Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
441Sqn_Twang

P-51D Ammunition loadout

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Well I rather sit on the front of a tank instead of having a tank right in front of my face. Or like gunners in IL2 on top behind a tank

 

I'd certainly prefer to avoid any such situations.

Simple reason is that as much as you try to keep the fuel contained inside your tank, if push comes to shove, it doesn't matter the direction of your tank proximity - the sheer fact that you're within leak/pour/expansion/explosion distance is by far enough to ruin your day.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

I'd certainly prefer to avoid any such situations.

Simple reason is that as much as you try to keep the fuel contained inside your tank, if push comes to shove, it doesn't matter the direction of your tank proximity - the sheer fact that you're within leak/pour/expansion/explosion distance is by far enough to ruin your day.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

This is what runs through my mind literally every time I fill up my 2.5 gallon gas can for the lawn mowers...typically set it in the footwell of the passenger seat of the car and hope for the best.

 

Fortunately the gas station is about two blocks from my house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German synthetic fuel. Was it prone to fume just as much as high octane petrol?

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

I'd certainly prefer to avoid any such situations.

Simple reason is that as much as you try to keep the fuel contained inside your tank, if push comes to shove, it doesn't matter the direction of your tank proximity - the sheer fact that you're within leak/pour/expansion/explosion distance is by far enough to ruin your day.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Sure I seen enough burned faces from both sides to see consequences of fuel , fire inside a cockpit. But was not Spitfire pilots in special exposed to that. Or is it just a Battle of Britain myth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2020 at 4:07 AM, unreasonable said:

What you need, to put this into perspective, is the number of times 109 pilots were shot down, with a breakdown of how many were killed in the process and survived each events. Plus the same numbers for comparable allied types.  Otherwise, all you are showing is that many GAF uberaces fought a lot near or over their own lines.

 

Not sure I have ever seen such an analysis, but it would be interesting.

 

This got me thinking and I realized that Donald Caldwell actually has an analysis similar to this in his book Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich.  In it he has a statistical breakdown of Reich Defense force claims and losses vs the 8th Air Force.  What makes this especially interesting is that almost every aerial gun employed by the 8th AF was an M2 .50 (P-38s and Spitfires accounted for a little over 5% of 8th FC claims, all of these losses would be coming from 47s, 51s, and bomber gunners).

 

Totals for the Bf109 were 3,088 aircraft destroyed and 1,106 damaged, with 1,343 pilots KIA/MIA and 792 WIA.  I lumped the handful of MIAs in with KIAs here, as very few of the missing had actually survived to be captured (not surprising since most combat was over friendly territory for the German forces at this point).  Totals for the FW190 were 1,923 aircraft destroyed and 751 damaged, with 985 pilots KIA/MIA and 486 WIA.  Some quick math shows that a 109 hit by enemy fire was destroyed 73% of the time, with 32% of pilots KIA/MIA and 19% WIA.  For the 190 it works out to a 72% chance of being destroyed if hit, with 37% KIA/MIA and 18% WIA.  The numbers of the two types are close enough, that given all the unknowns, there was probably no meaningful difference in survivability.  So overall, around 72% of the time a 109 or 190 was hit it was downed, roughly 53% of the time a German fighter was hit the pilot was wounded or killed, and if the aircraft was destroyed around 46% of the time the pilot was killed.

Edited by KW_1979
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

German synthetic fuel. Was it prone to fume just as much as high octane petrol?

Sure I seen enough burned faces from both sides to see consequences of fuel , fire inside a cockpit. But was not Spitfire pilots in special exposed to that. Or is it just a Battle of Britain myth? 

Not sure about the Spitfire, but the earlier versions of the Hawker Hurricane did not have a firewall between the front fuel tank and the cockpit. 

When reading the official histories of the Canadian squadrons deployed during the Battle of Britain, it's frequently noted that a hurricane pilot that bailed out suffered burns about the hands and face. The Hurricanes were retrofitted with a firewall to reduce the problem from occurring, after it became a widespread issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 12:27 PM, LukeFF said:

It was/is a good gun, but it requires getting all those guns to hit at the right range.

 

...or 1 or 2 rounds in just the right spot.

 

The .50 cal round carries a lot (as in $hit ton) of kinetic energy. A single round in an in-line engine block I would guess is usually terminal depending on where/what it hits. 

 

You know this stuff. :) Even a well placed .308 can spell trouble for an engine block, never mind a (modern obviously) .338. Never mind the much larger .50 cal.

Heck I’ve seen .556 rounds do surprising damage just goofing around.

 

WRT .50’s - 2 or 3 of those puppies in a Daimler and I’m betting it’s likely toast, never mind cooling systems etc. :)

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is JUST ONE .50 cal with API......  Imagine 6 of these hitting at 180m convergence.  When I see this happen in-game I’ll know it’s right.  All the anecdotal/text descriptions in the world don’t replace what the eyes can see.......

 

 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, 352ndOscar said:

This is JUST ONE .50 cal with API......  Imagine 6 of these hitting at 180m convergence.  When I see this happen in-game I’ll know it’s right.  All the anecdotal/text descriptions in the world don’t replace what the eyes can see.......

 

 

That car looks like it was filled with a little extra tannerite inside.

Probably more accurately titled "Slow motion footage shooting 50 cal at a car with explosives inside."

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

This got me thinking and I realized that Donald Caldwell actually has an analysis similar to this in his book Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich.  In it he has a statistical breakdown of Reich Defense force claims and losses vs the 8th Air Force.  What makes this especially interesting is that almost every aerial gun employed by the 8th AF was an M2 .50 (P-38s and Spitfires accounted for a little over 5% of 8th FC claims, all of these losses would be coming from 47s, 51s, and bomber gunners).

 

Totals for the Bf109 were 3,088 aircraft destroyed and 1,106 damaged, with 1,343 pilots KIA/MIA and 792 WIA.  I lumped the handful of MIAs in with KIAs here, as very few of the missing had actually survived to be captured (not surprising since most combat was over friendly territory for the German forces at this point).  Totals for the FW190 were 1,923 aircraft destroyed and 751 damaged, with 985 pilots KIA/MIA and 486 WIA.  Some quick math shows that a 109 hit by enemy fire was destroyed 73% of the time, with 32% of pilots KIA/MIA and 19% WIA.  For the 190 it works out to a 72% of being destroyed if hit, with 37% KIA/MIA and 18% WIA.  The numbers of the two types are close enough, that given all the unknowns, there was probably no meaningful difference in survivability.  So overall, around 72% of 109 or 190 was hit it was downed, roughly 53% of the time a German fighter was hit the pilot was wounded or killed, and if the aircraft was destroyed around 46% of the time the pilot was killed.

This is purely speculation but generally speaking 190s went after bombers (not that 109s did not) and did ground attack more often so I think it was in higher risk roles than the 109 and possibly more survivable than that would suggest. 

Not to discredit the 109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Sure I seen enough burned faces from both sides to see consequences of fuel , fire inside a cockpit. But was not Spitfire pilots in special exposed to that. Or is it just a Battle of Britain myth? 

I don't think I ever tried to make people believe the Spitfire was a fireproof plane.

Quite in contrast to some of what people just tried to turn the 109 into.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


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

I don't think I ever tried to make people believe the Spitfire was a fireproof plane.

Quite in contrast to some of what people just tried to turn the 109 into.

 

:drinks:

Mike

I was not arguing. I always wondered if the Spit had that myth. Hurricanes had fueltanks right in front of the instrument panel too. 
does not matter plane, petrol fumes catch fire. Very unpleasant to be in the cockpit with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I guess a good reason why the Spit and Hurri might not have been all that famous for turning their pilots into a crispy barbecue is that with the fuel tank placed in front of the instrument panel, there's very little chance to hit it without the bullet travelling through either the plane's engine of the pilot himself first.

The bullets coming upfront (which would have to travel through the engine first) are most likely to be defensive fire from bombers, which at the time of the Hurri's peak would mostly be MG15 7.7mm guns "only" (I don't want to be on their receiving end in real life, but compared to other guns, that's "only", just saying).

So it's quite likely that a bullet reaching the tank came from the Spit's/Hurri's six, and that it has travelled through vital parts of the pilot body first.

That being said, the subsequent barbecue might not have been a real issue to him anymore.

 

In contrast, any low six approach on a 109 is likely to result in a couple of bullets ending up in the 109's main fuel tank.

Not that it'd be a 100% chance, but at least from a logical point of view, the chance to hit that 109's seat heater is probably much larger than the chance to hit Spit's/Hurri's panel defroster - each without killing the pilot first that is.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news with the new update is that .50 should be able to punch out an engine with a bit more ease.

55. The piston engines' combat survivability has been adjusted - the protection from the engine casings has been reduced, bullets and shells cause more damage to the crank gear, while shell fragments cause less damage to the engine.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 6:58 PM, Hajo_Garlic said:

This is purely speculation but generally speaking 190s went after bombers (not that 109s did not) and did ground attack more often so I think it was in higher risk roles than the 109 and possibly more survivable than that would suggest. 

Not to discredit the 109

 

It's an interesting data set, because it is just taken from Reich's Defense units (so no ground attackers) missions countering 8th AF raids (so no engagements with RAF or 9th AF tactical fighters either).  As you point out though the Luftwaffe attempted to focus around the idea of upgunned and armored 190s as anti-bomber specialists with light fighters (preferably 109s due to their superior high altitude performance) acting as top cover.  That being said, that was never achieved as a standard, and plenty of 109s (both with and without gondolas) were employed against B-17s over the period and plenty of 190s found themselves acting as top cover in the formation at various times.  There's also the whole Sonderkommando Elbe fiasco tallied in there as well (kamikaze 109s essentially).  Given how close the loss rates are, it seems likely that there wasn't a huge difference in toughness, at least when it comes to being shot at by enemy fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 9:06 PM, KW_1979 said:

Totals for the Bf109 were 3,088 aircraft destroyed and 1,106 damaged, with 1,343 pilots KIA/MIA and 792 WIA.  I lumped the handful of MIAs in with KIAs here, as very few of the missing had actually survived to be captured (not surprising since most combat was over friendly territory for the German forces at this point).  Totals for the FW190 were 1,923 aircraft destroyed and 751 damaged, with 985 pilots KIA/MIA and 486 WIA.  Some quick math shows that a 109 hit by enemy fire was destroyed 73% of the time, with 32% of pilots KIA/MIA and 19% WIA.  For the 190 it works out to a 72% chance of being destroyed if hit, with 37% KIA/MIA and 18% WIA.  The numbers of the two types are close enough, that given all the unknowns, there was probably no meaningful difference in survivability.  So overall, around 72% of the time a 109 or 190 was hit it was downed, roughly 53% of the time a German fighter was hit the pilot was wounded or killed, and if the aircraft was destroyed around 46% of the time the pilot was killed.

 

Interesting. What are the sources for the loss / damaged figures? Squadron records or Quartiermeister?

 

Point would be that minor damage would be dealt with solely at squadron level, losses interpreted differently. The damage/loss ratio you're posting somewhat contradicts Allied guncam evaluation as I remember, indicated a larger share of damaged aircraft than the figures you've posted, trying to see if that's an actual contradiction or just a different interpretation.

Nonetheless, in a couple of looks I've taken I've also never found a significantly higher survivability for Fw's than for Bf's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

4 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

Given how close the loss rates are, it seems likely that there wasn't a huge difference in toughness, at least when it comes to being shot at by enemy fighters.

 

That is not how I would interpret this data.  You have to take into account pilot behaviour as well.

 

 IIRC the US analysis of the German gun cams noted that the Fw190 pilots, on average, pressed home attacks on bombers much more closely than those of the 109s.  Presumably due to the confidence of having the radial engine, better armoured windscreen etc etc.  So I would expect the Fws to be much more survivable for a given number of hits - as it is in the game.  Once your engine stops or you are on fire or losing surfaces, however many hits that takes, you are still trying to climb out of a damaged plane, perhaps while injured, possibly still under fire, so the probability of escape might well be very similar. 

 

Edit. Perhaps also take into account the tactical situation and US fighter pilot behaviour.  The ratio of damaged/destroyed/hit is also affected by the US doctrine - once they started hunting for German fighters in large groups, with fighters with a very large ammunition load from which German fighters could not easily disengage, this number tells you as much about the US determination to follow and destroy every German fighter they came across as it does about toughness of the targets. It matters not how tough your plane is if the enemy has enough ammo to destroy you and you cannot run away.  

 

Destroyed/Damaged might reflect the number of times fleeing German fighters could find cloud cover as much as anything else.

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 9:06 PM, KW_1979 said:

 

This got me thinking and I realized that Donald Caldwell actually has an analysis similar to this in his book Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich.  In it he has a statistical breakdown of Reich Defense force claims and losses vs the 8th Air Force.  What makes this especially interesting is that almost every aerial gun employed by the 8th AF was an M2 .50 (P-38s and Spitfires accounted for a little over 5% of 8th FC claims, all of these losses would be coming from 47s, 51s, and bomber gunners).

 

Totals for the Bf109 were 3,088 aircraft destroyed and 1,106 damaged, with 1,343 pilots KIA/MIA and 792 WIA.  I lumped the handful of MIAs in with KIAs here, as very few of the missing had actually survived to be captured (not surprising since most combat was over friendly territory for the German forces at this point).  Totals for the FW190 were 1,923 aircraft destroyed and 751 damaged, with 985 pilots KIA/MIA and 486 WIA.  Some quick math shows that a 109 hit by enemy fire was destroyed 73% of the time, with 32% of pilots KIA/MIA and 19% WIA.  For the 190 it works out to a 72% chance of being destroyed if hit, with 37% KIA/MIA and 18% WIA.  The numbers of the two types are close enough, that given all the unknowns, there was probably no meaningful difference in survivability.  So overall, around 72% of the time a 109 or 190 was hit it was downed, roughly 53% of the time a German fighter was hit the pilot was wounded or killed, and if the aircraft was destroyed around 46% of the time the pilot was killed.

 

Did you tally up those losses from Table A? Does losses are against both the 8th and 15th USAAF, not just the 8th. Also, they are 'combat losses and those losses sustained on combat missions but not in combat'; i.e. they include operational losses without enemy action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, KW_1979 said:

 

It's an interesting data set, because it is just taken from Reich's Defense units (so no ground attackers) missions countering 8th AF raids (so no engagements with RAF or 9th AF tactical fighters either).  As you point out though the Luftwaffe attempted to focus around the idea of upgunned and armored 190s as anti-bomber specialists with light fighters (preferably 109s due to their superior high altitude performance) acting as top cover.  That being said, that was never achieved as a standard, and plenty of 109s (both with and without gondolas) were employed against B-17s over the period and plenty of 190s found themselves acting as top cover in the formation at various times.  There's also the whole Sonderkommando Elbe fiasco tallied in there as well (kamikaze 109s essentially).  Given how close the loss rates are, it seems likely that there wasn't a huge difference in toughness, at least when it comes to being shot at by enemy fighters.

 

Just a side note, the Fw 190 airframe (A and D models) is quite a bit tougher physically than the Bf 109 G/K airframe and also had a radial engine which is more durable, the Bf 109 was very much a lightweight fighter and the construction reflected this - that didn't mean it couldn't take some significant hits though.

 

The problem is at high altitudes where combat was more common during the late war time-frame, the Fw 190 A had a lesser overall performance which means it got caught out more by the opposing fighters especially when loaded up with additional armour and weaponry to combat the bombers. The Dora is more competitive at altitude in terms of performance but there were less of them about and it took time for them to come into service. Even with the gondolas attached, the impact to the Bf 109's performance is relatively minor; but did certainly affect maneuverability enough to become a liability.

 

This is why losses in the end appear similar despite the physical differences. The Fw 190 and Bf 109 were often employed in roles that suited these strengths, but the desperate circumstances also often meant things didn't work out as planned.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that's a neat video...

They're also shooting, in aircraft terms, at nearly point blank range.  To get a better idea of performance of API/APIT at WW2 engagement ranges  they'd need to step out to closer to 200 yards 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FW190 isn't really any more survivable in the sim than the 109, from .50 cal rounds, in some aspects it is worse.

 

I did 20 flight tests in QMB - P-51D in 10 combats with 109G-14 and 10 combats with 190A-8. Limited testing for sure and I have no idea what my hit rate was, but...

 

Each 109 kill I expended 464 rounds on average (77.4 rounds per gun) with no idea how many of those were actual hits.

Each 190 kill I expended 490 rounds on average (81.6 rounds per gun) with no idea how many of those were actual hits.

 

80% of 109 kills included pilot kills from 6 o'clock, within 400 meters with slight angle off deflection.

70% of 190 kills included pilot kills from 6 o'clock, within 400 meters with slight angle off deflection.

 

20% of 109 kills included fires.

30% of 190 kills included fires.

 

10% of 109 kills included control loss (outer wing off).

20% of 190 kills included control loss (horizontal stabs off).

 

I stopped the mission as soon as I got the kill each time and checked ammo expenditure before exiting so the damage/fires could have been worse I suppose. The kills were unremarkable looking. Usually the pilot died, the plane spun in and the mission was over.

 

It is very easy to kill either fighter with the .50 cal. It is easy to hit with 2-3 of the guns at the same time. It is quite a bit harder to hit with all guns in convergence.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 3:39 AM, 352ndOscar said:

This is JUST ONE .50 cal with API......  Imagine 6 of these hitting at 180m convergence.  When I see this happen in-game I’ll know it’s right.  All the anecdotal/text descriptions in the world don’t replace what the eyes can see.......

 

 

LOL! What had Michael Bay be put in that car for that explosion?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/15/2020 at 2:09 AM, LukeFF said:

I just hope people don't think that API is going to turn .50 cals into a wonder weapon that vaporizes anything they see. This is an account from a Fw 190 D-9 pilot on 15 October 1944:

 

At the same instant my machine was hit. Holes appeared in both wings and the canopy flew away. I hauled my machine around to the right. Why, I can no longer say. Instinct? Perhaps! But one has not time to think about it, for it all took only fractions of a second. And so I broke away in a tight turn to the right. While in the turn I saw a P-47 about 100 meters above me in a left turn. As we passed, the enemy pilot looked down and I looked up. I don't know why he didn't keep pursuing me. Perhaps he couldn't turn as tight as I. I also recall that the P-47 had a checkerboard design in front.I subsequently flew very low and and purely by chance came straight to Hesepe airfield.

 

After landing I surveyed the damage. I had taken 25 hits. Right and left in the wings, in the fuselage, and two hits on the armor plate at my back. As well the canopy was shot away and even two propeller blades had three holes.

Nice account!

 

I have nothing against the modelling of the .50 cals in game, they are very precise and easy to hit with. IMHO they are rather well modelled. I  need 4 at good convergence, the vast majority of my kills, perhaps 75%, are PK, with occasionnally engine fire, and i don't mind. I find it interesting though that it is almost always  PK, while the doomed AC seem to still be (apparently) in good condition engine and airframe. I well know it could simply be related to my habits and fighting style. Just impressions.

 

Anyway, i love warbirds and don't want to damage them too much, its the pilots i want to disable 😀.

 

What i would like to say about the account you posted is that we miss a lot of parameters, and that the P47 could well have fired outside  optimal parameters, and hit outside  optimal convergence and distance, perhaps with only half of its guns or less, in a snapshot and still causing spectacular damage in one burst. Do you have more info maybe?

 

We have to keep in mind that we have far more shooting experience in game than those pilots in real life.  It is well known that US pilots at that times already had trouble to find  targets to practice their skills, so maybe this shot was not optimal, i really don't know.

 

Without the presence of the flak defended friendly airfield right in front of him... I doubt a D9 with holes in the prop and without canopy with hits in the wings could be able to fight back? Was the Fw190D9 actually disabled?

 

I think we miss things to enjoy the 50s more:

 

We need better convergence patterns and settings, a gore mode would be awesome and realistic too! Maybe API modelling would bring better visuals, more vivid sparks and more visible white smoke "puffs" where bullets hit,  as in some guncam footage.

 

But since the team is already working on better fuel systems, there's really no much to complain about imho.

 

Edited by Caudron431Rafale
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caudron431Rafale said:

 

I have nothing against the modelling of the .50 cals in game, they are very precise and easy to hit with. IMHO they are rather well modelled. I  need 4 at good convergence, the vast majority of my kills, perhaps 75%, are PK, with occasionnally engine fire, and i don't mind. I find it interesting though that it is almost always  PK, while the doomed AC seem to still be (apparently) in good condition engine and airframe. I well know it could simply be related to my habits and fighting style. Just impressions.

 

 

 

Pilot kills are really the only sure way to bring an aircraft down quickly with the US .50 machine guns (or the Soviet UBS for that matter) Sometimes you can get an engine or fuel fire but that is less common. Aerodynamic degradation or loss of control are an insignificant percentage by comparison.

 

I've put substantial bursts of fire into engines and wing roots and aside from a huge fuel leak and a little bit of brown smoke from the engine nothing happens. If only there were some sources of ignition around there 🤔

 

Ironically, one small burst from a hand-held machine gun in the Pe-2 is enough to severely compromise the flyability of your plane or even stop your engine in short order. Good to be a computer I guess. #humanlivesmatter

 

  • Haha 2

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...