20mm cannon under power comparing to 12.7mm MGs?

[SCG_Rabbisaur]

I have all  the planes in this game. So I flied all of them to make a comparison. I think the 12.7mm MGs are the best weapons in this game. And the 20mm 151 or MGFF cannons are the worst. Even the two Brenda MGs on the MC202 is a very deadly weapon comparing to the 20mm.

 

Does anyone have the same feeling as I do?

[Original_Uwe]

Online yes. Offline no.

[SCG_Rabbisaur]

Why? what is causing this problem? When played online, there is a perceivable, long delay for the 20mm round to explode after impact. I wonder if it is causing any problem, like the rounds hit the target, the target fly away, then the rounds explode leaving no effect of the explosion on the target? or it is just my gunnery skill very bad? But I can score 8 kills on wings of liberty in one sorty in MC202 without at weapon mod.

[Original_Uwe]

Honestly I'm hesitant to say anything one way or the other as I only fly two airplanes in the sim so my sample size is rather limited.

I do know that the Russian planes routinely burn in single player, but I very, verrrry rarely set one alight in MP.

There's obviously a difference but why? I'm not really sure.

Edited April 2, 2017 by 1./JG54_Uwe

[Stlg13/Col_Klink]

Honestly I'm hesitant to say anything one way or the other as I only fly two airplanes in the sim so my sample size is rather limited.

I do know that the Russian planes routinely burn in single player, but I very, verrrry rarely set one alight in MP.

There's obviously a difference but why? I'm not really sure.

Likewise it's strange to be honest i find that my Ju88 and Stuka are soaked in jet fuel preflight considering how easily they catch a blaze but Russian planes very rarely do. Could just be my aiming is [Edited] or where the fuel lines/tanks are located in Russian planes but who knows.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bearcat

[Finkeren]

Likewise it's strange to be honest i find that my Ju88 and Stuka are soaked in jet fuel preflight considering how easily they catch a blaze but Russian planes very rarely do. Could just be my aiming is shit or where the fuel lines/tanks are located in Russian planes but who knows.

 

Most Soviet planes of this era (apart from the I-16 I think) had an inert gas system, that redirected exhaust fumes into the fuel tanks as they emptied. Thus the air in a half-empty tank was completely deprived of oxygen and literally could not catch fire, even if hit by incendiary ammunition. Of course, if the tank had previously been hit and was leaking fuel, there was always the chance that the leaking fuel could catch fire outside the tank itself, potentially setting the airframe itself on fire, but overall the risk of fire was much reduced by this system.

 

I don't know if the Ju 87 or Ju 88 had any systems like this. 

[sniperton]

I have all  the planes in this game. So I flied all of them to make a comparison. I think the 12.7mm MGs are the best weapons in this game. And the 20mm 151 or MGFF cannons are the worst. Even the two Brenda MGs on the MC202 is a very deadly weapon comparing to the 20mm.

 

Does anyone have the same feeling as I do?

I only have offline experience. I agree that against fighters 2 HMGs are usually more efficient than one 20mm cannon. (Bombers are a different story.) I also agree that the MGFF is the weakest cannon in aerial fight and is better used against slow bombers or ground targets. However, I find the 151 and the ShVAK significantly better than you, but as said, a one-second burst with 2 HMGs can give you more hits and damage than a one-second burst with a cannon. Two 20mm cannons can be devastating as nothing else, but as they are installed on the wings, they have to be fired from convergence range.

[Cybermat47]

I’ve gotten pretty much all of my online victories with a 20mm or 15mm, wether it be a ShVAK or MG-151. I’ve flown the MC.202 a fair amount of times, and even when my shots hit, they don’t do much damage.

[sniperton]

Yep, the Bredas are clearly inferior to the UBs. The Browning is difficult to judge, as you have at least 4 of them, but as you can also have 4 UBs on the MiG (my favourite config), I'd say the Browning is largely on par with the UB. I found that the Macchi can still be a killing machine when the Bredas are combined with two 151 gunpods.

