Russian guns balistics...

[Sturmovnik_PL]

I played in that game long time, and i saw one strange thing, russian plane can you easly hit when he's 400-900m behind you.Today i do some test, my friend took 109 f4m, i took lag 3 w, then i can easly hit him when, i am 700m behind him, at all, i take one line of sight up over him, and then i sprayin, and 40-60 % of my bullets hited him.I saw too next interesing thing, russian UB 12,7 mm got very low spread, compare to mg 17 german 7.92mm.Next thing is bullet drop, UB 12,7mm got muzzle velocity 860m/s, mg 17 got 850 m/s, so how its possible german mg 17 bullet drop is on 350m (350m Convergence in set up), when russian UB 12,7mm with same convergence like a 109 (350 m), bullet drop is on 700-900m.

 

What do you feel about russians armament ?

Edited September 11, 2017 by [PUAF]Sturmovnik_PL

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

Yes, ..it's very funny. You can see in a combat at distance, Russian planes firing laser beams straight to his target, ..and you can see the Germans airplanes spreading tracer bullets like a grandpa with parkinson watering a garden.    
I´m sure that something is wrong in the ballistic model.

Edited September 11, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Sturmovnik_PL]

Thanks for your feedback, i'm too long playin in that game, and i saw that laser guns, when many times, I or my friend's was hited by Lagg 3, of far distance.

[JtD]

I'd recommend quantifiable in game tests with comparison to real life data. That's always better than to post subjective observations, may they be right or not.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

I'd recommend quantifiable in game tests with comparison to real life data. That's always better than to post subjective observations, may they be right or not.

I think, that the general experience of all virtual pilots here, is not "subjective observations".

[unreasonable]

I think, that the general experience of all virtual pilots here, is not "subjective observations".

 

All virtual pilots? Who are you to say what the experience of all virtual pilots is?  

 

Until someone does as JtD suggests and produces a systematic comparison that can be measured so that it can be checked by someone else all you have is some personal observations. 

 

If you want to have anything changed in the game you have to prove your case in a manner a scientist or engineer would accept: ie the results are quantifiable and repeatable.   Otherwise all you have is some anecdotal observations - whether you classify those as "subjective" or not is not actually the point.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think it also has to do with weight? The Berezin 12.7mm round being heavier (around 40g) vs the 7.92mm (10g) would make it hold it's speed for a longer time?

 

I took some screenshots comparing the ballistic drops of the different guns in the planes. This is a relative comparison because I don't really know the ranges and only comparing the guns in a single plane. All of them were with convergence point at 400 meters.

 

Hs 129

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yak and LaGG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MiG-3

 

 

 

 

 

This one only firing the UB, showing that there is a difference between the AP and HE shells, it also happens with the MG 151 and ShVAK cannons but isn't as noticeable.

 

 

 

 

 

Now I would need having both nation planes in formation firing together to compare the drop of the German vs Soviet guns. If you want to test how much elevation you need to hit a target at X distance you need to have the same convergence point, also take into account the mills in the gunsights as they aren't the same I think

 

I also recall reading an interview with this VVS pilot Golodnikov (also known for his P-40 comments), and talked about the ShVAK having little ballistic drop, with the bullets going where you pointed at, almost no elevation needed, better than the Hispano according to him.

Edited September 12, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Finkeren]

Wow, SuperEtendard. That's a clever and simple way of visualizing spread. 

 

To me it definitely doesn't look like the VVS planes have any advantage in terms of ballistics, but further images like these will no doubt shed more light on the matter.

 

My personal experience is, that there is really no difference. At the moment I'm almost exclusively flying 3 fighters online: Fw 190, La-5 and MiG-3 (usually armed with standard MGs or 2xUBS). The only outlier among these 3 is the La-5, I just can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn with those ShVAKs, but I blame that on the horrible, partly obstructed gun sight rather than the guns themselves. Both the MiG and the Fw 190 can deliver really precise bursts at +500m, if there is no turbulence and the target is stationary relative to me. 

[Finkeren]

I think, that the general experience of all virtual pilots here, is not "subjective observations".

