PDA

View Full Version : The MG151/20: A reality Check



Buzzsaw-
02-18-2005, 04:23 PM
Salute All

I notice a real prevalence of posts on this board which suggest that the MG151/20 is undermodelled and that it should be as powerful as the Hispano Cannon used on the Spitfire's.

I think a little visual examination of the topic is nessesary to give some perspective.

Look carefully at this photo:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCRel2.jpg

The cartridges shown from the left in order #2 through #5 are relevant.

In order they are:

#2 (15 X 96) MG 151/15, or Luftwaffe used Mauser 15mm cannon. (109F2) Engine mounted, and fired through the Prop spinner.

#3 (20 X 82) MG151/20, the upcalibred version of the above, Mauser 20mm cannon. Notice that the MG151/20 uses essentially the same size shell case as the 151/15, ie. the same amount of propellant. The MG151/20 has a significantly lower muzzle velocity. (MG151/20 used in 109F4, G2, G6, G10, 190A's, 190D's, etc.)

#4 (20 X 94) HO-5, Japanese 20mm cannon developed later in the war, based on the American 12.7mm Browning MG.

#5 (20 X 110) French designed Hispano 20mm cannon, adopted by the British and American Air Forces.

Notice the size of the shell cases of these cartridges. It is clear that the Hispano holds significantly more propellant. Ie. that the round will be propelled at a much higher speed than the other rounds shown.

Notice also that the Hispano has a larger round, so that also clearly, its larger mass will inflict quite a bit more kinetic damage.

The weight of the Hispano 20mm round is 257 grams. The MG151/20 came in three different types of rounds, standard Armour Piercing Inciendary, (API), standard High Explosive, (HE) and special High Explosive Minengeschoss, HE(M). These weighed respectively: 205, 205, and 183 grams. The various types of MG151/20 rounds were fitted on the same ammunition belt, with the HE(M) round occurring once every four rounds.

If we look as velocity, we can see that the Hispano 20mm will also be much more accurate, since a heavier round, presenting the same dimensions, (20mm) and travelling at a higher velocity will travel a longer distance before the effects of gravity will cause it to fall from its original path.

The velocity of the Hispano 20mm is 860 meters per second.

The velocity of the various MG151/20 rounds are:

API: 720 meters per second
HE: 720 meters per second
HE(M) 800 meters per second


The combination of higher weight, and higher velocity, means that the impact of the Hispano is going to be more destructive than the MG151/20.

By any logical examination of the facts, we can deduce that insofar as accuracy and kinetic force is concerned, the Hispano is going to be a far more effective weapon.

There is the question of High Explosive content of the round.

8 percent of the Hispano 20mm round was High Explosive.

As mentioned, the MG151/20 came in three major cartridge types as mentioned.

Explosive content was:

AP: 3.1 % of shell weight was HE.
HE: 3.2 % of shell weight was HE.
HE(M) 22% of shell weight was HE.

We can see that on the basis of there being one High Explosive Minengeschoss round for each 3 regular API or HE rounds, that the average HE content is going to be 7.875 percent.

So it is clear that even when we take into account the specialty cartridges loaded into the MG151/20, that the advantages are going to be with the Hispano 20mm.

First of all, it is much more likely to hit, and secondly, on average, it is going to do more damage, both kinetically and through high explosive.

The above information was gathered from Anthony Williams "Cannon, Machineguns and Ammunition" website. Mr Williams is the published author of a number of authoritative books on the subject of weapons and ammunition. His site can be found here:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm

faustnik
02-18-2005, 04:30 PM
Not according to the experts in the field Buzzsaw. With minengeschoss Tony Williams rated the Mg151/20 as equal to the Hispano. Refer to Flying Guns of World War Two for better information.

You beltload is wrong too. Loads were either 1AP/1HE/1MG or 1AP/2HE/2MG.

The Hispano had great AP ability but, the Mg151 had the minengeschoss round. Very different appraoches to doing damage but, both effective.

LeadSpitter_
02-18-2005, 04:30 PM
look another mg151 thread zzzzzz

faustnik
02-18-2005, 04:34 PM
Comon' Leadspitter, it's an interesting discussion and Buzzsaw was presenting data, not just blowing wind. You are the one wasting bandwidth here.

carguy_
02-18-2005, 04:47 PM
Nice.Uuum but we already know the Hispano outclassed MG151/20.The question is by how far it is outclassed and does the game resemble this in the right way.

Looking forward to an interesting thread.Salute!

tigertalon
02-18-2005, 04:53 PM
WHOA WHOA WHOA guys, hold your wild horses!

Thank you very much Buzzsaw for this educating post. Anyway:

We all agree, there is a BUG with Mg151/20 about it's ammo composition, don't we? Simply because ammo belt in Bf109 gunpods is different than any other Mg151/20 in game (the later don't have MG shells) altough devs claim the code is the same.

Check out my test here (if you haven't seen it yet):

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

SO, let's first help the devs correct this, and then we see whether any more corrections will be needed, agree?

Ah, now I get it: maybe some people don't want this bug to be fixed... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2005, 04:56 PM
Salute

Thanks Faustnik for your corrections, my understanding was that the load was API/HE/API/HE(M)

Second, in regards to Tony Williams and his opinion, he clearly ranks the Hispano as the better round even when the Minengeschoss is taken into account. In his opinion, the HE(M) was about equivalent to the standard Hispano 20mm round, because of the fact that the Hispano had so much more kinetic energy through its heavier round and higher velocity. And we do need to remember that the HE(M) round, whether it was one per every 3 or 4 rounds, was in the minority in the MG151/20 ammunition belt.

Something which I did not mention in regards to the High Explosive issue.

With very small calibre rounds, the amount of HE is also very small.

Even with the Minengeschoss, the total weight in grams of High Explosive is only 40.26, which is not enough to do a large amount of damage. The other MG151/20 rounds had: API: 6.35 grams, HE: 6.58 grams. The Hispano 20mm had 20.56 grams of HE.

Combine that with the fact that unless a high explosive round is exploding INSIDE the fuselage of an aircraft, the effects are going to be significantly less. A HE(M) round which explodes outside the skin of an aircraft is going to have a negligible effect. This would be a common occurence with a HE(M) round which hit at an angle.

That is why the Germans loaded only one HE(M) per 3 or 4 on the belt. They needed the other rounds, (in particular the API round) to create a hole in the fuselage through which the HE(M) could enter. Considering that the penetrative, (kinetic) abilities of the standard MG151/20 API round was so much less than the Hispano 20mm, you can see that it was a problem. And also consider the fact that the in situations where the weapon is being fired at a high deflection, the chances of the HE(M) round hitting at the same spot as the previous API round is minimal. All of these factors limited the effectiveness of the MG151/20.

Conversely, the Hispano 20mm was capable of penetrating more effectively and then using its 8% HE within the fuselage of the target aircraft.

faustnik
02-18-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute


Second, in regards to Tony Williams and his opinion, he clearly ranks the Hispano as the better round even when the Minengeschoss is taken into account. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not the whole story, be careful in that statement. Check email. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Mg151 has a higher ROF than the Hispano. This increases its hit percentage and WOF.

I'll never argue with you that the Hispano did not have the superior AP round. Against armor plating, Hispano wins, hands down.

