Let's talk about the G6

[PatrickAWlson]

Read a few things about the 30mm - comments from Anthony WIlliams.  He said that the real effect of the 30mm was wing hits.  The tests also demonstrated the effect of fuselage hits on smaller planes.  Apparently fuselage hits on larger planes were not as devastating to the aircraft structure because there was enough space for the explosion to expand into (fleshy things in the immediate vicinity would be very unhappy).  The rounds were also apparently not great at penetrating armor or engine.  If they did penetrate a fairly tight space like a wing compartment or a smaller fuselage they could blow it apart.

 

So like Holtzauge said ... you'll get what you get.  Sometimes devastating, other times disappointing.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

The +-650 rounds per minute can make it more devastating than disappointing for sure.

 

C'mon guys !!!

 

Is it a desinformation campaign against the MK108 going on here ?? ? People trying to sell the idea 30mm cannon will not going to change anything for Luftwaffe ???

[MrNoice]

we dont even  know if the 30mm will come...

[Mac_Messer]

Anecdotal accounts from the old sim mean absolutely nothing here.

 

I can give you several of my stories about being hit, or hitting someone online with the Mk. 108 and either being blown to bits or blowing someone to bits with one shot.

 

All of which says to me that the devs should do the right thing and NOT put the Mk.108 in the game now.  It does not fit the time frame, and it will be the biggest can of worms ever opened on this forum, as every "pilot" with mediocre aim will come here crying about how his German wonder weapon is porked and screaming about Russian bias.

That is what I thought of the P40. A close runner up to the FW190 threads was whines how the Curtis suddenly doesn`t beat all the Luftwaffe alone. Should have left the plane outside of BoX.

I would put that down to the fact, that in IL2-1946 the propeller spinner of an aircraft was indestructible except by way of explosion and could sometimes shield you from a hit head-on.

 

The fact that the cockpit was destroyed and your pilot injured from a single hit on the nose should speak to the power of the MK 108 round.

What he described was more of a 15mm AP hit more than anything. And we`re here talking about 30mm HE, dude.

we dont even  know if the 30mm will come...

Well then there is no point to purchasing G6, is there?

If you think there haven’t been complaints about the effectiveness of the VYa-23, you haven’t been paying attention.

Maybe because it is devastating when tried on fighter airframe.

Indeed it's all about accuracy. Today a Bf-109F-2 shot a well-aimed burst at my P-40E and that was enough to tear off the whole tail section. I've also survived direct 37mm flak hits regularly. That's how ammunition works.

The whole point of engineering a gun like MK108 was lack of need for accuracy...

Your incessant, baseless whining and accusations of bias did absolutely nothing to compel any of the FM changes, Winger.

 

What did help is the people with knowledge on the subject banding together and providing the developer with research that could be validated and agreed upon.

 

I would like to reiterate: Your incessant, baseless whining and accusations of bias did nothing to compel any of the FM changes that were brought about through research, objective discussion, standardized testing and subsequent validation.

 

Nice ad hominem there, by the way. Don't worry, I'm employed not that that has anything at all to do with the scope of your whining in relation to the development of this entertainment software product.

You are being a bit unfair here.

 

It is perfectly normal to assume that the BoX devs should have made the FW190 fly how it should from the start, and not setting a rule that any onus to change it should be provided by external parties. And that in fact happened, which does not, in any sense, mean that it was the correct procedure.

[von-Luck]

Shot placement has and will continue to be an important factor in gunnery. That said the 30mm mine round should be pretty devastating to single engine aircraft. Multi engine planes always require more effort by nature of there simply being more wing/control surface/engine.

 

What I hope to see out of the MK108 is the capacity to destroy tail control surfaces in a single strike. As things stand now with 20mm mine rounds the Soviet tail might as well be made of unobtainium. To actually shoot down a plane from tail strikes takes twice as many hits at least which is sad because mine rounds should excel at destroying control surfaces. Veteran pilots aim for wings or engine hits - shooting the tail is too inefficient.