 

Nope, that is definitely not the general experience of all virtual pilots. I get my very best gunnery from flying the Fw 190 and my very worst flying the La-5.

 

In my experience there are no "russian lasers", but again that's just my experience. Hard evidence is what is needed.

[Alexmarine]

Nope, that is definitely not the general experience of all virtual pilots. I get my very best gunnery from flying the Fw 190 and my very worst flying the La-5.

 

In my experience there are no "russian lasers", but again that's just my experience. Hard evidence is what is needed.

Commenting more on personal gunner experience I, for example, feel that my gunnery is way higher on the La-5 than on the FW and by extansion I feel I am more precise in my shooting when I have the guns mounted over the engine (like the La-5 and the MiG-3) than having them centered in the nose of the engine or in the wings.

 

So it's really a personal experience thing I think.

[unreasonable]

Ballistics in RL is fiendishly complicated - no accident that some of the first electronic computers were needed to create artillery firing tables.  You can be sure, however, that the BoS ballistics calculations are much simpler since we play on a stationary disc world. I doubt that the effects of spin, for example, are modeled.

 

What there is, I expect, is a model based on Newtons Laws with a simplified version of the effects of air resistance and the characteristics of the projectile.  So my guess would be that in addition to the starting vector, the formula includes initial velocity, plus some value for the ballistic and drag characteristics of each round.  

 

Basically drag will be the force that slows the shell down, while the mass  is the thing that the drag force acts on, so higher mass = less slowing down for a given drag force.  The drag effect is probably the variable that is highly simplified but you can be sure that if you have two cannon rounds of the same frontal aspect and roughly the same shape, but very different weights, fired at the same initial velocity, the heavier one will have a flatter trajectory.

 

In terms of testing I would think that the best way to do it is to place a parked aircraft somewhere flat next to the sea and observe the splashes. You would still have to correct for differences in the angle at which different planes sit, but using SuperEtendard's side view this should be doable. You could, for instance see if trajectory is affected by wind.

Edited September 13, 2017 by unreasonable

[Sturmovnik_PL]

I think it also has to do with weight? The Berezin 12.7mm round being heavier (around 40g) vs the 7.92mm (10g) would make it hold it's speed for a longer time?

 

I took some screenshots comparing the ballistic drops of the different guns in the planes. This is a relative comparison because I don't really know the ranges and only comparing the guns in a single plane. All of them were with convergence point at 400 meters.

 

Hs 129

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yak and LaGG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MiG-3

 

 

 

 

 

This one only firing the UB, showing that there is a difference between the AP and HE shells, it also happens with the MG 151 and ShVAK cannons but isn't as noticeable.

 

 

 

 

 

Now I would need having both nation planes in formation firing together to compare the drop of the German vs Soviet guns. If you want to test how much elevation you need to hit a target at X distance you need to have the same convergence point, also take into account the mills in the gunsights as they aren't the same I think

 

I also recall reading an interview with this VVS pilot Golodnikov (also known for his P-40 comments), and talked about the ShVAK having little ballistic drop, with the bullets going where you pointed at, almost no elevation needed, better than the Hispano according to him.

Nice screenshots showin us spread of russian and german guns.Nice work :D

[LukeFF]

Nice screenshots showin us spread of russian and german guns.Nice work :D

Yes, and it shows your gripes are utterly unfounded.

[AndyJWest]

...

 

In terms of testing I would think that the best way to do it is to place a parked aircraft somewhere flat next to the sea and observe the splashes. You would still have to correct for differences in the angle at which different planes sit, but using SuperEtendard's side view this should be doable. You could, for instance see if trajectory is affected by wind.

 

This has been tried before, with rather unsatisfactory results. You need the engine running to fire most guns, and the combination of engine vibration and recoil while the aircraft sits on a flexible undercarriage results in a lot of spread that you wouldn't see in flight.

[unreasonable]

 

 

I also recall reading an interview with this VVS pilot Golodnikov (also known for his P-40 comments), and talked about the ShVAK having little ballistic drop, with the bullets going where you pointed at, almost no elevation needed, better than the Hispano according to him.