Atzebrueck
02-18-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
That is why the Germans loaded only one HE(M) per 3 or 4 on the belt. They needed the other rounds, (in particular the API round) to create a hole in the fuselage through which the HE(M) could enter. Considering that the penetrative, (kinetic) abilities of the standard MG151/20 API round was so much less than the Hispano 20mm, you can see that it was a problem. And also consider the fact that the in situations where the weapon is being fired at a high deflection, the chances of the HE(M) round hitting at the same spot as the previous API round is minimal. All of these factors limited the effectiveness of the MG151/20.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

API rounds were intended to light up fuel tanks or punch through armour plates protecting engine or pilot, something the HE(M) couldn't do that easy.
The armour piercing rounds weren't used as "can-openers". The chance for a round to enter through its predecessors' holes is very very small. The duraluminum skin isn't that hard to penetrate, anyway. A 20mm high explosive should have no problem with getting inside the fuselage.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2005, 05:15 PM
Salute

By the way, there was a penalty to be paid for the Hispano's more effective and heavier Cartridge.

The Hispano 20mm Mk II weighed 50 kilograms.

The MG151/20 weighed 42 kilograms.

It wasn't till the later model Hispano Mk V was developed, (not in game now, and won't be here until Tempest V arrives) that it achieved weight parity with the MG151/20 at 42 kilograms.

Atzebrueck
02-18-2005, 05:37 PM
The energy a shell carries needs to be absorbed to do any damage.
You already mentioned the HE, exploding outside the plane.
Bullets, relying on its kinetic energy, which enter the fuselage at the one side and exit it at the other, won't transfer all of their energy, either. Not to forget E-kin decreasing with range.

JZG_Thiem
02-18-2005, 05:37 PM
reading your post i have some questions / remarks Buzz if you dont mind:

1) you say that the hispano shell is heavier and thus will have more kinetic E
2) the cartridge is near double sized to the 151, so that explains the "much" higher muzzle vel. of hispano

am i wrong or does the heavier shell NEED more propellant to get accelerated to vmax and necessary ekin? Its obvious to me that the heavy round needs more propellant to get reasonable ekin (which is only linear to mass but in second power to speed, and the speed is result of accelerating time in the closed barrel)

anyway, even if i was right. lets look at your next numbers, they are aout of question:

quote:
"Explosive content was:

AP: 3.1 % of shell weight was HE.
HE: 3.2 % of shell weight was HE.
HE(M) 22% of shell weight was HE.

We can see that on the basis of there being one High Explosive Minengeschoss round for each 3 regular API or HE rounds, that the average HE content is going to be 7.875 percent."

so Buzz, IF the guys in the "monster thread" are right and oleg missed teh HE(M) round. -> that would put the average HE content of german 151 gunfire down to ca. 3,1-3,2%, compared to 7,8 withOUT this bug. Would you agree then that the efficiency from a destructive power point of view of the 151 is around 50% of what it SHOULD be?

How were the hispano and 151 HE materials rated anyway? iirc the german one was rated much higher (= effective), so that would have to be included into the equation as a corrective factor!? Maybe im wrong here

lets look at the Ekins:
The velocity of the various MG151/20 rounds are:

API: 720 meters per second
HE: 720 meters per second
HE(M) 800 meters per second

so the hispano has ca. 40% more Ekin than API and HE and 15% more than HE(M), correct?

How much loss of Ekin-aerage would you estimate for the above mentioned bug in game? right now we have only the rounds with 40% less, thats a 40% total (duh), but with 1/4 or 1/5 rounds having only 15% less, what would be the average Ekin output with the bug fixed? imho it would be considerably higher, like with the destructive power calc. Maybe im wrong here too.

Last Question: Do YOU think that the HE(M) round IS in game or not? And if the answer is "no", would you agree that lots of the efficiency is taken from the 151 according to the data you presented actually yourself? If the answer is "YES", what (methodocical) mistake are all the dudes making, who do those tests/screenies? What common mistake could that be?

WWMaxGunz
02-18-2005, 07:13 PM
Buzz you do not mention that the German Mine Shell used a much better explosive than the
Hispano HE. Much more. Or that Tony Williams does I believe give rating to the 151 over
the full mix of shells, not just MG. Also I believe that 40.6 grams explosive is less
than the actual by information posted here before.

You should vector your estimate of the MG's up x 2.

Sensible people are not and have not been saying 151 = Hispano.
They are saying that 151 > Hispano / 2 IRL and close to should be the case,
as Mr. Williams also states. Comparative is not equals.

But then with Oleg possibly looking into and fixing the mix, this really is a good time
for dedicated Anti-LW's to blow smoke as intelligently as possible and try to crush the
issue.

Stiglr
02-18-2005, 07:35 PM
Carguy is on the mark.

Nobody's saying, round for round that the Hispano is NOT a superior round. We're just saying the difference between it and the German 20mm is NOT NEARLY as profound as it is in this sim.

p1ngu666
02-18-2005, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> so Buzz, IF the guys in the "monster thread" are right and oleg missed teh HE(M) round. -> that would put the average HE content of german 151 gunfire down to ca. 3,1-3,2%, compared to 7,8 withOUT this bug. Would you agree then that the efficiency from a destructive power point of view of the 151 is around 50% of what it SHOULD be?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, its somewhere less than it should be, but dunno what as he does do damage, just with shell fragments, rather than explosion (relitivly). maybe 70-5ish % at a guess.

if u look at monster thread, page 14-15 see screenies by me, and u can repeat this... gunpods have a bigger explosion every few shells...

JtD
02-19-2005, 12:23 AM
The Hispano round is 130grams, not 250.
The explosive content is about 10grams.
API do not do explosive damage.
A 20mm shell of 100grams@500m/s will punch a hole into a thin Aluminium layer, as will a 20mm shell of 200gram@1000m/s. Kinetic energy hardly matters against airplanes.
The MG is capable of penetrating alu-skin.
There is no way an AP round would punch a hole for HE rounds.
AP are there to pierce armor, like on the IL-2's. (different belt composition on Eastern front)The German used a delaying fuse so the rounds would always go off inside.

Fehler
02-19-2005, 12:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
That is why the Germans loaded only one HE(M) per 3 or 4 on the belt. They needed the other rounds, (in particular the API round) to create a hole in the fuselage through which the HE(M) could enter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, have you ever actually fired a machine gun, or any gun for that matter?

I would bet you an entire years salary that at 20 yards, on a bench, you could not put two rounds through the same hole in 50 tries with any small or heavy caliber machine gun! And that is from a fixed position on a bench at 20 yards! Now, using you logic, the Germans expected an average pilot to be able to do it from a moving aircraft against a moving target at ranges from 200-500 meters... Yeah right! Ive heard some stupid $hit in my life, but this might be the dumbest thing to date.

Matter of fact, I bet you cant take a .22 cal target pistol from a fixed bench, and shoot 2 rounds through the same hole at 20 yards!

I consider myself a pretty fair shot. I have been through the FBI sniper school, and when I was a SWAT member, I was #1 sniper for my police department. I may not be able to take your eye out at 1000 yards like Mel Gibson or Tom Barringer in the movies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, but I can take your head clean off at 500 yards in a good wind. Even at 50 yards, from a bench, I have about a 1/4 inch variance with match ammo!

