Why doesn't the 30mm German Mine-Geschoss HE/T round do this in game

[JG7_X-Man]

My guess is it wouldn't be much fun if it took one hit to take out a fighter (... though it would be historically accurate).

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by JG7_X-Man

[PatrickAWlson]

Been discussed quite a lot.  

 

 

I know there are more.  Some good discussions about the effects of the 30mm in closed vs open spaces (more effective in closed spaces).  Some pics of mangled B17s - many of which were due to 88mm flak and not 30mm cannons  .  

 

Anyhow, short version is that not every hit is going to be a one shot kill and one ground test does not tell the whole story.  Beyond that I'll let others who know more than I do comment.  A search for 30mm produces quite a few results.

 

Edited May 17, 2019 by PatrickAWlson

[Mauf]

Strike angle is a factor. That hit shown in the video is probably a very optimal hit where the projectile explodes in just the right spot to cause tremendous damage. More angled hits or even top-down hits on the wing, while still devastating, weren't so critical (Luftwaffe tested that themselves. Later M-Geschoss designs improved this by a changed fuse).

 

Second big factor is the modelling in game. Currently, M-Geschoss modelling piggy-backs on the normal bullet and frag modelling by being something like a big frag grenade that emulates the blast effect through a huge number of fragments. A proper modelling (and that doesn't try to insinuate it's easy, far from it) would model the cells and compartments of the planes as well as the blast of the M-Geschoss. Effectively it would require something like a whole secondary damage model just for this ammo type. Probably not going to happen (any time soon?).

 

All things being said: The 30mm M-Geschoss is far from weak in the game. In most situations, one hit is already enough to disable or at least render an opponent unable to fight back. It's just not as "flashy" as the movies depict. And sometimes you just get these weird odd ones out where a hit seems to do little damage.

[Lusekofte]

This is not a simulator. Doing accurate simulation of real physics. 

If it was you could not afford it. 

Your wish, Sir. Is my wish too. But developers have put their ? where they believe they can get some back. 

Nothing wrong with their ambitions, but it is busyness and they have to build things in a way most of us can afford buying it

[Bilbo_Baggins]

3 hours ago, Mauf said:

. More angled hits or even top-down hits on the wing, while still devastating, weren't so critical (Luftwaffe tested that themselves. Later M-Geschoss designs improved this by a changed fuse).

 

And sometimes you just get these weird odd ones out where a hit seems to do little damage.

 

Hi Mauf,

 

That’s interesting. Could you please provide a link to information about this change and test with MK108 30mm fuses? 

 

RGDS

[Mauf]

6 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Hi Mauf,

 

That’s interesting. Could you please provide a link to information about this change and test with MK108 30mm fuses? 

 

RGDS

 

Should be this one:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Diverses/Flugwerkschutzes.pdf

 

Hope you know German:) The report also mentions that in order for the M-Geschoss to develop its full potential, the hit cell has to have a strong enough shell that gas pressure from the blast can build up. That's why some hits didn't do as much damage as others as cells were hit in such a fashion that the shell was already ruptured too much and gas pressure couldn't build up to cause those massive structural damages. But to make no mistake: all damages shown in the reports are at the very least crippling and a plane with such damage was not able to continue fighting. It's just not that "everything that the 30mm vaguely touches instantly disintegrates". I'm gonna ping @unreasonable as well, he had some US trial statistics that showed that not every 30mm hit was instantly lethal. About the changed fuses, I'll ping @Panthera, he mentioned it to me and I think he has more info on that. It's mentioned in the report I linked but no details given.

 

Then again, you should look through the complaints section, there are at least 4 threads dealing with the M-Geschoss topic already and they all have material posted throughout.

 

 

10 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

This is not a simulator. Doing accurate simulation of real physics. 

If it was you could not afford it. 

Your wish, Sir. Is my wish too. But developers have put their ? where they believe they can get some back. 

Nothing wrong with their ambitions, but it is busyness and they have to build things in a way most of us can afford buying it

In case this was a reply to me: I don't demand or expect anything further done in damage modelling with regards to the M-Geschoss. I'm just stating that the current modelling is not modelling the principle on which the projectile worked and uses an "emulation" (to my knowledge). I also always state (if you look at my previous posts relating to the topic) that a proper modelling would effectively require the devs to completely build a second DM just for the effect. While I would love the game to get closer to reality in this regard, I'm under no delusion that it would require an enormous amount of time for a very small improvement in the overall scale of things and isn't something the devs have resources for. Also, to me, the current modelling of the M-Geschoss is probably the closest to reality we have. Other sims are much more off in my opinion.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Mauf

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

18 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

My guess is it wouldn't be much fun if it took one hit to take out a fighter (... though it would be historically accurate).

 

 

Perhaps user experiences may vary.  I've been one-shotted quite a few times with 30mm.  I can't offer definitive proof, but it seems to me that the post-impact explosion can also punch through the armor plating behind the pilot's seat without a direct hit on that plating. It just has to get "close enough" - which is also accurate.

 

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

The biggest problem about this whole topic is that the game doesn´t replicate why HE grenades were more effective than fragmentation grenades against WW2 era planes in the first place.

Thin metal sheets are flexible against force, they bend and rip. The bigger the surface area of a wing affected by an explosion, the bigger the resulting deformation and holes. 

IIRC, currently the game simulates this by applying HE shells as a lot more, but smaller fragments than fragmentation grenades.

 

[Mauf]

42 minutes ago, So_ein_Feuerball said:

The biggest problem about this whole topic is that the game doesn´t replicate why HE grenades were more effective than fragmentation grenades against WW2 era planes in the first place.

Thin metal sheets are flexible against force, they bend and rip. The bigger the surface area of a wing affected by an explosion, the bigger the resulting deformation and holes. 

IIRC, currently the game simulates this by applying HE shells as a lot more, but smaller fragments than fragmentation grenades.

 

 

That is not entirely correct. The "normal" HEs in the game I guess work mostly correct. While the M-Geschoss did create shrapnell, it wasn't the main source of damage as it usually was too light to have much penetration power. The big whopper was the gas shock. And even that had varying degress of effectiveness. Depending on the construction of the plane being hit, it could be devastating or locally minimized. Drawn full shell constructions like the Spit or the 109 used were extremely susceptible to it. Smaller patch covers were less as they would get blown off and therefore open the compartment for pressure release, saving surrounding compartments.

 

With the lack of cell modelling and everything needed to get it right, the "emulation" of a M-Geschoss spawning loads of fragments that travel short distance in a spherical shape from the explosion site is the best we will get for the time being.

[JG7_X-Man]

On 5/17/2019 at 4:27 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

Been discussed quite a lot.  

...

Anyhow, short version is that not every hit is going to be a one shot kill and one ground test does not tell the whole story.

...

 

Agreed! Any way you guys can take the same approach to the hyper accuracy of the AI gunners? It is my opinion that they are hyper accurate (both VVS and Luftwaffe) 

Edited May 19, 2019 by JG7_X-Man

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

Agreed! Any way you guys can take the same approach to the hyper accuracy of the AI gunners? It is my opinion that they are hyper accurate (both VVS and Luftwaffe) 

 

Way off topic, but since it's your topic ...  

 

In PWCG I use novice for all non fighter planes and all ground based AAA.  That seems about right.  Some might prefer one level up to "Common".  Veteran and Ace are IMHO way too accurate.  Would I prefer to see AI accuracy jacked down ?  Yes.  Everything dropped done level and Novice reset to can't hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside it.  However, it is controllable as is - don't use Ace and be very careful about veteran and even common.

 

 

[Panthera]

All the shots made against wings of Spitfires were deemed lethal by the british testing team, even those by the Brandgranate (Incendiary) which also demonstrated good penetrating power. And this goes for both the 1945 and 1950's tests carried out. 

 

What the tests demonstrate is the damage to be expected from attacks within a 20 deg wide cone from behind or infront. Attacks from directly above or beneath weren't tested.

 

The most dramatic effect achieved was against the Wellington light bomber however, where 3 different fuselages were completely severed with a single hit each.

 

 

 

 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

The most dramatic effect achieved was against the Wellington light bomber however, where 3 different fuselages were completely severed with a single hit each.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Panthera,

 

That’s interesting- 3 Wellington fuselages severed! The lethality of this ammunition is clearly underpowered in the game for sure.

 

Do do you have a link on you to any information about these tests?

 

RGDS

Edited May 21, 2019 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Panthera]

3 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

 

Hi Panthera,

 

That’s interesting- 3 Wellington fuselages severed! The lethality of this ammunition is clearly underpowered in the game for sure.

 

Do do you have a link on you to any information about these tests?

 

RGDS

 

Yes, I posted them here:

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Panthera

[Art-J]

3 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

 

Hi Panthera,

 

That’s interesting- 3 Wellington fuselages severed! The lethality of this ammunition is clearly underpowered in the game for sure.

 

Do do you have a link on you to any information about these tests?

 

RGDS

 

Just to clear things up, the tests were done on Blenheims, not Wellingtons. Geodetic structure + fabric on "Wellies" wouldn't be bothered all that much by any HE shell exploding inside.

[Mauf]

7 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

 

Hi Panthera,

 

That’s interesting- 3 Wellington fuselages severed! The lethality of this ammunition is clearly underpowered in the game for sure.

 

Do do you have a link on you to any information about these tests?

 

RGDS

Again, be careful with jumping to conclusions. The issue with the M-Geschoss in the game is more complex than "clearly underpowered". Don't fall for the "look at these pictures!" fallacy. The pics show potential, not that 100% of hits in the field are guaranteed to be that lethal.

 

Also you need to differentiate visual DM and under the hood modelling. Visual in game often looks less critical than they really are.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

1 hour ago, Mauf said:

Again, be careful with jumping to conclusions. The issue with the M-Geschoss in the game is more complex than "clearly underpowered". Don't fall for the "look at these pictures!" fallacy. The pics show potential, not that 100% of hits in the field are guaranteed to be that lethal.

 

Also you need to differentiate visual DM and under the hood modelling. Visual in game often looks less critical than they really are.

 

Yep, I know what you mean. However, I found the 3 fuselages each severed by a single 30mm pretty remarkable. 

 

RGDS

Edited May 21, 2019 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Mauf]

1 hour ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Yep, I know what you mean. However, I found the 3 fuselages each severed by a single 30mm pretty remarkable. 

 

RGDS

The 30mm M-Geschoss had a terrible and clever destructive power. It basically used the strength of the airframe against itself. The stronger and resilient the hull structure was, the better the gas shock effect could apply. Funny enough, this meant that weaker constructions like canvas wrapped planes or planked constructions were less susciptible to it. That's why the pictures and the often cited movie from the OP can be a bit misleading. It shows a Spit, which was very vulnerable against the M-Geschoss at what I assume a perfect hit situation. People like to extrapolate this to all airframes out there but it doesn't have to be like that necessarily. The german report mentiond this and there also was a US study that shows that not every first hit immidiately lead to a destroyed aircraft (though the percentage was still quite high for the 30mm).

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

7 hours ago, Mauf said:

The german report mentiond this and there also was a US study that shows that not every first hit immidiately lead to a destroyed aircraft (

 

IIRC the test was with 20mm and 37mm HE no MK108 was used.

The test you mention does not exist and you are mixing things up.

[Panthera]

On 5/21/2019 at 7:28 AM, Art-J said:

 

Just to clear things up, the tests were done on Blenheims, not Wellingtons. Geodetic structure + fabric on "Wellies" wouldn't be bothered all that much by any HE shell exploding inside.

 

Yeah sorry, typo there ^^

 

Mk108 testing vs heavy bombers:

 

 

The conclusion:

 

Conclusions:

HE and HE / T are ineffective at inflicting lethal damage with single hits when firing at the fuselage of four-engine heavy bombers such as Stirling and Halifax, but can produce serious aerodynamic damage to the wings of the Halifax and Lancaster. Judging by the damage inflicted, a lethal attack would result from 2-3 HE (HE / T) hits. Similarly, for lethal structural damage to the wings will need about 3 hits with incendiary shells (not taking into account the fuel tanks).

Edited May 24, 2019 by Panthera