Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know there's alot of complaints about .50cal being ineffective, imo they are ok but maybe need some tweaks, theres already plenty of topics about that so no need to discuss it here.

My question is the Mg131/13mm round overperforming? Imo it is far too effective at causing loss of lift and severe control issues/aerodynamic penalties. I know they have a small HE charge but that's not significant enough for the 13mm to do as much damage as it is currently doing.

 

Also were Mg131 still using the HE charge late in the war or did they switch to an API type ammo? I remember reading something like that in the .50 thread but not 100% sure. If the Mg131 did indeed stop using HE filler then there is really no reason for them to perform like cannon more than machineguns. Imo Mg131 should be more inline with .50 damage but currently it is far superior and devastates aerodynamic/control even with minimal hits on target.

 

With the way Mg131 are modeled I'd switch all of the .50s in my P-47/P-51 with them in a heartbeat. They shouldn't be as powerful as they are, or maybe the .50s are too weak by comparison and should be similar to Mg131.

 

Any opinions?

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I know there's alot of complaints about .50cal being ineffective, imo they are ok but maybe need some tweaks, theres already plenty of topics about that so no need to discuss it here.

My question is the Mg131/13mm round overperforming? Imo it is far too effective at causing loss of lift and severe control issues/aerodynamic penalties. I know they have a small HE charge but that's not significant enough for the 13mm to do as much damage as it is currently doing.

 

Also were Mg131 still using the HE charge late in the war or did they switch to an API type ammo? I remember reading something like that in the .50 thread but not 100% sure. If the Mg131 did indeed stop using HE filler then there is really no reason for them to perform like cannon more than machineguns. Imo Mg131 should be more inline with .50 damage but currently it is far superior and devastates aerodynamic/control even with minimal hits on target.

 

With the way Mg131 are modeled I'd switch all of the .50s in my P-47/P-51 with them in a heartbeat. They shouldn't be as powerful as they are, or maybe the .50s are too weak by comparison and should be similar to Mg131.

 

Any opinions?

Here's a video of a spit firing HE UB ammo, using a modded version of the game. As you can see, even with just the two guns it's very deadly. So, I definitely agree with you that the HE causes a lot more damage overall than AP. In game it's a far more effective weapon, which does not seem credible as in IRL, there was never a huge rush to use HE only belts in HMGs, just a shift to incendiary round.

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Couldn't access the link. Whats it say?

Link should now work better🙂

In June 44 you will have 1 Brandgranatpatrone(Brandsprenggranatpatrone)/ 1Panzergranatpatrone(Panzerbrandgranatpatrone) depending on availability.

Brandsprenggranatpatrone has HE capability.

Edited by L3Pl4K
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Couldn't access the link. Whats it say?


It's a Luftwaffe weapons handbook, that among lots of other info it establishes:

For the section dated as March 1943 the official belt was 1 AP and 2 HEI (the belt we currently have in game)

For the section dated as June 1944 the belt changed to 1 AP and 1 Incendiary.  If these rounds were in low supply, the AP could be replaced by remaining stock of API and the Incendiary could be replaced by remaining stock of HEI, both of which were no longer in production.

For the tests I made with the skin damage decals, 2 heavy machine gun high explosive hits seem similar to a single 20mm mine shell in regards to skin damage. This is were I think there is a discrepancy with the relative effect of heavy machine gun high explosive vs cannon high explosive, they are rather close where I would expect to be a much larger difference.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, L3Pl4K said:

In June 44 you will have 1 Brandgranatpatrone(Brandsprenggranatpatrone)/ 1Panzergranatpatrone(Panzerbrandgranatpatrone) depending on availability.

Brandsprenggranatpatrone has HE capability.

Brandgranatpatrone and Brandsprenggranatpatrone are two completely different things.

Panzergranatpatrone and Panzerbrandgranatpatrone are two completely different things.

Brandgranatpatrone was introduced in June 1944 and replaced the Brandsprenggranatpatrone, since the "Spreng" part was to be take care of by the MG 151 M-Geschoß.