"They needed the other rounds, (in particular the API round) to create a hole in the fuselage through which the HE(M) could enter."

That is hilarious!


Now, let's talk about penetration and damage:

Tell you what, I may go shooting this weekend. I'll take a .22 long and shoot some holes through a piece of sheet aluminum that I have. Perhaps that would convince you that you dont need a huge round or a great deal of velocity to penetrate sheet aluminum. And while we are talking about it, penetration means nothing if you have no energy transfer. Shoot through a piece of paper and tell me how damaged it becomes. Explain how much potential energy is transfered into kinetic energy by a fast moving round on a thin object. The truth is that an AP round through sheet aluminum will retain most of it's potential energy until it contacts a heavier object. In other words round will tend to go through an aircraft cleanly (Without much damage) if they do not expand and transfer their energy. As a matter of fact, if AP rounds were all that was needed to effectively dispatch an aircraft, why did God's own Hispano need HE rounds at all? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Of course, you should already know the answer to that.

Since you are into reading charts, perhaps you can tell us all the potential energy of the typical 151/20 MG round versus the typical 20mm Hispano. There was a table floating around here somewhere a while back that listed the potential energy (Explosive power) in joules... What the 151/20 was lacking in muzzle velocity, it certainly made up for in potential energy of the MG rounds.

Now to the next argument... these thin walled rounds couldnt penetrate aircraft aluminum. (I guess that is what you are concluding with your "Magic Bullet" theory I quoted.) I have fired well over 300,000 rounds ranging from .22 cal all the way to 90mm and nearly every US and Soviet Block weapon in between. I believe I understand a little about that which I speak. I can fire soft "Wad-cutters" through steel automotive doors, but you expect me to believe that a cannon round with a higher muzzle velocity just turns into a marshmallow when contacting and rigid material. OK, go blow that smoke up someone else's rear; I dont buy it based on logical, hand's-on application.

There is some slight merit when talking about angles, however. For example, even the .50 can ricochet off thin wood at oblique angles, (Done it myself off plywood with AP ammunition!) but that is not the norm as is portrayed in this game.

Now, I will say this. There is no doubt that the Hispano should have a flatter trajectory. The AP rounds should penetrate better and be more effective against harder targets like armor plating and engine blocks. But against basically hollow objects like fuselages and wings, they should be no where as effective as high explosive rounds because there simply isnt enough material to make the round slow down enough to transfer energy efficiently. Yes, Force = Mass X Velocity, but that it potential force, not kinetic. It's like shooting a bullet through paper, you get no expansion, and you get no transfer of potential to kinetic energy. All you have is a nice neat hole. But when they hit a major structural piece, the Hispano should be be more effective than slower moving, lighter AP rounds of the 151/20.

Now, as far as I can tell, no one here has said that the 151/20 should always kill a plane in 2 rounds. But currently, it is very common to hit with 10 or more 151/20's and cause no visible damage to an aircraft. Whereas, the Hispano can kill with 1/3 the ammunition on average. Intelligent logic dictates that this is simply not a true representation of the German 20mm cannon. And anyone that has ever fired anything more than a pixel gun understands this.

The problem here is that there is an obvious agenda that people in this forum concern themselves with. Against aircraft, the two weapons should be so similar that there should be no discernable difference in respect to damage. Perhaps there should be an accuracy issue as the SHvAK's and Hispano's should be slightly more accurate than the 151/20's at range, but damage should be similar especially under 500 meters, and it is not.

jurinko
02-19-2005, 12:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

Combine that with the fact that unless a high explosive round is exploding INSIDE the fuselage of an aircraft, the effects are going to be significantly less. A HE(M) round which explodes outside the skin of an aircraft is going to have a negligible effect.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buzz, according to the Soviet pilot Kozhemyako´s interview posted here recently, "...one high-explosive 20mm hit and the plywood [on Yak] would fly in all directions and one has to bail out, can´t fly much with missing surfaces", to quote the guy who was often on the receiving end of the Mauser.

True, Hispano was better in most parameters, but in FB/PF Hispanos are cutting rugged Fw 190s with ease to pieces and 4 Mausers are doing often only visual effects. No way that 2 Hispanos were more effective in reality than 4 Mausers.

Galaboo
02-19-2005, 01:02 AM
The German 20mm Cannons must be improved dramatically, It's kind of sad how the makers of this game don't notice problems like these...

Atleast we always have the smart public to help, Good stuff!

Jippo01
02-19-2005, 01:18 AM
Buzzsaw, here is a reality check. Read Mr. Williams' opinion and quote it, not just some random numbers you find on his site.



In Mr. Williams' opinion the difference in efficiency between MG 151/20 and Hispano Mk.II is WHOPPING 4%!!!!



Source: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-> TABLE 2: GUN POWER AND EFFICIENCY -> GUN POWER: Mg151='192' - Hispano Mk.II='200'.
This is the overall power including ROF, belt composition, ..., ..., ...



Other than that, Fehler and JtD have said it all.


-jippo

JG5_UnKle
02-19-2005, 02:58 AM
4% nice...

And the 190 has four of them, how bizarre that it behaves so differently in our combat sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tvrdi
02-19-2005, 05:52 AM
are u mad..imagine we got 151s corrected....experienced pilot (and good gunner) in FW woudl be an ultimate killer...we dont want such situations....so a lot of things are balanced in the sim for better gameplay

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gife

IvanoBulo
02-19-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
are u mad..imagine we got 151s corrected....experienced pilot (and good gunner) in FW woudl be an ultimate killer...we dont want such situations....so a lot of things are balanced in the sim for better gameplay

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gife <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want such simulation! I want to be an ultimate killer! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I want my four 20mm cannons be the real weapon as they used to be...

NorrisMcWhirter
02-19-2005, 09:41 AM
Hi,

Yep, the 4% figure was also recently published in Aeroplane magazine within a feature discussing mgs vs cannon. As I said in the 151/20 thread that was around a couple of months ago, as as people have said again here, the Hispano was the better weapon but not by the amount we see in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
are u mad..imagine we got 151s corrected....experienced pilot (and good gunner) in FW woudl be an ultimate killer...we dont want such situations....so a lot of things are balanced in the sim for better gameplay <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I see Il-2 as a game (as opposed to simulation) these days, it supposedly strives to be authentic so why shouldn't the 151/20 be modelled correctly? How about Oleg remodels the .50 cals to be less powerful than the .303s in the interests of gameplay? Besides, gameplay balance would be restored because people wouldn't have to fly around with mk108s to down planes effectively anymore.

Cheers,
Norris

Gunner_361st
02-19-2005, 11:34 AM
Please take note of some of the quotes listed in this link.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

"Comments on Table 1

Clearly, the resulting scores can only be approximate, and in particular will vary depending on the particular mix of types included in an ammunition belt. The power calculation takes a typical mix of ammunition, where known. They also take no account of the fact that some incendiary mixtures, and some types of HE, were more effective than others were. However, they do provide a reasonable basis for comparison. There is no point in trying to be too precise, as the random factors involved in the destructive effects were considerable."

And this, later on, at the bottom of the article...

