[BUG REPORT] 20mm HE Ammunition

[E69_geramos109]

On 6/26/2018 at 9:39 AM, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

I tried but they either didn't know who is responsible or didn't reply in the first place.

Send it to Han

[Guest deleted@103832]

I appreciate all the work put into this, and I'm curious if it's actually a bug.

[Velxra]

Ahh so the presumptions of the damage model being slightly off appear to be true. Lets hope the devs finally address this long standing oversight. 

[MK_RED13]

News from developers? Why is MG underpowered? Why is ShVak overpowered? 

 

Ed.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

3 minutes ago, MK_RED13 said:

News from developers? Why is MG underpowered? Why is ShVak overpowered? 

 

Ed.

 

Short answer: Nothing new.

 

However that doesn't necessarily mean that they are unaware of the issue.

[Ehret]

40 minutes ago, MK_RED13 said:

News from developers? Why is MG underpowered? Why is ShVak overpowered?

 

Per a single round?

 

Did those tests account for the momentum?

 

From my subjective experience flying the La-5/F I wouldn't say the ShVaks were that much better than the 50cals in the P-39...

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

@LukeFF, I see you are a tester. I also see that you are mentioned in the credits as some sort of historical data expert. Additionally you seem to be friends with Jason. I would like to thank you for the effort you put in towards this game.

When I look at your comments and reactions, you seem to ridicule and oppose a lot of work that is being put in by other members of this Community especially when those arguments are not anti LW (e.g. you laugh at Ivy’s status update). I would really like you to think about the kind of impression your behavior leaves on this board in regards to the team.

[Cpt_Siddy]

Have any of you ever wondered why we no longer use mineshot like drawn steel case ammunition today? 

 

There must be *some* downside to them that phased them out. Perhaps this exact downside is modeled in and you are just not aware of it. 

[Ehret]

34 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

There must be *some* downside to them that phased them out. Perhaps this exact downside is modeled in and you are just not aware of it. 

 

They sacrificed density to carry that much HE filler thus they have much less inertia than some others shells. They have poor fragmentation due to thin walls and the high brisance explosive used. Lastly, the explosion effects don't scale linearly with the explosive mass - 2x of HE doesn't result in 2x of damage inflicted.

 

Then a weapon should be considered as whole - not just one element (like a single round) in isolation...

Edited July 6, 2018 by Ehret

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

They sacrificed density to carry that much HE filler thus they have much less inertia than some others shells. They have poor fragmentation due to thin walls and the high brisance explosive used. Lastly, the explosion effects don't scale linearly with the explosive mass - 2x of HE doesn't result in 2x of damage inflicted.

 

Then a weapon should considered as whole - not just one element (like a single round) in isolation...

 

 

So are you saying, that round with damage potential that is largely contingent on the pressure it generates. Paired with piss poor penetration characteristics due to its construction. And in result it does frack all damage if not detonated inside, say, compact wing structure? 

 

Who knew. 

 

And here i was, thinking how dumb the other nations were, with not stuffing their ammunition to the brim with High explosives. Its almost like they don't have their own scientists doing research.  

On 6/8/2018 at 3:45 PM, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

 

 The Hispano cannon ingame file says it got 47 fragments. The Minengeschoss only 30

 

You are forgetting to see the forest from the trees. 

 

What the file have is the average amount of fragments that justify damage calculations.

The M-shot might produce 100000 fragments, but if most of them are literally sand, they don't justify the damage calculations. 

If M shot produce too many small fragments, it is not unreasonable to model the shot so, that only 30 of said gazillion fragments its produces justify chance for damage. 

And there is physical evidence to support the fact that many fragments produced by M-shot fall in to the "too small" category. 

 

 

However you look at it, either it is a test films made in war time, reports or approach this matter from calculation side. Mineshot is not wunderwaffe. 

It is specialized HE ammo that require steep angle of contact to penetrate properly (failure to do so renders M-shot largely ineffective). If anything, the ineffectiveness of it at straight 6 and other shallow angles is modeled correctly. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

However you look at it, either it is a test films made in war time, reports or approach this matter from calculation side. Mineshot is not wunderwaffe. 

It is specialized HE ammo that require steep angle of contact to penetrate properly (failure to do so renders M-shot largely ineffective). If anything, the ineffectiveness of it at straight 6 and other shallow angles is modeled correctly. 

