Jump to content

Panthera

Members
  • Content Count

    705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

327 Excellent

About Panthera

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

491 profile views
  1. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Could it be possible they were refering to the TNT equivalent? If so then each 3cm HE-T (73 g RDX) & HE (85 g RDX) minengeschoss shell carried the equivalent of between 117-135 g of TNT, times four that would be 468-540 g. A single 5cm HE(M) shell contained 335 g of RDX, the equivalent of 536 g of TNT. The other option ofcourse is like Gielow mentions that they were talking about the weight of the entire projectile.
  2. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Well if you look closely at all the footage known to have been only with 20mm cannon, then they all seem virtually identical to those IMHO, and that includes the footage of the Liberator which appears to be struck with 20mm HEI shells. 30mm HE(M) simply produces a much larger explosion, enough the blow a fighters fuselage in half as we've seen. As for the footage I referenced, the hit to the left wing certainly seemed to have ignited some fuel, so the tank there was most likely ruptured, but the big initial flash/explosion & big hole from which the fire appears afterwards looks consistent with known Mk108 damage, as does the the larger amount of debris present after the other 2 big hits in that clip. Sadly I think it's one of only a handful of MK108 gun camera clips available, which is understandable considering it wasn't anywhere as often a used weapon as the MG151/20. So that it isn't particularly prevalent in news reel footage from the time isn't really surprising. We would undoubtedly have had a large amount available had the archive not been burned to the ground though as the LW apparently employed more gun cameras than anyone else from 44 onwards. Every 262 apparently carried one, but as far as I know not a single 262 gun camera film survived the war, they were all lost in Dresden.
  3. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    I'd argue that all of those are most likely showing the results of 20mm cannon fire (most of the A8s & 110G2s coming without Mk108s), as the damage looks identical to all the other footage we've seen from aircraft that we know only carried 20mm as their heaviest armament. So far I've only been able to identify one clip of gun camera footage showcasing damage consistent with what we know about the MK108, and it appears at 4:30 min in this video (2 big flashes, one to the right and then another to the left wing, and then what appears to be a third big hit to the fuselage right at the end): https://youtu.be/vfYMtSiFuIc?t=270 The above clip appears consistent with photos such as these supposed to show the damage from a single MK108 hit: It's a shame that the German gun camera archive with all of the LW's 6 years worth of gun camera footage was destroyed, if not we would've no doubt had a lot of Mk108 footage to go by.
  4. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Spoon-feeding me? So was that also what I was doing when I was correcting you on the British trials that were posted pretty much in their entirety on this forum and not in small snippets so you had a chance to miss important details? And no obviously I hadn't read the entire report, if I had I wouldn't have responded directly to you the way I did now would I ? Seems we're back at ignoring what I actually am stating in my posts and instead making up arguments I've never made. (Like when you ignored me talking specifically about hits to the wings) Hence you're going to have to specify exactly what inconsistency exists between my interpretation of the British trials and what the US report indicates. I can make it easy for you and list the points I've made so that you pick exactly which one you feel is unfounded: 1) The evidence available strongly suggests that it would one average take just one hit by a 3cm HE(M) shell to the wing of a fighter to cause structural failure (of said wing) 2) It is concievable that a P-47, being a very sturdily built aircraft, has a reasonable chance of surviving a single 30mm HE(M) to its wing, but evidence suggests that surviving two hits to the same wing is unlikely 3) A P-47 is very much not likely to survive 4 direct hits to its rear fuselage (response to ingame example of this happening), infact surviving more than one or two seems very unlikely based on the British trials. Which one does the US OR analysis regarding random hits directly disagree with? The GAF study is referenced in so many books and in some detail by LW pilots that it is highly unlikely to be imaginary, hence it would be a mistake to simply dismiss it and leave it out. It's credibility is helped along by the fact that it relates closely with the British trials. All the evidence available has to be considered in a matter such as this, also the less detailed examples. It's the only way to get the most complete picture. But obviously the GAF study does not equate to the UK or US study in terms of evidence, and cannot stand alone against either, and I never claimed that either, however it does act as a supporting bit evidence to the former. The problem with that interpretation IMHO is that the US tests were carried out from a single direction & angle at a very long range (not several like the British trials), and worse still provides no details on the location or results of each hit. For instance how many hits were glances, how many were duds etc. In short it's impossible to use the US test as a source for comparison with ingame results of hits to specific parts of an aircraft. The UK trials on the other hand provide great detail on the possible outcome of hits to specific parts on an airframe, making it an actual useful source for comparison.
  5. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    I didn't blatantly misrepresent anything. Which is the same as calling me a liar btw - for no reason what so ever I might add. But let me start by saying that if you're accusing me of this because you've run out of arguments, then there are certainly a lot more graceful & polite ways of going about it. But I'm assuming you're refering to this comment of mine in your effort to now slander my person: I wrote the above (directly to you btw, not anyone else) because I simply didn't know any firings vs a B-25's structure had been made, it was apparent nowhere on any of the the pages you had provided thus far that I had seen. All I noted were firings vs B-25 engines. It's really as simple as that. That hardly qualifies as "blatantly misrepresenting" something, does it? Also I really did expect you could see how utterly illogical a move it would be to deliberatly misrepresent something that has been posted for everyone else to see as well before you would ever resort to writing a reply like this - I mean for anyone to do that just wouldn't make any sense at all. Claiming instead that I hoped "that everyone will be so fed up with answering your barrage of posts that they will just give up and let them pass" is being very creative I must say, esp. considering that I was replying directy to you the entire time. How you managed to concoct that in your mind mystifies me. Furthermore how is all of this any different than you claiming that the British tests are basically invalid because they were "shooting at optimal locations"? I mean seeing as the British did no such thing, then how is that not also a clear case of "blatantly misrepresenting things"? Yet eventhough you said this which someone could've easily twisted into you making an attempt at trying to mislead people, I didn't any any point claim you were attempting to do this, nor did I try to slander your person because of what you said did I? No I didn't, because I automatically assume things like that are the result of undeliberately missing a few details whilst going through the source material provided. Same story with your mix up of the post war ADEN & MK108 trials. I wouldn't dream of calling you a liar because of it, hence I am pretty bamboozled that you apparently would. Now with all of this said my points still stand, which is that the Mk108 does not do the damage ingame that it demonstrated in real life. The evidence on that is clear for everyone to see. If you want to have a civil discussion about why you disagree with this, fine, I am all ears and will even forget about your post above. If not, then I shall save us both the trouble and henceforth simply stop replying & ignore your posts.
  6. First of all you can't compare two seperate engines like that, the DB605 could for example run at 1.8 ata on C3 alone for 10 min (and obviously longer still, just like the Merlin could run at 18 " Hg for a lot longer than 5 min) without issue, adding MW on top and you could crank it up to 1.98ata (although this did require different spark plugs) . Secondly 1.42ata was altogether banned in the manuals you just listed, hence the 1 min limit. Once 1.42ata was cleared however (late summer 43) no time limit appears for 1.42ata again, and that probably because the deaeration of the oil helped cool the engine so much that the risk of detonation was altogether eliminated at any probable scenario the engine would face within the cleared ratings.
  7. Add to this that no airforce or engine maker would ever clear a boost rating likely to destroy the engine within 1, 5 or even 10 min of uninterrupted use. Hence why 1.42ata was altogether banned until the issue of insufficient cooling was solved. Two of the ways they solved the issue is explained in period documents, the main one I am told being the deaeration of the oil. Deaerating the oil would've greatly reduced friction heat and improved oil cooling rate at the same time, and this alone was probably enough to avoid detonation. But other than that they also redesigned the piston heads, and it's possible the timing of the ignition was adjusted as well. However to increase the boost pressure beyond 1.42ata in the DB605 and still have a reliable engine they had to either use a higher octane fuel, incorperate water or water methanol injection or "simply" redesign the engine. Thus it's no surprise they went for MW injection in general, and higher octane C3 when possible, as further redesign of the engine would've likely only lead to meagre increases in power at a cost of an unacceptably long development time. That said they managed to squeeze a remarkable amount of power out a size wise quite small engine. Infact IIRC the DB605 is even a tiny bit smaller dimensionally than the Merlin engine, despite the noticable difference in displacement.
  8. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Well you assumed they weren't counting targets not shot down, not me. But I'm not relying on the German estimates, I merely mentioned them as they mirror the British findings. The concern that the ingame DM model is incorrect, atleast in the case of the MK108, is based on the three British firing trials which are very conclusive.
  9. I agree that ideally it should be higher for the aircraft without water injection as well, but seeing as the developers apparently insist on having these time limits then 10 min of WEP at a time for those with water injection and 5 min for those without it seems like a good compromise, providing the recharge period is kept equal ofcourse. It's a compromise I could live with at least.
  10. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    No worries, happens to me as well
  11. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    30mm? We were talking about the 20mm ShvaKs as compared with the MG151/20, not about the Mk108 I am quite aware of how to get the best out of the Mk108 in terms of hits, the problem with that gun is all about said hits not doing what they're suppose to be doing atm, even if they are very effective at taking out powerplant systems. But again, that's not what Ivy and I were talking about
  12. Admission? No, that's not quite how things work. The LW was losing experienced pilots due to all causes, and you can be sure they didn't want engine failure to be one of them. Hence why the Germans did everything they could to improve pilot survival chances, being the first to develop ejection seats and blow away canopies etc. Also the TBO's did go down dramatically, they had to, as most of the engines were running for much longer between oil changes. Hence why you have LW pilots saying their engines were overhauled every 50 hours (same as a Jumo 004) at that point in the war, they had to baby every single one of the engines as they simply couldn't afford to have them fail in flight. Yes, water injection is one of the best ways to ensure safe operation at high boost pressures as it cools down the temperatures inside the cylinders directly. Hence why the P-47 (and the MW equipped German aircraft) really ought to be able to run at their max boost pressures for as long as they liked with this enabled. But since the German aircraft with this system get a 10 min limit ingame then that's also what you have to give the P-47 as well (incl. the ability to recharge at combat power) The current 5 min limit doesn't make any sense for an aircraft equipped with such a system.
  13. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    It feels slower somehow, perhaps it's down to how the guns are synched. I at least percieve myself struggling to get hits with it as easily as with the MG151/20's. Could also be that that I wasn't seeing as many flashes to indicate a hit. I have the same problem with the .50 cals, yet I know they're destructive.
  14. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    If I had it I would, Franz Stigler talks about it in one of his interviews. The average percentage of hits pr. rounds fired was also assessed, claimed to be 2% by Stigler. Now these statistics & averages were obviously also from by people who knew what they were talking about. So assuming they didnt count unsuccesful attacks seems abit far fetched, esp. since it would make the analysis completely useless. Agreed, took the La-5 out last night and was pretty underwhelmed with the damage its SvhaK armament does. Only exception was a pilot kill from directly 6 o clock, so atleast the AP rounds work as intended. That said some of it was probably down to the relatively low rof.
  15. Panthera

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    The aircraft that did not go down were ofcourse counted as well, and that as not shot down by the observed number of hits, that's how averages work after all, as a summary of all the results, which includes the failures. In other words if footage of a B-17 saw it take five hits and fly on (no confirmation of loss or anything), then said 5 hits for no result would obviously just pull the average higher, and if another film saw just two hits send a B-17 down in a ball of fire than that would pull it the opposite direction. In short the 3-4 average would be the number of hits seen bring down a bomber most frequently, but it didn't guarantee that this would always be the case. It was a probability measure based on recorded shootings. By comparison LW analysis of gun camera film reached an average of 20 hits with 20mm cannon required to down a B-17.
×