"These points are valid. However, it is also true that cannon shells did not always explode when they hit €" the fuze could sometimes fail to function €" in which case they were reliant solely on their kinetic damage. Again, it seems likely that this would more or less counteract the criticism."

Mr. Williams lists some good information, but he is also bound by the same things we are; a lack of certain specific knowledge.

Example - What type of material was used for the high explosive shells. Some were better than others, but unless someone does some serious research, how do we know who used what material for their HE shells when?

Another would be reliability. Obviously as he stated, sometimes fuses would fail. Well, how would you calculate that? The best that could be done were real tests in which averages would be acquired, but I don't think anyone can argue the resources needed to do this are beyond any reasonable means.

Also look at what he says here...

"Chemical energy is generated by the high explosive or incendiary material carried by most WW2 air-fighting projectiles. First, there is the difference between HE and incendiary material, which were often mixed (in very varying proportions) in the same shell. HE delivers instant destruction by blast effect (plus possibly setting light to inflammable material within its blast radius), incendiaries burn on their passage through the target, setting light to anything inflammable they meet on the way. The relationship between the effectiveness of HE and incendiary material is difficult to assess. Bearing in mind that fire was the big plane-killer, there appears to be no reason to rate HE as more important, so they have been treated as equal."

Treated as equal. Obviously they weren't the same thing; incedinary material burning anything it touches that can burn (a fuel tank) and an HE round exploding and causing a shockwave, distributing its fragments everywhere. But as he said, considering that fire is usually what knocked a plane from the sky, it is reasonable to make this generalization.

It would seem to me that Oleg has made the wise choice when it came to weapon reliability in this simulator - its too hard, if not impossible, to judge how reliable something was compared to another, so the idea of weapons jamming under their own function is not modeled.

The same goes for the reliability of time-delay fuses for ammunition. Too difficult if not impossible to judge or model accurately or fairly, so they are treated as 100% reliable.

Also note that there are certain degrees of simplicity in the damage model of this simulator. Lets look at two of the most vivid examples...

The BF-109 and the FW-190.

When you strike a BF-109 in the fuselage, you will be able to look through the holes in the side of the fuselage and see through the plane. Not so on the FW-190 - You only see black scarring on the "skin" of the aircraft to represent holes. What does this mean?

From what I've seen, the BF-109, when its fuselage is bombarded with enemy fire, can snap in half, and I've seen this many times. Meanwhile, the FW-190 can take an alarming pounding in this region without any structural failure whatsoever. However, different kinds of critical damage is done - Either the FW-190's fuel tanks are set alight, the AP bullets go through the armor and hit the pilot, or control surfaces are destroyed.

Since pilot death and control surface lost is modeled in the BF-109 and pretty much every other plane in this simulator as well, it leads me to one basic conclusion.

Some aircraft have much more complex damage models than others. This is why I have witnessed what I call "Concrete fuselage syndrome." - Namely, planes like the FW-190, P-51, P-47, LA-5, et cetera, et cetera, where you can bombard the fuselage with an incredible barrage of fire and not cause structural failure, MEANWHILE only a few rounds hitting the wings cause structural failure, or the engine causing a fire.

Combine that with online lag, which I think has an adverse effect on the effectiveness of all guns in this simulator, all contribute to the rather popular notion that the MG-151/20 has gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to modeling.

You can believe what you want, but these are my observations so far. I gave up on another thread in which I argued these points, chiefly because I don't think anyone was listening and I doubt it will ever be changed...

~S~

Gunner of the 361st A.K.A. 318th Virtual Fighter Group

VOL_Hans
02-19-2005, 11:47 AM
Another 20mm thread?

Look, the German MG-151/20 had a lower muzzle velocity, there is no debate there, so naturally AP rounds would not do as much damage.

But the HE rounds fitted to German cannons were very high order explosives compared to anything else.

The explosive filling in those rounds burned at a temperature somewhwere near 3000 degrees Celsius. It makes up for lower veocity with a high power explosive.

Tvrdi
02-19-2005, 11:51 AM
of course I was only sarcastic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif sure we all want for everything to be like it was in Rl (or at least as close as possible)...

quiet_man
02-19-2005, 01:15 PM
which one does more damage, a 20mm hole from MG151 or a 20mm hole from Hispano?

imho in reality against airplanes, the explosive load and the trigger are much more important for doing critical damage.

in the game there is a simplistic modell of AP rounds doing critical damage, this way a single AP round from a Yak9K will desintegrate any plane from >1200m distance, by just touching it.

it makes bomber attack mission with heavy guns very unrealistic, as the most effective tactic is sniping wingtips from large distance. The effect was reduced in FB but it is still there.

quiet_man

karost
02-19-2005, 01:19 PM
in BOB, Oleg will put the same weak 151/20 inside LW planes ?

Just wonder ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tigertalon
02-19-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
in BOB, Oleg will put the same weak 151/20 inside LW planes ?

Just wonder ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, in real Battle of Britain no German plane used Mg151/20. They used MgFF. Mg151 was firstly used in Bf109F.

But, I read somewhere that some E versions had 20mm cannon firing through prop hub. Anybody knows which cannon this was, Mg151(/20) or MgFF?

AndyHigh
02-19-2005, 01:57 PM
The thread subject speaks about a "reality check". So how about some numbers on real life results achieved with the MG151/20?

Finnish Airforce had all in all 159 Bf-109s which were mainly G2 and G6 models. Of those, 34 were lost in combat. Number of confirmed victories achieved with "Mersu" is 663 which makes roughly 20:1 kill ratio. Most of the Finnish bf-109s had only ONE 20mm cannon, only few were equipped and even fewer used with R6 gunpods. None had a 30mm cannon afaik. Most of the "victims" were more modern models such as IL-2, Pe-2, A-20, Lagg-3, Yak-9, La-5 and P-39. Quite many IL-2s were shot down during the great Soviet offencive in June/July 1944 so it wasn't such a flying tank some people believe. Yak-9s were shot down in great numbers while in the game it seems to be quite robust.

There are pilot reports telling of enemy planes exploding after being hit few rounds with the cannon. There was also many dangerous situations caused by falling debris because of this. Pilots also preferred HE rounds because of their devastating explosive power on lightly armored targets.

These numbers and pilot's reports just don't give you impression that the german 20mm (or Bf-109G itself) was somehow weak weapon in combat in reality.

Stiglr
02-19-2005, 02:39 PM
Karost, the Emil 20mms were the lower velocity Oerlikon (?) MGFF cannons. I don't think they have the same lack of punch as the MG151s (of which 109F and G versions only have one). They're just harder to hit with, and you only get 60 rpg.

karost
02-19-2005, 03:06 PM
Thanks alot Stiglr and tigertalon for your response S~

Wow...that is good news coz I don't have a problem with MGFF 2x20mm in a Classical Emils http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and I hope LW's friend will have a fun for "Negative G drive" , that time RAF has "carburetor" right ?



but we will take about 151/20 in BOB ( new add-on next to BOB ) again .... I very sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



.....sorry lets back to the main topic "The MG151/20: A reality Check "
someone please share a nice gun cam of 151/20 to Mr. Buzzsaw- please .... for a "reality check" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


S!

pourshot
02-19-2005, 04:26 PM
@ Andyhigh

It is interesting to read pilot accounts but you have to remember that like all storytellers they leave out the less interesting results. I can show you reports of tomahawk pilots exploding 109€s with only machineguns but that is more than likely the exception than the rule.

