110 G2 37mm ineffective on ships

[CUJO_1970]

You folks obviously didn't see the part in Red Tails where they used .50 cals to sink a destroyer.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

That doesn't count, their mustangs are 30mm proof !

[AndyJWest]

You folks obviously didn't see the part in Red Tails where they used .50 cals to sink a destroyer.

 

Not seen it. Did they bounce rounds off the sea bottom to flip it upside down?

 

Which reminds me, any talk of holing below the waterline needs to bear in mind how rapidly a round will slow down when going through water. According to Wikipedia (not the best source, admittedly) the 57 mm calibre Molins Gun used on the Tsetse Mosquito could penetrate a Uboat hull (around 18 to 21mm thick) through two feet of water. Taking into consideration the slant angle, this doesn't leave much margin for error. And of course, holing just below the waterline is a lot less harmful than deeper down, for anything but a submarine.

 

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_6-pounder

Uboat hull thickness reference: http://uboat.net/forums/read.php?3,83370,83374

[Finkeren]

Which reminds me, any talk of holing below the waterline needs to bear in mind how rapidly a round will slow down when going through water. According to Wikipedia (not the best source, admittedly) the 57 mm calibre Molins Gun used on the Tsetse Mosquito could penetrate a Uboat hull (around 18 to 21mm thick) through two feet of water. Taking into consideration the slant angle, this doesn't leave much margin for error. And of course, holing just below the waterline is a lot less harmful than deeper down, for anything but a submarine.

 

That is always a good point. Most people have no idea about how quickly a body of water will stop a bullet. I blame Hollywood. People watch Saving Private Ryan and see soldiers getting shot through six feet of water by machinegun fire and think that this happens IRL. In reality of course, probably the best place to hide from bullets is underwater (Except for the whole drowning thing)

Edited February 1, 2017 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Most of the Battleship Explosions were a Consequence of Poor Handling of Said, leading to fires Spreading into the Magazines, but very, very rarely were Hits to the Magazine the cause of Explosions on actual Battleships (the ones with Armor). The British did learn rather drastically that building Battleship Sized Ships without Armor (Cruisers) is a rather Poor Idea and one of the Reasons they Blew Up so easily. 

 

The Battleships of the 1930s and 1940s were able to survive unbelievable Punishment when Properly Handled, as the Americans were able to show on Several Occasions where their Ships would Return to Base having taken a beating no other single Structure would have survived and still return to Service after. 

 

Most of the Battleships destroyed in WWII were actually Old Dreadnoughts from before WWI or Destroyed in Port. The Bismarck and Yamamoto being pretty much the only Examples of Battleships being on Active Duty due to enemy Action in WWII, and that only through lucky Rudder Hits and using MASSIVE Force. It took 6 Major Ships (1 Carrier, two Battleships and 3 Cruisers + 6 Destroyers) to sink the Bismarck. Had it been two or 3 german Battleships that Battle would have gone the other Way. 

 

Battleship=/=Cruiser, Cruisers are Lightly or Unarmored while Battleships are heavily armored. 

[LukeFF]

 

 

Yamamoto

 

Dunno, he doesn't look all that durable to me:

 

[ZachariasX]

Most of the Battleship Explosions were a Consequence of Poor Handling of Said

True, and I guess I sidetracked the OP with my last remark more than I intended to. My main point was more that you eitherbring sufficient explosive (by lots of bombs, heavy enough artillery, or whatever) to a ship to sink it, or, if present, you just light the cargo which has enough energy to destroy the vessel as if it was a single, large fire cracker.

 

Making damage control an art is IMHO the greater virtue than just adding armor plates to a ship (but you may want some of both). Besides, ever since Dec. 7th 1941, it has dawned on anyone that battleships are a costly and inefficient mean of force projection and consequently were discontinued everywhere.

 

Back on topic, ship with a proper damage control team can hardly be expected to be sunk by making some dozen of thumb size holes in the hull. For the purposes ofthe game here, please let it sink . Back then, to sink ships they (the Brits) resorted mostly to the use of rockets like the RP-3 rocket carrying a good amount of explosives to do the job.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip- 

 

Ah, yes... Capitalizing every other word like a true German. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Ah, yes... Capitalizing every other word like a true German. 

Well, I am probably over Capitalizing, but I think it makes a Text easier to read when you Capitalize the Important Words and just leave the Filler inbetween Minor. 

