Jump to content
4./JG52_Adler_

Russian planes are made out of ?

Recommended Posts

Can someone explain this to me , I've been playing this game for about a year or so and I'm noticing that Russian planes can take 5-6 or more 20mm shots and fly away. While all it takes for a German 109 is a strafe (1-3 shots) and you're either dead or running for your life. 

Didn't know wood/plastic can take some much damage. They should probably remove all of the metal/steel used on today's jets and ask Russians for their wood due it seems to be better than any other metal.

I have to say that I am no newb, I can hit my targets pretty well but I don't like bullet sponges. Breaking a wing or setting a Russian plane on fire is like hitting the lottery, when ever it happens it feels like Christmas. 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you're shooting at. While most of them are, in principle, of mixed wood and metal construction, there are specifics that make a big difference.

 

The LaGG-3 and La-5 for example have a reputation for their very sturdy structure due to specially treated wood and so on. Pilots who flew these models appreciated that a lot. In return, they are very heavy airframes. The Yak-1, on the other hand, is made of paper - 2-3 shots and it's game over most of the time, but the aircraft itself is light and nimble.

 

Somebody, I don't know who, described the difference candidly: "the Yakovlev fighters are dogfighters, while the Lavochkins are combat aircraft".

 

The MiG-3 is relatively fragile, while the I-16 is a tough little bugger. The P-40 is a tank, but at a performance penalty too.

 

The 1942 single-seater Il-2s have wooden components (surely the tail, plus other details) combined with metal and a good dose of armour. The 1941 Il-2 is even tougher. The Pe-2s I don't know much about, but being a larger aircraft taking them down is obviously challenging too. The earlier version has less armour, for sure.

 

In short: many Soviet aircraft were indeed "bullet sponges", but this also made them heavier than their German counterparts, lower Vnes and etc. It's a trade-off.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read evidence that wooden craft could absorb quite a bit of damage.

 

"Construction consisted of a combination of plywood covered over in fabric that made the Yak-1 both easy to produce in large numbers and generally easier to maintain. Additionally, such a structure could withstand greater damage from enemy guns."

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=555

 

"It proved very robust and was capable of sustaining considerable battle damage"

https://books.google.com/books?id=MuGsf0psjvcC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=lagg-3+wooden+damage&source=bl&ots=K6XEyePB9G&sig=PbaE4JSNP_P46gixv1of4MX_QQs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPma3m_s3LAhXCpB4KHS_DAF0Q6AEIYjAL#v=onepage&q=lagg-3%20wooden%20damage&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a pure playwood. Here is a description from "Midland Publishing - Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Volume 1" :

 

The use in the aircraft's structure of a material hitherto unavailable in the USSR, a phenol-impregnated modified wood similar to wood plastic which had been examined during investigations of German wooden propellers, was to give impetus to the new fighter. At that time Leonty Ryzhkov, the chief engineer of the propeller and ski production plant in Kuntsevo, a district of Moscow, had been developing a process for the fabrication of modified wood impregnated with birch veneertar. Such impregnation made wood heavier, much stronger and more fire-resistant.

The co-designers of the project offered to use the modified wood for primary loadbearing structural elements such as the wingspar caps and fuselage longerons, where its use promised certain advantages compared with ordinary wood.

 

 

No mystery there. It was robust construction that could withstand some damage, but came at a price of high weight of every object made of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the planes and there materials are modeled quite well, but and this is JUST MY FEELING ...it seems to me like the 20mm Mineshell might be a bit under-modeled. (and the problem that we have absolutely no information how the ammo belts are composed in BoS/BoM)

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the case (and I don't know much about either the ammunition itself, the belts in game and also how the ammunition specifically interacted with the particular structure of the aircraft here) it should be tuned out eventually. The armour modelling got an overhaul for example :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, as i said, it's hard to tell since we have no information whatsoever on the ammo belts...it could be that there is only one Mineshell every 15th round and we wouldn't know. (i don't think that's the case, it's just and example) 

if we'd know the actual composition of the belts it would be easier to get an impression of the effectiveness of the shells 

but a little bit of data to get an impression:

 

20mm German Minengeschoss had about 20g HE filler
20mm Russian HE shell had about 6g
23mm Russian HE shell about 14g

30mm German Minengeschoss about 83g 

37mm Russian HE about 35g

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comparison, the data is interesting :)

 

From a very, very anecdotal point of view, I believe the difference is felt from the receiving end to some extent. A lot of 20mm hits are tickles, while others really screw the whole aircraft up (particularly in the Yak-1) when hitting the same area in similar circumstances.

