Cannon demage model

[LittleJP]

I made some tests and I think it has also something to do with the ballistic and the jumpiness behavior of the German planes. But I'm happy to open a dedicated thread for it if you think it doesn't fit here. If I do so I would appreciate if the usual red whiners could stay away from it. Yes, I created this new term, the non factual red whiners. Do you know them....?

I think a good way to compare would to test the Russian guns on Russian planes and German on german planes.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think another poster mentioned this as well... It might be prudent to examine all high explosive rounds. Perhaps the ShVAK explosive rounds are just as problematic as the MG151/20 but the effect on the 151/20 is magnified as its the Mine round that really makes up the destructive potential. It would otherwise be a fairly middle of the road 20mm cannon but that particular ammo type makes it that much better.

 

I've been flying the Bf109F-2 with its MG151/15 and its got some serious punch. I know most folks will take the 20mm field mod but maybe you shouldn't and see what the difference is like.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

I've been flying the Bf109F-2 with its MG151/15 and its got some serious punch. I know most folks will take the 20mm field mod but maybe you shouldn't and see what the difference is like.

And that is due to the apparent better AP capabilities of the 15mm vs the 20mm according to dev posts on the Russian forums.

[ShamrockOneFive]

And that is due to the apparent better AP capabilities of the 15mm vs the 20mm according to dev posts on the Russian forums.

 

Yep. This is what I'm thinking... AP seems to be working better than HE. Something that affects all guns but because the 151/20 relies on HE more than the other 20mm cannons do, it suffers more. Just a theory. I'm not sure how we can test it.

[JG4_Nemesis]

Indeed it will rip a plane apart. Mr X demonstrating a long range ShKAS kill on TAW.

 

 

This is ridiculous to watch....quite nonsense to have that effect of ripping apart the entire fuselage on that range. some miracle hit or a systematic wrong damage model??

[150GCT_Veltro]

This is ridiculous to watch....quite nonsense to have that effect of ripping apart the entire fuselage on that range. some miracle hit or a systematic wrong damage model??

 

Not only, this is not acceptable and it would deserve the developers attention.

 

Sniping "letal" behaviour is probably the worst aspect of the game.

Edited December 10, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Dakpilot]

This is ridiculous to watch....quite nonsense to have that effect of ripping apart the entire fuselage on that range. some miracle hit or a systematic wrong damage model??

 

On first watching it does look ridiculous 

 

But what is the real range..at what range should AP/HE be ineffective if hits are made : there is real info on this, what is in fact realistic?

 

How many cannon shots/hits were made, a lot of shots were fired from twin cannons : Is there a way to track this?

 

In slow motion replay it looks like the Tail departs after the hits and when a maneuver is initiated

 

Video's like this are interesting but more info is needed

 

what is more interesting is how good the long range/deflection shooting is, some people are very very good and practice a huge amount, they also do this with different types of aircraft

 

from the gunsight and type of aircraft the actual range should be able to be ascertained, I do not have the expertise to say what it is 

 

These comments are purely about that video and not generally to do with the overall topic, I agree that Pe-2 does seem to be more resistant to damage than I remember from earlier patches/versions

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[kendo]

I think a good way to compare would to test the Russian guns on Russian planes and German on german planes.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/4997-missii-po-obstrelu-iz-flak-38-odinochnymi-vystrela/?p=461991

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

How many cannon shots/hits were made, a lot of shots were fired from twin cannons : Is there a way to track this?

 

No cannon rounds were fired in that video. Listen to the audio closely. ShKAS only as per the video title.

Mr X was using that video to attempt to get the 109 tail section looked at by the developers. It is very fragile and a very common point of destruction for the 109 pilot.

 

Anyway this is OT and was only posted to refute a claim in this thread that ShKAS wasn't able to tear apart planes.

 

Lets get back to cannon damage.

[Dakpilot]

No cannon rounds were fired in that video. Listen to the audio closely. ShKAS only as per the video title.

Mr X was using that video to attempt to get the 109 tail section looked at by the developers. It is very fragile and a very common point of destruction for the 109 pilot.

 

Anyway this is OT and was only posted to refute a claim in this thread that ShKAS wasn't able to tear apart planes.