[Brano]

Search for Project 1124 or so called Bronekater BK 1124 to get more info about soviet armored gunboats. They were propelled by aviation engines- 2x Mikulin AM-34 (used also on TB-3 or MBR-2). They had very shallow draft (0.5-0.8m)

[TG-55Panthercules]

Dunno, he doesn't look all that durable to me:

 

 

LOL - actually he wasn't all that durable as it turned out - he was sunk by .50 caliber fire from some P-38s*  

 

 

*(and maybe some 20mm rounds thrown in for good measure)

[unreasonable]

Most of the Battleship Explosions were a Consequence of Poor Handling of Said, leading to fires Spreading into the Magazines, but very, very rarely were Hits to the Magazine the cause of Explosions on actual Battleships (the ones with Armor). The British did learn rather drastically that building Battleship Sized Ships without Armor (Cruisers) is a rather Poor Idea and one of the Reasons they Blew Up so easily. 

 

The Battleships of the 1930s and 1940s were able to survive unbelievable Punishment when Properly Handled, as the Americans were able to show on Several Occasions where their Ships would Return to Base having taken a beating no other single Structure would have survived and still return to Service after. 

 

Most of the Battleships destroyed in WWII were actually Old Dreadnoughts from before WWI or Destroyed in Port. The Bismarck and Yamamoto being pretty much the only Examples of Battleships being on Active Duty due to enemy Action in WWII, and that only through lucky Rudder Hits and using MASSIVE Force. It took 6 Major Ships (1 Carrier, two Battleships and 3 Cruisers + 6 Destroyers) to sink the Bismarck. Had it been two or 3 german Battleships that Battle would have gone the other Way. 

 

Battleship=/=Cruiser, Cruisers are Lightly or Unarmored while Battleships are heavily armored. 

 

And you know that (explosions as a consequence of poor handling) how? There were only 3 survivors from Hood - no-one actually knows exactly why it blew up. After refit it actually had pretty good armour - except the deck......

 

Armour:

• Belt: 12–6 in (305–152 mm)
• Deck: 0.75–3 in (19–76 mm)
• Barbettes: 12–5 in (305–127 mm)
• Turrets: 15–11 in (381–279 mm)
• Conning tower: 11–9 in (279–229 mm)
• Bulkheads: 4–5 in (102–127 mm)

 

Bismark had it's mission terminated by a single shell that caused a fuel leak, and was crippled by a single torpedo that jammed a rudder.  It's main guns were put out of action very quickly by HMS Rodney - Bismark scored zero direct hits on any British ship during the final battle.  The RN cruisers and DDs were just there to maintain contact - their presence in the battle was immaterial in terms of destruction. It really does not matter if you sink a ship with gunfire or not if you have reduced it to a blazing, stationary wreck.

 

Most of the BBs destroyed in WW2 were certainly not from before WW1 - they were inter-war builds or WW1 models extensively refitted and up-armoured between the wars.  Here is a list so that you can Check for Yourself:

 

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

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

i was talking 150mm LoS thickness not actual thickness sorry..

i almost never talk actual anymore as it means only from one angle in effect

Maybe someone can ID the Exact ship types we have ingame and get the exact armour specs on to save all this speculation :D

[Dakpilot]

 

Maybe someone can ID the Exact ship types we have ingame and get the exact armour specs on to save all this speculation :D

 

Agreed, Bismark and similar is far from what we have cruising the Volga

 

other stuff can wait for larger ships in Black sea and Pacific 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Mad_Mikhael]

Off topic.

That is always a good point. Most people have no idea about how quickly a body of water will stop a bullet. I blame Hollywood. People watch Saving Private Ryan and see soldiers getting shot through six feet of water by machinegun fire and think that this happens IRL. In reality of course, probably the best place to hide from bullets is underwater (Except for the whole drowning thing)

True. My favourite videos are "bullet and water balloons". If you guys never seen them, check it, it's worth it. This one is interesting too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4DnuQOtA8E

[Scojo]

Off topic.