 

The fighter cannons in-game all have their strengths. If memory serves me right The MG/FF and MG151/20 benefit from powerful HE ammunition, the MG151 has good armour penetration, the ShVAK has a good rate of fire, the VYa-23 has its muzzle velocity and the NS-37 is a one-bullet solution as long as you hit the target.

Edited by Lucas_From_Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, can't wait to get some German 30mm armed planes in this sim. should be a one hit solution for most fighter planes as well  :cool:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

(and the problem that we have absolutely no information how the ammo belts are composed in BoS/BoM)
 

German belts*: HE/API/HE

Russian belts: API/HE/API

 

*belts for gunpods on the Bf 109 : HE/API

 

Maybe run a few tests with German planes against German planes and Russian planes against Russian planes. Then you can probably figure out if the weapons are more effective or if the planes are sturdier.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fighters will hold out just fine, I fear for the poor ground-attack pilots though. Formations of 10 will quickly be reduced to one or two pairs in one pass.

I can't wait to see Il-2s crawling back to base with half a wing missing, rudder and both ailerons shut off and a dead gunner but still flying. In FB/1946 I had gotten so used to MK108 fire that landing without elevator and rudder controls was a routine, to the point that I started continuing the combat mission and strafing just using ailerons and throttle to steer the beast, then land without incident. :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic: Please stop using (.....) to express secondary thoughts. You don't need them. Write it out so you don't use them. It helps the reader pay attention and understand what you're saying.

 

 

 On-topic:

 

  It's all about aim. Which is difficult. So don't worry. If you watch old videos of ww2 planes shooting other planes down, you'll notice they have to unload into a "sitting-duck" target in order to sink him. So don't feel like you're not doing a good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian planes are not bullet sponges.

 

Not mentioning the times where the pilot dies/get injured straight away, it is also very common, to be put out of action with the first round. I'd love to see a video of a russian plane taking 5/6 20mm rounds without damage.

Edited by Turban
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German belts*: HE/API/HE

Russian belts: API/HE/API

 

*belts for gunpods on the Bf 109 : HE/API

 

Maybe run a few tests with German planes against German planes and Russian planes against Russian planes. Then you can probably figure out if the weapons are more effective or if the planes are sturdier.

just out of curiosity, is there some place were this is officially written? not that I don't believe you I just never saw any info on it Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the OP's frustration, however coming from the other side which I find ironic, but I really thing it is an issue that deals with perception mostly. 

 

You can see the visible signs of a hit, the black puff of smoke like flak or sparks on the enemy's air frame, but that doesn't mean that you have hit any of the vital systems.  While other times a well placed shell will tear apart an aircraft and you won't even know you scored a hit. 

 

Also we have to consider the fact that there are plenty of reported cases from the Battle of Britain where German HE and AP shells didn't do damage as intended on the wooden structure of the Hurricane, often saving the pilots life.  So there are many historical sources that confirm what we see in game.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Minengeschoss and standard HE the same thing? I was under the impression they were not. Related but not the same. I hate to use CLoD but it is my only reference regarding this ammo. In that sim they appeared more destructive and possibly time fused as well.

