different Ammobelts for german MG151/20

[MadisonV44]

Asgar & ShameRock, ok for the MC 202 151/20 ... my bad   but have a try F2 151/15 in a quick mission. your feedback will be much appreciated   

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Asgar & ShameRock, ok for the MC 202 151/20 ... my bad   but have a try F2 151/15 in a quick mission. your feedback will be much appreciated   

 

The MG151/15 has a higher muzzle velocity than the MG151/20 and with the fact that we all know the DM poorly translates certain types of damage (seems anything aside from fragmentation/penetration isn't modeled or is poorly modeled) it's a bit of a moot point.

 

Faster round with higher penetration = more damage in this version of the DM

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I'm not an expert on explosive shells, but I do have some occupational knowledge of explosives for the purposes of defeating barriers.

 

Generally speaking, pressure created by explosive charges the size of what you could fit in a small shell is going reduce below that required to destroy metal within a very short distance from the point of detonation.

 

Pressure from glancing hits should dissipate rapidly, and probably direct most of the blast outward away from the surface of the target. (Shots like this should probably be quite ineffectual if they strike an armoured portion of the aircraft, and not a whole lot better on other metal parts. Wood will be a somewhat different story.)

 

If the round achieves penetration however, and the charge detonates inside the confined space of the structure, the pressure will be considerably amplified, and do a lot more damage.

 

This seems to mesh with what I tend to see when using the German 20mm. Glancing hits do very little, but direct hits are devastating.

Edited July 13, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

Well that was the whole point of the M-Geschoss rounds. To carry a whole bunch of explosive with a slight delay fuse so that it explodes on the inside of the aircraft.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Asgar & ShameRock, ok for the MC 202 151/20 ... my bad   but have a try F2 151/15 in a quick mission. your feedback will be much appreciated   

 

I have a lot of experience in the F-2. I'm pretty sure by now I've flown it as much as the F-4 despite having the F-4 for much longer. I gotta tell you that the MG151/20 hits harder...mostly.

 

What the MG151/15 does have is muzzle velocity and AP penetration. Despite the smaller size I'm guessing that it about evens out when it comes to shooting down smaller aircraft but even there I notice the difference. I did extensive testing with the MG151/20 and I found that the Mine shell has an impressive area of effect on aircraft. When shooting at bombers I was knocking out gunners even when I was shooting at engines while with the MG151/15 I was pretty much just damaging the engine.

 

If you hit a wingtip... well probably the MG151/15 might do a little more damage. If you hit center-mass then the MG151/20 is more powerful and the bigger the aircraft the more likelihood you're doing damage across multiple major systems. The MG151/15 is a scalpel, the MG151/20 is a hammer.

 

BTW: My original testing was to see if the ShVAK 20mm was better than the MG151/20 because that's what everyone was saying it was. So I wanted to find out for myself. It has better muzzle velocity (like the MG151/15) but the MG151/20 hits harder and downs aircraft more quickly requiring fewer hits. And that was before they made it hit a little harder.

Edited July 13, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I'm doing some testing with Hispano vs MG 151/20 and their ability to chop off a 109 F-4 wing hitting from straight six o clock at low speed (probably the less effective case in game, but it's the one I can have a controlled test), but sometimes hitting the mid wing of a 109 with the MG 151/20 will damage the engine, often the plane going down because of that and not because of wing damage, making me to rule out the plane and start again. But from what I have seen so far, Hispano AP is very good, with often 2-3 AP hits are enough to cut off a 109's wing. MG 151/20 AP isn't as good, sometimes the wing was able to take 4 AP without going down.  HE vs HE they both seem similar in terms of wing damage (still need more tests, but I guess it's around 3-4 impacts) but the MG 151/20 seem to have a larger area effect (engine damage, control cables hit making the AI to bail out, etc) than the Hispano.

Edited July 13, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Wulf]

Actually I don't think that would have helped in this case. I deliberately avoided saying what mistake the SwAF pilot did because it's a bit embarrasing and when I first heard it I could not believe he missed out on that. Nuff said.

 

 

I used to play Raising Storm - Battle of Stalingrad online quite a bit, in fact way too much.  Still, it is/was a fantastic game.  Seriously, with my trusty MG 42, I must have slaughtered tens of thousands of Soviet troops.  I think the kill/death ratio would have been something like 60 to one.  A really intense game at times and one that I did quite well at.  But strangely, at no time have I ever thought to myself that I could have taught the veterans of that Battle a thing or two about how to fight a war.

 

Assuming any of those guys are left, which I sadly doubt, I wonder how they'd respond to my suggestions.  I'm sure they'd be hanging on my every word.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Wulf

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Our kill ratio online is meaningless. 5 to 1, 12 to 1, 60 to 1... It's that *1* that means everything.

Edited July 14, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Wulf]

Of course not but as Yogiflight pointed out, you probably would not be allowed to change your convergence between flights either, so why no allow custom belting as well?

 

 

No of course not.  I imagine it would take hours of work to change the weapons harmonization on a single aircraft.   But I have always been somewhat sceptical that your average pilot would have been permitted to select a harmonization range at all.  I don't doubt that some guys (Aces maybe of a certain standing or pay grade) but Joe Blow, I seriously doubt it.  Harmonization has serious tactical implication at a unit level.  If everyone is free to do as they please it could actually impact on the effectiveness of the group.

 

So yeah, all of these things add up to more 'game' and less 'simulation'.

[MrNoice]

please add customizeable belts ... yyou made this in CloD before..

[Asgar]

please add customizeable belts ... yyou made this in CloD before..

no, "they" didn't and it was one of Olegs many bad ideas, it's not historical for 99.9% of all pilots

[Lusekofte]

As I say in all treads like this, just do as he ask, this will never end. Make the spit slower and more fragile, cut its ammo effectiveness to half, and please in the name of god let these 109 drivers get to load their ammobelt by them selves. 

Because when a 109 pilot say his opponents plane are too effective and his own too little effective, it must be true

[ShamrockOneFive]

"the MG 151/20 makes up for the most important element in the majority of German fighters' weapon configurations. The MG 151 20mm cannon is less accurate than cannons like the HS.404 and the ShWAK , but the notable high-explosive content of its rounds makes shots that hit much more damaging to aircraft than standard HE rounds"

 

 

So I think the damage modell of the Minengeschoss should be reworked...

 

Why is that? What is described in the quote is accurate from mine and others tests.

 

The area of effect on the MG151/20 MINE shells is significantly larger than the HE blasts from other 20mm cannons. Versus the ShVAK the MG151/20 downs aircraft in fewer hits.

Edited July 14, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

THE aircraft produced by the Messerschmitt company- arc well known- for their particular type of construction, the characteristic feature of which is the single wing-spar and stressed skin. The bending forces are, to a great extent, absorbed by the spar and the torsional forces by the covering, which forms a torsion tube. This light and exceptionally rigid construction of the monospar wing was supposed to be inferior to the two-spar wing with regard to resistance to bullets. Experience gained from many operational flights, even under the most intense fire, does not, however, in any way confirm this view.

 

Why the Germans drop AP Round before the War change to Mine Shells in IL-2 is complete the other way around 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I shot  atleast 20 bullets into it and it still flown like nothing hit it .....

 

 

HAHA Nope....

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Why don't you fly both aircraft against the same target? Can we not do axis vs. axis or vvs vs. vvs in quick battle?

[von-Luck]

The MG 151/20 is in a pretty darn good place right now. 2-4 well placed rounds tend to be pretty catastrophic against single engine targets. Wing roots specifically are a great place to shoot. Shots from the dead 6 to the tail tend to be less affective try to avoid shooting the tail repeatedly. As always the concentration of fire is critical. Grouping your shots to a wing is far more efficient than spreading 5 or even sometimes 6 rounds across the tail and either wing. All of this is, of course, easier said than done but when executed correctly a 109 can very effectively destroy an enemy fighter in one pass.

 

Could the DM be better - sure - but the MG151/20 isn't a slouch in-game presently.

 

von Luck

[MadisonV44]

 

BTW: My original testing was to see if the ShVAK 20mm was better than the MG151/20 because that's what everyone was saying it was. So I wanted to find out for myself. It has better muzzle velocity (like the MG151/15) but the MG151/20 hits harder and downs aircraft more quickly requiring fewer hits. And that was before they made it hit a little harder.

 

I totally respect your opinion. I've run the exact same test with my team mates and we arrive word for word at the exact opposite of your feedback. But we don't pretend to deliver the truth anyway ...

 

 @ Von-Luck, I confirm what you say ... dead 6 rounds to the tail is not effective most of the time when flying German side. I also understand there is room to differentiate 151/20 from its competitors characteristics, it make sense (muzzle velocity, rate of fire, convergences, shooting angles can make a part of the difference). However it does not explain everything about the 151/20 lack of efficiency compared to other 20 mm. At the opposite of your example I can tell you that a single and direct hit in the dead 6 of a 190 or 109 from a LA-5 for example will be lethal 90% of the time (maybe less with other vvs planes but still dangerous). 

 

I respect all the data and opinion here and a forum is made for this. So just let me share with you a firm conviction of people flying every day in a squad. It allows us to compare every point of view, do a lot of  testing and to exchange roles. And when you exchange roles its like a joke. Except some rare cases, the same average player will shot down quickly and with only a few rounds the majority of its axe opponents while the exact same player will be stuck on a combat zone versus the majority of vvs plane (everybody knows the puff smoke effect). The same average players, with the same aiming skills ... That is what my wingmen and I corroborate every day on the green.

 

So why is there a so perceptible difference between the two sides ?

 

The answer certainly lies somewhere in between the aircraft structure/engine resistance and the ammo efficiency. Separately this is anecdotal.But the combination of the two becomes a big concern regarding the balance of the game versus historical stories. I personally don't remember any books describing such differences in balance. At the contrary, what I've red in many many books is generally that you are out of combat or forced to leave the combat area as soon as your opponent hits a vital structure point, whatever the side you belong.  

 

[VesseL]

Sortie log show a damage and hits. If someone could make a test. Only shooting cannon rounds and see how much damage those cannon rounds did. Is it the usual 0,5% and some 1%. That would tell something, maybe.. Sorry my poor english

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sortie log show a damage and hits. If someone could make a test. Only shooting cannon rounds and see how much damage those cannon rounds did. Is it the usual 0,5% and some 1%. That would tell something, maybe.. Sorry my poor english

 

Problem is that the sortie log and the percentage damage isn't a full damage model indicator. The only real way to do it is park yourself behind a plane and squeeze off individual rounds and count. Then you repeat that test over and over again to eliminate statistical outliers.

Edited July 15, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[MadisonV44]

Problem is that the sortie log and the percentage damage isn't a full damage model indicator. The only real way to do it is park yourself behind a plane and squeeze off individual rounds and count. Then you repeat that test over and over again to eliminate statistical outliers.

 

Are you sure ? i'm afraid the visual representation shows only a small part of the damage taken in account by the sim. Moreover it roughly the same for a lot of different damage types ...   

[VesseL]

Problem is that the sortie log and the percentage damage isn't a full damage model indicator. The only real way to do it is park yourself behind a plane and squeeze off individual rounds and count. Then you repeat that test over and over again to eliminate statistical outliers.

Yes, it would be lot of work. It could at best show the relative strenght of an aircrafts and ammos. You should shoot from Yak to Yak, Yak to 109 and vice versa and all the combinations off cannon ammo and aircrafts. Then maybe one could make some conclusions of relative strenghts of an ammo and aircrafts. This is OT, sorry but i feel that 109 is modeled a bit too fragile.

