Jump to content
AnPetrovich

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?  

289 members have voted

  1. 1. Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    • Befoe 3.008
      65
    • After 3.008
      224


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

If I had it I would, Franz Stigler talks about it in one of his interviews. The average percentage of hits pr. rounds fired was also assessed, claimed to be 2% by Stigler. 

 

I have some secondary source stuff on that, which I personally judge creditable:

 

Quote

Its armament included 30 mm MK 108 cannon in the outer wing stations, this weapon’s high-explosive shells proving extremely destructive at short range – experience would show that, on average, only three hits were needed to bring down a heavy bomber.

Source: Weal, John. Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front (Kindle-Positionen1332-1334). Osprey Publishing. Kindle-Version. 

 

Quote

On average it took twenty hits with 20mm shells to bring down a heavy bomber. Given the average standard of Jagdflieger marksmanship, this was rarely achieved in a single burst, even though the German fighters, Bf 109s and FW 190s, were later up-gunned. More often, bombers were damaged in the first pass and forced out of formation. Once away from the combined defensive fire of the box, stragglers could be hacked down relatively easily.

Source: Spick, Mike. Luftwaffe Fighter Aces . Frontline Books. Kindle-Version. 

 

Quote

 

The actual feelings of the Reich’s defence pilots – and an insight into their lives at the time – are perhaps most graphically illustrated by a letter written by Oberstleutnant Hans Philipp, Kommodore of JG 1 and he of the operations tent erected to give the feel of ‘real’ frontline campaigning. Penned to an old Eastern Front colleague on the very day of the Frankfurt debacle, it reflects the growing pressure being borne by units in the west, and reads in part;

"Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down, or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 Fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes." 

Four days after writing these words ‘Fips’ Philipp was dead, killed over northern Germany by the ubiquitous P-47s after claiming his first, and only, four-engined bomber. During his six months leadership of JG 1 the 200 + Eastern Front ace had, in addition to this single B-17, shot down exactly one Spitfire and one P-47.

 

Weal, John. Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front (Kindle-Positionen1008-1010). Osprey Publishing. Kindle-Version. 

 

On JG26s initial problems with B17s (early 1943). Note he made THREE passes on the B17 until he got it down with his 20mm:

 

Quote

Otto Stammberger of the same unit recalled the difficulties: We attacked the enemy bombers in pairs, going in with great bravado: closing in fast from behind with throttles wide open, then letting fly. But at first the attacks were all broken off much too early—as those great ‘barns’ grew larger and larger our people were afraid of colliding with them. I wondered why I had scored no hits but then I considered the size of the things: 40 metres span! [A slight exaggeration.—Author.] The next time I went in I thought: get in much closer, keep going, keep going. Then I opened up, starting with his motors on the port wing. By the third such firing run the two port engines were burning well, and I had shot the starboard outer motor to smithereens. The enemy ‘kite’ went down in wide spiralling left-hand turns, and crashed just east of Vendeville; four or five of the crew baled out.

Spick, Mike. Luftwaffe Fighter Aces . Frontline Books. Kindle-Version. 
 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That said some of it was probably down to the relatively low rof. 

 

It has a comparable rof as the MG151/20

 

6 minutes ago, sevenless said:

On JG26s initial problems with B17s (early 1943). Note he made THREE passes on the B17 until he got it down with his 20mm:

 

Shows how much more experience virtual pilots got under their belt and you can still get thrown off at time by the high closing speed. I have my difficulties with gun camera footage as a source for the DM because of it.

Edited by Operation_Ivy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

It has a comparable rof as the MG151/20

 

It feels slower somehow, perhaps it's down to how the guns are synched. I at least percieve myself struggling to get hits with it as easily as with the MG151/20's.

 

Could also be that that I wasn't seeing as many flashes to indicate a hit. I have the same problem with the .50 cals, yet I know they're destructive.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

It feels slower somehow, perhaps it's down to how the guns are synched. I at least percieve myself struggling to get hits with it as easily as with the MG151/20's.

 

Could also be that that I wasn't seeing as many flashes to indicate a hit. I have the same problem with the .50 cals, yet I know they're destructive.

 

Muzzle velocity of 30mm is significantly slower than 20mm. It is behaving more like a grenade launcher. Hence opening fire with it beyond 300metres makes no sense. You need to get close. I prefer 200-100 metres.