[216th_Jordan]

The UBs are superior to the Brownings, which themselves are not bad. That said, I do not think that the UB is better than the MG 151 or the Shvak, its different. One thing why most people think the MGs are better is because they can hit better at usually longer ranges. With te Mg 151 you'll need on average 4 - 6 rounds to bring down a Yak-1 but you'd need quite a lot of MG rounds to get that accomplished.

 

Another thing is that the smoke puff of the 151 is way too big, looks more like a rocket impact than 18 g of explosive going off.

[Mad_Mikhael]

Interesting post FYI guys https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/26453-cannon-demage-model/?p=417833

Edited December 15, 2017 by =L/R=Mad_Mikhael

[sniperton]

Observing those figures and taking the destructive power of the MG17 as one unit, the effectiveness of the rest should be like this: 2 for the Breda, 3 for the Browning, 5 for the UB, 6 for the MG-FF, 8.5 for the ShVAK, and 10 for both the MG151 and the Hispano II.

In game I feel the MG151 closer to the ShVAK, and I don't find the Breda and the Browning that much inferior to the UB. I'd rather give a 3:4:5 ratio for them, but these are just impressions.

Anyway, just for fun, the relative firepower of fighters should look like this according to those values:

 

I-16: 4 (21 with pods)

MC.202: 4 (6 with LMG pods, 24 with cannon pods)

Yak-1: 10.5

109 F/G: 12 (24 with pods)

LaGG and Yak-1b: 13.5

MiG: 10 or 13.5 (20 or 23.5 with pods)

109 E7: 14

La-5: 17

P-40: 18 (12 with two guns removed)

Fw: 22 (34 with pods)

Spit: 24

 

Of course all this doesn't take into consideration that the Spit is a one kill wonder, while the 109 F and G have plenty of ammo for multiple kills.

Edited December 15, 2017 by sniperton

[Jade_Monkey]

Overall i agree except for the Macchi. Those guns are useless.

 

I do get this feeling that the German 20mm arent quite as effective, but i never thought about the SP/MP factor.

 

You might be on to something.

[sniperton]

Just for fun, ammo duration also taken into consideration:

 

A: nominal destructive power (see my post above)

B: ammo duration in seconds (time elapsed until one of the guns in standard configuration runs out of ammo)

C: cumulative destructive power (A multiplied by B)

 

                        A:       B:    C:

 

Bf-109 E7       14        7      98

Yak-1              10,5   10    105

I-16                 4        31    124

Spitfire Mk.V   24       6     144

Yak-1b            13.5   11     148.5

LaGG-3          13.5   13     175.5

MC.202          4        45     180

MiG-3             7        30     210

Bf-109 F/G     12      18     216

P-40               18      17     306

La-5               17       22     374

Fw-190          22       34     748

 

It's just an approximation, don't take it too serious, but at least it gives you an idea what to expect with all of your guns at your disposal.

Edited December 23, 2017 by sniperton

[LLv34_Stafroty]

damage model sucks when it takes in account how damage is calculated. It doesnt even take nearly all in account than what is should take.  Now damage is purely calculated via Kinetic energy as well chemical energy plus some penetration values, when it should take area of damaged surface also in account, in which cannons with HE ammo excel greatly the penetratin AP ammo style machineguns.

But it seems that there is just simple hitpoint bar with every part with perhaps critical areas included. and from those hitpoints damage is then subracted.  

Areal damage from HE rounds from cannons is far more great than what AP ammos can deliver, but AP ammo is just much better at punching holes in inside parts of the machinery deeper.  But speed reduction and maneuverability from HE ammo should be much bigger than that of AP ammo.

 

as fact is that if wing is hit and AP ammo penetrates the wing completelly, it then doesnt deliver all of its kinetic energy to wing, all the excess after penetration energy is then wasted. But game seems to calculate its all KE as damage taken.   Compare that tho HE ammo of cannons which really tears and bends parts are large area per single hit.