The reason why AP is so powerfull on the game.

[E69_geramos109]

 

[AndyJWest]

An AP round hitting aircraft-grade aluminium alloy square on will probably make a neat round hole. The same round hitting a wing at an acute angle is likely to tumble, if it penetrates, and do a whole lot more damage. And the skin of a Bf 109 wing carries a significant part of the load. An undamaged spar doesn't equate to an undamaged wing.

 

There may well be inaccuracies in the way BoX models damage (in fact there are certain to be, since it is a simulation), but your video does nothing to demonstrate anything specific regarding the relative damage of HE and AP rounds.

[PainGod85]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

An AP round hitting aircraft-grade aluminium alloy square on will probably make a neat round hole. The same round hitting a wing at an acute angle is likely to tumble, if it penetrates, and do a whole lot more damage. And the skin of a Bf 109 wing carries a significant part of the load. An undamaged spar doesn't equate to an undamaged wing.

 

There may well be inaccuracies in the way BoX models damage (in fact there are certain to be, since it is a simulation), but your video does nothing to demonstrate anything specific regarding the relative damage of HE and AP rounds.

 

> Shoot the wingtip

> 1/3 of the wing comes off

 

> Shoot the inner third of the wing

> Middle third comes off

 

> Shoot the tail

> Tail section comes off

 

> Shoot the fuselage

> Fuselage breaks in two

 

All this from just a few rounds each, fired on a plane not under structural load.

 

There isn't enough tumbling in a lottery wheel for that to have even a snowball's chance in hell to happen.

[AndyJWest]

Well, if you want a simulation that does complete real-time 3D stress analysis for damage modelling, I think you are going to have to pay a lot more for the software. And for the supercomputer to run it on.

 

We know that the simulation simplifies things. It has to. But being simplified isn't evidence that there is an imbalance between AP and HE, which is what the video purports to show.

[E69_geramos109]

43 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

An AP round hitting aircraft-grade aluminium alloy square on will probably make a neat round hole. The same round hitting a wing at an acute angle is likely to tumble, if it penetrates, and do a whole lot more damage. And the skin of a Bf 109 wing carries a significant part of the load. An undamaged spar doesn't equate to an undamaged wing.

 

There may well be inaccuracies in the way BoX models damage (in fact there are certain to be, since it is a simulation), but your video does nothing to demonstrate anything specific regarding the relative damage of HE and AP rounds.

Maybe you can cut some surfaces if the round enters with some angle hitting some rib etc but the spar is going to hold the wing no doubt. Like a tree if you cut the arms the trunk ig going to be there still. Inside the wing is almost empt espace and there is no way cutting a wing without hitting the spar with AP.

[AndyJWest]

Please do a little research into how stressed-skin aircraft construction works.

[E69_geramos109]

41 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Please do a little research into how stressed-skin aircraft construction works.

I did and i also know that the 109 had a D joist on the edge of  attack working as a spar as well. And i am architect also so i have some idea about  how structures work. I also have build some RC wooden contruction planes so I  have also some knoledge from there to know that holes on the wing can not cause structural failtures being the airflow inside the wing the main problem

48 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Well, if you want a simulation that does complete real-time 3D stress analysis for damage modelling, I think you are going to have to pay a lot more for the software. And for the supercomputer to run it on.

 

We know that the simulation simplifies things. It has to. But being simplified isn't evidence that there is an imbalance between AP and HE, which is what the video purports to show.

Is not necesary nasa computer to do that. COD is modelling different kinds of ammo effects quite well. The explossive power not but the effect of the kind of the shell yes. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[AndyJWest]

Ok, I'm done here. Your video has proven precisely nothing, and you clearly aren't interested in anything that doesn't confirm to your half-baked assumptions. 

 

(And for the record, I worked for some years as an engineering draughtsman. I have also designed and built RC aircraft. Neither of which qualifies me as an aircraft engineer. So when someone describes aircraft construction as stressed-skin, I will assume that they mean what they say. Unless presented with actual evidence to the contrary, from a qualified source. )

[E69_geramos109]

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Ok, I'm done here. Your video has proven precisely nothing, and you clearly aren't interested in anything that doesn't confirm to your half-baked assumptions. 

 

(And for the record, I worked for some years as an engineering draughtsman. I have also designed and built RC aircraft. Neither of which qualifies me as an aircraft engineer. So when someone describes aircraft construction as stressed-skin, I will assume that they mean what they say. Unless presented with actual evidence to the contrary, from a qualified source. )

My video shows what it shows and i am making the point and discussion here. If i have different opinion than yours does not mean that i am not interested or i would not post on a discussion forum.

You are just saying that the skin of the plane is stressed so is acting as estructure of the plane. It may give the structure some extra rigidity but what is holding the wings is the spar and if you quit the entire skin the wing is not going to fall from the plane with no airflow. You can re-skin a damaged plane and wings are nor falling and skin is the last part that is put on the wing when construction so your argument is not valid for me. If you feel ofended i am sorry but maybe if you are sensible to discuss you should not read or participate on the forum.

AP round can damage ribs and other secondary structural parts but never is going to colapse without a damage on the spar and less if the round hits in other place as the video shows hitting the edge and cuting the wing far from the edge. 

So if damage model  is fine for you great, you are going to enjoy 100% but some are not and we are trying to improve the sim with testing and facts. 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

All this from just a few rounds each, fired on a plane not under structural load.

 

Wrong - every A20's 50cal. magazine contains 30 rounds and there were many reloads. Thus, each run was equivalent to 5-7x 20mm cannon hits and there were many runs. I had counted 7 magazine changes - over 200 12.7mm rounds were shoot at the test frame from close distance. No wonder it disintegrated.

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Ehret

[JtD]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Please do a little research into how stressed-skin aircraft construction works.

 

Fortunately this, in terms of damage resistance, already was done by the testers back in the day and the conclusion was that stressed skin is pretty much immune to AP rounds. In fact they also found that a round penetrating a load bearing member like a spar would not cause sufficient damage to instantly destroy the structural integrity. AP rounds were great against engines and pilots, though.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Recent huge proportion of all my online kills are wing cut off, but 109 have mixed ammo belts. I agree about only AP should not cut off wing so easy, especially on the ground. DM is not easy subject, I hope when resources allow, some day evolution or revolution in that domain.

Edited July 25, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[Ehret]

4 hours ago, JtD said:

Fortunately this, in terms of damage resistance, already was done by the testers back in the day and the conclusion was that stressed skin is pretty much immune to AP rounds. In fact they also found that a round penetrating a load bearing member like a spar would not cause sufficient damage to instantly destroy the structural integrity. AP rounds were great against engines and pilots, though.

 

A single machine gun round, heavy or not - sure - should not. However, it is not what happens in the video where dozens of rounds are shoot at the same place.

 

Just now, 307_Tomcat said:

Recent huge proportion of all my online kills are wing cut off, but 109 have mixed ammo belts. I agree about only AP should not cut off wing so easy, especially on the ground.

 

Pour enough of them at tight spread at close range when they are at highest effectiveness and things will break. A single .50" AP can pierce over 2cm of rolled homogeneous steel, after all.

[JaffaCake]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

A single machine gun round, heavy or not - sure - should not. However, it is not what happens in the video where dozens of rounds are shoot at the same place.

 

 

 

It was an unloaded wing though. So even if all of the skin was removed, the spar should be able to hold up the skeleton of the wing. What we have right now are 1/3-wing sized hitboxes that just take damage, HE or AP.

[Ehret]

Just now, JaffaCake said:

It was an unloaded wing though. So even if all of the skin was removed, the spar should be able to hold up the skeleton of the wing. What we have right now are 1/3-wing sized hitboxes that just take damage, HE or AP.

 

Yup - hit-boxes seem to be too coarse. The video raises a good point even it's mislabeled and not really about AP/HE.

[JaffaCake]

In terms of AP/HE I can see the argument being that AP is so good because the hitboxes are large. A bit contrived, but workable. (i.e. AP is supposed to be good against aircraft's internals. When the internals are the size of a barndoor, AP becomes better than HE, as pinhole damage is counted the same as an explosion)

 

However what would also be very interesting to investigate is HE vs AP aerodynamic damage. I.e. stall and cruise speed change when damaged.

 

Also, a sort of PS - actually hitting all shots in a single location on a 109 wing will not completely remove the stressed-skin support, as the skin is not just attached at the base and the tip - it actually is separated into compartments by being attached to the ribs. So from the POV of the video, firing all of the .50 cal into one spot wouldn't even reduce the structural integrity that much, even with all of the tumbling and fumbling that people allege to. (the skin is super thin, I really doubt there would be much tumbling happening, but I have no support for or against, so don't take my word for it).

 

Edit: I just desperately wish developers would actually come out and answer these questions and be a lot more specific with patch changes and game mechanics than they are now. We wouldn't have to resort to makeshift experiments every time trying to figure out the behind-the-scenes of the engine.

Edited July 25, 2018 by JaffaCake

[Mauf]

What you see here is likely a limitation of the current DM implementation. It probably derives from the need of treating AP and HE types under the same umbrella. Effectively, you would need two completely different damage models for the two types: Systems modelling for the AP types and HE shrapnell and a shell/compartment model that is able to model the HE types and their specific damage "style". Only the compartment model would have the ability to have influence on integrity of the airframe and AP should have very little influence on it (aka, you would have to effectively saw your way through a spar for that to happen). Reverse would be true for the Systems model which would be the functional components, namely control cables, guns, etc and HE (outside of the shrapnell) should have influence only at a VERY short range from the impact site on these (if at all, different things would have different susceptibility to blast shockwaves).

 

I see people mentioning CLOD in terms of damage modelling and hailing it as much greater: It is effectively the reverse of what we have here. In CLOD, AP bullets are measly and HE rules them all. That combined with quite shoddy bullet modelling (*cough* Übungsmunition) and HE being effectively "control cable seeking missiles" thanks to the way HE damage seems to be implemented. It's not all that great either, just different. Meanspirited people could point out that the overperforming ammo types fall within a certain faction and thus it's being called "better"... but we're of course better than that:D

 

All in all: Proper modelling requires more research and more resources to implement. Until such a thing happens, we'll have to make due with what we can get.

As to the video itself: That's how the damage model behaves. Get used to it and hope the devs take more stabs at it to improve it.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Mauf

[JaffaCake]

Mauf, I completely agree with your notion. Unfortunately we have what we have, and have to work with it for now, until the dev team decides to improve the DM.

 

In terms of the current DM modelling I believe the most important aspect is to somewhat mimic realism. I.e. if HE was effective -- make it effective. If LW HE was better than VVS HE - make it so, whatever the parameters you are using in the model. Same goes for AP - did it really saw the wings off like that? Is the AP damage right now still too high, does it even account for how tiny the spar profile is? (and if you are firing from the 6 there is a fair chunk of other stuff until you get to the spar).

 

In my mind, however biased and uneducated, AP rounds are most effective at causing fuel leaks, destroying the engine and killing the pilot (and to a lesser extent destroying the ammo / cannons on the aircraft).

 

HE rounds are more likely to break cables (shrapnel), cause aerodynamic damage (large deflections to keep aircraft stable, significant bump in stall speed, reduction in cruise speed) and poke the fuel and radiator systems by causing leaks in piping.

 

Again, fully anecdotal experience - but from most of the WWII videos I have watched, hardly any of them resulted in a wing being torn off - only really the LW 30mm cannon seemed to absolutely tear the aircraft apart. Most of the damage is engine, loss of control surfaces / cables, loss of flight worthiness or pilot injury. 

 

But I would hate to use the argument that "current DM is incapable of modelling X, therefore X will be completely nerfed until we get new DM in some unknown amount of time"

 

Edit: However I am afraid I am derailing the original point of the conversation, so lets stick to the "large hitboxes cause AP rounds to deal too much damage  / damage to the wrong parts of the aircraft / unexpected results". 

Edited July 25, 2018 by JaffaCake

[Mauf]

18 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

Mauf, I completely agree with your notion. Unfortunately we have what we have, and have to work with it for now, until the dev team decides to improve the DM.

 

In terms of the current DM modelling I believe the most important aspect is to somewhat mimic realism. I.e. if HE was effective -- make it effective. If LW HE was better than VVS HE - make it so, whatever the parameters you are using in the model. Same goes for AP - did it really saw the wings off like that? Is the AP damage right now still too high, does it even account for how tiny the spar profile is? (and if you are firing from the 6 there is a fair chunk of other stuff until you get to the spar).

 

In my mind, however biased and uneducated, AP rounds are most effective at causing fuel leaks, destroying the engine and killing the pilot (and to a lesser extent destroying the ammo / cannons on the aircraft).

 

HE rounds are more likely to break cables (shrapnel), cause aerodynamic damage (large deflections to keep aircraft stable, significant bump in stall speed, reduction in cruise speed) and poke the fuel and radiator systems by causing leaks in piping.

 

Again, fully anecdotal experience - but from most of the WWII videos I have watched, hardly any of them resulted in a wing being torn off - only really the LW 30mm cannon seemed to absolutely tear the aircraft apart. Most of the damage is engine, loss of control surfaces / cables, loss of flight worthiness or pilot injury. 

 

But I would hate to use the argument that "current DM is incapable of modelling X, therefore X will be completely nerfed until we get new DM in some unknown amount of time"

 

Gromit from ATAG forums did a little "study" where he looked at gun cam footage (whatever he could get) and noted down the wing-offs. He hardly ever found examples outside of 190 wings collapsing at what seems to be internal ammo explosions (And some B17s after being mauled I think). It probably didn't happen a lot (or the available cam footage just never caught the incidents).

 

About HE rounds: you need to be very careful what type you refer to. The German M-Geschoss and the allied HE rounds did very different things. M-Geschoss made very little and light shrapnell, it didn't have much mass in the bullet mantle to do that. Allied HE bullets had thicker mantles that could create stronger shrapnell and they acted more like fragmentation rounds. Two very different concepts. Just about the control cable example: These things were not as easily damaged as one would think. Most of these cables outside of higher G-loads would have comparatively little tension and could bounce by quite a bit. Remember they're attached to two moving ends so there was quite a bit of play in it. That by itself made them more resistant to shrapnell and hits than most think. It was probably more likely to lose a control surface to jam at the fittings or directly being shot off than to lose the cable/rods to it.

 

And you're right that mostly the german mine shells (aside of flak) were ripping hulls apart. Allies developed their ammo types towards incendiaries and shrapnell rather than big explosives (at least they didn't go the mine shell route until after the war).

 

About adjusting the current DM: That's a very slippery slope. Since you're missing the methods that made the different ammo types "tick" and force them to act in a model that isn't properly fitting, you run the risk of creating effects that aren't realistic, best example being current AP being able to dewing too easily. CLOD has the problem of HE being too good at internal damaging. So any changes can have unforeseen consequences and I would understand the reluctance to touch it further.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Mauf

[JaffaCake]

12 minutes ago, Mauf said:

 

About adjusting the current DM: That's a very slippery slope. Since you're missing the methods that made the different ammo types "tick" and force them to act in a model that isn't properly fitting, you run the risk of creating effects that aren't realistic, best example being current AP being able to dewing too easily. CLOD has the problem of HE being too good at internal damaging. So any changes can have unforeseen consequences and I would understand the reluctance to touch it further.

 

The problem though is that the current situation is pretty atrocious. Even a simplest form of "AP only kills engines and pilots, and causes fuel leaks" is better than the current "AP shears sections of wings from the aircraft". 

 

I would agree with you about the slippery slope if the model wasn't as poor as it has been shown. We already have the unrealistic behaviours. I'd take a few more of these artefacts to get, in return, relative ammo effectiveness that would correspond to realism. 

 

I agree with the regard to the fragmentation, I generalised between HE-frag and minen shells. Of course fragmentation and explosion would result in fairly different outcomes, though much more similar when compared against AP.

 

I recall minen type shells weren't popular with Allies mostly because it required fairly advanced machining, which VVS could not afford for ammo production at all at the time of the war. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by JaffaCake

[Mauf]

27 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

 

The problem though is that the current situation is pretty atrocious. Even a simplest form of "AP only kills engines and pilots, and causes fuel leaks" is better than the current "AP shears sections of wings from the aircraft". 

 

I would agree with you about the slippery slope if the model wasn't as poor as it has been shown. We already have the unrealistic behaviours. I'd take a few more of these artefacts to get, in return, relative ammo effectiveness that would correspond to realism. 

 

I agree with the regard to the fragmentation, I generalised between HE-frag and minen shells. Of course fragmentation and explosion would result in fairly different outcomes, though much more similar when compared against AP.

 

I recall minen type shells weren't popular with Allies mostly because it required fairly advanced machining, which VVS could not afford for ammo production at all at the time of the war. 

 

That would be stepping in the CLOD DM errors. 

AP still could impact the structural integrity of an airframe, just not as easily and even though the holes they made were relatively small, they would cause a quite a bit of drag. So just going "Only systems, no influence on structure" would be wrong as well. If I had to make a call on an adjustment (within what we currently assume to have in place), I would vote for a limit to the maximum structure damage from AP. Just for arguing it: AP can only damage the structure to let's say 25% (whatever value/grade applies best), which weakens the structure and can trigger further degradation from G-loads, incurs the drag. Only HE type bullets can go down to 0%. At the same time, increase the HE splinter damage to better reflect their damage mechanic (this assuming that HEs in game are modelled like bigger fragmentation rounds). The question is whether the current damage model can make these distinctions in the first place.

 

Regarding HE and mineshells:

It's a bit the other way round actually: Germans beginning with the MG/FF had the problem that their available 20mm cannons did not have alot of muzzle velocity. That made them rather weak, both in ballistics and impact. Their way around it was the development of the mine shell where they said "Screw kinetics, lets just shove as much explosives as we can get away with into the shells and abuse the monocoque airframe construction style against them". Allies had cannon designs that sported higher velocities, so they didn't have the need for that (they could stay with the true and tested stuff so to speak). For the americans, I think they mostly focussed on their .50 cal MGs and they wouldn't hold enough boom if they developed a mine-shell style bullet for it. Rather, they seem to have gone the API route. The 20mm was pretty much the lower end of where you could get away with just going for max explosives. My guess is, it's probably a lot more to do with "stick to what worked so long as it worked".

Edited July 25, 2018 by Mauf

[JtD]

The idea for the emphasis on the gas pressure effects over splinter damage pre-dates the war and thus the 20mm installations in fighters. It was a notion that was for instance expressed when testing the 20mm Flak with 20x138B cartridges against a variety of targets. At around 900m/s these had far higher muzzle velocities than any of the airborne cannons the Germans used and still the conclusion was that the gasses of the explosions are the best way to damage aircraft structure of modern aircraft. Even though the low velocities of the MG-FF might have been an incentive, it's much more about damage mechanics than about projectile velocities, otherwise mine shells would have remained limited to MG-FF and MK108, but we also see them for the MG151 and even the MK101/103.

Edited July 25, 2018 by JtD

[Mauf]

3 minutes ago, JtD said:

The idea for the emphasis on the gas pressure effects over splinter damage pre-dates the war and thus the 20mm installations in fighters. It was a notion that was for instance expressed when testing the 20mm Flak with 20x138B cartridges against a variety of targets. At around 900m/s these had far higher muzzle velocities than any of the airborne cannons the Germans used and still the conclusion was that the gasses of the explosions are the best way to damage aircraft structure of modern aircraft. Even though the low velocities of the MG-FF might have been an incentive, it's much more about damage mechanics than about projectile velocities, otherwise mine shells would have remained limited to MG-FF and MK108, but we also see them for the MG151 and even the MK101/103.

 

Maybe. I still think it's more of a "They work very well, we already have the production capabilities, no need to change anything". So even if they didn't need it anymore with later cannons, why drop something that turned out pretty good?

[Velxra]

With the latest update, some people have said planes are more rigid now than before the update. If you re-conduct the test, will the results be the same now?

Edited July 27, 2018 by Geronimo553

[MK_RED13]

50 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

With the latest update, some people have said planes are more rigid now than before the update. If you re-conduct the test, will the results be the same now?

 

 

is there any info from developers about this? Or..simple..  it is placebo..

 

Ed. 

[Mauf]

6 minutes ago, MK_RED13 said:

 

 

is there any info from developers about this? Or..simple..  it is placebo..

 

Ed. 

 

Nothing was changed (at least deliberately), so it's placebo or it's those strange cases where the DM simply behaves weird once in a while.

[LLv34_adexu]

On 7/27/2018 at 2:56 PM, MK_RED13 said:

 

 

is there any info from developers about this? Or..simple..  it is placebo..

 

Ed. 

Like someone mentioned, only WWI planes were affected, some bug fixed. 

[Raymondo77]

On 7/25/2018 at 3:50 PM, Mauf said:

About HE rounds: you need to be very careful what type you refer to. The German M-Geschoss and the allied HE rounds did very different things. M-Geschoss made very little and light shrapnell, it didn't have much mass in the bullet mantle to do that. Allied HE bullets had thicker mantles that could create stronger shrapnell and they acted more like fragmentation rounds.

 

The blast radius of the high-explosive 30 mm mine-shell was atleast 2 metres:

Spoiler

Needless to say that the 50 fragments found in the cockpit came only from a tiny sector of the blast radius.

 

 

Comparison to a 20mm mine-shell:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I serial number X4110, flown by Flight Lieutenant John Dunlop-Urie of the 602 Squadron. During the course of the combat, Dunlop-Urie was caught from behind by a Messerschmitt Bf 109 that landed atleast three hits with its 20mm cannon. Fragments from the exploding shells injured both of Dunlop-Urie's legs in spite of the fact that the closest hit was several feet away.

 

Flash radiograph of a German 20mm HEI shell:

Spoiler

 

 

 

"When an Oerlikon shell burst, it fragmented into thousands of pieces which varied in weight from less than 1 mg. to 20 gm. (fig. 140). However, the largest number of "effective" Oerlikon shell fragments bursting in an area 5 feet in diameter and capable of causing incapacitation to the person exposed was 260. The majority of those 260 fragments weighed between 10 and 50 mg., and their velocity varied between 400 and 600 m.p.s. (meters per second)." (source: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/actvssurgconvol2/chapter4.htm)

 

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Raymondo77
typo

[Ehret]

Just now, Raymondo77 said:

 

The blast radius of the high-explosive 30 mm mine-shell was atleast 2 metres:

Needless to say that the 50 fragments found in the cockpit came only from a tiny sector of the blast radius.

 

Then 37mm M4 should have around 1.6m and Hispano 20mm up to 1m blast radius considering differences of yields.

Extra fragments could come from target's structure itself.

The data seems to be impressive but how the competition was doing? From historic videos I could find all those weapons were lethal so they are in the sim. I'm not sure what is the purpose of dragging this further? When I managed to connect a burst I had no problems shooting down planes no matter what I was flying (with exception of the MC-202 and standard I-16) nor the enemy had.

 

Still the proper comparison should be about a weapon system as whole. No one will limit self to just one shell per target in a sortie, too. For an example weight of a gun+ammunition affect power-loading thus odds of getting a good gun solution as well. So far all those comparison ignore everything but one thing...

 

I'm not saying there aren't some issues - the hit-boxes are too coarse - that is clear. The explosion effects could have own modeling algorithms. Yet, current implementation is reasonable and if someone has problems then should consider improving his/her marksmanship, first.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Ehret

[[110]xJammer]

Just now, Ehret said:

 

I'm not saying there aren't some issues - the hit-boxes are too coarse - that is clear. The explosion effects could have own modeling algorithms. Yet, current implementation is reasonable and if someone has problems then should consider improving his/her marksmanship, first.

 

 

You could claim that AP rounds require less marksmanship than they should, as they deal this significant of a damage to parts of the aircraft that they really shouldn't be. So instead of aiming at the engine you can just aim in the general direction of the AC.

[Ehret]

Just now, xJammer said:

You could claim that AP rounds require less marksmanship than they should, as they deal this significant of a damage to parts of the aircraft that they really shouldn't be. So instead of aiming at the engine you can just aim in the general direction of the AC.

 

No because usual ammo belts, with exceptions of some higher caliber guns, have a mix of AP and HE rounds. That includes the MG151/20s which are supplemented by machine guns doing AP/I, mostly. That's why such tests, as intriguing they may be, don't fully reflect reality.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Ehret

[[110]xJammer]

Just now, Ehret said:

 

No because usual ammo belts, with exceptions of some higher caliber guns, have a mix of AP and HE rounds. That includes the MG151/20s which are supplemented by machine guns doing AP/I, mostly. That's why such tests, as intriguing they may be, don't fully reflect reality.

 

Most red belts are 2/3 AP, most Blue belts are 2/3 HE. Red HE is worse too. So Flying red you'd aim at engines and pilot, flying blue you'd try to get the wing surfaces. Currently AP is as shown too good against wing surfaces so flying red you don't have to take care to hit the parts that matter...

[Ehret]

Just now, xJammer said:

 

Most red belts are 2/3 AP, most Blue belts are 2/3 HE. Red HE is worse too. So Flying red you'd aim at engines and pilot, flying blue you'd try to get the wing surfaces. Currently AP is as shown too good against wing surfaces so flying red you don't have to take care to hit the parts that matter...

 

Well... Reds tend to have better machine guns, at least until G-6 shows up. The ShKAS has cycling rate of 1800rpm - 1.5x more than (1200rpm) MG-17. Often, Reds will have 1, if not 2, much better Berezin 12.7mm machine guns plus the 20mm ShVAK. The La-5 carries two 20mm cannons - no wonder that earlier 109s may feel under-armed. The excellent power-loading had to come from somewhere and you can put gun-pods if you want achieve a different compromise.

 

Does firepower of the G-6/G-14 equip with MG151/20 and 2x 13mm still feel inadequate?

Edited August 5, 2018 by Ehret

[LeLv76_Erkki]

17 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Well... Reds tend to have better machine guns, at least until G-6 shows up. The ShKAS has cycling rate of 1800rpm - 1.5x more than (1200rpm) MG-17. Often, Reds will have 1, if not 2, much better Berezin 12.7mm machine guns plus the 20mm ShVAK. The La-5 carries two 20mm cannons - no wonder that earlier 109s may feel under-armed. The excellent power-loading had to come from somewhere and you can put gun-pods if you want achieve a different compromise.

 

Does firepower of the G-6/G-14 equip with MG151/20 and 2x 13mm still feel inadequate?

 

Its not about "feel" but how the guns in game perform compared to each other. This game is a combat flight simulator and needs to get details like this right, just like it needs to get flight models right. Minengeschoss at the moment is weak; German ammo needs on average more hits to down a test target. Tests have been made a that reveal that not only is AP good at de-winging planes but ShVak and especially Hispano's HE ammo is also much more powerful than 151/20 Minengschoss. Here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37192-bug-report-20mm-he-ammunition/

 

Yes, it is annoying to see 5+ HE shell splashes on wings and central fuselage only for the target to just leak fuel, dive to safety and land.

[Ehret]

Just now, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Its not about "feel" but how the guns in game perform compared to each other. This game is a combat flight simulator and needs to get details like this right, just like it needs to get flight models right. Minengeschoss at the moment is weak; German ammo needs on average more hits to down a test target. Tests have been made a that reveal that not only is AP good at de-winging planes but ShVak and especially Hispano's HE ammo is also much more powerful than 151/20 Minengschoss. Here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37192-bug-report-20mm-he-ammunition/

 

Why assumption that 2x yield of HE has to increase the damage that much? You need a geometric increase of yield to have a significantly bigger effect. Considering much higher velocity and mass (so the momentum) of Hispano 20mm over the MG151/20, the latter offer only around 1.25x (2**(1/3)) stronger HE effect. The energy is a total quantity - alone, it tells nothing about the efficiency - how much will be doing an useful work. (and the rest will just dissipate)

 

Still, Germans were using mixed belts and mixed armaments - if the M-shells were the pinnacle of effectiveness this wouldn't have a place. Even with the 30mm they preferred to put more guns whenever possible. That the 109 in the clean configuration carries a limited ordnance is the fault of too small air-frame, not ammunition.

 

And the famed "German engineering" is not magic, either.

 

The tests and videos shows where the issue is - not precise enough hit-boxes and buffing shells will not fix that.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Ehret

[E69_geramos109]

What i found also is that He seems useless killimg pilots unless a direct hit. Even if you hit on some places with no armor just the lateral stops all the fracments.

 

You can kill a plane with 4-5 rounds or even 2 or 3 on the wing and seem ok. But the He is not showing any advantage becuase you can do the same with Ap rounds and 12.7 are tethal due to the cadence even if they hit places where Ap should be bot a big problem. Hispanos are showing a cracy powe as well. Energy advantage of hispanos is great on penetration effect but not an advantage on He rounds but hitboxes seems that are taking emergy no matter the effect so hight energy rounds are so lethal even if they just would make a thiny hole on a empty part of the wing

Edited August 6, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[LeLv76_Erkki]

11 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Why assumption that 2x yield of HE has to increase the damage that much? You need a geometric increase of yield to have a significantly bigger effect. Considering much higher velocity and mass (so the momentum) of Hispano 20mm over the MG151/20, the latter offer only around 1.25x (2**(1/3)) stronger HE effect. The energy is a total quantity - alone, it tells nothing about the efficiency - how much will be doing an useful work. (and the rest will just dissipate)

 

Still, Germans were using mixed belts and mixed armaments - if the M-shells were the pinnacle of effectiveness this wouldn't have a place. Even with the 30mm they preferred to put more guns whenever possible. That the 109 in the clean configuration carries a limited ordnance is the fault of too small air-frame, not ammunition.

 

And the famed "German engineering" is not magic, either.

 

I have not assumed anything more than Minengeschoss should at least be on par with the more traditional HE rounds. And that AP shouldnt be as destructive as it is when hitting wings. Right now Hispano's HE is something like 75 % as effective per round and ShVak is about on par despite having less energy in both kinetic and chemical form.

 

Reasons as to why Germans kept using APIT shells included them facing plenty of Il-2s, and the Minengeschoss having no tracer.

Edited August 6, 2018 by LeLv76_Erkki

[unreasonable]

43 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

Its not about "feel" but how the guns in game perform compared to each other. This game is a combat flight simulator and needs to get details like this right, just like it needs to get flight models right. Minengeschoss at the moment is weak; German ammo needs on average more hits to down a test target. Tests have been made a that reveal that not only is AP good at de-winging planes but ShVak and especially Hispano's HE ammo is also much more powerful than 151/20 Minengschoss. Here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/37192-bug-report-20mm-he-ammunition/

 

Yes, it is annoying to see 5+ HE shell splashes on wings and central fuselage only for the target to just leak fuel, dive to safety and land.

 

That is untrue.  I quote from that thread.

 

"The results are quite surprising. 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." 

 

Operatsiya_Ivy is not happy with that result because he thinks 151/20 HE should be more powerful than the ShVAK.  He demonstrates that is is virtually identical in effect.

[Kurfurst]

28 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Why assumption that 2x yield of HE has to increase the damage that much? You need a geometric increase of yield to have a significantly bigger effect. Considering much higher velocity and mass (so the momentum) of Hispano 20mm over the MG151/20, the latter offer only around 1.25x (2**(1/3)) stronger HE effect. The energy is a total quantity - alone, it tells nothing about the efficiency - how much will be doing an useful work. (and the rest will just dissipate)

 

Kinetic energy is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to HE shells capacity for destruction. The shell will self destruct into tiny fragments at impact and will have little chance to convert its kinetic energy into physical damage. There is also magnitudes of difference between the capacity of a relatively small round (or its even smaller fragments) to make damage after flying several hundred meters and between the capacity of the explosives contained in the shell itself to do the same. Take note that all kinetic energy of the round itself comes from the powder charge in the cartridge to start with, and that powder charge is far, far less powerful than the explosive charge in the shell - otherwise it would simply rip the cannon breach apart.

 

Chemical Energy > Kinetic Energy.

 

Both fragments (due to their very poor aerodynamic shape, low weight and high velocity they loose their kinetic energy very fast) and explosive pressure loose the capacity to make actual damage within very short distances, however explosive force (pressure) will effect every and quite possibly destroy all surface in its near vicity, while fragments maybe do or maybe not. Their effect is far more random.

Edited August 6, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[LeLv76_Erkki]

4 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

That is untrue.  I quote from that thread.

 

"The results are quite surprising. 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." 

 

Operatsiya_Ivy is not happy with that result because he thinks 151/20 HE should be more powerful than the ShVAK.  He demonstrates that is is virtually identical in effect.

 

My bad as I was still thinking about AP there. Comparing HE ammo ShVak and 151/20 are indeed similar, Minengeschoss winning in muzzle velocity and mass and thus likely having (very) slightly better ballistics.