[MadisonV44]

- strong ammo vs fragile planes 

- weak armament vs solid planes

 

The combination of the two make the difference  

[Lusekofte]

I have been shot down countless of times by all LW fighters flying LAGG , IL 2 and PE 2, countless of times and that with far less than 20 hits, stop saying German ammo is not working because it does. The 109 F lost it wings in manoeuvres, it got fixed but it was still fragile, believe it or not. Even how much I hate public servers, the end result reflect historical results . Strange huh , all things considered. This simulator as it is today, cheap. YES cheap, they do not overcharge , it reflect historical performances much more than can be expected for a cheap CFS . Hell treads like this is respect less in itself . We did not pay more for this game than a average dinner and we got far more than we should expect. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Are you sure ? i'm afraid the visual representation shows only a small part of the damage taken in account by the sim. Moreover it roughly the same for a lot of different damage types ...   

 

Reasonably. The damage model isn't like a hit point system that they use on games like Battlefield and Call of Duty (I'm just using these as reference) but much more complex and every time I hear the developers talk about a DM related issue I get the sense that there's an overall system governing damage - so when you shoot a plane the part doesn't fail because it reached 0 hit points but rather there's some complex relationships between parts that contribute to the overall damage.

 

The visual representation is tied into the system but you're right that its not a full indicator. That said, I still think its useful to watch and make notes on what's happening. If you can try and repeat the process multiple times it ends up giving you an average of what the relative strenghts are.

 

Yes, it would be lot of work. It could at best show the relative strenght of an aircrafts and ammos. You should shoot from Yak to Yak, Yak to 109 and vice versa and all the combinations off cannon ammo and aircrafts. Then maybe one could make some conclusions of relative strenghts of an ammo and aircrafts. This is OT, sorry but i feel that 109 is modeled a bit too fragile.

 

Yep, definitely a lot of work. I spent a couple of hours parking myself behind Pe-2s and He111s for one of my tests. I'm not really interested in doing it again but it did show to me the relative strengths and weaknesses and I was surprised that despite the community being adamant about one thing it was ever so slightly another.

 

Both my game experience and my testing indicated to me that the MG151/20 hits hard and it hits harder than most. Honestly, if you haven't crippled your enemy in a few hits from these then I'd love to know whats going on. And I don't mean that in a pejorative way either. More as curiosity.

Edited July 16, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[JtD]

I think parts have simple damage points, even if damage is randomized to some degree. Hitting smaller structures like tail fins clearly shows that basic elements of the damage model are extremely simple. And when it comes to AP rounds and blast damage, extremely wrong. You can shoot the tail fin off an aircraft by hitting with 2 20mm AP rounds into regions that where the round hits nothing but 2mm plywood panels on either side or 0.7mm alumnium skin at a 90° angle. Real life: four holes, 20mm diameter - game: vertical stab and rudder gone.

 

And my extensive testing indicates that due to the unnatural ability of the AP round to do structural damage plus their ability to AP, guns using less AP in their belting, like the MG151/20, do less damage.

[MK_RED13]

I think parts have simple damage points, even if damage is randomized to some degree. Hitting smaller structures like tail fins clearly shows that basic elements of the damage model are extremely simple. And when it comes to AP rounds and blast damage, extremely wrong. You can shoot the tail fin off an aircraft by hitting with 2 20mm AP rounds into regions that where the round hits nothing but 2mm plywood panels on either side or 0.7mm alumnium skin at a 90° angle. Real life: four holes, 20mm diameter - game: vertical stab and rudder gone.

 

And my extensive testing indicates that due to the unnatural ability of the AP round to do structural damage plus their ability to AP, guns using less AP in their belting, like the MG151/20, do less damage.

 

+10000   

[Livai]

The MG151/20 armed with 20 × 138 mm planeripper belts............Someone against it? You or You? Really Nobody???  

[Yogiflight]

I think with that ammo, you would only destroy one aircraft, your own.

[LukeFF]

The MG151/20 armed with 20 × 138 mm planeripper belts............Someone against it? You or You? Really Nobody???

 

Care to elaborate on what exactly you are talking about?

[Alexmarine]

I think the problem is that the devs didnt add the delayed fuse so the Minengeschoss can penetrate and explode inside the target....

 

not it seems like they exploding directly on hit so it does not the damage like exploding inside the wing/fuselage

 

 

correct me if im wrong but I think thats the point.

Indeed it's the same thing I thought. Could it be that while damage is represented as it should be, the fuse and penetration model for the minen shells are not?

[Yogiflight]

No, the problem with the Minengeschosse is, that the blast of the explosion is not modelled in game. The only destruction we have currently, is through bullets and fragments of bullets. But the only effect Minengeschosse had, was through the blast of the explosion, as the fragments were to small and lightweighted to do much damage.

[Yogiflight]

They did it already in update 2.010, but it is hard to do correctly, as the effects of fragments and blast of an explosion are very different.

[CUJO_1970]

Mine Shells get their power through chemical means (blast effect). A round that relies on kinetic energy is not dependent on velocity at the muzzle, it is dependent on velocity at point of impact. A round that relies on blast effect (chemical energy) does not.

[Yogiflight]

This is the million dollar question.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

But why are they not modelling AP appropriately then, AP rounds seem to rip out very thin surfaces when they should simply be making slightly bigger holes than a rifle caliber. 

 

Therein lies the problem: ballistic modelling as a whole isn't as accurate as it could be.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yeah the hitboxes for things just feel larger, in CloD it's down to which internal component you hit

 

Cliff's DM isn't the end-all, be-all either. Cliff's systems DM is lacking behind DCS and it's physics based DM is virtually non-existent.  In fact, Cliff's DM is pretty horrible in most categories aside from looking pretty nice.

 

BOS could really benefit from a more granular systems DM and it absolutely needs to be visually updated at some point but the physics-based DM is way ahead of any other product.

 

What I'm saying is that ballistic/penetration modeling for ammunition effectiveness is inaccurate/overmodeled/undermodeled across the board. AP significantly overperforms for its caliber and HE lacks effectiveness because its damage characteristics can't be accurately modeled with flak/shrapnel alone.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

What do you mean by granular systems? I'm not saying CloD is the end all be all but just that AP modeling feels pretty doable, especially considering what you said. The way things react to load after damage is nice, nothing else comes close for that. Modelling HE feels like a tall order honestly... 

 

Granular in this case means individual damage modeling for various systems - damage to individual gauges, hydraulic failure, governor failure, control cable failure, electrical failure, magneto failure, fuel line failure, etc. and systems like self-sealing tanks or AI-automated water shutoff valves to accompany them.

 

In essence, BOS' DM would benefit greatly if the DCS/Cliffs "tiny hitbox" approach was taken. That and the visual damage model desperately needs improvement to stay up to snuff although Jason already shot that down and said it wasn't on the table.

 

We do have some of these things but they are often rudimentary implementations - some of which are unrealistically modeled/restrictive (engine limits...), poorly modeled (general ballistics and penetration modeling) or not modeled at all (self-sealing tanks, shutoff valves, automatic dive recovery, etc.).

 

PS. I know the DCS DM is a WIP but it already represents system damage much better than BOS and Cliffs.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[ShamrockOneFive]

DCS damage modeling has its issues too and lots of complaints about the way that the WWII warbirds do damage to each other. It's telling that they are working on a total overhaul of the damage modeling system right now too (announced in one of their weekly updates).

 

What we have is good. Very good infact. But it could be better.... it could always be better :D

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

What we have is good. Very good infact. But it could be better.... it could always be better :D

Some won't be happy until shells in game are capable of setting your actual computer alight. :D