Also kill ratio€s are a bad way to compare gun effects, although it may be a great way to show who had better training and tactics. Statistics can be twisted, I have seen it many times.

Heinz_Schuss
02-19-2005, 06:53 PM
To continue what Stiglr has said, the MGFF cannon was designed by Oerlikon but it may have been manufactured by someone else , I don't remember. However, early on during the Battle of Britain, the minengeschoss round was authorised for operational use and this required the MGFF cannon to be modified to function reliably with this ammunition due to the lower weight of the round (and the lower pressure that it developed). Thereafter the MGFF was not capable of firing the original type of cannon round, and the gun was then called MGFF/M.

At this point the minengeschoss round became the standard (note Buzzsaw) Luftwaffe cannon round exactly as the "ball" round was the standard for the .50 M2. The AP and later API and HE tracing rounds were the "specials", and did not make up most of the rounds in the standard loadout.

The MGFF/M cannons on the Bf109E4 in the game SEEM to be correctly loaded with some (unknown) number of minengeschoss rounds. (I wish Oleg would say just what loadout is supposed to be modelled in the game)

The issue is that the internal MG151/20 guns do not seem to fire these standard rounds (which made up 2 to 3 of each 5 round sequence in RL), only the gunpods seem to do this.

The Bf109E4 on the other hand, seems to me to get the correct damage from it's MGFF/M cannons - wings blown off or engine detroyed or on fire with single hits. Now you may say that the E4 has two cannons so it's hitting with two rounds, but I'm talking about firing at 30 - 50m and I'm not perfectly lined up and can see that the one wing gun is not even hitting at all in these cases.

Now on to the Bf109E4 (just for info). An attempt was made to install the MGFF gun in the nose of the earler E series but overheating and jamming problems forced it's removal and experimental replacement with another MG15 or 17 (I forget which was used then) as in the cowling. Two MGs in the wings and no nose gun were also tried. The E4 differed from the E3 in that it had MGFFs in the wings instead of the Machine guns, and a bulged plate on the underside of the wings to accomodate the larger breech and feed mechanisms.

Cheers
Schuss

VW-IceFire
02-19-2005, 07:02 PM
Intersting, I did not know about the earlier Bf 109 armament types. So the MG-FF we have is actually an MG-FF/M?

That would explain why its powerful when it hits.

So, has the MG151/20 bug been reported to Oleg in numbers yet?

tigertalon
02-19-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Intersting, I did not know about the earlier Bf 109 armament types. So the MG-FF we have is actually an MG-FF/M?

That would explain why its powerful when it hits.

So, has the MG151/20 bug been reported to Oleg in numbers yet? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

I mailed it to him a few days ago, many screenshots and trks during which screeshots were made (just to prove I was not cheating). I kindly asked him to post a responce about this on this forum. CrazyIvan also said he was talking with him on the subject. Also SerpentBlade claimed he mailed Oleg...

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2005, 11:45 PM
The explosive used has been shown from documents to be PETN. Something like 50% more
powerful per weight than the standard TNT, or maybe twice as strong, there are people
with the documents. That is formula strength, purity and cooling of shells after the
pour also affect the end result -- something fans won't tell.

The DM is not touch and go. The models have internal parts 3D modelled. What gets
hit may get damaged. Speed and angle of shell impact matter. Simplified is that if
a shell breaks one part, the path is not figured to diverge. Not touch and go.
But not all the models are done to the same level of detail, all are high quality but
some are higher and some seem to get updated in patches here and there. Then people
blame the guns. Duh.

NONE of those is about what is shown, the 109 gunpods shell strikes to other 151/20's.
Trying to change the issue away from that is false. Good try agenda-boys but not that
good!

Vipez-
02-20-2005, 05:35 AM
Just one question: i would understand oleg forming an opinion of hispano beeing superior to Mg151/20.. but what i don't understand how come russian Shvak (muzzle velocity 800m/s, he rounds weighting 95 grams) be so much more effective than MG151/20.. with much lighter shells and less HE, with same muzzle velocity.. in game shvak is on par with the Hispano.. MG/FFm has almost the same destruction as shvak and hispano, but MG151/20 is CLEARLY weaker than all these guns.

VW-IceFire
02-20-2005, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
Just one question: i would understand oleg forming an opinion of hispano beeing superior to Mg151/20.. but what i don't understand how come russian Shvak (muzzle velocity 800m/s, he rounds weighting 95 grams) be so much more effective than MG151/20.. with much lighter shells and less HE, with same muzzle velocity.. in game shvak is on par with the Hispano.. MG/FFm has almost the same destruction as shvak and hispano, but MG151/20 is CLEARLY weaker than all these guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the ShVAK appears more powerful because of the rapid fire rate, good muzzle velocity, and low dispersion of the shots.

If the MG151/20 wasn't bugged, it'd be more powerful but still less accurate. So I always figured with the ShVAK, you get really close in (.20) and pinpoint something important and blast it.

Vipez-
02-20-2005, 08:51 AM
Rate of fire was pretty much same on mg151/20 and shvak (both had about 800 round/min on unsyncronized installations). On syncro installation mg151/20 rof lost some 10 % on mg151/20, i'd assume about same on shvak ...

So it certainly does not explain why one shvak round causes much more damage than one mg151 round http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif infact it should be other way around (common sence, shell much lighter, much less HE- in shvak shell).. And shvak had the least High explosive of all guns (mg/ffm, hispano, mg151/20)

Easy to test on QMB, or dogfight, use yak1 or f-4, and see how much more damage Yak's 120 shvak rounds do, than F-4's 200 mg151/20 rounds http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Dispersion is not an issue, i never open fire over 200 meters anyway so dispersion is minimal

AndyHigh
02-20-2005, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
It is interesting to read pilot accounts but you have to remember that like all storytellers they leave out the less interesting results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are right of course. I was just showing some real life results achieved with only one MG151/20. There are several cases where planes were ripped apart just a moment after pilot touched the trigger. Including cases against medium sized bombers.

Now if a fighter in this game with 4 of them has problems getting an enemy down (hitting them of course), then there must be problem with the game, am I right?

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2005, 01:18 PM
You hit the right thing, sometimes the target rips itself apart.
That is not just the shell alone.

WWMaxGunz
02-20-2005, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
Just one question: i would understand oleg forming an opinion of hispano beeing superior to Mg151/20.. but what i don't understand how come russian Shvak (muzzle velocity 800m/s, he rounds weighting 95 grams) be so much more effective than MG151/20.. with much lighter shells and less HE, with same muzzle velocity.. in game shvak is on par with the Hispano.. MG/FFm has almost the same destruction as shvak and hispano, but MG151/20 is CLEARLY weaker than all these guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chronic misunderstanding here about DM and FM, how they come about. You think Opinion and
then they create impression?

They made models that run fast the best they can. Accuracy of the modelling is not perfect
but it is methodic. Problems are found and can it be changed is three ways; modify just the
one part complained of, twist the model, or change the method itself. FB was the last way
in several cases, BTW, and a major effort. It is a LOT of work to change the method and
all the code that touches. Major.