 

I'm not an armament guru by any means. Are the HE shells in the belt, therefore, technically Minengeschoss or something else/less? I await the education. ;)

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well about plywood as a 15+ year skater i saw since 95 till today the evolution in plywood for skateboarding and i can say that those litter bastard can take 

a really huge amount of punishment, it can stand a 95kg cunt jumping off a 10 step stairs like nothing or 75kg lad from a 20 steps stair, being runned over 

by a car. basicly the composition in the way the plywood is constructed make's it really strong

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in LA in Chino Aifield many years ago . I talk with veterans pilots of WW2 some have about more than 90 years old , they edited books with their history WW2 books and with history photo album and I buy and take a singnature of them with his own history photo Album , they explaim me very interesting history live experiences of WW2 about escort bombers in raids over Germany and others battles againts Jappanese pilots ...

They told me that many Jappanese planes that were made of wood once you shoot a little bit the plane or the deposits star burning easily the plane and was more easy than the metal plane to shoot down . But ovusely they had not experince with the La 5 that may be another kind of resine and wood mix composite , more reinforced and Strong .

By the way I mentioned them the Simulator Il2 Sturmovick Forgotten battels and Pacific Fighters but they do not know obout the Simulator but how they were interested in the Simulator I give them like a present and Thanks one of the Original DVD the Il2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battels .

Very interesting Airfield Chino were there is a Heinkel 162 Salamander and the planes P40 that used for the movie Pearl Harbor .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well about plywood as a 15+ year skater i saw since 95 till today the evolution in plywood for skateboarding and i can say that those litter bastard can take 

a really huge amount of punishment, it can stand a 95kg cunt jumping off a 10 step stairs like nothing or 75kg lad from a 20 steps stair, being runned over 

by a car. basicly the composition in the way the plywood is constructed make's it really strong

This is probably the first and last time I'll ever say this: good to see another fellow skater who likes to sim fly.

 And I second this notion, but human bodies are not well defined metallic objects packed with explosive elements. We are feeble and weak piles of mush.

Carry on...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian planes are not bullet sponges.

 

Not mentioning the times where the pilot dies/get injured straight away, it is also very common, to be put out of action with the first round. I'd love to see a video of a russian plane taking 5/6 20mm rounds without damage.

Well most of my testing is done in Berloga server , where I fly for practice. And I've had a lot of times when I would just unload on a guy and he would be able to fly away (Maybe badly damaged but still flying) Then on the other hand all it takes is a 2-3 shot strafe and you're in world of problems. I don't have any problems with shooting down planes in Wings of Liberty due people have some respect for their pilot lives. But when you hop onto the other server like Berloga you can really see the difference in damage output. 

 

I understand the OP's frustration, however coming from the other side which I find ironic, but I really thing it is an issue that deals with perception mostly. 

 

You can see the visible signs of a hit, the black puff of smoke like flak or sparks on the enemy's air frame, but that doesn't mean that you have hit any of the vital systems.  While other times a well placed shell will tear apart an aircraft and you won't even know you scored a hit. 

 

Also we have to consider the fact that there are plenty of reported cases from the Battle of Britain where German HE and AP shells didn't do damage as intended on the wooden structure of the Hurricane, often saving the pilots life.  So there are many historical sources that confirm what we see in game.

Yea sure not every shot will do critical damage but it pisses me off when I see multiply shots hitting an Yak/Lags tail and not even a fuel leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the OP's frustration, however coming from the other side which I find ironic, but I really thing it is an issue that deals with perception mostly. 

 

You can see the visible signs of a hit, the black puff of smoke like flak or sparks on the enemy's air frame, but that doesn't mean that you have hit any of the vital systems.  While other times a well placed shell will tear apart an aircraft and you won't even know you scored a hit. 

 

Also we have to consider the fact that there are plenty of reported cases from the Battle of Britain where German HE and AP shells didn't do damage as intended on the wooden structure of the Hurricane, often saving the pilots life.  So there are many historical sources that confirm what we see in game.

 

 

Are Minengeschoss and standard HE the same thing? I was under the impression they were not. Related but not the same. I hate to use CLoD but it is my only reference regarding this ammo. In that sim they appeared more destructive and possibly time fused as well.