 

Lets get back to cannon damage.

 

Thanks for clarification 

 

The frame grab of the vid on view with both cannons firing is a bit misleading then 

 

back to topic

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ITAF_Cymao]

[Danziger]

Looks like it was hit from the smoke, leaks and holes everywhere. The fact that it went down also seems to take credibility away from the "indistruttibile" (which I am assuming is supposed to mean indestructible). 

 

Now if there would have been no damage and it kept on fighting, I would say it's indestructible.

[Holtzauge]

Due to limited time my flying is exclusively QM so I usually set up a 1v1 head on merge and get some practice in ACM and deflection shooting. The nice thing about this is that I do the same thing a lot which gives me quite a good statistical base to see trends and this is what I have noticed:

 

When flying Russian, the Me-109 is very easy to disable. Just a few hits even with small calibre rounds and it goes down and the engine seems to be made of glass. Also, the Fw-190 is surprisingly fragile and a lot of the time I manage to disable the pilot as well.

 

When flying German, I have a harder time and as has been said before, the Russian crates usually absorb a lot of hits before going down. My usual scenario is I land some solid hits and the Russian crate goes down low, black and white smoke coming from the fuselage and wings, holes all over but still chugging along and it usually takes a couple of more BnZ passes before he goes down.

 

That being said, lately I have been managing to set the Russian crates on fire much more often than before. Since when I first started noticing this I was flying against the new Yak-1b so I assumed that it had to do with the 1b DM but surprisingly, it also started happening with the legacy Yak and LaGG (No data on La-5 yet). So even if there is AFAIK no mention of this in the change logs, maybe there has been some tweaking still?

 

Anyway, summa summarum, my conclusion based on a statistical sampling of quite a large number QM flights is that it takes less hits to shot down German planes from Russian than vice versa.

 

If this is correct or not I don’t know but when you look at how the different guns are rated in Flying guns of WW2 by Anthony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin, the book lists a table for a weighted power ratio between the guns (on page 330) that gives the following average power (weighted combination of kinetic and chemical) per calibre: 50-cal 12.7x99=4.5, Berezin 12.7x108=6, MG151/20=17 and ShVAK 20x99R=13 so the MG151 should be quite hard hitting…….

 

And before I get shot down in flames, just let me add that the IL-2 BoS/BoM DM is the best I've seen and I applaud the developers for their fine product which IMHO is leaps and bounds better than the competition. However, even if you have the best product around, that does not mean that there is no room for making it even better!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Anyway, summa summarum, my conclusion based on a statistical sampling of quite a large number QM flights is that it takes less hits to shot down German planes from Russian than vice versa.   If this is correct or not I don’t know

 

It should take a lot less hits to bring down a Yak or an La5, then a 190.... 

[ShamrockOneFive]

 

Not a great example. He missed a lot... I counted 6 total hits and four of them came at the end and at least two hit a wingtip (not a great place to do lots of extensive damage). Also it looks like that La-5 was finished. So much for indestructible.

 

It should take a lot less hits to bring down a Yak or an La5, then a 190.... 

 

Why is that? I'd put the LaGG/La-5 in roughly the same category as the 190 in terms of structural strength. The FW190 just gets away with a much stronger structure for a lot less weight.

 

The Yak would be closer to the 109.

[Bearcat]

LoL .. "Redwhinwers" .. surely you can do better than that..  Look man.. "Luftwhiners" was original.. and I don't know who coined the term.. but "Redwhiners"..? 

 

Come on maaaiiun.... ! 

[ITAF_Cymao]

Looks like it was hit from the smoke, leaks and holes everywhere. The fact that it went down also seems to take credibility away from the "indistruttibile" (which I am assuming is supposed to mean indestructible).

You 're right, the title was ironic, however now I've changed title

 

 

 

Not a great example. He missed a lot... I counted 6 total hits and four of them came at the end and at least two hit a wingtip (not a great place to do lots of extensive damage). Also it looks like that La-5 was finished. So much for indestructible.

 

However the La5 has gone down when he was hit by a 109 while trying to go back.

 

You dont say nothing about Mr.X video where I16 cuts the 109's tail firing from 1Km, but you count the shots of Focke...