 

I would be surprised if the ShVAK had a flatter trajectory than the Hispano, since according to my admittedly superficial research the Hispano's shells were both heavier and fired at a higher muzzle velocity than the ShVAKS.  There may be something about the mounting, I suppose. Easy enough to understand why the centre line arrangement would be preferable, perhaps that coloured his judgment.

 

 

This has been tried before, with rather unsatisfactory results. You need the engine running to fire most guns, and the combination of engine vibration and recoil while the aircraft sits on a flexible undercarriage results in a lot of spread that you wouldn't see in flight.

 

Fair enough. I expect the developers have some sort of virtual gunnery range where they can check their calculations from a fixed mounting.  TBH I would be very surprised if there was much inconsistent with the overall ballistics model in terms of trajectories.  

 

In terms of the spread of a particular projectile type due to barrel vibration and natural variation I am agnostic. Presumably the developers have some documentation of test firings from different mountings. Unless we do too, it is impossible to say that something in the game is wrong.

[sniperton]

I get my very best gunnery from flying the Fw 190 and my very worst flying the La-5.

 

Same here. Moreover, I find those Shvaks pretty ineffective. Even when I hit, I usually have the feeling that so many hits would have already brought down that plane if I had used any other weapon configuration instead. Yesterday a Macchi escaped after taking so many hits that it was literally cheese, with two large and several smaller holes on the engine cowling among others. These are pure impressions, to be sure, not data; just wanted to say that the La-5 is the most unlucky plane for me when it comes to gunnery and killing power.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I would be surprised if the ShVAK had a flatter trajectory than the Hispano, since according to my admittedly superficial research the Hispano's shells were both heavier and fired at a higher muzzle velocity than the ShVAKS.  There may be something about the mounting, I suppose. Easy enough to understand why the centre line arrangement would be preferable, perhaps that coloured his judgement

Yes, it also sounds kinda strange to me. And he was talking about the P-400's centerline Hispano vs the ShVAK. Also by looking at the projectiles, looks like the Hispano is more aerodynamic (longer and "pointier" nose)

[BlitzPig_EL]

I too can't hit the broad side of a Heinkel with the La 5.

 

The Yaks, 109s, Mc 202, Mig 3, and P 40 are much better for me.

 

I have never been good with the Spitfire's guns either, in any sim, much prefer the Hurri, at least in the gunnery department.

Edited September 13, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

I think it also has to do with weight? The Berezin 12.7mm round being heavier (around 40g) vs the 7.92mm (10g) would make it hold it's speed for a longer time?

 

I took some screenshots comparing the ballistic drops of the different guns in the planes. This is a relative comparison because I don't really know the ranges and only comparing the guns in a single plane. All of them were with convergence point at 400 meters.

 

Hs 129

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yak and LaGG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MiG-3

 

 

 

 

 

This one only firing the UB, showing that there is a difference between the AP and HE shells, it also happens with the MG 151 and ShVAK cannons but isn't as noticeable.

 

 

 

 

 

Now I would need having both nation planes in formation firing together to compare the drop of the German vs Soviet guns. If you want to test how much elevation you need to hit a target at X distance you need to have the same convergence point, also take into account the mills in the gunsights as they aren't the same I think

 

I also recall reading an interview with this VVS pilot Golodnikov (also known for his P-40 comments), and talked about the ShVAK having little ballistic drop, with the bullets going where you pointed at, almost no elevation needed, better than the Hispano according to him.

Please, .. try the same at 80 degree of climb, with Yak, Lagg, and Mig vs Bf-109, and Fw-190, ..it´s more funny, especially when the Yak´s are in vertical stall with flaps down. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[SYN_Haashashin]

I'd recommend quantifiable in game tests with comparison to real life data. That's always better than to post subjective observations, may they be right or not.

This.

 

Its have been said by the team multiple times: Subjective observations wont be taken into account. And it has proven already that if provided with the right reports the team will act, if they agree with it.

 

Haash

[Sturmovnik_PL]

Yes, and it shows your gripes are utterly unfounded.

Its only my feels, about 1 year of playing in that game.

[E69_geramos109]

My experience is that i got sniped quite often. The HE rounds loses quite a lot power with distance and that has no sense. Playing as red is easyer for me to hit on long distances 700-800 and this is quite far if we see the records and real stadistics. Can be because the weapons have practically no dispersion, maybe with the shaking of the plane, and vibrations weapons need to have more dispersion. 

 

Maybe every red pilot is a sniper... can be also.

[JG13_opcode]

My experience is that i got sniped quite often. The HE rounds loses quite a lot power with distance and that has no sense. Playing as red is easyer for me to hit on long distances 700-800 and this is quite far if we see the records and real stadistics. Can be because the weapons have practically no dispersion, maybe with the shaking of the plane, and vibrations weapons need to have more dispersion. 

 

Maybe every red pilot is a sniper... can be also.

 

 

Its only my feels, about 1 year of playing in that game.

 

 

I think, that the general experience of all virtual pilots here, is not "subjective observations".

 

You guys may be correct, but let me ask you this:

 

All computer programs need numbers and data.

 

Which numbers are wrong, and what are the correct historical numbers?  If you can't quantify what's wrong, how can they program it into the simulator?

Edited September 13, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[Nocke]

You guys may be correct, but let me ask you this:

 

All computer programs need numbers and data.

 

Which numbers are wrong, and what are the correct historical numbers?  If you can't quantify what's wrong, how can they program it into the simulator?

You nailed it. Thank you for this wonderful post 

[BraveSirRobin]

Please, .. try the same at 80 degree of climb, with Yak, Lagg, and Mig vs Bf-109, and Fw-190, ..it´s more funny, especially when the Yak´s are in vertical stall with flaps down. 

So the VVS fighters have different, and more deadly, ballistics when they are vertical? That is a very odd "bug"...

[CUJO_1970]

 Both the MiG and the Fw 190 can deliver really precise bursts at +500m, if there is no turbulence and the target is stationary relative to me. 

 

FW-190 is superb at ground attack, I usually go guns only online and it unleashes pure hell on trains, trucks and artillery.

 

The only difficulty is with maneuvering targets over 500m away - you are dealing with 3 different ballistics so you can get a shotgun effect and waste a ton of ammo if you aren't careful. I usually hit at 6-7%.

 

I would really love to have an A-6 because then you would have 4 20mm cannons with the same ballistics.

 

[Finkeren]

Maneuvering targets at +500m should be very difficult to hit under any circumstances.

[150GCT_Veltro]

The "sniper - spray" behaviour is a problem, i really don't get the point of people who says it's not. May be it is just related to the "glasses" 109 DM, but there's somenthing to check at least in this department of the sim. Too many times you get fatal hit from insane distance flying a 109.

 

Answer yourself why we see always the VVS pilot prying all around from long distange? Everibody in VVS side perfectly know that one only hit can heavily damage a 109, even if fired from long distance, a sort of: "Yes poor boom&zoomer, run, dive, climb, i can get you anyway".

 

May be it's just related to the old AP problem but this aspect of the game is really very annoying if not discouraging.

Edited September 14, 2017 by 150GCT_Veltro

[Finkeren]

Answer yourself why we see always the VVS pilot prying all around from long distange? Everibody in VVS side perfectly know that one only hit can heavily damage a 109, even if fired from long distance, a sort of: "Yes poor boom&zoomer, run, dive, climb, i can get you anyway".

Uh! Uh! Me! I can answer that.

 

The reason you see VVS pilots do this is because of the superior performance of Luftwaffe fighters, which when flown right can hold on to an advantage in perpetuity and become largely untouchable (nothing wrong with that, the German fighters at the time were superior)

 

This means that the long distance pot-shot is often the only shot a VVS pilot will get, and after a couple of unsuccesfull attempts at turning the fight around, he decides to take that hail-Mary shot. What do you want him to do? Not shoot at all and just politely wait to be shot down?

 

Sometimes it works, mostly it doesn't, but the confirmation bias in the human brain makes the Luftwaffe pilot remember the few times, where he was shot down this way and forget all the times, where the shots missed.

 

There: Not at all hard to explain.

[HR_Tofolo]

Uh! Uh! Me! I can answer that.

 

The reason you see VVS pilots do this is because of the superior performance of Luftwaffe fighters, which when flown right can hold on to an advantage in perpetuity and become largely untouchable (nothing wrong with that, the German fighters at the time were superior)

 

This means that the long distance pot-shot is often the only shot a VVS pilot will get, and after a couple of unsuccesfull attempts at turning the fight around, he decides to take that hail-Mary shot. What do you want him to do? Not shoot at all and just politely wait to be shot down?

 

Sometimes it works, mostly it doesn't, but the confirmation bias in the human brain makes the Luftwaffe pilot remember the few times, where he was shot down this way and forget all the times, where the shots missed.

 

There: Not at all hard to explain.

This.

 

Plus perhaps consider that *maybe* the LW attacker is not evading properly. Or "Maybe every blue pilot is an untouchable pilot... can be also."

[IRRE_Centx]

I would be surprised if the ShVAK had a flatter trajectory than the Hispano, since according to my admittedly superficial research the Hispano's shells were both heavier and fired at a higher muzzle velocity than the ShVAKS.  There may be something about the mounting, I suppose.

 

As you said yourself it's too superficial.

Reducing the comparison to the mass and muzzle velocity (= considering ONLY the projectile kinetic energy) is completely false, you are simplifiying way too much...

 

To have a better idea of the ballistic and spraying of a gun, you also have to consider :

- projectile aerodynamism due to it's shape

- projectile surface quality (drag reduction,...)

- projectile mass distribution (center of gravity,...)

- projectile in-flight rotation (gyroscopic stablization)

- stability of the plane itself while shooting a burst

- vibrations induced by gun recoil after the first shot projectile

- gun fixation on the plane (quality, fixation rigidity, used materials,...)

- ... non-exhaustive list, you can find dozens of others

 

(Note: I have no idea which parameters are simulated or not in game, I'm just saying that considering only kinetic energy isn't enough to compare projectiles)

 

 

By the way I'm working in an engineering field where I have to simulate the ballistic behavior (and dynamic impact) of sub-millimeter metallic particles flying at supersonic velocity... Ballistic behavior is a true nightmare to simulate...

To give you an idea my calculation takes 20 MINUTES to simulate 0,5 SECONDS flight time of ONE particle... and my model is already simplified!

So now imagine what they have to do to simulate hundreds of bullets trajectories, with a calculation time of few milliseconds to keep the game fluidity...

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

 

Which numbers are wrong, and what are the correct historical numbers? If you can't quantify what's wrong, how can they program it into the simulator?

But will the experience have any value?
If the numbers are numbers and are always accurate why do we have the testers?

After the theory, always go to practice that can have different and conflicting results...

Why would it be different here?
Accuracy of calculations does not always mean the accuracy of the result obtained...

 

 

superior performance of Luftwaffe fighters

Superiority canceled by the possibility of killing a plane firing from long distance ...
He shoots from far away because he knows that the shots will hit the target, and not hoping for a lucky shot.
Infact it happens too often to talk about luck...

 

S! and sorry form my English

[E69_geramos109]

But will the experience have any value?

If the numbers are numbers and are always accurate why do we have the testers?

After the theory, always go to practice that can have different and conflicting results...

Why would it be different here?

Accuracy of calculations does not always mean the accuracy of the result obtained...

 

 

 

Superiority canceled by the possibility of killing a plane firing from long distance ...

He shoots from far away because he knows that the shots will hit the target, and not hoping for a lucky shot.

Infact it happens too often to talk about luck...

 

S! and sorry form my English

Is a fact that if you overshoot an IL2 you are dead.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Uh! Uh! Me! I can answer that.

 

The reason you see VVS pilots do this is because of the superior performance of Luftwaffe fighters, which when flown right can hold on to an advantage in perpetuity and become largely untouchable (nothing wrong with that, the German fighters at the time were superior)

 

This means that the long distance pot-shot is often the only shot a VVS pilot will get, and after a couple of unsuccesfull attempts at turning the fight around, he decides to take that hail-Mary shot. What do you want him to do? Not shoot at all and just politely wait to be shot down?

 

Sometimes it works, mostly it doesn't, but the confirmation bias in the human brain makes the Luftwaffe pilot remember the few times, where he was shot down this way and forget all the times, where the shots missed.