True. My favourite videos are "bullet and water balloons". If you guys never seen them, check it, it's worth it. This one is interesting too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4DnuQOtA8E

Also made a good topic for Mythbusters

[Lusekofte]

First thing I did was shoot down 4 PE 2 and stopped two ships smoking in water with it. To me it feels too light and agile with the BK 37 . You can do anything with it while having full ammo and 4 50 kg bombs. Even IL 2 1946 had a more believable weight to it. Did not test speed , but I guess there is some punishment on that 

[Legioneod]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWyz8PEAp5E

 

You shouldn't expect to sink ships with strafing runs. At best you should kill a few crew, damage a few parts, and hopefully set a fire in order to cause an explosion.

 

Very rarely were ships sunk by strafing. The only senarios that I see a ship being sunk by strafing is:

 

1. The ship is caught on fire which leads to an explosion.

2. It's a small ship like a gun-boat or something.

 

AP and HE aren't the best rounds to use when strafing. The best round to use imo would be API that way you could penetrate the armor and hopefully cause a fire by hitting critical components.

 

Unfortunatley we don't have API in-game so you'll just have to use a mix of AP and HE to try and do some dmg.

 

Hopefully API is added eventually.

[Asgar]

what was that in your video, 20mms? we're talking 3,7cm anti tank cannon here: so this would be more appropriate: 

Rudel attacking Russian boats with the Ju-87 G-1 Edited February 2, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Legioneod]

what was that in your video, 20mms? we're talking 3,7cm anti tank cannon here: so this would be more appropriate: 

 

Rudel attacking Russian boats with the Ju-87 G-1

Either way my point still remains. 

[AndyJWest]

I don't think anyone doubts that 37 mm guns will make a large splash hitting the water. The question is what damage they do to ships.

[Matt]

First thing I did was shoot down 4 PE 2 and stopped two ships smoking in water with it. To me it feels too light and agile with the BK 37 . You can do anything with it while having full ammo and 4 50 kg bombs. Even IL 2 1946 had a more believable weight to it. Did not test speed , but I guess there is some punishment on that 

Weight difference with the BK37 is only around 250 kg, that's not a lot in a 8 ton plane. Speed loss is 50+ km/h with BK34, that's something you should notice.

[pilotpierre]

Further to this, I am not getting any of the smaller craft nor the paddle boats on any QMB map anymore, always 2 of the larger boats with the derrick like structures????

 

Any one else in the same boat (pun intended)?

 

Edit - a thought just blossumed in my brain, I think you have to chose AA before the other boats will appear on QMB. Will try that later today.

 

I agree with a previous post, the G2 is the most stable ground attack a/c in the game.

Edited February 2, 2017 by pilotpierre

[Lusekofte]

You say only, but add 4 50 kg bombs and it has a dramatic change. Not only weight you got a huge drag under the belly . Add radar antennas in the front and the pilots reported dramatic effect on the control surfaces . The plywood fixed fuel tanks on 110C made a huge impact on the performance. But not this. I simply do not believe it

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

First thing I did was shoot down 4 PE 2 and stopped two ships smoking in water with it. To me it feels too light and agile with the BK 37 . You can do anything with it while having full ammo and 4 50 kg bombs. Even IL 2 1946 had a more believable weight to it. Did not test speed , but I guess there is some punishment on that

 

inb4 German bias

[JtD]

I don't think anyone doubts that 37 mm guns will make a large splash hitting the water. The question is what damage they do to ships.

A 37mm round will do about the damage to a 250t ship a 20mm round will do to a 40t lorry. It's not that hard to imagine the effects.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

inb4 German bias

 

Not my words, I just take it that inaccurate FM favouring LW is not that important as those making it hard to aim. It is however not a cause I will pursue. I merely stated a point witch I have come to realise a long time ago. Historical accuracy have never been the real motif 

[JG1_Pragr]

There are so many mistakes in this thread. 

 

1) I have no idea what kind of boats (I doubt there are any ships in game at this moment) were used in these tests. But if we are talking about the Soviet WWII armored river boats then there are basically two most common ones: Project 1124 and Project 1125. The first displacement was about 45 tons and 4-14 mm of armor, while the latter was around 30-35 tons with 4 to 8 mm of armor. Such armor is relatively effective against rifle bullet caliber at regular range but nothing else.

 

2) I have no data about the 37x263 HE rounds, but way weaker 20x110 (British Hispano) HE explosion was able to pierce 8 - 12 mm of armor plate with no distance limitation. .50 caliber M8 API penetrated 16 mm at 500 m distance. Therefore I suggest that Bk 3.7 HE round had the power to penetrate at least 20 mm of armor. That's enough to make significant damage in terms of water integrity for such a small target like 30 to 40 tons boats are. Multiple hits should be able to sink riverine boats with no problems.

 

3) It's really interesting how many people expect 100+ mm armor for every single object just because it is moving in water

Edited February 3, 2017 by I./JG1_Pragr

[ZachariasX]

3) It's really interesting how many people expect 100+ mm armor for every single object just because it is moving in water

If many people did, you could call it "battleship bias"

 

Telling from personal experience with the 20 mm Oerlikon and what it does to sheet metal, you can expect a clean shot through something like a sheet of steel of a couple of mm (always depending on the hardening and the angle at which it strikes). The bullet will break up and cause a fist sized hole in sheet metal roughly 1 m beyond entry point. Farther than that it will cause nothing more than a finger sized hole in anything like aluminium or wood.

 

Thus, I would expect the damage done to the interior of the vessel larger than as done the entry hole as well as a possible exit hole. This means that most energy is absorbed by the interior of the ship. If it is empty, you really have to make a lot of holes. If you however have gasoline or ammo in the stores, there be firworks.

 

The nice splashes in the water caused by the bullets during the strafing runs (in the videos) also are a testament of how much energy is absorbed by the water when the bullet hits surface. No wonder it is stopped effectively. If the bullet would go through water like in the movies, there woudn't be much of a splash.

Edited February 3, 2017 by ZachariasX

[pilotpierre]

There are so many mistakes in this thread. 

 

1) I have no idea what kind of boats (I doubt there are any ships in game at this moment) were used in these tests. But if we are talking about the Soviet WWII armored river boats then there are basically two most common ones: Project 1124 and Project 1125. The first displacement was about 45 tons and 4-14 mm of armor, while the latter was around 30-35 tons with 4 to 8 mm of armor. Such armor is relatively effective against rifle bullet caliber at regular range but nothing else.

 

2) I have no data about the 37x263 HE rounds, but way weaker 20x110 (British Hispano) HE explosion was able to pierce 8 - 12 mm of armor plate with no distance limitation. .50 caliber M8 API penetrated 16 mm at 500 m distance. Therefore I suggest that Bk 3.7 HE round had the power to penetrate at least 20 mm of armor. That's enough to make significant damage in terms of water integrity for such a small target like 30 to 40 tons boats are. Multiple hits should be able to sink riverine boats with no problems.

 

3) It's really interesting how many people expect 100+ mm armor for every single object just because it is moving in water

Hi pragr, I spent 20 years in the Royal Australian Navy (11 trips to Viet Nam over 4 years) and one of my areas of expertice was combat damage control. I called the 2 larger boats in the sim ships to differentiate them from the smaller boats. (The average person tends to call ships boats here in Australia).

 

I finally got a QMB with AA giving me 2 paddle wheelers. They can be stopped dead in the water on the first pass but the first hit from the AA cripples the G 2's weapons fairly quickly so havent had a chance to see if they can be sunk yet.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I finally got a QMB with AA giving me 2 paddle wheelers. They can be stopped dead in the water on the first pass but the first hit from the AA cripples the G 2's weapons fairly quickly so havent had a chance to see if they can be sunk yet.

 

As long as there is the big explosion (the one that makes your instrument board glowing yellow), they will sink afterwards.

 

If they are just smoking black or with a fire somewhere, usually they don't.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Here are the weak points I found on the 3 ships we have in game. There may be some others, but these are working just fine with the HE BK37. 

 

 

River Gunboat : middle section right above the waterline. 

 

 

 

Steamboat : rear of the deck, around the chimney. It can be also attacked from the rear but I find it harder and sometimes not reliable

 

 

 

Barges : Attack only from the rear, and aim in the middle, right above the waterline (where the water is splashing when they are moving). You can also easily stop them by shooting at the forward section of the deck, attacking from the front or sides, but this will not destroy them.

 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Historical accuracy have never been the real motif 

 

Sorry for the off topic but I have to say... Several revisions of FW190 FM would sort of say otherwise. The team pays attention, at least to some degree, to what is said about the various FMs.

 

Present tangible facts/documentation = more "historical accuracy"

Edited February 3, 2017 by 4./JG52_Space_Ghost

[Matt]

You say only, but add 4 50 kg bombs and it has a dramatic change. Not only weight you got a huge drag under the belly .

You currently lose more speed with the BK37 than with a SC-1000 and 4x SC-50 bombs. I consider that a huge drag.

[pilotpierre]

As long as there is the big explosion (the one that makes your instrument board glowing yellow), they will sink afterwards.

 

If they are just smoking black or with a fire somewhere, usually they don't.

Not necessarily. I have had 2 fires burning followed by an explosion. I hung around for a while to see what eventuated - nada.

 

I havent been able to see the smaller patrol boat since the last upgrade.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Not necessarily. I have had 2 fires burning followed by an explosion. I hung around for a while to see what eventuated - nada.

 

I havent been able to see the smaller patrol boat since the last upgrade.

 

I need to try to light them with several fires without blowing them up then 

 

For the small patrol boats, keep on launching quick missions with AAA, you'll eventually find them. The screenshots I posted were taken today at lunchtime. Funny thing is, before last update, I never met any of them in QMB 

Edited February 4, 2017 by F/JG300_Gruber

[pilotpierre]

At last, managed to sink 2 paddle wheelers in one sortie before that one AAA hit knocked out all of my armament. One of them had as massive 2 stage explosion.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

You currently lose more speed with the BK37 than with a SC-1000 and 4x SC-50 bombs. I consider that a huge drag.

 

 

And it should be, as I said I did not test speed loss. I question the manoeuvrability  myself.

 

Sorry for the off topic but I have to say... Several revisions of FW190 FM would sort of say otherwise. The team pays attention, at least to some degree, to what is said about the various FMs.

 

Present tangible facts/documentation = more "historical accuracy"

I am happy for the FM revision mostly because of the noice around it. As stated before my interest for this plane is close to zero . But I found the historical information during the Hairy period very interesting and learned a lot. 

I just find the 110 way too manouvereable with the BK 37 onboard together with 200 kg bomb load. I have no historical info on this other than the plywood tank used during BOB and radar antennas witch have a very high impact on control surfaces . The plywood tank was a bit bulky and placed further in the front

 

In regard of the BF 110 performance it is a great deal of myth. It was a very agile heavy fighter and held its own in Battle of Britain. It did not suffer more losses than 109 when allowed to fight on their premisses. Even when they where forced to fly slow with the bombers they suffered not more than 109. 

Eric Brown test flew it and there are a interview about that on You tube, he said it was far more agile than the Beufighter and a really good responsive plane. German pilots however reported extremely change in performance when added antennas. When a Lancastermade its cork screw manoeuvre the 110 just flew straight ahead while pilots tried to follow it. One of the reasons 110 night fighters abandoned a attack if they where spotted

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 

 

And it should be, as I said I did not test speed loss. I question the manoeuvrability  myself.

 

I am happy for the FM revision mostly because of the noice around it. As stated before my interest for this plane is close to zero . But I found the historical information during the Hairy period very interesting and learned a lot. 

I just find the 110 way too manouvereable with the BK 37 onboard together with 200 kg bomb load. I have no historical info on this other than the plywood tank used during BOB and radar antennas witch have a very high impact on control surfaces . The plywood tank was a bit bulky and placed further in the front

 

-snip-

 

In regard of the BF 110 performance it is a great deal of myth. It was a very agile heavy fighter and held its own in Battle of Britain. It did not suffer more losses than 109 when allowed to fight on their premisses. Even when they where forced to fly slow with the bombers they suffered not more than 109. 

Eric Brown test flew it and there are a interview about that on You tube, he said it was far more agile than the Beufighter and a really good responsive plane. German pilots however reported extremely change in performance when added antennas. When a Lancastermade its cork screw manoeuvre the 110 just flew straight ahead while pilots tried to follow it. One of the reasons 110 night fighters abandoned a attack if they where spotted

 

 

I see what you are saying but Luse, we don't have Nachtjager antennas installed or that big doofy plywood fairing.

 

We have a G-2 with 600 more horsepower (?), two removed MG151, a really not that heavy BK37 and a fairing that doesn't protrude anywhere near as bad as that thing.

 

I don't have the engineering education or the 20+ years of WWII aviation book owning/reading that half of you older guys seem to have but the performance right now doesn't seem completely unplausable based on other, more educated, arguments in this thread.

[216th_Jordan]

On a side Note, can you not just unselect Anti Air and not have defences on the ships?