You are fantastic guys, I love you

 

S!

 

and sorry for my English(?)

Edited December 10, 2016 by ITAF_Cymao

[Dakpilot]

 

some examples to watch here..

 

But random vids are no good, they can always be argued from both sides, more accurate tests are needed for proof and sensible dialogue with Devs

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[XQ_Lothar29]

Indeed it will rip a plane apart. Mr X demonstrating a long range ShKAS kill on TAW.

 

[216th_Jordan]

That Shkas kill must be a bug though, I'm not bad at aiming but I have never been able to pull that off, not even at close range. Btw: the Shkas gunner in the Il-2 is pretty much useless now somehow. I pumped more than 100 rounds into the front of an E-7 in a test just hours ago and it was just smoking. (Thats all ok though when I remember old '46, putting 200 - 300 .50 cal rounds into a Fiat G.55 and it just had some holes and coolant leaking)

 

We will have to see how the damage model thing is going to be handled in the future patches, I don't think it will stay like this forever as the results are just a little odd.

Edited December 10, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[Danziger]

LoL .. "Redwhinwers" .. surely you can do better than that.. Look man.. "Luftwhiners" was original.. and I don't know who coined the term.. but "Redwhiners"..?

 

Come on maaaiiun.... !

I'll even toss out some ideas.

 

RedDeniers, Supercommies, LuftHaters, Red Lives Matter, Commspirators...

 

OMG lol RJWs! Red Justice Warriors! :D

Edited December 11, 2016 by BorysVorobyov

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

 

some examples to watch here.. But random vids are no good, they can always be argued from both sides, more accurate tests are needed for proof and sensible dialogue with Devs

 

Fantastic...

I have only made a video for fun, not a test.

To do the test there would be other people who will tell us that everything is perfect... :biggrin: 

However look at the date of the video that you've linked, this was the last video made by Mr. X with FW190.
After March, I never saw him to use the Focke, probably was tired of 190, in fact he is now using a Mc202.
However you say all you want but the difference between the first video of Mr. X with the I16 and my video with Fw is impressive.

And we all agree that in my video the wrong thing is my aim (maybe)...

 

S!

 

and sorry for my English(?)

[ShamrockOneFive]

You 're right, the title was ironic, however now I've changed title

 

 

 

 

However the La5 has gone down when he was hit by a 109 while trying to go back.

 

You dont say nothing about Mr.X video where I16 cuts the 109's tail firing from 1Km, but you count the shots of Focke...

You are fantastic guys, I love you

 

S!

 

and sorry for my English(?)

 

I don't have much to say about the Mr.X video - either its a problem with the netcode or something went horribly wrong with the damage model. Still, its a really weird outlier. If it happened every time I shot at a 109 then I'd be saying something.

 

We are fantastic, aren't we? :D

Fantastic...

I have only made a video for fun, not a test.

To do the test there would be other people who will tell us that everything is perfect... :biggrin:

However look at the date of the video that you've linked, this was the last video made by Mr. X with FW190.

After March, I never saw him to use the Focke, probably was tired of 190, in fact he is now using a Mc202.

However you say all you want but the difference between the first video of Mr. X with the I16 and my video with Fw is impressive.

And we all agree that in my video the wrong thing is my aim (maybe)...

 

S!

 

and sorry for my English(?)

 

The testing is the way to go. Not sure what you mean by "other people who tell us that everything is perfect". Testing, when done well, is much more useful than people saying what they feel.

[ITAF_Cymao]

I don't have much to say about the Mr.X video - either its a problem with the netcode or something went horribly wrong with the damage model. Still, its a really weird outlier. If it happened every time I shot at a 109 then I'd be saying something. We are fantastic, aren't we? :D

 

I am really happy that instead you found something to say on my video!

thank you very much now I can go to bed happy!

 

Of course!

You are fantastic.

 

S!

Edited December 11, 2016 by ITAF_Cymao

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Why is that? I'd put the LaGG/La-5 in roughly the same category as the 190 in terms of structural strength. The FW190 just gets away with a much stronger structure for a lot less weight.

 

There are a lot of sources (Russian) that say that the La5(FN) was a lot weaker structural, and La5FN pilots must avoid head ons at any costs. At the same time there were also sources, amongst others in this book that said the armament of the La5 was "unsufficient for many pilots to bring down the tough structure of the 190", hence the change of cannons later on.

You'll also find a comparison sheet, with strenghts and weaknesses in a direct comparison, for the 190 it says amongst others "critical spots well armored" and "way tougher structure then the La5", for the La5 it says on the other side "weaker structure".

 

I don't really understand where all that believe is coming from, that the La should be in any way as tough, or even tougher then the 190. There is no reason for it. I guess it's just that people see it represented in game this way, and immediately believe this should be the same way IRL. It doesn't.

 

As for the Yak1, it was known to catch fire very easily. I don't know why anybody would compare it with the 109, which is built from a completely different material.

[Dakpilot]

'I read it in a book'

 

Your link takes you to a little blurb about it

 

"the new fighter was capable of withstanding more punishment than the fragile Lagg 3"

 

this already discredits it as very factual, the Lagg 3 was very well known to be exceedingly tough and heavy airframe (lots of credible historical sources) 

 

and the La-5 was simply based on Lagg airframe anyway....

 

reason for avoiding head on with 190 had most to do with 4 x 20mm and 2 x mg as a combat tactic it was statistically not worth it

 

also suggest you do some reading on structural strength of Messerschmidt from decent sources it was built as very lightweight design and not as tough as 'legend' would have it

 

I am not advocating "STRONK" Russian aircraft but your arguments are flawed and your 'perception' seems to come from pulp fiction rather than engineering principles

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

this already discredits it as very factual, the Lagg 3 was very well known to be exceedingly tough and heavy airframe (lots of credible historical sources) 

Always funny with you. Discrediting an actual source and then throwing claims around without giving any source what so ever.   It's getting ridiculous, don't you think?! I have never seen any real source to state that the Lagg was tough. Heavy, of course, due to bad design. 

 

 

also suggest you do some reading on structural strength of Messerschmidt from decent sources it was built as very lightweight design and not as tough as 'legend' would have it

 

I have never said anything about 109 being tough, just stated you can't compare it with a Yak. You should learn to read.

 

 

I am not advocating "STRONK" Russian aircraft but your arguments are flawed and your 'perception' seems to come from pulp fiction rather than engineering principles

My perception comes from actual sources, there is nothing flawed. Throwing ridiculous claims around, like everytime you get involved into a discussion. 

[Holtzauge]

Would be nice with some data on how deltawood stood up to battle damage: On the one hand my guess is that in order to make the Russian planes stiff enough (aileron reversal, Vne limits etc.) they used more material than needed in terms of absolute strength (e.g. max static load limit) so they may have had a larger structural margin towards failure than aluminium structures, meaning they could absorb more battle damage before catastrophic failure.

 

OTOH, I would expect aluminium to be tougher when it comes to battle damage because even Dural is somewhat ductile where as resin bonded wood structures probably delaminate and splinter badly meaning they lose a lot of their load bearing capability when subjected to battle damage. AFAIK that is one problem modern composite structures have: They do not stand up well to mechanical damage and are quite difficult to repair.

 

Does anyone have any input on this? For example Russian WW2 era instructions for repairs on wooden aircraft structures or pictures/examples of how this was done?

[Dakpilot]

"Lagg-3 heavy due to bad design"

 

Manu* this is just a classic example of your mindset and assumptive view

 

It was designed for Klimov M-106 engine which never became available

 

That the Lagg-3 was heavy was a serious flaw in the end product with M-105, but not due to bad design.

 

Again why can you not compare Yak to 109? it had steel chassis (not Stalinium mind) like many other aircraft which are accepted to be very good at soaking up damage, something the 109 is certainly not noted for, Yak was not a cutting edge design, but what was needed at the time for simple mass manufacture at that point in history.

 

As a pilot of monocoque aluminium aircraft, I once scoffed and derided the thought of going into battle with a Russian wooden Trabant,

it was only after years of reading technical articles and later flying some Russian aircraft I began to realise a lot of my knowledge was from coldwar propaganda and popular myth

Many Russian designers were building world leading designs comparable to any other nation, one just never read about them.