Now there is good screenshots showing the problem might be a simple thing, fix why the 109
gunpods get all the shells and others do not.

Why try to turn this back in the old directions what comes to bias accusations in no time?

Give them credit for great effort, good honesty, game that works so well, and being human
not only yes might miss something but needing time to find and fix what they can.

What Oleg has constructed he has gone far to make sure for objectivity. But it cannot be
perfect and run on a PC nor can humans account for everything. So there is errors and
funny thing about human brain is it finds patterns in ALL things. Then some people who
see pattern have to turn and point and make like the pattern they see is deliberate of
others. Fine, maybe so but at least credit it may also not.

Enofinu
02-20-2005, 05:17 PM
but... "we need more power"

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2005, 02:10 AM
Look at the 109 gunpod strikes on the screenshots, hits #4 and #5.
Then look at the others.

What are you saying? There is more power to one setup 151/20 only.
The rest are like having tanks with HE shells only, mostly useless
against other tanks which all have full mix.

It is there already to use, just not included where it is supposed
to be, for all 151/20's.
That is NOT the same as saying "more, more, more". There was but
the case for why was well made and IMO clear. Now we are seeing
there was no need to make that case, the mine shells do better
effect than other 151/20 shells but only when you get to have them!

It is not funny when people come on and try to confuse the issue of
that after clear presentation that Tigertalon has made. It does make
clear that some people only care to preserve an error that binds the
190's, or should I say "yet another error" and leave it at that?
The proper lead view is cut by 1/3 at least due to inability of 3D
engine to account for refraction and the most effective shells are
not being used. A tiger with bad eyesight and no fangs for a side
where tigers are half the plane models. And people are still afraid
of the claws.

Lazy312
02-21-2005, 04:04 AM
"So it certainly does not explain why one shvak round causes much more damage than one mg151 round Smile infact it should be other way around (common sence, shell much lighter, much less HE- in shvak shell).. And shvak had the least High explosive of all guns (mg/ffm, hispano, mg151/20)"

Shvak has greater muzzle velocity. The difference of some 70 m/s is quite significant.

The power of both guns (muzzle energy of one shell * rpm) is very close, shvak being slightly better.

My opinion (based on quite extensive testing, firing only with one nose cannon) is that shvak and MG151 are about equal in the current version of the game (I need average 12.3 MG151 and 14.3 shvak rounds to completely destroy a fighter). What IMHO makes a difference are russian machine guns (both shkas and UB) which are clearly better than their german counterparts.

I agree that MG151 should be probably more powerful than shvak. But I hope germans don't get some form of mini-mk108 after all these threads here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LeLu_Repo
02-21-2005, 04:31 AM
MG151/20 mm won't be changed.

Little birds told me sohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kurfurst__
02-21-2005, 05:03 AM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ad1, Percentages are relative to SHELL weight.
a, The Hispano belted 50%-50% SAPI (semi armor piercing inc.) with no explosive content, and HEI shells. The latter carried ca. 10 grams of mixed combination of Tetryl type explosive and inc. material. Appx. 6-7 grams were explosive out of the mix.

ad2, The Belting information is also incorrect. German instructions for belting the MG 151/20 varied, usually either of the follows :

In missions against 4-engined planes :
API-HEI-MG
API-HEI-HEI-MG-MG (as modelled in the game)
The increased portion of indcendinary shells vs. the large fuel volumes of viermots is to be noted.

Against all aircraft targets :
API-HEI-MG-MG-MG
60% being Mine rounds.

ad3,
It can be seen that the German belt contains 40-60% of Mine shells, and further 20-40% of lower content, multi purpose HEI shells. Thus 80% of the German belt is usually made up by HE rounds, mostly MG rounds. MG rounds carry _3 TIMES_ the explosive weight than a Hispano HEI round. German HEI carried a mix of explosive and inc., too, iirc some 2 grams of explosives. Explosive type used in the MG rounds is PENT, being slightly more powerful than british used tetryl. Hispano belts only 50% HE content shells. Also is ROF is less, 600 vs. 750-800 of the MG 151/20.

So we will deliver in a 1 sec burst, concentrating on explosive weight delivered, using in-game belting :

13 MG 151/20 shells vs. 10 Hispano shells (1,3x)
5,2 MG shells plus 5,2 HEI rounds vs. 5 HISPANO HEIs.
Translates to 5,2x18gram plus 5,2x2gram = 104 gram of explosives vs. 5x6gram = 30 grams of explosives...

Thus we will deliver 3.5 TIMES the explosive weight with a MG 151/20, containing more powerful explosives than with a Hispano.
Claiming the Hispano had greater chemical damage potential is absolute nonsense.

Vipez-
02-21-2005, 05:12 AM
uh lazy muzzle velocity does not mean everything. Both guns have absolutely no problem of penetrating ww2 airplane's aluminum ,fabric or wooden skin, and detonating inside. It i

Shvak has slightly better kinetic energy, but far less Chemical energy ( http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm ).. take a look at the gun power and efficiency. Clearly it gives shvak cartridge power 11, and gun power 143 and overall effiency of 3.4. Figures for mg151/20 are 16, 192 and 4.6. So MG151/20 is clearly superior gun regarding gun effiency.

You think shvak and mg151/20 are the same in game? Then we must be playing different games http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I fly both sides, and i can honestly say there is a HUGE difference, rougly based on my experience shvak is about twice as effective as mg151/20. And I don't think im the only one thinking this way. Sure its pretty even if you compare to 109G / 109K with 151/20 pods, but the pods seem to have the correct ammobelt anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif And i was not talking about machine guns, only 20mm cannons ..

PS. i hate, that i have to use mk108 as well, simply because mg151/20 makes butcher bird vegetarian bird, and 109 has zero chances of one pass - one kill with 20mm (except for lucky pk, engine hits )

tigertalon
02-21-2005, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
API-HEI-HEI-MG-MG (as modelled in the game)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely agree on your post Kurfurst, just a small remark: API-HEI-HEI-MG-MG is modelled only in Bf109 20mm gunpods. Other Mg151/20 cannons have APIT-HEI-HEI-API-HEI.

Kurfurst__
02-21-2005, 05:37 AM
Is this certain? It would explain, the 109 gunpods are very satisfactory, its 'just' the rest which severely lacks the punch...

We should ask Oleg to make belting the same for all MG151s as the gunpods.

tigertalon
02-21-2005, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Is this certain? It would explain, the 109 gunpods are very satisfactory, its 'just' the rest which severely lacks the punch...

We should ask Oleg to make belting the same for all MG151s as the gunpods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I have done extensive tests about this topic, I am sure.

I mailed Oleg about this, with a lot of scrshoots and trks. Check my test out here, in another thread:
(maybe you will have to right-click every picture and choose "view image")

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

Lazy312
02-21-2005, 05:51 AM
"You think shvak and mg151/20 are the same in game? Then we must be playing different games Smile I fly both sides, and i can honestly say there is a HUGE difference, rougly based on my experience shvak is about twice as effective as mg151/20. And I don't think im the only one thinking this way."

Have you tried to shoot only with one cannon? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I did and I belive the difference is - much better russian machine guns. That's why Yak-1 has better armament than 109F and Yak-3 better than 109G6 (without mk108).

JtD
02-21-2005, 10:05 AM
Did anybody ever make a test about MG151 and ShVAK effectiveness? Where?

The RoF reduction of the ShVAK is bigger than the one of the MG151 if synchronised, as the ShVAK wasn't electrically fused.

Anyway, RoF numbers in PF are still as can be found here:

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

Vipez-
02-21-2005, 01:54 PM
yes i know russian machine guns are better, but i was still talking about cannon effiency (only) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lazy312
02-21-2005, 05:28 PM
"Did anybody ever make a test about MG151 and ShVAK effectiveness? Where?"

Yes I did (v 3.04). I took P39D with Hispano, Bf 109 G2 (MG151/20), Yak-1B (shvak). I used only nose cannon to shoot.

I downed 7 planes with each gun 5 times (Bf 109 E4/B, Yak-7A, P40 B, Spitfire Vb, Ki-61, LaGG-3 4 series, FW 190 A-8), that means 35 kills per each gun. I only counted clearly destroyed planes (wing off, engine dead, flames..), not cowardly AI bails. I intentionally "sprayed" targets so that they got random hits. I also counted rpm for each gun firing for one minute.

I don't think this is an absolute test, if anyone has more spare time I will be glad to read his results. Anyway what I found:

Hispano Mk.II
rpm: 650
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 35 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 9,8
power: 66 (rpm/avg. hits)

MG 151/20
rpm: 720
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 32 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 12,3
power: 59

SHVAK
rpm: 800
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 29 (LaGG-3)
average hits needed for destroying target: 14,3
power: 56

As you can see, in my hands all three cannons are nearly equal. I am sure some people here will disagree but I did honestly my best to get as "independent" results as possible.
http://kv.clarionet.cz/il2/gunnery/cannons304.png

karost
02-22-2005, 12:18 AM
Hi, Lazy312
Thanks, for you good test

your test is offline or online ?

if you did not made online test like this.
well many LW friends in HL will coporate with you. talk to him find the one who has a good ping http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

your idea to process the test is good idea it easy to understand , I like that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S~

IvanoBulo
02-22-2005, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
"Did anybody ever make a test about MG151 and ShVAK effectiveness? Where?"

Yes I did (v 3.04). I took P39D with Hispano, Bf 109 G2 (MG151/20), Yak-1B (shvak). I used only nose cannon to shoot.

I downed 7 planes with each gun 5 times (Bf 109 E4/B, Yak-7A, P40 B, Spitfire Vb, Ki-61, LaGG-3 4 series, FW 190 A-8), that means 35 kills per each gun. I only counted clearly destroyed planes (wing off, engine dead, flames..), not cowardly AI bails. I intentionally "sprayed" targets so that they got random hits. I also counted rpm for each gun firing for one minute.

I don't think this is an absolute test, if anyone has more spare time I will be glad to read his results. Anyway what I found:

Hispano Mk.II
rpm: 650
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 35 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 9,8
power: 66 (rpm/avg. hits)

MG 151/20
rpm: 720
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 32 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 12,3
power: 59

SHVAK
rpm: 800
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 29 (LaGG-3)
average hits needed for destroying target: 14,3
power: 56

As you can see, in my hands all three cannons are nearly equal. I am sure some people here will disagree but I did honestly my best to get as "independent" results as possible.
http://kv.clarionet.cz/il2/gunnery/cannons304.png <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All these results worth nothing without the tracks. The results looks like you took numbers from your imagination (I'm about the 35 rounds for FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

BTW, every plane in the game could be downed with a single shot in the right spot, even IL-2.

tigertalon
02-22-2005, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
"Did anybody ever make a test about MG151 and ShVAK effectiveness? Where?"

Yes I did (v 3.04). I took P39D with Hispano, Bf 109 G2 (MG151/20), Yak-1B (shvak). I used only nose cannon to shoot.

I downed 7 planes with each gun 5 times (Bf 109 E4/B, Yak-7A, P40 B, Spitfire Vb, Ki-61, LaGG-3 4 series, FW 190 A-8), that means 35 kills per each gun. I only counted clearly destroyed planes (wing off, engine dead, flames..), not cowardly AI bails. I intentionally "sprayed" targets so that they got random hits. I also counted rpm for each gun firing for one minute.

I don't think this is an absolute test, if anyone has more spare time I will be glad to read his results. Anyway what I found:

Hispano Mk.II
rpm: 650
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 35 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 9,8
power: 66 (rpm/avg. hits)

MG 151/20
rpm: 720
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 32 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 12,3
power: 59

SHVAK
rpm: 800
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 29 (LaGG-3)
average hits needed for destroying target: 14,3
power: 56

As you can see, in my hands all three cannons are nearly equal. I am sure some people here will disagree but I did honestly my best to get as "independent" results as possible.
http://kv.clarionet.cz/il2/gunnery/cannons304.png <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow...

This result is quite hard to believe for me, after my test of Mg151/20 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=2111099562&p=4)...


One more question, you didn't maybe use wingpods on Bf109, did you?

Heh, one more thing: By Luftwaffe official records in WW2 it was needed 20-25 20mm hits to down a friggin B-17!!!! and 3-5 30mm hits to do the same...

Kurfurst__
02-22-2005, 05:00 AM
Another thing I noticed is the greatly varying results when shooting friendly AIs and enemy AIs. Granted, friendlies are much easier to hit, but I noticed intant failures after a few hits, whereas another time I hit a manouvering spitties right wing 4-5 times (confirmed that later).. no visible reduction in manouveribility or any serious damage! Maybe sync loss when the CPU is more heavily loadeD?

WWMaxGunz
02-22-2005, 05:29 AM
TT,

LW in WWII by doctrine attacked B-17 head on and shot for cockpit.

How do you get your average?

OldMan____
02-22-2005, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
"Did anybody ever make a test about MG151 and ShVAK effectiveness? Where?"

Yes I did (v 3.04). I took P39D with Hispano, Bf 109 G2 (MG151/20), Yak-1B (shvak). I used only nose cannon to shoot.

I downed 7 planes with each gun 5 times (Bf 109 E4/B, Yak-7A, P40 B, Spitfire Vb, Ki-61, LaGG-3 4 series, FW 190 A-8), that means 35 kills per each gun. I only counted clearly destroyed planes (wing off, engine dead, flames..), not cowardly AI bails. I intentionally "sprayed" targets so that they got random hits. I also counted rpm for each gun firing for one minute.

I don't think this is an absolute test, if anyone has more spare time I will be glad to read his results. Anyway what I found:

Hispano Mk.II
rpm: 650
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 35 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 9,8
power: 66 (rpm/avg. hits)

MG 151/20
rpm: 720
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 32 (FW 190)
average hits needed for destroying target: 12,3
power: 59

SHVAK
rpm: 800
maximum hits needed for destroying target: 29 (LaGG-3)
average hits needed for destroying target: 14,3
power: 56

As you can see, in my hands all three cannons are nearly equal. I am sure some people here will disagree but I did honestly my best to get as "independent" results as possible.
http://kv.clarionet.cz/il2/gunnery/cannons304.png <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

strange.. I need to try HARD to not down a FW190 with 10 hispanos hits... maye hittin only at top of rudder I could get 20 hits.... But any 4 hits on body will kill him.