 

MK 108

ROF 650/min
muzzle velocity: 505–540 m/s

 

MG 151/20

ROF 780–800/min
muzzle velocity: 810 m/s

 

20mm ShVAK

ROF 700-800/min
muzzle velocity: 750-790 m/s

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


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

 

Muzzle velocity of 30mm is significantly slower than 20mm. It is behaving more like a grenade launcher. Hence opening fire with it beyond 300metres makes no sense. You need to get close. I prefer 200-100 metres.

 

MK 108

ROF 650/min
muzzle velocity: 505–540 m/s

 

MG 151/20

ROF 780–800/min
muzzle velocity: 810 m/s

 

30mm? We were talking about the 20mm ShvaKs as compared with the MG151/20, not about the Mk108 ;)

 

I am quite aware of how to get the best out of the Mk108 in terms of hits, the problem with that gun is all about said hits not doing what they're suppose to be doing atm, even if they are very effective at taking out powerplant systems. But again, that's not what Ivy and I were talking about :)

Edited by Panthera
Ivy not Indy haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

30mm? We were talking about the 20mm ShvaKs as compared with the MG151/20, not about the Mk108 ;)

 

 

Sorry my fault. Misread that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Shvak cannons are cancer now confirmed flew with like 9 other pilots and everybody agrees its garbage now you can empty all of your ammo on a 109 and it just gets minor wing damage and such.

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

Ok Shvak cannons are cancer now confirmed flew with like 9 other pilots and everybody agrees its garbage now you can empty all of your ammo on a 109 and it just gets minor wing damage and such.

 

No difference to the Mg 151/20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that in my career (Moscow for now), when they give me an I-16, I now go for the full Shkas load and not the ShVak mixed one. Maybe it's just placedo tho, because I'm not sure it's better but at least it's a "one-ballistic"..

Edited by Solmyr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

The damage model seems to be all over the place, the 20mm Shvak seems weak on the the mig and the 12.7mm (both Russian and US) is also quite weak and doesn't seem to make any significant damage.

On the other hand low caliber machineguns seem to be much stronger now.

Thats just my own impression after flying a bit.

I've been pretty impressed by the eight .50s in the P-47 so far. I score a head-on kill on a 109 at almost my guns' convergence. The 109 was dead before he'd traveled a 1/2 mile past me.

I can't hit squat with the 30mm.

Fire 1.jpg

Fire 2.jpg

Fire 3.jpg

Edited by Rjel
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

If I had it I would, Franz Stigler talks about it in one of his interviews. The average percentage of hits pr. rounds fired was also assessed, claimed to be 2% by Stigler. 

 

Now these statistics & averages were obviously also from by people who knew what they were talking about. So assuming they didnt count unsuccesful attacks seems abit far fetched, esp. since it would make the analysis completely useless.

<snip>

 

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about an analysis that none of us have seen.  Until you can produce some actual documentary  evidence other than hearsay, it is impossible to know to what this number (3-4) refers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

You are making an awful lot of assumptions about an analysis that none of us have seen.  Until you can produce some actual documentary  evidence other than hearsay, it is impossible to know to what this number (3-4) refers.

 

 

Well you assumed they weren't counting targets not shot down, not me. But I'm not relying on the German estimates, I merely mentioned them as they mirror the British findings. 

 

The concern that the ingame DM model is incorrect, atleast in the case of the MK108,  is based on the three British firing trials which are very conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

Well you assumed they weren't counting targets not shot down, not me. But I'm not relying on the German estimates, I merely mentioned them as they mirror the British findings. 

 

The concern that the ingame DM model is incorrect, atleast in the case of the MK108,  is based on the three British firing trials which are very conclusive.

 

"I merely mentioned them as they mirror the British findings."  Quite so. You mention them since they support your preferred view. No real information on the method on which they were based, what angle, how many cases etc, but you like the result so you promote vague hearsay above a documented technical study. No doubt if they did not mirror the British findings you would not be so keen to mention them.

 

Frankly, Panthera, what I have a problem with is your continual blatant misrepresentation of the available evidence, including clearly false statements about the content of the US OR report. We can all have concerns about how easy it is to generalize from it's conclusions, but  that does mean that it is alright willfully to distort it's contents,  presumably in the hope that everyone will be so fed up with answering your barrage of posts that they will just give up and let them pass.

 

You appear to be an intelligent individual, at least by MP standards, which is why I find it hard to understand why you should behave in this egregious fashion. A little more humility about interpreting conflicting evidence would be in order, as well as a little less arrogance in assuming that you have access to the truth and anyone disagreeing with you is being irrational. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 12:15 PM, Han said:

HE impact "will do"

 

@Han -> What happen if the HE doesn't explode?

HE with delay fuze are known that they explode inside the plane or in the air. Same as with bombs this delay fuse can failure cause that the HE doesn't explode but only penetrating the plane. Does this also fall under "HE overdone"?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted for after 3.008, because we can't deny it's an improvement compared to old DM with glass wings.


However as almost everybody I find that AP ammunitions are fine, but canon shells (all calibers, Germans and VVS) seem a bit weak.

Especially while hitting ailerons/rudder with large calibers. It souldn't induce a complete wing snap as before of course, but ailerons are a fragile part of a wing and they seem to resist more than I would expect when hitted by large caliber shell.
In my opinion, wing and tail structure should resist few hits, but not ailerons/rudder.

But overall, yes that's better.

 


 

Edited by -IRRE-Centx
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

"I merely mentioned them as they mirror the British findings."  Quite so. You mention them since they support your preferred view. No real information on the method on which they were based, what angle, how many cases etc, but you like the result so you promote vague hearsay above a documented technical study. No doubt if they did not mirror the British findings you would not be so keen to mention them.

 

Frankly, Panthera, what I have a problem with is your continual blatant misrepresentation of the available evidence, including clearly false statements about the content of the US OR report. We can all have concerns about how easy it is to generalize from it's conclusions, but  that does mean that it is alright willfully to distort it's contents,  presumably in the hope that everyone will be so fed up with answering your barrage of posts that they will just give up and let them pass.

 

You appear to be an intelligent individual, at least by MP standards, which is why I find it hard to understand why you should behave in this egregious fashion. A little more humility about interpreting conflicting evidence would be in order, as well as a little less arrogance in assuming that you have access to the truth and anyone disagreeing with you is being irrational. 

 

I didn't blatantly misrepresent anything.  Which is the same as calling me a liar btw - for no reason what so ever I might add.  But let me start by saying that if you're accusing me of this because you've run out of arguments, then  there are certainly a lot more graceful & polite ways of going about it.

 

But I'm assuming you're refering to this comment of mine in your effort to now slander my person:

Quote

"What tests though? The above are probability calculations. As far as I can tell the US didn't do any actual tests where they shot at a bomber to conclude how many hits it would on average take to cause lethal damage. They fired some shots against engines to judge their destructiveness against these, but that was it, everything else was approximated. " 

 

I wrote the above (directly to you btw, not anyone else) because I simply didn't know any firings vs a B-25's structure had been made, it was apparent nowhere on any of the the pages you had provided thus far that I had seen. All I noted were firings vs B-25 engines. It's really as simple as that. That hardly qualifies as "blatantly misrepresenting" something, does it?  Also I really did expect you could see how utterly illogical a move it would be to deliberatly misrepresent something that has been posted for everyone else to see as well before you would ever resort to writing a reply like this -  I mean for anyone to do that just wouldn't make any sense at all.  Claiming instead that I hoped "that everyone will be so fed up with answering your barrage of posts that they will just give up and let them pass" is being very creative I must say, esp. considering that I was replying directy to you the entire time. How you managed to concoct that in your mind mystifies me.

 

Furthermore how is all of this any different than you claiming that the British tests are basically invalid because they were "shooting at optimal locations"? I mean seeing as the British did no such thing, then how is that not also a clear case of "blatantly misrepresenting things"? Yet eventhough you said this which someone could've easily twisted into you making an attempt at trying to mislead people, I didn't any any point claim you were attempting to do this, nor did I try to slander your person because of what you said did I?  No I didn't, because I automatically assume things like that are the result of undeliberately missing a few details whilst going through the source material provided.  Same story with your mix up of the post war ADEN & MK108 trials. I wouldn't dream of calling you a liar because of it, hence I am pretty bamboozled that you apparently would.

 

Now with all of this said my points still stand, which is that the Mk108 does not do the damage ingame that it demonstrated in real life. The evidence on that is clear for everyone to see. If you want to have a civil discussion about why you disagree with this, fine, I am all ears and will even forget about your post above. If not, then I shall save us both the trouble and henceforth simply stop replying & ignore your posts.

 

Edited by Panthera
PS this was a pain to write on my phone in a train on why way to work. Doesn't do anyones concentration or ability to remember any good.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if people want more damage resistance they can install hull resistance packages from Space shooters. Even reinforced shields will be even better as the DM is into the Sci-FI altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sevenless said:

experience would show that, on average, only three hits were needed to bring down a heavy bomber.

 

Splendid, but where is Weal drawing that statement from? It's all fine and well to say something like that, but one has to cite primary references if they want their claims to be taken seriously in a discussion like this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Splendid, but where is Weal drawing that statement from? It's all fine and well to say something like that, but one has to cite primary references if they want their claims to be taken seriously in a discussion like this.

 

You need to ask Weal directly for his sources. In his book there are none.

 

BTW: Entry date of the MK 108 was October 1943. According to http://www.ww2.dk/ you wont find any units equipped with 109 G6/U4 before 2/44 earliest.

 

BTW2: Weal isn´t the only one in describing the MK 108 as a real killer (again no sources given):

 

acf-lw.jpg

 

Another well known expert on everything Luftwaffe, Dr. Alfred Price, also has something to say about the 20mm MG 151/20, which surely motivated LW to get something more efficient into their planes:

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1993/September 1993/0993regensburg.aspx

 

Quote

German fighters initially found themselves short on firepower when engaging the sturdy, well-armored heavy bombers. When Luftwaffe officers examined wrecked B-17s and B-24s, they discovered that it took at least twenty hits with 20-mm shells fired from the rear to bring them down. Armament experts, after analyzing combat camera footage, learned that pilots of average ability hit the bombers with only about two percent of the rounds they fired. To obtain twenty hits, the average pilot had to aim 1,000 20-mm rounds at the bomber. The best German fighter, the FW-190, carried only 500 rounds.

 

and on the MK 108 he said the following:

 

Quote

In the weeks that followed, the large-scale introduction of two weapons brought about a formidable increase in the firepower of German home defense fighters. The first was the Mk. 108 cannon, a 30-mm weapon that fired eleven-ounce, high-explosive incendiary rounds at a rate of more than 600 per minute; on average, three such hits were sufficient to down a heavy bomber.

 

Quote

Alfred Price flew with the Royal Air Force for sixteen years. He has published some three dozen books, including Instruments of Darkness, The History of US Electronic Warfare (two volumes), and Air Battle Central Europe. His most recent article for Air Force Magazine was “To War in a Warthog” in the August 1993 issue.

 

And of course you have Dayton, Ohio museum (National Museum of the US Air Force) which might be a good start to get hold of source material:

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196224/rheinmetall-mk-108-30mm-cannon/

 

Quote

 the Bf 109G-10 carried either a 20mm MG 151 or a 30mm MK 108 cannon that fired through the propeller hub. Although the MK 108 had a relatively slow rate of fire, it often took only one or two hits from this powerful weapon to bring down another aircraft. The MK 108 also armed the Me 262 jet and the Me 163 rocket fighter.

 

Quote

To address the Fw 190’s shortcomings, the number of cannons fitted was doubled to four with a corresponding increase in the amount of ammunition carried, creating the Sturmbock bomber destroyer version. This type replaced the vulnerable twin-engined Zerstörer heavy fighters which could not survive interception by P-51 Mustangs flying well ahead of the combat boxes in an air supremacy role starting very early in 1944, to clear any Luftwaffe defensive fighters from the skies. By 1944, a further upgrade to Rheinmetall-Borsig’s 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 108 cannons mounted either in the wing, or in underwing, conformal mount gun pods, was made for the Sturmbock Focke-Wulfs as either the /R2 or /R8 field modification kits, enabling aircraft to bring a bomber down with just a few hits.

Press, Merriam. World War 2 In Review No. 23: Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress . Lulu.com. Kindle-Version. 

Edited by sevenless
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for dismantling wings and some planes resisting huge damages, the DM of 3.008 is a significant step forward. However, the discrepancy between AP and mine projectiles is far off in the current update version. The mine projectiles do not cause the damage that is calculated and documented in the literature. These calculations were compared with empirical data from real life experiments (by RAF, USAF, USN). The results are nearly equal.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US, Britain and Germany all carried out testing on the effectiveness of ammunition types and while its undeniable that the MK 108 packed a massive punch but there were some variables recorded between all of the tests.

 

Its clear from the spitfire testing that the MK 108 was a formidable weapon but according to the US testing it may have been probable that a large fighter or a twin engine bomber may have survived instantaneous catastrophic damage from a 30 mm hit or several and make it back to base.

Regarding the oft quoted "Luftwaffe" 3-4 hits to bring down a heavy, Id like to think (but of course maybe wrong) that it may have been in some cases an over exuberant account similar to bouncing 50 cals taking out Tiger tanks and the over-claiming for the effectiveness of taking out tanks in the air to ground role.

 

I don't often like to refer to gun cam footage but many of the "heavies" in this footage are receiving numerous hits from Fw190 A-8s and Bf110 G-2s and even though the damage is most likely catastrophic they are not disintegrating after 3 or 4 hits. At round the 2 minute mark a 110 attacks a B-17 and I lost count after about 30 hits.  At the 5 minute mark a LaGG takes multiple hit from the guns of an A-8.

 

Many of you have undoubtedly already seen this video.

 

I'm sure that in many instances 1 30 mm round would be sufficient to down a fighter, if it hit a vital component. I think we also have to assume that in some instances, aircraft could survive a catastrophic failure and manage to return home. I think looking at all the evidence 1 hit from a 30 mm may not always end in an instant kill, even though the damage caused would be significant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'm sure that in many instances 1 30 mm round would be sufficient to down a fighter, if it hit a vital component. I think we also have to assume that in some instances, aircraft could survive a catastrophic failure and manage to return home. I think looking at all the evidence 1 hit from a 30 mm may not always end in an instant kill, even though the damage caused would be significant.

 

I have not seen a single source speaking about instant disintegration. All more or less say "some" rounds to bring the plane down. In which form "bringing down" occurs is debatable. I think the US OR test which @unreasonable posted gives a very good definition with discrimination between A and B kills. That is what I assume to be realistic AND in accordance with published literature.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Solmyr said:

I admit that in my career (Moscow for now), when they give me an I-16, I now go for the full Shkas load and not the ShVak mixed one. Maybe it's just placedo tho, because I'm not sure it's better but at least it's a "one-ballistic"..

 

Hehe, I'm now quite sure that it wasn't a so good idea though :

 

 

Constelled_109.png

What's the name that plane ? Isn't it.. "Constellation" ? 😂

Share this post


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

 

I

But I'm assuming you're refering to this comment of mine in your effort to now slander my person: <snip>

 

 

 

Have you read the US report?  It has been posted several times in the forum, and I have also recently given the reference  a800394 so that anyone can find it (at www.dtic.mil) and read the whole document.  My posting extracts was in order to illustrate that some your statements about the report were clearly false: and blatantly misrepresents what it says. I have no intention of spoon-feeding you if you cannot be bothered to read the report.  This is a contemporary primary source on this DM issue: you should read and understand it before making up your mind on how a given weapon should perform. 

 

You have to face the fact that there is a considerable inconsistency between your interpretation of the UK tests and what the US report says.  So even before we get to the game implementation you have a problem, which you appear to be dealing with by ignoring or dismissing the US evidence.  This entirely undercuts your claim that the game implementation "does not do the damage ingame that it did in real life", since you are ignoring some very useful evidence of what did happen in real life. 

 

When evidence appears to conflict in this way you are well advised to stick to the well documented analysis and ignore hearsay anecdotes such as this alleged GAF study, about which we have no precise information.  The useful evidence is contained in the US study and the UK firing tests. The US study also documented firing tests - it appears many more than in the UK study.    

 

My interpretation, is that while the UK trials showed what could happen when shots were fired in pre-determined spots, usually causing maximum damage, the US tests were analysed to show what would happen with a random placement of hits.  If that is correct, the two data sets are not in any great conflict. If you do not take this view, and stick to the one hit usually = one killed fighter interpretation, then the onus is on you to explain how a team of US researchers could have got it all so wrong.

 

As for whether you respond to any more of my posts, I really do not give a monkey's. If you want to pronounce on the shortcomings of the game's DM without taking account of all the relevant primary sources, there really is no point in any discussion at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Have you read the US report?  It has been posted several times in the forum, and I have also recently given the reference  a800394 so that anyone can find it (at www.dtic.mil) and read the whole document.  My posting extracts was in order to illustrate that some your statements about the report were clearly false: and blatantly misrepresents what it says. I have no intention of spoon-feeding you if you cannot be bothered to read the report.  This is a contemporary primary source on this DM issue: you should read and understand it before making up your mind on how a given weapon should perform. 

 

Spoon-feeding me? So was that also what I was doing when I was correcting you on the British trials that were posted pretty much in their entirety on this forum and not in small snippets so you had a chance to miss important details? 

 

And no obviously I hadn't read the entire report, if I had I wouldn't have responded directly to you the way I did now would I ? 

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

You have to face the fact that there is a considerable inconsistency between your interpretation of the UK tests and what the US report says.  So even before we get to the game implementation you have a problem, which you appear to be dealing with by ignoring or dismissing the US evidence.  This entirely undercuts your claim that the game implementation "does not do the damage ingame that it did in real life", since you are ignoring some very useful evidence of what did happen in real life. 

 

Seems we're back at ignoring what I actually am stating in my posts and instead making up arguments I've never made. (Like when you ignored me talking specifically about hits to the wings) Hence you're going to have to specify exactly what inconsistency exists between my interpretation of the British trials and what the US report indicates.

 

I can make it easy for you and list the points I've made so that you pick exactly which one you feel is unfounded:

 

1) The evidence available strongly suggests that it would one average take just one hit by a 3cm HE(M) shell to the wing of a fighter to cause structural failure (of said wing)

 

2) It is concievable that a P-47, being a very sturdily built aircraft, has a reasonable chance of surviving a single 30mm HE(M) to its wing, but evidence suggests that surviving two hits to the same wing is unlikely 

 

3) A P-47 is very much not likely to survive 4 direct hits to its rear fuselage (response to ingame example of this happening), infact surviving more than one or two seems very unlikely based on the British trials.

 

Which one does the US OR analysis regarding random hits directly disagree with?

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

When evidence appears to conflict in this way you are well advised to stick to the well documented analysis and ignore hearsay anecdotes such as this alleged GAF study, about which we have no precise information.  The useful evidence is contained in the US study and the UK firing tests. The US study also documented firing tests - it appears many more than in the UK study.    

 

The GAF study is referenced in so many books and in some detail by LW pilots that it is highly unlikely to be imaginary, hence it would be a mistake to simply dismiss it and leave it out.  It's credibility is helped along by the fact that it relates closely with the British trials. All the evidence available has to be considered in a matter such as this, also the less detailed examples. It's the only way to get the most complete picture. But obviously the GAF study does not equate to the UK or US study in terms of evidence, and cannot stand alone against either, and I never claimed that either, however it does act as a supporting bit evidence to the former.

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

My interpretation, is that while the UK trials showed what could happen when shots were fired in pre-determined spots, usually causing maximum damage, the US tests were analysed to show what would happen with a random placement of hits.  If that is correct, the two data sets are not in any great conflict. If you do not take this view, and stick to the one hit usually = one killed fighter interpretation, then the onus is on you to explain how a team of US researchers could have got it all so wrong.

 

The problem with that interpretation IMHO is that the US tests were carried out from a single direction & angle at a very long range (not several like the British trials), and worse still provides no details on the location or results of each hit. For instance how many hits were glances, how many were duds etc. In short it's impossible to use the US test as a source for comparison with ingame results of hits to specific parts of an aircraft. The UK trials on the other hand provide great detail on the possible outcome of hits to specific parts on an airframe, making it an actual useful source for comparison.

 

 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it´s worth. Quote of a man who did the job and would know:

 

 

Forsyth-2-Franz.jpg

 

And an additional account on a P-47 and the MK-108s of a Me 262:

 

Quote

At 1015 hrs, the jets attacked the B-17s of the 3rd Air Division in line astern from 6000-7000 metres between Braunschweig and Magdeburg. Hauptmann Heinz Gutmann (a former bomber pilot with III./KG 53 and a Knight’s Cross holder now flying with 10./JG 7), the veteran Kdo. Nowotny pilot Leutnant Karl Schnörrer of 11./JG 7 and Oberfeldwebel Helmut Lennartz of 9./JG 7 each claimed a B-17 destroyed, while Oberfähnrich Heinz Russel of 9./JG 7 and Oberfeldwebel Hermann Buchner managed to shoot down a P-47 and P-51, respectively, with Buchner also claiming a B-17. He recalled; ‘We broke through the fighter escorts, but then found ourselves under massive defensive fire from the bombers’ turret gunners. When we were about 1000 metres from the bombers, Gutmann’s cockpit flashed with fire and his fighter sheared away from our formation and dived away vertically. I think he might have been killed outright, as he did not attempt to bale out.’ Gutmann’s Me 262 hit the ground a few kilometres south of Braunschweig. For his part, Russel, another former Kdo. Nowotny pilot, had actually targeted a B-17, but just as he opened fire with his 30 mm MK 108 cannon, a P-47 flew across his path and was blown apart in mid-air.

 

Forsyth, Robert. Jagdgeschwader 7 'Novotny' (Aviation Elite Units) . Osprey Publishing. Kindle-Version. 

Edited by sevenless
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I don't often like to refer to gun cam footage but many of the "heavies" in this footage are receiving numerous hits from Fw190 A-8s and Bf110 G-2s and even though the damage is most likely catastrophic they are not disintegrating after 3 or 4 hits. At round the 2 minute mark a 110 attacks a B-17 and I lost count after about 30 hits.  At the 5 minute mark a LaGG takes multiple hit from the guns of an A-8.

 

I'd argue that all of those are most likely showing the results of 20mm cannon fire (most of the A8s & 110G2s coming without Mk108s), as the damage looks identical to all the other footage we've seen from aircraft that we know only carried 20mm as their heaviest armament.

 

So far I've only been able to identify one clip of gun camera footage showcasing damage consistent with what we know about the MK108, and it appears at 4:30 min in this video (2 big flashes, one to the right and then another to the left wing, and then what appears to be a third big hit to the fuselage right at the end):

https://youtu.be/vfYMtSiFuIc?t=270

 

The above clip appears consistent with photos such as these supposed to show the damage from a single MK108 hit:

jCBZHix.jpg

image.png

 

It's a shame that the German gun camera archive with all of the LW's 6 years worth of gun camera footage was destroyed, if not we would've no doubt had a lot of Mk108 footage to go by. 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

just as he opened fire with his 30 mm MK 108 cannon, a P-47 flew across his path and was blown apart in mid-air.

Not surprising, with possibly 4 MK 108's hitting the aircraft. I'm also fairly confident that if you put enough 30 mm rounds into a B-17, its wings will most certainly fall off

Pilot reports and anecdotal evidence can't always be relied on to be 100% accurate but Its plainly obvious that the MK 108 was a fearsome weapon.

 

I tend to agree with what you posted here.

5 hours ago, sevenless said:

I think the US OR test which @unreasonable posted gives a very good definition with discrimination between A and B kills. That is what I assume to be realistic

 

22 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I'd argue that all of those are most likely showing the results of 20mm cannon fire (most of the A8s & 110G2s coming without Mk108s), as the damage looks identical to all the other footage we've seen from aircraft that we know only carried 20mm as their heaviest armament.

Unfortunately I don't know whether it was just 20 mm or not, but the hits to the Liberator from 5:39 look like a larger caliber than 20 mm. I'm not sure but could the clip you mentioned be hits to the outboard Tokyo tanks and igniting fuel?

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Unfortunately I don't know whether it was just 20 mm or not, but the hits to the Liberator from 5:30 look like a larger caliber than 20 mm. I'm not sure but could the clip you mentioned be hits to the outboard Tokyo tank and igniting fuel?

 

Well if you look closely at all the footage known to have been only with 20mm cannon, then they all seem virtually identical to those IMHO, and that includes the footage of the Liberator which appears to be struck with 20mm HEI shells. 30mm HE(M) simply produces a much larger explosion, enough the blow a fighters fuselage in half as we've seen.

 

As for the footage I referenced, the hit to the left wing certainly seemed to have ignited some fuel, so the tank there was most likely ruptured, but the big initial flash/explosion & big hole from which the fire appears afterwards looks consistent with known Mk108 damage, as does the the larger amount of debris present after the other 2 big hits in that clip. Sadly I think it's one of only a handful of MK108 gun camera clips available, which is understandable considering it wasn't anywhere as often a used weapon as the MG151/20. So that it isn't particularly prevalent in news reel footage from the time isn't really surprising. We would undoubtedly have had a large amount  available had the archive not been burned to the ground though as the LW apparently employed more gun cameras than anyone else from 44 onwards. Every 262 apparently carried one, but as far as I know not a single 262 gun camera film survived the war, they were all lost in Dresden.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the source of the German figures, I found this reference:

 

bla015.jpg.d7e4cd20e8754084f7b04a85d29e7764.jpg

 

Oddly enough, "500 to 1000g" is a lot more than the number of hits given, if it as usual refers to the amount of explosive, which for all hits is in the 300-350g region. On the other hand, the g figure is specifically without the consideration of fires, while the number of hits might not be.

 

The whole report 182 series appears to be about "Waffentechnische Fragen" - weapon related issues. I don't have them, and an online search shows that only report 182/2 might be available at the German military archive in Freiburg. It might be worth looking into the UK and US archives.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

👆👆👆

 

"Testing verified that the autocannon was well-suited to this role, requiring on average just four hits with its 85g RDX-load (in a 330g shell) and a resulting strongly brisant high-explosive ammunition, to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator, and just a single "shattering" hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 (3g of HE in 57g shell) required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17."

 

If we consider the entire projectile weight the calculations are fine (500 to 1000g).

 

330g x4 and 57g x18 :good:

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JtD said:

Oddly enough, "500 to 1000g" is a lot more than the number of hits given, if it as usual refers to the amount of explosive, which for all hits is in the 300-350g region. On the other hand, the g figure is specifically without the consideration of fires, while the number of hits might not be.

 

Could it be possible they were refering to the TNT equivalent?

 

If so then each 3cm HE-T (73 g RDX) & HE (85 g RDX) minengeschoss shell carried the equivalent of between 117-135 g of TNT, times four that would be 468-540 g.

 

A single 5cm HE(M) shell  contained 335 g of RDX, the equivalent of 536 g of TNT.

 

The other option ofcourse is like Gielow mentions that they were talking about the weight of the entire projectile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

👆👆👆

 

"Testing verified that the autocannon was well-suited to this role, requiring on average just four hits with its 85g RDX-load (in a 330g shell) and a resulting strongly brisant high-explosive ammunition, to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator, and just a single "shattering" hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 (3g of HE in 57g shell) required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17."

 

If we consider the entire projectile weight the calculations are fine (500 to 1000g).

 

330g x4 and 57g x18 :good:

 

330*4 = 1320   That is well outside the range of 500-1000g mentioned in JtD's extract.  If it does relate to HE content, of ~75g for the 3cm, that would be ~6-13 hits. 

Same with the 20mm mineshell: 18*18.6 = 1656. 

 

 If it is the HE weight, the number of hits might be an "average"  and the weight given the amount required to ensure destruction. But unless we have some documents this is all speculation. 

 

Also I cannot help wondering how many moderately intact B-17s and B-24s the Germans had available to get an "average" and what their testing involved.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:25 PM, 77.CountZero said:

 

i feel even more safer in lagg23 seing this :) 

did you test maybe vvs and p-39 37mm vs 109s or 190s, or only problem is 30mm vs allied airplanes in 3.008

 

Also, are their variable damage effects at 'different' ranges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panthera said:

Could it be possible they were refering to the TNT equivalent?

 

The other option ofcourse is like Gielow mentions that they were talking about the weight of the entire projectile.

 

Both possible, but speculation. Just like my idea.

We also don't know what "bring down" means. 10% probability, 50% probability, 90% probability? A, B, C or other type of kill?

Plus we don't know the methods used, gun camera footage was available (and evaluated in detail) as well as a number of B-17's, which might have been used for tests or just theoretical structural analysis and application of test results from other aircraft.

 

All in all I just wanted to name a/the source for the "German numbers", though it would be very interesting to read it. And probably the source material for that source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Both possible, but speculation. Just like my idea.

We also don't know what "bring down" means. 10% probability, 50% probability, 90% probability? A, B, C or other type of kill?

Plus we don't know the methods used, gun camera footage was available (and evaluated in detail) as well as a number of B-17's, which might have been used for tests or just theoretical structural analysis and application of test results from other aircraft.

 

All in all I just wanted to name a/the source for the "German numbers", though it would be very interesting to read it. And probably the source material for that source.

 

I think I managed to find parts of it:

O4WXKvm.jpg

9iSsgPh.jpg

 

Highlighted in red is the number of hits determined as the average needed to shoot down a 4 engined bomber:

JboruMO.jpg

 

How this average was determined is described here on page 4, and it reads: "This is the average determined from frontline film (gun camera) and testing"

2ki573P.jpg

gfwxNKX.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I think I managed to find parts of it:

O4WXKvm.jpg

9iSsgPh.jpg

JboruMO.jpg

2ki573P.jpg

gfwxNKX.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great find! Thanks for sharing 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×