Jump to content
4./JG52_Adler_

Russian planes are made out of ?

Recommended Posts

i'm actually quite sure that was the 2 7,92 MGs ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure the issue is more the belt (AP/HE) rather than 20mm HE being "too weak".

 

If we could have an AP/HE/HE belt, the difference would already be enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i totally agree! It would be nice if the devs would give us some confirmed info on beltings and ammo - It's something that should have been included to the aircraft performance sheets in my opinion..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC then the Germans estimated that five 20 mm hits or one 30 mm hit was enough to down a fighter.  Further, around twenty 20 mm or five 30 mm to down a B-17. Unfortunately the report does not specify the type of ammo, i.e. HE, AP or M-geschoos but just gives the numbers and the calibre. Of course this will vary so it's just some kind of statistical average but anyway should provide a ballpark number. Would be interesting to compare to BoS statistics if this could be measured somehow. Maybe someone has collected some BoS numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statistics is for Minengeschosse. And one 5cm is enough for 4mot bombers. I don`t think fighters that were to attack heavy bombers had anything else than Minengeschosse for their 20 or 30mm guns, because they had the largest effectivness on heavy bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

five 30 mm to down a B-17

the original report said actually 2-5 30mm Minengeschoss bullets. If a single one hits engine 3 (which gave power to hydraulics) the B17 was pretty much done. There were "Memphis Belle incidents" though, with B17 getting home and aircrew putting out the gear manually and surviving the action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just anecdotal stuff of course, so one of those take it or leave it things, but my Dad once told me that their ground crew countered over 160 bullet and cannon round holes in the Beaufort he was in after they got back after a trip out over the Med - all from fighter attacks I believe.  I think the thing was a complete write-off.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the original report said actually 2-5 30mm Minengeschoss bullets. If a single one hits engine 3 (which gave power to hydraulics) the B17 was pretty much done. There were "Memphis Belle incidents" though, with B17 getting home and aircrew putting out the gear manually and surviving the action

This is true of the B24 and the hydraulics. Never heard that for the B-17. B-17 has a main and emergency backup accumulator/emergency system. And B-17 flight control systems did not rely on hydraulics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statistics is for Minengeschosse. And one 5cm is enough for 4mot bombers. I don`t think fighters that were to attack heavy bombers had anything else than Minengeschosse for their 20 or 30mm guns, because they had the largest effectivness on heavy bombers.

 

I checked the report and you are right, the statistics are for M-geschoss. Apparently the report is about the most efficient way to deliver the minimum amount of explosives deemed necessary to down a bomber which was 0.36 Kg according to the report. Concerning the belting, I looked in the "Schiessfibel" and this has the following info regarding what to use:

 

For bombers and "other aircraft" : Mk108: 1 Mine + 1 Brandgr.

 

MGFF and Mg151/20: For bombers: 1 Mine + 1 Brandgr. + 1 Panzer. For "other aircraft":  3 Mine + 1 Brandgr. + 1 Panzer.

 

So this indicates that the Germans thought that belting for bombers should include more incendiary and AP than for fighters I think. In a way it makes sense too: A Mine is more likely to cause catastrophic damage to a smaller fighter structure than a more voluminous bomber and more sturdy shells like incendiary and AP have a greater chance to reach vital bomber innards.

 

the original report said actually 2-5 30mm Minengeschoss bullets. If a single one hits engine 3 (which gave power to hydraulics) the B17 was pretty much done. There were "Memphis Belle incidents" though, with B17 getting home and aircrew putting out the gear manually and surviving the action

 

Since M-geshoss rely on explosive content to do the work, the number five mentioned in the report (Fifth paragraph) makes sense since AFAIK the explosive content i 30 mm Mine was 85 gr and 5 x 85 = 425 gr and the report said 360 gr needed to down a bomber. Where does the 2-5 number come from?

 

@Wulf: Interesting anecdote! OTOH I guess it just goes to show the damage tolerance is about statistics: I'm sure some bombers took more than five hits and lived to tell about it while others took a single AP round through the main spar and lost a wing.

 

You have to have lady luck on your side if someone is shooting at you that's for sure. As Winston Churchill put it: "There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at with no result." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the numbers are average values. So it is always, one time you need some more hits, another time you make a lucky punch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying this over a year now that the 20mm are almost useless.

I initially thought it was only the German 20mm that seemed useless, but recently I've been tearing into 109's to no avail.

It's to the point where I mostly use the smaller rounds since they penetrate the engine almost instantly. 

 

I went and did some anecdotal testing last night in the QMB. Just setting up a 4v4 dogfight and seeing generally how much time it took to shoot down an aircraft once I got a firing solution on their tail. It doesn't seem dramatically different in my estimation. The Yak and LaGG seem to soak up a bit more damage than the 109 (I expected that) but there isn't a ton of difference. Maybe one or two extra hits if you hit a wing - which really isn't much if you've got a good firing solution. The I-16 and MiG-3 go down in flames pretty rapidly even from the MG151/15.