Lazy312
02-22-2005, 07:49 AM
Once more, I didn't count kills like destroyed controls, PK or black smoke. Only tail or wing shot off, flames or dead engine.

I tested in coop mode to let the game count hits for me.

The hits a plane can absorb varied greatly. Yes, I needed 35 hispano rounds to destroy plane in one case. On the other hand I managed to explode planes with only one hit (all cannons can do it).

If somebody thinks I am a liar, well I can only encourage him to do his homework, test himself and present his results here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lazy312
02-22-2005, 07:52 AM
I used only nose cannon for all three cannons.

JtD
02-22-2005, 08:40 AM
Nice you bothered enough to actually make a test.

My old tests showed

Hispano 260
MG 151/20 200
ShVAK 160
Used a slightly different method and different criteria for kills, but in general I think it's similar enough to your results.
Be aware that they are good for nothing, most people will simply go on moaning ingnoring them, while some will tell you that they are worth nothing but won't bother to make their own test. I can tell you from experience. Started my tests two years ago and whining never ceased. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tigertalon
02-22-2005, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
TT,

LW in WWII by doctrine attacked B-17 head on and shot for cockpit.

How do you get your average? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen it in at least two books, one I can't remember the title (will try to find it in library again) the other I own, it is Peter Caygill: "Combat legend: Focke-wulf Fw 190", several pages, two of them :

page 25:
quote:

"The ultimate Sturmbock was the A-8/R8, which had the two outer Mg 151s replaced by 30-mm MK 108s. The amount of armour carried increased significantly. In addition to the cowling ring and piot protection of the standard A-8, the A-8/R8 aslo had extra plating applied to the cockpit sides and cannon magazines, and thicker canopy side panels. The outboard MK 108s were the primary armament, three hits from this weapon usually being enough to destroy a four-engined bomber or Viermot. On average, twenty hits were needed with 20-mm ammunition"

end of quote

Pages 87, 88:
quote:

"MK 108: A much more advanced gun than the MK 103, the MK 108 was initially rejected by the Technical Office of RLM and production did not commence until mid-1941. Its chief advantages were low weight (half that of the MK 103) and high rate of fire, although the muzzle velocity was a modest 1,750 feet per second. Even so, one hit from a high-explosive or incediary shell was liable to destroy a twin-engined aircraft, and three or four were generally all that was needed to bring down a four-engined heavy bomber. First used on the Fw 190 A-5/U16, the under-wing instalation required the fitting og a blast tube due to the discharge of gas pressure as the gun was fired. Although a single hit could cause significant damage, the MK 108's low muzzle velocity meant that it hook more than two seconds for each shell to travel 1,000 yards, during which time gravity drop was in the order of 100 ft. This meant that attacks had to be pressed home to relatively close range to ensure success."

end of quote.

Also if you think rationally: can you imagine rapid firing 20mm cannon firing against trucks, or APCs or something? Now, think about this same cannon firing against fragile, few tonns weighting installation, which has to fly.

WWMaxGunz
02-22-2005, 10:39 PM
TT you don't have anything there about attacking from the front IRL or in sim tests.

Yes, I can imagine 20mm against trucks. Seen that and worse. Not as devastating as
you seem to think but you can stop the truck. You can also hit and not stop it.
What you should understand is that even the fighters have more structure than trucks.
APC's... like halftracks? Compare to seat back armor sometime. Enclosed armor that
a 20mm AP gets inside, it will bounce around if it doesn't exit. Same that 20mm HE
gets inside, the enclosure only makes the effect of the blast worse for passengers
and the fragments bounce around but at least the "skin" won't rip up and be torn off
in highspeed slipstream!

Try to imagine a bomber with a single fragmenting HE shell going off right in the
cockpit. Some chance of only damaging and not incapacitating all the crew, some
chance of 1 hit and it goes down. But for some reason I feel that the average of
hits needed will be significantly lower from the front than from any other aspect
with shots from the rear needing the most hits.

chaikanut
02-23-2005, 03:45 AM
Hello


I have noticed sturmoviks losing their tails after extended fire from the 7mm from Bf109. I have also noticed that Russian machine guns are far more destructive than german ones due to a combination of higher muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shallow trajectory which makes aiming easier. The russian 12mm is especially destructive compared to the peashooter 13mm german, easily ripping off tails, wings and setting fuel tanks alight. I would like to repeat that in close ranges and adequate gunnery, their essential difference is kinetic energy and therefore AP potential. Now compare that to 20mm cannon, due to loadout and energy the german cannon is the worst (by far) and the hispano the best. Could the destructiveness of the hispano be attributed to AP effects on the damage model alone? From the above this could be. I do not know how the individual components of the damage model work, but if they have a ''hitpoint'' component like tanks, then this whole difference is due to not perfect damage models (you will have to wait for BOB to improve that). Increasing the power of german cannon will lead to another season of whining since as is german cannon is quite good from large angles and fails when attacking from the ''hard'' parts like 6' or wing edges.

OldMan____
02-23-2005, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
Once more, I didn't count kills like destroyed controls, PK or black smoke. Only tail or wing shot off, flames or dead engine.

I tested in coop mode to let the game count hits for me.

The hits a plane can absorb varied greatly. Yes, I needed 35 hispano rounds to destroy plane in one case. On the other hand I managed to explode planes with only one hit (all cannons can do it).

If somebody thinks I am a liar, well I can only encourage him to do his homework, test himself and present his results here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just stating It looks strange indeed. If you look on other older 151 threads you will see that I made tests that summed up 200 planes shot down. And my average hit to kill fighters wiht hispano is around 5! I never was able to need more than 10 or so hits Were ou trying to hit same spot? Or each time at a different lace? Hitting completely different place is a completely useles test.. since the random factor gets too big.

Lazy312
02-23-2005, 04:59 PM
For those who don't believe fockewulf can take more than 10 hispano hits:

http://kv.clarionet.cz/il2/tracks/misc/23hispanohits.zip

This one got 23 hits and you can see the plane still stays together before AI crashes.

I would post better track (with more hits and with a plane destroyed by gunfire, not crash) but it's 1 am here and I really had a hard day.

(Please take into account that not every hit can be seen as an explosion. 23 is what game counted, not me.)

Vipez-
02-24-2005, 03:35 AM
lazy some call that bad luck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IIJG69_Kartofe
02-24-2005, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
For those who don't believe fockewulf can take more than 10 hispano hits:

http://kv.clarionet.cz/il2/tracks/misc/23hispanohits.zip

This one got 23 hits and you can see the plane still stays together before AI crashes.

I would post better track (with more hits and with a plane destroyed by gunfire, not crash) but it's 1 am here and I really had a hard day.

(Please take into account that not every hit can be seen as an explosion. 23 is what game counted, not me.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1)Exeptions are just there to confirm the rule.

23 Hispano hits to down a 190 is the exeption, like more than 3 MK108 hits to down a fighter is also an exeption.

2)Who has said to you that the RL 190 was a paper plane ? Don't ever listen to him anymore!

Zmir88IAP
02-24-2005, 05:45 AM
thx buzz-but everyone knows this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif