Russian guns balistics...

[Yogiflight]

 

 

109s and 190s are "almost" untouchable when flown well holding the alt advantage.

You know this counts for russian fighters as well? When you have the altitude advantage in your Yak, you can also dive down on the 109s and 190s with speed advantage and with your higher maneuverability and less speedloss by turning, you should be really untouchable.

[ITAF_Cymao]

Maybe if a german doesn't shoot from afar, it's just because he knows it's useless.
While a russian knows it is useful.

Greater shooting stability, the ability to shoot from afar, the incredible power of bullets and even a certain fragility of german aircraft often render useless or greatly reduce the alleged advantage of german planes to be able to get away in speed or in dive...

A russian aircraft shot down by a shot from over 500 is a rarity or at least not so normal.

A German plane shot down by a shot over 700 mt is almost normal.

But maybe it's historically accurate!

 

S! and sorry for my English

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Maybe if a german doesn't shoot from afar, it's just because he knows it's useless.

While a russian knows it is useful.

Greater shooting stability, the ability to shoot from afar, the incredible power of bullets and even a certain fragility of german aircraft often render useless or greatly reduce the alleged advantage of german planes to be able to get away in speed or in dive...

A russian aircraft shot down by a shot from over 500 is a rarity or at least not so normal.

A German plane shot down by a shot over 700 mt is almost normal.

But maybe it's historically accurate!

 

S! and sorry for my English

You have been shot down many times from 700m?, are you speaking for yourself Cymao ?

[Holtzauge]

To me it looks like engine mounted ShVAK is modeled as more accurate than the MG151: I set up a QM test at 1000m and let the aircraft fly on auto, speed about 350-400kmh IAS in both planes. Zoomed up the sight to max to see the fall of the shells. I then fired both single shots and full auto. The method of comparison was watching the tracer shells fall in relation to the vertical sight post. After a few trials with Yak-1 S39 and Me-109G2 it was pretty obvious that the ShVAK shells had less spread and were in general more well aligned with the vertical sight bar as they fell. The MG151 showed much more spread and while some fell on the vertical line, many fell on either side of the post. So, for long range shots, aka sniping, it should be easier to hit with the ShVAK simply due to less spread. Is this historically accurate or not? I have no idea but in-game it certainly looks like the ShVAK has been modeled with less spread.

[E69_geramos109]

Germans dont shot from far because the HE round is useless with distance. The problem should be bigguer with the Ap not with HE but it is how is modelled. 

[Holtzauge]

I assume you mean the German Mingeschoss? In that case I agree with you: Even after the latest tweaking it mostly produces a nice puff of black smoke and does not seem to be as effective as AP. This is why I would like to see custom belting: Given the choice of AP or Mine I would go for the AP with the current DM. The Germans could belt with both IRL and while they recommended (ref Schiessfibel) belting with Mine to combat fighters, I'm sure they also would have changed to a more AP centric belting given the relative performance we have in-game now.

[unreasonable]

To me it looks like engine mounted ShVAK is modeled as more accurate than the MG151: I set up a QM test at 1000m and let the aircraft fly on auto, speed about 350-400kmh IAS in both planes. Zoomed up the sight to max to see the fall of the shells. I then fired both single shots and full auto. The method of comparison was watching the tracer shells fall in relation to the vertical sight post. After a few trials with Yak-1 S39 and Me-109G2 it was pretty obvious that the ShVAK shells had less spread and were in general more well aligned with the vertical sight bar as they fell. The MG151 showed much more spread and while some fell on the vertical line, many fell on either side of the post. So, for long range shots, aka sniping, it should be easier to hit with the ShVAK simply due to less spread. Is this historically accurate or not? I have no idea but in-game it certainly looks like the ShVAK has been modeled with less spread.

 

Really?  With which gun is it easier to hit a duck, a shot gun or a rifle?  

 

I would have thought that the probability of a hit goes up with a wider spread.  The probability of multiple hits goes down. That is a smaller spread is much harder to get on target but more effective when it is. 

 

Lucky the ShVAK has a narrow spread, given that German fighters are allegedly so fragile, or there would be none left flying.

[Holtzauge]

Really?  With which gun is it easier to hit a duck, a shot gun or a rifle?  

 

I would have thought that the probability of a hit goes up with a wider spread.  The probability of multiple hits goes down. That is a smaller spread is much harder to get on target but more effective when it is. 

 

Lucky the ShVAK has a narrow spread, given that German fighters are allegedly so fragile, or there would be none left flying.

 

The answer is it depends: I much rather prefer shooting a duck at 25 m with a shotgun. For longer ranges like 150-250 m I use my 308W to shoot Grouse. Turns out it's rather ineffective shoot Grouse a that range with a shotgun.

 

But go ahead, use your shotgun to snipe. Just don't complain when someone compares lead and feathers next time.

[unreasonable]

But.....  what we are discussing here is guns with similar shell weight and trajectory.

 

Suppose you want to hit a moving target - a plane - at 500m range, with at least one shot. You will fire a burst of x rounds.  What is the optimum group? I doubt that it is a lazer like, tight spread unless you are firing single shots.

 

edit - as an example, some modern small arms that fire a short burst - say 3 rounds - for a single trigger pull are designed to have a certain fairly large group size at 2-300m, a typical battlefield range.  It increases the chance of a hit.

Edited September 17, 2017 by unreasonable

[Holtzauge]

Exactly so why talk about shotguns and rifles mmmh?

 

But for shooting at a target 500-1000m away I would go for the gun with less spread. Both in the air and when hunting. Also, never heard of a sniper who wanted a rifle with spread to increase hit probability but each to his own I guess.

[unreasonable]

Exactly so why talk about shotguns and rifles mmmh?

 

But for shooting at a target 500-1000m away I would go for the gun with less spread. Both in the air and when hunting. Also, never heard of a sniper who wanted a rifle with spread to increase hit probability but each to his own I guess.

 

The alternative to the shotgun - to make the comparison fair to both of us -  would be a gun that fired a the same number of lead pellets as a normal cartridge, same range and mv, but they all came out of the barrel in a single long line.  I suggest that the normal cartridge would almost always be best, unless you were very certain of getting a hit with the single stream. So the trade off is proportion of occasions your spread is on target (increased by larger spread) vs number of hits per on target spread (decreased by larger spread).

 

I think the use of the word "sniper" here is misleading - a sniper is by definition a person who fires single aimed shots, a good sniper does that with great accuracy. Firing an auto cannon from a moving platform does not, IMHO, count as "sniping" and the term is causing confusion. People are firing bursts, not single shots, that have a natural spread, by design.   When you fire an auto cannon I do not think you want a tiny group, any more than you do with a sustained fire HMG in a ground setting.

 

Say you took the ShVAK and increased it's spread somewhat - say doubling it's area? The question is under what circumstances would that give you more or fewer hits, for a given number of rounds fired. This must be an empirical question relating to the range and size of target and spread, but it is not obvious to me that people would necessarily make fewer hits if the spread was increased, given the extreme difficulty of getting the spread on target in the cases we are discussing.

 

My own guess would be that the small spread is designed to ensure that when the pilot does manage to get the spread on target, he is likely to get several hits: which is certainly what I would want attacking a bomber, for instance. 

[JtD]

This now depends on how large the spread and how good a shot you are. If you're the perfect gunner, you'd want an as small spread as possible, and if you shoot as well as I do, you want shotgun pellets.

 

However, given that the spread at this range is huge already compared to target size, you'd typically fare better with smaller spread. If your aim is as poor as mine, a large spread won't really help you either. While you gain the theoretical chance to hit, it is however most likely, that you'll run out of ammunition before you ever get lucky.

Edited September 17, 2017 by JtD

[Finkeren]

You know this counts for russian fighters as well? When you have the altitude advantage in your Yak, you can also dive down on the 109s and 190s with speed advantage and with your higher maneuverability and less speedloss by turning, you should be really untouchable.

Not really, no. For a while any fighter with a certain amount of E-advantage can remain "untouchable", but the faster, better climbing plane will wear down that advantage as the fight progresses.

 

A 109/190 with the advantage on the other hand can hold on to that advantage pretty much indefinitely, because if need be they can just drag the fight higher, where their advantage in performance over all VVS fighters (except the MiG) becomes even greater.

 

Nothing really wrong with this in terms of historical accuracy, but let's not pretend, that things are equal, when they aren't.

 

-Sorry for off topic.

[Holtzauge]

Really, it seems I touched a nerve here. All I did was to conclude that the ShVAK seems to be more accurate than the MG151 in-game and now people are tripping all over themselves saying how bad a thing this is and how much better a good spread is. TBH, I was surprised at the difference in accuracy and IMHO this leads some credence to the the complaints about Russian fighters "lazing" because if you add up the low spread of the ShVAK with the stable platform characteristics of the Yak in-game that certainly makes accurate long range shooting easier. Again, I can't say if this is historically correct or not. It's just an observation on my part.

[Holtzauge]

To add some more fuel to the fire: I have lately amused myself shooting down Spitfires in QM. Yes, a ghastly past time what not?

 

Anyway, after flying the Me-109G2 and pummeling Spitfires with 20 mm in high deflection shots, it is interesting to note how often that only results in a black puff of smoke and increasing levels of black and white fuel or water vapour. After many passes then FINALY a wing falls of but it takes ages and a number of MG151 20 mm hits believe me.

 

I then thought, why not be a bit radical and use a Spitfire to shot down a Spitfire? Lo and behold: Tap the Hispanos and the wings come off just like that! And yes, I know it depends on where you hit. However, I have done multiples of 10 flights and statistically the Hispanos are much more effective than the MG151 in killing the Spitfire as in causing catastrophic structural damage.

 

Is this historically accurate? I don't think so: The AI are sentient and always pull into you so you nearly always shoot in high deflections shots were Mine shells should be MUCH more effective in causing structural damage than AP which is NOT borne out in my trials.

 

This is why I'm asking for custom belting. Of course the best option would be to fix the Mine shell model but failing that then give us custom belting please! 

[JtD]

Nothing really wrong with this in terms of historical accuracy, but let's not pretend, that things are equal, when they aren't.

If you don't find the Yak-1S127 to be the equal of 109&190, then you need to work on your tactics. There's a reason it is in the top spot for K/L, K/S and K/S by a huge margin in the stats Tripwire recently posted. Planes that are as dominant are rarely inferior.

[LLv24_Zami]

To add some more fuel to the fire: I have lately amused myself shooting down Spitfires in QM. Yes, a ghastly past time what not?

 

Anyway, after flying the Me-109G2 and pummeling Spitfires with 20 mm in high deflection shots, it is interesting to note how often that only results in a black puff of smoke and increasing levels of black and white fuel or water vapour. After many passes then FINALY a wing falls of but it takes ages and a number of MG151 20 mm hits believe me.

 

I then thought, why not be a bit radical and use a Spitfire to shot down a Spitfire? Lo and behold: Tap the Hispanos and the wings come off just like that! And yes, I know it depends on where you hit. However, I have done multiples of 10 flights and statistically the Hispanos are much more effective than the MG151 in killing the Spitfire as in causing catastrophic structural damage.

 

Is this historically accurate? I don't think so: The AI are sentient and always pull into you so you nearly always shoot in high deflections shots were Mine shells should be MUCH more effective in causing structural damage than AP which is NOT borne out in my trials.

 

This is why I'm asking for custom belting. Of course the best option would be to fix the Mine shell model but failing that then give us custom belting please! 

I think your observations are correct and reasonable.

[Finkeren]

If you don't find the Yak-1S127 to be the equal of 109&190, then you need to work on your tactics. There's a reason it is in the top spot for K/L, K/S and K/S by a huge margin in the stats Tripwire recently posted. Planes that are as dominant are rarely inferior.

I'm not saying the Yak-1b isn't a great fighter and in many ways more than a match for any German fighter, but that still doesn't change the fact, that it doesn't have the performance advantage to render itself untouchable the way the 109/190 can.

[JtD]

No, clearly it has different ways. Tactics matter. Same way you cannot employ 109 tactics in a 190. There's really nothing fundamentally better about being in a 109/190 getting bounced by a Yak-1 than vice versa.

 

For what it's worth, according to the posted stats it has a 50% rtb ratio, whereas the rest of the opposition is at less than 40% (except for the Spit, which is at 42%). Oddly enough, the untouchable 109/190 are worse at survival than the Yak is.

[unreasonable]

Really, it seems I touched a nerve here. All I did was to conclude that the ShVAK seems to be more accurate than the MG151 in-game and now people are tripping all over themselves saying how bad a thing this is and how much better a good spread is. TBH, I was surprised at the difference in accuracy and IMHO this leads some credence to the the complaints about Russian fighters "lazing" because if you add up the low spread of the ShVAK with the stable platform characteristics of the Yak in-game that certainly makes accurate long range shooting easier. Again, I can't say if this is historically correct or not. It's just an observation on my part.