The MG 131 ammo in June 1944 hence was Brandgranatpatrone and Panzergranatpatrone, and neither of these had HE capability.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That was before the 4.502 update:

 

Quote

28. 13mm German and 12.7mm Italian machine guns are no longer loaded with HE ammo only due to a bug;

 

Before we could blow up / rip apart aircrafts with a precise shot of few seconds. Now they are far from being over powerful. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why we cant use G-suits prior to september 44 but german 13mm can still use HE filler after june 44 even though they werent basically deployed and made anymore.... German planes made after june44 and using 13mm should use pure AP and AP-T rounds until API is introduced, same as planes using M2 machine guns are using AP only and no HE to balance missing major components. Why do we have double standards in simulator???? Or add them as modification which can be locked in june44+ dates by server. Especially if this is true...

5 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Brandgranatpatrone and Brandsprenggranatpatrone are two completely different things.

Panzergranatpatrone and Panzerbrandgranatpatrone are two completely different things.

Brandgranatpatrone was introduced in June 1944 and replaced the Brandsprenggranatpatrone, since the "Spreng" part was to be take care of by the MG 151 M-Geschoß.

The MG 131 ammo in June 1944 hence was Brandgranatpatrone and Panzergranatpatrone, and neither of these had HE capability.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

That was before the 4.502 update:

 

 

Before we could blow up / rip apart aircrafts with a precise shot of few seconds. Now they are far from being over powerful. 

What was fixed is making ammo belt historicly corect for 1943, so insted 300HE bullets per gun, now its as intended 200HE and 100AP per 13mm gun, but like you see from this topic problem is in 1944-45 airplanes should use no HE ammo.

 

And then you have double standard in game now where 0.50 that should use mix of AP and Incindiary is given full belt of AP only, where german 13mm that should also use AP and Incindiary in late war is given 100AP and 200HE, so ether both should get only AP or both should get AP and HE mix when game dosent sim all ammo types, if aim is to keep things same for all airplanes.

And this is on top of questionable power of destruction of HE aspects on when in 12.7 or 13mm ammo in this game.

 

And exampple of how they limited use of G sutes shows that they can limit stuf to historical use if they wont to, so there is no reason for airplanes in combat sim to not have ammo belts like they should based on year of use.  

Edited by CountZero
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alpino said:

if loaded with only API or AP the 13mm will probably be even less effective than the .50bmg since its muzzle energy is about 9800 J, the .50 generates about 18000 J


At the muzzle.

 

The thing that is commonly forgotten is that only fraction of this energy is actually transferred to the target as the bullets will simply pass through the extremely thin aluminium skin (easily doable with 150 Joule .22 round as well) and unless they hit something in between (and again, both equally capable of wrecking just about any subsystem) they will continue their way in the air harmlessly until they fall back to the ground several kilometers away.

 

High round energy round is an advantage if you have to pass through substantial armour or fire at very long ranges. Or if you are hunting an elephant that actually has thick enough hide and meat behind it to make penetration capacity an issue. 
 

However, If you are shooting at something that is basically air sandwhiched between two layers of wet tissue paper...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what should the belt be for Normandy/Bodenplatte aircraft? AP/API? Which would bring it more inline with .50 and not like a cannon.

Also another thing to be considered is what type of explosives are used as HE filler in 13mm or other rounds? Not all explosives are equal and even at the same amount they can produce  different explosive power.

 

A few things we should consider imo.

-Weight and size of the round itself

-Amount of explosive filler

-Type of explosive filler

 

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:


At the muzzle.

 

The thing that is commonly forgotten is that only fraction of this energy is actually transferred to the target as the bullets will simply pass through the extremely thin aluminium skin (easily doable with 150 Joule .22 round as well) and unless they hit something in between (and again, both equally capable of wrecking just about any subsystem) they will continue their way in the air harmlessly until they fall back to the ground several kilometers away.

 

High round energy round is an advantage if you have to pass through substantial armour or fire at very long ranges. Or if you are hunting an elephant that actually has thick enough hide and meat behind it to make penetration capacity an issue. 
 

However, If you are shooting at something that is basically air sandwhiched between two layers of wet tissue paper...

sure I'm talking about hard parts like cockpit armor and engine, which are the main targets for this type of ammo. A .50 will have better performance against them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

only fraction of this energy is actually transferred to the target as the bullets will simply pass through the extremely thin aluminium skin (easily doable with 150 Joule .22 round as well) and unless they hit something in between (and again, both equally capable of wrecking just about any subsystem) they will continue their way in the air harmlessly until they fall back to the ground several kilometers away.

This myth has been stated before and it has been disproved long time ago.

It doesn't change a thing if this myth is being repeated over and over and over again.

 

Unless the shot happens to hit the target at 90° angle, the bullet will at least immediately start tumbling on impact and cause severe damage on exit and it will transfer a significant amount of kinetic energy during that process.

And even then, you'd have to hit the plane at a spot where there's noting much vital to expect inbetween impact and exit.

There's not that many opportunities in real life to hit a plane like that.

Real life type of hits are mostly from the rear quarter, the impact angle is rather small and the bullet travels a whole long way through the plane, "visiting" a whole lot of parts (structural, equipment, you name it) inside, spending almost all of it's kinetic energy on them most of times.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, alpino said:

if loaded with only API or AP the 13mm will probably be even less effective than the .50bmg since its muzzle energy is about 9800 J, the .50 generates about 18000 J

I think you've made an error here, as I think the muzzle velocity and round weight are about the same for both weapons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buff the god damn us 50.cal. That's what us pilots want to say. German pilots don't care so much about 13mm, that what really matters is the mg151 ammo count. Don't want to rely on mg131 only. Nevertheless having historical ammo belt configurations is always nice :)

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

I think you've made an error here, as I think the muzzle velocity and round weight are about the same for both weapons. 

"About the same" can have significantly different outcomes in squared equations.

Here the muzzle energy is  39674cfcbaa07ac3a3a59e04044b5eb6d30bdbc9

 

For MG131 AP-T (Pzgr. L'Spur) we have 710 m/s muzzle velocity and 38.5 grams projectile mass, resulting in a muzzle energy of about 9700 Joule.

For M2 BMG M8 API we have 887 m/s muzzle velocity and 40.34 grams projectile mass,  resulting in a muzzle energy of about 15.870 Joule.

 

Other projectile versions yield slightly different values, but the general picture of the M2 projectiles having ⅔ more muzzle energy than MG131 ones stays the same.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZeroCrack01 said:

Buff the god damn us 50.cal. That's what us pilots want to say. German pilots don't care so much about 13mm, that what really matters is the mg151 ammo count. Don't want to rely on mg131 only. Nevertheless having historical ammo belt configurations is always nice :)

.50s aren't the topic of this thread, there's already enough discussion about them elsewhere. Imo .50s aren't that bad, sure they could use some improvement but not much.

Mg131 are overperforming in comparison to .50s, they should be brought closer to .50 performance especially since the loadout didn't have HE in the timeframe of Normandy/Bodenplatte.

 

109G-14, 109K-4, 190D9, and 190A8 should have the loadout changed to reflect the the situation in 44/45, and the damage model for these guns changed to performance closer to the .50s (slightly greater or less depending on the rounds characteristics)

 

Even on aircraft that don't need a change in ammo the Mg131 HE performance needs a rework and shouldn't cause as much damage as they currently do, especially to lift.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually if we're talking about the mid '44+ rounds with the HE component removed, they should have a general performance significantly worse than the .50s, except for igniting fuel, which they should be extremely good at as that was what they were particularly used for from June '44 onwards.

Regarding the latter, the Brandgranatpatrone (basically a pure incendiary round) spits a flame of up to 5 meters (!) in the shots' direction on impact.

That - in my book - should ignite any leaking fuel tank more or less immediately.

 

The pre-mid-44 rounds (with HE filler) really need to be toned down a bit from their current "mini-nuke" state.

 

:drinks:

Mike

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

This myth has been stated before and it has been disproved long time ago.

It doesn't change a thing if this myth is being repeated over and over and over again.

 

I did not know that Newtonian physics are obsolete now. 

 

Its a quite simple fact that bullets cannot transfer more energy to their target than it is required to pass through the said material.

 

That energy in case of aluminium skin, radios, fuel tanks, cast aluminium engine blocks is quite marginal.

 

Find yourself a shooting range and try it out yourself. Even tiny .22 LR penetrates thin metal objects absolutely easily, and that is a 100-150 Joule round, not a 19 000 Joule monster originally designed for anti-tank work. Unless its armor grade steel, there is absolutely nothing within an aircraft structure that can reliable stop a heavy machinegun ammunition, and having a more powerful round doesn't give you anything apart from flatter ballistics and a cleaner exit hole. 

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

That energy in case of aluminium skin, radios, fuel tanks, cast aluminium engine blocks is quite marginal.

Lol.

 

See: If you shoot at 90° angle right through a plane's skin (i.e. into the wing, straight from above or below), you might be right that there's just two thin skin plates to pass through.

How many times does this happen in real aerial fights? Once in a million? Probably.

The other 999.999 times bullets travel through much more.

And no, the energy spent on fluids, engine blocks and complex structures like radios are all but marginal.

And no, a .22 LR doesn't simply travel through e.g. a radio and keeps going.

Never ever.

Reboot your reality.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

"About the same" can have significantly different outcomes in squared equations.

Here the muzzle energy is  39674cfcbaa07ac3a3a59e04044b5eb6d30bdbc9

 

For MG131 AP-T (Pzgr. L'Spur) we have 710 m/s muzzle velocity and 38.5 grams projectile mass, resulting in a muzzle energy of about 9700 Joule.

For M2 BMG M8 API we have 887 m/s muzzle velocity and 40.34 grams projectile mass,  resulting in a muzzle energy of about 15.870 Joule.

 

Other projectile versions yield slightly different values, but the general picture of the M2 projectiles having ⅔ more muzzle energy than MG131 ones stays the same.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Oh, I didn't think there was that big a difference in muzzle velocity, my mistake

 

Edited by Barnacles
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, alpino said:

sure I'm talking about hard parts like cockpit armor and engine, which are the main targets for this type of ammo. A .50 will have better performance against them.


Thing is that both the 13 mm and the .50 more than enough ballistic performance to punch clean through any aircraft structure. The energy required for that purpose is roughly a the same, given the similar diameter of the rounds. Beyond the energy that is necessary to achieve this purpose any excess energy remaining is wasted on ‘useless work’ - i.e. the projectile may keep flying for miles further after it passed through.
 

That was the point about introducing the HMG / 13mm, as the rifle caliber rounds penetrative power was marginal and insufficient once aircraft armor came into general use. RCMG rounds could even ‘lost’ or rendered ineffective even after penetrating the fuselage, given their very small size and energy.Unlike rifle caliber rounds, he 13/.50 rounds had no such issues, unless when meeting with armor, and,  given their excessive energy, they simply overpenetrate the target (pass though).

 

The US quite simply used the .50 M2 because it had nothing else available working reliably, not because it would offer any advantage in destructiveness. They tried copying and/or developing a large number of alternatives (including a .60 copy of the MG 151), but all attempts failed to produce useful and reliable weapons. So they simply took off the shelves what they already had, an old WW1 heavy machine-gun originally intended for ground use, and introduced a lightened variant for aircraft. The round, originally designed to ‘reach out’ to 800 - 1200 against armoured targets and field fortifications, remained the same.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Thing is that both the 13 mm and the .50 more than enough ballistic performance to punch clean through any aircraft structure.

Simply not true.

Repetition doesn't make that false statement any better.

We've been past that point long time ago already, been discussing things forth and back, and meanwhile it's considered common sense that they do not pounch "clean through any aircraft structure".

There's plenty of entry/exit wound comparisons that clearly tell you that if bullets make it through the aircraft structures, then their exit is usually all but clean.

But as much as this is common sense, you can of course stick to your version of reality if it makes you feel any better :rolleyes:

 

6 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The US quite simply used the .50 M2 because

...it did the job.

Which it doesn't do - at least by far not as much as in real life - in IL-2 Great Battles, hence the complaints.

But that's off topic here, where we're supposed to talk about MG131.

 

:drinks:

Mike

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The US quite simply used the .50 M2 because it had nothing else available working reliably, not because it would offer any advantage in destructiveness. They tried copying and/or developing a large number of alternatives 

Exept they did had highly reliable hispanos copies in 44 already. Plenty of time to introduce them into mustangs, P47s and other planes if their current weapon was so tragical, wait, it wasnt so tragical. They used, what they used, because it was effective in shooting down planes. Same as germans switched into API belts from HE in 131s. As HE was simply bad in that period of time and ineffective against majority of targets, they met. Counting in even full metal fighters. Yet, here ingame its nuke bomb thats basically denies history because there is no reason to get rid of ammo that is capable to cripple fighter in 2-4 hits... Yet it wasnt the case and API was much more effective, hence the change in june 44 (131s on planes as offensive weapons werent that old at that time when they went for API ) And devs are brave enough to tell us, they are not going to change anything in dm model. Even though germans while losing war thought differently about it and did not seen 13mm HE ammo as suitable for air warfare...

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

 

Its a quite simple fact that bullets cannot transfer more energy to their target than it is required to pass through the said material.

 

 

I did a small scale experiment here shooting at a thin piece of metal with two different air rifles using identical projectiles, one at around 190 m/s, the other 240 m/s.  
both went through at a 45° angle.

20201109_205206.jpg

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

The US quite simply used the .50 M2 because

1) it was the adequate weapon for the right time. and 6-8 guns could handle everything the Luftwaffe or Japanese Airforce could make airborne.

2) it was a very good weapon to additionally engage ground targets, even capable handeling light armour.

3) it was an upgraded version, only 27kg heavy and a rate of fire from 700-850rpm and highly reliable

4) it was the perfect weapon for the US armed forces at that time because it could be supplied to any branch in mass quanities in high quality fast, same for the ammuniton -> standardisation is key

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here...I am sure most of us fly all the planes in the game, so we can all have an unbiased view of what requires a fix.

 

The latest patch has made it clear that the fantastic snapshots german flyers were able to do in the game is now limited, due to the mg131s being toned down. Doing those snapshots in any plane equipped with the US 0.50 cal does not yield anything near the results one would expect. But since the current 50s seem to only fire ball ammo this is not strange. What is clear, is that a few APIs should be thrown into the belts. Simples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NIK14 said:

Let's be honest here...I am sure most of us fly all the planes in the game, so we can all have an unbiased view of what requires a fix.

 

The latest patch has made it clear that the fantastic snapshots german flyers were able to do in the game is now limited, due to the mg131s being toned down. Doing those snapshots in any plane equipped with the US 0.50 cal does not yield anything near the results one would expect. But since the current 50s seem to only fire ball ammo this is not strange. What is clear, is that a few APIs should be thrown into the belts. Simples.

Nothing was changed with Mg131 HE damage, that is the problem currently. The Mg131HE damage or it's effect should be toned down, it has a very small amount of HE filler and really shouldn't be doing the amount of skin/aerodynamic damage that it currently is. (in large amounts sure but not in a short burst like is currently happening)

Also, later war .50 belts were almost all API.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2020 at 8:38 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

That energy in case of aluminium skin, radios, fuel tanks, cast aluminium engine blocks is quite marginal.

 

but, with a round hitting a radio, engine block, fuel tank, landing gear strut/trunnion, push pull tube, cable turnbuckle, fairlead, pulley it's gonna do serious damage..IE tumble after the hit. 

especially if it hits an engine block. inside that engine, pretty much anywhere that round goes it gonna hit something vital. piston, rocker you name it. a you tuber shot an F-150 engine with a .50 bmg. 2 hits reduced the engine to about 4 cylinders. it ran, but barely. In an aircraft engine, especially one in a V type arrangement is gonna cause some serious havoc, and especially power loss. 

 

that's where AP ammo should shine. 1-2 good hits on an engine or major component should cripple it...such as landing gear, push pull tubes...the stuff I mentioned. I'm seeing anecdotal screen shots of 9 or so hits to an engine area of a 190 causing not enough damage to prevent the aircraft from running for another  5 minutes at combat power. 

Edited by gimpy117
  • Upvote 2
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...