PDA

View Full Version : Four weapons test online - by JtD.



Kuna15
01-05-2006, 06:06 PM
I was browsing UKded forum when I saw this thread
http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=9894


Originally posted by JtD:
Net results for fighter combat:
MG 151: 4.5 hits/kill
Hispano: 8.5 hits/kill
ShVAK: 11.5 hits/kill
Browning: 55 hits/kill

I'd like to point out that this was not a scientific experiment, but rather a test. Inaccuracies are there, so feel free to repeat the test yourself.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Go over at comms centre forums (link above) and check it out, very nice info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Kuna15
01-05-2006, 06:06 PM
I was browsing UKded forum when I saw this thread
http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=9894

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Net results for fighter combat:
MG 151: 4.5 hits/kill
Hispano: 8.5 hits/kill
ShVAK: 11.5 hits/kill
Browning: 55 hits/kill

I'd like to point out that this was not a scientific experiment, but rather a test. Inaccuracies are there, so feel free to repeat the test yourself.

I'll be happy to answer any questions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go over at comms centre forums (link above) and check it out, very nice info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

MLudner
01-05-2006, 06:13 PM
It was. Interesting that he had a better kill rate with an MG 151/20 over the Soviet 23mm ShVAK, I would think the ShVAK harder hitting.

Jetbuff
01-05-2006, 06:16 PM
Isn't the ShVAK a 20mm weapon? I'm pretty sure the Vya is the 23mm Russian cannon.

MLudner
01-05-2006, 06:18 PM
You could be right. But, from the post there I was thinking it was the 23mm.

carguy_
01-05-2006, 06:20 PM
It depends on which aircraft it was tested.Soviet planes react to ShVak violently while MG151/20 needs 7-8 hits to score a kill.

Xiolablu3
01-05-2006, 07:15 PM
It was all using German vs Soviet, German Vs US/British, US/British Vs Japanese. All played in the historical scenarios on UKdedicated1.

No Soviet vs Soviet or anything like that was used as far as I know.

Also it was the 20mm Russian cannon NOT the 23mm.

Kuna15
01-06-2006, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It was all using German vs Soviet, German Vs US/British, US/British Vs Japanese. All played in the historical scenarios on UKdedicated1.

No Soviet vs Soviet or anything like that was used as far as I know.

Also it was the 20mm Russian cannon NOT the 23mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is correct. Only Allied vs. Axis matchups on UKded so it is not possible to fly for example Hurricane vs. Spitfire or LaGG vs. IL-2 -- player would be kicked if he does that. And that includes various scenarios; PTO, ETO, MTO Malta, Africa...

VyA is in my experience (although not thoroughly tested) the strongest weapon up to 20mm or to be more precise 23mm. Good side of that weapon is strong punch and bood ballistics while drawback is slow RoF.
ShVAK = 20mm weapon. Default on IL-2 1/2 series, 3 series onwards uses VyA with exception of 3M used in Kursk iirc. Default cannon on LaGG, Yak, La...
VyA = 23mm weapon. That version is considered the best by the IL-2 VVS pilots (better than Nudelman Suranov 37mm, due to high recoil).
Can be used on LaGG fighters S29/S35 as custom fitted cannon.

Brain32
01-06-2006, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Net results for fighter combat:
MG 151: 4.5 hits/kill
Hispano: 8.5 hits/kill
ShVAK: 11.5 hits/kill
Browning: 55 hits/kill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jimDG
01-06-2006, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
I was browsing UKded forum when I saw this thread
http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=9894

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Net results for fighter combat:
MG 151: 4.5 hits/kill
Hispano: 8.5 hits/kill
ShVAK: 11.5 hits/kill
Browning: 55 hits/kill

I'd like to point out that this was not a scientific experiment, but rather a test. Inaccuracies are there, so feel free to repeat the test yourself.

I'll be happy to answer any questions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go over at comms centre forums (link above) and check it out, very nice info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

makes sense.
suppose it takes 4.5 20mm hits in a BF109G2 to get a kill. Now suppose you are flying a Spit ot a I-16 and you are not shooting at convergence range - 4.5 hits (from the right gun) go someplace vital, and another 4.5 hits (from the left gun) go someplace else - not so vital. Or both guns make holes in the left and right wings until a wing breaks, rather than damaging a (vital) control surface/engine/fuel tank in the middle.

Assimg all belts have the same HE/AP/Tracer ratios.

Brain32
01-06-2006, 05:11 AM
Well 4.5 hits for a kill makes sense for mg151/20, but Hispano and Shvak are much deadlier, 1(ONE) hit from Hispano - choose: PK,Dewing,loose controls,fire, on ANY German plane, same applies for Shvak...
8.5 Hispano hits?
11.5 Shvak?
R.O.T.F.L.M.A.O.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jimDG
01-06-2006, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Isn't the ShVAK a 20mm weapon? I'm pretty sure the Vya is the 23mm Russian cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shvak and B20 are 20mm - both have same performance, B20 is 3 times lighter.
Vya/23mm is (in my experience) at the same level as the mk108 - one hit is quite often enough for a kill, and it has much better balistics- easier to aim.

Hristo_
01-06-2006, 05:17 AM
Interesting, but target should be same plane, not different planes. For example, planes equipped for bomber hunting were probably more armored than fighters. Then there's the convergence issue, flight profile of different targets etc.

Simple example: most Spits I meet turn happily, exposing their vulnerable planeform view. It takes just a few rounds to knock their wings off in that scenario. Fw 190, on the other hand, usually die running, not turning. When fired upon, they present rather unfavorable impact angles to attacker's shells, along with prolonged shell flightpath compared to planeform shots.

Another example. After months or even years of WF flying, I tried EF scenarios lately. That delta wood is tough. It is probably old news, but I found much harder to down delta wood planes than their Western counterparts. At times I lined up a perfect shot, fired and stopped firing, figuring it would be an overkill. Yet, the target plane (I-185, La-7 and even Yak) merrily flew on. Simply put, a burst which would down a P-51 is usually not enough to down a La or Yak. P39/63 also seem tougher than other US planes, although they are not made of delta wood.

The only reliable testing method would be 1 gun vs same target for all guns. Otherwise it is not really testing, but mere statistics.

AustinPowers_
01-06-2006, 09:29 AM
Scraping the bottom of the barrel, baby yeah!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
Otherwise it is not really testing, but mere statistics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hristo:&gt;Gunstat

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 09:42 AM
It is a good point that Hristo makes about a Spitfire and La often turning and exposing their cockpit, whereas a Fw190A is much less likely to expose his top, and you are often shooting his much stronger tail section, when he runs.

Still a valid test tho, as enough planes have been shot down to giv a good average.

JtD
01-06-2006, 10:15 AM
This was a test. As in test, not scientific experiment. The numbers I got very well mirror my perception, but there are certainly a LOT of variables involved. Hristo is just scraping the paint.

The best thing you can do is to actually repeat this, or do another related test yourself and share the results. This will allow all of us to quickly get a better picture.

Edit: I see Kuna has also quoted this with his initial post. But it seems I wasn't the only one who missed that bit.

F19_Ob
01-06-2006, 10:31 AM
In arcademode one can study the effect and strenght of the different rounds in the ammobelts of each cannon (or mg).

Some cannons have more solid rounds wich may do very little damage going through a wing or a fuselage. The solid round can do real damage in the right spot.
This round still has a flash like the exploding ones and is often mistaken for a HE round online where people say they repetedly have hit a plane and it didn't go down.
Unfortunately arcademode doesn't work on online tracks but my offline tests explains to me atleast, that a plane that remains flying after multiple hits often has taken solid rounds in unvital places where litle or no damage have been done.

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

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
This was a test. As in test, not scientific experiment. The numbers I got very well mirror my perception, but there are certainly a LOT of variables involved. Hristo is just scraping the paint.

The best thing you can do is to actually repeat this, or do another related test yourself and share the results. This will allow all of us to quickly get a better picture.

Edit: I see Kuna has also quoted this with his initial post. But it seems I wasn't the only one who missed that bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey I wasnt knocking the test, its cool.

HayateAce
01-06-2006, 11:07 AM
Everyone has known for a long time the 151 hits harder than it should. Oleg adjusted it to balance out G A M E P L A Y.

No real mystery.

Brain32
01-06-2006, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This was a test. As in test, not scientific experiment. The numbers I got very well mirror my perception, but there are certainly a LOT of variables involved. Hristo is just scraping the paint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I know this was a test, but it looks like WW2 moral raising Nazi propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The best thing you can do is to actually repeat this, or do another related test yourself and share the results. This will allow all of us to quickly get a better picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I volunteer to do what ever it takes(flying the target drone or whatever), I'm CET+1 usually flying on weekdays somewhere in between 21-24h+

Kocur_
01-06-2006, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Everyone has known for a long time the 151 hits harder than it should. Oleg adjusted it to balance out G A M E P L A Y.

No real mystery. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. What happend was that Oleg included Minengeschoss (MG) rounds to MG151/20 belting. And those made MG151/20 bursts effective, as each of those shells in APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG sequence delivered 20grams of explosive, opposed to 10grams in British Hispano HE projectile, not to mention 5,7grams in ShVAK HE projectile. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This was a test. As in test, not scientific experiment. The numbers I got very well mirror my perception, but there are certainly a LOT of variables involved. Hristo is just scraping the paint. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I know this was a test, but it looks like WW2 moral raising Nazi propaganda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The best thing you can do is to actually repeat this, or do another related test yourself and share the results. This will allow all of us to quickly get a better picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I volunteer to do what ever it takes(flying the target drone or whatever), I'm CET+1 usually flying on weekdays somewhere in between 21-24h+ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just repeat the test yourself. Read the conditions on the post on the other forum, fly on warclouds or UKdedicated historical scenarios, use the gunstat command to measure the hits, fire only cannons no mg and post the results of 100 kills with each weapon.

No real mystery or 'target drone' needed.

Brain32
01-06-2006, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Just repeat the test yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M8 I will surely not repeat the test I consider inaccurate, not much sense in that is there?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No real mystery or 'target drone' needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%. To achieve most accurate results tests of all weapons must be conducted under same circumstances, that can only be achieved with the help of the target drone...

JtD
01-06-2006, 12:04 PM
But if you use the target drone approach you will need to factor how your results translate into actual dogfight conditions, which is all included if you use actual combat against actual opponents as a testing ground.

My test is not claiming to show that the MG-151 is two times as powerful as the Hispano, in fact it can't. I have no doubt the MG 151 is more powerful, but a lot of the results are down to other factors, that cannot be put in numbers.

What you can do with my results, however, is to estimate the firepower of your and other peoples ride in an environment like the UK-D server.

Btw, I have also done target drone shooting numerous times but I do that shooting AI on my PC in local COOP sessions.

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Just repeat the test yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

M8 I will surely not repeat the test I consider inaccurate, not much sense in that is there?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> No real mystery or 'target drone' needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%. To achieve most accurate results tests of all weapons must be conducted under same circumstances, that can only be achieved with the help of the target drone... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have been dying to get a response all thread from someone, havent you?

I am sorry I gave in and gave you a chance to explain...

JTD has said this is not a scientific test, it was not even supposed to be posted here, Kuna just felt a few people at the 'UBI Zoo' may find it interesting. If it is of no use to you please move along.

Hristo_
01-06-2006, 02:25 PM
I'm not trying to insult this test or original poster, just trying to put some things into perspective.

English is not my first language either, so meaning of "scraping the barrel" escapes me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Anyway, lots and lots of variables, of which I only tried to present a few.

Convergence, part of the plane hit, angle of hit, relative speeds, fuel tanks position, pilot armor, recoil, belting....just some of thiose variables.

In Warbirds and AH there was a so called hanger test. One would taxy the plane to the hanger and start firing with unlimited ammo. All it took was to count the rounds needed to explode the hanger.

Kuna15
01-06-2006, 03:35 PM
I think we should look at this test as sort of "field" test and that includes many more factors other than pure hitting power of specific cannon. At least I do look at it that way.
Nonetheless test is actually very interesting... would be nice if we have few of such "field" tests from various historical servers online for comparison (only axis vs. allies planesets).
Unfortunately it is enormous ammount of work and will took a lot of time to complete... JtD http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

For pure weapon strength target drone is a way to go of course. Preferably the same target for all weapons.

Xiolablu3
01-06-2006, 04:38 PM
Precisely Kuna, the test is by no means scientific, but the results are definitely interesting, and the fact that so many planes (100) were shot down means the averages are very useful reading, at least for me.

It shows that fewer hits are needed by the MG151 are needed to down the average Allied/Red plane.

Whether this is because Blue planes are stronger on average or because the red cannons are slightly weaker is unknown. But in the real game (not tests) you are more likely to shoot down a Allied plane using the MG151 with less hits than a Axis/blue plane using either of the Allies 2 20mm cannons (hispano or SHvak).

It does not mean the MG151 is stronger.

ploughman
01-06-2006, 04:47 PM
There was a reference to Jerry ammo having 20 grams of HE over Hispano having 10 grams of HE/20mm round. What kind of HE did Jerry ammo utilise and how did it compare to Hispano HE?

Anyone know? I sure don't.

jimDG
01-06-2006, 06:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
There was a reference to Jerry ammo having 20 grams of HE over Hispano having 10 grams of HE/20mm round. What kind of HE did Jerry ammo utilise and how did it compare to Hispano HE?

Anyone know? I sure don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the germans had a "mineshell" HE (separate from normal HE that they also had) which was a very thin metal casing packed with as much HE as possible. As opposed to a normal HE shell which is is a normal shell with an HE core. It was designed to blow large holes in an aircraft skin and/or blow control surfaces to pieces. First introduced over France.

Difference is:
Mineshell HE: no pentrative power, low weight (almost no metal in it), poor range and poor balistics, lots of HE inside. Designed to explode on the surface of the target. Damage done by the HE.
normal HE: some penetrative power, normal weight, good ballistics, some HE inside. Designed to explode inside the target. Damage done by the shell metal fragments puncturing/cutting things.

here's the 30mm (mk108) mineshell

http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon24.jpg

here's a picture comparing German 20mm HE cartriges
(MG-FF HE/incend/tracer, MG-FF Mineshell, MG151 HE/incend/tracer, MG151 Mineshell, MG151 Armor piercing HE)
I guess the hispano HE round would be more like the 5th round on the picture.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2aircart.JPG

JtD
01-06-2006, 11:20 PM
The MG 151 used PETN the Hispano used TNT. All in all the chemical energy carried by the German projectile was roughly four times as high as the energy by the British round.

There were Minengeschosse that did not explode on impact, it all depends on the fuse.

The 151/MG weighs 90 grams and leaves the barrel at 755 m/s. While ballistic were worse than the ones of say the Browning or the Hispano, they certainly weren't poor if compared to a MK 108.

Kocur_
01-07-2006, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mineshell HE: no pentrative power, low weight (almost no metal in it), poor range and poor balistics, lots of HE inside. Designed to explode on the surface of the target. Damage done by the HE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was 30mm Minengeschoss both for MK108 and MK103 and 20mm for MG FFM and MG151/20. You can accuse Minengeschoss fired from MK108 of poor ballistics, but thats not in case of MK103 or MG151/20.
And Minengeschoss fired from MG151/20 left muzzle at 800m/s, weighting 92g, which was similar to ShVAK (790m/s, 95g), but MG projectile being longer, had better ballistical perfomance than shorty ShVAK projectile. Penetration of MG (with delayed fuse) was of course nil in case of any armour, but definately penetrated planes skin easily.

Hristo_
01-07-2006, 04:07 AM
take a look at this:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/weapons15.htm