Jump to content
Panthera

3cm MK108: Historical test data vs ingame test data

Recommended Posts

Thought I'd collect all the test data available so far and compress it into one thread where it belongs. Later Rattlesnake and I will do some further ingame testing and add it here, providing a more extensive collection of reference material with which we can compare with the historical test data.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

British MK108 Trials

Fired projectiles:

 

HE - FZ

HE / T - FST

Incendiary (Inc.) - Incendiary

Shelling made from Mk 108

 

Attack against single-engine fighter

 

  • Targets: Spitfire MkIIB, equipped with armor and controls, but without engines
  • Shooting conditions: The wings were attacked directly from behind (direct astern), and the fuselage at an angle of rotation of 10 ° 

 

Details on test:

 

10 shots were fired (it is worth noting that the mortality of a single shot was evaluated in this and subsequent trials. In other words, damage from other shots are not taken into account when estimating the mortality of a shot).

 

The table with the results of the shelling:

  Reveal hidden contents

l1Mf7Gc.jpg

 

2 shots on the fuselage and 1 shot on the wing immediately became deadly. Others would probably be lethal too. Due to the disturbing action of the explosion, coupled with serious structural and aerodynamic (stalling) damage, each of the shots can lead to the immediate destruction of the aircraft.

  Reveal hidden contents

ZKeZ23T.jpg

 

Better than any descriptions of damage are photos and frames of filming. The numbering is in accordance with the table.

 

1. (HE / T) Results: "Probably lethal structurally and aerodynamically; lethal by loss of control"

  Reveal hidden contents

cKwdwqH.jpg

 

Film of shooting (Fig 1):

  Reveal hidden contents

97YZcoy.gif

 

2. (HE) Results: "Probably lethal aerodynamically"

  Reveal hidden contents

KVut3D4.jpg

 

3. (HE) Results: "Lethal"

  Reveal hidden contents

ffKKSTt.jpg

ZnF9AJ2.jpg

 

Film of shooting (Fig 3 & 3A):

  Reveal hidden contents

100861_800.gif

 

5. (HE) Results: "Lethal"

  Reveal hidden contents

FIltzEX.jpg

 

 

6. (HE) Results: "Probably lethal structurally and aerodynamically, and by loss of control"

Details: 50 small fragments struck the cabin. Several of them would have hurt the pilot.

  Reveal hidden contents

Vd77YpM.jpg

6LjgTqf.jpg

 

7. (HE / T) Results: "Probably lethal structurally and aerodynamically, and by loss of control"

  Reveal hidden contents

QaIq0i7.jpg

 

8. (Inc. Brandgranate) Results: "Probably lethal aerodynamically"

Entrance:

  Reveal hidden contents

z9ngt77.jpg

Damage at the exit of the projectile:

  Reveal hidden contents

BRMGRj0.jpg

 

10. (HE / T) Results: "Lethal"

Left view:

  Reveal hidden contents

Qnk5Bgq.jpg

Right view :

  Reveal hidden contents

jjcIZmT.jpg

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

Post war 30mm MK108 & ADEN cannon trials:

 

(only the results with 30mm Mk108 posted)

 

Similarly, when attacking the front from the lower hemisphere with a pitch angle of 20 ° 2 HE, the shots on the wings were lethal in terms of both structural and aerodynamic damage.

Details on the tests:

  Reveal hidden contents

RwtooS6.jpg

 

Aiming point:

  Reveal hidden contents

36bE1MK.jpg

 

The table with the results of the shelling:

  Reveal hidden contents

r019piO.jpg

YfyVWu1.jpg

 

Conclusion:

Inc., HE and HE / T are effective in inflicting lethal damage when firing wing and fuselage single-engine Spitfire fighters. For the most part, this requires one hit.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Attack against a twin-engine medium bomber

 

  • Targets: Blenheim IV , equipped with armor and controls, but without engines
  • Shooting conditions: the wings were attacked directly behind, and the fuselage at an angle of rotation of 10 ° from this position.

 
11 shots were fired . Each of the 3 shots immediately destroyed the fuselage. 7 shots on the wings would probably be lethal, and the remaining 1 shot did not cause damage since the projectile did not detonate.

 

The table with the results of the shelling:

  Reveal hidden contents

tLPHaEP.jpg

 

Damage photos and film shots. The numbering is in accordance with the table:

 

11. (HE) Results:  "Probably lethal aerodynamically"

  Reveal hidden contents

qs54HYM.jpg

 

12. (HE / T) Results: "Probably lethal aerodynamically"

  Reveal hidden contents

Elj9AA0.jpg

 

13. (HE / T) Results: "Lethal" 

  Reveal hidden contents

3fi6rXi.jpg

105116_800.jpg

 

14. (Inc. Brandgranate) Results: "Doubtful aerodynamically".  The fuel tank was filled with water.

  Reveal hidden contents

DnouNLW.jpg

 

15. (Inc. Brandgranate) Results: "Probably lethal aerodynamically and by fire". The fuel tank was filled with water.

  Reveal hidden contents

frwT3fy.jpg

 

16. (HE) Results: "Lethal"

  Reveal hidden contents

oDHLTVx.jpg

 

17. (HE / T) Results: "Probably lethal aerodynamically, also small fire risk (if tank is fitted)"

  Reveal hidden contents

9rsaEss.jpg

 

19. (Inc. Brandgranate) Results: "Probably lethal by fire" 

  Reveal hidden contents

57LCk8c.jpg

 

21. (HE) Results: "Lethal"

Left view:

  Reveal hidden contents

HjVWG2F.jpg

Right view :

  Reveal hidden contents

z57P6OZ.jpg

 

Film of shooting:

  Reveal hidden contents

OEtWVZO.gif

 

Conclusion:

Inc., HE, and HE / T are effective in inflicting lethal damage when firing on the wings and fuselage of Blenheim-type twin-engine medium bomber. For the most part, this requires one hit.

 

 

Sources :

  • Trials of German 30mm Ammunition, Gordon, HWB and Macdonald, JA, Orfordness reseach station FT343, May 1945
  • 30mm Ammunition, Gordon, HWB, Orfordness reseach station FT359, August 1946
  • Trials of Aden 30mm, HWB and Smith, AE, Technical Note No. Arm.440 Orfordness reseach station FT377 , July 1950 ( given comparisons withGerman 30 mm )

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

IL2 ingame testing of MK108 vs various aircraft

 

All tests attemptedly carried out to offer best possible resemblance with the real life British trials above.

 

2 hits (right on top of each other due to RoF) to the right wing from directly 6'o'clock, result; engine damaged & right aileron lost. Aircraft still controllable.

 

 

2 hits to the left wing from direct 6'o'clock, result; engine & turbocharger severely damaged. No loss of control to aircraft.

 

4 hits to the right wing from directly 6'o'clock, result; 1st hit did virtually nothing, 2nd hit the engine caught fire immediately, 3rd hit and flap is lost, 4th hit nothing noticable, but probably just another tick to the structure healthbar:

 

2 hits to right wing, with so far the most realistic results: Hit nr.1 to middle of wing did visible damage to wing & stabilizer, but no loss of control (Odd). 2nd hit directly to wing root severed the wing in level flight.

 

1 hit to right wing, results: Damage to cooling system, very little to effect on controllability, little structural damage as evident during subsequent maneuvers. Aircraft still able to dogfight. Takes a high speed & high G pull out to sever the wing:

 

Conclusions drawn thus far on the modelling of MK108 dmg in IL2 as compared with real life data:

 

1. Way too little blast damage, i.e. local damage inflicted

2. Way too severe shrapnel damage, atleast to the engine

3. Oddly resistant pilot, never gets hurt unless you strike the cockpit directly

 

Suggestions thus far for improvement:

a) increasing the local damage dealt

b) decreasing the shrapnel damage, atleast in terms of lethal radius  (a P-47 shouldn't lose its engine to a wing hit)

c) adjusting pilot vulnerability, making him more susceptible to wounding from blast/shrapnel by hits close to cockpit (couldn't hurt the pilot even with hits right next to the cockpit on the wing root of the aircraft) 

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 8
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


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

 

?

 

MK.IIB ;) Just reads Mk.11B in the document.

 

Edited it to make it clear now. 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good test. Thank you for taking your time doing it. My impression is that the DM is going in the right direction but still need tweaking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will need to be more tests to be conclusive. However, having a Spitfire absorb a 30mm cannon and not be noticeably hindered in dogfighting is definitely not good, from both a standpoint of comparing to the historical tests shown above and in terms of ramifications for gameplay.

 

A question that needs to be answered though is whether this is a DM problem or an internet problem. Guns currently SEEM more lethal on AIs than on humans in multiplayer atm, but it is difficult to isolate the reason why.

 

An interesting implication of this test is that P-47 is NOT effectively tougher than other aircraft currently, for all its wings stay on, because hits to the wing will go ahead and do so much shrapnel damage to the engine and other bits.

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me, that in this process the Minengeschosse (which aren't modeled in the game to begin with) are faring worse than their counterparts due to their unique build. The way Minengeschosse are working is simply not considered (enough) when it comes to the damage calculations.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2018 at 6:14 PM, Operation_Ivy said:

[edited]

 

It appears to me, that in this process the Minengeschosse (which aren't modeled in the game to begin with) are faring worse than their counterparts due to their unique build. The way Minengeschosse are working is simply not considered (enough) when it comes to the damage calculations.

 

I can only assume that  you are inferring that from Jason's post in the poll thread that "Any theoretical models/calculations are considered to be too controversial to be used as base."  I have not seen that description anywhere else: and I do not agree with your characterization, which seems to me to be somewhat misleading. Making a statistical interpolation is a theoretical model.

 

Personally I just wish that the files were made available so that they can be 1) analysed and 2) modded.  

 

On 12/11/2018 at 11:20 PM, Rattlesnake said:

In this case we are able to compare apples-to-apples hits from a gun modeled in game applied to ab airframe modeled in game and see how well the virtual matches the real. Are there similar test comparisons possible with other guns and airframes? Because that IMO would be the ideal way to “calibrate” all guns. 

 

The most extensive report that does this is the US OR report that gives single shot probability of kill for a range of munitions against P-47 and B-25 aircraft, from a single angle.  Those tests can be very roughly approximated in the game using ground fire, which shows that the 20mm HE (conventional) and 37mm HE are both much more effective in game (~double) than the US testers estimated.  My hypothesis is that the reason is much the same as the issues with the mineshells: splinter damage is too effective in the game, and blast not effective enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


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

It is a direct quote of a dev in private chat.

I guess private chats are called private for a reason, aren't they?

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

Personally I just wish that the files were made available so that they can be 1) analysed and 2) modded.  

 

 

For God's sake - NO! I really hope and pray that this is - never - ever - in no way - going to happen! FM and DM has to be and stay in their hands!

 

Just imagine if all the "experts" messing around with those parameters - well then, good night! This would be the end of this wonderful combat sim.

I know, it's still not perfect and there is some room for improvement - no doubt - but honestly, they are doing a really great job and they keep

improving, they don't stand still.

 

And to be fair - I really don't envy them reading and bearing all those rants they get every time they try to do their best.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Personally I just wish that the files were made available so that they can be 1) analysed and 2) modded.  

 

 

Nope! Damage model and weapon effectivity MUST stay in the hands of the devs exclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, -IRRE-Therion said:

 

For God's sake - NO! I really hope and pray that this is - never - ever - in no way - going to happen! FM and DM has to be and stay in their hands!

 

Just imagine if all the "experts" messing around with those parameters - well then, good night! This would be the end of this wonderful combat sim.

I know, it's still not perfect and there is some room for improvement - no doubt - but honestly, they are doing a really great job and they keep

improving, they don't stand still.

 

And to be fair - I really don't envy them reading and bearing all those rants they get every time they try to do their best.

 

Calm down. They are called "mods" and there is a "mods on mode". The data for various elements of weapons effectiveness and plane damage were made available for use in RoF - actually it was only mods that made the game remotely realistic in SP: from a realism standpoint it was pretty much a joke without mods.   To my knowledge, there never has been any issue of this leaking into MP. Same in BoX - the server determines Mods use.  

 

I agree that BoX is much better in these respects that RoF was - and it appears FC is benefiting from this improvement. So they are not necessary in the way they were for RoF. But the sky will not fall down if SP was more extensively mod-able.  

Share this post


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

I guess private chats are called private for a reason, aren't they?

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

I edited it anyway because the mod asked me too.

Edited by Operation_Ivy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Instead of posting it in its entirety here I will provide a link to my initial post presenting the trial data.

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the true to life very high rate of the jamming of this weapon modelled. Then we would see less of the unrealistic kills it's currently making.

 

"The 109’s 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way.”

— Heinz Lange, Major, JG 51, Awarded Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross.
https://fighterba.se/aircraft/germany/focke-wulf-fw-190a-8r2-wurger/

 

"The Rheinmetall-Borsig 30 mm MK 108, which was good for close-range fire against heavy bombers. Although a powerful weapon, it's cheapness and ease of manufacture made it prone to jamming and other forms of malfunction"
-  Page 53, "Jagdbervand 44: Squadron of Experten" by Robert Forsyth

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y1ibCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=MK+108+jamming+problems&source=bl&ots=zi8i6GFeR3&sig=ACfU3U0Dog2RMdv0RKq8N5of4cishxZKIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjljqWgwaPgAhXAUxUIHTM2COE4ChDoATAGegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=MK 108 jamming problems&f=false

 

"It was not that the MK 108 was a bad weapon as far as cannon go. On the contrary, it was one of the most advanvced weapons of it's type to be placed into production, but it jammed frequently ..."

Chapter 15, -- Revolutionary Amament, "Rocket Fighter" by Mano Ziegler

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n7xvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=It+was+not+that+the+MK+108+was+a+bad+weapon+as+far+as+cannon+go.+On+the+contrary,+it+was+one+of+the+most+advanced+weapons+of+it's+type+to+be+placed+into+production,+but+it+jammed+frequently&source=bl&ots=r4YrlpVDFI&sig=ACfU3U146s7YuMYtXAAl3Tz6V_QgCrISFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO1YGXzLDgAhUKVRUIHQaEDskQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=It was not that the MK 108 was a bad weapon as far as cannon go. On the contrary%2C it was one of the most advanced weapons of it's type to be placed into production%2C but it jammed frequently&f=false

 

Edited by 334th_KMA
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Probably won’t happen until they start to model the awful real life reliability of Hispanos I guess.


When people make claims but epicly fail to provide any substance.
When people venture off topic on a topic about MK 108 historical data.

That's when people are acting like children because they don't like what they read..


 

Edited by 334th_KMA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 334th_KMA said:


When people make claims but epicly fail to provide any substance.

 

You have understand the source of such a statement.

Share this post


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

 

You have understand the source of such a statement.


What does that have to do with MK 108 historical data?
Is this kiddy playtime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd TAF between June 1944 and May 1945 had an average stoppage rate of one per 1,562 rounds fired for Mark II and Mark V Hispano.

 

Regards,

Thrila

Share this post


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

The 2nd TAF between June 1944 and May 1945 had an average stoppage rate of one per 1,562 rounds fired for Mark II and Mark V Hispano.

 

Regards,

Thrila

Apparently, mostly due to badly made-up belts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×