5-10 20mm Hits into a Stuka, 1x8mm into my engine and it stops?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

WTF is this?

[BlitzPig_EL]

The constraints of a rushed development cycle imposed by the publisher.

 

Pretty simple really.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Actually depends on where you are hit exactly. It is possible to both situations to happen I think.

[LukeFF]

The constraints of a rushed development cycle imposed by the publisher.

 

Pretty simple really.

 

Have you tested the damage model to confirm or refute the OP's findings?

[VRPilot]

the front part of your Aircraft: full of vital stuff, gearboxes, pistons, wires and stuff.

the back part of your target: lots of empty space, airframe structure.

 

conclusion:

 

facing a gun head on (you vs. gunner) = bad

your guns facing enemy six: bad unless you blow of both elevators and/or tail section

[Matt]

I would love to see someone firing exactly 1 round with the MG81Z. Or just hitting something with just one round.

[Yakdriver]

no but 1 round can be enough out of the few hundred that the gunner has...

[Matt]

And how do you know that 1 bullet actually was enough? Can you count the invisible rounds or do you time it so perfectly that only one round leaves the barrel and hits the target right in the engine?

 

Rate of fire of the MG81Z is 50 rounds a second.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Matt

[Yakdriver]

For the record, *I* did NOT  say that 1 round was enough.
The one that actually SAID it , is the dude who wrote the title.

Nobody said 1 bullet was shot.
Nobody has proof that  only 1 Bullet has hit.
the entire thread is a decompression ventil for overconfidence, lack of skill and bad luck by the OP.
The goal is not to find answers. the Goal is to cry, complain, moan, female-dog, with no proof and no point.

 

But go and put 1 round in a running gearbox. see what happens.
just an example.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[Brano]

WTF is this?

 

 

Have you tested the damage model to confirm or refute the OP's findings?

 

Does "WTF" count as finding?

[Sokol1]

Call "realistic" (or not), MP "balance"... but the nose "hit box" is highly sensitive. So don't point his plane directly to bomber six.

 

[1./JG42Nephris]

Coolaroony

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Call "realistic" (or not), MP "balance"... but the nose "hit box" is highly sensitive. So don't point his plane directly to bomber six.

 

 

I did a similar test with 111s using the shortest buts I could manage, just a click on the mouse button.

 

Out of 30 engines shot at, about 75% of the time it was enough to stop the engine in the short term.  No engine survived for more than a few seconds after two bursts. 25% of the engines were burning after one burst, about 50% burned after two, even if they were off.  I guess everything in the engine bay was already hot.

 

I saw one crew try to restart a damaged engine, which I thought was interesting.  It ran for a few seconds and quit with no further intervention on my part :-)

 

Crewmen on the other hand were relatively durable.  Almost universally they took 3 bursts to put out of action.  A few went down after two bursts, none were incapacitated after just one burst.  One was a waist gunner who took 5 bursts - I assume he had some armor.  Aiming at the chest or the head or the arm didn't appear to make any difference at all.

[JtD]

I've seen a (British) damage effect analysis with light machine gun fire directed at the front section of a 109 - most hits would have been lethal, many would have been instantly lethal.

I've also seen a (British) damage effect analysis with heavy machine gun fire directed at the rear section of a 190 - most hits had no effect, and only a small number would have been lethal, nearly none instantly lethal.

 

Attacking aircraft from the front is simply much more effective. This is also a reason why frontal attacks became popular for bomber interception.

[unreasonable]

 

 

Crewmen on the other hand were relatively durable.  Almost universally they took 3 bursts to put out of action.  A few went down after two bursts, none were incapacitated after just one burst.  One was a waist gunner who took 5 bursts - I assume he had some armor.  Aiming at the chest or the head or the arm didn't appear to make any difference at all.

 

Interesting, suggests the RoF model is the basis of BoS's human damage model, which should be no surprise.  RoF uses a three strikes and you are out model, making pks a bit of a grind. This probably went with the overly accurate and rapid MG fire of the original version. 

 

I have been killed pretty quickly in BoS though - maybe cannon hits count as 3 MG hits?

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Interesting, suggests the RoF model is the basis of BoS's human damage model, which should be no surprise.  RoF uses a three strikes and you are out model, making pks a bit of a grind. This probably went with the overly accurate and rapid MG fire of the original version. 

 

I have been killed pretty quickly in BoS though - maybe cannon hits count as 3 MG hits?

 

 

I tried it again with the UBT in the Pe-2.  Engines do not like being hit with .50 caliber rounds.  The rate of fire is slower so you really can fire one shot, and that is enough to stop my wingvictims' engines reliably (although several times I saw attempted restarts.  They never worked.)

 

Results for the crews were about the same though.  Three hits with a .50 seemed to take the fight out of the crewmen.  

 

Something a little different though... Once the pilot is out of commission, the gunner pops the canopy off (often trying to restart an engine at the same time, not quite sure how that works)  One or two shots was usually enough to finish him, but I don't know if that reflects the protection of the canopy being gone or injuries from fragments from his pilot being killed.

 

I did notice that you could shoot through the bomb bay doors, the bomb bay, and the rear bulkhead of the bomb bay into the Pe's waist.  That crewman there has a brief but exciting existence when you do that.

[JG1_Pragr]

I really doubt any Stuka could survived ten 20 mm rounds burst (I mean if all rounds hit of course). Just yesterday I tried QMB with La-5 vs 8 Stukas. I had no problem to shot them down and actually I considered it's maybe too easy to do so.

 

In respect to damage model I would say that it's too easy to down plane even with the MGs. According to my own experience with 109 armament and with respect to the video posted above I think the MG rounds are simply too stable when they impact under the flat angle. There should be ricocheting but it seems like they penetrate the skin of the plane with ease even when the impact angle is close to 0 degrees. It's interesting to read a real WWII test and see that penetration ability of rifle caliber AP was almost zero when it struct the metal skin of plane first.

 

The ignition ability of our MG rounds seems to be overmodeled too. Few years ago I read RAF report of shooting trials against 109F. It stated almost impossible to ignite the fuel tank with 50cal API ammo and even for 20 mm rounds from Hispano canon this was a hard task. So that's why I think we can flame the plane too easily.

[SR-F_Winger]

WTF is this?

I guess its just you being a crappy shot. No offence!

[WhoCares]

...

The ignition ability of our MG rounds seems to be overmodeled too. Few years ago I read RAF report of shooting trials against 109F. It stated almost impossible to ignite the fuel tank with 50cal API ammo and even for 20 mm rounds from Hispano canon this was a hard task. So that's why I think we can flame the plane too easily.

Careful - the fires we see are engine fires, basically cylinders/valves/fuel lines damaged and unburned fuel igniting on hot engine parts.

At least I have not seen fuel tanks igniting from MG fire, which should be indeed very difficult.

[Sokol1]

Fuel tank fire - MG only. 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12953-why-were-fighters-ever-needed-if-bombers-were-strong-ingame/?do=findComment&comment=203060

 

In fact if find more easy ignite planes with MG burst than with cannons rounds if aimed at right planes, fuel tank area or side of engines nacelle.

 

BTW - ease test with iL-2 against He 111. A bug prevent He 111 gunners fire in iL-2.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Sokol1

[WhoCares]

Didn't watch it fullscreen (office ), so it is difficult to really tell, but for me it still looked more like a fire in the engine nacelle.

[senseispcc]

To say something about this, I have seen rear or waist gunner’s fire when their plane was banked at 45 degrees this is nearly impossible!  

 

[Ala13_Kike]

We have one problem with this, never know if DM it's "real" or not. But all users we have the same disadvantage if not real.
In other side, I know the firepower of one MG with 7,62 ammo, and it's very dangerous, only one MG. I do not want to think the 20mm hitting a cross the plane.
Maybe this ammunition it's to break the bombers, not the engines, so with a good shot at one engine with small size ammunition and high speed shutter can stop without problems any engine, I'm sure (and sry for my English...again)

Edited November 19, 2014 by SuDoKu

[Sokol1]

Here you see fire in fuel tank better (7,62mm only).

 

 

1st and 2nd Pe-2 hit on convergence range (250).

The 3rd take 4 or 5 pass, because shoots are done bellow convergence range, so fuel leakages in both wings.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Sokol1

[Ala13_Kike]

Good video.

I think that 109F4 has 2xMG 131 13mm, I'm not sure, with 900 rounds/min, It's very dangerous.

[Brano]

Good video.

I think that 109F4 has 2xMG 131 13mm, I'm not sure, with 900 rounds/min, It's very dangerous.

No,it has 7.92mm MG17 from Rheinmetall-Borsig.

[Ala13_Kike]

No,it has 7.92mm MG17 from Rheinmetall-Borsig.

Ok, thx for this info. Google say about MG17:

MG17 : 7,92mm and 1200 bullets/min.

One shot of one second in convergence are 20 bullets in one little area, BB enemy engine, for me this section of DM is posible, for me and my little experience with the use of guns.

[dkoor]

Doesn't the Messer rate of fire actually depends on a rotating prop?

Firing thru the prop and all...

 

That way, rate of fire actually fluctuates... just saying even if it is a bit off topic.

[JG1_Pragr]

Ok, thx for this info. Google say about MG17:

MG17 : 7,92mm and 1200 bullets/min.

One shot of one second in convergence are 20 bullets in one little area, BB enemy engine, for me this section of DM is posible, for me and my little experience with the use of guns.

If you attack from behind (thus have best condition for sustained burst) many of these rounds actually ricochet. So the amount of fire would be considerable lower. If you attack from higher angle of attack, the chance for sustain burst in small area will be hard if possible.

 

Not even the 20 rounds (or more) burst doesn't meant the ignition of self sealed tanks will be sure. Ignition of fuel in/around the engine should be even harder, still not impossible.

[Sokol1]

These 7,92mm....

 

[unreasonable]

Doesn't the Messer rate of fire actually depends on a rotating prop?

Firing thru the prop and all...

 

That way, rate of fire actually fluctuates... just saying even if it is a bit off topic.

 

That must be right - but since the rpm of the prop would typically be 2300-2600 in combat a MG with a rate of fire of 1200 shots/min should not be noticeably altered, I would think.

[JtD]

Due to the reduction gear prop rpm are lower than that at and around 1500 rpm in combat. I've made a more proper estimate some time ago, but in short, since you have 3 firing points per prop rotation you'd get 4500 firing opportunities per minute. If worst case the gun is always ready just as a firing opportunity goes past, it would have to wait another ~15 ms for the next one, reducing ~1200 to ~900 rounds per minute.

[JG1_Pragr]

The electric synchronization system Germans used during WWII decreased the rate of fire by about 10 %. It's huge difference when compare with mechanical system used in example on P-40B/C which limited the rate of fire by up to 40 %. I have no idea about russian system but since they have close connection to Germany I expect the similar synchronization as Luftwaffe used.

[unreasonable]

Thanks for clarification on engine/prop reduction and impact on shots/min chaps ... sure I knew about that once upon a time

[Ala13_Kike]

If you attack from behind (thus have best condition for sustained burst) many of these rounds actually ricochet. So the amount of fire would be considerable lower. If you attack from higher angle of attack, the chance for sustain burst in small area will be hard if possible.

 

Not even the 20 rounds (or more) burst doesn't meant the ignition of self sealed tanks will be sure. Ignition of fuel in/around the engine should be even harder, still not impossible.

 

True, I agree, but I think that the balistic simulation are good in this sim, and the balistic simulation vs DM isn't predictive, I think.

When one enemy engine goes in fire, it's because your ammo has impact in this zone.

If you want take a look to the Sokol1 video, that the test vs PE-2, take a look to the holes in planes of the second Pe-2 (when Sokol1 is flying at the side of the PE-2 at the end of the video). In this zone has arrive a lot of 7,62 ammo localized in little zones of the wing, and the holes are significant.

 

I think that all depend of the angle of impact. If you shot at one A/C from his 6, or if the impacts are when this A/C it's trying to break your "6" attack. The damage that you can do change radically. Always I'm trying  to shot in the second example, when enemy aircraft it's breaking my attack, easier to break one engine, or the fuel tanks, very easier.

Maybe the problem is we're accustomed to Il2 1946 DM, and now we have, maybe, I'm not sure, a one best DM.

 

In any case, I think that if is one wrong DM, all users has the same  advantage / disadvantage, good and bad for all.

 

Creo que todo depende del ángulo de impacto. Si usted tiró en un A / C de su 6, o si los impactos son cuando este A / C que está tratando de romper su ataque "6". El daño que pueden hacer cambiar radicalmente. Siempre estoy tratando de tiro en el segundo ejemplo, cuando el avión enemigo que está rompiendo mi ataque, más fácil romper un motor, o los depósitos de combustible, muy fácil.

Tal vez el problema es que estamos acostumbrados a IL2 1946 DM, y ahora tenemos, tal vez, no estoy seguro, una mejor DM.

 

En cualquier caso, creo que si es una DM mal, todos los usuarios tienen la misma ventaja / desventaja, el bien y el mal para todos.

[JG1_Pragr]

Since the DM is based on the RoF I doubt that number of holes in the wing corresponds to the number of real hits. It's just a visual representation of damage. It's associated together so if you hit one part of plane you'll see the damage there. But still not to exact measure. It's like when you're hit in RoF into the wing area. 100 % of time you'll see your wires shot off with the first bullet hit. 

[Ala13_Kike]

sure, I do not doubt.

 

off topic -> We can request to DEV one simulator of these tests inside the A/C selection ...

 

[JG1_Pragr]

Just one more notice about the MG fire. Let say you have MG with 1 200 rpm. It means 20 rounds per second. It's huge amount of rounds on ground. But look at it in the air. Let say you shoot on Pe-2 which flies at 360 km/h (100 m/s for easy illustration). You use snap shot (that's what 99 % of people do), shoot at it from 90 degrees and your aim is perfect. The problem here is:

 

1) if you aim on wing (3 m in the widest area) you score zero to one hit. Even if the plane pass through your burst. Single rounds from your gun are separated by only 0.05 second interval. But during this interval your target move for 5 m. With 3 m wide area of aim you would be lucky to hit.

 

2) slightly better situation if you would aim on engine compartment which is 4 m long. You score zero or one hit at best.

 

3) fuselage. Way better situation. With 13 m long it's clear winner in our competition. You score whole two or three hits.

 

You can say that 90 degrees angle of attack is a limit experience. So I decrease the angle to 30 degrees only. The relative speed of your target (still traveling at the real speed 100 m/s) fall down to slightly less than 60 m/s (57,7 m/s exactly). That means the plane moves for 2,9 m during the interval of two consecutive bullet hits. In case mentioned above you score one or two hits in wing/engine area and four to five hits in fuselage. You should be more than lucky to do any damage at best. 

 

That's actually the main reason why small caliber machine guns were replaced by canons. Just because the destructive ability of single 20 mm (or even bigger) round is incomparable higher than MG rounds. And even if you score one or two hits they actually do damage. The rifle caliber rounds shall be "lucky" to do some serious damage, even when the battery of twelve is used.

[Ala13_Kike]

Remember, I'm not a expert about this, only I explain my "theory", not the true. I've used all type of guns long time ago (on ground, of course, and only for a special military training), but I'm not a expert. Maybe we have one militar in this forum that can explain better all this.

 

Only one point to take in account, I not sure if you take in account this.

 

What is the speed and energy of this ammo after exit of the cannon? 

Maybe 700 to 800 m/s and 2000 to 3000J of energy?

 

EDIT : From Wikipedia : MG17:

Muzzle velocity

from 855 m/s (2,810 ft/s) (Phosphor "B" round ) to 905 m/s (2,970 ft/s) (Armor Piercing Tracer "SmK L'spur" round)

This is other of the "problems" of these ammunition, a lot of ammo in high speed and with high energy, Not all shots will be good, but with only the 30% of impacts in one round of 2 second will be very dangerous.  The velocity of enemy aircraft with this ammo speed maybe it's secondary when they impact, the bullets go very very faster compared with the speed of enemy aircraft.

In other words, maybe not important the number of bullets that impact, but yes the energy that they have and the bullets concentration.

 

I think that the change of ammunition come with the change in the aircraft protection. Best engine power, best steel protection I can load, best ammo I need to break.

This last affirmation it's too my theory, remember, I'm not a expert, but I am interested for this theme. 

 

(and again...sorry for my English, it's very difficult for me to explain this correctly  )

Edited November 21, 2014 by SuDoKu