After switching side, after 2 years as a red .... I must agree with some claim

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not taking sides, but bringing a little visual material that can help the discussion. Here's a cutaway of the Pe-2, it shows what is where and what is in the way of what inside the aircraft, very useful to understand why certain angles work better, or why certain types of ammunition are not working as intended/expected, whatever the right answer is. There are over 150 numbers so I won't translate all of them, but anyone who wants to reference to it please mention the number and I'll translate it.
 

A less cluttered and less informative one from the Pe-3.

 
For that end of the discussion, the He-111.
 

On this one I must say I'm not surprised it can burn up from well-aimed AP rounds. The crew is very well-protected from rear aspect attacks and not much more, but the vital components on the wing are dangerously exposed to anything. The engine doesn't have much around it to deflect hits from above, behind and below, and the wing fuel tanks are naked too. The fuselage bulkhead 47 is not armoured, and except for crew-specific areas I don't see much more in terms of armour or protection. Wasn't there a major problem with Spitfires and Hurricanes attacking from too far out because of a misguided belief from the Air Ministry that rear gunners were mighty effective, leading to poor training and guidelines on attacking bombers? Soviet pilots after the first few scuffles just learned to glue onto the target and rip it apart, because otherwise it was a waste of ammunition and fuel. Correct me if I'm wrong of course, this is all interesting bar the personal attacks which are getting old, from both sides.
 

 

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Those are great, thanks for posting them!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

For that end of the discussion, the He-111.

 

As for the 111, the H3 (pre BoB) is shown..during BoB the 111 got additional armor, because the early variants armor proved to be unsufficient against fighters. The H6 we have in game is post BoB. However i don't know where exactly the additional armor was situated. 

Anyway, thanks for those pictures 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Thanks, nearly all aircraft have one from that book when you Google "*aircraft* cutaway". I found the He-111 in English actually, makes it a lot easier. Well-spotted on the variant, I looked that over. Anyone have a clue of the armour improvements? Everything I find is pretty generic, mentioning some more armour here and there for the H-3 and then for the H-16, but no specifics on other types, or armour thickness, positioning and all that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[LukeFF]

 

 

They carried these innovations through until Mauser came back from post war exile making K98s under license in Yugoslavia and got a seat at the big armaments table again.

 

Wartime K98s were refurbished in Yugoslavia after the war (I own one of these myself), but no new ones were made there postwar. They were given the designation M98/48. The M48, a Mauser rifle similar to the K98, was built in Yugoslavia after the war.

[Holtzauge]

This discussion has been a lot about the guns in terms of comparing hitting power but don’t forget that weight is at a premium in aircraft design and if you weigh that into the combination then a gun like the MG151/20 actually comes out at the very top, slightly behind the Hispano V but slightly ahead of the ShVAK (Ref: Anthony Williams & Emmanuel Gustin’s analysis in Flying guns of WW2).

 

So even if the MG151/20 may have been “slower firing, had inferior muzzle velocity and shot lighter charged projectiles” the overall effect, i.e. the combination of kinetic and chemical energy delivered at the target with weight of the gun and ammunition factored in actually placed it ahead of the ShVAK in William’s & Gustin’s evaluation. Can’t claim that their method is the holy grail of gun comparison or the gospel truth but the way they did the comparison makes sense and based on their evaluation then this makes the MG151/20 one of the very best airborne guns that was used in WW2.

 

And don’t forget the Mingeschoss: While maybe not that suitable for a modern thick skinned and sturdy jet fighter, that kind of round should be devastating for the relatively dainty designs that populated the skies during WW2. This is also probably why the German “Schiessfibel” lists a recommended belting of 60% Mingeschoss for all aircraft with the exception of 33% recommended for four engine bombers.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

 

 

the combination of kinetic and chemical energy delivered at the target with weight of the gun and ammunition factored in actually placed it ahead of the ShVAK in William’s & Gustin’s evaluation

 

It's the logical way to go when comparing the end-product, which is its usability aboard a combat aircraft, but this context must be remembered when evaluating it. It's what a designer would use when planning what to fit on their aircraft, with a little extra credit given to doctrine and whatnot. A modern example is the M61 vs GSh-30, both pretty effective cannons but with different ends in mind. The Vulcan has a higher rate of fire, more ammunition, longer durability but it has a less potent projectile and is way heavier. The GSh-30 has a low rate of fire, few rounds, very short service life but it's lighter and fires a bigger HE projectile.