 

A lot is said about Russian 'Stalinwood' but this is also very misunderstood

 

"The prototype of the LaGG-3, I-301, was designed by Semyon A. Lavochkin, Vladimir P. Gorbunov and Mikhail I. Gudkov. It was designated LaGG-3 in serial production. Its airframe was almost completely made of timber, with the so-called delta-lumber (a wood-plastic composite composed of very thin, 0.35 to 0.55 mm, wood veneer and phenol formaldehyde resin, baked at high temperature and pressure) used for the crucial parts. This novel construction material had tensile strength comparable to that of non-hardened aluminum alloys and only 30% lower than that of precipitation hardened D-1A grade duralumin. It was also incombustible and completely invulnerable to rot, with service life measured in decades in adverse conditions. The full wooden wing (with plywood surfaces) was analogous to that of the Yak-1. The only difference was that the LaGG's wings were built in two sections. The fuselage was of similar construction to the MiG-3's."

 

At the time this was a very advanced design which did not make use of strategic materials

 

Wood in itself gets a poor showing as aircraft construction medium, no one considers the 4000HP 760kmh De Havilland Sea Hornet a ''weak" aircraft, one of the highest performing piston aircraft

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet

 

My point is many people approach Russian vs German aircraft with a modern day Mercedes and BMW vs Lada and trabant mentality and close their minds to any other alternative

 

Yes there were many production issues and poor decisions due to war circumstances and ideology, but the attitude of "how could the Russians even build an engine capable of running at full throttle" and "Russian junk aeroplanes" is so often seen here.

 

You try to portray me as some sort of Russian fanatic, nothing could be further from the truth, I only ask for an open mind and consideration of engineering not preconceived prejudice.

 

I am a great fan of ALL aircraft designers from ALL countries and a great admirer of some of the German ones, I just don't think that they by default must be better in every case. again I am far from saying Russian aircraft should be stronk!

 

As  for quoting a source for Lagg 3 being a strong design and having a reputation as being tough as regards to battle damage, a  quote from a single source/any book is no proof at all, there is lots of info out there, do yourself a favour and read some of it, maybe it will even change some of you conceptions

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 11, 2016 by Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

My point is many people approach Russian vs German aircraft with a modern day Mercedes and BMW vs Lada and trabant mentality and close their minds to any other alternative

I think that's maybe the case if you ask an average person, but not people who are interested in WW2 aircraft. I well know the Russian built awesome aircraft, and had the edge in highest performer with the La5FN from mid 43 to mid 44. But that doesn't make any aspect, like guns, armor etc superior to German aircraft. 

 

Wood in itself gets a poor showing as aircraft construction medium, no one considers the 4000HP 760kmh De Havilland Sea Hornet a ''weak" aircraft, one of the highest performing piston aircraft

Never said it's "weak". Don't know what you are reading into things. But it's definitely not as good a material as different metals, otherwise most of the Russian aircraft(/parts) would not have changed to metal later in the war. I can't see any wood fighter jet either...or wooden car chassis, or wooden car scaffolding. You said it yourself, 30% worse then duraluminium, and that doesn't even count in the heavier weight of the wooden composit. I just don't understand the assumption of the Lagg/La being a flying tank. I am not saying it is bad, but it's not known to be very tough, like the 190 or P47 for example.

 

 

You try to portray me as some sort of Russian fanatic, nothing could be further from the truth, I only ask for an open mind and consideration of engineering not preconceived prejudice.

Well you jump in every single time something Russian is being critized to be overperforming, or something else is being underperforming, that definitely makes you look like a Russian fanatic.

 

As  for quoting a source for Lagg 3 being a strong design and having a reputation as being tough as regards to battle damage, a  quote from a single source/any book is no proof at all, there is lots of info out there, do yourself a favour and read some of it, maybe it will even change some of you conceptions

That's just avoiding to answer the question, nothing else. Come down from your high horse with expressions like "read some of it". I have read enough and gave the source that said the La5 is weaker in armor. If there are so many sources telling the Lagg is strong (comparable to 190 or P47), it can't be too hard to show at least 1 or 2?! It probably is, because there are non. Just soaked out of your fingers.

Edited December 11, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Holtzauge]

Umh...Has anyone said the that the Russian designs were analoguous to a wooden Trabant? I certainly have not.

 

I have posted before praising the La-5 construction after viewing the "Samolet" and IMHO the design principles used look very good and if those guys back then had carbon fibre and epoxi resins they could have made a world beating plane using the same basic design principles. That being said they did not and they had to use wood. Well wood is not a bad material for building aircraft with a good strength to weight ratio and excellent fatigue properties BUT it is not very stiff. For gliders and private planes etc. this is not an issue but if you want to fly fast and roll at 400 mph indicated it is.

 

So even though they seem to have been very good designers, they were still hampered by mother nature. In addition, I still suspect that the deltawood did not stand up very well to battle damage, especially the type of battle damage caused by a Mingeschoss. My guess is that deltawood is probably strong but brittle, prone to delamination and splintering and I would assume does not stand up as well to battle damage as a ductile metal like aluminium does. So if Mingeschoss are not very effective in BoS/BoM then that seems strange to me given what I know about structural engineering but I'm quite willing to be proven wrong so if someone could add some info on this that would be very interesting.

[Holtzauge]

Never said it's "weak". Don't know what you are reading into things. But it's definitely not as good a material as different metals, otherwise most of the Russian aircraft(/parts) would not have changed to metal later in the war. I can't see any wood fighter jet either...or wooden car chassis, or wooden car scaffolding. You said it yourself, 30% worse then duraluminium, and that doesn't even count in the heavier weight of the wooden composit. I just don't understand the assumption of the Lagg/La being a flying tank. I am not saying it is bad, but it's not known to be very tough, like the 190 or P47 for example.

 

Exactly my take on this as well: Wood is a good design material for slower aircraft but not for WW2 type fighters: The Russians probably used what they had (and they did so to good effect) but when they were able to switch to aluminium they did. Also, still suspect that deltawood and Mingeshoss don't mix well......

[Dakpilot]

Manu*

 

Where did I say Lagg 3 is 'flying tank' or is same as P-47 or Fw 190 now you are stretching..

 

But a lot of Russian guns were in fact superior UB and ShKas for example, still this does not make me a Russian fanatic just stating a known fact.

 

It may APPEAR as if I jump in defending Russian equipment, but fact is there are not many unjustified non factual claims against the German equipment, if there were I would be arguing against that as well.

 

 

Umh...Has anyone said the that the Russian designs were analoguous to a wooden Trabant? I certainly have not.

 

I have posted before praising the La-5 construction after viewing the "Samolet" and IMHO the design principles used look very good and if those guys back then had carbon fibre and epoxi resins they could have made a world beating plane using the same basic design principles. That being said they did not and they had to use wood. Well wood is not a bad material for building aircraft with a good strength to weight ratio and excellent fatigue properties BUT it is not very stiff. For gliders and private planes etc. this is not an issue but if you want to fly fast and roll at 400 mph indicated it is.

 

So even though they seem to have been very good designers, they were still hampered by mother nature. In addition, I still suspect that the deltawood did not stand up very well to battle damage, especially the type of battle damage caused by a Mingeschoss. My guess is that deltawood is probably strong but brittle, prone to delamination and splintering and I would assume does not stand up as well to battle damage as a ductile metal like aluminium does. So if Mingeschoss are not very effective in BoS/BoM then that seems strange to me given what I know about structural engineering but I'm quite willing to be proven wrong so if someone could add some info on this that would be very interesting.

 

 

 

Just a comment on this, 

 

Certainly you have not compared to trabant, but many have shown/suggested this attitude

 

I do not pretend to know exact wooden construction, but Sea Hornet was very fast carrier aircraft from late 40's not a glider or private aircraft, I only mention this as something for those who are understandably prejudiced about wood, not yourself 

 

As a side note was there seen a more obvious weakness when later IL-2 production was changed to wooden wings from aluminium in 43?

 

generally from what I have read it maintained its hard to shoot down reputation and as a sturdy ground attack aircraft and the wings were not suddenly considered a weak point and easier to shoot down?

 

I have no facts but just putting it out there

 

Anyway I fear I have strayed this off topic far from debate of ineffectiveness of HE rounds in certain conditions

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Where did I say Lagg 3 is 'flying tank' or is same as P-47 or Fw 190 now you are stretching..

Serious question, are you kidding me now? You jumped into this discussion because you tried to wash away my statement that the 190 is tougher then the La5.

[Holtzauge]

Anyway I fear I have strayed this off topic far from debate of ineffectiveness of HE rounds in certain conditions

 

I think it is dead on topic: The subject is cannon damage model so the question of why are Russian aircraft made of deltawood modeled as so tough as they are in BoS/BoM? So the question of why do they absorb so much battle damage is spot on.

 

I don’t claim to be an expert on deltawood but since I have done aircraft structural engineer both in composites (wing design on glider) and aluminium (structural engineering on a modern jet fighter) I think I’m qualified to make an educated guess and that is that deltawood and Mingeschoss are the worst possible combination:

 

As a thought experiment, imagine a Mingeschoss hitting say a horizontal stabilizer: If the fuzing delay makes it blow up inside the structure you get a high momentaneous overpressure. Now in an aluminium structure you can picture the structure ballooning and the rivets in the immediate area being overstressed, being ductilely drawn beyond what they can bear and failing, this transfers the load to adjacent rivets joining spars, stringers and skin until some while being somewhat drawn out still hold together. In a wooden composite structure however what happens is most likely that since the skin does not let itself be plastically deformed but delaminates over a wide area with stringers splintering and glue separating from spars over the length of the joint leading to a much higher risk of catastrophic failure.

 

A hit that fuzes outside the stabilizer will also create a high momentaneous overpressure on one side of the stabilizer which will be worse for the deltawood because it has a harder time absorbing the load and while the aluminium structure may pop rivets and bend somewhat the risk is that the wooden one fails catastrophically through delamination and glue failure and since it cannot absorb the load by plastic deformation it gets blown off. An analogue would be a car crash: A metal car structure can absorb energy by deforming, a composite car would just splinter…….

 

So again, theoretically Mingeschoss should IMHO be very bad news for deltawood but I may be wrong so that is why it would be good to get some data on this. Maybe the Russian themselves conducted tests on their deltawood designs? Maybe someone like Brano has some data?

[Dakpilot]

Serious question, are you kidding me now? You jumped into this discussion because you tried to wash away my statement that the 190 is tougher then the La5.

 

No I jumped in when you said this..

 

"There are a lot of sources (Russian) that say that the La5(FN) was a lot weaker structural, and La5FN pilots must avoid head ons at any costs".

 

Anyway it would be interesting if there is any info on whether Il-2 with wooden wings were considered easier to shoot down than the earlier aluminium winged ones.

 

It is a case where a direct comparison could be made and a good one considering the amount of IL-2's participated throughout the entire war

 

I have not read about the later ones being easier? maybe they were I do not know, but generally they were considered tough even after 43 by all accounts

 

surely with the amount shot down there should be some pilot anecdotes about shooting at the wings post 43 if this were easier? just as a starting point for reference

 

putting a much weaker structure on otherwise heavily armoured ground attack aircraft does not seem sensible, but there were some very poor shameless decisions from high up Soviet command with little regard for individual life, so who knows

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

As far as memory stretches, the attack regiments were not troubled by the default armament on the Bf-109 even with the introduction of the wooden parts. What started inflicting a lot of damage was the introduction of 20mm cannon pods, and the weakest part according to Il-2 pilots was the tail. A snapshot wouldn't do much, but for a big part of 1942 when many (most?) Il-2s had a wooden tail, many Bf-109s were armed with 3 20mm cannons and most Il-2s did not have rear gunners, the 109s could take their time and pour lead onto the weak spots, causing many losses. This was partially countered with the introduction of rear gunners in newer models (i.e. 109 cannot part at the six for ages any more), the development of self-defence tactics and more coordination between Il-2s and escort fighters, which were increasingly equipped with two-way radios (i.e. if 109 targets single aircraft for long, other Il-2 or fighter swoops in and shoots it down).

[Crump]

 

 

A lot is said about Russian 'Stalinwood' but this is also very misunderstood

 

The "wooden" aircraft in VVS service are more akin to modern composites.    Yes in general terms, the lower tensile strength of delta wood will not stand up to the strain wave of an explosion as well as duralumin.

 

Vulnerability studies were conducted on WWII fighters.  

 

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

There are a lot of sources (Russian) that say that the La5(FN) was a lot weaker structural, and La5FN pilots must avoid head ons at any costs. At the same time there were also sources, amongst others in this book that said the armament of the La5 was "unsufficient for many pilots to bring down the tough structure of the 190", hence the change of cannons later on.

You'll also find a comparison sheet, with strenghts and weaknesses in a direct comparison, for the 190 it says amongst others "critical spots well armored" and "way tougher structure then the La5", for the La5 it says on the other side "weaker structure".

 

I don't really understand where all that believe is coming from, that the La should be in any way as tough, or even tougher then the 190. There is no reason for it. I guess it's just that people see it represented in game this way, and immediately believe this should be the same way IRL. It doesn't.

 

As for the Yak1, it was known to catch fire very easily. I don't know why anybody would compare it with the 109, which is built from a completely different material.

 

 

Manu: Some of what you said is contradictory to what I've read. I'm also having difficulty following you and what points you're making. For that I apologise.

 

Reports indicate that although the LaGG-3 was not well liked by pilots it did have a strong structure that was resistant to battle damage (though a note about high explosive rounds shattering the structure was a problem). The overall weight of the LaGG-3's structure is mostly a disadvantage but I'm guessing its the density that does help. What Holtzauge says about the relative merits of the aluminum and wooden scenarios makes sense to me.

 

Head-on avoidance and the "change to 20mm" cannons doesn't make sense to me. The La-5 always had twin cannons.

 

Does the report actually say "way tougher structure than the La-5." It sounds unprofessional for a technical journal to write in that way.

 

I didn't say that the La-5 was tougher than the FW190. I said that it was in a similar category. My belief is founded on the reports and information I've read that suggests that the LaGG-3 and La-5 both had a fairly tough structure thanks to the heavier construction that was used. Again, this was regarded as something of a disadvantage from a performance standpoint but it served to protect the aircraft better than average. The FW190 is still tougher than both of them in my experience in-game and this seems to make sense to me based on the history that I've read.

 

I compare the Yak-1 and the Bf109 on their overall durability which is lighter than that of the FW190 or LaGG-3. If I were to rate the fighters in-game for their toughness I'd suggest that it was the FW190 first (probably with some margin to spare), LaGG-3/La-5 second, Yak-1 third and Bf109F/G series in a very close fourth with the Bf109E-7 at fifth.

 

Testing

 

By the way...I actually went and did some testing shooting at a He111H-6 using both MG151/20 and ShVAK 20mm.

 

Methodology:

- Fly a Bf109G-2 or Yak-1B against a single Novice He111H-6

- Get as close as possible (between 300-50 meters) and fire off single rounds counting each hit as best as possible

- I was aiming always on the right side of the aircraft at the wing root, engine and tail plane (sometimes my aim was off)

- Note damage and when the aircraft finally goes down

 

MG151/20 vs He111H-6

Trial - Total rounds to kill - Notes

1 - 21 - Fuel and oil leaks from starboard engine. Final kill from a hit to the control columns.

2 - 15 - Engine failure on starboard engine and bailout from crew

3 - 9 - Fuselage explosion

 

ShVAK 20mm vs He111H-6

1 - 30 - Wing failure, heavy smoke from starboard side

2 - 21 - Control failure, heavy smoke from starboard side, starboard elevator detached

3 - 23 - Wing root fire at 21 rounds, 23 bail out

 

I only had time to do 3 tests for the two weapons so far. I'd like to do more tests and I'd love some help here to increase the total numbers. I want to add the MG151/15 to the list to see whats happening with that one. I will say that the ShVAK appeared to do more structure damage more quickly but the MG151/20 was having more of an impact on systems. For example, I killed more gunners with the MG151/20 than with the ShVAK. Anecdotally that is.... as I wasn't counting gunner kills.

[SvAF/F19_Tomten]

I'll even toss out some ideas.

 

RedDeniers, Supercommies, LuftHaters, Red Lives Matter, Commspirators...

 

OMG lol RJWs! Red Justice Warriors! :D

 

Great! Or how about something on VVS like VeryVerySads or VVSads?