Jump to content
JG300_Faucon

3 days on La5 / Why so much pilot kills?

Recommended Posts

I started to fly the La5 few days ago (to discover new thing, etc). I love it by the way and it definitly requires some management and attention.


Something catched my attention: 8 PKs over 17 kills. So PKs represent almost 50% of all the kills.

I think 17 start to be a good enough number to make some stats. I add the links of my flights for those we want to check.

 

To make it clear: this topic is about stats and facts, and explainations that may justify it. Not conspirancy or "russian bias yelling".

 

So I start wondering why I have much more PK since I fly the La5 (it catched my attention because I never made to much PK while flying german, american or english). AP rounds has something special? Initial speed or rounds? Pilot protection on german aircrafts? 

 

 

http://combatbox.net/fr/sortie/log/73889/?tour=10 (3 PK over 5)

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/fr/sortie/log/4527739/?tour=50 (0 over 1)

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/fr/sortie/log/4528090/?tour=50 (2 over 4)

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/fr/sortie/log/4535638/?tour=50 (0 over 1)

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/fr/sortie/log/4535701/?tour=50 (2 over 3)

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/fr/sortie/log/4538265/?tour=50 (1 over 3)

 

 

PS: When I'll have time I will check my stats on german aircrafts (but I'm 99% sure I'm far from the 50% PK statistic). Then if I have more time again, check some stats from other pilots.

 

 

(Moderators, feel free to move the topic somewhere else if you think there is a better place)

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:


Something catched my attention: 8 PKs over 17 kills. So PKs represent almost 50% of all the kills.

 

 

Close proximity of the guns to each other and armour piercing ammunition might be your answer. I find the armour piercing component has more effect on my kills than HE ammunition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the proximity of guns could explain it because of the dispersion. Btw 190 has its 20mm very close too and 109 has a single but centered 20mm. 

 

I think I read a long time ago that ammo magazines on russian aircrafts has more AP rounds than germans. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP is much more likely to go through the fuselage and kill the pilot. HE shells that explode in close proximity of the cockpit rarely kill the crew. On german planes, the pilot kill is mostly through MG fire rather than cannons.

Edited by =FC=SteelFalcon
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

I'm not sure the proximity of guns could explain it because of the dispersion. Btw 190 has its 20mm very close too and 109 has a single but centered 20mm. 

 

I think I read a long time ago that ammo magazines on russian aircrafts has more AP rounds than germans. 

 

The 20mm guns on the Fw190 are nearly 3 times the width apart of the La5 guns, so the La5 has an easier sweet spot ( the width of a pilot seat). . As for the bf109 your only firing one 20mm as opposed to the La's two, together with the La,s slightly higher fire rate and velocity, so twice as many shells lobbed for the same firing duration.

Your pilot kills as outlined in the previous post is mainly due to the armour piercing ammo effectiveness in the game .

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i quickly check your wol for this year on 109s and you have 

37pk out of 87
42%pk-58%nopk

(and thats including il-2s and pe2s, so not as easy to pk as fighters )

 

and when you look that small number of 17 for la5 that includes only fighters, i see no problme drop is only 5%

8pk out of 17
47%pk-53%nopk

 

and many other factors that cant be sean from stats will impact thouse numbers, and still they seam not to far considering you have 2x20 on la5 and only fighters are attacked and 109 has only 1x20mm and all types are included

 

you should go get 100 axis airlanes destroyed and then see 😄 but now that you know your hunting for pk to prove the differance betwen vvs and axis pk ability by this simple method, thuse resoults would be biased

 

i dont get many pk with lagg3 with 23mm , something must be strange can someone check all my sorties and see how many pk i get compared to nopk 😄

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

but now that you know your hunting for pk to prove the differance betwen vvs and axis pk ability by this simple method, thuse resoults would be biased

 

Sorry not sure to understand this part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Sorry not sure to understand this part?

if you now continue to fly la5 you can aim to shoot only from 6 of enemy airplane, and aim for fusalage, and try to get most advantageus situations to get more pk to inforce point that its probable to get more pk with la5s, or you could do oposite and attack enemys in most diadvantagous situations to get less pk then with other types, or you could do same with 109s for example and prove that you can get more or less with it. 

Point is your no longer realiable tester for this, as you know whats the aim of test and you could play with resoult of them intentionaly or not.

You would have to fined some random guy who didnt see this topic to do tests without knowing what the aim is, or check some randoms guys sories in la5 vs his sorties in axis fighter untill now as he could not temper with resoults as he dosent know about goal of test.
but like i say just looking at quick stats like this, wthout knowing what wa situation when enemy airplane was destroy and pk dosent mean mutch, how many airplanes were hit only in wings, how many got hit only with he, how many got hit in armor late at angle, how many got hit at starnge deflactions not in cocpit areas but got tail cut or engine damaged and attacker stop shooting, or did they got hit from far, did you hit them first and someone later finish them, and so on many other factors would play in to this tests.

You would have to have static airplane and static 20mm vvs gun and shoot at that airplanes pilot from all sides few 100 times and them same for axis 20mm and so on to get any relaiable resoults exept fealings that one is better then other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Sorry not sure to understand this part?

 

In between bong hits, he’s disregarding you as a biased luftie.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 8

Share this post


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

Have you mixed ammo loading? I use HE only and have a low rate of pilot kills.

 

True, I've did it on Berloga and noticed I had no PK. 

 

Btw, someone know the number of AP rounds on russian and german aircraft?

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly,

Russian ShVAK cannons default belting was  -   HE, AP

German MG151/20 was -  HE, AP, HE

Edited by =EXPEND=Tripwire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically my same experience with it. At one given point flying my LA5FN which I gave my first try on it this week I killed a 109 pilot when I shot his aircraft in the wings. Something is definetly off, although I dont mind it that much since i've found myself in love with the FN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

True, I've did it on Berloga and noticed I had no PK. 

 

Btw, someone know the number of AP rounds on russian and german aircraft?

 

Germans have 1/3 AP and 2/3 HE while the Russians have the opposite, 2/3 AP and 1/3 HE

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

Russian ShVAK cannons default belting was  -   HE, AP

German MG151/20 was -  HE, AP, HE

It's AP, HE, AP on Russian cannons. So 2/3 is AP, 1/3 HE.

 

On German cannons it's reversed, like you wrote HE, AP, HE. However, the gondola cannons on the Bf 109 have a HE, AP load, so 50/50 split.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No WW2 aircraft featured armor that could reliably shield against 20mm armor piercing rounds (under favorable angles and energy). Considering the fact that La-5 sports 2 ShVAKs in the nose and Bf 109 only one 151, and that ShVAK belting is composed of 2 times more AP rounds compared to 151 belting, it means you are firing 4 times more AP rounds compared to 109, and 2 times more compared to 190 (with no additional cannons) - assuming ShVAK and 151 to be comparable in other parameters (ROF, MV, etc.). Guess this answers this interesting question!

Edited by CrazyDuck
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ОЗ (HEI) round of ШВАК has also AP effect. 7mm of armor penetration at 200m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

No WW2 aircraft featured armor that could reliably shield against 20mm armor piercing rounds (under favorable angles and energy). Considering the fact that La-5 sports 2 ShVAKs in the nose and Bf 109 only one 151, and that ShVAK belting is composed of 2 times more AP rounds compared to 151 belting, it means you are firing 4 times more AP rounds compared to 109, and 2 times more compared to 190 (with no additional cannons) - assuming ShVAK and 151 to be comparable in other parameters (ROF, MV, etc.). Guess this answers this interesting question!

 

That's interesting. 

 

I also realised just now that I don't shoot the same way with La5 than with german aircrafts. As I'm not used to it (commands are more sensitives), not used to the deflexion/gunsight, and as there is less ammo, I was shooting closer and with less deflexion.

 

This can also explain why there are more PKs. 

 

Btw it's nice to see we can talk about this kind of subject with a critical and objective approach ;)

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to select HE for the special ammo load because IRL generally HE shells would be more effective against aircraft type targets IMO.  However Ive consistently heard the HE is sorta borked and underpowered. Any truth to this? Im tempted to go all AP

22 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Have you mixed ammo loading? I use HE only and have a low rate of pilot kills.

Me too. I always pick HE as it seems like itd be deadlier to planes. This thread makes a 3rd source Ive heard HE shells are understrength/nerfed in game. I should try AP only belts

Share this post


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

I used to select HE for the special ammo load because IRL generally HE shells would be more effective against aircraft type targets IMO.  However Ive consistently heard the HE is sorta borked and underpowered. Any truth to this? Im tempted to go all AP

 

Kinda. Its in the middle, on one hand if you take HE-only, PK and engine snipes become more rare, but blowing wings and surfaces apart is easier, if you take the AP-only its hard to de-wing enemies, but its easy to PK and get engine shots and you also get the benefit of tracerless ammo (the russian AP round doesnt have tracer). So I'd say it depends on what results you want, having a mixed belt is also a very strong option, personally, I think the full HE belt is the worse of the three options. Generally the mixed belt is good in all situations, and the AP-only is very good when you want to be sneaky.

Edited by Willy__

Share this post


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

I used to select HE for the special ammo load because IRL generally HE shells would be more effective against aircraft type targets IMO.  However Ive consistently heard the HE is sorta borked and underpowered. Any truth to this? Im tempted to go all AP

Me too. I always pick HE as it seems like itd be deadlier to planes. This thread makes a 3rd source Ive heard HE shells are understrength/nerfed in game. I should try AP only belts


I rather damage planes than Pilots. Planes are the larger target 😄

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 2:25 AM, Brano said:

ОЗ (HEI) round of ШВАК has also AP effect. 7mm of armor penetration at 200m.

 

Brano,

 

Is the ОЗ (HEI) round the standard explosive type or were there others mixed in the ШВАК ammo belts?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 12:51 PM, DerSheriff said:


I rather damage planes than Pilots. Planes are the larger target 😄

Me too! Hence choosing HE from 'jump' as it were.

However peer reports its borked.. I havent done empirical testing.  The little bit I did do.. Unfortunately it seemed the AP also just shredded the airplanes better too.

Again without figures its all 'feelings' and bs so I wont bother going further..

Im wary of letting ny gameplay get tainted but by and large many of the revelations from the community as a relative new comer were sadly all too true and to me became more glaring as time went on; namely the engines, fuel, spotting, blah blah.

In real life though the AP could sit at home.

Share this post


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

 

However peer reports its borked.. I havent done empirical testing.  The little bit I did do.. Unfortunately it seemed the AP also just shredded the airplanes better too.

Again without figures its all 'feelings' and bs so I wont bother going further..

Im wary of letting ny gameplay get tainted but by and large many of the revelations from the community as a relative new comer were sadly all too true and to me became more glaring as time went on; namely the engines, fuel, spotting, blah blah.

In real life though the AP could sit at home.

If you spend a lot of time on the forums you run the risk of ruining your enjoyment of the game unless you keep perspective. Sim pilots are almost all detail oriented at best or extremely anal at worst. Most people are also enthusiasts for specific airplanes which introduces all kinds of bias into what 'feels right'. 

We're like the guys who go to a movie and point out everything wrong with the special effects, minor plot holes, etc. instead of enjoying the experience despite the (inevitable) flaws.

The other thing is that issues get pointed out without a lot of actual, repeatable empirical testing by people looking for a problem they think exists...introducing confirmation bias into things. Once you 'see' something, you'll always be looking for it, and you'll see it more often. Spend too much time in the forums and put too much stock in what you read and sooner or later you play the game and see only the problems and have no fun at all, despite their being barrels of it to be had. Suspension of disbelief is your friend here.

Anyway, the game's damage model appears to favour the penetration effect over the explosive effect somewhat. Il-2 1946 basically took the reverse approach in a general sense, where HE was much more effective in-game, which resulted in the somewhat notorious 'nerfing' of the .50 cals. In Il-2 1946, cannons are king. In Il-2 GB the 12.7mm/.50cals are fantastic  and the HE loaded cannons, especially the big ones, are relatively less impressive while the AP effects are maybe overdone. So which one is 'right'? The answer is neither, because a model can only ever approach reality, never completely simulate it. Assumptions and concessions are made to achieve the desired effect for the desired purpose at a cost that is reasonable (in computer performance, labour and dollars spent).

Sheriff is using HE in his La-5 and if you watch any of his videos he has no trouble downing planes with it. Perhaps the relative effectiveness of the two ammo types is off but 'borked' is a strong word here.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

unless you keep perspective.

My only regret is that I have but one upvote to give this post.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:03 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

 

In between bong hits, he’s disregarding you as a biased luftie.

 

He's actually making sense. It can't be a truly unbiased dataset given that he's actually aware of this testing (and the person he's testing with as well). That's just basic empirical testing logic. 

 

Now, to be clear, I don't thikn the bias would be huge, but it would be there. 

 

In truth, the only dataset that would be reliable would be the one only the devs have access to, if they decided to gather it: gathering the % of PKs obtained by all pilots on all types, and looking for statistical anomalies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

If you spend a lot of time on the forums you run the risk of ruining your enjoyment of the game unless you keep perspective. Sim pilots are almost all detail oriented at best or extremely anal at worst. Most people are also enthusiasts for specific airplanes which introduces all kinds of bias into what 'feels right'. 

We're like the guys who go to a movie and point out everything wrong with the special effects, minor plot holes, etc. instead of enjoying the experience despite the (inevitable) flaws.

The other thing is that issues get pointed out without a lot of actual, repeatable empirical testing by people looking for a problem they think exists...introducing confirmation bias into things. Once you 'see' something, you'll always be looking for it, and you'll see it more often. Spend too much time in the forums and put too much stock in what you read and sooner or later you play the game and see only the problems and have no fun at all, despite their being barrels of it to be had. Suspension of disbelief is your friend here.

Anyway, the game's damage model appears to favour the penetration effect over the explosive effect somewhat. Il-2 1946 basically took the reverse approach in a general sense, where HE was much more effective in-game, which resulted in the somewhat notorious 'nerfing' of the .50 cals. In Il-2 1946, cannons are king. In Il-2 GB the 12.7mm/.50cals are fantastic  and the HE loaded cannons, especially the big ones, are relatively less impressive while the AP effects are maybe overdone. So which one is 'right'? The answer is neither, because a model can only ever approach reality, never completely simulate it. Assumptions and concessions are made to achieve the desired effect for the desired purpose at a cost that is reasonable (in computer performance, labour and dollars spent).

Sheriff is using HE in his La-5 and if you watch any of his videos he has no trouble downing planes with it. Perhaps the relative effectiveness of the two ammo types is off but 'borked' is a strong word here.

 

Im well aware of the deleterious effect simmers have in this and other fields to spoil any and everything.  A lot of the things pointed out I would have noticed; just because Im late to GB doesnt mean I wasnt playing Flanker in 1995 at age 10 or havent been around.  The forum made me notice them more true - and Im not saying you cannot down planes with the HE at all Ive shot plenty down with it - but there is something going on I feel.  Thats all.  The same way with the "other" major sim now the .50s are ALL f'd up and flying the P51 and F86 is... Well yeah.  Its a lot worse than here as far as being messed up to be fair.

Still Im also one of the simmers that ruins everything for myself and everyone else and I cant help but notice and torture myself :)

Excellent advice though

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

×
×
  • Create New...