 

And there is the obsession with causing catastrophic structural failures... There is no practical difference if the target lost a wing or dropped more slowly - it will be out of the fight either way. Effective weapon doesn't have to be spectacular at all thought the later might be more enjoyable in the game.

 

Measuring odds of survival after a hit would be a better test, imho.

[Cpt_Siddy]

12 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

And there is the obsession with causing catastrophic structural failures...

 

That is because this is game, and the risk of player to pursue revenge, even with holes in him is higher in here than in real life. In real life, holes in plane is usually enough to make most pilots try to save his skin. And enemy plane pursuing him to secure the "kill" is also far less likely. 

 

This is why, if your Aryan war mount don't turn your average Asiatic delta-wood plane in to kindling from the first hit, the weapon is clearly under preforming. 

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

 

2 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

What the file have is the average amount of fragments that justify damage calculations.

The M-shot might produce 100000 fragments, but if most of them are literally sand, they don't justify the damage calculations. 

 

It seems like you didn't even bother to read the whole OP but decided to start shit posting in here anyway.

 

14 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

This is why, if your Aryan war mount don't turn your average Asiatic delta-wood plane in to kindling from the first hit, the weapon is clearly under preforming. 

 

It would be great if you could leave your obvious agenda at the door. I appreciate every civil comment but you are simply in here to turn it into just another shit posting thread with your snarky comments without any respect to others. This is not supposed to be the TAW Thread but actually a productive discussion to change the game for the better. If you disagree with the results come back with your own tests, historical data or any other valid source and i am happy to discuss it with you.

 

As long as you stay the way you are i am not going to comment on your posts any further and i can only advise everyone to do the same to keep this discussion civil and productive.

 

 

[Cpt_Siddy]

2 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

 

 

 It seems like you didn't even bother to read the whole OP but decided to start shit posting in here anyway.

 

 

 

 

How about you tell us the actual reason based on real physics, why minbeshot is under preforming, and not this high school drop out math? 

 

Tell us, why light weight ammo with questionable ballistics, poor in flight stability and and total reliance on its explosive effect (not even fragmentation) to cause any real damage, (apart of small hole it causes without HE) needs to outperform hispano 20mm?  

 

As far as i have seen is the same logic that justified the construction of other German... well, things. (Maus, *cough* *cough*)

 

Luftwaffel are trully the orkz of ww2   More explosive = more dakka = more effective  

 

 

 

 

Lets take a look at some modern ammo, you are hard pressed to find fillings going past 50g in modern 30mm ammo. And we have access to better materials and electronics (timed and proximity fuses) to justify shooting what essentially amounts to dynamite sticks with tin foil. And we still see them being supplemented with tungsten alloy base for better flight stability and better ballistics and not going full retard with HE filling. There is myriad effects that needs to be accounted damage modelling.

 

Have you considered the % of hits that hit at poor angle because the mine shot is so nose heavy and wobble allot during spin? That can be transferred with roughly 40% of hits hitting at shallow angles that causes either key holing and/or failing to activate the contact fuse at correct time (if at all, fuse can be damaged on side impact). Have you taken this in to account in your models? 

 

I can play the devils advocate here all day and night, but this song and dance of mineshot under preforming is nothing new. It has existed since original il2 and there is still people that insist the minshot being just a few grams short of bombs that took out Hiroshima. But when your ammo struggles to penetrate thin skin of the aircraft in anything but the ideal conditions, you need more than this to convince me that the current MODELED performance is not sufficient. 

 

 

Let me however extend you an olive branch, there is more case made in your source material for claim that some 50 cals over perform (catastrophic structural damage) than 20mm cannons over or under preform. ( the 23mm is a whole other can of worms) 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

When I look at your comments and reactions, you seem to ridicule and oppose a lot of work that is being put in by other members of this Community especially when those arguments are not anti LW (e.g. you laugh at Ivy’s status update). I would really like you to think about the kind of impression your behavior leaves on this board in regards to the team.

 

I'm laughing at some of the same old reactions I see here from the same people ("why is this OP, underpowered? / why no reply from devs? / nerfed, pls fix!!!"). I have no beef with Ivy doing his tests, only his conclusion that there is a bug. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by LukeFF

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

7 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

-snip-

 

you seem to ridicule and oppose a lot of work that is being put in by other members of this Community especially when those arguments are not anti LW

 

-snip-

 

If anything, I think Luke is pretty damned impartial.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I'm laughing at some of the same old reactions I see here from the same people ("why is this OP, underpowered? / why no reply from devs? / nerfed, pls fix!!!"). I have no beef with Ivy doing his tests, only his conclusion that there is a bug. 