 

I'm not an armament guru by any means. Are the HE shells in the belt, therefore, technically Minengeschoss or something else/less? I await the education. ;)

 

to answer a little bit to both of those. no, standard HE and Minengeschoss are not the same. the Minengesschoss is a HE shell by type, but it's benefits from an improved production process. the way the shell was machined allowed for thinner shell walls -> more HE filler. (look at my earlier post to see the difference between Russian HE and German Minengeschoss) 

 

of curse during BoB there were mixed results, first of all you mention AP, of course those wont have the best result, however talking about HE during BoB is difficult, that's the time when Germany started introducing the Minengeschoss and planes like the 109 E-3 could not use those, because they were armed with standard MG FF, only the modified version the MG FF/M (M for Minenegeschoss) was able to use the newer cartridge and even newer plane models or upgraded planes used mixed belts. there were AP, HE-I (pretty sure all HE shells der Germans used had an incendiary component) HE-I(M) Minengeschoss and i thinkg HEFin there. that's why you see little smoke puffs in CloD even without hitting the target, those are IIRC the HEF shells, high explosive fragmentation shells with timed fuzes. As we know HE filler between standard HE and Minengeschoss of same caliber varies dramatically. BoB is not the ideal time frame to compare it too, because by the time the Germans invaded Russia their "air target belts" had a lot more HE-I(M) in them, and they stopped using HEF all together. I think in air to air combat the German belts should look something like:

 

HEI(M) HEI(M) HEI(M) HEI-T AP or AP-T 

 

but it's been a while since i read about ammo belt composition so i'm probably off a little bit  ;)

 

edit: fixed some autocorrect BS 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Asgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain this to me , I've been playing this game for about a year or so and I'm noticing that Russian planes can take 5-6 or more 20mm shots and fly away. While all it takes for a German 109 is a strafe (1-3 shots) and you're either dead or running for your life. 

Didn't know wood/plastic can take some much damage. They should probably remove all of the metal/steel used on today's jets and ask Russians for their wood due it seems to be better than any other metal.

I have to say that I am no newb, I can hit my targets pretty well but I don't like bullet sponges. Breaking a wing or setting a Russian plane on fire is like hitting the lottery, when ever it happens it feels like Christmas. 

 

From a design perspective both the the German and Russian designs use the same stressed skin or monocoque construction: The good point with these types of designs  is that in general there are so-called alternative load paths if you take damage. What this means is that if you take a cannon hit in the wing for example, as long as it does not destroy a single point of failure point like a spar fitting or severs the spar itself, you can expect to survive. However, you will then have a plane that has lower load capabilities and the wing will flex more and if the cannon shell instead blows a hole in the wing and severs some stringers the load will take alternative paths to circumvent the damaged area meaning a higher load on adjacent structural members so you better not push your ride as hard as usual in these circumstances but you will survive.

 

So these aspects of the damage tolerance can be expected to be the same for both German and Russian planes. However, the difference you see in damage tolerance in-game could be explained by the following differences:

 

First of all AFAIK Willy Messerschmitt but a premium on weight. He believed that the foundation for superior performance was weight control so he kept a very tight control on that meaning that there is less damage tolerance built into the plane. This gives you the good P/W factor which in turn gives the 109 the good climb performance etc. but comes at the price of a more fragile structure.

 

Now the next part is speculation on my part (albeit an educated one since I have done wing structural engineering myself  ;) ) Since the Russian planes are made out of wood, they flex more under load than an aluminium construction (Young’s modulus is lower for delta wood than aluminium). My theory is that the Russian designers had to dimension their designs not from an ultimate load factor perspective but from a deformation perspective since if the structure flexes too much under load you get problems at high speeds like wing twist (lift resultant in front of wing flexural center) flutter and/or aileron reversal problems. This means that by virtue of being designed from a flexural perspective the Russian design can be expected to be heavier but have a larger margin towards structural failure, i.e. structurally more damage tolerant.

