and romian planes also use mg151 i think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

imo mg151 gunpods should be left as they are now, for use as bomber busters.

mg shells shouldnt be that effective against il2's, but il2's are now really fragile http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
tb3 also, a big shame i feel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

oh oleg, sorry i havent sent u stuff, lost camera, had personal issues, but i found camera, and went to fleet air arm museum, lots of pics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i hope to get pics off to u tomoz, one i know for sure will make u go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you forgott the Ki-61-Hei http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
sure , not so much were build (800 MG151/20 were delivered, sourced saying around 388 Hiens were modified) but this canon armed Hien "has" to replace the canon (Ho-5) armed Ki-61Tei , the model that made the half of the whole Ki-61-I production http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u got me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
haveto fly with ya sometime mate, would be fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lw fliers should dig up belt mix docs, and choice one thats good alrounder, imo

http://www.uploadit.org/gallery/12934 < my quick and easy mg152 test to show explosions in a "fair test" environment, whilst maintaining my lazyness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well if that's the case i'd like to be able to do the same for us planes. because from what i'm seeing is US Browning M2 .50 cals loaded with ball belts only. no AP, no He. nothing. just Ball Ammo.

Copperhead310th
02-26-2005, 10:27 AM
Badsight couls you email me a copy of that tabel please? i didnt see it befor my last post. thanks.

copperhead@310thvfs.com

Copperhead310th
02-26-2005, 10:34 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148
</span>

Now compare:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">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
</span>

I'll trade you my 50 cal guns for your mg151/20 any day.

Jippo01
02-26-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148
</span>

Now compare:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">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
</span>

I'll trade you my 50 cal guns for your mg151/20 any day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that is the reason why I fail to understand people who claim .50 could destroy main battle tanks not to mention destroyers, etc etc....

People like that have seen too many TV history programs where Thunderbolts destroyed every man and machine in continental Europe or Corsairs shot Japanese planes into fireballs on guncam films. They hear that .50 was some allmighty weapon that was superior to everything else in the air, and they believe it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In fact, they were only more effective than light machineguns and semi-heavy German Mg131. With majority of airborne guns being far more devastating weapons than .50. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Why is it nobody claims MG-151 could destroy Shermans, but many people claim .50 could destroy Tigers??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Better propaganda? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

Enofinu
02-26-2005, 12:19 PM
yea Jippo, some hype made all that many ppl to believe something which really wasnt what has been hyped http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2005, 12:33 PM
Not sure, but maybe the best "all rounder" ammo load is the current one, for attacking IL~2 right? That is what German infantry would want....not computer "aces" who want to score internet Brownie Points against fighters... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Charos noted 95% of targets are fighters -- but "forgot" to post that is for arcade internet dogfighting, not real life. Just thinking the most historically accurate ammo for internet "ace" dogfight brownie point scores would be a belt of blanks maybe? Dunno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Badsight.
02-26-2005, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Badsight couls you email me a copy of that tabel please? i didnt see it befor my last post. thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Copperhead its a fast way to LOTS of spam junk email to post your address like that without some form of break in it , because email searching programs are used to sweep forums by spammers

& you could just copy & paste to a notepad file what i posted (as i did when it was originally posted)

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2005, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
With majority of airborne guns being far more devastating weapons than .50. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must be counting cannon. Russian UBx and the German 15mm are better MG's, any others?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why is it nobody claims MG-151 could destroy Shermans, but many people claim .50 could destroy Tigers??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Better propaganda? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty sure they can considering top armor, top hatch thickness, top openings (because the
thing has to run a LOT of cooling air) and fact of not being buttoned up most of the time.
It is very hard to use the AAMG with hatch closed.

Thing is, how often did LW planes get to even try using 151's on Sherman tanks?

How about claims against T-34's? Know any of those? 190 was Jabo in the East.

quiet_man
02-26-2005, 01:22 PM
@WWMaxGunz

I read something that most tank claims from the american pilots where against abandoned tanks. Maybe that's why the hatch was open http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I read about german 190 jabo at eastern front, they developed a certain mix off one big and some smaller bombs to ensure that the tank was at least damaged if the big one misses, but nothing about guns

quiet_man

AlmightyTallest
02-26-2005, 01:24 PM
Okay, that .50cal belt loading is what got me started with a thread in the regular PF forum. Why is there a HE round listed?

From all reports, and the guncam footage that some would like to dismiss the U.S. used a lot of specialized .50cal rounds in it's aircraft guns mixed primarily in a ratio of AP-I-API-APIT or any combination, but no HE rounds are listed for .50cal weapons during WW2.

A mixture of Armor Piercing, Incindiary, and/or Armor Piercing Incindiary and API Tracer packed in groups of 6 or 8 guns was devastating to anything that flew, especially when within the convergence zone. The whole issue with Tiger tanks is that even if you didn't destory the tank, it was crippled, the engine could be knocked out, the thin armor at the top and back of the turret could have gotten penetrated and ammo detonated by a Incindiary round. The reason it's listed so often is that is was execptional to get a .50cal round to be so effective in combat against planes and armor because of the mixture of Incindiary, AP, and API rounds, but that's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.

At any rate, I hope the ammo belt loads could get looked at again for all gun types. I'm all for getting more accurate or more common gun beltings for this sim. The HE .50cal round listed in that table just has me confused though, I think there should be an Incindiary or Armor Piercing Incindiary round in place of the HE one if this table is what is currently being used. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jippo01
02-26-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Pretty sure they can considering top armor, top hatch thickness, top openings (because the
thing has to run a LOT of cooling air) and fact of not being buttoned up most of the time.
It is very hard to use the AAMG with hatch closed.

Thing is, how often did LW planes get to even try using 151's on Sherman tanks?

How about claims against T-34's? Know any of those? 190 was Jabo in the East. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm counting cannons too in my vocabulary cannon is "a gun", maybe not in mainstream english or why the question?

AND NO THE .50 CANNOT DESTROY A TANK.

There is always a once in a million chance that weapon takes out a target "which it cannot destroy". LMG on a fighter could destroy a battleship by hitting something it could actually damage or set off and causing some strange chain reaction, but still we do not consider any LMG able to destroy a battleship!

I have been a tank commander in the local army, been a tank and aviation history buff for a long time, fired 12.7mm etc, etc... I will not go through (AGAIN) all the possible reasons why a WW2 tank couldn't be destroyed with a .50. Instead, I challenge you to show 1 (one) tank destroyed with .50, and the kill verified by the ground forces. Sure if it was possible there would be some hard evidence, right?

And no, MG151/20 couldn't take out a MBT either. That is why they developed 30mm, 37mm, 50mm and 75mm airborne AT cannons! Study the kinetic energy of these weapons, and ask yourself why on earth they used a 75mm weapon for a job 12.7mm could do? (as you claim)


-jippo


PS. Just for comparison, if my quick calculation serves me correctly 7,5cm BK had kinetic energy in the class of 80 times higher than .50 BMG.

Jippo01
02-26-2005, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
A mixture of Armor Piercing, Incindiary, and/or Armor Piercing Incindiary and API Tracer packed in groups of 6 or 8 guns was devastating to anything that flew, especially when within the convergence zone. The whole issue with Tiger tanks is that even if you didn't destory the tank, it was crippled, the engine could be knocked out, the thin armor at the top and back of the turret could have gotten penetrated and ammo detonated by a Incindiary round. The reason it's listed so often is that is was execptional to get a .50cal round to be so effective in combat against planes and armor because of the mixture of Incindiary, AP, and API rounds, but that's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BS, all of the above. Plain and simple.

All the nations used AP, ball, API, HEI and other rounds in weapons of all calibers. There is nothing special in .50 BMG API rounds compared to other nations API, in fact their I content is very small in comparison.


-jippo

PS. Why can't people bother to study about a subject at least a little bit before making claims?

p1ngu666
02-26-2005, 01:46 PM
yeah, americans grow up and are taught that the .50cal is gods own weapon etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

thats why i think p39, p38 are less popular than p51 and p47 and corsair etc. got that **** heathen cannon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

non sim flying ppl think corsair had 6 fifties, and thats worthy of a fap

sim fliers want there uber cannon corsair, and that if its not avalible, its a lame server or coop...


in britain, we learn the wisdom of taking 303 and 20mm. guess in europe its about the cannon..


truth is, if i shot any of u in the face, with any gun in the game, ud go X__X
u wouldnt go "owwww my face! ", cos ud be dead.

cannons would be used on the trucks and jeeps that are needed to support tanks. then the tanks cant go far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
could be used on tanks too, but id go for supply first...

if your facing germans, that was best, as they really excelled at manover combat, so stop them from doing that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
02-26-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:


PS. Why can't people bother to study about a subject at least a little bit before making claims? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

takes effort http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

thanks for ju88 btw, the c heavy fighter we getting wont have a bomb site, will it?

AlmightyTallest
02-26-2005, 01:52 PM
I'm not saying it was anything special, it's just that when a .50 cal round is specialized you get better performance, especially if the round is made to ignite or start a fire on plane or is able to ignite fuel.

About the whole German Tank issue, why did Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins make any references to the P47's that strafed the tanks if this didn't happen? Why are reports being generated about the occasional soft kills of German tanks with strafing by P-47's? No where does it claim that this happened every time a tank was strafed, but there seems to have been enough casualties caused in both men and machines to make a note of it to others.

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm

http://pages.prodigy.net/rebeljack/stories.html

http://www.lonesentry.com/tanktalk/

At the above link, why does the Soviet Artillery Journal on combating the German Tiger Tank even state that .50 cal can destroy a PZ. KPFW. VI in the vulnerability section? Why risk human lives if a .50cal isn't able to destroy or diable the Tiger? lol

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> VULNERABILITY OF THE PZ. KPFW. VI

A tank is such a complicated weapon, with its many movable parts and its elaborate mechanism, that it is particularly valuable to know its points of greatest vulnerability. Recently the Soviet Artillery Journal published a number of practical suggestions, based on extensive combat experience, regarding the vulnerability of the Tiger.

All weapons now used for destroying German tanks €" antitank guns and rifles, caliber .50 heavy machine guns, antitank grenades, and Molotov cocktails €" are effective against the Pz. Kpfw. VI.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's some P-47 vets that still claim that strafing of German Tanks was feasible and that it could cause casualties, perhaps we should E-mail the one P-47 vet above and ask him directly about this issue. I would like to find the truth.

At any rate, all agree that strafing is far less productive than using rockets or bombs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
02-26-2005, 02:21 PM
I'm saying this lightheartedly, but it took all of one "what about the .50" post to get his off topic. Again, I'm not saying this with any serious intent, just a note.

To stay off topic, I have read a decent amount about the 190 jabos and I have never seen anything about strafing tanks. Eastern front jabos were used to attack rear positions mainly, going after supply lines and supply storage. When a Soviet advance was made/reported they would immediately be sent out to attack the tanks with bombs and then strafe soft targets of opportunity. They mainly attacked at amazingly low altitudes and released the bomb as the tank disappeared under their nose, they would be so low that the bomb would hit the tank almost right after release with a short fuse delay. Another interesting note is that from what I have read the Eastern front jabos actually say that they encountered very little fighter opposition, they were much more afraid of the ground-fire as the Soviets let fly with everything. In Italy they were used on longer range missions, often using the 190G with 2 drop tanks and a bomb on centerline, but this could be altered with up top three large bombs depending on how far they needed to go. Apparently there were times when supply vehicles left their lights on and the 190 jabos said that when this occured they would have a field-day and often strafed until their ammo was exhausted. Many of the missions took place at night because flying during the day was becoming impossible with their small numbers and increasing opposition, and they would signal to the airfields below when they returned so that the lights would be turned back on for a short time. In the West the jabos were not used much except for cross channel raids at high speed, and in limited use later on against the advancing allies. Again the targets seemed to be mainly convoys and supplies, but strafing of AA emplacements/vehicles alongside of convoys was noted. Anyway, just some of the stuff I came across concerning FW-190 jabos, though I am sure there is much more to it.

AlmightyTallest
02-26-2005, 02:34 PM
Thanks for that info Hunde, this thread really got off topic fast.

So, let's put it back on track again for those that want the MG151/20 ammo loading. I would like to see loadings that would better represent the targets they were intended for in this sim. Perhaps if the MG151 ammo belts could be looked at other's could be as well?

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on the other issues mentioned above I guess. None of what is written about .50 caliber vs. tanks could probably be modeled in this sim at any rate anyways.

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2005, 02:46 PM
<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 WWMaxGunz:
Pretty sure they can considering top armor, top hatch thickness, top openings (because the
thing has to run a LOT of cooling air) and fact of not being buttoned up most of the time.
It is very hard to use the AAMG with hatch closed.

Thing is, how often did LW planes get to even try using 151's on Sherman tanks?

How about claims against T-34's? Know any of those? 190 was Jabo in the East. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm counting cannons too in my vocabulary cannon is "a gun", maybe not in mainstream english or why the question?

AND NO THE .50 CANNOT DESTROY A TANK.

There is always a once in a million chance that weapon takes out a target "which it cannot destroy". LMG on a fighter could destroy a battleship by hitting something it could actually damage or set off and causing some strange chain reaction, but still we do not consider any LMG able to destroy a battleship!

I have been a tank commander in the local army, been a tank and aviation history buff for a long time, fired 12.7mm etc, etc... I will not go through (AGAIN) all the possible reasons why a WW2 tank couldn't be destroyed with a .50. Instead, I challenge you to show 1 (one) tank destroyed with .50, and the kill verified by the ground forces. Sure if it was possible there would be some hard evidence, right?

And no, MG151/20 couldn't take out a MBT either. That is why they developed 30mm, 37mm, 50mm and 75mm airborne AT cannons! Study the kinetic energy of these weapons, and ask yourself why on earth they used a 75mm weapon for a job 12.7mm could do? (as you claim)


-jippo


PS. Just for comparison, if my quick calculation serves me correctly 7,5cm BK had kinetic energy in the class of 80 times higher than .50 BMG. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh, touchy-touchy. AT guns are made to work against front and side armor generally.
I was referring to top armor and chance of open hatches. And you know that tanks don't
make a habit of running around buttoned up till they are in need or perceive impending
danger. Buttoning up, especially before the electronic age cuts you view terribly and
slows the tank down badly. It wasn't desireable in the 70's either, US doctrine against
armor charge started with raining high-burst arty over the tanks to catch as many out
as possible (small percentage, only the ones close to the first blasts and then still
a chance they are not wounded) commanders and drivers with the desired effect to force
them to button and slow the entire charge. Really, against limited armor a few snipers
have made the same result on many fronts. Not killed tanks but these things cannot be
done except that tanks do run unbuttoned and you know that well.

Tanks are well protected, most of them, but it's not uniform or always.
And just me and the people I trained under, if you kill or incapacitate the crew, the tank
is effectively dead.

I also don't count Sherman armor as equal to Pz IV armor, year for year. Well, even as
good as T-34 either which I think was better of those.

That said -- no the .50's are not antitank weapons. Nor are the 20's.

From above though, I'd have taken the shots with 20mm AP against medium tanks then even on
the 1 in 20 chance if my side was in danger. Infantrymen have done more and know that tanks
are not perfect cover in every situation, just very good when used right at all. Is not
antitank up on a hill firing down at tanks on flat ground below much more effective? Yes,
they are. I would also not begin to compare WWII armor to what you seem to know, except
for maybe the best WWII heavy and only front aspect shots.

Should we be able to kill tanks with .50's in the game? No! Except maybe if there can be
very small random and detailed state of tank disposition and 3D modelled. Perhaps now the
hatches are always open as far as the game? Is that as crazy as the ability of tank main
guns to track and snipe fighters flying crosswise to them?

Here is a site with lots of docs I found earlier today. Nothing special for this thread
but still might be of some interest to you, perhaps add to your collection if you have one;

www.lonesentry.com (http://www.lonesentry.com)

Previously I used to have a dozen or so, some very good ones on German armor which I have a
liking for just because I do. This one is good in the amount of direct documents it gives.

Jippo01
02-26-2005, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

http://www.lonesentry.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the interesting link, I have to go through it in detail.

My point: fighter-bombers were highly inefficient against armor. Rocket and cannon attacks proved to have very very low possibility of disabling a tank. I mean very very low. Figures by pilots suggested that great losses were inflicted (air to ground overclaiming is traditionally huge) when there were infact none or very little effect on armor itself. Supply is different matter, but we are talking of capability to disable a single tank. There were weapons far superior to .50 which proved absolutely innefficient in anti armor role. We have a lot of kids talking about fuel canisters and trolleys, bullets bouncing of the road and inside a tank, exhausts, top armor etc etc etc. which have been proved to be complete rubbish over and over again. I'm just hoping that a sensible guy like you aren't going to start it too.

Btw. you are right about slowing down by forcing buttoning up and even making a TC kill at a time (pretty slim chance that one), but there are not destruction, but a temporary hindrance(if we are not considering the matter from the POV of the previously mentioned TC).


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2005, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:

http://www.lonesentry.com/tanktalk/

At the above link, why does the Soviet Artillery Journal on combating the German Tiger Tank even state that .50 cal can destroy a PZ. KPFW. VI in the vulnerability section? Why risk human lives if a .50cal isn't able to destroy or diable the Tiger? lol

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> VULNERABILITY OF THE PZ. KPFW. VI

A tank is such a complicated weapon, with its many movable parts and its elaborate mechanism, that it is particularly valuable to know its points of greatest vulnerability. Recently the Soviet Artillery Journal published a number of practical suggestions, based on extensive combat experience, regarding the vulnerability of the Tiger.

All weapons now used for destroying German tanks €" antitank guns and rifles, _caliber .50 heavy machine guns_, antitank grenades, and Molotov cocktails €" are effective against the Pz. Kpfw. VI.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hadn't caught that page but the parts below what you quoted are the basics I have seen
elsewhere.

The Soviets also mention Air Vents and Ventillators specifically. Also holes and slits for
vision. I note in the part you did quote that all those notes were based of extensive combat
experience and pertain to the Tiger.

I'm willing to bet that the cal 50 MG's the Soviets used were most all good Russian MG's!
Also that the notes given are not about sure-fire knockouts but rather attack methods used
mostly when close with reasonable chances to succeed or cause the armor to withdraw.

Of course there will be people who will say it's not true, any of it. For some reason the
only imaginable way to fight a tank is to stand back and shoot the front armor in the
middle. Dirty tricks are just not sporting.

P1NGU -- I was brought up to think that 30-06's are pretty d@mn hot, but for hunting bear
and deer, not tanks. .303's and 20's huh? Did later Spitfires carry 303's old boy? Go
ahead, what MG's did the later Spitfires carry? Some useless American popgun, wasn't it?

Jippo01
02-26-2005, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:

http://www.lonesentry.com/tanktalk/

At the above link, why does the Soviet Artillery Journal on combating the German Tiger Tank even state that .50 cal can destroy a PZ. KPFW. VI in the vulnerability section? Why risk human lives if a .50cal isn't able to destroy or diable the Tiger? lol

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> VULNERABILITY OF THE PZ. KPFW. VI

A tank is such a complicated weapon, with its many movable parts and its elaborate mechanism, that it is particularly valuable to know its points of greatest vulnerability. Recently the Soviet Artillery Journal published a number of practical suggestions, based on extensive combat experience, regarding the vulnerability of the Tiger.

All weapons now used for destroying German tanks €" antitank guns and rifles, _caliber .50 heavy machine guns_, antitank grenades, and Molotov cocktails €" are effective against the Pz. Kpfw. VI.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hadn't caught that page but the parts below what you quoted are the basics I have seen
elsewhere.

The Soviets also mention Air Vents and Ventillators specifically. Also holes and slits for
vision. I note in the part you did quote that all those notes were based of extensive combat
experience and pertain to the Tiger.

I'm willing to bet that the cal 50 MG's the Soviets used were most all good Russian MG's!
Also that the notes given are not about sure-fire knockouts but rather attack methods used
mostly when close with reasonable chances to succeed or cause the armor to withdraw.

Of course there will be people who will say it's not true, any of it. For some reason the
only imaginable way to fight a tank is to stand back and shoot the front armor in the
middle. Dirty tricks are just not sporting.

P1NGU -- I was brought up to think that 30-06's are pretty d@mn hot, but for hunting bear
and deer, not tanks. .303's and 20's huh? Did later Spitfires carry 303's old boy? Go
ahead, what MG's did the later Spitfires carry? Some useless American popgun, wasn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The effectiveness of Russian AT weaponry and Tigerfibel:

http://www.esatclear.ie/~godot/04.jpg


-jippo

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2005, 03:41 PM
<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 WWMaxGunz:

http://www.lonesentry.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the interesting link, I have to go through it in detail.

My point: fighter-bombers were highly inefficient against armor. Rocket and cannon attacks proved to have very very low possibility of disabling a tank. I mean very very low. Figures by pilots suggested that great losses were inflicted (air to ground overclaiming is traditionally huge) when there were infact none or very little effect on armor itself. Supply is different matter, but we are talking of capability to disable a single tank. There were weapons far superior to .50 which proved absolutely innefficient in anti armor role. We have a lot of kids talking about fuel canisters and trolleys, bullets bouncing of the road and inside a tank, exhausts, top armor etc etc etc. which have been proved to be complete rubbish over and over again. I'm just hoping that a sensible guy like you aren't going to start it too.

Btw. you are right about slowing down by forcing buttoning up and even making a TC kill at a time (pretty slim chance that one), but there are not destruction, but a temporary hindrance(if we are not considering the matter from the POV of the previously mentioned TC).


-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had read the report Bastable posted way back. It is at some variance with other sources
on the ground during attacks though. There's Russian film from Kursk showing tanks and
tank parts flying through the air when the bombs came down. And I don't think that the
Il2 23mm's were there only for trucks and halftracks, nor would they have stayed on if
they didn't do the voodoo.
In that report there were abandoned, undestroyed tanks and also unidentifiable piles of
wreckage mainly assumed to be light armor.
Why was the D-Day invasion successful? One big part was the pinning down of reinforcements
including tanks. If destroying a tank from air was so rare then don't you think that by
1944 the armor commanders would have known and ignored those attacks?
Also look to the change in Nordwind when the weather cleared. Was no tanks destroyed from
air during that?
Really, I can't balance all the things from ground units about when planes attack from any
side with one report from one major battle. I don't believe that things went as good as
pilots liked to say but I don't believe that Jabos and antitank AC were ineffective against
tanks. The Russians even have it on film. Easier to believe that US interservice rivalry,
well documented and known, had more to do with that report than everything else for the
whole war, all sides, was wrong.

arrow80
02-26-2005, 04:00 PM
This topic is about MG151/20 Amno belt loading and if you want to discuss issue if .50 can or cannot destroy a tank, then make a new topic about that and discuss it there. Such distraction from the problem of LW's main gun that needs to be solved won't to much good

AlmightyTallest
02-26-2005, 04:09 PM
I can understand your point Jippo, it's just that as far as I can tell it's not compeletly out of the realm of possibility given the reports and data that occasionally firing a group of AP and API .50's at the rear and topsides of a Tiger tank could sometimes damage the engine or stop it, cause fires which are hazardous to crew and machine, and caused casualties to the Tank crews.

It seems that the Tiger has some design flaws that could be exploited by even "low caliber" rounds like a .50 PROVIDED they struck in the right places.

The exhaust vents, rear armor, Air Vents and ventilators directly behind the turret and on the top of the turret between the two observation ports used by the radio operator and driver it states specifically in that report. It even states a 10mm slit goes around the turret between base of turret and roof of hull, and says to fire at base of turret with heavy machine guns and antitank guns to destroy turret mechanism. All the systems it's stating that are vulnerable to heavy machine guns are at the top and rear of the Tiger tank, an aircraft would be better positioned to strike these areas in general.

I can see how some occasional soft kills could have been made if aircraft making strafing passes were made from behind these tanks and enough rounds were poured into the rear and top of the tank to cause problems for it, though there's no guarantee this would ensure a kill everytime.

I would like to read and see reports that disprove the ventalation and exhaust systems being vulnerable and other issues if you could provide them. I would like to see both sides of this issue, but we're badly off topic again unfortunately and should start another thread in the PF forum I believe if we want to continue the debate.

Is there any translation for the picture you posted Jippo? Looks pretty interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Charos
02-26-2005, 04:54 PM
Guys PLEASE Stop shifting this thread onto other issues, lets keep things on track here. If you want to talk about other matters it would be best for all parties to construct a seperate thread.

Incase some peeps may have missed the link to the Two tests I did (back on page 5) here it is http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trentelliott/IL2/MG151_20_Test.rar

These files not only show beyond doubt the ammo loadout of the MG151/20 but also show the relative damage potential between Gondola and Hub mounted MG151/20 in IL2 - which shows clearly why the Hub weapon is generally underpowered.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Not sure, but maybe the best "all rounder" ammo load is the current one, for attacking IL~2 right? That is what German infantry would want....not computer "aces" who want to score internet Brownie Points against fighters... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Charos noted 95% of targets are fighters -- but "forgot" to post that is for arcade internet dogfighting, not real life. Just thinking the most historically accurate ammo for internet "ace" dogfight brownie point scores would be a belt of blanks maybe? Dunno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LEXX as has been discussed the ammo loadouts on a REAL MG151/20 would VARY depending on the task it was given - obviously this cannot happen until BOB.

My comment was related to the compromise between haveing a limited loadout yet multiple targets over 5 years of warfare and how to manage it with ammunition loadout - limited as it is.

I said that it would be preferable to adopt more Mine shells in the Hub cannon's and FW190 Wing Cannon's against fighters and heavy bombers and if the target was IL2's or tanks take gun pods with a greater AP loadout.

This is a compromise - shore it may not be historically correct but not being able to choose ammo loadout isnt either. In Real Life dedicated BF109 Fighter's would be flying top cover for ground attacking FW190's who im shore would be carrying very different ammo loadouts, but this is not possible YET.

As far as a online server representing in any form reality, I think only a brave person would say the two were anything alike.

So we need a compromise to reflect this situation.

LEXX_Luthor
02-26-2005, 05:44 PM
Charos, you say 95% of MG151 targets are fighters--the post where you jumped the Shark. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Actually, you want to ask Oleg to add a "new weapon" to the loadout options -- add MG151 modded with different ammo belt. That may be possible now without having to wait for BoB and directly selectable ammo belts.

Example<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Default
Empty
MG151
MG151 dogfight server ammo belt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
MK108
:
:
etc...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Adding a "new weapon" should be possible.

I suggest leaving the ammo alone, but if possible add a new additional MG151 weapon, or two or three. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif Asking Oleg to De~model ammo belt designed to protect real life (not gamer) German infantry may not be the best idea with Flyable IL~10 coming soon. Anyway, wait until IL~2 begins to Dominate teh dogfight servers, never mind IL~10....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>oelg fix MG151 so we can shoot down IL~10 or i wont buy BoB whhaaaWHHAAA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charos
02-26-2005, 10:42 PM
LEXX

Granted my Blazen 95% might have been a figure just thrown out into the wild http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but it actually does reflect the fact that I dont see many IL2's at 6000M altitude that often.

Honestly I really cant remember the last time I shot down a Bomber or an IL2 online but it was a long time ago.

The current loadout on the Condolas would work just fine against 4 engine or large bombers as far as IL2's or IL10's go yes there may be problems there.

Your suggestion of adding a new weapon - same weapon with different loadout sounds rather good, I like that idea alot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


Back in the real world Hartmann managed approx 17% of his total credited victories over IL2 aircraft while Lipfert managed approx 19%.

Look at the book "The war Diary of Helmut Lipfert" from the Photo section we have two official german combat reports of Lipfert.

(Appologies my German is nein Gut)Could anyone translate the Ammo Mix from below?

DATE: 30/01/43
Enemy Plane: Lagg-5
condition: In left curve at 200m.
Ammunition: Pz.,Pzspr.,Pzbr., Brdspr., S.m.K., P.m.K.,B.-Mun.
Rounds Fired: 100 Shuss M.G.151/20, 80 Shuss M.G.17
Guns: 3 M.G.151/20, 2 M.G.17
Plane: BF109 G-2 mit 3 M.G.151/20 u. 2 M.G.17

DATE 11.04.44
Enemy Plane: IL-2
condition: From the rear above 60-40m. Not Observed.
Ammunition: Pzspr., Pzbrd., Brdspr., M.-Mun., Pzgr., Brdsprgr.
Rounds Fired: 25 Shuss M.G.151/20 und 2 M.G.131
Guns: 1 M.G.151/20 und 2 M.G.131
Plane: Bf 109 G-6


Interesting thing mentioned here is that the G6 has only the Hub mounted Gun and DOES list M -Mun shells which I assume are Minen shells.

So the question of is there any proof that the Hub mounted MG151/20 really did fire Minen shells seems to be answered.

Jippo01
02-27-2005, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I had read the report Bastable posted way back. It is at some variance with other sources
on the ground during attacks though. There's Russian film from Kursk showing tanks and
tank parts flying through the air when the bombs came down. And I don't think that the
Il2 23mm's were there only for trucks and halftracks, nor would they have stayed on if
they didn't do the voodoo.
In that report there were abandoned, undestroyed tanks and also unidentifiable piles of
wreckage mainly assumed to be light armor.
Why was the D-Day invasion successful? One big part was the pinning down of reinforcements
including tanks. If destroying a tank from air was so rare then don't you think that by
1944 the armor commanders would have known and ignored those attacks?
Also look to the change in Nordwind when the weather cleared. Was no tanks destroyed from
air during that?
Really, I can't balance all the things from ground units about when planes attack from any
side with one report from one major battle. I don't believe that things went as good as
pilots liked to say but I don't believe that Jabos and antitank AC were ineffective against
tanks. The Russians even have it on film. Easier to believe that US interservice rivalry,
well documented and known, had more to do with that report than everything else for the
whole war, all sides, was wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


See, here it ends. I should go through your comments point to point - I shoulds say that there is not a single new argunment that wouldn't have been discussed yet. This is why I wanted you to provide ONE MBT destroyed by aerial .50 and confirmed by ground forces. I shall personally end it here, and stop littering a thread about a good subject.

Allmighty, military is not about probabilities, at least in that way. If you have a very slim chance of damaging something it is not considered a chance. Then it is better to do something else and harm something you can and not risk your life in doing something that requires tremendous amount of luck. The picture is from the Tiger-manual (google tigerfibel, also pantherfibel and schiessfibel) german humorous learning aid for new crews. It says something like: In six hours in South - was hit with AT-rifles 227 times - with 52mm AT guns 14 times - with 76,2mm AT guns 11 times ... none went through ... etc... many hits in the tracks ... drove over 3 mines ... and after that drove 60km on it's own power.



-jippo

p1ngu666
02-27-2005, 01:13 AM
jippo, 303 was chosen for its high rof, higher rof gives best chance of hit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

and for defense, it was thought that a "wall of lead" would scare the enemy a fair bit.
4 gun turret on lanc would spit out 80rounds a second, and at night time u needed to get closer aswell, normaly, so lack of range isnt such a issue.
.50's where used at the end sometimes, for extra punch, its the better weapon for daylight aswell. .50 call often froze in those lanc rear turrets tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
.303 worked nearly always i think, very reliable

arrow80
02-27-2005, 01:24 AM
Jippo1: Is it that hard to create your own topic??? about .50??? Or are you intentionaly distracting attention from this topic? I would kindly ask moderator to delete threads that are off-topic here, as some people as charon are trying to make valid points about Mg151/20.

Jippo01
02-27-2005, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arrow80:
Jippo1: Is it that hard to create your own topic??? about .50??? Or are you intentionaly distracting attention from this topic? I would kindly ask moderator to delete threads that are off-topic here, as some people as charon are trying to make valid points about Mg151/20. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you don't read my posts:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
I shall personally end it here, and stop littering a thread about a good subject.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pingu, it wasn't me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

BBB_Hyperion
02-27-2005, 04:08 AM
@Jippo look here for 50s tank busting abilities in Il2 .)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=5991061182&p=4

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2005, 04:15 AM
Charos:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Granted my Blazen 95% might have been a figure just thrown out into the wild http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif but it actually does reflect the fact that I dont see many IL2's at 6000M altitude that often. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, nobody here sees historical accurate Anything on fighter ~vs~ fighter internet server. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The current loadout on the Condolas would work just fine against 4 engine or large bombers as far as IL2's or IL10's go yes there may be problems there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ya, if we can't Choose ammo belts in FB, we should be able to Choose different MG151 weapons modded with different ammo belts. So, is the current MG151 modded inCorrectly or modded Correctly but just not the most desirable mod for dogfighting against Fighters? So what story are we going with here?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Back in the real world Hartmann managed approx 17% of his total credited victories over IL2 aircraft while Lipfert managed approx 19%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Those are Gruesome stats for the real world German infantry.....yes, no ????

Sig.Hirsch
02-27-2005, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

People like that have seen too many TV history programs where Thunderbolts destroyed every man and machine in continental Europe or Corsairs shot Japanese planes into fireballs on guncam films. They hear that .50 was some allmighty weapon that was superior to everything else in the air, and they believe it. Smile In fact, they were only more effective than light machineguns and semi-heavy German Mg131. With majority of airborne guns being far more devastating weapons than .50. Smile

Why is it nobody claims MG-151 could destroy Shermans, but many people claim .50 could destroy Tigers??? Big Grin Better propaganda? Wink Smile <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soooo true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

EJGr.Ost_chamel
02-27-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Ya, if we can't Choose ammo belts in FB, we should be able to Choose different MG151 weapons modded with different ammo belts. So, is the current MG151 modded inCorrectly or modded Correctly but just not the most desirable mod for dogfighting against Fighters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to bump LEXXs idea to bring to everbodys attention (including Olegs). Is it possible, to have two differently belted MG151/202 as loadout option for every plane that uesd them? Two different typical belt compositions?

Regards
Chamel

quiet_man
02-27-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
I can understand your point Jippo, it's just that as far as I can tell it's not compeletly out of the realm of possibility given the reports and data that occasionally firing a group of AP and API .50's at the rear and topsides of a Tiger tank could sometimes damage the engine or stop it, cause fires which are hazardous to crew and machine, and caused casualties to the Tank crews.

It seems that the Tiger has some design flaws that could be exploited by even "low caliber" rounds like a .50 PROVIDED they struck in the right places.

...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read the articles you pointed to.
1. USAAF pilot reports are of this type good for for winter evenings, it was highly critisised that such report were taken for true by high command and nearly lead to catastophe at Korea when opposing forces at equal numbers (but luckily much worse training)
2. the russian source is talking about getting close to the tank and opening fire at certain parts of the wheels or ataching explosives at the enemy tank, good enough for russian army at this time who had lots of infantry to waste

not my interpretation of "effective" anti tank weapons/tactics and not more "design flaws" than a modern M1 has

quiet_man

p1ngu666
02-27-2005, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
I can understand your point Jippo, it's just that as far as I can tell it's not compeletly out of the realm of possibility given the reports and data that occasionally firing a group of AP and API .50's at the rear and topsides of a Tiger tank could sometimes damage the engine or stop it, cause fires which are hazardous to crew and machine, and caused casualties to the Tank crews.

It seems that the Tiger has some design flaws that could be exploited by even "low caliber" rounds like a .50 PROVIDED they struck in the right places.

...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read the articles you pointed to.
1. USAAF pilot reports are of this type good for for winter evenings, it was highly critisised that such report were taken for true by high command and nearly lead to catastophe at Korea when opposing forces at equal numbers (but luckily much worse training)
2. the russian source is talking about getting close to the tank and opening fire at certain parts of the wheels or ataching explosives at the enemy tank, good enough for russian army at this time who had lots of infantry to waste

not my interpretation of "effective" anti tank weapons/tactics and not more "design flaws" than a modern M1 has

quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

russians didnt have lots of infantry to waste actully. but they did waste alot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

think a large amount of injured went on to fight again, like 75% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Chadburn
02-27-2005, 05:04 PM
Before this thread goes completely to hell, I'd like to thank the community members who took the time to discover what the problem is with the German 20mm and CrazyIvan for bringing it to Oleg's attention. Thanks too to Oleg for looking into it and giving us a final answer.

While many of us are disappointed no effort can be made to rectify the missing minengeschoss rounds from the belt, it was a well-debated issue with credible sources and in-game evidence produced to back up the position that the in-game German 20mm appears to be weaker than historical accounts indicate.

And although a vocal minority disagree, it's precisely this kind of intelligent discussion that I wish there was more of in ORR.

LEXX_Luthor
02-27-2005, 05:06 PM
got home just in time...

I Apologize to you <span class="ev_code_yellow">HeinzBar</span>... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Heinz, I found what set me off before...post different thread different SUBJECT even, but I skipped too fast reading your post, and it sounded like another personal attack against the Devs and I confused you with this thread. Ouch. Sorry.

~~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2451093582

You did NOT make personal attack against the Devs...but came close I thought skipping fast through your post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I always thought MG151 was somewhat weak perhaps, but reading posts making personal attacks against the Devs make me back off, thinking the requests to change MG151 are false. This is a good reason for self~policing the clownish behavior of militant radical fundamentalist supporters of one game Change or another. Heinz, I regret confusing your post in another thread with this thread.

Copperhead310th
02-27-2005, 10:33 PM
I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif Jippo

lbhskier37
02-27-2005, 10:38 PM
Awe man, it was getting so nice in here. Someone's vacation over?

nsu
02-28-2005, 02:30 AM
hier some Infos above german WW2 bullets:

http://www.munavia-21.org/indedoc/Lw-Ammos.htm



http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/

please post this Link to Oleg and Team!

http://www.munavia-21.org/p151minegr.JPG

http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgechoss%20MG151-20%20ballistics.jpg

Gruß NSU http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ArmchairAce
02-28-2005, 08:17 AM
Can anyone here supply HARD data confirming common use of M-Geschoss shells in MG151/20 ammobelts in a specific year and specific theatre of war?

If there is a proof of common use of M-Geschoss in 1940 or 1941 and onwards on western front for example, then the request for ammobelts change is justified.

If M-Geschoss shells started to be massively or commonly used in 1944, there is no reason why 1941/1942 ammobelts should be loaded with them.

S I guess someone should contact Mr. Rall or another veteran and ask him about ammobelt loading in specific years.

Chadburn
02-28-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ArmchairAce:
Can anyone here supply HARD data confirming common use of M-Geschoss shells in MG151/20 ammobelts in a specific year and specific theatre of war?

If there is a proof of common use of M-Geschoss in 1940 or 1941 and onwards on western front for example, then the request for ammobelts change is justified.

If M-Geschoss shells started to be massively or commonly used in 1944, there is no reason why 1941/1942 ammobelts should be loaded with them.

S I guess someone should contact Mr. Rall or another veteran and ask him about ammobelt loading in specific years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The m-geschoss shell was developed and in use by the time the BF109 E/4 was introduced in the spring of 1940. The MG/FF was modified to accomodate the m-geschoss shell and designated the MG/FFM. Delayed-action fuzes for m-geschoss shells were introduced in 1941, increasing the destructive power further.

ArmchairAce
02-28-2005, 09:28 AM
Thank you Chadburn, but this is not a proof

Hard evidence is needed

Ideally how many 20mm M-Geschoss rounds were manufactured in each year and how they were distributed and if the production was sufficient to allow COMMON use of M-Geschoss shells in everyday combat in say 1941

BBB_Hyperion
02-28-2005, 09:32 AM
Pilots could choose their loadouts and tell their "Waffenwart" to mount what they fell is right except higher order for the mission was given to use beltings designed for air to ground or air to air or high ap % for il2s etc. So you can give almost any combination as historical even when some were cause of shortages or special purposes.

M Shells were present on MG FF as well.

Later the MX Shell with 25 g compressed Explosive was used i think from 44 on.

GregSM
02-28-2005, 09:33 AM
Assuming an ultimate decision has yet to be made, and needs to be, I would hope that it primarily reflects conditions on the Eastern Front, since historical eastern theatre maps at our disposal currently outnumber western maps eleven to one. Perhaps some compromise could be reached to satisfy people who this doesn't effect.


Cheers,


Greg

GregSM
02-28-2005, 09:41 AM
"Pilots could choose their loadouts and tell their "Waffenwart" to mount what they fell is right except higher order for the mission was given to use beltings designed for air to ground or air to air or high ap % for il2s etc. So you can give almost any combination as historical even when some were cause of shortages or special purposes."


Thanks Hyperion, this is useful to know.


Cheers,


Greg

Chadburn
02-28-2005, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
Assuming an ultimate decision has yet to be made, and needs to be, I would hope that it primarily reflects conditions on the Eastern Front, since historical eastern theatre maps at our disposal currently outnumber western maps eleven to one. Perhaps some compromise could be reached to satisfy people who this doesn't effect.


Cheers,


Greg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Oleg was pretty clear about his decision. He said there will be no changes to the game's current 20mm loadout for the nose-mounted cannon.

BBB_Hyperion
02-28-2005, 09:48 AM
Well we still dont know enough to judge what is wrong or right in il2 cause the only info we have yet is that the gondolas have other loadout than the internal guns. All other sources claiming something are not from Oleg and therefore unsafe at least under my impression unsafe. So the whole debate about M Shells not present can only be answered by Oleg or his team . When there is a error they will surely find it thats all we can hope for until more Data is availabel.

GregSM
02-28-2005, 09:53 AM
"I think Oleg was pretty clear about his decision. He said there will be no changes to the game's current 20mm loadout for the nose-mounted cannon."

Yes, he was. I'm not lobbying for change or asserting that change is necessary - just submitting my bit in the event things do change. After all, things do change!


Cheers,


Greg

Tetrapack
02-28-2005, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charos:
Back in the real world Hartmann managed approx 17% of his total credited victories over IL2 aircraft while Lipfert managed approx 19%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have Hartmann listed as being credited with 30 Sturmovik-Kills, that makes 8.5% of his 352 victories. Lipfert got 36 Il-2's, that makes almost 18% of his 203 kills.

quiet_man
02-28-2005, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chadburn:
...
I think Oleg was pretty clear about his decision. He said there will be no changes to the game's current 20mm loadout for the nose-mounted cannon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

he said he would not change
APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

but this IS NOT in game
current standard 151/20 have NO MG rounds
ONLY the gunpods have MG rounds


it looks like a bug and anyone telling me Oleg would not look into a bug does not know him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but even Oleg is restricted to 24h days

quiet_man

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2005, 02:49 PM
They added the 109 gunpod to have a different ammo mix using AP and HE.
So somebody edited a table or copied in and edited a stretch of code.
It is clear from tests and screenshots that the 109 gunpods now have the old ammo mix
and the rest of the 151/20's -- every one but the gunpods have the gunpod ammo mix since
ever FB came out.
Somehow, we're supposed believe it is impossible to switch those.

What is this business from people about having to prove that 151/20 noseguns ever used mine
shells? Why noseguns. It is also the FW wingmount 151/20's that use that gun model and
please, every other 151/20 besides 109 gunpods. Ya want as much proof as yer ever gonna
need? Then take it directly from Oleg Maddox and 1C who gave those guns the APT-HE-HE-MG-MG
mix in the first place and by Oleg, made the 109 gunpod mix without MG's as an exception.

All this forum member would like is correct mix which is already in the game for correct gun
which has since FB we find out been switched. The code and data already works, just need to
switch them. There are at least two ways to do it, swap the code lines or change the links
to the gun codes. If this is impossible then I am Saddam Hussein.

Chadburn
02-28-2005, 04:49 PM
quiet_man, I completely agree that the evidence presented indicates there's no m-geschoss shell in the non-gondola 20mm cannons. But given Oleg's response, I really think we'll have to live with it the way it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
he said he would not change
APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

but this IS NOT in game
current standard 151/20 have NO MG rounds
ONLY the gunpods have MG rounds

it looks like a bug and anyone telling me Oleg would not look into a bug does not know him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but even Oleg is restricted to 24h days <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG54_Arnie
02-28-2005, 05:24 PM
But the way it is is incorrect, Oleg assumed the loadouts were correct when he said he wouldnt change them. But they are not correct as the current loadout also conflicts with what Oleg said it should be.

Copperhead310th
02-28-2005, 06:01 PM
what would i do with out you Ivan?

Badsight.
02-28-2005, 09:50 PM
just give "APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG" to all MG151/20 & there wouldnt be a problem anymore

Jetbuff
03-01-2005, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
just give "APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG" to all MG151/20 & there wouldnt be a problem anymore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You know what's funny? When everyone "assumed" that all MG151/20 had the above ammo load there was no problem. The minute they realized that LW cries of foul were justified (read when Oleg revealed the pre-release programming change) we have everyone and his dog demanding evidence before changing things back to what was acceptable all along. Funny how things work eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


edited for clarification: I want to see the MG151/20 fixed. I'm just surprised that the anti-LW lobby have resorted to disputing the existence of the MG shell in the first place when they had accepted it up till now.

Badsight.
03-01-2005, 03:35 AM
are you kidding ?

the reason the Mk108 is used so much is because the MG151/20 is weak

everybody knows this

i have countless kills with this gun where i have had to lay repeated bursts , every single one of those fights shouldnt have lasted as long as they did

that the MG151/20 weak in FB is nothing new

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The minute they realized that LW cries of foul were justified , we have everyone and his dog demanding evidence to change things back <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yes , the reason for the lack of kill power this gun has is based on a real reason , its simply not fair to hobble the single most important weapon on LW planes

why not make all allied A/C only run at 90% power ?

why not limit all bomb loads to only carrying 50 lbers ?

neither of those 3 makes sense

Charos
03-01-2005, 03:39 AM
Not true Jetbuff

Many people for a long time now have felt it in their waters that something was just not right with the HUB/WING mounted MG151/20.

Oleg released the (pre-release programming change)sometime AFTER SurpentBlade noticed a difference in Ammo loadout and damage of the Gondola guns back in another thread:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=1

The issue of this gun being underpowered was recognised by the community back to when it was actually changed in code - more and more evidence over time has brought this out into the open.

Brechstange
03-01-2005, 03:48 AM
and justice for all

...
I think there should be realy working on getting ride of the bugs and failers
instead of getting new airplanes and stuff that count in second row ..
I would rather have accurate or switchable amo loadsouts for the guns than any new flying plane..


But's just my opinion
Bye
Brechstange

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
just give "APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG" to all MG151/20 & there wouldnt be a problem anymore <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You know what's funny? When everyone "assumed" that all MG151/20 had the above ammo load there was no problem. The minute they realized that LW cries of foul were justified (read when Oleg revealed the pre-release programming change) we have everyone and his dog demanding evidence to change things back to what was acceptable all along. Funny how things work eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? No problem for you maybe.

Many, many threads and 100's of posts and screenshots of tests, hours and hours of discussion
all now we are finding out has been DUE TO A SIMPLE ERROR.

The "whiners" have been right if there is any validity to the tests and screenshots made from
the game itself. Funny part is that replies from Oleg and Mods do not directly address the
problem of which gun has which ammo mix nor the tests, screenshot sequences or posts about
exactly that. Might as well ask Bush where the WMD's are. It's "irrellevant"!

The ammo mix for each gun type is viewable. The effects are viewable. Instead, we are told
no new ammo mixes, impossible to make custom ammo belts, the 151/20 has not changed (yeah,
the gunpod type only is the supposed IL2 mix, the others get no mine shells, what change?)
and when directly asked about findings well posted... best I can get is "don't want to look".

Naaaaaahhhhhhhhh -- no problem at all and never was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Jetbuff
03-01-2005, 04:05 AM
OK, I'm not sure, but I think I've confused some of you...

I'm saying that when Oleg insisted that the MG151/20 had a loadout of "APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG" no one said, where's the proof that the MG151/20 had MG shells in the first place?

However, when Oleg admits that the hub mounted version of the MG151/20 was indeed hobbled by not having MG shells - great detective work btw - suddenly everyone is trying to prove that the MG151/20 did not have MG shells before 1944! Where was this argument before? Or were they OK with it because they saw how weak the MG151/20 was?

Basically, the year of introduction of the M.Geschoss only comes into question after people realize that it's reintroduction could benefit the LW. This last point is what strikes me as funny... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jurinko
03-01-2005, 04:19 AM
http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/mauser-ammo.JPG

The text says "Friedrich under preparation for action, USSR".
The ammo sequence is armor piercing (dark sharp projectiles) and high explosive incendiary and minengeschoss with flat nose.
What more you need: Russian front, 1941-42, Friedrich´s nose gun MG 151/20.

Charos
03-01-2005, 04:21 AM
Firstly it was established by Oleg himself in 2002 via a forum post that in IL2 the MG151/20 had APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG belting.

Secondly it has been established by Oleg that the Gondola Belting was altered from that of the Hub/Wing cannon's at some point
(he did mention when it was but I cant remember).

The introduction of M.Geschoss occured with the MG FF/M and the BF109E4 in about May 1940.

To my knowledge you could not swap ammunition between the the MG FF/M and the MG/FF guns of the BF109E3 so if the new ammunition was not available the BF109E4's would have been stuck on the ground. There would not have been a case of useing up ammunition stores before the BF109E4 could use newer ammunition because the old ammunition would not load.

There may have been early BF109E4's fitted with plain MG FF guns - this I dont know.

I think its safe to assume the well before Barbarossa (A year later) M-Geeschoss would have been readily available.

tigertalon
03-01-2005, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jetbuff:
OK, I'm not sure, but I think I've confused some of you...

I'm saying that when Oleg insisted that the MG151/20 had a loadout of "APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG" no one said, where's the proof that the MG151/20 had MG shells in the first place?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case you must have missed one of the biggest threads here recently (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=1) in which SerpentBlade and me did not ask Oleg for proof that non-pod Mg151 contains MG shells, on contrary, we proved ther is NO MG shells in non-pods on first page and here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=5) . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
03-01-2005, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/mauser-ammo.JPG

The text says "Friedrich under preparation for action, USSR".
The ammo sequence is armor piercing (dark sharp projectiles) and high explosive incendiary and minengeschoss with flat nose.
What more you need: Russian front, 1941-42, Friedrich´s nose gun MG 151/20. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be interesting to know whether this was for the pods or not... Because usualy this sequence is stated as the one for pods. Anyway, I don't know how often there were pods used on Friedrich...

Jetbuff
03-01-2005, 04:30 AM
Please guys, read my post to the end. I'm with you in that the MG151/20 belting is wrong and needs to be fixed. I was poking fun at those who were trying to change the argument to whether hub-mounted MG151's used MG shells or not.

Nevermind, it's not funny any more... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff
03-01-2005, 04:41 AM
OK, last attempt at a clarification, after this I give up:

A. MG151/20 belt in PF is wrong for hub-mounted cannons as proven by industrious forum members and confirmed by Oleg. It should include MG rounds but it currently does not. Agreed.

B. Presence of MG rounds in all MG151/20 belts was not disputed by anyone before this revelation.

C. The same people who kept saying the MG151/20 is fine are now backtracking and trying to prevent it from being fixed by demanding that evidence be provided for MG rounds in hub-mounted MG151/20. Why did they not ask for this proof of MG before the bug was discovered? Funny, no?

D. MG rounds were present in MG/151 since at least '41. It is undeniable and, frankly, quite silly to demand more evidence for this.

E. Oleg's stand that he will not fix it is sorely disappointing. I hope he will reconsider.

JG54_Arnie
03-01-2005, 05:07 AM
Ok,

But isnt Oleg's statement about not changing anything based on his assumption that the current non-gunpod 151/20's do have MG shells being APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG and that also the gunspods now have the config without MG shells? Means that all we need is for Oleg to understand that what TT and SerpentBlade have done is uncover the current ammobelts which show that its the other way around than what Oleg says it should be... And thus the other way around than what Oleg thinks it is?

tigertalon
03-01-2005, 05:17 AM
Agree completely with both of you, Arnie and Jetbuff.

Jetbuff: Sorry if you considered my previous post sarcastic, I didn't want to be such.
Yes, if Oleg in initial release of Il2 already included MG shells into hub-cannon (which he did), he could do the same in FB, based on the same documents.

So -Arnie coorect me if I am wrong- like I said before, the question is:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Do Oleg even know there is NO MG shells in non-pod cannons? </span>

Because he maybe still thinks that we have APIT-HE-HE-API-HE in gunpods and APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG in all other Mg151/20.

jurinko
03-01-2005, 05:19 AM
tt,

no Friedrichs were equipped with gunpods.

To be frank, I read that some 240 Friedrichs were equipped with 15mm MG 151 pods, but never saw any picture of them.

Friedrich - 99,999% it has just nose gun.

BBB_Hyperion
03-01-2005, 06:27 AM
Some Documents so far for introduction of Mine and MX Shells.

The MX Shell came too late to have any effect as you can read here.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/MineMX.jpg

First known appearence was in Mai 1940 accoding to this document. Production started in april 1937.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Mineshell.jpg

jurinko
03-01-2005, 06:36 AM
the last document is exactly what is needed.

Chadburn
03-01-2005, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
Ok,

But isnt Oleg's statement about not changing anything based on his assumption that the current non-gunpod 151/20's do have MG shells being APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG and that also the gunspods now have the config without MG shells? Means that all we need is for Oleg to understand that what TT and SerpentBlade have done is uncover the current ammobelts which show that its the other way around than what Oleg says it should be... And thus the other way around than what Oleg thinks it is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed Arnie. That's the crux of the matter and has been since Serpentblade introduced the issue. I believe that's why he referred to it as a "bug". Whether Oleg will re-visit the matter is another question, though.

P.S. Jetbuff, I understood what you were getting at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Most of you have probably seen this, but for those who haven't, it underscores why people have requested that Oleg look closely at the non-gondola 20mm in PF:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/he-test.wmv

Here's the same wing mock-up being shot by .303, .50, 20mm AP and finally 20mm HE:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/wing-test.wmv

Blutarski2004
03-01-2005, 07:22 AM
Just for chuckles, check out Shores & Ring's book FIGHTERS OVER THE DESERT. They show photos of 109F4(/U4?) with 20mm underwing gondolas. This must be dated no later than mid-1942. I always thought that these kits did not appear on the scene until 1943, in a homeland defense response to 4-engined bombers.

RedNeckerson
03-01-2005, 09:50 AM
Wow, the proof in support of the MG shell really is without question.

Bsnakeman
03-01-2005, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/mauser-ammo.JPG

The text says "Friedrich under preparation for action, USSR".
The ammo sequence is armor piercing (dark sharp projectiles) and high explosive incendiary and minengeschoss with flat nose.
What more you need: Russian front, 1941-42, Friedrich´s nose gun MG 151/20. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



One thousand + words !


Best,

WWMaxGunz
03-01-2005, 03:35 PM
TT, Serpentblades ground impacts screenies didn't do it for me nearly as much as your
screenies of wing hits in arcade=1 mode. That had no real room for interpretation.
In fact, I have yet to see anyone dispute those screenshots or the making of them!
To the opposite, they have been roundly ignored by everyone disagreeing the issue.

BFS... What, are you trying to confuse them with facts? LOL!
They just won't look, and it will go away!

JG54_Arnie
03-02-2005, 06:32 AM
Have you even tried flying both configurations in question WWMaxGuns, then you'll see why there is no room left for interpretation... simply because its not there at all.

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2005, 06:47 AM
109 gunpods have it or we would be back to the old idea that it is undermodelled.
That is a form of interpretation. Another is trying to decide what those smoke puffs
at different distances on runways mean. Arcade bursts from POV of hits are much more
definite, the differences are very clear. That is why TT's screenshots convince me
and ask many here how hard I can be to convince!

JG54_Arnie
03-02-2005, 07:24 AM
hmm, might have read your post wrong then, since I though you were talking about TT's test also. Never mind then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
03-02-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
109 gunpods have it or we would be back to the old idea that it is undermodelled.
That is a form of interpretation. Another is trying to decide what those smoke puffs
at different distances on runways mean. Arcade bursts from POV of hits are much more
definite, the differences are very clear. That is why TT's screenshots convince me
and ask many here how hard I can be to convince! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, guys

Well, Arnie, you got it right. WWMaxGunz, I made both tests, the one in arcade=1 mode with wing hits and the one with smoke puffs on the runway. I agree with you, the one with wing hits is far more convincing.

Nevertheless, also the one with ground puffs:
I made it just to prove that those shells were indeed fired one after another in one burst (because it is impossible to get such a line of puffs other way). Because, in test with wing hits, I could hypothetically "cheat", not firing shells one after another, but, if there were MG shells also in Fw wing cannons, simply skiping them, so, there would be APIT-HE-HE-(skipped-MG-MG)-APIT-HE - exactly what we have in non-gunpod Mg151/20.

But, of course, that's not the case, I have also tracks for anybody interested.

And, this test with ground puffs, I made it at least 5 times with each aircraft (Bf109G2, G6, G6late, G6AS, Fw190A6, A8, D9) (really easy to make - FMB, start over tarmac, dive and shoot...). The result was ALWAYS without exception the same. Shells no.4 and no.5 from gunpod were always different compared to others. All other puffs (APIT, HE, API) looked the same regardless of the range, speed of AC, angle of hitting etc etc. Alway the same in at least 50 tries! I posted those screenshots just to motivate people to check it themselves (coz, like I said, really easy test) and to make sure, there is an issue with Mg151.

Now I really hope this thing gets fixed... Just for a second, can you imagine Fw190 with firepower of HurriMkIIc? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Enofinu
03-03-2005, 01:22 AM
why in the heck we have to proove that there were used mine shells in nosecannons on 109 and not only in wingpods? same thing with FW190??? of course they did use them, thats where they (germans) based their weapon effeciency, on CHEMICAL ENERGY! why would anyone even think that it was only for special purpose? u silly humies,.

Fish6891
03-03-2005, 04:43 AM
Email your findings to Oleg TT, you seem to be at the head of all the testing, maybe they'll see a bug and fix it.

tigertalon
03-03-2005, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fish6891:
Email your findings to Oleg TT, you seem to be at the head of all the testing, maybe they'll see a bug and fix it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did email a lot of scrshoots and trks to 1c, altough I had little hope of my mail to be read. But Oleg's answer to this problem in this thread came just after this mail was read (I had mail tracking enabled)!

I am really glad to see that devs actually read and consider testing etc. from users.

Really nice 1C and Oleg, we appreciate it a lot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Jetbuff
03-03-2005, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
I am really glad to see that devs actually read and consider testing etc. from users.

Really nice 1C and Oleg, we appreciate it a lot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Definitely. Still, I can't be anything but disappointed by the response that it's too much work to fix. This is a major issue - as big as they come imo - and therefore deserves the effort.

Jaws2002
03-05-2005, 07:55 AM
This looks like it turned in a big missunderstanding.

As Oleg said old Il2 Code has this sequence:

APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

Well we don't want a new combination, just to have this one. As it is now by some mistake in coding when the ammo loadout was done the two Mine shells disappeared.
I personally don't look for a new ammo belt composition, Just to put back the Mine shells and have exactly what the game is advertising.
I have the idea that Oleg thinks we want a completely new composition. To me the sequence: APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG is just perfect We just have to put those MG's back in there . As it is now the normal Mg151/20 <span class="ev_code_RED">HAS NO MINE SHELLS</span>.

Mr. Oleg now in the game we don't have the belt composition you said we have. PLEASE just have a look and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">compare what we have with what you said we have.</span>

karost
03-05-2005, 04:00 PM
First , I would like to Thanks crazyivan1970 and Oleg for response 151/20 issure
151/20 take time over "2 years" for confirm that 151/20 no MG in coding


and this solustion quite very nice way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
Oleg, this is the part from the ammo types you presented some 2 years ago.
---------------------
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
----------------

Yes it is close to the ammo sequence for the Eastern front, which was posted by butch2k - AP-HE-MG-MG-MG.

But the problem is, we have no MG shells in cannons in Fw 190, Me-110 and nose cannons in Me-109. Our present combination (APIT-HE-HE-AP-HE) is maybe the one against IL-2 or lightly armored units but against aircrafts it weakens the efficiency of Mauser considerably.

Strange enough, on the other side the MK103 as A2G weapon has 75% of its load High-explosive, so it is ineffective against armored objects which it should be used against. But that´s another story.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would be good if you will send me this table on PF address.
The I will not spend the time to extract this data and converrt again from source code in readbale format, like above.

Agains armored targeds would be effective APx shells but not the explosive, of couse it is right if explosive shells are not 152 mm caliber from ISU-152. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

we hope , we no need to wait more 1.5 year to have MG in 151/20 in BOB


all over two years of 151/20 posts , with out helping hand from many friend who concern about this problem I,we may not see the right thing at the right place.


Regards.

LLv34_Stafroty
03-06-2005, 03:00 PM
APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG - MG wish that in use on all mg151/20 cannons in game, not only in pods on 109.


i think FW190 with MGFF cannons use mine shellscos its much more effective than mg151/20 cannons,
am i wrong on that?

Von_Rat
03-06-2005, 11:41 PM
i dunno bout fw, but i was flying me109e online tonite, those mgff are just perfect. i wish the doras mg151 worked as good.

Hristo_
03-07-2005, 06:46 AM
Uh-oh, such a big difference ?! MG round 4-5 times more effective than APIT and HE ?

Then it IS A BIG ISSUE. Sorry, but leaving a sim with such historical inconsistency actually hurting the whole planeset of one country has no excuse.

Am I polite enough ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-07-2005, 09:12 AM
This thread is fascinating and it is also very depressing. Why should the dev team be evasive and defensive when it comes to pointing out this problem in the game? I cant see how it is constructive to ask that the same people who spent so much of their own spare time proving that there is a problem in the first place go again to find extra information when it seems that the answer is obvious for those who have studied the evidence already posted.

I get the feeling that no matter what evidence is posted the dev team will refute it and come up with another argument.

This will string out until BoB is released but I see that as avoiding the problem. I feel very strongly that telling us that it'll be fixed in BoB is an assumption that we will buy it regardless. What next ? Bob's .303's underpowered for over 2 years and then we are told to buy the next game while that is fixed.

Cant see that happening can you?

WWMaxGunz
03-07-2005, 10:10 AM
Nothing British will be underpowered. Be Sure.

Werre_Fsck
03-08-2005, 11:39 PM
BUMP! Lest they forget!

Hristo_
03-09-2005, 03:13 AM
It is Wednesday and we haven't forgotten about CrazyIvan's promise ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hetzer_II
03-09-2005, 04:12 AM
bump bump bump


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

karost
03-09-2005, 06:34 AM
every old hand friends still remember when you join IL2 original online and take BF 109g2 shooting LaGG3 or P-39 with 151/20 main gun we can saw MG shell activated and burned LaGG3 or P-39 right ? but after we got IL2 FB there is no MG shell in main gun just only in gun pods that show MG activated .... since then 151/20 begin post alot of good history information about 151/20 ..... two years ..... two years with many friends from many countries helping hand by hand show to dev.team what we miss.

I would like to replicate post two good document here again :
this picture from jurinko ....I like it most ....look... how terrible for ammo belt for 151/20
http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/mauser-ammo.JPG

and this picture from BBB_Hyperion ... it is very good materail for BOB dev. team .... don't miss to put it in your work... ok ?
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Mineshell.jpg
( dam.... I can't read german... someone help me in english... I just know only one about "M" ) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

from this thread I would like to thanks crazyivan1970 again hundred times , crazyivan1970 you are the MAN http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

S!

Hetzer_II
03-09-2005, 06:42 AM
"dam.... I can't read german... someone help me in english... I just know only one about "M" "

No Problem.. the text is written in french...

;-)

Russian_Ivan
03-09-2005, 06:47 AM
karost, the last document is in French.

karost
03-09-2005, 07:17 AM
Russian_Ivan , Hetzer_II ..... Thanks to correct me from my fool.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

by the way....How to say "Thank you " in french.....

S~

Edit:
Ok friends I found Translation website here http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/ , this website can translate form many language to many language...!well not bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I know now How to say "Thank you" in french...
"Merci..."

and now I reading website "http://www.munavia-21.org/20x81mauser151.htm" from french to english ...Wow.... it's work..!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
03-09-2005, 07:25 AM
Thank this guy for collecting it.

There are much more on his site.
http://www.munavia-21.org/20x81mauser151.htm

And someone on german forum posted it but couldnt read the text i guess or didnt know that the data of first appearence is needed. I had this file already stored for a long time but wasnt aware that the appearence time stands on it.

The special thing on this document is not the common knowledge about the mine shell but the indication of the first usage of this type of ammo set in Mai 40 on the MG FFM but production started in april 1937.

There is maybe another way to find out when the excat day of offical service was. Countercheck channel airfields equipment lists and Plane Equipment lists if there are still some.

Hetzer_II
03-09-2005, 02:21 PM
oh, thats quiet easy....

Thank you=merci in french....


Good to be european and to speak more than 3 languages.. ;-)

Greets to all americans!!!


;-)

Hristo_
03-10-2005, 12:34 AM
any news from Oleg ?

Codex1971
03-10-2005, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Wait for the next sim.
in Il-2 series will be no changes in weapon loadouts and ammoloads. This is my last word about this. Trust me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that answer your question Hristo

Hetzer_II
03-10-2005, 05:20 AM
If both(weapons and belts)are definitioned as seperated classes and both types of belts(one with and one without MG)realy excist, than all you have to change is the connection of the two classes...
I cant see any reasobn why this should not be done. That is more important than yp80,i185 and so on.. these took several hundret hours to implement, to change the belts would need about 5 minutes....

But shure, Big Sitting Bull has the last word and we were wrong since FB.

;-)->Joke dont takt it to serious...

LLv34_Stafroty
03-10-2005, 07:52 AM
so big O wants us (axis side pilots) to buy other flight sim to get same treatment as we get with il-2 series sims?
Thx man!

Hristo_
03-10-2005, 12:22 PM
I think everyone posting here will buy any sim Oleg makes, regardless. Oleg knows that too. What he wanted to say is probably that his team doesn't have time for more patches. However, if they are doing an add-on, what can be more important than fixing the single most used gun in the game ?

What we ask is a minor fix that would eliminate a big bug. And since the "fix" is already in the game somehow, it is even easier.

Jetbuff
03-10-2005, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
I think everyone posting here will buy any sim Oleg makes, regardless. Oleg knows that too. What he wanted to say is probably that his team doesn't have time for more patches. However, if they are doing an add-on, what can be more important than fixing the single most used gun in the game ?

What we ask is a minor fix that would eliminate a big bug. And since the "fix" is already in the game somehow, it is even easier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spot on Hristo. Spot on! If they're already doing an add-on, how hard can it be to tack on this minor fix for such a major bug?

WWMaxGunz
03-10-2005, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
I think everyone posting here will buy any sim Oleg makes, regardless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Always before, I bought immediately.
Next time, I wait for reviews and patches.
That gives me many months before I have to upgrade anyway.

The reputation tarnishes with so many things like this.
IL2 only needed a couple very minor 3D model DM tweaks to stay on its own pedestal.
But we get FB instead. With FB ending in AEP, that is very good except for 151/20
ammo and minor others that spoil the whole.

Can't make inside cockpit compromise for FW windshield view but can make whole extra
planes. Yes and add a modified load 151/20 and get ammo mixed so majority are weak.
At least I-16 model was made more full, up to standard.

PF needs a few things worked and indications are it will all not be, just buy BoB.....
So I think I will wait on BoB till the dust settles and smoke has cleared.
Sorry but I'm tired of this. All the sims I ever bought now fill a shelf and there
are almost none that survive as being complete with no big faults and even then, only
after patches (honestly to be expected, is okay) and most by years of community work.
I am FAR more willing to overlook lower technology than handicapped sides. FW-190's
are the better half of all German fighters and they are forced to be one eye
blindfolded and one arm tied and kept that way by 'decisions' in spite of all that
is raised and shown. Extra speed does not make up and extra turn has been for all,
frankly I think it has been for the worst, FB on. Give a little and take something
else bigger. Oh yeah, go run out and buy the next one when this is left this way.
I think not. Next one, I wait and see.

Codex1971
03-10-2005, 10:45 PM
Well there's capitalism for ya... The Russians have embrassed it to the fullest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hristo_
03-10-2005, 11:56 PM
Well, depressing. If we remember still existant fuel leak bug and Fw 190 front view, it definitely isn't encouraging.

However, some things got fixed. For example, the oversensitive gunsight in Fw 190 when hit has been fixed. Energy retention and other performance parameters have also been improved since Il-2.

I'm still hoping.

WWMaxGunz
03-11-2005, 12:34 AM
FW energy retention was fine in IL2 as long as you did not try to turn too hard.
It was the same for all. Learn to start turns right and it was great. But most sim
fliers don't bother, they yank the stick and expect good results.

What we got from the complaints? Easier to fly, yes. Also overdone climbs especially
at low speed. B!tching and moaning about other planes turning too fast with no speed
loss... well duu-uh, the change was for all so all got exaggerated ease. Also the gap
of acceleration and speed closed some over all, FW lost more than it gained unless you
couldn't fly it right in the first place. The differences were more clear and advantages
more playable if you took the time to learn each plane well and not jump one to the next
and treat differences as minor "oh, it just ~this~ better is all".

For me, those changes could have been left to a toggle. RB2 and RB3 had one for two FM's,
one for authentic and the other for gamers.

JG54_Arnie
03-11-2005, 02:51 AM
Hmm, I dont know about all this talk in between, the situation as it is now is that we try to get Oleg to understand that the situation for the 151/20 is different than what he really thinks it is.

So its no use quoting posts from him where he says he will not change the guns, posted at a point where he himself is thinking that the beltloading is what he thinks it is (namely including MG shells). From his point of view we were whining about this gun even though it had the MG shells in the belt. So I guess the combination of people simply whining about it being ineffective and at the same time failing to understand that its due to a bug could have ticked Oleg off too much?
But hopefully Oleg will have gotten the point by now, the possibility is certainly there that it's gonna be fixed in the next patch.
We just cant expect a immediate answer in return from the man, he is busy enough as it is and as long as the problem gets fixed I dont really care if he posts here or not. It would be nice, I agree, but not necessary.

As for future posts about this, in case it doesnt get fixed:
-No evidence is needed for showing Oleg that the guns need MG shells, he posted himself already that they should be in the belt for the normal 151/20.
-Focussing on the fact that the 151/20 is undermodelled isnt necessary either, according to Oleg the gun should have MG shells, so the way this gun is intended to be its not undermodelled.
-We should rather just focus on the fact that currently those MG shells are missing and stop confusing the subject by posting about the previous two points..


Just my two cents.

tigertalon
03-11-2005, 03:21 AM
Arnie, my words exactly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ratsack
03-11-2005, 04:44 AM
I think there€s a fundamental misunderstanding of Oleg€s answer here. This is the bit everyone€s got their panties in bunch over:

€˜That to escape such situation in future like with these gunpods, we plan to make adjustable loadout of cannons and MGs for the BoB series. But user may change it only in case if he is commander of a squad (maybe even in the case of Wing commander) or if he is playing in simple dogfight only.
In all other cases the load of ammo type will be defined in missions (by other words by new fuctions in FMB)
But in the current sim it will be as it is. The code type limit us to make such function already now.€


To me, this says, he€s not going to give us the option of selecting the ammunition loadout. A lot of people here have interpreted this as meaning he won€t change the ammunition load on non-wing-pod mounted MG151s. In my view, because the paragraph starts off talking about a new feature available in BoB, the line €˜But in the current sim it will be as it is€ seems to me to also be talking about the new feature in BoB.

I suspect that if he meant he wasn€t going to address the ammo load issue in FB, he would have said it in either of the previous two paras, when that was what he was discussing. The misunderstandings started with the 6th post in this thread, and has been assumed as fact ever since. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Deep breath, people.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Hristo_
03-11-2005, 05:09 AM
Wise words, Ratsack. You'd qualify as Oleg's official representative in my book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG54_Arnie
03-11-2005, 05:37 AM
Only partly true I think, Ratpack, read this page again and especially Olegs posts ofcourse: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3821034482&p=3

He did say he isnt going to change anything in IL2/PF and if you read the last post on that page you'll see that he means that for a normal 151/20 with 2 MG shells.. and what applies here is what I posted a little bit above this post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
03-11-2005, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ratsack:
I think there€s a fundamental misunderstanding of Oleg€s answer here. This is the bit everyone€s got their panties in bunch over:

€˜That to escape such situation in future like with these gunpods, we plan to make adjustable loadout of cannons and MGs for the BoB series. But user may change it only in case if he is commander of a squad (maybe even in the case of Wing commander) or if he is playing in simple dogfight only.
In all other cases the load of ammo type will be defined in missions (by other words by new fuctions in FMB)
But in the current sim it will be as it is. The code type limit us to make such function already now.€


To me, this says, he€s not going to give us the option of selecting the ammunition loadout. A lot of people here have interpreted this as meaning he won€t change the ammunition load on non-wing-pod mounted MG151s. In my view, because the paragraph starts off talking about a new feature available in BoB, the line €˜But in the current sim it will be as it is€ seems to me to also be talking about the new feature in BoB.

I suspect that if he meant he wasn€t going to address the ammo load issue in FB, he would have said it in either of the previous two paras, when that was what he was discussing. The misunderstandings started with the 6th post in this thread, and has been assumed as fact ever since. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Deep breath, people.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We are not asking for the option of choosing ammo. We want Oleg to change it for us, from APIT-HE-HE-API-HE (which is wrong) to APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG (which is one of right options) WITHOUT player's option to change it. And, like Arnie posted, he claimed he will not change anything thinking that there are MG shells in non-pods.

karost
03-11-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
APIT-HE-HE-API-HE (which is wrong) to APIT-HE-HE-MG-MG (which is one of right options)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree....
need prove ?...it easy re-install IL2 original with patch 1.2 and test mg151/20 and keep track or screen shot then test again the same thing in current version

I belive we have many friends will show this pictures for us, including me.

2 years is enought but have to wait next 1.5 years that sad...
this bug is easy to fix but why Mr.O keep abandon ?... why...?