 

Neither had a nerve touched nor tripping over myself - simply noting that a smaller spread is not necessarily better - or worse.  As JtD also says - it is a function of your accuracy and the spread density at the range at which you are firing, plus whether you want frequent single hits or rarer multiple hits.

 

For me a larger spread would almost certainly be good - I might get the occasional hit!  

 

Really I am simply interested in sorting out what is really going on with these long ranged shooting reports.

 

I will stay out of the whole DM issue.

[Holtzauge]

Well then it looks like you should be flying Me-109's and shooting the MG151more unreasonable! Me, I'm trying to convince my crew chief to throw out the MG151 and mount a ShVAK in my 109. Maybe you and JtD should consider a similar modification and mount BoX MG151 on the Spitfire? Another option is to use old worn out barrels: they will also give you a good spread!   

[Yogiflight]

If a smaller spread is better than a larger spread, depends very much on what your target is doing. Is it flying from one side to the other, a larger spread is definitely better. But what you are talking about, is a target, that flies away from you, and here a smaller spread is definitely better, because it has more effect in the target. You can even shoot at targets, flying away from you a single round with the 37mm and have quite good chances to hit.

[Holtzauge]

If a smaller spread is better than a larger spread, depends very much on what your target is doing. Is it flying from one side to the other, a larger spread is definitely better. But what you are talking about, is a target, that flies away from you, and here a smaller spread is definitely better, because it has more effect in the target. You can even shoot at targets, flying away from you a single round with the 37mm and have quite good chances to hit.

 

Exactamente: And for the purpose of shooting at extending aircraft at 500-1000m, aka BoX "sniping", then a low spread is as you say an asset.

[VesseL]

I'm not saying the Yak-1b isn't a great fighter and in many ways more than a match for any German fighter, but that still doesn't change the fact, that it doesn't have the performance advantage to render itself untouchable the way the 109/190 can.

But in game the 109 and 190 are not untouchable, like the stats show. Stats show that Yak1b Was the best plane in that week. Only explanation i have heard, its because noobs fly 109. I think DM explanes it more than noobs. Maybe also roll rate(109) and turn times possible.

109 and 190 should be top of the stats, but they are not.

 

Larger spread is not better if you are shooting from a 109, cause you need so many hits to down a rus plane. Occasional hits are not enough.

[Finkeren]

No, clearly it has different ways. Tactics matter. Same way you cannot employ 109 tactics in a 190. There's really nothing fundamentally better about being in a 109/190 getting bounced by a Yak-1 than vice versa.

 

For what it's worth, according to the posted stats it has a 50% rtb ratio, whereas the rest of the opposition is at less than 40% (except for the Spit, which is at 42%). Oddly enough, the untouchable 109/190 are worse at survival than the Yak is.

The 109/190 are only "untouchable" if they start out at an advantage and are flown smart and deliberately.

 

Arguably a 109 and certainly 190 getting bounced by a Yak with an energy advantage will be worse off than the inverse situation.

 

However, due to the performance gap a smart LW pilot will more often find himself at an E-advantage than his VVS counterpart.

 

The much better statistics for the Yak in MP is testament to the fact, that most MP dogfights take the form of low-and-slow turn fights that heavily favor the Yaks.

 

It's not the fault of the German planes that a lot of LW pilots insist on flying with their heads up their ***.

[Max_Damage]

If you don't find the Yak-1S127 to be the equal of 109&190, then you need to work on your tactics. There's a reason it is in the top spot for K/L, K/S and K/S by a huge margin in the stats Tripwire recently posted. Planes that are as dominant are rarely inferior.

No u. 109 will win every time in 1v1 against a yak1 b easily. The climb rate and speed ensure it.

 

I can show you a well known red pilot with 40 plane kill streaks on a lagg but that doesnt mean.

 

I think red pilots are just much better. having played both blue and red, i prefer red ts for teamplay and support. Then you can do more with less.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Max_Damage

[Finkeren]

I think red pilots are just much better. having played both blue and red, i prefer red ts for teamplay and support. Then you can do more with less.

This is a claim that's really hard to verify, but there might be something to it. At the very least it does appear that a lot of newcomers tend to fly 109s because of their simplicity, forgiving handling and high performance. As always n00bs will get shot down in droves, regardless which plane they fly.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Finkeren

[Max_Damage]

The team makes a lot of diffirence for me. I can shoot down three 109s with a p40 in a red team. Because

 

- they tell you when someone is on your 6(and kill them :D).