 

Contrasting this Soviet AP is excellent from a dead six approach - if my tail doesent fall off then I have likely taken engine damage and or pilot death.

 

von Luck

Edited October 20, 2017 by von-Luck

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

The whole point of engineering a gun like MK108 was lack of need for accuracy...

You are being a bit unfair here.

 

-snip-

 

You should check your facts, bud... The Mk108 and its design principles mandated that a pilot be accurate with it, despite it being a pretty inaccurate autocannon, because it had a dreadfully small ammo load. The size of the load is a response to the size, integrity and survivability of their targets.

 

And quite frankly, no... I'm not being unfair at all. Winger, Whiner, Irgenjemand, whatever the hell his name is... Did nothing to contribute to anything other than the reputation of certain virtual pilots being unsatisfiable man-babies who generally seem to chub off of anything German or Luftwaffe.

 

Whining never has, and never will, deliver a single change in this product. A change in producer, great communication and interaction with the community and well-structured testing and evidence have.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Mac_Messer]

You should check your facts, bud... The Mk108 and its design principles mandated that a pilot be accurate with it, despite it being a pretty inaccurate autocannon, because it had a dreadfully small ammo load. The size of the load is a response to the size, integrity and survivability of their targets.

 

And quite frankly, no... I'm not being unfair at all. Winger, Whiner, Irgenjemand, whatever the hell his name is... Did nothing to contribute to anything other than the reputation of certain virtual pilots being unsatisfiable man-babies who generally seem to chub off of anything German or Luftwaffe.

 

Whining never has, and never will, deliver a single change in this product. A change in producer, great communication and interaction with the community and well-structured testing and evidence have.

Not quite. The sheer principle was that hitting a fighter generally meant destroying it. That means hitting any part of its airframe, wings, tail section or cockpit or whatever. Accuracy is what matters in high velocity and high rate of fire guns and that MK108 is not.

 

Doesn`t change a thing. Hard work and some serious research have had to be made just to even make the devs listen. The devs also opened some space of uncertainty by not wanting to state their sources for developping FMs.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Not quite. The sheer principle was that hitting a fighter generally meant destroying it. That means hitting any part of its airframe, wings, tail section or cockpit or whatever. Accuracy is what matters in high velocity and high rate of fire guns and that MK108 is not.

 

Doesn`t change a thing. Hard work and some serious research have had to be made just to even make the devs listen. The devs also opened some space of uncertainty by not wanting to state their sources for developping FMs.

 

The Mk108 wasn't designed with anti-fighter operations in mind. It was designed for precise, quick strikes against bomber formations to counteract the Allies' strategic bombing of the Reich. Again, while the Mk108 is an inaccurate weapon for several engineering reasons, to infer that it was designed to address a need for a... lack of accuracy..? is a little absurd.

 

And hey, at least you're right that whining doesn't change a thing. It does take hard work and serious research. It would be completely reasonable to conclude that the devs shouldn't listening to every Winger/Whiner/whatever because those people generally have little to nothing to offer other than loud complaining with no math, science, data or otherwise to corroborate whatever "ahistorical bias German disadvantage" they're whining about on that day.

 

To grant credence to every whiner without evidence would reaaaally ensure nothing positive ever gets done.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[von-Luck]

 

This is a little unfair - empirical data can be quite hard to come by and concerns raised on the forums can lead to more dedicated searching. I agree that the noise floor in the forums is quite high but there is a certain value that can be derived from it. What starts as a simple complaint can grow to a full fledged change in the product. Many things have humble beginngings.

 

von Luck

Edited October 20, 2017 by von-Luck

[Mac_Messer]

The Mk108 wasn't designed with anti-fighter operations in mind. It was designed for precise, quick strikes against bomber formations to counteract the Allies' strategic bombing of the Reich. Again, while the Mk108 is an inaccurate weapon for several engineering reasons, to infer that it was designed to address a need for a... lack of accuracy..? is a little absurd.

 

And hey, at least you're right that whining doesn't change a thing. It does take hard work and serious research. It would be completely reasonable to conclude that the devs shouldn't listening to every Winger/Whiner/whatever because those people generally have little to nothing to offer other than loud complaining with no math, science, data or otherwise to corroborate whatever "ahistorical bias German disadvantage" they're whining about on that day.

 

To grant credence to every whiner without evidence would reaaaally ensure nothing positive ever gets done.

Does not matter what it was initially designed for, rather for what it was used. It was used both for fighter and bomber busting. Nothing is absurd here. The smaller caliber rounds are more numerous, because generally it takes more strikes to destroy an aircraft. and to cover its flight path with led. The MK108 had objective to hit a fighter/small bomber with one round, two rounds maximum to destroy it (obviously not heavier bombers, that is a different story). The low ROF and accuracy and round size/weight meant that very few of those could be fitted on a fighter and still retain its normal flying abilities. From few of those rounds on your plane you probably could make less than 10 directs hits and it was alright because that what was foreseen (again, by lack of ROF and accuracy). But those 6-8 hits could score you 4-8 aircraft.

If what you`re saying was true, then there would be no need to engineer the MK108 while the MK103 was already available.

 

Do you understand what I wrote?Creating an erroneous FM and hiding behind a curtain of secret sources and demanding hard to find data is not the way to go.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Mac_Messer

[von-Luck]

But the MK103 wouldn't fit in a 109 would it? I was under the impression the MK108 was developed because the MK103 was unsuitable for use as a motor cannon. Too big and too much recoil. The Do 335 was the only German bird to have a MK103 in a motor cannon configuration.

 

von Luck

Edited October 20, 2017 by von-Luck

[Finkeren]

Indeed.

The MK 103 was relatively unfit for use on single-engined fighters. The experimental use on the Fw 190 required a substancially strengthened wing.

 

The MK 108 is much lighter (both the gun itself and its ammunition) and puts much less stress on the airframe when fired.

[VesseL]

For the 30mm, will it, if it comes, be minenround or some light shrapnel HE(which is fantasy ammo)? If i have understand it right, current 20mm is not minenround at all.

 

I will buy G6 anyway, but i dont expect much from it. Great plane but innefficient cannon would you say...

[Holtzauge]

While the Mk108 had a low muzzle velocity, it was actually very accurate as in it had a very low spread, even lower than the Mg151 IIRC. So the problem of hitting is not due to the weapon being inaccurate but due to the low muzzle velocity. But if your aim is good and your range estimate is accurate you should stand a good chance of hitting. Legacy IL-2 did not get this right and the Mk108 there was chucking shells all over the place. DCS got it right in the Me-109 K4 and I’m sure the devs here will as well. I’m more worried about the DM modeling it will get seeing AP are so much more effective in-game than the low velocity MIngeschoss the Mk108 relied on.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Does the G-6 have na MW-50 tank option ?

[303_Kwiatek]

G-6 with MW50 was rather 1944 option

[Finkeren]

Does the G-6 have na MW-50 tank option ?

We spent the first couple of pages in this thread debatindlæg exactly that.

 

The overall conclusion: The MW50 on the Bf 109 is strictly a 1944 thing, rarely used on the G6 (mostly G6/AS) and only made standard on the G14.

 

Thus it is outside the timeframe of BoK and not really fit for an early production G6.

[ShamrockOneFive]

For the 30mm, will it, if it comes, be minenround or some light shrapnel HE(which is fantasy ammo)? If i have understand it right, current 20mm is not minenround at all.

 

I will buy G6 anyway, but i dont expect much from it. Great plane but innefficient cannon would you say...

 

The current MG151/20 in-game does have a mine round. I even tested it. It has a far larger area of effect on medium sized aircraft than the ShVAK.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Ok, sorry for that - I didn't go through the whole thread :-/

 

Maybe one day we can get a scenario where even the K-4 makes sense !  Time will tell, although I believe the Pacific Theatre will probably get the next focus of attention ( ? )

[Irgendjemand]

The current MG151/20 in-game does have a mine round. I even tested it. It has a far larger area of effect on medium sized aircraft than the ShVAK.

big visibles maybe but less actual effectiveness my guts tell me.

Oh and lets not forget about the nice smokepuffs. They are great!

Edited October 21, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[ShamrockOneFive]

big visibles maybe but less actual effectiveness my guts tell me.

Oh and lets not forget about the nice smokepuffs. They are great!

 

This wasn't from the gut. I actually did testing. Repeatedly using 10 tries (on each aircraft using both types of weapons so 40 trials total) so as to eliminate some degree of random variables and eliminating outliers. 

 

The MG151/20 downed the Pe-2 and He111H-6 targets that I setup more quickly than the ShVAK. Additionally the MG151/20 did more damage to more systems such as killing gunners whereas the ShVAK did not. Reasonable conclusion is that the M151/20 area of effect splash is a fair bit larger than the ShVAK.

[VesseL]

The current MG151/20 in-game does have a mine round. I even tested it. It has a far larger area of effect on medium sized aircraft than the ShVAK.

 

Well, minengeschoss do more like inside out gas pressure effect, and the current model is, light shrapnels are doing the damage from outside in. Totally different mechanic. You can say its minenround but its not. Thats what i have learned from this forum. For me its simple, if four buffs dont take fighter out of the fight (most of the time), then it is not realistic.

[Yogiflight]

 

 

The current MG151/20 in-game does have a mine round

Not really, as was stated by Jason, IIRC. They don't have the gas pressure effect of the mineshells modelled, only projectiles and fragmentation of them. So what they did in one of the last updates, was inreasing the velocity of those small fragments, so they got higher effectiveness.

[Finkeren]

The fact that the sim doesn’t model gas pressure damage, does not make the Minengeschoß not a Minengeschoß.

 

They even increased the damage potential for its fragmentation to make up for this, showing that when the devs actually do scew things for the purpose of game balance, it’s for the benefit of the Luftwaffe

[Aap]

They even increased the damage potential for its fragmentation to make up for this, showing that when the devs actually do scew things for the purpose of game balance, it’s for the benefit of the Luftwaffe

I think the devs would be offended by the statement that they changed something "for the purpose of game balance". They changed it to make the damage effect closer to real life, even if it is not modeled correctly.

[Finkeren]

I think the devs would be offended by the statement that they changed something "for the purpose of game balance". They changed it to make the damage effect closer to real life, even if it is not modeled correctly.

Of course they did - hence my winking smiley.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Finkeren

[ShamrockOneFive]

The fact that the sim doesn’t model gas pressure damage, does not make the Minengeschoß not a Minengeschoß.

 

 

This.

I think the devs would be offended by the statement that they changed something "for the purpose of game balance". They changed it to make the damage effect closer to real life, even if it is not modeled correctly.

 

I'm very glad that they did that. In the absence of the detailed modeling for this (TBH I don't know of any sim that can do this kind of damage model right now) the devs did the right thing to try and mimic real life. That's simulation in a nutshell really

[Holtzauge]

So since it's so difficult to model the the Mingeschoss correctly then it would be good if we could get custom belting so we can load up with AP and leave out shells that don't perform as IRL: With the current DM AP is just great for shredding wings in deflections shots. At least the Hispanos are great for ripping off Me-109 wings and ShVAK AP drill through back armour plate pilot and kill engines in one go! AP rules!

[Yogiflight]

 

 

They even increased the damage potential for its fragmentation to make up for this,

What I wrote, just in other words.

 

So what they did in one of the last updates, was inreasing the velocity of those small fragments, so they got higher effectiveness.

 

And no those are no mineshells, as the effect of gas pressure is quite different to the effect of fragmentation. Don't understand me wrong, I am fine with the state of now. If it is too difficult to model, than that's the way it is.

 

 

 

So since it's so difficult to model the the Mingeschoss correctly then it would be good if we could get custom belting so we can load up with AP and leave out shells that don't perform as IRL: With the current DM AP is just great for shredding wings in deflections shots

When the Bf110 G2 was introduced, I was flying some QMB missions with the 3.7cm, and my impression was, that the HE ammunition was more effective against Pe2s than the AP rounds.

[VesseL]

It doesnt matter what its name is. But minengeschoss do damage different way. It consentrate the power into one spot, but shrapnels are spreading the damage all over. Those strong vvs planes can take huge amount of damage, if the damage are spreaded like that into many spots instead into one spot. But i dont know how they model it in details, and thats why i think 4 puffs should usually make any fighter badly hurt and unable to continue the fight.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

It doesnt matter what its name is. But minengeschoss do damage different way. It consentrate the power into one spot, but shrapnels are spreading the damage all over. Those strong vvs planes can take huge amount of damage, if the damage are spreaded like that into many spots instead into one spot. But i dont know how they model it in details, and thats why i think 4 puffs should usually make any fighter badly hurt and unable to continue the fight.

 

As others have pointed out in the thread, against armour and engine blocks the rounds may not be as effective as some folks think. Wings are a different matter.

[VesseL]

Here was at some point a thread named: " Did they nerf the MG151/20 " or something. I remember the time when MG151/20 was much more powerfull.

 

Edit: sorry this is enough oftopic,i stop now.

Edited October 21, 2017 by VesseL

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Here was at some point a thread named: " Did they nerf the MG151/20 " or something. I remember the time when MG151/20 was much more powerfull.

 

The Devs patched and updated the fragmentation effects and to be honest, I think they are much more effective now than before.   

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So since it's so difficult to model the the Mingeschoss correctly then it would be good if we could get custom belting so we can load up with AP and leave out shells that don't perform as IRL: With the current DM AP is just great for shredding wings in deflections shots. At least the Hispanos are great for ripping off Me-109 wings and ShVAK AP drill through back armour plate pilot and kill engines in one go! AP rules!

TBH,  the UBS is already more than capable at negotiating a surrender with all german Armor. Everything above that is just Overkill. 

[Nightrise]

TBH,  the UBS is already more than capable at negotiating a surrender with all german Armor. Everything above that is just Overkill. 

TBH i find UBS more effective than shvaks, shvaks are kinda inconsistent in my experience either being one shot wonder guns or taking a full ammo load to slightly tickle a 190. 

[Field-Ops]

Found this gem of a quote in the 8 machine guns cancer thread

 

I want Bf109G6 with rear mirror installed.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Field-Ops

[Holtzauge]

A very quick and dirty synopsis of the report JG19_leaf posted pictures on in post #381 above:

 

Basically the report says that combat experience has shown that smaller calibre weapons have proven inefficient and damage from those weapons are quickly repaired. It also says that Minengeschosse work not through splinter action but by gas pressure and are fuzed to detonate inside the structure. Further it says that 2 and 3 cm Minen increase the total destruction percentage when hitting surfaces by 60% on fighters and 30% on attack aircraft. It also says that damage is not as great on fabric covered surfaces since these can flex and vent the gas pressure whereas shell structures are much more susceptible to damage. As an example of damage to shell structures, the report mentions that a Minen hit on the vertical stabilizer of a Fw-190 completely destroys it: The nose D-cell is blown off and the side panels loosen so the structural integrity is lost.

 

Now the above is with the caveat that I’m not a native German so things may have been lost in translation and please correct me if I’ve gotten something wrong!

 

However, mine (I would say extensive testing in QM) and others experience shows the opposite: In high deflection shots where the majority of hits are in the load bearing shell structure where Minen should be MUCH more effective than AP, the result is actually the opposite: High velocity AP are much more likely to shed a wing on the target than Minen.

 

AFAIK this can be explained since the BOX DM works by some sort of score system which is based on direct action kinetics as in FMJ hits and AP hits or indirectly by splinters from HE shells so it is incapable of modeling the shock wave action which is the modus operandi of a Mine shell.

 

Another issue with AP is that AFAIK it seems to drill a hole in the direction of the tangent in-game meaning a hit from directly astern is devastating which I would venture to say is not how things work IRL: Even AP will be deflected and start to tumble which is why miscellaneous equipment like a radio will either in some cases deflect the AP or cause it to tumble meaning that the back armour is much more likely to stop it.

 

So summa summarum the whole DM in BOX favours AP over Minen to such an extent that I think either this needs to be fixed ASAP or once again PLEASE give us custom belting!

Edited October 22, 2017 by Holtzauge

[CUJO_1970]

Testing various guns against the same target is interesting for test purposes in a clinical environment.

 

Where things fall apart is in actual combat, especially online. There you see the problem, especially when it comes to medium bombers...with the biggest offender by far being the Pe-2 and it's ability to sustain 45-60-even 90 hits at times before going down (paired with it's absurd gunners).

 

Cross reference this Pe-2 sortie - It took a flak hit and 2 FW-190s flown by myself and SYN_GD hitting it close to 100 times for it to go down:

 

http://72ag-ded.ru:8080/en/sortie/498644/?tour=26

 

But, thank goodness area effect for MG151 is greater than for ShVAK or who knows how many hits that Pe-2 would have endured.

[CUJO_1970]

MK-108 being inaccurate...that is a complete fiction. It tested with a tighter spread than even MG151.

 

It was the most lightweight and compact 30mm (much more-so than MK-103) and it became one of the LW primary air-fighting guns. It was an absolutely devastating weapon.

 

As for it's inclusion in the sim - I'd say it's not really all that historically accurate at this point in the sim. What's more - it shouldn't really be necessary. A standard loadout of 1 20MM and 2 MG131 was enough to take down any Russian aircraft. Want more firepower? Take the gun pods.

 

With that being said, I have no problem if the devs decide to include it - you currently have exotic cannons for LaGG-3 flying around online where they were almost never used historically and everyone is just fine with that. But it's suddenly a problem for the 109?

[Retnek]

...with the biggest offender by far being the Pe-2 and it's ability to sustain 45-60-even 90 hits at times before going down (paired with it's absurd gunners) ...

I've flown the Pe-2 a few hundred times and that plane is in no way the kind of flying tank you describe it above. I was downed by some MG-34-bullets more than once, often by a single 20-mm-shell of the much more annoying wonder-AAA. And lot's of times by a 109 F with a single pass. Yes, she might absorb a lot of damage, but she's not that exceptional sturdy. But fast, agile and slim - most fighter pilots have a lot more work with her than they expect.

 The Fw-190 is somewhat special because of the wing-cannons. Most pilots set the cannons focus at 250 m. When they come in angrily for the final blow after a surprisingly long turn fight they place themselves tight behind the Pe-2. That's on the one hand a nice offering to the Pe-2-gunner. On the other hand the Pe-2 pilot can hear the MG-bullets hit the but fuselage, but see the 20-mm-rounds coming along half a meter left and right of his canopy, meeting nicely 150 m in front of his plane.

 

  Anyhow, during some test flying with the Spitfire I was surprised by the extraordinary power of her 20-mm-guns. I will try some quick missions with the Spit and the La-5 (with HE-ammo) against the Pe-2 - let's see if the Pe-2 is that hard to bring down. I've done this quite often with the 110 against the Pe-2 and found her not that difficult to bring down.

 

  What makes me wonder is the weakness of the IL-2 compared to the Pe-2. Looking at the armour and the war time reports, I would have expected the IL-2 to be the flying tank, but she isn't. And - back to the 109 now - I'd be very interested in the effect of the 30-mm-shells against the IL2-armour. Devastating blows against thin standard-planking, sure, but has the 30-mm-HE-shell been that effective against the armoured planks, too?