[Holtzauge]

It's the logical way to go when comparing the end-product, which is its usability aboard a combat aircraft, but this context must be remembered when evaluating it. It's what a designer would use when planning what to fit on their aircraft, with a little extra credit given to doctrine and whatnot. A modern example is the M61 vs GSh-30, both pretty effective cannons but with different ends in mind. The Vulcan has a higher rate of fire, more ammunition, longer durability but it has a less potent projectile and is way heavier. The GSh-30 has a low rate of fire, few rounds, very short service life but it's lighter and fires a bigger HE projectile.

 

Sure, I agree there is no one size fits all and the Russians guns of WW2 seem to fare pretty well in the comparison which it not surprising after all since the Russian are pretty good engineers and you need to look no further than the PPsh-41, Ak-47, T-34, the S-300 and the Mig and Su series etc. to find good examples of top notch equipment.

 

In addition, on the GSh-30 compared to M61 I think you have a fair point as well. However, since the MG151/20 was not mentioned in the most favourable light I just wanted to add another point of view. In addition, IIRC then Galland, who has been known to criticize the equipment he fought with on other accounts, actually mentioned the German guns favourably in comparison to what the Allies were using. Also, let's not forget the electrical firing in German cartridges which allowed guns close to the centerline to effective fire though the propeller arc.

[Holtzauge]

Wartime K98s were refurbished in Yugoslavia after the war (I own one of these myself), but no new ones were made there postwar. They were given the designation M98/48. The M48, a Mauser rifle similar to the K98, was built in Yugoslavia after the war.

 

A hunting colleague of mine who is from Norway uses a WW2 K98 (you can still make out the eagle stamped on the breech! ) re-barreled for 30-06 to hunt moose. IIRC he bought it for 25 NOK or around $3 in the 60´s since there was no shortage of them after the Germans pulled out in 45.

[Danziger]

I've had two M48s and I have to say they were absolutely my favourites of any rifles I've owned. I love the 8x57mm chambering too. More than enough to take down a moose. I actually prefer surplus ammunition (even though it's extremely corrosive) to modern factory ammunition. I've had Remington 700s and Weatherby rifles all with optical sights and I could land longer shots with iron sights with the Mausers and surplus ammunition.

[Danziger]

Also on the topic of aircraft cannons...

 

The MiG was originally designed to take two 23mm cannons. Not the VYa23 like the Il-2 and LaGG but an earlier design. This weapon never made production due to extremely poor performance and the designers were shot.

 

The MiG didn't get ShVak straight away because of shortage.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

MG 213, another Mauser design which was the base for the ADEN, M39, DEFA, 30mm KCA cannon, as well as the Oerlikon 206RK and 302RK. 

 

I heard that the MG 213 may have had some influence from the ShKAS because it also has the revolver mechanism (that's how it managed it's fast rate of fire as well), but i'm not technical enough into guns to determine if it can be a possibility or just a rumor.

Edited December 13, 2016 by SuperEtendard

[Asgar]

I heard that the MG 213 may have had some influence from the ShKAS because it also has the revolver mechanism (that's how it managed it's fast rate of fire as well), but i'm not technical enough into guns to determine if it can be a possibility or just a rumor.

nah, IIRC in the ShKAS the ammo belt is fed around the gun barrel and there is only one chamber. a revolver cannon has multiple chambers, like...a revolver 

Edited December 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

 

 

However, since the MG151/20 was not mentioned in the most favourable light I just wanted to add another point of view. In addition, IIRC then Galland, who has been known to criticize the equipment he fought with on other accounts, actually mentioned the German guns favourably in comparison to what the Allies were using.

 

It was a pretty decent gun, and to be fair most of the discussion between the MG 151/20 and ShVAK is overly complicated. Both performed very well by most standards, and it's important to mention that they were liked for working at all. I'd guess one of the reasons American aircraft packed so many guns is not just for firepower but because the guns jammed (and still jam, in modern aircraft equipped with the M2 like the A-29 and MB.326) all the bloody time. Sure, the ShVAK was probably the better gun design while the MG 151/20 used the best HE shell, but overall these arguments were settled pretty simply: the guy shooting probably scores a kill, the guy being shot at is probably in big trouble. The main deal was being the guy shooting, the rest was mostly academic so long as the guns worked - which the MG 151 and ShVAK did very well.

[MiloMorai]

English translation for the cut away drawing posted earlier,

 

[Danziger]

It was a pretty decent gun, and to be fair most of the discussion between the MG 151/20 and ShVAK is overly complicated. Both performed very well by most standards, and it's important to mention that they were liked for working at all. I'd guess one of the reasons American aircraft packed so many guns is not just for firepower but because the guns jammed (and still jam, in modern aircraft equipped with the M2 like the A-29 and MB.326) all the bloody time. Sure, the ShVAK was probably the better gun design while the MG 151/20 used the best HE shell, but overall these arguments were settled pretty simply: the guy shooting probably scores a kill, the guy being shot at is probably in big trouble. The main deal was being the guy shooting, the rest was mostly academic so long as the guns worked - which the MG 151 and ShVAK did very well.

I agree. I worked with the M2 quite a lot in the military and it is my least favourite crew-served weapon. They were very finicky constantly jamming. This made me realise why there were always six or more mounted in American fighters. I have no idea where it gets the reputation for working reliably. I much preferred the M240 in my turret. The M240 and M249 I can say without a doubt some of the best small arms ever designed. The 249 was my personal weapon for more than two years.

[Asgar]

 

 

The M240 and M249 I can say without a doubt some of the best small arms ever designed.

 

 

you tested all of them? 

[Danziger]

I was a gunner in turret of gun truck for three years. I have used M16A2, M4, M9, M203, M249, M240, M2, and Mk19.

 

I don't care much for the modern M4 because now with all the BS attached to it it's as heavy as a 249.

 

The plain M16A2 is decent. Not as reliable as Kalashnikov but more accurate at longer ranges.

 

The M9 is very easy to maintain and has a very low recoil. Some say the 9x19mm is too weak but it has better penetration than .45acp.

 

The M249 is light enough for a single man to carry with ammunition and spare barrel. It is very accurate and reliable. I was able to squeeze off single shots despite not having a selective fire switch. What sold me on the 249 was a snowy day at the range on Fort Carson. Everyone was hiding in the trucks and didn't want to fire. It is much easier to use the ammunition than to turn in unused ammunition so the NCOIC wanted to waste everything before we left. We hooked up a long 1000 round belt for my weapon and laid it out beside my weapon. I was firing prone from the bipod. That belt dragged through the snow and mud and fed into my weapon. The barrel was glowing bright orange and steaming. The barrel was so hot that the rounds fired as they went in the chamber (what we call a runaway weapon). The barrel was ruined and replaced of course but not once did it jam or stop feeding regardless of how fouled the ammunition was.

 

The M240 is basically the same as the 249 just larger and chambered for 7.62mm instead of 5.56mm. It is also very good. It has a fast (and adjustable) rate of fire. It's lighter than the M2 and much easier to maneuver around in a turret. It's also more well suited to the human targets of the recent Iraq war yet still powerful enough to stop an automobile.

 

The M2 is heavier than it needs to be. It has a pretty slow firing rate. It's not user friendly for people who don't know its quirks. It's more complicated to disassemble, reassemble and maintain. You have to keep a headspace and timing gauge with you.

 

I only fired the Mk19 once. Our company had four but they all stayed in the arms room.

[Asgar]

 

 

I was a gunner in turret of gun truck for three years. I have used M16A2, M4, M9, M203, M249, M240, M2, and Mk19.

 

So, what you're saying was actually it the best AMERICAN handgun, not the best on the planet?

 

btw, yes 9x19 is absolutely fine, even though in a pistol you don't look for pen but stopping power, and there the .45 is a bit better

 

 

 

but not once did it jam or stop feeding regardless of how fouled the ammunition was.

 

well, of course it never jammed, the Belgiums were smart and used the MG42 feed mechanism 

[Danziger]

Ahh ok I get it now. You weren't interested in what I tested, you were just trying to make a sarcastic remark. No I have not tested all small arms ever made. How many have you tested?

 

Yes I still stand by my remark that the 240 and 249 are some of the best small arms ever designed. I never said they were American. They are made by FN. I also never said anything about them being the best handgun...?

 

I never understood all of this bs about "stopping power". I could stop someone with a stone, stick or knife. I guarantee if you shoot someone in the face with even a .22 they will stop. If the 9mm wasn't effective it wouldn't be used by the vast majority of military and police on the planet for more than a century.

[Sgt_Joch]

probably not scientific, but I have been spending a lot of time lately with the FW 190 (pretty amazing AC btw).

 

spent a lot of time flying low level Jabo missions, shooting up vehicles ( a great way to practice your gunnery and to learn to fly the 190).

 

Now I have been flying 1 vs 1 against il-2s. With the extra 2x20mm wing guns, I can shoot down IL-2s on the first pass 2/3rds of the time and on the second pass the rest of the time.

 

From what I can see, the 20mm shell, when it connects, inflicts a lot of damage, tearing off elevators, tails, even wings. 2-3 hits is usually enough to down a IL-2.

 

It does not seem underpowered IMHO.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

[Asgar]

you do realize that i agreed with you on the Pistol part right? i  just added a side note

[Danziger]

Yes I was just relating some testing my friends and I did years ago when we would argue the endless 9mm vs .45 debates. I personally like both and they both have their place but a lot of fellow Americans like to argue that 9mm is too weak and inferior.

 

Anyway, on paper as far as specification and ballistic performance are concerned, the only advantage the German cannons have over Russian ones is the mine rounds with huge explosive charge. I can't be sure if the HE explosions are simulated the way they are supposed to be or not. The other specifications seem to be realistically modelled though according to available data.

[Holtzauge]

Yes I was just relating some testing my friends and I did years ago when we would argue the endless 9mm vs .45 debates. I personally like both and they both have their place but a lot of fellow Americans like to argue that 9mm is too weak and inferior.

 

Some input on the 9 x 19: When we still had conscription service in Sweden I had two personal weapons: One was the AK-4 which was a Swedish adaptation of the H & K G3 which I really liked. We also had the m/45 Carl Gustav submachine gun (purportedly also used by SEALs!) which while a wonder of simplicity and reliability was not very accurate to put it mildly. Anyway, the ammo we used in it was the m/39B which has a hefty steel mantle to be able to have some effect against vehicles and as my NCO used to say “It will sail through the other guys rucksack and trenchspade if you fire from behind!”. So if you need some extra penetration from your M9 just load up with m/39B and you are good to go! Just don’t do it too often because a lot of Swedish pistols have cracked from firing too much surplus m39/B!

Edited December 14, 2016 by Holtzauge

[von_Tom]

 

I had a cap gun once and the bangs were really loud. I get quite nostalgic when I think about it.

 

Von Tom

[Wulf]

 

I never understood all of this bs about "stopping power". I could stop someone with a stone, stick or knife. I guarantee if you shoot someone in the face with even a .22 they will stop. If the 9mm wasn't effective it wouldn't be used by the vast majority of military and police on the planet for more than a century.

 

 

Yes I agree. 

[Wulf]

We also did a test on two Kevlar helmets we "acquired" from work. We both fired from about two meters into the forehead area. The 9mm penetrated more layers but both of them left a huge dent inside the helmet that would've surely been fatal to a wearer. I think the helmet was more designed to stop small shrapnel nor glancing hits.

 

 

Helmets in the modern era were indeed developed initially to stop shrapnel balls from air burst shrapnel rounds.  Also of limited use against 'near-spent' shell splinters.  Of course at close range even lead shrapnel balls would penetrate a WW1 - WW2 era steel helmet.  

[Lusekofte]

You've got 3333 posts in this forum, but you don't appear in any of the relevant online statistics (WoL, TAW, 72AG-DED). Says a lot in my opinion....

 

 

I am not in public servers more than 40 minutes a month, what exactly does it say about me? However I am in FMBF whenever I am home, I do not see you there, do you think I should judge you for that?

[StG2_Manfred]

I am not in public servers more than 40 minutes a month, what exactly does it say about me? However I am in FMBF whenever I am home, I do not see you there, do you think I should judge you for that?

Luse, don't put my statement out of context ok. I guess you read the whole thread. Almost 3 years of reading statements like '...have you considered ... I don't say the plane is right...go make some tests ... file a report... bla bla bla'. Probably half of his posts were saying all is fine with the 190 and then he makes a statement like the below one. And others are luftwhiners and impolite? Really? And on top of this he has zero online experience. I say this because if I'm flying all day just against the AI then of course everything is fine. Guess what, even with the current Focke one can bring down those AI pilots.

__________________________________

'Outrageous!!!!

 

I will never fly this sim again until the "hitluminium" bomb resistant armour is fixed on obviously OP Ju-88, I refuse to waste my time flying for hours to bomb indestructible titanium aircraft!!!!

 

I am going to tell all my squad mates not to buy BoK and post this vid on every flight sim site i CAN FIND UNTIL IT IS FIXED NOW!!

 

...or maybe a nice bug report to dev's would suffice, perhaps it is just an error

 

Cheers Dakpilot

__________________________________

 

And a last word, Luse. You can judge me however you want. That's completely up to you ok. And I  judge people with my own (well considered) criteria

Edited December 14, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Ahh ok I get it now. You weren't interested in what I tested, you were just trying to make a sarcastic remark. No I have not tested all small arms ever made. How many have you tested?

 

Yes I still stand by my remark that the 240 and 249 are some of the best small arms ever designed. I never said they were American. They are made by FN. I also never said anything about them being the best handgun...?

 

I never understood all of this bs about "stopping power". I could stop someone with a stone, stick or knife. I guarantee if you shoot someone in the face with even a .22 they will stop. If the 9mm wasn't effective it wouldn't be used by the vast majority of military and police on the planet for more than a century.

Anyone who uses the term stopping power when describing a pistol round hasn't the faintest idea about terminal ballistics and the effect of a typical pistol engagement. The modern .45, .40, 10mm and 9mm are remarkably similar in wound ballistics, none will STOP an assailant in and of themselves and all have a 98% survivability rate even with multiple hits outiside of the heart and CNS. The only way to stop a person with a handgun is to center punch the brain, bleed them out, or bring a rifle.

[Ace_Pilto]

Wartime K98s were refurbished in Yugoslavia after the war (I own one of these myself), but no new ones were made there postwar. They were given the designation M98/48. The M48, a Mauser rifle similar to the K98, was built in Yugoslavia after the war.

 

You own a Yugo? Well at least it isn't a moist nugget.

 

Refurbished? Sure, plenty of those kicking around... but I reckon you'll also find that they did some new castings in the 1960's (Maybe they were "off the books" if you know what I mean?). 

 

Anyway, the main point was the revolver cannon design which got bounced around between companies post-war until somebody made something of it and that was a good point but poorly expressed. Personally I think the gatling autocannon concept is technically superior but I'm not an engineer. The RoF is pretty high on the gatling and all that ammo vamooses pretty darn fast but, when you're talking about laying down some hits, the Gatling is a winner considering that these days it's a last resort and not a primary weapons system.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

I never understood all of this bs about "stopping power".

 

Stopping power is overrated in all other situations than a cop  facing a armed maniac going on speed, for normal people accuracy is better . Some years ago you could not join hunting parties for moose if you did not have a 3006 or bigger calibre, now accuracy is more important and 6,5 mm are much welcomed. 

[Ace_Pilto]

Shotguns have stopping power. .45 has killing power, it will kill you quicker than a 9mm.

 

Not relevant for air to air combat but I'm glad we cleared that up.

[Cpt_Cool]

Maximum theoretical "stopping power" will only equal the force of the recoil. 

[7.GShAP/Silas]

LMAO a .45 isn't going to kill anyone any faster than a .22, .25, .380 or anything for that matter. This is where the line "it's not the size but how you use it" gets practical application. A .45 in the ass is far less deadly than a .22LR in the head. 

 

Before hunting the Big 5 became illegal with anything smaller than a .375 H&H, hunters in Africa were one shot killing elephants with 7x57 Mauser rifles shooting solids. It's all about where you put your bullet.

 

 

I've seen people shot with 9mm handgun rounds and I've seen people shot .45 handgun rounds, and I'd rather take three 9mm over one .45 any day of the week.  In the head it's mostly all the same, sure.

 

Experiences differ I suppose.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Silas

[curiousGamblerr]

Snoop's two cents...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

 

 

.45 has killing power, it will kill you quicker than a 9mm.

 

Absolute wives tale.

 

Terminal ballistics are nearly the same for all practical purposes. Pistol bullets are terrible in general, outside of the CNS or near heart shots. The temporary cavity is slightly larger with a .45 but the permanent cavity leaves nothing of note over a 9 or 10 mm and it doesn't penetrate as well either. 

[Trinkof]

In my work I saw wounded people from both those calibers. I admit in europe we see a lot less gunshot wounds than in US for example, and certainly a lot less from .45.

 

But still, from the few .45 wounds I saw , it deals much more "blast impact" to internals vital organes than the 9mm. And regardind gun wounds, blast impact is the lethal thing on medium term (it means : the more blast, the more damages outside of the specific path of the bullet... And so more risk of death due to organic damages)

 

And yeah ... From my work experience, handguns are really not good to effectively kill people ... At least in france where most gunwounds are gang related with probably not well trained shooters

 

This being said ... Could we go back on topic ? ... The initial one ?

 

S !

Edited December 19, 2016 by LAL_Trinkof

[Ace_Pilto]

 

Source, the FBI ballistics study comparison using ballistic gel. .45 is clearly more destructive than 9mm. THis is why police use 9mm, it is less likely to kill.

 

So are you kiddies done defending your ignorance to save face or can we just move on?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Ace_Pilto

[Dakpilot]

 

Source, the FBI ballistics study comparison using ballistic gel. .45 is clearly more destructive than 9mm. THis is why police use 9mm, it is less likely to kill.

 

So are you kiddies done defending your ignorance to save face or can we just move on?

 

It is a bit like comparing aircraft, one with better speed and range, and one with better maneuverability, they both have their points and uses

 

But a .357 is also a 9mm and has "stopping power" so one must compare just cartridge size, or weapon?

 

Most .45 have 7 round magazine, most 9mm have 15 round, there is a tactical advantage, 9mm has much better penetration  .45 also has much more recoil than 9mm

 

Personally I will always take a 9mm with a spare mag, you have more options to get more rounds on target, 2 mags 30 rounds vs 3 mags 21 rounds

 

Real world, I have done two double taps with 9mm, and remain 11 rounds, more than any .45 has to start with...options

 

true you can get high capacity (10) .45 but the same can be said with 9mm (I have a 22 round extra backup if needed)

 

37mm aircraft gun has more "stopping power" than 20mm but it also has disadvantages and was not widely used for that reason, to achieve stopping power you first have to hit the target

 

This is why the Military use 9mm, they are not kiddies 

 

Cheers Dakpilot