 

There: Not at all hard to explain.

 

Is a good explanation, but it does confirm what we say here: the sniping - spraying behaviour does cancel most of the Luftwaffe "superiority".

 

I always think that this sim would be much better if all these kinde of "presents" for the VVS would be finally removed, providing us a different solution for a more balanced online experience: more slots for VVS side.

 

...and don't forget about AP vs HE.

Edited September 14, 2017 by 150GCT_Veltro

[150GCT_Veltro]

This.

 

Plus perhaps consider that *maybe* the LW attacker is not evading properly. Or "Maybe every blue pilot is an untouchable pilot... can be also."

 

Absolutely but may be we should have at least the dive acceleration as it should be, actually totally missed.

[unreasonable]

As you said yourself it's too superficial.

Reducing the comparison to the mass and muzzle velocity (= considering ONLY the projectile kinetic energy) is completely false, you are simplifiying way too much...

 

To have a better idea of the ballistic and spraying of a gun, you also have to consider :

- projectile aerodynamism due to it's shape

- projectile surface quality (drag reduction,...)

- projectile mass distribution (center of gravity,...)

- projectile in-flight rotation (gyroscopic stablization)

- stability of the plane itself while shooting a burst

- vibrations induced by gun recoil after the first shot projectile

- gun fixation on the plane (quality, fixation rigidity, used materials,...)

- ... non-exhaustive list, you can find dozens of others

 

(Note: I have no idea which parameters are simulated or not in game, I'm just saying that considering only kinetic energy isn't enough to compare projectiles)

 

 

By the way I'm working in an engineering field where I have to simulate the ballistic behavior (and dynamic impact) of sub-millimeter metallic particles flying at supersonic velocity... Ballistic behavior is a true nightmare to simulate...

To give you an idea my calculation takes 20 MINUTES to simulate 0,5 SECONDS flight time of ONE particle... and my model is already simplified!

So now imagine what they have to do to simulate hundreds of bullets trajectories, with a calculation time of few milliseconds to keep the game fluidity...

 

It is not completely false to look at the mass and area of a projectile as a first order approximation to understand a trajectory, because other things being equal it is absolutely correct.  We simply assume that the other variables are equal. 

 

Since we do not know the other variables, and have no means of telling to which gun they would give an advantage, or by how much, my conclusion is entirely valid. It would be a surprise if the ShVAK had a flatter trajectory. (But not impossible).  The advantages of the Hispano in muzzle velocity and projectile mass are considerable - it would take a great deal of other stuff going on to counter-act them.

[IRRE_Centx]

We simply assume that the other variables are equal. 

 

But they're not equal.

 

By considering only kinetic energy you are basically solving a 2D physic problem... which can be done by a 16-17 years old college student with basic scientific knowledge... 

 

If I use your consideration, you will conclude that if you launch 1kg of lead and 1kg of feather at 100 km/h, they will have the same trajectory...

Yes your conclusion is valid for your overly simplified consideration, but valid doesn't mean it's right.

[JtD]

Can you please make a more accurate estimate, then? Telling someone his approach is too simplified and invalid is only useful if you come up with a more accurate result yourself. That's kind of how physical and mathematical models evolve. And if you can't, maybe you can at least come up with a numerical estimate for the inaccuracies involved? Or do you just estimate them as too high based on nothing but a gut feeling?

[IRRE_Centx]

See my previous post, as I stated I run engineering ballistic (and impact) simulations using industrial finite elements and fluid mechanics softwares (Abaqus, LS-dyna, Fluent,...)

 

So yes I technically could, but it would take me days of work to model.
Do I have the possibility to say to my boss "hey, I need to work a week on a model to prove my point on a forum, can I"? No.
 

[JtD]

So you cannot provide a better estimate than unreasonable, making his the most accurate and most valid one we have. It is based on properly interpreted empirical data after all, and I don't see how your unquantified factors would negate this trend.

 

I can run complex vehicle dynamics that take hours to calculate the acceleration over a specified track, but I don't need to do that in order to know that the lighter and more powerful vehicle will generally accelerate faster.