German 20mm

[Uranium45]

I experienced that it's a lot more easy to destroy Aircraft with the Russian 20mm,than with the german 20mm.

With Russian 20mm the Wings Rip off easier.

Do you guys also experienced this?

(Ps:Sorry for the bad Englisch)

[Leaf]

Put briefly:

 

When it comes to "effectiveness" of ammunition types, there are so many interacting variables that are responsible for structural failure of an aircraft* that, upon examination, there is little evidence to support the statement that there is bias in terms of weapon damage. 

 

*ballistics, chemical and kinetic energy, shell types, aerodynamic loads, structural strength and integrity etc.

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Leaf

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

[Mauf]

This is likely due to a shortcoming in HE ammo type modelling compared to the generally more AP and fragmentation based allied weapons. This is indeed a problem for germans though it's unclear how far reaching the effect is. General rule of thumb: Shoot closer if possible.

 

Note though that even German weapons are capable of generating the one-hit wonders, so it's not impossible.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Mauf

[Livai]

Best example video how Germans 20mm is -> Enjoy

 

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8P1d9imI3E

 

 

 

 

[Mauf]

After rereading the Bug Report:

 

He's done a great job at dissecting the problem but I think his view on the way the explosives part of the ammo is compared is wrong. The mine shell and the allied HE bullets followed two very different design philosophies. The Mineshell was a product out of the MGFF with it's low muzzle velocity. The problem they had was they couldn't develop enough kinetic damage from their projectiles, so they aimed for a different target altogether: The aluminium shells of aircraft hulls. Instead of breaking structural components like ribs and spars, they target the hull which with the spitfire onwards has become an integral part of the structure. By cramming more explosives into a thin walled shell, they forego the ability to create fragmentation damage in trade for a strong blast wave that shreds the shell of the compartment it exploded in (and this is the effect the current DM can't properly replicated AFAIK).

 

The allied ammo didn't go that route, not even for their HE bullets. The HE filler is not there to primarily act on blast damage but to split apart a thick walled bullet mantle to create a directed fragmentation blast. Think of it a bit like a shotgun. AP is selfexplanatory.

 

If I now would postulate how this acts in the game engine I would guess:

German ammo is generally less "penetrative" than allied ammo types (which could be described as accurate since the Mineshell exploded shortly after penetrating the hull). The result is that for example from dead 6 shots, you have more stuff between the critical wing spars and the point of contact of the bullet. Lacking the proper blast wave modelling (and an unknown pseudo fragmentation model we have little detail about), this might explain the behaviour. This should also mean that top down hits on wings should have a better chance to reach and damage the critical parts:

 

9 minutes ago, Livai said:

Best example video how Germans 20mm is -> Enjoy

 

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8P1d9imI3E

 

 

 

 

 

which the video kinda suggests as most wing offs happen at 45˚ or steeper profile shots. This is of course all guessing but I have a feeling this might be it.

[Ehret]

Just now, Mauf said:

This is likely due to a shortcoming in HE ammo type modelling compared to the generally more AP and fragmentation based allied weapons. This is indeed a problem for germans though it's unclear how far reaching the effect is. General rule of thumb: Shoot closer if possible.

 

Note though that even German weapons are capable of generating the one-hit wonders, so it's not impossible.

 

Dunno - sometimes I fly the MC-202 with cannons (or the 190) and one short burst is often enough to shot-down a fighter. The improved HE modelling will benefit not only German shells, too. The M-shells have more HE filler but to twice range of effective pressure you need increase the yield +10x, not just 2x. So yes - there is something under-modeled but don't expect any dramatic changes.

 

IMHO one reason why earlier 109s with standard armament may feel "under-powered" is not because of the cannon, actually. There is only a pair of 7.92mm machine guns where the opposition can have one or two 12.7mm + cannon.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Ehret

[Mauf]

8 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Dunno - sometimes I fly the MC-202 with cannons (or the 190) and one short burst is often enough to shot-down a fighter. The improved HE modelling will benefit not only German shells, too. The M-shells have more HE filler but to twice range of effective pressure you need increase the yield +10x, not just 2x. So yes - there is something under-modeled but don't expect any dramatic changes.

 

IMHO one reason why earlier 109s with standard armament may feel "under-powered" is not because of the cannon, actually. There is only a pair of 7.92mm machine guns where the opposition may have at least one 12.7mm + cannon.

 

Well, I am an advocate for a better HE ammo type modelling but not because I believe "Russian bias" but because I want a more accurate simulator and that in the end improves the sim for everyone, not just German side players. The P39 37mm for example is also afflicted by this it seems.

 

And all 109 variants with exception of the F2 with the MG151/15 (correct me if I'm wrong here) have the Mineshell ammo type. I remember some "anecdotal evidence" (aka feelings) back in the day that mentioned that the F2 felt more deadly than the F4, might be the reason for that:) Maybe someone with some spare time on their hands wants to take a look at it?

Edited July 16, 2018 by Mauf

[Dakpilot]

Would pure pressure /blast wave of a 20mm mineshell even damage a wing spar? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Ehret]

Just now, Mauf said:

And all 109 variants with exception of the F2 with the MG151/15 (correct me if I'm wrong here) have the Mineshell ammo type. I remember some "anecdotal evidence" (aka feelings) back in the day that mentioned that the F2 felt more deadly than the F4, might be the reason for that:) Maybe someone with some spare time on their hands wants to take a look at it?

 

The MG151/15 has very high velocities (850/960m/h for AP/HE), good RoF and can carry around 3g of a HE filler - a super-heavy machine gun, basically. It would be intriguing if 2-3 of them could be mounted in a nose...

Edited July 16, 2018 by Ehret

[Mauf]

41 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Would pure pressure /blast wave of a 20mm mineshell even damage a wing spar? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

That's the point. I guess if close enough, it could bend it but those "harder" parts of the structure weren't the target of the shell to begin with. Take for example Hurricanes, which were supposedly very rugged planes. Turns out they didn't rely on the skin of their airframe for structural integrity (Metal skin for the wings was added as an afterthought even).

 

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

The MG151/15 has very high velocities (850/960m/h for AP/HE), good RoF and can carry around 3g of a HE filler - a super-heavy machine gun, basically. It would be intriguing if 2-3 of them could be mounted in a nose...

 

I meant as testing in game if the MG151/15 has a better wing-off rate than the Mineshell carrying cannons.

[Ehret]

Just now, Dakpilot said:

Would pure pressure /blast wave of a 20mm mineshell even damage a wing spar?

 

From a close distance; probably. The problem is the shell will explode on a surface and (I'm not sure) if the game modify hit-boxes to reflect that.

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Uranium45 said:

I experienced that it's a lot more easy to destroy Aircraft with the Russian 20mm,than with the german 20mm.

With Russian 20mm the Wings Rip off easier.

Do you guys also experienced this?

(Ps:Sorry for the bad Englisch)

 

Higher ratio of armour piercing rounds?

[Finkeren]

If you want to see an impotent weapon in this sim, try the 37mm M4 cannon on the P-39.

 

Honestly, I find the German MG 151/20 plenty powerful. With very little notable difference from the ShVAK. 

 

Also: If you want to test comparatively effectiveness of the weapons, it is no use to shoot Soviet aircraft with German weapons and German aircraft with Soviet weapons and compare the results. There are far too many variables at play for that to work.

 

Instead pick one aircraft type (let’s say Bf 109) and shoot at it with a single center mounted MG 151 from another 109 and then shoot at the same type of 109 with a single center mounted ShVAK (on a Yak or LaGG). Do it a couple dozen times for each, documenting the results of each enggagement and then compare the results. 

[Mauf]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

From a close distance; probably. The problem is the shell will explode on a surface and (I'm not sure) if the game modify hit-boxes to reflect that.

 

No. At least only in a few rare cases at very shallow angles. The Mineshell had a delayed fuse that made sure the shell penetrated through the metal skin before exploding.

[InProgress]

54 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

Would pure pressure /blast wave of a 20mm mineshell even damage a wing spar? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

"The Minengeschoß had slightly delayed detonators, allowing the shell to pass through target’s outer cover without explosion, then triggering the explosive in a moment, when two-thirds of shell were already past the outer skin. Subsequent explosion of large HE filler then caused pieces of target’s construction to be literally torn away, making a large gaping holes and seriously affecting aerodynamics and controls of the target. Additionally, when rate of fire was high enough, another Minengeschoß would be able to enter the hole made by previous shell, and explode deeper in the target aircraft construction, further increasing damage effect and compromising target’s structural integrity."

 

I think it was not about exploding near plane but in it. Doubt these small metal parts of 20mm bullet would do any dmg when exploding in air.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Finkeren said:

If you want to see an impotent weapon in this sim, try the 37mm M4 cannon on the P-39.

 

Honestly, I find the German MG 151/20 plenty powerful. With very little notable difference from the ShVAK. 

 

Also: If you want to test comparatively effectiveness of the weapons, it is no use to shoot Soviet aircraft with German weapons and German aircraft with Soviet weapons and compare the results. There are far too many variables at play for that to work.

 

Instead pick one aircraft type (let’s say Bf 109) and shoot at it with a single center mounted MG 151 from another 109 and then shoot at the same type of 109 with a single center mounted ShVAK (on a Yak or LaGG). Do it a couple dozen times for each, documenting the results of each enggagement and then compare the results. 

 

That is exactly what was done by  @Operatsiya_Ivy in the thread linked above. His main conclusion being:

 

"The German 20mm Minengeschoss and the ShVAK are basically the same when it comes to damage across the board. Only the Hispano HE shell performs significantly better than its counterparts. "

 

The problem is he thinks that this is incorrect and the 151/20 mineshell should do more damage, based on his energy assumptions. Not everyone agrees, and we do not seem to have an authoritative source. 

[Livai]

20mm don't cause structure damage how 30mm do.  "If German statistics data showed that on average the 151/20 required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17, while 18-20 hits were required to down other 4-engine bomber types, and only four hits were required to down a single-engine fighter. And the 108/30 required an average of 5 hits to down a B-17, B-24 and only a single hit were required to down a single-engine fighter."

 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Livai

[Dakpilot]

I think a lot of people overestimate the "explosive/destructive" power of 18 gram 20mm mineshell 

 

A standard mk3a2 offensive/concussion hand grenade contains 200+ grams of tnt

 

Not to say 20mm mineshell should be ineffective, but I feel some people misunderstand it

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Finkeren]

1 minute ago, Dakpilot said:

I think a lot of people overestimate the "explosive/destructive" power of 18 gram 20mm mineshell 

 

I think so too, but it probably should be more effective than the 6g charge of the ShVAK HE projectile, though obviously it should have very, very poor penetration.

 

What I don't get is the people who seriously think, that the MG 151/20 is significantly weaker than the ShVAK. I just don't see, where they would get that idea, unless they never fly for the other side.

[-LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor]

2 hours ago, Finkeren said:

If you want to see an impotent weapon in this sim, try the 37mm M4 cannon on the P-39.

 

THIS! 

 

The HE damage for the melon lobber seems way off.

 

[Finkeren]

11 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

Its been proven that the game is bugged in the difference between Russian 20mm and German 20mm.  So yeah there is currently a bias ingame for those wondering. 

 

 

Proven?

[Leaf]

15 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

Its been proven that the game is bugged in the difference between Russian 20mm and German 20mm.  So yeah there is currently a bias ingame for those wondering.  Also this same link was posted above yet no one has really mentioned it.

 

 

There is a very clear and distinct difference between a potential bug and bias. It's pretty insulting to the developers to not appreciate that distinction.

 

If there is an error, or a simplification, in the way the damage of certain shells is calculated, by all means, point it out. 

But to accuse the developers of bias, impying an intentional skewing of data or calculations to favour one nation over another, is simply not true (and ridiculous). 

The statement "it has been proven" is also completely false, because nothing has been proven. The topic has encouraged a discussion, which is great, and I applaud the OP's effort in their calculations, but if you read through it properly you find that there is some disagreement. So far it appears not to be a bug, but instead a simplification of the damage model, which is an important distinction to make.

I'm sorry to say this, but it will likely take a bit more than a discussion thread and a few back-of-the-envelope calculations to rework the damage model for a particular shell type. It's not simply a case of "increase x value". For reasons of either funding or computational limitations (likely both) a simplified damage model will have to suffice, one in which aberrations or certain simplifications will have to be tolerated for now. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Leaf

[Ehret]

Just now, Finkeren said:

I think so too, but it probably should be more effective than the 6g charge of the ShVAK HE projectile, though obviously it should have very, very poor penetration.

 

The HE component of the M-shell is more effective, alone - there is no doubt. However that much HE filler costs in the shell weight - comparing PETN to iron densities around 6g for every 1g HE added. The M-shells traded lots of momentum and fragmentation for the stronger explosive effect.

 

[Finkeren]

14 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

Ever wonder why the 109 F4 is so popular? Its not only because it's lighter and performance etc. Its because the 15mm guns do more damage then the 20mm currently.

 

No they don't, and the Bf 109F4 is popular because its performance kicks ass across the board. If your statement was correct, most of the people you see using the F4 would be carrying the MG 151/15 gun pods - yet they don't, the majority who use the F4 use no gun pods at all (which is a smart move)

1 minute ago, Ehret said:

 

The HE component of the M-shell is more effective, alone - there is no doubt. However that much HE filler costs in the shell weight - comparing PETN to iron densities around 6g for every 1g HE added. The M-shells traded lots of momentum and fragmentation for the stronger explosive effect.

 

 

Exactly. No penetration, inferior ballistics but more bang for your buck - that's the trade-off, but obviously the Jerries should get the bang they opted for.

[Ehret]

Just now, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

The HE damage for the melon lobber seems way off.

 

Maybe but it is still a heavy projectile (600g!) flying faster (by 100m/s) than the MK108' shell. The HE effects are secondary for the M54 shell and ballistics not that bad, actually - it's possible to snipe with it. IMO the major flaw of the 37mm M4 is a very low cycling rate - a mere 2.5-3 shots/s where the MK108 can do 10 shots/s.

[Operatsiya_Ivy]

5 minutes ago, Leaf said:

The statement "it has been proven" is also completely false, because nothing has been proven. The topic has encouraged a discussion, which is great, and I applaud the OP's effort in their calculations, but if you read through it properly you find that there is some disagreement. So far it appears not to be a bug, but instead a simplification of the damage model, which is an important distinction to make.

 

There is always disagreement. You will never manage to get a consent on a controversial topic like this, simply because quite a few people are trying to push their own questionable agenda with it. I called it a bug report simply for the lack of a better name and to keep it open minded. 

While it is true that the Minengeschosse not being modelled is indeed a simplification, it does not mean that it explains the results.

 

10 minutes ago, Leaf said:

I'm sorry to say this, but it will likely take a bit more than a discussion thread and a few back-of-the-envelope calculations to rework the damage model for a particular shell type. It's not simply a case of "increase x value". For reasons of either funding or computational limitations (likely both) a simplified damage model will have to suffice, one in which aberrations or certain simplifications will simply have to be tolerated for now. 

 

I agree that the calculations are far from a perfect scenario, like i said multiple times in the thread, however at the same time it is the only way to provide a basis on which a comparison is possible as far as i am aware of. On top of it, my calculations come independently to nearly the same conclusion as H. Ruch on one of the most popular websites when it comes to this. There has to be some sort of calculation behind it, otherwise it would be pure guess work with random numbers put into the in game files. This is where the interesting part actually starts. How did the Developers value the damage of the 20mm shells? how did they calculate it? the numbers in the in-game files are far too precise to be randomly put in there. So far i fail to see how they value certain aspects of the different 20mm shells. Did they value kinetic energy higher than explosive energy? did they value fragmentation damage higher? There is simply no pattern as far as i can tell.

 

There is a difference between a simplified damage model and a wrong damage model. Currently we have a wrong damage model and it would be quite easy to fix to adjust certain numbers in the in-game files. This would lead to a simplified and more realistic damage model.

 

It is also very important to understand, that it is wrong to focus too much on the Minengeschoss. Only when comparing all three shells it becomes obvious that things aren't adding up.

[L3Pl4K]

No penetration, you kidding. Minenmunition is designed to explode in the skin of an plane.

 

[Finkeren]

7 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Maybe but it is still a heavy projectile (600g!) flying faster (by 100m/s) than the MK108' shell. The HE effects are secondary for the M54 shell and ballistics not that bad, actually - it's possible to snipe with it. IMO the major flaw of the 37mm M4 is a very low cycling rate - a mere 2.5-3 shots/s where the MK108 can do 10 shots/s.

 

Doesn't really matter, if a 109 can shake off 4 hits, as I have observed repeatedly.

[Ehret]

Just now, Geronimo553 said:

Experienced pilots even say it's better to be hit in a MC202 versus the E7 because the 202 will handle the damage far more better like a Russian plane.

 

The Macchi was very well build, sturdy and little heavier, too. Cons were price and man-hours needed to manufacture one.

For Soviets planes... well - the Yak with truss-rod like fuselage construction should be resilient to HE damage. The rest were semi-mono-coque so should do no better than German fighters.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Ehret

[Finkeren]

Just now, Ehret said:

Cons were price and man-hours needed to manufacture one.

 

...and the fact that you had to fly for the Regia Aeronautica.

2 minutes ago, L3Pl4K said:

No penetration, you kidding. Minenmunition is designed to explode in the skin of an plane.

 

You could penetrate the skin of a WW2 aircraft with a cotton wad. It had no penetrative power to speak of against more resistant material.

 

[L3Pl4K]

In case of the armored parts of the IL2 for example, i am with you.

Edited July 16, 2018 by L3Pl4K

[Ehret]

Just now, Finkeren said:

Doesn't really matter, if a 109 can shake off 4 hits, as I have observed repeatedly.

 

Well... I had a much better luck with the 37mm, then. Only occasionally a fighter could survive a single attack. It could be because in the P-39 I prefer to shot all guns at once and few 50cals would hit, too.

Edited July 16, 2018 by Ehret

[Finkeren]

1 minute ago, L3Pl4K said:

In case of the armored parts of the IL2 for example, i am with you.

 

Or really any armor on any plane. Won't do much against an array of ground targets as well, where the ShVAK HE round would be more effective.

 

[Dakpilot]

47 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

 Experienced pilots even say it's better to be hit in a MC202 versus the E7 because the 202 will handle the damage far more better like a Russian plane. 

 

 

Are you surprised about this?

 

I think that experienced engineers would agree with the experienced pilots 

 

Mc 202 has a lot in common in construction compared to Yak-1

 

....it is not all about conspiracy theories and bias

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

2 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Well... I had a much better luck with the 37mm, then. Only occasionally a fighter could survive a single attack. It could be because in the P-39 I prefer to shot all guns at once and few 50cals would hit, too.

 

I do that as well, but I actually did a few tests back when the P-39 was released. I have observed Bf 109s fly on without (immediately) fatal damage after 3 or 4 hits with the M4 (the big cloud of smoke makes it really easy to identify the hits) on multiple occasions - in QMB against AI so can't be blamed on netcode/lag/etc.

 

Of course a lot of times 1-2 hits is enough, but as it stands, the MK 108 is by far the more deadly weapon.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

4 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

I do that as well, but I actually did a few tests back when the P-39 was released. I have observed Bf 109s fly on without (immediately) fatal damage after 3 or 4 hits with the M4 (the big cloud of smoke makes it really easy to identify the hits) on multiple occasions - in QMB against AI so can't be blamed on netcode/lag/etc.

 

Of course a lot of times 1-2 hits is enough, but as it stands, the MK 108 is by far the more deadly weapon.

 

I tested the M4 cannon against Ju 88s and one of them managed to shrug off 8 hits(most in tail) without more than fuel leaks and some missing control surfaces. 9th shell cut the fuselage in half. Usually they still need 4 or 5 hits before they burn or lose large parts.

[InProgress]

1 hour ago, Leaf said:

But to accuse the developers of bias, impying an intentional skewing of data or calculations to favour one nation over another, is simply not true (and ridiculous). 

I think there is bias when it comes to artworks ? i don't know but it always bugged me that all arts show german plane being shot down, only 2 show german plane strifing truck (and not hitting) and 2 bf109 blowing up ship. That's the only proven bias I see ;D

[Finkeren]

Just now, InProgress said:

I think there is bias when it comes to artworks ? i don't know but it always bugged me that all arts show german plane being shot down, only 2 show german plane strifing truck (and not hitting) and 2 bf109 blowing up ship. That's the only proven bias I see ;D

 

There’s a clear “perspective” at least  And in the old campaign cutscenes as well - the ones made for Kuban being more neutral and informative.

 

I’m willing to give them a pass on it, because the Soviet war effort has gotten so much not entirely justified bad press (and often no press at all) over the years, and because the other side were literal nazis.

[InProgress]

Yeah, kuban has really cool cutscenes. I hope for pacific art works will be balanced, small thing but it would be really cool to watch some Japanese glory moments as well.