 

So yes, all other things being equal, I would expect a LaGG or Yak to be more damage tolerant and to be able to absorb more cannon rounds than a 109 just like you are seeing in the game! :hunter:

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't the Yak a full metal construction? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to answer a little bit to both of those. no, standard HE and Minengeschoss are not the same. the Minengesschoss is a HE shell by type, but it's benefits from an improved production process. the way the shell was machined allowed for thinner shell walls -> more HE filler. (look at my earlier post to see the difference between Russian HE and German Minengeschoss) 

 

of curse during BoB there were mixed results, first of all you mention AP, of course those wont have the best result, however talking about HE during BoB is difficult, that's the time when Germany started introducing the Minengeschoss and planes like the 109 E-3 could not use those, because they were armed with standard MG FF, only the modified version the MG FF/M (M for Minenegeschoss) was able to use the newer cartridge and even newer plane models or upgraded planes used mixed belts. there were AP, HE-I (pretty sure all HE shells der Germans used had an incendiary component) HE-I(M) Minengeschoss and i thinkg HEFin there. that's why you see little smoke puffs in CloD even without hitting the target, those are IIRC the HEF shells, high explosive fragmentation shells with timed fuzes. As we know HE filler between standard HE and Minengeschoss of same caliber varies dramatically. BoB is not the ideal time frame to compare it too, because by the time the Germans invaded Russia their "air target belts" had a lot more HE-I(M) in them, and they stopped using HEF all together. I think in air to air combat the German belts should look somthing like:

 

HEI(M) HEI(M) HEI(M) HEI-T AP or AP-T 

 

but it's been a while seens i read about ammo belt composition so i'm probably off a little bit  ;)

 

AFAIK the Germans were very pleased with the performance of the Minengechoss and that that type of round is especially deadly for the type of monocoque design I wrote about above since it has the potential to take out a larger portion of the stressed skin construction than any other type of round. If memory serves me right then I believe the Germans recommended more Minen in the belting for combating fighters which would make sense from a theoretical perspective as well.

 

But again, it all depends where you hit of course: An AP round is of course preferable if you hit the engine or armour where as if you hit the wing then a Minegeschoss would be better. However, seeing that the larger portion of  a fighter is the stressed skin structure, I'm guessing you would do quite well if you loaded up with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not the Yak-1 at least. I believe only the Yak-3 and the Yak-9U were all-metal designs, and I'm not sure about the latter.

 

But the Yak-1 was less wooden than the LaGG-3/La-5. Pilots called the LaGG-3 "oak" or "wood" because of that, and because of how heavy the controls were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just out of curiosity, is there some place were this is officially written?

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't the Yak a full metal construction? 

 

If it is then I stand corrected and what I wrote applies only to Lavochkin's  and LaGG's then. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yak-1 had a composite fuselage and wooden wings, so you got it right :)

 

Nice write-up by the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah ok, thanks. so...aim for the tail  ;)  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, as i said, it's hard to tell since we have no information whatsoever on the ammo belts...it could be that there is only one Mineshell every 15th round and we wouldn't know. (i don't think that's the case, it's just and example) 

 

if we'd know the actual composition of the belts it would be easier to get an impression of the effectiveness of the shells 

 

but a little bit of data to get an impression:

 

20mm German Minengeschoss had about 20g HE filler

20mm Russian HE shell had about 6g

23mm Russian HE shell about 14g

30mm German Minengeschoss about 83g 

37mm Russian HE about 35g

That's not exactly the case, 20 mm Minengeschoß contained 18 g of HE filling while 30 mm varied from 85 g in Ausf.A to 72 g in Ausf.C. It was pure PETN initially in a thin-walled shell, later replaced by HA 41. 

 

Soviet approach differed, since their first rounds used as HE material a simple Tetryl, but it was replaced in 1939 by GTT in older types of rounds. The far more modern 20 mm OZ projectile was the main high explosive round used by VVS during World War II and contained a considerably greater quantity of high explosive filler. Three different filler versions were developed encountered:

- The earliest filler type consisted of 3.4 g incendiary composition ZZh-49 or DU-5 that was topped with 2.8 g GTT high explosive.

- In February 1942 the upper GTT pellet was replaced by the newly developed A-IX-2. This means that the incendiary composition was topped by 2.64 g A-IX-2 in the second version.

- Somewhat later the entire projectile was loaded with a total of 5.6 g A-IX-2, which is the final version.

 

23 mm VYa round had a similar history to 20 mm round, first it was filled with TNT and fuzed with the K-20 nose fuze. From late 1940 until the beginning of 1941 this projectile was improved by introducing different fillers: The first high explosive filler variant consisted of a composition of PETN and TNT and was loaded on top of a pressed pellet of RR-1 incendiary composition, creating the OZ projectile. Somewhat later, the OZ projectile was filled with GTT and had a pellet of DU-5 incendiary composition at the bottom of the shell. From February 1942, all OZ projectiles were filled with 15.6 g of A-IX-2 high explosive incendiary composition.

 

Boris Shpitalnyy's 37 mm Sh-37 cannon had two types of rounds HEI (OZ) and HEI-T (OZT).  The OZ projectile was initially filled with 43 g TNT and equipped with the MG-7 nose fuze. Then two other high explosive filler versions were developed by the NII-6 Scientific Research Institute: A TNT filler located above a DU-5 incendiary pellet and a high explosive mixture consisting of 40% RDX and 60% TNT. In the second half of 1941 the OZ projectile was improved by filling it with 50 grams of A-IX-2 and by fitting the MG-8 nose fuze.

 

Finally the explosive materials themselves, the most common (and which should be present in BoS) one is A-IX-2. This combined high explosive incendiary composition was developed by naval engineer Eugene Grigorevich Ledin in 1940. It was developed to increase the power of armour piercing high explosive projectiles and in fact, A-IX-2 is more than twice as powerful as TNT. It was made of 80% of A-IX-1 and 20% of aluminium powder. The A-IX-1 was  made of 95% of RDX and 5% of wax. 

 

Soviet rounds generally contain less explosive material than Minengeschoß but more than comparable standard HE rounds. On the other hand they also have a considerable incendiary effect.

 

 

 

 

They told me that many Jappanese planes that were made of wood once you shoot a little bit the plane or the deposits star burning easily the plane and was more easy than the metal plane to shoot down . But ovusely they had not experince with the La 5 that may be another kind of resine and wood mix composite , more reinforced and Strong .

 

Japanese aircraft were not made of wood but same aluminum alloys as other aircraft of that time.  

 

 

I'm not an armament guru by any means. Are the HE shells in the belt, therefore, technically Minengeschoss or something else/less? I await the education. ;)

Yes, that was confirmed by Han and Viks over a year ago. Besides, we've already discussed that and Matt has brought data from files :

 

 

 

Above the ingame stats.

 

Class_name = "CBatchExplosion"
object_name = "tnt20g_frag70g_HE_expl_building"
 
// 20mm warhead German shell guns MG 151/20, raschitnano of TNT = 20g, 92g weight bullet, caliber 20mm
 
////// PhysicsBody properties
VisualImage = 0, "graphics \ effects \ Arm \ hit_shell_he_20-100g_object.epl"
visualradius = 4
// ImageAttr = 17 // IA_NOCLIP | IA_NOMINPIXELS
 
SoundScript = "LuaScripts \ Sound \ explosions \ HE \ Metal_Small.cfg"
 
ExplosionPower = 0.5 // The power of sound explosions, variable for FMOD
Animation = 1 // Number hook explosion
LiveTime = 2.66 // Time Life explosion
AnimationTime = 2.66 // Time explosion animation
Ranges = 1,0.01,0.99,0 // (number of options, the beginning of the 1st range, the end of the 1st range, delta is added to the borders for the next range)
// "RangesCnt, Range0Start, fRange0End, fRangeStep"; ARG = m_fRange0Start + (m_fRange0End-m_fRange0Start) * t + m_fRangeStep * data-> m_RangeIdx
//Ranges=1,0.01,0.99,0
//Ranges=2,0.01,0.49,0.5
//Ranges=3,0.01,0.32,0.33
//Ranges=4,0.01,0.24,0.25
//Ranges=5,0.01,0.19,0.2
 
Radius = 3.0 // The radius of the sphere of impact high-explosive impact
TNT_equ = 0.02 // Trotillovy equivalent
 
// High-explosive impact, total number
ArmorFoug1 = 0.5, -1, 1,333, 0,333
ArmorFoug2 = 1, 1, 1.83, 0.83
ArmorFoug3 = 2, 1, 1.13, 0.13
 
// Shrapnel impact
ShrapnelQuantity = 30
// And for each fragment Sum
ArmorShr1 = 1.0, -1, 5,32, 0,128
ArmorShr2 = 3.0, -1, 5,32, 0,128

 

 

Quote

 

Class_name = "CBatchExplosion"

object_name = "tnt2g_frag90g_HE_expl_building"
 
// Warhead sovetskogo 20mm projectile guns ShVAK, raschitnano of TNT = 2r, bullet weight 91g, 20mm caliber
 
////// PhysicsBody properties
VisualImage = 0, "graphics \ effects \ Arm \ hit_shell_he_2-10g_object.epl"
visualradius = 3
// ImageAttr = 17 // IA_NOCLIP | IA_NOMINPIXELS
 
SoundScript = "LuaScripts \ Sound \ explosions \ AP \ Metal_Small.cfg"
 
ExplosionPower = 0.5 // The power of sound explosions, variable for FMOD
Animation = 1 // Number hook explosion
LiveTime = 1.5 // Time Life explosion
AnimationTime = 1.5 // Time explosion animation
Ranges = 1,0.01,0.99,0 // (number of options, the beginning of the 1st range, the end of the 1st range, delta is added to the borders for the next range)
// "RangesCnt, Range0Start, fRange0End, fRangeStep"; ARG = m_fRange0Start + (m_fRange0End-m_fRange0Start) * t + m_fRangeStep * data-> m_RangeIdx
//Ranges=1,0.01,0.99,0
//Ranges=2,0.01,0.49,0.5
//Ranges=3,0.01,0.32,0.33
//Ranges=4,0.01,0.24,0.25
//Ranges=5,0.01,0.19,0.2
 
Radius = 3.0 // The radius of the sphere of impact high-explosive impact
TNT_equ = 0.0026 // Trotillovy equivalent
 
// High-explosive impact, total number
ArmorFoug1 = 0.5, -1, 1,43, 0,43
ArmorFoug2 = 1, 1, 1.11, 0.11
 
// Shrapnel impact
ShrapnelQuantity = 12
// And for each fragment Sum
ArmorShr1 = 1.0, -1, 5,96, 0,384
ArmorShr2 = 3.0, -1, 5,96, 0,384

 

The Russian 20mm HE is actually pretty weak. Just take the La-5 with HE only loadout and you'll see. I think the AP(I) on the Russian cannons might be a bit off instead.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15281-german-20mm/?p=244493

 

German HE round has equivalent of 20 grams of TNT, Soviet HE has equivalent of 2 grams.  If something in game could be under-performing than I'd say its Soviet HE which should rather have the higher explosive content.

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea if those stats are still accurate though, it's no longer possible to check that. But then devs didn't announce any change and i can't say that i noticed any difference since then.

Edited by Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea if those stats are still accurate though, it's no longer possible to check that. But then devs didn't announce any change and i can't say that i noticed any difference since then.

There was no announcement of updating the gun performance, we had a change in damage models though. And same, I didnt experience any difference since last year. 

Edited by =LD=Hiromachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DM in BoS is one of the things I'm really impressed with. Of course it's very difficult to judge objectively, but my subjective impression of the DM here is outstanding and the best I've seen by far. None of the earlier sims came close and the "other " now popular WW2 flight sim lags behind in this area IMHO.

 

In BoS I get the impression that you just need to get a few good hits in and the enemy is toast just like you would expect. Get some black smoke indicating engine damage and even if you don't follow it up (tried this a few times) the enemy's engine usually seizes up after a few minutes. Other times, I bagged a few with just a touch on the trigger (usually the pilot) and in other cases it takes a few consecutive passes. Sometimes you get fire, sometimes not. One experience I do not share with the OP is concerning the wing damage: A lot of the time the poor Yak or LaGG under my guns sheds a wing so strange that you don't see that because in my case it's quite common.

 

A lot of the times though I seem to shoot off the whole of the ailerons, elevator halves and rudders which maybe is a bit optimistic but I guess from a DM modeling perspective it's difficult and costly to model this scalable so a more "digital" perspective here may be necessary in the sim. What I have never seen is an explosion though.  OTOH I guess IRL this was pretty uncommon and some of the Russian fighters filled gas tanks with inert exhaust gases AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you can basicly argue about the airframe construction of both Laggs and Yaks to be mor robust than metal designs (also more robust than Mig-3) sth I've been wondering for a while is the ruggedness of engines, both the Klimov 105 as well as the AM-38 (AM-35 on the Mig-3 is killed quickly even when hit by small Mg fire).

 

Had it again on Friday that while flying the Lagg-3 my engine was damaged by MG/Cannon fire and quickly starting to overheat, RPM needle was jumping yet still I could hit the deck and fly for 10min at 480km/h wihtout issues. it was not until I lined up for final that my windscreen was starting to get spilled with soem oil. I've had similar occassions flying the IL-2, which even after poping multiple colours of smoke and sometimes oil covered windscreens would still keep running at reasonably well condition.

 

German engines on the other hand, namely the Jumo 211 and DB601/605, seem to be the contary. They start smoking as soon as they're ht by MG fire and damage effects are overall way moer emphasized (heavy RPM jumps, high speed loss, quick and unpreventable overheating, heavy oil spilling, ect).

 

The question is not if the german engines are too sensible in this regard - the 109 was notorious for that - but if the Klimov / AM-38 were so much more rugged and reliable.

Edited by Stab/JG26_5tuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, noticed that a lot that Russian planes i attacked and let go because i was convinced they wouldn't make it home were never counted as a kill. I'm ok with the German engines on the 109 F-G and the Heinkel/Stuka, but i feel like the BMW on the 190 and the early Daimler on the E-7/110 seem a bit overly fragile. 190 was known to be rugged including the engine, i don't see that in game right now. and the 110 additional to the paper wings i get weird engine reaction to damage. (the other day the engine on my 109 E-7 just stopped, no combat damage, and i was flying at continuous power. i wish i had video of that, but i don't)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the M-105PF, it's pretty dynamic. Though I was wondering on Friday how on Earth were you going so fast with a damaged engine, as I couldn't catch up with my engine in perfect condition, on Saturday Jizzo hit two rounds on me, presumably both at the engine, and within 30 seconds it stopped. It seems there are different types of engine damage modelled, with some not affecting operation at all (Zeebra had it some 3 FNBFs ago, his 109 had engine damage but it was all working well so he fought on) and others ruining everything in seconds.

 

The Klimov engines had a reputation for being tough nuts operationally (i.e. idiot-proof), not sure how they handled damage though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP ` Best thing todo is fly both sides , one month Axis and one month VVs , then your know for sure . Then you can repost your findings .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Klimov engines had a reputation for being tough nuts operationally (i.e. idiot-proof), not sure how they handled damage though.

well, there is a difference between easy operation -> idiot proof (the de-rated engine the G-2 uses is pretty idiot proof as well) and actual resistance to combat damage. you engine can be easy to manage but still break after the first 7.92mm MG hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wasn't sure but I thought the German mineshell was a reaction to the low damage inflicted on British aircraft in the BoB. That's why I said HE in my above post and not Mineshell.

 

Still very interesting thread. And let's not forget all the time a single German cannon hit removes your entire vertical stabilizer. That is particularly vexing for me since the aircraft is in otherwise perfect condition but un-flyable. I have seen the vertical stabilizer fall off axis aircraft, but it seems much more common for VVS aircraft to lose it. Damn shame too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...