Jump to content
Pupo

Comparing the MG151 to the ShVAK ingame

Recommended Posts

This is a much debated topic. I will try to present some new data to fuel the discussion, based on easily reproducible in-game testing. I will abstain from drawing conclusions from the data I collected. 

 

Needless to say, mistakes could have been made, in the setup, measurement, or result analysis. Corrections and suggestions are welcomed. Verifying my results is recommended.

 

Goal

 

Determine how many rounds does it take to completely rip off the wing of a fighter aircraft, varying both the weapon being used and the target.

 

Setup

 

Mods are now available to the game. I used mods to achieve the following modifications to the game:

- Modified the HE111H16 MGFF to fire at 1 RPS.

- Modified the HE111H16 to fire the German MG151 AP/HE and the ShVAK AP/HE shells.

 

Methodology

 

I placed 1 HE111H16 in a runway. About 100 metres in front of it I placed 3 fighters facing in the same direction. I shot the right wing of these fighters always in the same place. Targets where 109F4, Yak 1s127, Spitfire mkV, and La5s8. For the 109 I aimed at the German cross. For the remaining fighters I aimed slightly to the left and above of the aileron root.

 

Results

 

BF109F4
  DE AP DE HE RU AP RU HE GB AP GB HE
1 6 3 3 2 1 2
2 8 3 5 3 1 6
3 4 3 4 2 2 2
4 4 4 3 3 1 2
5 6 5 6 4 1 2
6 7 6 7 3 3 2
7 6 3 3 3 3 2
8 6 3 5 3 2 3
9 6 5 5 4 3 1
AVG 5.89 3.89 4.56 3.00 1.89 2.44
SDV 1.20 1.10 1.34 0.67 0.87 1.34
Yak1
  DE AP DE HE RU AP RU HE GB AP GB HE
1 5 3 6 3 3 2
2 8 3 5 7 2 2
3 7 3 10 2 3 5
4 5 5 5 3 3 3
5 10 2 8 3 3 2
6 9 3 9 5 4 4
7 8 4 7 6 4 2
8 6 3 10 6 4 2
9 8 4 7 2 3 2
AVG 7.33 3.33 7.44 4.11 3.22 2.67
SDV 1.63 0.82 1.83 1.79 0.63 1.05
Spitfire MkV
  DE AP DE HE RU AP RU HE GB AP GB HE
1 12 4 4 3 3 2
2 15 2 10 3 4 2
3 16 5 6 2 2 2
4 11 3 6 3 3 2
5 14 5 8 3 5 3
6 12 6 8 6 3 2
7 15 3 7 4 6 2
8 17 5 7 4 1 2
9 17 4 11 5 3 1
AVG 14.33 4.11 7.44 3.67 3.33 2.00
SDV 2.11 1.20 2.01 1.15 1.41 0.47
La5s8
  DE AP DE HE RU AP RU HE GB AP GB HE
1 6 4 9 6 5 5
2 9 3 4 4 4 2
3 7 4 4 7 4 3
4 6 4 4 4 3 3
5 7 7 7 4 4 5
6 9 6 6 5 3 3
7 8 4 4 5 3 2
8 6 4 5 6 8 3
9 5 4 5 5 4 2
AVG 7.00 4.44 5.33 5.11 4.22 3.11
SDV 1.33 1.17 1.63 0.99 1.47 1.10

 


Top row, denotes the target. 

DE = German MG151  

RU = Russian SHVAK

GB = Hispano MkII

AP = Armour Piercing

HE = High Explosive

 

Notes

 

- When firing AP rounds at the YAK, in most cases a fatal fire started after 2 or 3 rounds.

- BF109F4 MG151 belt in game composed of a AP-HE-HE mix.

- Yak1s127 ShVAK belts in game are compsoed of a He-AP-AP mix.

- In game, the MGFF and the MG151 use the exact same shells. The only difference is the Muzzle vleocity. The mg151 muzzle velocity was used in this test.

- The test mission, and the mod used can be found in the attachments.

 

If you wish to reproduce my results, or want to run your own test case based on my approach, feel free to do so, and you are welcome to send me a PM if you require some sort of assistance.

 

Cheers.

guntest.zip

Edited by Pupo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 13
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all thank your for going through the trouble to test it and providing a file to validate your results on top of it.

 

Your results pretty much reflect my impression after flying both sides extensively in the last couple of month. You don't notice a difference in HE ammunition. So whats the take away from the stats?

 

It is surprising that in this test the German HE performed worse against its intended target than the Russian HE. The German 20mm HE had 108066 joules of destructive energy while the Russian HE only had roughly 67323 39920 joules*. A quite substantial difference. I used the OF (HE-Frag) projectile for the calculation because it has the biggest explosive filling out of the 20mm projectiles.

 

*First i used PETN for the calculation of the Russian 20mm OF projectile. According to =362nd_FS=Hiromachi the chemical filling was A-IX-2 which has a lot less explosive energy than PETN which significantly reduces the overall destructive power.

Edited by Operation_Ivy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice test :salute::salute:

 

I did a similar test in July 2017, but with the flying Bf 109 F-4 target in the 72 AG training server, and the results were similar for the MG 151/20: in my case 3.6 rounds average against the F-4.

 

FcYtN57.gif

 

What I noticed in my case is that generally there is quite a bit of dispersion, enough to make all of the averages more or less the same (not enough to give a significant difference).

 

pzgP4GQ.png

 

I calculated the deviation with your tests and made a little graph with them. Funnily enough with the MG 151/20 HE against the Bf 109 F-4 we got the same dispersion, 1.17
 

0ooSzdF.png

ZLeQ2ej.png

 

 

I think you should try your test including the Hispano and the VYa-23, and see how they compare with their different ammo as well.

Another interesting test would be with the heavy machine guns, the MG 131, UB, M2 and Breda.

 

 

My overall impression is that the dispersion is too big to compare within the same ammo types at least with the MG 151/20 and ShVAK cannons. Also we can see in this case that HE would be better than AP specially against the Yak-1B wing, at least for these two cannons. Maybe with the high velocity VYa-23 and Hispano this is the other way around (AP better than HE).

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

 

The main difference between our tests is that I was firing only one type of a shell at a time, and the fact that I was firing it from a gunner position, which allowed me place my round exactly where I wanted. On the other hand, I only considered a wing as destroyed IF the wing broke in 2 parts. While you considered several other events. 

 

With my experiment I feel confident in stating that the deviation present in our measurements is mostly a result of how the game Damage Model and not from our aiming accuracy. In other words, two impacts from the same shell, fired from the same gun, into the same target, at the same location, will result in a different amount of damage. Yet in another words: there is some randomness involved on the calculation of the damage done by a shell.

 

I will follow your lead, and If I make a similar test in the future, I will include the Standard Deviation in my results.

 

Cheers

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

It is surprising that in this test the German HE performed worse against its intended target than the Russian HE.

 

Ehm... the OP table says that the German HE took an average of 3.33 rounds to rip off the Yak's wing, whereas the Russian HE took an average of 4.11.

So the German HE apparently performed 23% better on average.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know how to accomplish it, but I think repeating this test in flight would be good to represent the in flight forces on the damaged structure. 

Thx for the effort. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I agree that the forces acting on the surfaces probably make it more destructive. My experience (subjective, non-scientific) is that Yak wings sometimes break from just 1 HE hit in high G maneuvers while it was always at least 2 in the above test. (Though we are not necessarily talking about the exact same location on the wing...)

 

Another factor is distance. With AP there may be a significant difference if you increase it.

 

BTW you say it's 1/3 AP ammo in the german 20 mm belts? Question is, do AP rounds cause the same big smoke cloud or it's just a spark when you hit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Ehm... the OP table says that the German HE took an average of 3.33 rounds to rip off the Yak's wing, whereas the Russian HE took an average of 4.11.

So the German HE apparently performed 23% better on average.

 

He wanted to compare "inteded" targets. German HE took an average of 3.33 round  to rip off the Yak's wing, but the Russian HE took an average of 3.00 to rip a 109F wing off. The test only compares the shell effectiveness by themselves though. I purposefully removed the Belt composition from the equation.

 

2 hours ago, Grim said:

I dont know how to accomplish it, but I think repeating this test in flight would be good to represent the in flight forces on the damaged structure. 

 

You'd need a lot of patience, and an assistant to fly target aircraft in front of you. If you and a friend want to do this, I can gladly help you out. I can't perform the tests myself because my internet is too unstable.

 

50 minutes ago, rolikiraly said:

BTW you say it's 1/3 AP ammo in the german 20 mm belts? Question is, do AP rounds cause the same big smoke cloud or it's just a spark when you hit?

 

Both the German and Russian AP share the same file for the impact visual effect. They produce a rather large spark.

 

The German HE, produces a huge smoke cloud with debris upon impact.

 

The Russian HE produces a brownish puff.

 

EDIT: to clarify, the ammo belting is HE-AP-HE for the 109F4. I did not check exhaustively every German 20mm belting.

Edited by Pupo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

*I used PETN for the calculation because i don't know which exact chemical the russian used in their 20mm HE. If anyone knows, i would appreciate it a lot.

I know. Russians used earlier GTT and Tetryl, but later switched exclusively to A-IX-2.

But I think it's hard to estimate what exactly should be explosive energy since we would have to establish first what kind of round is used in game.

 

Based on other thread where details of German and Soviet HE rounds in game were posted I think it could be much earlier and older type of round which is OF or OFZ . Both types used the same projectile body and the OFZ only differs from the OF in having an incendiary load located under the high explosive filler. The latter originally consisted of Tetryl, but from 1939 the 20mm projectiles were filled with GTT (75% RDX, 12.5% TNT, 12.5% Tetryl). The first 20mm OF and OFZ projectiles were fitted with the MG-3 point detonating nose fuze developed by designer N. F. Solovyev. In late 1936 the MG-3 was replace by the MG-201 nose fuze, which was also developed by N. F. Solovyev. It had a centrifugal safety mechanism to provide a certain degree of bore safety. But still some in-bore detonations occurred with this fuze. Nevertheless, the dates on MG-201 specimens prove that this fuze was used until 1940. 

Spoiler

4hC34R.png

 

On November 25th 1941 an increased production of 20mm projectiles was demanded by the Soviet High Command. During the same year the High Explosive Incendiary OZ projectile without fragmentation grooves replaced in production the OF and OFZ projectiles. The OZ was the main high explosive round during World War II and contained a considerably greater quantity of high explosive filler. Three different filler versions may be encountered: The earliest filler type consisted of 3.4gm incendiary composition ZZh-49 or DU-5 that was topped with 2.8gm GTT high explosive. In February 1942 the upper GTT pellet was replaced by the newly developed A-IX-2. This means that the incendiary composition was topped by 2.64gm A-IX-2 in the second version. Somewhat later the entire projectile was loaded with a total of 5.6gm A-IX-2, which is the final version. The OZ projectile was usually equipped with the K-6 nose fuze, designed by P. G. Shchegolev, which has an improved bore safety. This is an instantaneous action, point-detonating nose fuze that operates reliably at different striking velocities even when encountering the thin skin of an aircraft.

Spoiler

L2nxgQ.png

The performance of the Soviet 20 mm ammunition->
When hitting the 0.9 - 1.5mm thick duralumin sheet skin of an aircraft wing (wing thickness between 90 and 280mm), the OZ projectile creates an entrance hole measuring 150x160mm and an exit hole measuring 160x165mm. The projectile fragments may destroy control rods, hydraulic conduits, electrical cables or the cooling system of the aircraft engine for example. Additionally, the OZ projectile with K-6M nose fuze has some armour piercing capability. It defeats 7mm of homogeneous armour at a distance of 200m and at a striking angle of 90°. The 20mm BZ projectile defeats 16mm of homogeneous armour at a striking angle of 65° and at a range of 200m. At a distance of 400m and at an angle of 90° the projectile still penetrates 20mm of armour. It ignites gasoline in protected fuel tanks.