 

I will say that the MG151 seems to be easier to hit on off angle oblique shots for me. I'm not sure if this is superior ballistics or just me being more familiar with the 151s travel than the ShVAK... I'm not sure.

 

Purely anecdotal but I was curious to see if they were dramatically different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though anecdotal in nature as well, the best way to do your test SOF would be to have a guy fly straight and level in an empty server while you fire. It's how we did it when I was an EA tester. Then you can try head ons, dead six and oblique shots without the extra variable of a maneuvering AC. It also allows you to pick your shot, engine, wing, fuse, etc.

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AI set to novice is often benign enough as well, when a live target drone pilot is unavailable.

I don't fly a lot of QMB but even the novice AI seems pretty squirelly until they have sustained a bit of damage. A mate straight and level takes a lot of variables out even if it remains somewhat anecdotal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something Ive noticed is that pilots take shots at incredibly unrealistic ranges.

shooting at 300 meters with a convergence of 900 might get the occasional hit but the closer the better.

I find that when I engage from less than 100 meters it doesn't take much to catastrophically damage any of the fighters. Closer=better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ID the noobs by watching who shoots at 600m - or better yet continues shooting through 8-900m while you are climbing away with an E surplus. I know it works with the dreaded mouse control in that other sim but it just shows how green you are in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing though, 1000m shot with the 23mm is not that hard to pull off especially if the 109 is hanging on prop. 23mm can reach out and touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the original report said actually 2-5 30mm Minengeschoss bullets. If a single one hits engine 3 (which gave power to hydraulics) the B17 was pretty much done. There were "Memphis Belle incidents" though, with B17 getting home and aircrew putting out the gear manually and surviving the action

Fun fact: the Memphis Belle was famous for not taking a single hit in any of its missions. The movie "Memphis Belle" is a classic example of Hollywood exaggeration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie is not just about the Memphis Belle. It makes you think that even if flying is wonderful, WWII also took place up there, death and sorrow included. It made such an impact on me that I never view a bomber  just as a flying aircraft, but rather a group of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing though, 1000m shot with the 23mm is not that hard to pull off especially if the 109 is hanging on prop. 23mm can reach out and touch.

1000 yard shot isn't that hard with 308 either, from a bench.

Putting a 23mm projectile from a moving point in space into a very small moving aircraft from that range should be neigh impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1000 yard shot isn't that hard with 308 either, from a bench.

Putting a 23mm projectile from a moving point in space into a very small moving aircraft from that range should be neigh impossible.

Not arguing with you, maybe it shouldn't be possible. I just know what I can do in game. Not bragging either. Anyone can do it with practice. (23mm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a specific scenario though - you have a near-stationary large target hanging by its prop while being fired at by another near-stationary aircraft positioned directly below it using a high-velocity weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie is not just about the Memphis Belle. It makes you think that even if flying is wonderful, WWII also took place up there, death and sorrow included. It made such an impact on me that I never view a bomber  just as a flying aircraft, but rather a group of people.

 

I have had the great good fortune to fly in a B 17.  It was both exhilarating, and sobering.  Many thoughts going through my mind, that of an uncle of mine I never had the chance to meet because he died in a B 17, shot down by flak on his second to last mission.   When you are in the aircraft, moving through the air at 180mph indicated, you begin to understand how vulnerable us squishy humans are.  Nothing between you and oblivion but some framing and thin duralumin skin, and a few bits of plexiglass.

 

Those boys, and that's what they were on all sides, that fought in the air deserve our deepest respect.  What they faced, day after day, trapped inside a tin can hurtling through the air...  

 

I really have no words...

 

3iop.jpg

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun fact: the Memphis Belle was famous for not taking a single hit in any of its missions. The movie "Memphis Belle" is a classic example of Hollywood exaggeration.

 

 

Are you sure about that?  I thought 'the Belle' was famous because none of it's crew were killed or seriously wounded in combat.  I find it surprising that the air frame didn't get hit by so much as a single flak splinter.

 

 

1000 yard shot isn't that hard with 308 either, from a bench.

Putting a 23mm projectile from a moving point in space into a very small moving aircraft from that range should be neigh impossible.

 

Yes, amazing what can be done these days, off a bench, with a heavy, precision-built rifle, a high power scope and hand loads - on a calm day shooting over a known range.    However, hitting a moving target (even a slow-ish moving target) from a vibrating aircraft that's also moving relative to the target, with an auto-cannon that is recoiling all over the place, with low (chamber) -tolerance 'sloppy' ammo designed to minimize stoppages, at 1000 meters - well, that really is something else again.  Maybe not impossible but so close it may as well be.

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, amazing what can be done these days, off a bench, with a heavy, precision-built rifle, a high power scope and hand loads - on a calm day shooting over a known range.    However, hitting a moving target (even a slow-ish moving target) from a vibrating aircraft that's also moving relative to the target, with an auto-cannon that is recoiling all over the place, with low (chamber) -tolerance 'sloppy' ammo designed to minimize stoppages, at 1000 meters - well, that really is something else again.  Maybe not impossible but so close it may as well be.

Agreed. Even the 600-800m auto-cannon shots are iffy with all of those variables. And don't forget judging the parabola well outside the calibration of your reflector gunsite. One hit, if that, despite all that steel in the air, is about what I would expect under the best of circumstances at 1000m.

 

Overall, I feel relatively safe at 600, very safe at 800 and nearly untouchable at 1000m in game.......................as it should. The ballistics seem pretty well modeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing though, 1000m shot with the 23mm is not that hard to pull off especially if the 109 is hanging on prop. 23mm can reach out and touch.

I agree with snake, 23mm shot like a laser to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the memoirs of Yakovlev the Yak3 was the first Yak all metal fighter of the Yak series Yak 1 to 9.  

Another remark for all of you;

damages depend on so many factors, ammo, target angle, distance, speed of bullet, Wind (speed, angle, direction), air humidity, target construction, firing plane speed, target speed, place of impact, and many other...

that any discussion for a GAME is futile and idiotic.

This game is nicely done with enough complexity to make it realistic but too much to make it unplayable.

And trying to prove that one side German or Russian has better planes than the other or are better modelled is futile because it is a Game a well build one but still a game!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since M-geshoss rely on explosive content to do the work, the number five mentioned in the report (Fifth paragraph) makes sense since AFAIK the explosive content i 30 mm Mine was 85 gr and 5 x 85 = 425 gr and the report said 360 gr needed to down a bomber. Where does the 2-5 number come from?

It's a German book about aerial combat, to be more specific, about how to fight certain kind of fighters, ground attackers, bombers, where there week spots are, etc. According to it around 90% of the B17 were downed by 2-5 30mm Minengeschoss. 

 

This is true of the B24 and the hydraulics. Never heard that for the B-17. B-17 has a main and emergency backup accumulator/emergency system. And B-17 flight control systems did not rely on hydraulics.

If i am not mistaken, turrets have been hydraulic-controlled. When engine 3 is dead, all but the two side gunners were pretty much useless. But it's quite a while since i read this, so please tell me if i am wrong.

 

Fun fact: the Memphis Belle was famous for not taking a single hit in any of its missions. The movie "Memphis Belle" is a classic example of Hollywood exaggeration.

Ok, did not know that, was refering to the movie. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turrets were electric on the B-17 and B-24. I think the B-25 was as well. The Brits used hydraulics on the Lancaster. B-17 used hydraulics only for the cowl flaps and brakes. As a side note, the electric bomb release system on the B-17 is a fascinating bit of engineering in and of itself.

Edited by [LBS]HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turrets were electric on the B-17 and B-24. I think the B-25 was as well. The Brits used hydraulics on the Lancaster. B-17 used hydraulics only for the cowl flaps and brakes. As a side note, the electric bomb release system on the B-17 is a fascinating bit of engineering in and of itself.

Yeah, you are right, just rechecked it, my bad. Confused it with the B24 in terms of 3rd engine vulnerability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B-24 also had electric hydraulic pump aft for redundancy, although sometimes caused fires due to fuel leaks accumulating in that area!

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with snake, 23mm shot like a laser to me.

When you going to fly again, and show me those lagg skills? Wingman slot is open. I'll kick roozter to tail end charlie. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something Ive noticed is that pilots take shots at incredibly unrealistic ranges.

shooting at 300 meters with a convergence of 900 might get the occasional hit but the closer the better.

I find that when I engage from less than 100 meters it doesn't take much to catastrophically damage any of the fighters. Closer=better.

 

I spend a lot time playing with the convergence to find the best one. Today I found the best one. I hit now accurate from 600m with or without wing cannons but the best is if I get closer and closer the damage increase. With a wrong convergence the damage is worse at any range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with snake, 23mm shot like a laser to me.

 

Well, same shell and cartridge is in use still in our days in ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4 Shilka :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.50 cal hits damage  post-116126-0-92997300-1490573710_thumb.jpg
German 20mm HE damage post-116126-0-77797100-1490573759_thumb.jpg 

I hink there is some inaccuracy in the damage model on those metal+wooden red planes. 

Even when i fly german planes, several 20mm hits plus small caliber hits on the red planes, and they still fly without a problem. Especially the premium yak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, russian planes are not enough overpowered by germans. And we should all play on german side. Who cares about ballance.

Every time i enter server there is 3:1 ratio of LW:VVS

I like historical accuracy too but not at cost of pvp ballance.

Btw treated wood could stand damage better in some situations.

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...