 

I did not take any offense

 

I don't know if it is supposed to be called a bug or simply a design choice, which would be questionable in my opinion. However i want to clear something up. While the Minengeschoss gets a lot of attention, i wasn't particularly aiming to improve its performs but rather bring it in line with the 20mm Shvak and 20mm Hispano. Even after doing these tests i can't figure out a systematic behind it. For example i was expecting that the devs value Fragmentation more than anything else but this doesn't make sense looking at the Shvak. Feel free to share your view on the matter.

 

It would also be completely sufficient to me if a developer would convincingly comment on this and explain why the results are like they are. It seems that, looking at the popularity of this thread, a lot of people are wondering about the same thing.

[Inkophile]

1 hour ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

It would also be completely sufficient to me if a developer would convincingly comment on this and explain why the results are like they are. It seems that, looking at the popularity of this thread, a lot of people are wondering about the same thing.

 

This would be very, very appreciated. I mean... we for example lack any kind of even remotely detailed modelling of hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical systems, and even the mechanical linkages appear quite simplified. For example I am pretty sure that undercarriage failure can't happen unless the undercarriage itself is hit, and we don't have any way to lose functionality of pneumatically or eletrically fired weapons.

 

Since we lack such a hyper-detailed damage model there might be very good reasons for the relative damage between the different projectiles, but it's very hard to do anything beyond speculations with whatever information we actually can put to use since there are many factors, decisions and thought processes hidden to us.

[unreasonable]

To mis-quote Otto von Bismark:  

 

"To retain respect for FMs and DMs, one must not watch them in the making. The making of simulations, like the making of sausages, is not a pretty sight."

 

The reality is of course that there are always going to be people who like these kind of games that are going to enjoy trying to reverse engineer them to see how they work.  I would prefer much greater transparency too, but I think we are not going to get it, not so much because there is valuable IP to protect - at least in the case of the DM - but because the developers have just decided that they cannot be bothered to deal with the community "feedback" on this kind of thing. 

 

Hence the burden of proof position they take: they will make changes, but you have to prove that they have something clearly and obviously wrong.  This is extremely difficult:  IMHO the OP has not done it, he has only showed that the results of his tests are not consistent with his assumptions about what should be driving the amount of damage, but these assumptions themselves are at least as questionable as the test results.

 

Perhaps if people could replicate the very systematic tests done in the US comparative damage report ADA800394 and find an inconsistency their results would be more compelling.

 

  

 

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Talks about the DMs will go on forever. Ultimately any system just sums and compares numbers assigned to projectiles and simplified airframe 'chunks'. 

 

Even if every piece of data is taken into account, the realism will still fall apart in some cases. Only a small number of distinct failures can be accurately modelled without increasing the number of 'chunks' and rewriting the relations between them. 

 

Many people like to talk about parameters such as pressure, fragmentation, and energy. However, none of these translate directly to game damage models. The only way to really achieve 'realism' is to increase the complexity of the DM. That's not possible for obvious reasons.

 

[Ehret]

9 hours ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

I don't know if it is supposed to be called a bug or simply a design choice, which would be questionable in my opinion. However i want to clear something up. While the Minengeschoss gets a lot of attention, i wasn't particularly aiming to improve its performs but rather bring it in line with the 20mm Shvak and 20mm Hispano. Even after doing these tests i can't figure out a systematic behind it. For example i was expecting that the devs value Fragmentation more than anything else but this doesn't make sense looking at the Shvak. Feel free to share your view on the matter.

 

Are the fighters' wings appropriate test targets? This way you are testing two things at once - cannon rounds and individual DMs - any anomalies may be due to later.

 

Consider rate of fire - those cannons ain't 37mm M4 - you are expected to land a burst with them.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Ehret

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Hence the burden of proof position they take: they will make changes, but you have to prove that they have something clearly and obviously wrong.  This is extremely difficult:  IMHO the OP has not done it, he has only showed that the results of his tests are not consistent with his assumptions about what should be driving the amount of damage, but these assumptions themselves are at least as questionable as the test results.