 

Now the only question that remains is what the heck is A-IX-2. So, A-IX-2 was a

combined high explosive incendiary composition was developed by naval engineer Eugene Grigorevich Ledin in 1940. It was developed to increase the power of armour piercing high explosive projectiles and in fact, A-IX-2 is more than twice as powerful as TNT. In February 1942 the Soviet state committee for defence decided to adopt the new high explosive incendiary composition, and by the end of that year all medium calibre projectiles were filled with it.

Volume of the gaseous products: 750 litres/kg
Explosion energy: 1,550 - 1,720 cal/kg
Detonation velocity: 7,800 - 8,510 m/sec
Explosion temperature: 4,900° C
Ignition temperature: 215 - 230° C
Specific weight: 1.65 - 1.80 gm/cc
 
A-IX-2 is 80 % mixture of A-IX-1 and 20 % aluminum powder. A-IX-1 is 95 % RDX and 5 % Wax.
Source is: "Soviet Cannon" by Christian Koll.
 
So I guess you could estimate the energy for both, earlier and later round.
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pupo said:

He wanted to compare "inteded" targets. German HE took an average of 3.33 round  to rip off the Yak's wing, but the Russian HE took an average of 3.00 to rip a 109F wing off.

That's a comparison with two variations and therefore doesn't tell much.

Is the Russian HE round that much stronger or is the 109F wing that much weaker?

Therefore I like to stick to a comparison where just one variable changes, like you did in your opening post.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

That's a comparison with two variations and therefore doesn't tell much.

Is the Russian HE round that much stronger or is the 109F wing that much weaker?

Therefore I like to stick to a comparison where just one variable changes, like you did in your opening post.

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

 

Thats some cherry picking right there! If you look at the 109f4 results the German HE took around 4 hits vs. 3 hits for Russian HE, contrary to the yak1 test.  So do stick to only one variable for tit-for-tat comparisons, but do not cherry pick how you fix other variables :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not cherry picking, it's just sticking to things you can compare by just changing one variable.

You can of course also compare left side to right side as long as you stick to the same ammo, and then the questions would be "what makes the german rounds more effective against a Yak's wing than a 109F wing?" or "what makes the russian rounds less effective against a Yak's wing than a 109F wing?" respectively.

You could also ask "what's so special about a 109F wing that it's more vulnerable to russian than german HE rounds when a Yak wing is more vulnerable to german than russian HE rounds vice versa?", because either the first set of questions or this second one should hold the answer to what we see or believe to have seen, or both.

 

Nevertheless, Mixing two variables and concluding the summarized question "why is the german HE round weaker than the russian one?" anticipates an answer to the above mentioned questions which we just don't have - yet.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

It's not cherry picking, it's just sticking to things you can compare by just changing one variable.

 

2 aircraft choices are the fixed variable. Identical experiments performed against each individual variable. You choose to "fix" one aircraft that shows that Russian HE performs worse, whereas an identical experiment, but with a different fixed variable shows opposite performance. The way to deal with such discrepancy is not to cherry pick a single aircraft and use it as a point of discussion, but to either understand the mechanical reason for discrepancy, or start taking averages over the variable.

 

2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

You can of course also compare left side to right side as long as you stick to the same ammo, and then the questions would be "what makes the german rounds more effective against a Yak's wing than a 109F wing?" or "what makes the russian rounds less effective against a Yak's wing than a 109F wing?" respectively.

 

We are comparing Russian HE vs German HE against "an X aircraft wing". You choose to take X = yak, disregarding the X = 109 case.

 

2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

You could also ask "what's so special about a 109F wing that it's more vulnerable to russian than german HE rounds when a Yak wing is more vulnerable to german than russian HE rounds vice versa?", because either the first set of questions or this second one should hold the answer to what we see or believe to have seen, or both.

 

However you previous posts clearly make generic statements, rather than specific ones :

 

"So the German HE apparently performed 23% better on average."

 

"Is the Russian HE round that much stronger or is the 109F wing that much weaker?"

is a wrong question to ask  too, as if 109f wing was that much weaker it would also be weaker towards German HE. Again, generic statement based on cherry picked data.

 

2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Nevertheless, Mixing two variables and concluding the summarized question "why is the german HE round weaker than the russian one?" anticipates an answer to the above mentioned questions which we just don't have - yet.

 

Nobody is mixing two variables in the provided experimental results actually. These variables are clearly separated and show different results, both of the results are valid, sticking only to one is wrong.

 

2 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

Cheers!

not Mike. :)

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xJammer @SAS_Storebror

 

None of you is wrong. Unfortunately two data points are not enough to define a trend. I will try to make the test using two new targets tonight. Probably the FW190 (metal wing) and the La5 (wood wing(?)).  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whats the problem here but i don't think this going anywhere productive so lets focus on the issue at hand again:

 

 

Why are the results of the german and russian 20mm HE so similar when the german 20mm packs more than twice the punch?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Pupo said:

@xJammer @SAS_Storebror

 

None of you is wrong. Unfortunately two data points are not enough to define a trend. I will try to make the test using two new targets tonight. Probably the FW190 (metal wing) and the La5 (wood wing(?)).  

 

That'd be a good idea probably, as we're all about to enter debates of the "who's right who's wrong" kind and by referring to my signature, this is not my cup of tea.

When I said "german HE performs 23% better" I clearly referred to the "intended target" which, for the german HE ammo, hopefully isn't the 109F wing. That's all.

Other than that, just as you said, we need more data to make up a trend.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another way of looking at it is that the Russian planes are more resistant to friendly fire. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added test results with the spitfire and the La5. Some curious notes about the testing, that aren't entirely relevant for the thread:

 

- Despite being shot at ~mid wing, the spitfire wing brakes at the root.

- The yak and the La5 when hit by armour piercing armour will catch fire very easily, despite the test planes having no ammo nor fuel.

- The spitfire bounces A LOT, when hit by the german HE shell. Like, It jumps into the sky half a meter and comes back down facing 45º of its original direction.

- When you deprive one aircraft of one wing, you can shoot as many rounds to the second wing as you want. They will not fall off.

- AP rounds will  sometimes ricochet when hitting wings.

- One La5s8's engine cought fire during testing.

- One spitfire wing took 17 DE HE rounds to de-wing. I decided to run the entire test bank again. This was probably a bug.

Edited by Pupo
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it is possible,

 

can anyone make german 20-mm "Brandsprenggranatpatrone" - i.e. just combine german AP and soviet HEI?

 

plus standard ammobelts "API + HEI + HEI + M-G + M-G" and "API + HEI or M-G"?

 

Edited by bivalov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bivalov said:

if it is possible,

 

can anyone make german 20-mm "Brandsprenggranatpatrone" - i.e. just combine german AP and soviet HEI?

 

plus standard ammobelts "API + HEI + HEI + M-G + M-G" and "API + HEI or M-G"?

 

 

Could you clarify a bit more what you want? Do you want a test bench where instead of using only "HE" or "AP" you use the correct standard ammo belts? What is "M-G" ? 

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30.3.2018 at 5:22 PM, Pupo said:

- When you deprive one aircraft of one wing, you can shoot as many rounds to the second wing as you want. They will not fall off.

 

That is odd. I could swear that i shot a Yak a few days ago in QM in a headon and it lost both wings. Maybe both wings fall off at the same time because it was such a rare case that i remember it. Normally i never ever saw that happening. Seems to be that as soon as one wing is lost, the other one gets indestructable like you saw it in your tests. But thats not a big deal as long as one wing breaks like it should. Good find Pupo. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 минуту назад, Pupo сказал:

Do you want a test bench where instead of using only "HE" or "AP" you use the correct standard ammo belts? What is "M-G" ? 

 

i want to compare Minengeschoss (M-G), which we already have, 

 

with german HEI (which have ballistics, weight etc like german API, and filling like soviet HEI = probably, just mix of code of german API and soviet HEI)

 

i.e. current ammobelt "API + M-G + M-G" with "API + HEI + HEI",

 

plus want to try historical ammo belts "API + HEI + HEI + M-G + M-G" and "API + M-G" / "API + HEI"

 

Edited by bivalov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, as far as I've been able to decipher, the game only has 2 types of bullets for the german 20mm cannons. One is HE, the other is AP. The german HE round, upon impact, will call a script named "tnt20g_frag70g_He_expl_object.txt". For reference, the russian HE round upon impact will call a script named "tnt2g_frag90g_He_expl_object.txt". So, there's only one type of German He round to test.

 

I'm afraid I'm out of time to run the test using the ingame beltings: HE-AP-HE, for the 109F4, and AP-HE-AP for the yak1b. But the orignal test files and mod are available, in the OP. If you have some time, give it a try.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bivalov said:

 

i want to compare Minengeschoss (M-G), which we already have, 

 

and german HEI (which have almost same ballistics, weight etc with german API, and same filling with soviet HEI = probably, just mix of code of german API and soviet HEI)

 

plus want to check historical ammo belts - "API + HEI + HEI + M-G + M-G" and "API + M-G" / "API + HEI"

 

and for these purposes is need german HEI and ammo belts "API + M-G + M-G",  "API + HEI + HEI + M-G + M-G"  and "API + M-G" / "API + HEI"

 

 

As far as i know, Minengeschosse are not modelled in IL-2. They work as normal HE. 

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2018 at 11:22 AM, Pupo said:

- When you deprive one aircraft of one wing, you can shoot as many rounds to the second wing as you want. They will not fall off.

 

 

Yes, it's a strange thing with the damage model - aircraft will simply not shed both wings - only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely remember having lost both my wings in a 110 once on a low level bombrun, forgot to set bomb delay so ended up in a self-kill.

That was 2.012d, but I'd be surprised to see this having changed in 3.0.

So it might rather be a matter of what happens when.

But it's somehow off topic here anyway, so I'm just saying for reference.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I can definitely remember having lost both my wings in a 110 once on a low level bombrun, forgot to set bomb delay so ended up in a self-kill.

That was 2.012d, but I'd be surprised to see this having changed in 3.0.

So it might rather be a matter of what happens when.

But it's somehow off topic here anyway, so I'm just saying for reference.

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

 

It's definitely possible. After depriving the aircraft of one wing, the second wing will never fall off during (my)static testing, but it will tear and become a dongle. There is no indication that High g forces while flying would not finish the job on that wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second wing - it will not fall off, ever. 

 

Its not not a bug, it's a feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The second wing - it will not fall off, ever. 

 

Its not not a bug, it's a feature.


While this is physically questionable, I cant remember the last time I wanted to shoot of the second wing. But I guess some people really want to seal the deal. :D

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One curious observation that seems to be missing from the discussion is how does the wing fall off at all if the AP is shot at the non-structural part of the wing? Is it just the spread (is it possible to eliminate it with the mod?) or is it again the hidden healthbars on the "wing" as a whole, on top of the individual components?

 

Wing breaking off at the root is also very poorly modelled. The more of these test are made the more it looks like the DM is not as great as some people claim it to be around here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

One curious observation that seems to be missing from the discussion is how does the wing fall off at all if the AP is shot at the non-structural part of the wing? Is it just the spread (is it possible to eliminate it with the mod?) or is it again the hidden healthbars on the "wing" as a whole, on top of the individual components?

 

Wing breaking off at the root is also very poorly modelled. The more of these test are made the more it looks like the DM is not as great as some people claim it to be around here...

 

From the angle I'm shooting the aircraift ( 6'o clock, target is parked) the AP bullet would definitely be going through the main spar of the wing.

 

Only the spitfire wing breaks at the root. While most aircraft seem to have 3 break points for the wing (root, mid section, tip), the spitfire appears to have only 2 (root, tip). But I didn't exhaustively tested this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can lose both wings. But I think the second wing only can be lost "indirectly" and not with guns. In the video with fire.
 

 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^that video proves my point, actually - not that it is a big deal or is really relevant to the topic.

 

while you did show parts of each wing coming off - both wings will not separate completely from the fuselage. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Operation_Ivy said:

So is there anything coming out of this or how are things progressing from now on?

 

Well, If someone can provide historical sources / testing results showing that something is not consistent with the data I collected, an suggestion can be made to the mods. My gut tells me that the Ap rounds are overly powerful overall, and that the German HE round should be better at de-wining an aircraft than the the russian HE. But we all have guts, what is needed is sources.

 

As for progress, I might do a similar test, shooting at different areas, and with air targets instead of parked ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pupo said:

 

Well, If someone can provide historical sources / testing results showing that something is not consistent with the data I collected, an suggestion can be made to the mods. My gut tells me that the Ap rounds are overly powerful overall, and that the German HE round should be better at de-wining an aircraft than the the russian HE. But we all have guts, what is needed is sources.

 

As for progress, I might do a similar test, shooting at different areas, and with air targets instead of parked ones. 

 

I should be able to provide sources for the Minengeschoss and do the math, however i lack historical sources on the Shvak and i don't speak russian.

 

Further testing would be fantastic!

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for your testing Pupo! :salute:

 

 

 

I'm sure this article is familiar to many but just in case someone hasn't seen it: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm. At the end of the article there is a table where Henning Ruch has calculated combined potential destructive energy (kinematic + chemical) for WWII aircraft weapons and it is combined with Tony Williams' own analysis.

Edited by LLv34_Wmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quote from the article Wmaker linked. I highlited the comparison 151/20Minengeshoss vs Hispano. In game spit have 2 cannon, but 109 have only 1 cannon, that mean also something.

 

 

" Clearly, the resulting scores can only be approximate, and in particular will vary depending on the particular mix of types included in an ammunition belt. The power calculation takes a typical mix of ammunition, where known. They also take no account of the fact that some incendiary mixtures, and some types of HE, were more effective than others. However, they do provide a reasonable basis for comparison. There is no point in trying to be too precise, as the random factors involved in the destructive effects were considerable.

If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores. Also, the Luftwaffe reckoned that it took about four or five times as many 20 mm shells to destroy a heavy bomber as it did 30 mm rounds. The power relationship here is 3.6 times for the MK 108 and 6.2 times for the MK 103, which neatly brackets this observation. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for being dead for a while. I felt sick and had to rest for a couple of days. 

 

I've gone ahead and performed the test using the Hispano cannon. The results were.... surprising. I greatly encourage someone else to reproduce my results. Also, here are some of the parameters for the 3 shells straight from the game files:

 

  speed mass TNT equivalent Radius
Hispano AP 798 0.165 -------- --------
Hispano HE 868 0.130 0.0113 3.5
MG151 AP 705 0.117 -------- --------
MG151 HE 805 0.0897 0.0200 3.0
SHVAK AP 815 0.096 -------- --------
SHVAK HE 815 0.091 0.0026 3.0

 

I'm assuming the radius is some sort of "explosion radius" parameter.

 

Finally, a pretty but pretty useless plot of the averages to de-wing a plane:

 

image.thumb.png.fb5f045a1ff57e3a09a8bb7eda0d19fa.png

 

I'm very suspicious of the German AP on spitfire mkV test. it just fails to follow the "pattern". Might have to redo the

whole German AP tests to be sure I didn't do a mistake.

Edited by Pupo
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again for the testing trials!

 

Very interesting to see how good the Hispanos perform when their game file numbers are nothing out of the ordinary.

 

Generally the file numbers seem to be accurate with historical data in some cases and in others they are wrong.  The MG 151 HE mass for example should 0,095 instead of 0.087. Also i see no reason why the Hispano should have a radius of 3.5?

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...