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

Roy_15JG52
03-11-2005, 02:45 PM
http://server2.uploadit.org/files/roy15jg52com-ammobelt3.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
03-11-2005, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
I think everyone posting here will buy any sim Oleg makes, regardless. Oleg knows that too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Omit me from that particular list. Be sure.

Very convenient for Oleg to ignore people knowing that they'll buy it anyway as there is no alternative; is it just my imagination that the emphasis shifted to Western Europe with the "demise" of CFS3? The entire combat sim market is practically sewn up...as are the punters who've been with this game for some time. Still, money talks - realism walks.

Of course, there is always an alternative - you can just do as the 70,000 did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That way, at least you get what you pay for http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But I digress....Expect nothing - they ain't going to fix it because they would have commented on it by now if they were going to have a change of mind.

Just get ready for more bugs for axis with the next patch then, while you are asking to have those fixed, you can save your money up for BoB + the new rig to go with it just so you can have more of the same.

Cheers,
Norris

Werre_Fsck
03-11-2005, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
I think everyone posting here will buy any sim Oleg makes, regardless. Oleg knows that too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite frankly I for one will NOT buy BoB unless PF is fixed first.

If BoB is riddled with the IL-2 series problems, I most probably will not buy it EVER.

Yes I love IL-2 series. I've never played any game even 5% of the time I've spent on virtual sky... but....

I'm fed up with the way LW was treated. It took several years to remove the muzzle flash, clean the 109 canopy glass. 190 bar was never fixed. Every patch brought different bugs - always hindering the _LW_ side. Remember early G6 models? Most common 109 and totally porked. Remember russian inlines vs german inlines? One took 1 hit to be unusable - the other took whole ammo belt. AS PROVED ON FORUMS, WITH TRACKS AND PHOTOS. Remember the tracer thing? Only visible bullets were calculated at first (changed with FB). Russian guns had n times the visible bullets -> easier to hit. Remember the trajectories? Russian bullets flew over 1km longer than german bullets seemingly without losing speed! YES most of these were IL-2 era problems but the basic problem has always remained the same:

Bugs on allied side always make some plane uber. P-39, La-5FN, Hurricane... you name it. Bugs on LW side always make the plane WORSE.

WTF is wrong with the beta testing scheme at Maddox?

Back to This Day, also called the 'Now':

Screwing up the MAIN Air-to-air armament of LW (in the whole war period) and then refusing to fix it is not only intolerable, it underlines and confirms what we have always suspected: BIAS.

Yes. B. I. A. S.
Pro-Soviet Bias.
Rewriting history.
BIAS.
BIAS BIAS BIAS.

Now go on and insert those crying baby luftwhine photos as you always do, or lock this thread down since it got too loud, or ban my user account, or edit this message for some inane reason.

The situation is UNACCEPTABLE. I'm a buying customer and I want fair treatment of main LW planes and main LW weapons. I don't want uberification, I don't want "balance", I just want the game to at least try to be a SIMULATOR first and a russian ego-boosting magnet second.

Werre_Fsck
03-11-2005, 07:30 PM
And as a followup, a clarification:

I actually enjoy the current patch apart from the MG-151/20 M-geschoss bug and the FW fuel bug and some P-38 issues. Best patch since 1.11 FB IMO.

Just One More Patch to make it more correct.
I'd rather pay for PF addon with new planes than a whole new sim.

faustnik
03-11-2005, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
Yes. B. I. A. S.
Pro-Soviet Bias.
Rewriting history.
BIAS.
BIAS BIAS BIAS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bias is in the way you are viewing the sim Werre-Fisk. Your expectaions have not been met, so you claim the sim os bias.

LW a/c are very capable in PF, have been since IL-2 1.0. The Fw190 has improved with just about every patch. Be patient with the very few remaining issues.

With the support we have gotten from 1C, I will buy any of their future products with confidence.

karost
03-12-2005, 12:29 AM
Now I don't care there will fix next LW bugs or not

I don't think 1C, will care , coz 80% of IL2 all release income came from offline players ( that's why ...offline gun for LW stuff seem no problem ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


yes , 1C fix€s a lot of bug in LW stuff like bf109G6 and FW190 more maneuver etc and etc , well .... But that are their jobs that have to do. If the company need to survive for a long run they have to maintain their customer-happy this strategy-service is the key that can bring their next-products into the international-game market.... that mean a BIG money.


I respect a many online-players who keep play LW side in VOW VEF1,2 and Bellum also GG and WC , event they know about 151/20 M-geschoss bug ,but they still keep play on LW side and not change to red side. Because they have only "ONE" good game like "this" in the market, so they have to keep play with FUN and SUFFER at the same time with a big - sport mine.


I don't think 1C is only one company can make a good flight sim like IL2, many s/w company are looking and learning the way that 1C did.

There have a lot of wise customers who don't like to lose their money for the product that not make them happy. We not only lose money for a game but lose a lot of "TIMES" to play with our friends.


When.....we have a next choice, in HL, we will see the difference....

Regards,

mazexx
03-12-2005, 01:37 AM
OK lets summarize:

Everyone agrees that the IL2 series is THE best WWII flight simulator that has ever been released. There is absolutely no competition.

We soon have over 200 wonderfully modelled planes.

We have a heap of maps from all over the world.

We have free online play with up to 128 players.

We have a developer that during the years have really tried to please all, ie hardcore gamers and sunday offline palyers (yes they are important too for getting the cash to survive).

Still - we everyday see threats from players that the are NOT going to put up a measly 39 bucks or whatever it may be for BoB because of some bug they have found in this GIFT we have received for some lousy bucks.

For the joy I have gotten from the IL2 series, even tough I DO AGREE ABOUT THE MG151 ISSUES, I will gladly buy every flight sim Oleg will release in the future, even if is a Cessna/747 simulator where you fly from A to B http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Does anyone interested in WWII flight sims remember what it was like before IL2? The best WWII flight sim series we had then was CFS... Yes it was!

Call me whatever you like but there has to be some perspective in these discussions. Oleg has since long left the building after beeing threatened and pushed around...

What do we gain from that?

P.S There is no plane I fear more in this game than the "under modelled" FW190...

/mazex

NorrisMcWhirter
03-12-2005, 03:51 AM
Your first point was wrong:

"Everyone agrees that the IL2 series is THE best WWII flight simulator that has ever been released.

It used to be - now it's nothing more than Secret Allied Weapons over Moscow/Caens/Okinawa.

"There is absolutely no competition."

Yep; that's why precisely the reason why things have, can and will get ever more biased.

All the rest of the points chiefly apply if you fly allied (apart from the number of planes but most of those are just variants so 200 sounds a lot better than it actually is).

Then again, I suppose it is good, for some, to see those 'wonderfully modelled' axis planes going down, running out of fuel or becoming unflyable with just a few hits. The only reason why imbalances haven't been seen in online servers is because the better pilots tend to stick to axis planes as they offer more of a challenge.

Perhaps you should see it from the perspective of other people where they have seen what was a great game do down the pan in favour of simply shifting more copies to those with 'history channel' mentaltities.

Quantity rarely does equal quality; this game is a shining example of that.

Nah, I'll stick PF out by taking the next patch of the items that were owed from 6 months ago + the compensation (as I see it) and that'll be it.

Norris

PS: If you fear the 190, just hop into a vvs creation - I suggest a LaGG3 - and you'll stand a lot better chance.

carguy_
03-12-2005, 04:03 AM
A thought that Oleg will not change the ammobelt because he doesn`t want to is hardly believable unless I read his own font.

There has to be another reason.Eveb though the ALLIED,not Russian,bias is there it is a fact that LW planes have been improved patch after patch with few big exceptions.

Don`t lie to yourselves dudes.If you want sims to develop I recommend putting your bucks in 1C pocket because there isn`t any perspective of good competition for BoB.

Unless 1C:MG crosses the red line(big bugs,open code,more bias)I will buy whatever sim they create.

JG54_Arnie
03-12-2005, 04:09 AM
Hmm, you're overrating your own(?) and the LW flyers abilities by a lot NorrisMcWhirter, how often do you try flying on the red side of things?

The 109 is quite uber at the moment if you ask me, with its MK108 especially since its such a easy to hit and hard hitting weapon. And better pilots on the axis side? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif hahaha, comon man, how often do we see 10 109's hording on the six of one little spit thats on fire already? Just as much if not more often than spitties on a 109's six man.

Maybe you're just thinking about perfect German planes too much, cause you fail to see their good points obviously.

I love flying the FW on GG these days, but often enough I have to switch to red because people seem to be joining the server without looking at the numbers and they hop into their little 109 and blast away. But its a good thing as well, I like flying on the other side sometimes and when you're on the receiving end of 20's and often 108's it shows that the LW flyers dont really have a hard time in this game. And I must say I enjoy shooting down LW planes, their profiles are really cool, even more so when parts are flying off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Dont get me wrong, I hope Oleg is gonna find the 151/20 bug and crush it! And if he does, the LW is gonna be a really really dangerous opponent, imagine four 151/20's with MG shells on target? Thats gonna be some sick firepower man.

Well, enough rambling, back to usefull stuff again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-12-2005, 04:21 AM
Overrating? Where did I say that? I suggested a possible reason as to why things were still in balance even though they have shifted to the allies in favour. Interesting that you have no counter to the other statements and choose that point only.

I can see your own bias when you suggest that I think German planes are 'perfect'; to put things into perspective, I think they are as perfect as the Oleg's record on sorting bugs out fairly. i.e. far from it.

Also, well done in the 109. I don't fly it much because I don't like it. Odd, from someone who thinks all German planes are perfect.

But still, you have your opinion and I have mine.

To answer Carguy, I have no interest in putting money in 1C's pocket if we can expect to see these kinds of "development" in "flight simulation." If they sort the bugs out that they've introduced of late/which have been in for considerable amount of time, I might have my faith restored but I knew which way the game was going when 'Patriot Fighters' was announced and I said as much back then that things were going downhill and we would be heading for a more biased situation.

IMO, the pressure is on 1C. I'm sure UBI/shareholders/EA want to recover the cash from the licensing debacle so it looks like it's 'whatever it takes'.

Norris

JG54_Arnie
03-12-2005, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Overrating? Where did I say that? I suggested a possible reason as to why things were still in balance even though they have shifted to the allies in favour. Interesting that you have no counter to the other statements and choose that point only.

I can see your own bias when you suggest that I think German planes are 'perfect'; to put things into perspective, I think they are as perfect as the Oleg's record on sorting bugs out fairly. i.e. far from it.

Also, well done in the 109. I don't fly it much because I don't like it. Odd, from someone who thinks all German planes are perfect.

But still, you have your opinion and I have mine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt say you said overrated, I said you are overrating, something different, its a statement I made. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Very interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So where is my bias?

I'm just pointing out that the axis are not really unbalanced compared to the allies side, IMO. As for other points? Which do you want me to respond on? I'm confused, do you mean the fuel leaks, winghits and such? I see the fuelthing as annoying, but have you flown other planes, some russian and allied planes also end up with a lot of drag when hit in the wings, yaks for example. Thats why I asked you if you ever flew red, so you see their problems when under fire. The P-47 also loses its aileron controls easily when hit, just like the FW.

So answer these questions please, what planes do you fly? Do you only fly FW? And do you ever fly on the red side?

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Overrating? Where did I say that? I suggested a possible reason as to why things were still in balance even though they have shifted to the allies in favour. Interesting that you have no counter to the other statements and choose that point only.

I can see your own bias when you suggest that I think German planes are 'perfect'; to put things into perspective, I think they are as perfect as the Oleg's record on sorting bugs out fairly. i.e. far from it.

Also, well done in the 109. I don't fly it much because I don't like it. Odd, from someone who thinks all German planes are perfect.

But still, you have your opinion and I have mine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt say you said overrated, I said you are overrating, something different, its a statement I made. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Very interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So where is my bias?

I'm just pointing out that the axis are not really unbalanced compared to the allies side, IMO. As for other points? Which do you want me to respond on? I'm confused, do you mean the fuel leaks, winghits and such? I see the fuelthing as annoying, but have you flown other planes, some russian and allied planes also end up with a lot of drag when hit in the wings, yaks for example. Thats why I asked you if you ever flew red, so you see their problems when under fire. The P-47 also loses its aileron controls easily when hit, just like the FW.

So answer these questions please, what planes do you fly? Do you only fly FW? And do you ever fly on the red side? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i fly all planes, and i think if u fly only 1 plane type u get paranoid. lw have the fastest planes (190, and often 109) and best climbing (mw50 109)
109 is too good in some area's, and too bad in others

and for sure yak has worse wing damage than 190, it can take damage so that u cant unturn it and u spiral dive into the ground...

lw fliers think they have it harder and there planes have gotten worse? truth is they probably better, but against better planes, russian stuff has gotten worse since pf, even the non uber planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

western planes can perform at any alt mostly, whereas russian planes above 2k are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif and above 3 or 4k are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

on the engines strength, now lagg3's engine fails with a few hits, as does la7. 190A keeps on chuggin along, far better than any other engine, i can email u tracks if u want

carguy_
03-12-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
western planes can perform at any alt mostly, whereas russian planes above 2k are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif and above 3 or 4k are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK Mig3,La is Russian.Acceleration and max speed are bad above 4km but maneuvering suffers marginal penalty up to 6km.Stall fights are well at advantage in favor of VVS fighters up to 6km.Also you don`t fight a Yak at co E state below 6km if you want to live.If you meet a VVS plane at co E state at same alt the combat is over,you must disengage through a dive.Level up at 760kph@2800m and there are already Yaks waiting there.

Besides,VVS has the P39 which is the most fearsome enemy until Yak9U becomes available.

Face them all with a Me109G6early or FW190A8 through say 30 sorties and come back and talk how it was.

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 10:31 AM
that AI?

when i fly vvs aircraft they lose engine power, so acceloration, turn all become much less, human vs human a 109 could probably outmanover yak and lagg above 3k, i havent tried it, but i know those feel SO bad when u start going higher, bleed tons of speed in turn...

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 10:32 AM
mig3 was meant as a high alt plane wasnt it?
la5 was "all altitude" plane, if i remmber what a russian pilot said

NorrisMcWhirter
03-12-2005, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Overrating? Where did I say that? I suggested a possible reason as to why things were still in balance even though they have shifted to the allies in favour. Interesting that you have no counter to the other statements and choose that point only.

I can see your own bias when you suggest that I think German planes are 'perfect'; to put things into perspective, I think they are as perfect as the Oleg's record on sorting bugs out fairly. i.e. far from it.

Also, well done in the 109. I don't fly it much because I don't like it. Odd, from someone who thinks all German planes are perfect.

But still, you have your opinion and I have mine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt say you said overrated, I said you are overrating, something different, its a statement I made. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Very interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So where is my bias?

I'm just pointing out that the axis are not really unbalanced compared to the allies side, IMO. As for other points? Which do you want me to respond on? I'm confused, do you mean the fuel leaks, winghits and such? I see the fuelthing as annoying, but have you flown other planes, some russian and allied planes also end up with a lot of drag when hit in the wings, yaks for example. Thats why I asked you if you ever flew red, so you see their problems when under fire. The P-47 also loses its aileron controls easily when hit, just like the FW.

So answer these questions please, what planes do you fly? Do you only fly FW? And do you ever fly on the red side? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mainly flew the 190 but, failing that, my next choice would be red in terms of the P51 (because I regard it as similar). I also flew the P47, I16, Ki84, 109G2, Zero, Yak9. In fact, I'd fly anything which negates your argument.

I don't regard the P51 as strong when hit in the engine but that would seem reasonable. The P47 is relatively tough, as it supposedly should be. The 190 was also known for being quite a tough aircraft but that isn't the case nowadays with fuel problems and pyrotechnics courtesy of Oleg's World of Wonder (TM).

But what's new? The 190 has always suffered during the so-called development of this game and your suggestion that Yaks suffer from wing damage more than 190s is, quite frankly, laughable.

Like I said, I'll resume flying when the next patch is ever released (how many months has it been to get the aircraft promised at PF release time?) and bollocks to the rest of it.

Ta
Norris

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 10:43 AM
whens the last time u flew yak? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

im wondering if damage model isnt done right, so the armour is all in the front of the aircraft, from rear or side, its not tough...
from the front, its like a rock, massivly better than anything else...

if u gimme your email, ill send u tracks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
but i couldnt get arcade arrows to work in the tracks i did of the onwhine test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

anarchy52
03-12-2005, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
when i fly vvs aircraft they lose engine power, so acceloration, turn all become much less, human vs human a 109 could probably outmanover yak and lagg above 3k, i havent tried it, but i know those feel SO bad when u start going higher, bleed tons of speed in turn... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong, be sure

In real life probably, in FB definite no

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 03:00 PM
<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 p1ngu666:
when i fly vvs aircraft they lose engine power, so acceloration, turn all become much less, human vs human a 109 could probably outmanover yak and lagg above 3k, i havent tried it, but i know those feel SO bad when u start going higher, bleed tons of speed in turn... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong, be sure

In real life probably, in FB definite no <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, they are deffinatly worse than at low alt...

JG54_Arnie
03-12-2005, 03:46 PM
Sounds like we need to setup some 1v1 fights! I dare to say onto you mortals that the 109 G2 out stall turns em all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Edit: Any alt that is. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2005, 07:07 PM
Forum opposition answer to well defined and strongly shown error that cuts major power of
most used, most useful main gun of one country is "I still fear the FW's most.".

What is that? German planes still effective, that makes this supposed HISTORIC SIM right?

Forum members opposed to fix, answer is now effectively the words, GAME BALANCE.

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Forum opposition answer to well defined and strongly shown error that cuts major power of
most used, most useful main gun of one country is "I still fear the FW's most.".

What is that? German planes still effective, that makes this supposed HISTORIC SIM right?

Forum members opposed to fix, answer is now effectively the words, GAME BALANCE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

on the other side, game balence is why some lufties dont want raf aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

g2 ingame is oh so nearly uber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
03-12-2005, 08:15 PM
Personally, I welcome RAF aircraft - the more the merrier providing they are modelled correcly + their addition doesn't cause new axis bugs. Unfortunately, it seems less likely that will be the case these days.

I already said that I'm more interested in having some realism rather than artificial 'balance'. We already get that because people omit the 262 etc from servers as it wasn't widely deployed but we also have the laughable situation of an incorrect 151/20.

Is that balance?

Of course, we could go into dodgy fuel and poor reliability due to slave labour/poor supply of materials for LW but we know that these effects are not modelled for anyone in the game, particularly the quality of early VVS offerings.

Norris

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2005, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Forum opposition answer to well defined and strongly shown error that cuts major power of
most used, most useful main gun of one country is "I still fear the FW's most.".

What is that? German planes still effective, that makes this supposed HISTORIC SIM right?

Forum members opposed to fix, answer is now effectively the words, GAME BALANCE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

on the other side, game balence is why some lufties dont want raf aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

g2 ingame is oh so nearly uber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make my point good.
None of that has anything real to do with the ammo mix. It is just diversion.

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 09:25 PM
tbh i just want stuff correct, maybe some bias for bombers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i think some lw fliers are really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif cos they dont get the results hartman or whatever got.

u can do well, even if u choose a bizare plane, often because u did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fehler
03-12-2005, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think some lw fliers are really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif cos they dont get the results hartman or whatever got.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they are mad because they want historic modelling; in this case for the 151/20! They want the attention that was afforded the .50 cal issue! And what they dont want are idiots that think just because something is good enough that "Good enough" means correct.

Hey, if the Spit couldnt turn, but I could make an online track that it could shoot down another fighter, would that make it "Good enough" to have it like that in the sim? Answer: No. Reason: Not historically correct.

Do you understand the difference?

p1ngu666
03-12-2005, 11:14 PM
yeah fehler i get ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but the ppl i mean would use mk108 as long as it was best anyways...

and, im not saying mg151 shouldnt have mine shells http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

there are some advantages to current mix tho, i guess, less spread from different volocities of the diff rounds, and HE will be more effective, sometimes, in theory anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

just there are some, not all by any means, who think that german stuff should be best whatever, and by a large margin, even if irl it wasnt....

u get that for all sides tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

btw, when i said results i meant kills http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

karost
03-13-2005, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:

No, they are mad because they want historic modelling; in this case for the 151/20! They want the attention that was afforded the .50 cal issue! And what they dont want are idiots that think just because something is good enough that "Good enough" means correct.

Hey, if the Spit couldnt turn, but I could make an online track that it could shoot down another fighter, would that make it "Good enough" to have it like that in the sim? Answer: No. Reason: Not historically correct.

Do you understand the difference? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fehler , I don't think p1ngu666 will get what wee point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



well...p1ngu666, lets talk something more constructive OK? by see this :

bf-109G2 vs SpitfireMkVb in greatergreen status

http://www.greatergreen.com/stats/il2/aircraftdetails.php?id=5

or this ( soon 1DK will make no difference as GG )
http://www.stats.war-clouds.com/wf/aircraftdetails.php?id=12



if someone use SQL query in status database for airhit/perkill in 151/20(MG-bug) compare to other 20mm.gun then we will see something that "NOT ACCEPTABLE REFER TO HISTORY-DOCUMENTS"

... but someone said that is "Good enough" ...



this bug will make a online mission in 1941-1942 very boring ( or suffer challenging )

if you need to prove , make in more constructive , our friends like to read a good information from you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards

Hristo_
03-13-2005, 03:38 AM
MK108s are an option now, but rather unhistorical and still limiting in many ways.

But how about 1941-1942 and BF 109F and early G ? They can't take MK108s.

In late war Fw 190D-9 now is the ultimate assist machine. It only damages planes, kills are usually awarded to MK108 armed planes.

Fw 190A-9 is almost exclusively flown with a pair of MK108s online. MK108s are harder to hit with, have considerably less firing time and quite shorter effective range. They make up for this with 1-2 hit kills, but IMHO, working quad MG151/20 would be better choice vs fighters.

Let me repeat again - if you consider that we have to use MG151/20 from 1941 till 1945 in this sim, as well as number of planes that use it and also number of these cannons installed on some planes, you'll see that it is the most used gun in the game. This would be fine to some extent if it was used by all sides. But other sides have historically working guns.

Sorry if I repeated what has already been said.

NorrisMcWhirter
03-13-2005, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah fehler i get ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but the ppl i mean would use mk108 as long as it was best anyways...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm sure you're right but I don't think the people chiefly concerned with the 151/20 issue think this way. If they did, they wouldn't be so bothered about fixing it; rather, they'd be complaining that the mk108 wasn't good enough.

I, for one, would love to see mk108s being used less because I don't think it's very realistic to have fighter vs fighter combat using them but a lot of people have to choose them because the 20mm is so relatively ineffective. Another thing that gets on my nerves as much as it must be for the pilot being hit by 30mms is the fact that you find yourself chipping away at an enemy with the 151/20 (and not causing much damage) when, all of a sudden, someone turns up with a 108 and downs it with one or two shots.

It makes a mockery of the whole thing, IMO.

Norris

carguy_
03-13-2005, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
on the other side, game balence is why some lufties dont want raf aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

g2 ingame is oh so nearly uber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You`re being paranoid here.You take on LW fliers that participate in DF servers only and those flying in online campaigns.The first crowd are missing on the reality.

The entering of the Spitfire in western campaign was truly welcomed by LW pilots because this is the plane that shows what our flying skills are worth.However Spit Vb is a `42 not `41 model though we fight it in Emils.

The Me262 was there way earlier so why is that war hosts don`t allow it in Reichsvertedigung?

Not wanting to face a better(HISTORICALLY that is) plane shows no faith in your own skills or purely queakish fpp nature.

I am not trying to convince Oleg to add some armor on the Zero.I am not crying if one burst of .50cal renders me Zero uncontrollable/flaming because,as much as I know,THAT IS HOW IT WAS BACK THEN.

Guns?Allied do everything not to allow a 4xMK108 plane entering the skies for the same reason they don`t want 4xMG151/20 with two MG shells.

I just hate to see DF servers crowd ruin online wars with their pointless bickering.

p1ngu666
03-13-2005, 08:48 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>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah fehler i get ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

but the ppl i mean would use mk108 as long as it was best anyways...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm sure you're right but I don't think the people chiefly concerned with the 151/20 issue think this way. If they did, they wouldn't be so bothered about fixing it; rather, they'd be complaining that the mk108 wasn't good enough.

I, for one, would love to see mk108s being used less because I don't think it's very realistic to have fighter vs fighter combat using them but a lot of people have to choose them because the 20mm is so relatively ineffective. Another thing that gets on my nerves as much as it must be for the pilot being hit by 30mms is the fact that you find yourself chipping away at an enemy with the 151/20 (and not causing much damage) when, all of a sudden, someone turns up with a 108 and downs it with one or two shots.

It makes a mockery of the whole thing, IMO.

Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree with ya mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif