Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have started up a P39 career and have been noticing that the cannon when i can get a hit with it barely doing any damage when hitting the body of the aircraft (light aircraft specifically) , the wings blow right off but the BF 109 isn't exactly a tank in that regard. What was strange to me was i was hitting the body multiple times with the melon lobber and if it wasn't a pilot kill the aircraft seemed to be damaged very little otherwise.

 

I guess i am just wondering if anybody else has had this experience with the 37mm cannon or am i just assuming it does more damage than it actually does. From doing research about its damage it seems even 1 hit is enough to bring an aircraft to its knees but i am hitting a small fighter 4+ times and it is sometimes still able to be defensive and in some cases outrun me at low altitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar experience here. Sometimes I need multiple hits with 37mm to down single engine fighter. However, I think most of the time the target is seriously damaged after the first hit. I also expected more spectacular damage to be honest.

On the other hand the cannon's ballistics surprised me quite positively.

Edited by 312_Lazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea i was surprised by the velocity not being as slow as i thought, the fire rate could be better though. I would like to assume the aircraft is damaged quite a lot but what amazes me is the ability for it to still pull defensive and sometimes aggressive maneuvers. on one occasion i had multiple hits to the tail of a bf 109 and nothing had even blown off yet and i could see that it was still functioning. The tail seems to be the worst place to hit with the big ole 37, so many times it results in little to no damage. 

 

I have tested it on other fighter aircraft as well and its the same story for pretty much all of them, body hits do very little and a wing hit is an insta kill every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can second the observation regarding the hull and wings hits. There's this going discussion about the modelling of HE ammo that they're effectively modelled as fragmentation rounds without blast damage, the size of the caliber dictating how many fragments a bullet generates on hit (think of it as a shotgun shell on impact). Now if this is true (we have no direct confirmation from the devs afaik), hitting the tailsection would lead to a fragmentation blast that would go mostly into the armor plating in front of the fuel tank and pilot, meaning most damage will get soaked up there (assuming the generated fragments currently aren't stronger than your average 8mm bullet). The wings do not have any such soaking capability and end up being shot off more easily (which seems to chime well with other observations regarding 8mm bullets being able to shoot off wings without too much of a problem).

 

This is still a lot of conjecture though until we get more info from the devs.

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is approximately the same situation with the mk108 HE on the LW side - individual hits do not do too much damage to the fuselage, but are a guaranteed wing rip if hit. Pe2 from my tests sometimes manages to survive 3-4 mk108 hits if they aren't grouped on a single part of the aircraft. Direct engine hits just result in black smoke rather than stoppage.

 

In comparison, the 37mm p-39 HE load is approx 40g, while the mk108 30mm HE load is 80g of a more potent explosive (1.2 vs 1.6 yield factor)

 

 

HE damage has gotten better and ripping the wings off, but still lacks fuselage damage and doesn't cripple the aircrafts manoeuvrability or performance that badly, as far as I tested it.

Edited by JaffaCake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember reading about some tests done by the British in WW2 with  cannon shells where they said that cannon shells from dead 6 were not always as effective as might be expected while bullets often did more than might be expected.  Something to do with cannon shells passing through singly while bullets tended to hit parts and spin doing a lot of damage and there were more of them?

 

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I seem to remember reading about some tests done by the British in WW2 with  cannon shells where they said that cannon shells from dead 6 were not always as effective as might be expected while bullets often did more than might be expected.  Something to do with cannon shells passing through singly while bullets tended to hit parts and spin doing a lot of damage and there were more of them?

 

 

Where would that cannon shell exit if it's indeed a dead 6 shot? I would assume there's only the pilot, fuel tank or engine in the way and hitting any of those should have marked impact:D Got a resource on that? Would be an interesting read.

 

Or was it in regards to more angled shots (so no pure 6 straight down the axis) where the bullet exited the hull before detonating? Hurricanes it's said often had this effect where the canvas draping on the rear fuselage wouldn't trigger the 20mm explosives due to lack of resistance and they would exit out of tail without even detonating.

 

That being said, I don't think it's a factor in this particular discussion.

 

Edited by Mauf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably just the War Office making excuses for why the BoB pilots still had .303s instead of cannons :-)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

It was probably just the War Office making excuses for why the BoB pilots still had .303s instead of cannons :-)

 

This. Also explains the standard 'harmonise bullet streams at 500 ft, open fire (as a formation!) at 700, keep squeezing the trigger till at 300, then break away' tactic.

 

Mad.  

Edited by Diggun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen photos, as we all have, of Thunderbolts coming back with huge holes in their fuselage from 20mm shells. I can understand that because of the sheer size of that fuselage. A shell can hit, and while causing massive damage to the skin, still not affect anything vital.

 We don't have Jugs yet. We are flying much smaller airplanes. Yak 1's, 109's, Spitfires....they are relatively small fighters. That means everything behind you is packed in to a fairly small space. I don't see how a couple of 20mm rounds exploding  inside of one of these machines could not cut control cables, cause oxygen tanks to light up, or cause the fuselage fuel tank to ignite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already published it elsewhere. The results obtained in the game are different from those indicated by Pokryshkin and other Russian aces in which a brief burst of the machine guns and the cannon destroyed any German plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be of interest. 3 x 20 mm cannon, 180 shells, 30 hits. Interestingly Deighton thinks 20 hits probably necessary to bring down a Lanc.

 

If you ever want to feel guilty as you run in on a bomber in game, just remember this!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done some more testing and it seems that something is definitely amiss here. It does seem like there is no blast damage at all being dealt to the body of the aircraft. I have tested out the HE rounds and the AP and from what I can see is they only act differently on the wings of small fighters. The AP will not always result in a wing being blown off wich I guess makes sense but the HE will 90% of the time blow off the wing. But on the body they act very similarly with around the same amounts of hits needed to down the aircraft. It sure seems like it could be a HE  damage model issue not having the explosive effect that blows components off like it should be when hitting the tail directly for example. 

 

Other than that I quite like the bird. It's definitely growing on me, even though it's kinda slow and has a very twitchy nose making gunnery a little tricky at times. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

Other than that I quite like the bird. It's definitely growing on me, even though it's kinda slow and has a very twitchy nose making gunnery a little tricky at times.

 

This is a recurring issue... - set the water radiator to 60% and the oil to 45% in the P-39. On a combat power you can get to 520km/h on the deck; on WEP hitting 570km/h is achievable. Whenever possible fly around 3km altitude - you will get +100hp more for the engine. Removing 30cals will help too.

 

 

 

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

This is a recurring issue... - set the water radiator to 60% and the oil to 45% in the P-39. On a combat power you can get to 520km/h on the deck; on WEP hitting 570km/h is achievable. Whenever possible fly around 3km altitude - you will get +100hp more for the engine. Removing 30cals will help too.

 

 

 

Thanks for the tips! i have been following this for the water radiator but i was setting the oil rad to high. my mixture is set to 66% for normal and combat power and i raise it for WEP power is that the correct thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

Thanks for the tips! i have been following this for the water radiator but i was setting the oil rad to high. my mixture is set to 66% for normal and combat power and i raise it for WEP power is that the correct thing to do?

 

Yes - 66% for nominal/combat, 90% mix for 51" manifold pressure (so called take-off power in specs), 100% mix for full power. The rads have lowest drag at the 60%/45% water/oil - it's when they are flush with fuselage and setting them lower will increase drag, actually.

 

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

Yes - 66% for nominal/combat, 90% mix for 51" manifold pressure (so called take-off power in specs), 100% mix for full power.

 

Thanks i will be flying her with much more confidence now that i wont blow the engine!

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...