- you fly in a swarm.

- lots of noob 109 around which jump into your sights

Edited September 17, 2017 by Max_Damage

[3./JG15_Kampf]

 

 

Yes, you do have Yak.  But you never fly it in MP.  Right?

 Yes I have yak. I meant I do not have to kill with yak + 500 meters. I have in spitfire

You flying on both sides of the war, must have a kill +500 meters with Bf109 or Fw190. Share with us

[JtD]

However, due to the performance gap a smart LW pilot will more often find himself at an E-advantage than his VVS counterpart.

Because the Fw190 climbs slower than the Yak it will more often find itself at an E-advantage or because the Bf109 climbs faster than the Yak it will more often find itself at an E-advantage?

 

I have a different theory. Due to the performance gap, LW fighters need to start with an E-advantage in order to successfully engage, so they more often seek it than their VVS counterparts.

 

Mind you, different performance gap than the one you are referring to. It's not all just speed and climb (where the Yak-1S127 really is only inferior to the 109 in terms of climb and to the A-5 in terms of speed), not in both against all.

[Finkeren]

Mind you, different performance gap than the one you are referring to. It's not all just speed and climb (where the Yak-1S127 really is only inferior to the 109 in terms of climb and to the A-5 in terms of speed), not in both against all.

Below 3000m that's sort of true, but above that point both are far superior. If the LW bombers would just fly at 4000m and the 109/190s fly escort for them, they would win every single round in MP.

[Holtzauge]

Aaaaaaaand the thread was about ballistics, but it seems now we have veered towards tactics which is all well and fine since you of course have to get into a position to fire yours guns in the first place. But once you are there it does help if you have accurate and hard hitting guns and in that arena Russian BoX fighters for sure are not weak performers, rather the opposite.

As a further experiment, I started shooting down Spitfires with a Yak ShVAK only in QM. No statistically significant results yet but so far ShVAK reminds me more of Hispano than MG151.......

[Holtzauge]

Another thing about German versus Russian and British ammo effectiveness: IIRC then Adolf Galland when interviewed said that guns and ammo was one area where he considered German tech better than the competition. And before some says that he says that just because he is partial, consider that he also said in an interview after the war that he considered the Me-109 as a design outdated by 1943 and it was a mistake to keep on producing them as long as they did.

[LLv24_Zami]

Aaaaaaaand the thread was about ballistics, but it seems now we have veered towards tactics which is all well and fine since you of course have to get into a position to fire yours guns in the first place. 

This is a way off topic also, but I watched an interview of Ilmari Juutilainen from the year of 1996 a few days ago. When asked about tactics, he said "You have a plane, an engine, the guns and all you have to do is to bring the guns pointed at the enemy. It`s easy when you know how to do it" And laughed 

 

Sorry about off topic. But Juutilainen or anyone else of the Finnish pilots never complained about the ineffective weaponry of the Bf-109. They found it pretty satisfactory.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Zami

[Holtzauge]

This is a way off topic also, but I watched an interview of Ilmari Juutilainen from the year of 1996 a few days ago. When asked about tactics, he said "You have a plane, an engine, the guns and all you have to do is to bring the guns pointed at the enemy. It`s easy when you know how to do it" And laughed 

 

Sorry about off topic. But Juutilainen or anyone else of the Finnish pilots never complained about the ineffective weaponry of the Bf-109. They found it pretty satisfactory.

 

Actually I enjoy reading the Finnish pilots Me-109 anecdotes over at virtualpilots.fi. But I assume one has to be careful here because this site is probably just Finnish propaganda right?

[LLv24_Zami]

Actually I enjoy reading the Finnish pilots Me-109 anecdotes over at virtualpilots.fi. But I assume one has to be careful here because this site is probably just Finnish propaganda right?

Of course it is 

[Holtzauge]

Strangely you don't hear any Finnish pilots complaining about stick forces: That's probably because Finns are real men used to a healthy outdoor life chopping down trees, not weak and puny Anglo Saxons lacking sisu....

[unreasonable]

[Holtzauge]

There you go! That is exactly what I'm talking about. How you guys won the war is beyond me....

[LLv24_Zami]

 

I never got in to the British humor except for this: