The bravery of being out of range

[Gambit21]

Alright chaps, if there is some interest I will get it done using High settings tomorrow. Full set of 10 runs (to get a robust average) takes me a couple of hours to do... but for completeness I agree that High has to be done. 

 

Changing the gun types is also doable - we can have German 20mm shooting at 109s!       But I do not fancy changing the planes much - all 48 of them.......

I have a group of 18 He-111's up high'ish...if you'd like to use it let  me know.

I was testing formations.

 

[unreasonable]

Thanks for the energy and time, test is best! However the ca. 1000 rounds per shoot-down for the Soviet light AAA were determined, your numbers show there's some need to adapt. Or at least choose the lowest AAA-abilities to stay somehow near realism. Did you limit the engagement range of the AA-guns?

 

  Next to the deadly precision the light AAA usually fires at ranges far beyond the limits gun crews were ordered to use in WW2. If the AAA needs time to detect and adjust it limits the range against incoming planes automatically. Most annoying to me those goblins enjoy to shoot after departing planes up to the absurdly long ranges.

  Being killed over a distance of 2000 m from a 20 mm gun with a series of hits ... one already had adjusted the seat, radio operator tuned in Radio Belgrad, a thermos-flask, the smell of coffee - blam-blam-BLAM - down goes my Pe-2-tank! That's simply mean.

 

I think the range limits are built in - the "attack air targets" MCU is set for a large number because I wanted to use just one for all the guns rather than have one per gun with it's own limit. The problem with limiting range with a small MCU radius  - I suspect - is that the guns would not even begin to turn towards the approaching target until it hits the edge of the MCU area, by which time it will be too late to fire.  My own subjective view is that the range behaviour looks pretty realistic if you watch the mission from the POV of the guns. 37mm guns have a much higher effective range than 20mm anyway, plus I doubt that the engagement range limits you quote were very tightly observed anyway, soldiers being what they are: and having no icons on either!

 

Anyway, now I have done my day's errands and re-caffeinated, time to run the "High" test.

 

I have a group of 18 He-111's up high'ish...if you'd like to use it let  me know.

I was testing formations.

 

 

Thanks,  but I will pass for now.    That would be a good test target for a battery of heavy AA, but I want to stay focused on the light flak for now.   BTW I have no doubt that the same sort of results would hold - except the casualties would be even worse as the guns have so much time to get the victims lined up, whereas is my test the targets are set up to be hard to hit.  

[Wulf]

Same, Id like to see Ace as well just to show how overdone it really is.

 

Mission designers need to see that the use of AI settings above low is making the impact much more severe than losses encountered in real life.

 

 

I'm not so sure about this.  Just taking generalized ratios of ammo expenditure to aircraft destroyed and applying them uniformly across a range of target types could be highly distortionary.

 

For example, I'd have thought that a low level attack on a well defended target would, in many instances, be almost suicidal, whereas, the changes of being shot down over a battle zone, by contrast, would be relatively low.   The Stuka provides a sort of case in point.  The Stuka was phased-out because it was clearly apparent by late '41 that dive bombing defended targets was essentially no longer survivable.  Point being that total expenditure of ammo is probably a very poor indicator of just how dangerous particular targets can be.   Operation Chastise, essentially a hedge-hoping operation, provides another example of sorts. Numerous Lancasters were lost to flak during the operation even though it was flown at night, was routed well away from known flak belts and the actual flak defense on and around the dams was light.  Moral being, low flying aircraft are very vulnerable to anti aircraft fire.

[unreasonable]

I'm not so sure about this.  Just taking generalized ratios of ammo expenditure to aircraft destroyed and applying them uniformly across a range of target types could be highly distortionary.

 

For example, I'd have thought that a low level attack on a well defended target would, in many instances, be almost suicidal, whereas, the changes of being shot down over a battle zone, by contrast, would be relatively low.   The Stuka provides a sort of case in point.  The Stuka was phased-out because it was clearly apparent by late '41 that dive bombing defended targets was essentially no longer survivable.  Point being that total expenditure of ammo is probably a very poor indicator of just how dangerous particular targets can be.   Operation Chastise, essentially a hedge-hoping operation, provides another example of sorts. Numerous Lancasters were lost to flak during the operation even though it was flown at night, was routed well away from known flak belts and the actual flak defense on and around the dams was light.  Moral being, low flying aircraft are very vulnerable to anti aircraft fire.

 

The problem is this word "suicidal" - by which I assume a very high - perhaps better than 50% chance of death. Actual loss rates in such attacks were nowhere near this level, except for a few cases as for instance the attacks on the bridges at Sedan (defended by dozens of guns) or some anti shipping attacks - again a few aircraft against many guns.   Take the Bodenplatte attacks as a counter example - loss rates were no-where near "suicidal".  But as you should know, sustained loss rates of 10% were considered to be a serious defeat by Bomber Command. Losses of 5% give a 49% survival chance after only 14 missions.  

 

"Very vulnerable" is essentially meaningless - the question is how vulnerable, and that can only be sensibly answered by quantitative analysis. Anything else is just verbiage. We are not trying to ensure a particular outcome in terms of kills/ammo expended in every circumstance: more to see what the difference is between AI settings and whether the outcomes are broadly plausible against RL data such as we have it for a known set of circumstances. With some more historical data we can model some of the Bodenplatte attacks and see if the game AI can give a plausible outcome.  

 

So here is the "High" test result, and a summary of the three tests, with some comments.

 

 

As you can see from the data, the High results are significantly up from the Normal, but the difference is not as marked as from "Low" to "Normal". 

 

There are a number of variables that could be affecting the results: time to acquire target, time to compute firing solution, accuracy of firing solution given actual target motion, reload time, speed of rotation of gun, shot grouping: possibly others. Without being able to see the file that inputs the variables according to AI settings it is hard to say which one(s) is making the difference but having watched a few hundred shoot downs (and misses) my money is on the main change being in the grouping. Ie the High AI fires a tighter group, which just means that it's shells will be closer to the predicted aiming point. 

 

I say this because the AI on High still every rarely hits a fast moving distant target changing it's vector in 3 dimensions. Indeed, arguably, a looser group would get slightly more hits in that circumstances. What the High AI is very good at is making the shot when the target vector is not changing fast, even at high deflection, sometimes with the first round. So the High AI nails a large number of the 109s that have just flown over or near the gun during it's strafing run.

Edited December 13, 2017 by unreasonable

[Wulf]

Sure, but the OP essentially asks the question, is the flak a little too god-like on occasion.  I'd say yes, occasionally that can appear to be the case but on other occasions it appears so inept as to be laughable.   Orbiting an airfield, at a steady altitude, in range of the flak defenses should mean almost certain death.  That's nowhere near the case at present.

 

As regards your historical examples, I'd say that although the lethality of flak defenses would have increased over time, hard won experience gained early in the war resulted in the development of tactics that countered this to some extent.  To take your shipping strike example; Coastal Command started the war with single aircraft 'Rover patrols' (or pairs or vics) and finished-up with massed target saturation tactics at the end, where 30 + aircraft would attack a single (merchant) ship. In the first 3 years of the war these Coastal Command tactics (for the most part) resulted in casualties in the order of 90%.  So, consequently, freakish anomolies aside, no one survived an operational tour.  It is of course true that CC had to deal with both fighters and flak early in the war but very few fighters towards the end, due to the collapse of the LW's fighter force.  But that said, flak was probably always CC's number one enemy.  

 

So what lessons can we learn from this that can be applied to the game?  Firstly, low level attacks against defended targets should, by their very nature, be extremely hazardous.   Secondly,  although there are ways to mitigate these dangers, a single aircraft attempting to take on a well defended target, in a determined ongoing attack, should probably be destroyed.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Wulf

[Gambit21]

Thanks,  but I will pass for now.    That would be a good test target for a battery of heavy AA, but I want to stay focused on the light flak for now.   BTW I have no doubt that the same sort of results would hold - except the casualties would be even worse as the guns have so much time to get the victims lined up, whereas is my test the targets are set up to be hard to hit.  

 

No problem.

 

What I go for in my missions is effect/pucker factor, visible tracers and flak at low and medium altitudes.

I want the player to feel danger, but I want control over the actual danger...if that makes sense.

 

Thus I've arrived at "low" being the best setting...however there's probably a unit or two that I haven't tested.

And you're correct, the bombers get sniped by flak even on "Normal" setting.

[sniperton]

I don't see any reason not to say that everything beyond low level AAA is just there to define no-fly zones. Perhaps my summary lacks nuances, but is there anyone who wants to dispute this thesis?

[unreasonable]

Sure, but the OP essentially asks the question, is the flak a little too god-like on occasion.  I'd say yes, occasionally that can appear to be the case but on other occasions it appears so inept as to be laughable.   Orbiting an airfield, at a steady altitude, in range of the flak defenses should mean almost certain death.  That's nowhere near the case at present.

 

As regards your historical examples, I'd say that although the lethality of flak defenses would have increased over time, hard won experience gained early in the war resulted in the development of tactics that countered this to some extent.  To take your shipping strike example; Coastal Command started the war with single aircraft 'Rover patrols' (or pairs or vics) and finished-up with massed target saturation tactics at the end, where 30 + aircraft would attack a single (merchant) ship. In the first 3 years of the war these Coastal Command tactics (for the most part) resulted in casualties in the order of 90%.  So, consequently, freakish anomolies aside, no one survived an operational tour.  It is of course true that CC had to deal with both fighters and flak early in the war but very few fighters towards the end, due to the collapse of the LW's fighter force.  But that said, flak was probably always CC's number one enemy.  

 

So what lessons can we learn from this that can be applied to the game?  Firstly, low level attacks against defended targets should, by their very nature, be extremely hazardous.   Secondly,  although there are ways to mitigate these dangers, a single aircraft attempting to take on a well defended target, in a determined ongoing attack, should probably be destroyed.

 

The problem is that this is all so vague. What is a "well defended target"?  What does "probably be destroyed" mean? Or "extremely hazardous"?  As I keep pointing out, a 5% loss rate is "extremely hazardous" from the POV of pilots on a fixed tour. And to which AI level are you referring? 

 

What I am trying to do is make a start at quantifying the variables so that we can make an informed empirical judgement, not just a subjective view expressed in a way that could mean just about anything.  

 

There is nothing to stop you testing any scenario: for instance a single plane or vic attacking a ship or group of ships to see what happens on the various AI levels, or a squadron of Battle-substitutes (Stukas) attacking the Sedan bridges defended by 303 AAA guns, after being mauled by fighters (according to wiki). Come to think of it that might be my next project. 

 

In short, why not quote some specific examples with some data that can be tested against the game?  The "Airfield defense" mission is a test-bed to see if the game can replicate Bodenplatte type attacks, and with what results. It is not a simulation of any of the attacks, (yet), since I do not have enough data especially on the number of defending guns, but it does reproduce to a degree the anti-flak tactics the GAF used, and you can see that they work to an extent if you watch the mission from the POV of one of the guns.  The main anti-flak tactics are:

 

1) Speed: do not be in the flak zone longer than you have to be,

2) Changing your flight vector in three dimensions to defeat prediction.

3) Swamping the target so that some attackers are not targeted and AAA makes sub-optimal targeting choices.

 

These work against AI flak just as they work against RL flak.

 

 

No problem.

 

What I go for in my missions is effect/pucker factor, visible tracers and flak at low and medium altitudes.

I want the player to feel danger, but I want control over the actual danger...if that makes sense.

 

Thus I've arrived at "low" being the best setting...however there's probably a unit or two that I haven't tested.

And you're correct, the bombers get sniped by flak even on "Normal" setting.

 

I agree - when I made my own version of the RoF Flakmod I aimed for the same result. Flying around in a flak area was still dangerous, but more in a cumulative sense - you never felt the sniper was there, but it made good sense not to hang around in range for longer than was necessary for the mission. When flying a career dead-is-dead a realistic level of risk in a flak zone is quite enough for gameplay purposes!

 

 

I don't see any reason not to say that everything beyond low level AAA is just there to define no-fly zones. Perhaps my summary lacks nuances, but is there anyone who wants to dispute this thesis?

 

The main qualification I would make would be the "use one gun to represent a battery" argument.  If you think of one Low gun as being 1 very well trained or 2 not well trained guns, then Normal could be a battery of 4 in terms of outcomes. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

And.... here is a test of the 37mm Flak 36, the closest German equivalent of the K-61. Below are the test results in original format (as I keep tweaking it) plus a comparison chart.

 

 

 

In terms of the average results, one can certainly say that the Flak 36 is about as effective as the K-61 in shooting down aircraft in this test, but much less efficient in terms of ammo used.  The average number of total losses is about the same: given the error of about +/- 10% in estimating the mean from the sample size, I would say that the difference is significant but not conclusive. Happy to discuss the statistics if any one really wants to. 

 

The Flak 36 hits a little more often (perhaps: again there is a variance) - as it's much higher rof would suggest is likely - but hits are certainly a little  more survivable. Still usually terminal for a 109, but there were significantly more superficially damaged but not smoking planes making it to the rally point than in the K-61 example.

 

Is indicative of the K-61s higher projectile weight (edit: and higher MV 880 vs 720-840 m/s) or rather of deep Russian bias?    I will leave the reader to  ponder. 

 

With that I will give these tests a break.  

Edited December 14, 2017 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

With that I will give these tests a break.  

 

Many thanks for a great set tests.

 

What seemed to be clear is setting AAA  AI on anything above normal appears to give the AAA (in game) unrealistic abilities compared to RL data that is available. It's completely accepted just how dangerous attacking heavily defended ground targets was in WWII, but I hope that (in game) AAA AI will be one aspect that will be looked at in future releases.

 

Regarding the K-61 when flying against it online (TAW). It is an absolute killing machine for aircraft and pilots compared to say the Flak 38 with over 4 times the effectiveness of the latter. This is of course in a dynamic online environment, with AI settings probably set above normal.         

[sniperton]

The main qualification I would make would be the "use one gun to represent a battery" argument.  If you think of one Low gun as being 1 very well trained or 2 not well trained guns, then Normal could be a battery of 4 in terms of outcomes. 

 

This is an important conclusion also for the devs when it comes to modeling capital ships with literally dozens of AAA stations.

Anyway, thank you for your thorough tests. You were up to your motto "nullius in verba".

[unreasonable]

Thanks Custard and sniperton!  I almost enjoyed doing the tests   just to see what would actually happen.  

 

I would say that anything above Low gives the AAA unrealistic abilities myself.

 

As for the 20mm Flak 38 I would expect it to be much less effective in the airfield defense test since the kills/hit ratio should be much lower with such a small shell, and I doubt that it can make anywhere near enough extra hits to compensate.  So if mission designers want to protect German airfields, they should be using the 37mm Flak 36 (or even captured K-61s ) instead.  Oh no.... now I want to know if that is how it will actually pan out...... 

Edited December 14, 2017 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

...which it does, more or less, although less definitively than I expected.

 

 

 

Against the same targets in this kind of strafing attack the Flak 38 is only a little less effective in terms of aircraft hit and shot down than the 37mm, although compared to the K-61 in particular a plane is more likely to get away with taking a hit.  While there is some variability in the results, the sample size is large enough to be fairly confident of the resulting averages, +/- 10%.   

 

Apart from a higher one hit kill chance, the main advantage of 37mm is the increased range which makes it viable against level bombers, or at least forces them up to a higher altitude.

 

If you compare the case of Soviet aircraft, say a Yak 1, replacing the 109s in the test, you are then getting into the issue of damage modeling. Since we know - because the developers have told us - that the Soviet planes are a little more robust, you should expect to see about the same number of aircraft hit, but a slightly smaller proportion shot down since the Yaks are more likely to survive a wing hit. 

 

Testing that means changing the model for 48 aircraft which someone else can do if they want a 109 vs Yak DM comparison vs any of the guns types.

Edited December 14, 2017 by unreasonable

[Retnek]

I would say that anything above Low gives the AAA unrealistic abilities myself.

 

As for the 20mm Flak 38 I would expect it to be much less effective in the airfield defense test since the kills/hit ratio should be much lower with such a small shell, and I doubt that it can make anywhere near enough extra hits to compensate.  So if mission designers want to protect German airfields, they should be using the 37mm Flak 36 (or even captured K-61s ) instead.  Oh no.... now I want to know if that is how it will actually pan out...... 

Thanks for this - it really helps! The (only) scale for a simulator is realism. Now the mission builders know the only setting for light-AAA in IL2-BoX has to be "low" and even that is tough enough. Simulator pilots without a chance to survive show the same lack of moral fibre than the real world crews did ... 5% losses is not more than a tour of 20 sorties for a single pilot. A simulator pilot does not have to leave his unit in shame, he's free to fly on a server offering a realistic chance.

[unreasonable]

I appreciate the feedback!  Nice to know someone has seen these results. 

 

The other factor that mission builders should take into account is the "Limit ammo" box. I have not tested with it unticked, since that is clearly unrealistic, but just watching the behaviour of the guns you can see a number of good firing opportunities lost because the gun was changing clips.  

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I'm sad to hear you're done. The test I was most looking forward to was the one with AA set to 'ace'.

[unreasonable]

Then you will be relieved to know that artillery pieces only have three AI levels: Low, Normal and High.   

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Good to know!

[PatrickAWlson]

I always use Low unless there is a specific place where the AA would be zoned in ahead of time, then medium.  In my case that "zoned in ahead of time" is only used in balloon defense in RoF.  In BoS everything is low.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

I always use Low unless there is a specific place where the AA would be zoned in ahead of time

I really hope that many of the mission builders follow suit particularly after viewing Unreasonable's test data, as most seem to set them on normal or high. The attrition rate on some servers caused from AAA is quite frankly astonishing.    

[unreasonable]

I do not have OCD, I don't, I don't....

 

But I had to know.... so here is what happens if you replace the 109s with Yak-1 ser 69s. Rather as per my hypothesis.  The Yak-1 is a little more robust, but the "Blue" side flyers should not exaggerate this - I suspect if there is a perceived disadvantage in durability to the 109 in air to air combat the Soviet guns have more to do with it than the DM, but the effect is there: Yaks are somewhat more  likely to get away with taking a 20mm hit(s) without being shot down or losing fluids. 

 

 

I have added this to the 109 DM thread (there is usually one somewhere) since it is not strictly an AAA test, since this is unchanged, but I though you chaps might like to see this anyway.

Edited December 15, 2017 by unreasonable

[Willy__]

Why I'm not surprised ? 

 

 

careful with the fm police....

[Nocke]

Why should one be surprised? First, its not a really large difference. Second, it has repeatedly been stated that the soviet constructions are modelled as more damage resilient, with reasonable arguments. You can argue with that, but indeed - no reason to be surprised. Or to make comments somehow insinuating you knew all the time there was something fishy.

[bivalov]

The Flak 36 hits a little more often (perhaps: again there is a variance) - as it's much higher rof would suggest is likely

 

only 80 rpm for 61-K?

 

i.e. in all soviet sources (including technical description'42) is 160-180 rpm

Edited December 17, 2017 by bivalov

[6./ZG26_Custard]

only 80 rpm for 61-K?

 

i.e. in all soviet sources (including technical description'42) is 160-180 rpm

 

The numbers you're referring to is the cyclic rate of fire,but the practical rate of fire is 60-80 rounds per minute.

 

Edit: Anything more and the gun would suffer overheating and failure.

Edited December 17, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[bivalov]

The numbers you're referring to is the cyclic rate of fire,but the practical rate of Fire is 60-80 rounds per minute.

Edit: Anything more and the gun would suffer overheating and failure.

in technical description (september'41) written that rate of fire and practic rate of fire is same - 160-180 rpm

[6./ZG26_Custard]

in technical description (september'41) written that rate of fire and practic rate of fire is same - 160-180 rpm

most of the references I've seen quote 60-80 rounds per minute as practical. Think it's also worth considering that the ammunition came in five round clips so it would have to be reloaded after every 5th round.

[unreasonable]

only 80 rpm for 61-K?

 

i.e. in all soviet sources (including technical description'42) is 160-180 rpm

 

I will not live or die by those rof numbers - they were just dragged off wiki IIRC for a rough comparison.

 

What is clear is that the effective rof in game is lower for the 61-K than the 37mm Flak. Very obvious when you watch a clip being fired. 

 

In addition, the shots fired per gun and per target hit in each of my tests is based on an actual count of shots of some of the guns firing throughout the mission. Taking into account tracking and loading, the K-61 is getting just under half of the shots away as the Flak 36.

[bivalov]

most of the references I've seen quote 60-80 rounds per minute as practical.

 

numbers from original technical description means nothing for you?

 

and your "most of references" is another original technical descriptions, repots from tests/regiments etc?

 

 

well, in total, minimum PRoF is 120 rpm (it was shortly mentioned by one russian historian) and maximum PRoF is 160 rpm (numbers from TD'41)

 

and it is very similar to 120 rpm for Flak 36 (althought, personally i don't saw any handbuch)

Edited December 17, 2017 by bivalov

[6./ZG26_Custard]

numbers from original technical description means nothing for you?

 

and your "most of references" is another original technical descriptions, repots from tests/regiments etc?

 

 

well, in total, minimum PRoF is 120 rpm (it was shortly mentioned by one russian historian) and maximum PRoF is 160 rpm (numbers from TD'41)

 

and it is very similar to 120 rpm for Flak 36 (althought, personally i don't saw any handbuch)

technical manuals are technical manuals. In the field and in the heat of combat the practical rate of fire is what one must also consider.

 

Edit: it is also worth considering that you would have to reload the gun (and aim it) 24 times in that minute to sustain 120 rpm so that is probably where the 80 rpm "practical" rate of fire comes in.

Edited December 17, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[bivalov]

technical manuals are technical manuals. In the field and in the heat of combat the practical rate of fire is what one must also consider.

 

Edit: it is also worth considering that you would have to reload the gun (and aim it) 24 times in that minute to sustain 120 rpm so that is probably where the 80 rpm "practical" rate of fire comes in.

technical manual contains concrete practical rate of fire

 

and in according to russian definition "practical rate of fire", it's includes reloading and correction of aiming

 

 

in total, i repeat that looks like that in game must be 120 for Flak 36 and at least 120 for 61-K

Edited December 17, 2017 by bivalov

[6./ZG26_Custard]

in total, i repeat that looks like that in game must be 120 for Flak 36 and at least 120 for 61-K

  So the crew is loading 24 x 5 round clips into the gun and firing a constant 120 round in a minute?

 

Edit: Here are modern 40 mm Bofors firing, they manage about 55 rounds {per gun} in about 50 seconds.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Wulf]

most of the references I've seen quote 60-80 rounds per minute as practical. Think it's also worth considering that the ammunition came in five round clips so it would have to be reloaded after every 5th round.

 

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about how these weapons function.  Although the 37 mm Flak 36 is clip fed, as you correctly point out, these would typically be stacked end on end into the feed mechanism by a team of loaders when the gun is in action.  In short, the gun doesn't stop firing every time a clip is expended - it shoots continuously.

 

Of course, continuous firing would in reality only last for a few seconds during a low level raid because the attacking aircraft would be getting in and out of the target area just as quickly as they possibly could. 

 

Continuous shooting would probably go on for longer periods when high altitude targets were being engaged, but even in that case, probably for no more than 10-20 seconds or so.  Twenty seconds is a hell of a lot of shooting.  And as you point out, extended periods of shooting would very quickly over-heat the weapon and lead to damage or malfunction.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Continuous shooting would probably go on for longer periods when high altitude targets were being engaged, but even in that case, probably for no more than 10-20 seconds or so.  Twenty seconds is a hell of a lot of shooting.  And as you point out, extended periods of shooting would very quickly over-heat the weapon and lead to damage or malfunction.

Part of the point I was trying to make is the cyclic rate may well be 120 rpm but practically they wouldn't be firing a consistent 120 per minute and more like 80.

[Wulf]

Part of the point I was trying to make is the cyclic rate may well be 120 rpm but practically they wouldn't be firing a consistent 120 per minute and more like 80.

 

 

Yes, cyclic rate is really just calculated on the basis of what the weapon's mechanism is capable of, and could for example be based on a test involving the expenditure of just 20 rounds or so.   That will tell you how quickly the mechanism  'cycles'.   However, an MG 42, for example,  may well have a cyclic rate of up to 1200 rpm in some instances but a) a 1200 round belt of ammo would, in most instances, be totally impractical in the field and b) if you attempted to shoot the thing continuously for a full minute (assuming you had a 1200 round belt on hand) it would get so hot it would probably ruin the barrel and probably parts of the firing mechanism as well. 

 

However, you could say that this or that weapon has a cyclic rate of X so if it's typically engaged for 10-15 seconds of continuous shooting it will expend about Y number of rounds during that period.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Wulf

[Retnek]

Just a little add-on to my small table for the German light AA:

 

                    20mm-type 30    20mm-type 38    37mm-type 36

Rpm in fact        120                     220                  120(150)

Rpm techn        220(240)         440(450)                 240

RpMagazine       20                       20                    8 (Clip)

 

The standard German light AA gun wasn't belt-fed. The loaders had to change the magazines quickly. An *experienced* and cold blooded crew with a 20mm type-38-gun fired against a more or less directly incoming plane:

- first magazine beginning at ca. 1000 m to 700 (good conditions only)

- replace magazine

- 2nd magazine and most dangerous 20 rounds from 500-200 m

- replace magazine while swinging the weapon around

- 3rd magazine at departing plane from 300 - 400 m (good conditions only)

 

That's the optimum. In reality the crews made all the errors people make when stressed, feared, chilled and tired:

- not calculating the aim carefully

- open fire much to early

- hammering away without correcting the lead

- open fire against sound, schemes, shadows and reflections

 

Crews often did not trust their range settings and the vizier, so first a few shots were released to aim by tracers. Followed by observation, correction and firing rest of magazine. It can be done that way, but one needs a lot of engagements to learn it the right way. Shooting by tracers delivers less rounds against the target and it's MUCH more difficult to learn than following a well prepared standard drill for shooting by vizier. The lower cadence of the 20mm type-30 and the 37 mm type-36 reduced the possible number of rounds against one target even more.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

only 80 rpm for 61-K?

 

i.e. in all soviet sources (including technical description'42) is 160-180 rpm

 

 

The numbers you're referring to is the cyclic rate of fire,but the practical rate of fire is 60-80 rounds per minute.

 

Edit: Anything more and the gun would suffer overheating and failure.

 

Currently in game the cyclic rate of fire for the 61-K is 60 rpm. 1 round per second, you can measure it easily in a quick mission. it fires several clips one after the other (without delay), each 50 rounds fired it stops for about 5 seconds, to start firing again another 50 rounds.

 

The 37mm FlaK 36 has around 150 rpm cyclic rate of fire, fires a 20 round burst and then stops for about 5 seconds, then starts again.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

Currently in game the cyclic rate of fire for the 61-K is 60 rpm. 1 round per second, you can measure it easily in a quick mission. it fires several clips one after the other (without delay), each 50 rounds fired it stops for about 5 seconds, to start firing again another 50 rounds.

 

The 37mm FlaK 36 has around 150 rpm cyclic rate of fire, fires a 20 round burst and then stops for about 5 seconds, then starts again.

 

 

 

Having just checked in the ME I agree. I thought the 61-K was stopping to reload more often, but I think this must have been because in my Airfield Defence test the targets are moving enough that the guns may be changing targets or they are moving out of range, As it was I never observed longer bursts of fire than 10 shots.  With a slow Stuka circling around as a target (invulnerable!) it is clear that the gun can fire for 50 rounds continuously.

 

Annoying in a way that we even have to test this - there should be a vehicles/artillery tech specs page similar to that for the planes, with this data on it.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

  Currently in game the cyclic rate of fire for the 61-K is 60 rpm. 1 round per second, you can measure it easily in a quick mission. it fires several clips one after the other (without delay), each 50 rounds fired it stops for about 5 seconds, to start firing again another 50 rounds.

 

 

 

it is clear that the gun can fire for 50 rounds continuously.  

 

 

Personally, I think they have tried to model the "practical" rate of fire hence the 60 rpm. Technically the gun could fire at a higher rate but real world  manual reload, adjustment and heat of battle etc gives us the practical rate.  

 

If you check out these guys at the beginning, admittedly they don't seem to be in a hurry but they would  have to wear their underpants over their trousers and have a big S on their chests to achieve a sustained rate of 120 rpm

 

 

 

If a gun had a fully automated loading system with radar guided tracking then the rate of fire could of course be much higher.

 

 

Edit:

 

Annoying in a way that we even have to test this - there should be a vehicles/artillery tech specs page similar to that for the planes, with this data on it.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.  

Edited December 19, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[unreasonable]

Personally, I think they have tried to model the "practical" rate of fire hence the 60 rpm. Technically the gun could fire at a higher rate but real world  manual reload, adjustment and heat of battle etc gives us the practical rate.  

 

 

 

 

You could be right - but then the Flak 36 clearly has a cyclic rof about double this, with more frequent reloadings. If bivalov is right about the 61-Ks cyclic rof being about the same, then the behaviour of the two guns should be much more similar. 

 

Not something to panic about unduly: as my test shows, the higher rof of the Flak 36 does not - in the test at least - give more than a marginal advantage in terms of hits. Perhaps the spread is modeled differently too.  Not sure how to model or measure that without player control of the gun. 

 

Perhaps when the devs get into talking about the tank expansion in more detail, we will be able to get them to be more explicit about the performance parameters of the ground weapons in general.  Or if we get mods on. (I am not holding my breath..... )