 

Perhaps if people could replicate the very systematic tests done in the US comparative damage report ADA800394 and find an inconsistency their results would be more compelling.

 

Like i said before, these tests are far from perfect and the calculations behind it are simplified and don't match real life testing (like the ADA800394*). However i have to disagree with you that they don't proof anything. While the DM in IL2 is ahead of its competitors, it is still a simple DM as far as i can tell. That's why it doesn't make sense to get into as much detail like the ADA800394. Not to mention that it is probably impossible to set up a mission this way.  I am the opinion that the results show a clear discrepancy not just because of my calculations. While H. Ruch is, like i said, not the best source you could wish for, he still comes to the same conclusion. Of course i would love the have a report like the one you mentioned including the 20mms but sadly we don't have that.

I think People focus too much on the Minengeschoss and forget about the bigger picture. Comparing all of the 20mm shows something isn't adding up, especially when you look at the second test.

 

At the very least, i think the results warrant to ask questions, especially because it is a topic that many people are obviously interested in/concerned with.

 

2 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Talks about the DMs will go on forever. Ultimately any system just sums and compares numbers assigned to projectiles and simplified airframe 'chunks'. 

 

Even if every piece of data is taken into account, the realism will still fall apart in some cases. Only a small number of distinct failures can be accurately modelled without increasing the number of 'chunks' and rewriting the relations between them. 

 

Many people like to talk about parameters such as pressure, fragmentation, and energy. However, none of these translate directly to game damage models. The only way to really achieve 'realism' is to increase the complexity of the DM. That's not possible for obvious reasons.

 

I completely agree. 

 

However this doesn't mean that game file changes/adjustments should be out of the picture. Looking at the results, you could come to the conclusion that the Shvak and Minengeschoss are simply not on the same standard like the "new" modeled 20mm Hispano.

 

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

Are the fighters' wings appropriate test targets? This way you are testing two things at once - cannon rounds and individual DMs - any anomalies may be due to later.

 

Consider rate of fire - those cannons ain't 37mm M4 - you are expected to land a burst with them.

 

That's why every round was tested against 3 different wing.

 

The rate of fire was modded to 1 round per second. I hope i understand you correctly?

 

*For people who aren't familiar with the ADA800394 test: It was a test done at the Aberdeen proving grounds testing the airplane vulnerability and overall armament effectiveness. It goes into much detail (angle of attack, probability of certain damage scenarios etc etc.) but sadly they didn't test any 20mm except from the HEI M97 and 20mm INC M96. However the 30mm Minengschoss is tested in it with interesting results.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Operatsiya_Ivy

[Ehret]

26 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

The rate of fire was modded to 1 round per second. I hope i understand you correctly?

 

In the reverse - to evaluate fire power of a weapon properly you have multiply results by RoF. In practice those cannons are used firing bursts and they differ in rates. Because your summary is based on "1 round/s" you are making the MG151/20 (+20% RoF than Hispano MkII) to look much weaker than it is in actual combat.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

That is not what this test is about. Otherwise i could also leave AP ammunition in the mix, which would make the german 20mm even weaker. I don't have a hidden agenda to buff Minengeschosse, I want a historically accurate depiction of them as far as it is possible. Same goes for the Shvak and Hispano.

[Ehret]

35 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

That is not what this test is about. Otherwise i could also leave AP ammunition in the mix, which would make the german 20mm even weaker. I don't have a hidden agenda to buff Minengeschosse, I want a historically accurate depiction of them as far as it is possible. Same goes for the Shvak and Hispano.

 

But it is only a coincidence that to make the M-osse "historically accurate" it needs a buff...

Yet, historically those rounds were fired from belts, in bursts and by multiple guns at once. Lot of the "M" fame came from shooting at big planes with big wings/fuselage surfaces.

 

I reread your notes and your use of "destructive energy" is an incorrect term - it suggests that it's the energy amount doing the actual destruction when it can not be. It is the total energy input and only (obviously) a part of it can do usable work. How much? I don't know but not 100% for sure. Stuff that weights more can retain more of it for longer, usually.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Ehret

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

It does not necessarily needs a "buff". It is also possible that the other two get adjusted accordingly. I am not going to go into a long discussion about the "M-fame" but most of it stems from picture with single round hits. Feel free to make a test yourself to compare the burst mass of the 20mm types. Again this test is not about this. It is trying to provide a platform on which the 20mm HE types can be compared with. 

 

Like i said before, i am not a physic/ballistic/mathematics scientist. Again, feel free to correct the calculation or come up with a better way to compare the different types. In the end there must be some way to calculate things because otherwise it will be pure guess work, putting random numbers into the game files. The Devs very likely did some calculations/evaluation to come up with the numbers and that's what i am very interested about. Considering that assumptions, this might very well be the case. However i still fail to see any consistency when it comes to the different 20mm HE types.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2018 by Operatsiya_Ivy

[Ehret]

43 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

It does not necessarily needs a "buff". It is also possible that the other two get adjusted accordingly. I am not going to go into a long discussion about the "M-fame" but most of it stems from picture with single round hits. Feel free to make a test yourself to compare the burst mass of the 20mm types. Again this test is not about this. It is trying to provide a platform on which the 20mm HE types can be compared with.

 

Pictures of affected single engine fighters show lots of peeled surfaces and moderate to high internal damage; no instant wing-offs every-time, necessarily. And that is it! - you don't have rip whole things to do a lethal damage to a plane. It might be the Hispano it's just better as "wing remover" and that's all. It's the lethality what counts and your test procedure looks only for one (most drastic) symptom.

 

Other thing to consider in the game - it could be that hit-boxes remain unchanged no matter what partial damage was inflicted before in the area. Therefore, except for the 1st hit, fuses could be triggered too early affecting lighter fragments (like from M-shell) much more than heavier ones (like Hispano's).

Edited July 7, 2018 by Ehret

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

you don't have rip whole things to do a lethal damage to a plane. It might be the Hispano it's just better as "wing remover" and that's all. After all it's the lethality what counts and your test procedure looks only for one (most drastic) symptom.

 

I completely agree with you. The reason why i used the most drastic symptom is to have a clear indicator for damage to get valid test results. In game conditions, the wings would have gotten ripped off way sooner due to the forced applied when flying. However i can't measure this effectively.

I think it is very unlikely that the Hispano is just a better "wing remover". Again feel free to test your assumptions, i can help you if you are serious about it. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Other thing to consider in the game - it could be that hit-boxes remain unchanged no matter what partial damage was inflicted before in the area. Therefore, except for the 1st hit, fuses could be triggered too early affecting lighter fragments (like from M-shell) much more than heavier ones (like Hispano's).

 

Your guess is as good as anyone's. Nobody knows how the damage model works. I think that you make the DM out to be more complex than it actually is. As far as i can tell, you have certain structural hit boxes on the plane with some sort of health pool. Hits do a random amount of damage from a certain range based on the projectile. Parts like ailerons etc. might be different. I can very well be wrong with this though of course. But it really doesn't look like a very detailed damage model, which of course isn't necessarily a bad thing in the bigger picture (performance etc.)

 

In the end, the only way to test your assumptions is to test them yourself.

[Ehret]

15 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

I completely agree with you. The reason why i used the most drastic symptom is to have a clear indicator for damage to get valid test results. In game conditions, the wings would have gotten ripped off way sooner due to the forced applied when flying. However i can't measure this effectively.

I think it is very unlikely that the Hispano is just a better "wing remover". Again feel free to test your assumptions, i can help you if you are serious about it.

 

You can not measure this effectively so probably I couln't, too.

Nevertheless, it shows, except for cases when 1st shot results in wing-off, the test procedure can add one unnecessary shot.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

Yes but this occurred in all of the test runs. Considering the amount of test runs in total i am quite certain that it wouldn't have changed the general result. The difference in the results is too big to be explained by possible minor inaccuracies like these.

[Ehret]

26 minutes ago, Operatsiya_Ivy said:

Yes but this occurred in all of the test runs. Considering the amount of test runs in total i am quite certain that it wouldn't have changed the general result. The difference in the results is too big to be explained by possible minor inaccuracies like these.

 

What was the highest number of shots needed for a wing-off? (no matter which plane or cartridge)

Edited July 7, 2018 by Ehret

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

7 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

What was the highest number of shots needed for a wing-off? (no matter which plane or cartridge)

 

15 hits. However this was a one time occurrence. Other high figures that were more frequent are 10-12 hits. Those numbers are relatively frequent for the Shvak and Minengeschoss. The 20mm Hispano never needed more than 6 hits, which was a one time occurrence as well.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Operatsiya_Ivy

[unreasonable]

Well that does at least show that there is an RNG involved in the process.  It would be interesting to see the actual data from your tests: alternately you could tell us what you think the distribution type is for the number of hits required to detach a wing.  Reason I say that is that if the distribution is not normal, but for instance geometric like getting a "6" on rolling a die, or hypergeometric,  then there are going to be more extreme outcomes than people expect by looking at an average, also the mean is not necessarily that close to the median.

 

(edit: which interestingly is the case in the US damage report we mentioned, in which the confidence limits are huge: ie the results are very variable).

 

Essentially what you have shown so far is that the DM seems to weight projectile energy (or momentum) perhaps higher than you might like, and weights Hispano splinter damage more than you might like, presumably because of it's ricochets number: which I assume is the developers proxy for fragment weight.

 

Interesting and well documented detective work but I am still unclear what specific inputs you are proposing be changed.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by unreasonable

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

6 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Well that does at least show that there is an RNG involved in the process.  It would be interesting to see the actual data from your tests

 

There is a big amount of RNG involved. You can see the complete test numbers here.

 

10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Essentially what you have shown so far is that the DM seems to weight projectile energy (or momentum) perhaps higher than you might like, and weights Hispano splinter damage more than you might like, presumably because of it's ricochets number: which I assume is the developers proxy for fragment weight.

 

It is not about what i like. It is about historical accuracy. If i am provided with sufficient proof that the Minengeschoss performed equally to the 20mm Shvak than i am more than happy. 

 

Your assumption is wrong. It would make sense looking only at the Hispano and Minengeschoss but the Shvak only has 12 Shrapnelquantity (the minengeschoss has 30). It is more complex than that. At first i tried several tests trying to determine which value in the ingame file was valued the most but in the end i gave up.

 

17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I am still unclear what specific inputs you are proposing be changed.  

 

My understanding is, that the devs try to handle the Minengeschoss as a regular HE shell by giving it a few unique values to compensate for it. However they still measure the damage of the Minengeschoss against a damage model that only works well with the properties of HE shells. The Minengeschoss is not an HE shell strictly spoken when it comes to its intended damage mechanic, because it isn't relying on fragmentation. In the end they are comparing apples to potatoes and try to make it work by painting the potato red/green or whatever your favorite apple looks like.

 

In a perfect simulation world, the Minengeschoss would get its own model. This is however unlikely. A simple adjustment to the ingame file values to match historical values would be more than sufficient to me.  

[unreasonable]

I am asking which specific values you want changed, before and after.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I would recommend any changes that result in more historical test results,. Devs know better than us which values those are.

[JG1_Pragr]

I'm sorry for late post reviving this topic and wall of text it will follow.

 

First. Comparison of one particular type of round can be highly misguiding. The gun system as a whole shall always be evaluated. This means the gun itself, ammunition types it uses, explosives utilized in particular ammo type and last but not least the belting of ammo. The whole subject is too complex to be simplified to matter of single ammo type. Just let me show you the MG151 case:

The MG151 was very well comparable to ShVAK though ShVAK has the edge of slightly higher rate of fire at the same weight. MG151 used number of ammunition types such as Minen, HEI, AP, API etc. Regular HE round weighted 115g and was filled with 3.6 g of PETN. API round weighted 117g and was filled with incendiary material (not sure of its type). Both these types were available in tracer version. Minengeschoss weighted 82 g and was packed with 18 g of PETN (25 g from 1944 onward). It lacked tracer material because all available space was used for explosives. Being significantly lighter than regular rounds (having 70 percent of weight of regular rounds), its muzzle velocity was more than 100 m/s higher but the speed loss was more significant with distance. Thus the ballistic curve of the Minen differed from the other rounds in the belt. This represented serious issue if the pilot used the tracers to adjusting his aim. Particularly during the attack from low deflection angle when the enemy plane represents the smallest area to hit. With just a bit of exaggeration you can say that if your tracers were hitting the target your most destructive ammo is almost certainly flying off the target. Moreover the belting of MG151 differed by unit and/or task. Galland mentioned in his "Schiessfibel" that for general use the belting should be 3 Minens + 1 Incendiary + 1 API. But this was just a recommendation and I know at least two colored pictures where different belting is clearly used. At least one source indicates the belting as follows: Minen - HEI - Minen - HEI, API-T. Thus only about 40 to 60 percent of ammo in the MG151 was Minen. Regular HE round was comparable to the ShVAK HE round, if not slightly worse.

 

Second and this is not directly associated with the planes but it can show you the subject complexity. German Flak units were suffering with Il-2 attacks, calling this plane "concrete bomber", because their 20 mm FlaK 30/38 canons had little effect on hit. They used more powerful 20x138 rounds, but the HE rounds proved to be somewhat  ineffective against Il-2s. Nevertheless they were very effective against any other plane so unless the number of Il-2 increase and they represented significant part of aerial thread (most of the ground attacks were performed by I-153/I-16 and other "second grades" planes till the end of 1942) there was no need to change anything. When the attacks made by Il-2s became more common, FlaK units found that API rounds are surprisingly effective against these planes. That's why the Il-2 units suffered by stunning loss rate of about one Il-2 per 3 sorties (for comparison the rate of loss of B-17s during the big week was single B-17 per 14 sorties).

 

Third. Detonation velocity of explosives is as much important as specific energy. Having two types of explosives with the same specific energy but different detonation velocities the one with quicker detonation inflict heavier damage.

 

And last but not least the production quality in Russia is the main factor as well. The production allowances were horrible and the performance of equipment (including weapon systems) subjected to the official tests was usually far better that the serial production.

 

I don't argue there couldn't be a bug in game. Actually not a bug; more specifically that the game reproduces the weapon systems inaccurate. I just want to illustrate that the whole subject is not that simply as it seems if just few specific features are pointed out.

[JaffaCake]

34 minutes ago, I./JG1_Pragr said:

I'm sorry for late post reviving this topic and wall of text it will follow.

 

First. Comparison of one particular type of round can be highly misguiding. The gun system as a whole shall always be evaluated. This means the gun itself, ammunition types it uses, explosives utilized in particular ammo type and last but not least the belting of ammo. The whole subject is too complex to be simplified to matter of single ammo type. Just let me show you the MG151 case:

 

The tests isolate most factors but the ammo type itself. The question isn't if the gun system performs better or worse, but how HE shells in isolation stack up against each other.

 

 

Quote

The MG151 was very well comparable to ShVAK though ShVAK has the edge of slightly higher rate of fire at the same weight. MG151 used number of ammunition types such as Minen, HEI, AP, API etc. Regular HE round weighted 115g and was filled with 3.6 g of PETN. API round weighted 117g and was filled with incendiary material (not sure of its type). Both these types were available in tracer version. Minengeschoss weighted 82 g and was packed with 18 g of PETN (25 g from 1944 onward).

 

 

The very first post contradicts you on this, PETN wasn't used in every round. Sources were also provided, please read the entire thread.

 

Quote

 

It lacked tracer material because all available space was used for explosives. Being significantly lighter than regular rounds (having 70 percent of weight of regular rounds), its muzzle velocity was more than 100 m/s higher but the speed loss was more significant with distance. Thus the ballistic curve of the Minen differed from the other rounds in the belt. This represented serious issue if the pilot used the tracers to adjusting his aim. Particularly during the attack from low deflection angle when the enemy plane represents the smallest area to hit. With just a bit of exaggeration you can say that if your tracers were hitting the target your most destructive ammo is almost certainly flying off the target.

 

Completely irrelevant to the topic. The question is damage effectiveness of the shells. Not how likely they are to hit.

 

Quote

 

Moreover the belting of MG151 differed by unit and/or task. Galland mentioned in his "Schiessfibel" that for general use the belting should be 3 Minens + 1 Incendiary + 1 API. But this was just a recommendation and I know at least two colored pictures where different belting is clearly used. At least one source indicates the belting as follows: Minen - HEI - Minen - HEI, API-T. Thus only about 40 to 60 percent of ammo in the MG151 was Minen. Regular HE round was comparable to the ShVAK HE round, if not slightly worse.

 

We don't have that option. Devs don't allow us to change the belting. Devs modell all german HE after minen shells as per files in the game. They are free to implement the belting and other shell types, but yet again the question is comparison of current HE shells, which happen to be minen vs counterparts.

 

Quote

Second and this is not directly associated with the planes but it can show you the subject complexity. German Flak units were suffering with Il-2 attacks, calling this plane "concrete bomber", because their 20 mm FlaK 30/38 canons had little effect on hit. They used more powerful 20x138 rounds, but the HE rounds proved to be somewhat  ineffective against Il-2s. Nevertheless they were very effective against any other plane so unless the number of Il-2 increase and they represented significant part of aerial thread (most of the ground attacks were performed by I-153/I-16 and other "second grades" planes till the end of 1942) there was no need to change anything. When the attacks made by Il-2s became more common, FlaK units found that API rounds are surprisingly effective against these planes. That's why the Il-2 units suffered by stunning loss rate of about one Il-2 per 3 sorties (for comparison the rate of loss of B-17s during the big week was single B-17 per 14 sorties).

 

Irrelevant to the topic. We are comparing the damage effectiveness against the same aircraft type. If Minen was ineffective against IL2, we would expect the same from other HE rounds, because of how the current damage model works (which is basically a bunch of hitboxes with healthbars, as far as we know). While its a poor way to model the damage, it allows you to fairly accurately estimate the "calculated" damage a shell deals to a part of the aircraft.

 

Quote

 

Third. Detonation velocity of explosives is as much important as specific energy. Having two types of explosives with the same specific energy but different detonation velocities the one with quicker detonation inflict heavier damage.

 

Accounted by so called RE factor that was used in the original post.

 

Quote

 

And last but not least the production quality in Russia is the main factor as well. The production allowances were horrible and the performance of equipment (including weapon systems) subjected to the official tests was usually far better that the serial production.

 

Irrelevant to the topic - everything is perfect quality in this game.

 

Quote

 

I don't argue there couldn't be a bug in game. Actually not a bug; more specifically that the game reproduces the weapon systems inaccurate. I just want to illustrate that the whole subject is not that simply as it seems if just few specific features are pointed out.

 

Why waste the time? The discussion is about a bug. Your illustration is painfully obvious and a lot of effort was made to minimize or eliminate the points you bring up. 

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by JaffaCake

[JG1_Pragr]

I just try to illustrate that your comparison is misguiding. The "accurate" model of the guns shall include not only the ammo, but all the other features I mentioned above. Comparing one particular type of ammo is more or less useless under this game environment. If the game uses Minen only to simulate German HE round (I suppose it's due calculating process simplification) instead of various ammo types being used historically, then of course the Minen has to be tuned down. Otherwise the weapon system would be far more stronger than it used to be irl.

 

Even the comparison of the seemingly "same" type of ammo against the same type of target is hardly possible. The Minen operating principle differs from the regular HE. Minen works best against smaller unarmored all-metal planes. Not quite well against four-engine bombers in example or armored planes like Il-2. It proved to be surprisingly less effective against even the canvas covered structures. That's why the belting differs for units operating within Reich defense and those serving on Eastern front in example. It differs even on the same plane where on-board MG151 used different belting than gunpods, specifically used against heavier/armored planes.

 

Again, from the simulation point of view, it is important that all guns/canons within the game have correct "destructive" power. It means that, lets say the ShVAK has the power 1.0, the MG151 has 1.1 while Hispano Mk.II has 1.3 (just example, no hard data). If the accurate simulation of gun power is achieved by tuning some particular features down or up, is not essential.

 

In my opinion, there's way more historical imbalance between effectiveness of 12.7 mm guns and 20 cannons. But that would be for different topic.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

You start of by saying this

 

On 8/1/2018 at 1:50 PM, I./JG1_Pragr said:

I just try to illustrate that your comparison is misguiding

followed by lots of text, yet, your conclusion

 

On 8/1/2018 at 1:50 PM, I./JG1_Pragr said:

Again, from the simulation point of view, it is important that all guns/canons within the game have correct "destructive" power. It means that, lets say the ShVAK has the power 1.0, the MG151 has 1.1 while Hispano Mk.II has 1.3 (just example, no hard data). If the accurate simulation of gun power is achieved by tuning some particular features down or up, is not essential.

 

is, in very very basic terms, exactly what has been argued the entire time (in a lot more depth) and what was tried to be backed up by the test of the OP.

 

 

To me it seems like you are referring to - and arguing against- an imaginary point that was never made. If your point is that we do not have a 100% accurate model of reality in the game, you are correct. I do not think any of the, as I presume, rather intelligent people here have ever demanded that anywhere in this thread.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn