Jump to content

20 mm 151's not consistant


Recommended Posts

Thorne

Hi all,

I've been messing around with the A3; it's a ton of fun, when I'm warmed up and my deflection shooting is on point I feel like Darth Vader riding a rollercoaster. That said I've found that despite it's ample firepower it's not a consistent killer.

 

Sometimes I'll get a good burst in that ends the engagement, but all too often I'll have to put in 10-12 20mm (and who knows how many *EDIT 12mm 7mm) hits into a fighter sized target before they go down. This isn't solely from the rear aspect either, but incudes slashing attacks that hit the wing roots, aft fuel tank, and fuselage around the cockpit. This seems at odds with the evidence--I would expect the .50 cal to have more variable performance because it really depends on what you hit, hits to the cockpit for example being a quick kill but spraying down inert sections of the target not having much of an effect. By contrast the Mk 151's 20mm should be consistently destructive in smaller quantities, especially to wings and stabilizers, owing to it's high proportion of explosive filling. If I get 3 hits on the wing root next to the cockpit/fuel/wing of a spit V for example that should be curtains for the pilot, maybe start a fire, and possibly take the wing off.

Edited by Thorne
Link to post
Share on other sites
[DBS]Browning

Bear in mind that you don't always visually see all the damage you have done. 

You can knock a plane out, but it will appear to keep flying fine for quite some time. It's not uncommon for it to take 10+ mins for it to finaly crash.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I./JG52_Woutwocampe

Weird because the MG151 might be the gun that consistenly yields the best results for me. I find it more reliable that the Hispano or the Shvak. Probably because there's no AP rounds but only explosive rounds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitcher

There are AP rounds in the mg151 belts but the HE is so astronomically powerful you hardly notice 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
CountZero

it has 1/3 of belt AP, russians and brits have 1/2 AP so inefective AP is more noticable.

DM in this game since wings braking stop being main couse of kill is still work in progress from how it looks, and only 2 types of ammo representing historical ammo dosent help.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitcher
5 minutes ago, CountZero said:

russians and brits have 1/2 AP so inefective AP is more noticable.

Iirc the ShVAK on the yaks have a ratio of 2 AP for every HE round. Which exacerbates their already lackluster performance.

Not sure about other russian planes however.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
CountZero
1 hour ago, Hitcher said:

Iirc the ShVAK on the yaks have a ratio of 2 AP for every HE round. Which exacerbates their already lackluster performance.

Not sure about other russian planes however.

Yes my bad, on russian is 2/3rd AP

Link to post
Share on other sites
I./JG52_Woutwocampe
1 hour ago, CountZero said:

it has 1/3 of belt AP, russians and brits have 1/2 AP so inefective AP is more noticable.

 

 Thanks for the info. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1PL-Husar-1Esk

Yesterday I lost hope for 40mm AP rounds against AC after hitting several times Macchi MC.202  without any visual or system damage...

The visual effect of 40mm was as the .303 but unfortunately damage effects also ...

 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitcher
25 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Yesterday I lost hope for 40mm AP rounds against AC after hitting several times Macchi MC.202  without any visual or system damage...

The visual effect of 40mm was as the .303 but unfortunately damage effects also ...

 

AP just makes caliber sized hole komrad))))) no exit wounds, no rippin' and a tearin'.

Meanwhile 1 HE shell hispano/mg151/mg131/ubs causes extensive damage from wing tip to root. 

Edited by Hitcher
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1PL-Husar-1Esk
21 minutes ago, Hitcher said:

AP just makes caliber sized hole komrad))))) no exit wounds, no rippin' and a tearin'.

But not actually caliber  size- all were the same size as .303 :)))

Link to post
Share on other sites
oc2209
3 hours ago, Thorne said:

Sometimes I'll get a good burst in that ends the engagement, but all too often I'll have to put in 10-12 20mm (and who knows how many 12mm) hits into a fighter sized target before they go down. If I get 3 hits on the wing root next to the cockpit/fuel/wing of a spit V for example that should be curtains for the pilot, maybe start a fire, and possibly take the wing off.

 

Well, for one thing, if you're in an A3, your nose guns are only shooting 7mm. Only the A8 and D series of the Focke Wulf have 12mm/50 cal in the nose. So unless you're putting the light machine gun rounds directly into a vital area, they'll do absolutely nothing.

 

Secondly, 3 20mm hits to the wing will not detach a wing with any regularity. By which I mean, practically never. Especially if one of those hits is an AP round, and 2 are HE, or some other combination of rounds. But even 3 HE 20mm wouldn't take a wing off regularly. A wing tip, yes. A portion of the tail, yes. Even German 30mm won't rip wings off consistently. What they will do, almost certainly, is cripple whatever you hit from a maneuverability perspective. I find that in most cases, even a single 20mm HE strike to your target's wing will destabilize them to the point that, in a Spitfire's case for instance, will prevent them from turning perfectly or otherwise maneuver cleanly.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hajo_Garlic
4 hours ago, Thorne said:

Hi all,

I've been messing around with the A3; it's a ton of fun, when I'm warmed up and my deflection shooting is on point I feel like Darth Vader riding a rollercoaster. That said I've found that despite it's ample firepower it's not a consistent killer.

 

Sometimes I'll get a good burst in that ends the engagement, but all too often I'll have to put in 10-12 20mm (and who knows how many 12mm) hits into a fighter sized target before they go down. This isn't solely from the rear aspect either, but incudes slashing attacks that hit the wing roots, aft fuel tank, and fuselage around the cockpit. This seems at odds with the evidence--I would expect the .50 cal to have more variable performance because it really depends on what you hit, hits to the cockpit for example being a quick kill but spraying down inert sections of the target not having much of an effect. By contrast the Mk 151's 20mm should be consistently destructive in smaller quantities, especially to wings and stabilizers, owing to it's high proportion of explosive filling. If I get 3 hits on the wing root next to the cockpit/fuel/wing of a spit V for example that should be curtains for the pilot, maybe start a fire, and possibly take the wing off.

A3 has no .50s. Just x2 mg151/20, 2 mg17s, and 2 optional mgff/m. The fw190a8 and d9 get 13mm mg131s. (Oc2209 beat me by a minute! :))

The German 20mms are by far my favorite. A well placed tight concentrated burst always does the trick, especially with 2 of them. 

Hispanos might be the only 20mm cannon that could be better. The ShVAK cannon only treats me well on the mig3 and la5s with ap belts. Consider trying other aircraft and you will see how good the fw190 has it in the armament department. 
 

Edited by Hajo_Garlic
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
oc2209
5 minutes ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

The German 20mms are by far my favorite. A well placed tight concentrated burst always does the trick, especially with 2 of them. 

Hispanos might be the only 20mm cannon that could be better. The ShVAK cannon only treats me well on the mig3 and la5s with ap belts. Consider trying other aircraft and you will see how good the fw190 has it in the armament department. 
 

 

Agreed on the German 20mm. But I find that in a Fw, with more ammo, I waste more shots. I only really conserve shots in the 109. Consequently, I think, shooting with the 109's nose gun alone will teach you the most about the 20mm's characteristics.

 

Likewise, the Yak's 20mm used to bother me because its relative lack of explosive power compared to the German, as well as its higher rate of fire and lower ammo count (which punishes bad aiming severely), makes it feel worthless by comparison. That's when I learned to only fire the Yak's 20mm into the target's fuselage with the intent to kill the pilot or hit the engine. Paradoxically, the Russian 12mm HE round seems to more adversely affect the target's flight characteristics; therefore I consider it acceptable to 'waste' it on wing strikes. 

 

The Hispanos are my least favorite 20mm, yes. Strangely though, in the Tempest, I find they shred targets very well. Like, leaps and bounds over the Spitfire's 2 cannon. Whereas, in the case of the Fw, I don't really notice the extra 2 20mm as much; feels like overkill except against bombers. Which is why I consistently fly without them in the outer wings. But if I had the chance to put 4 20mm in the Spitfire, I'd do it 100% of the time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hajo_Garlic
1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

 

Agreed on the German 20mm. But I find that in a Fw, with more ammo, I waste more shots. I only really conserve shots in the 109. Consequently, I think, shooting with the 109's nose gun alone will teach you the most about the 20mm's characteristics.

 

Likewise, the Yak's 20mm used to bother me because its relative lack of explosive power compared to the German, as well as its higher rate of fire and lower ammo count (which punishes bad aiming severely), makes it feel worthless by comparison. That's when I learned to only fire the Yak's 20mm into the target's fuselage with the intent to kill the pilot or hit the engine. Paradoxically, the Russian 12mm HE round seems to more adversely affect the target's flight characteristics; therefore I consider it acceptable to 'waste' it on wing strikes. 

 

The Hispanos are my least favorite 20mm, yes. Strangely though, in the Tempest, I find they shred targets very well. Like, leaps and bounds over the Spitfire's 2 cannon. Whereas, in the case of the Fw, I don't really notice the extra 2 20mm as much; feels like overkill except against bombers. Which is why I consistently fly without them in the outer wings. But if I had the chance to put 4 20mm in the Spitfire, I'd do it 100% of the time.

I feel ya on hispanos I cant hit anything with them (except the p38)! But they seem really good when they hit me. 

Edited by Hajo_Garlic
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorne
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the replies all. A point that @[DBS]Browning and @oc2209 mentioned, that the aerodynamic damage is not depicted visually makes me feel a little bit better in that the 151's are probably doing more than MG rounds, I'm just not seeing it visually.

 

Thanks for the correction on the nose guns of the A3, they are indeed rifle caliber; in this case it's a moot point as I'm not counting hits from those anyway.

 

I'm still a little bit skeptical of the performance of cannons in IL2, interestingly enough they are *extremely* effective against ground targets with the exception of tanks, blowing pretty much everything up with a short burst. I suspect that if cannon damage against aircraft was increased slightly, and effectiveness against ground targets was decreased slightly, things might be a little bit more believable.

 

I agree @oc2209 , the generous reservoir of ammunition in the 190 is an absolute blessing. It's well suited to the boom and zoom style in that I don't feel worried about wasting precious rounds when I go for a high deflection shot, which are 90% of the important shots I take in the 190 😆

 

 

Edited by Thorne
Link to post
Share on other sites
gimpy117

and you also gotta realize that you're doing a lot of aerodynamic damage with German 20mm too, far more than .50 or just about any other round pound for pound of HE. German HE ammo can even destabilize planes and send them into a spin almost instantly.  

 

so yeah, if anything German 20mm is over modeled 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogiflight
10 hours ago, Thorne said:

I suspect that if cannon damage against aircraft was increased slightly, and effectiveness against ground targets was decreased slightly, things might be a little bit more believable.

I don't think they should do more damage at aircrafts, they were no one hit wonders. I am absolutely fine with what they do to aircrafts. But I absolutely agree, that the effect of the aircraft weapons on ground targets is a bit exaggerated. Exception here, as you mentioned, tanks. They seem to be modelled quite well.

 

10 hours ago, Thorne said:

I agree @oc2209 , the generous reservoir of ammunition in the 190 is an absolute blessing.

Then fly the Bf 110 G2 with its 400 rounds for the left and 350 rounds for the right 20mm gun. You can shoot all day long.:biggrin:

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

Then fly the Bf 110 G2 with its 400 rounds for the left and 350 rounds for the right 20mm gun. You can shoot all day long.:biggrin:

 

Only if your target actually lets you point your plane at them :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RyanR

Not all 20mm HE rounds were created equal.... and I think the damage model here shows it wonderfully. German thinking was to pack more explosive into the MG151 HE rounds, with the trade off being penetration. It's very superficial. Even Chuck Yeager said in an interview that the MG151 wasn't super effective against fighters. Sliding a round towards AP on the spectrum is where it's at.

 

Conversely, the Hispano and ShVAK 20mm's are more subtle but more devastating. Lots more pilot kills and engine "kills". Sometimes, I'm surprised when a few hits sends the receiver spiraling to the ground.

 

Remember also that planes are made differently. The first time the P-40 pops up in Moscow, I found it just eats MG151's and doesn't die! I couldn't believe it... but different construction.

 

In short, there are a LOT of variables at play. So when the complaint is "not consistent", that kinda suggests that something is actually correct.

 

-Ryan

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mac_Messer
23 hours ago, Thorne said:

Hi all,

I've been messing around with the A3; it's a ton of fun, when I'm warmed up and my deflection shooting is on point I feel like Darth Vader riding a rollercoaster. That said I've found that despite it's ample firepower it's not a consistent killer.

MG151/20 is crippling 90% of the time. MGFF have somewhat more varying results. Even if you don`t see a big hole in that wing, it can break off an a higher G maneuver.

6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I don't think they should do more damage at aircrafts, they were no one hit wonders. I am absolutely fine with what they do to aircrafts. But I absolutely agree, that the effect of the aircraft weapons on ground targets is a bit exaggerated. Exception here, as you mentioned, tanks. They seem to be modelled quite well.

 

Then fly the Bf 110 G2 with its 400 rounds for the left and 350 rounds for the right 20mm gun. You can shoot all day long.:biggrin:

Still, it is easier to hit with Me110 nose guns.

21 hours ago, Hitcher said:

Iirc the ShVAK on the yaks have a ratio of 2 AP for every HE round. Which exacerbates their already lackluster performance.

Not sure about other russian planes however.

Few tracer rounds make the most problems for me. It is every 4th or 5th round I think. Makes hard to lay down fire, especially when using the Yak.

 

I agree that most AP rounds belt is disadvantage in this particular game.

Edited by Mac_Messer
Link to post
Share on other sites
LukeFF
5 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

MG151/20 is crippling 90% of the time. MGFF have somewhat more varying results.

 

Both use the exact same round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central

I always recomend aiming for the cockpit regardless of the gun / plane you are flying. It gives the most consistent results. Some people just aim generally at a plane thinking that they will get a kill simply by getting a few hits in. They sometimes then become frustrated, and try to place blame on the weapons instead of their aim. Not saying you are doing that, but if you want consistency; you have to put the work in to aim consistently. 

Edited by =[TIA]=I-Fly-Central
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlitzPig_EL

May I suggest flying an aircraft armed with only machine guns for a while.  Keep at it till you can achieve good results.  Then go back to the 190.  It will feel like you enabled god mode.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
CUJO_1970
6 hours ago, RyanR said:

 Even Chuck Yeager said in an interview that the MG151 wasn't super effective against fighters.


Ironic if true because Chuck Yeager describes in detail what it was like to be on the receiving end of a MG151 barrage when he was shot down in his P-51, to the effect that his prop, his canopy and part of his wing was blown off by an FW190 and the aircraft caught on fire. “Me and my aircraft parted company”

 

https://achievement.org/achiever/general-chuck-yeager/#interview

 

The MG151 was, in fact, super effective against fighters.

 

 

21 hours ago, gimpy117 said:

so yeah, if anything German 20mm is over modeled 


Baloney. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central
11 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

May I suggest flying an aircraft armed with only machine guns for a while.  Keep at it till you can achieve good results.  Then go back to the 190.  It will feel like you enabled god mode.

100% agree. Flying in FC for instance will do wonders for getting accuracy, and precision to where it needs to be.

Edited by =[TIA]=I-Fly-Central
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson
On 3/30/2021 at 3:31 PM, gimpy117 said:

so yeah, if anything German 20mm is over modeled 

 

Considering 20mm Mineshell has 3x more HE filler than the others, i dont think so.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
the_emperor
46 minutes ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Considering 20mm Mineshell has 3x more HE filler than the others, i dont think so.

 

20x82mm Mineshell: 18g HE-I (HA-41 RDX) filling, Delay Charge 20cm-75cm

20x110mm Hispano M97 HE-I: 5.45g Tetryl + 2,27g incendiary; no delay charge, "superquick", "instantanious" fuze action

20x99mm Shvak HE-I: 2.6g HE-filler (RDX?) + 2.8g incendiary; no hints on a delay charge thus far.

Edited by the_emperor
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AEthelraedUnraed
On 3/31/2021 at 10:23 AM, Yogiflight said:

I don't think they should do more damage at aircrafts, they were no one hit wonders. I am absolutely fine with what they do to aircrafts. But I absolutely agree, that the effect of the aircraft weapons on ground targets is a bit exaggerated. Exception here, as you mentioned, tanks. They seem to be modelled quite well.

I don't think the effect on ground targets is exaggerated per se, but rather that most ground targets have over-simplified damage models. For the aircraft, it really matters where you hit them, but most ground targets have a very simple hit box system and shared damage between all components. You could shoot at a truck's tyre, and eventually first the engine is going to smoke and if you keep firing, it'll explode. No matter where you hit it with what ammo, they'll always explode.

 

This makes it seem like the effect is exaggerated while often it may be correct after all. If, in real life, you'd pump a Ford G917 full of lead, it might not explode, and it might even be repairable, but it'd certainly count as "destroyed."

 

Of course, it would be easy to improve the damage model, but 1) it's gonna cost some extra computing power that's better spent on e.g. better AI and 2) someone has to do it, taking valuable development time away from other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitcher
1 hour ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Considering 20mm Mineshell has 3x more HE filler than the others, i dont think so.

I'd agree buuuuut 1 20mm mineshell to the wing will spread damage all over the wing with varying levels of skin damage and even injuring the pilot or causing engine damage. I know mineshell are good but not THAT good. 

Something seems off with shrapnel radius or blast radius.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1PL-Husar-1Esk

There are only 3 levels of damage decals , after 20mm hits it always is the worst 3th level and plane can't fly straight,  but you can ask your  wingman to hit yours undamaged wing or do bad  and slow defensive maneuver to expose undamaged wing to the bandit, this will help you balance the plane with no time and you can fight back 🤣🤣  Seriously it works and contrary to ww1 wings won't snap to G load .

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorne

 

4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

There are only 3 levels of damage decals , after 20mm hits it always is the worst 3th level and plane can't fly straight,  but you can ask your  wingman to hit yours undamaged wing or do bad  and slow defensive maneuver to expose undamaged wing to the bandit, this will help you balance the plane with no time and you can fight back 🤣🤣  Seriously it works and contrary to ww1 wings won't snap to G load .

 

Seriously???? Errrg

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

I don't think the effect on ground targets is exaggerated per se, but rather that most ground targets have over-simplified damage models. For the aircraft, it really matters where you hit them, but most ground targets have a very simple hit box system and shared damage between all components. You could shoot at a truck's tyre, and eventually first the engine is going to smoke and if you keep firing, it'll explode. No matter where you hit it with what ammo, they'll always explode.

 

Ehm no, that's not really the case. All non-playable vehicles received an updated damage model back in 2018 that's more sophisticated than a simple hitbox system:

 

New, more detailed damage modeling is used for simple (AI controlled) vehicles - it is now possible to damage their engines, wheels or tracks, crew and ammo rack;

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leifr

Meanwhile, other ground objects follow the most obscure laws for what can and cannot be destroyed.

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

 

Ehm no, that's not really the case. All non-playable vehicles received an updated damage model back in 2018 that's more sophisticated than a simple hitbox system:

 

New, more detailed damage modeling is used for simple (AI controlled) vehicles - it is now possible to damage their engines, wheels or tracks, crew and ammo rack;

You're right of course - I stand corrected there :salute:

 

But still, static vehicles do have a very simple hitbox model where you can shoot at a tyre and it will eventually explode (even the relatively new Opel fuel truck has a single collider of just 15 faces). Many ground targets do consist of static vehicles to save CPU (depending on the mission builder of course), so that means that in those cases, my assertion still holds.

 

And even with the detailed damage model, most (all?) vehicles eventually just explode if you keep firing at their main surface whereas I'd expect only the occasional explosion in real life, and perhaps a fire here and there (this is just a "guesstimation" so please tell me if I'm wrong here).

 

Now do not misunderstand this as criticism - I fully recognise that it's desirable to have static objects in less detail than the active ones and that they give a good tradeoff between CPU+GPU and graphics+gameplay. I just think that this may be one of the reasons why ammo seems more effective against ground targets than aircraft. Ground targets generally explode, and if they don't, I come back and fire again until they do.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
RyanR
On 3/31/2021 at 4:03 PM, CUJO_1970 said:


Ironic if true because Chuck Yeager describes in detail what it was like to be on the receiving end of a MG151 barrage when he was shot down in his P-51, to the effect that his prop, his canopy and part of his wing was blown off by an FW190 and the aircraft caught on fire. “Me and my aircraft parted company”

 

 

 

Yeah... it was a bit of an odd interview:

 

 

On the one hand, he said 20mm's were less effective.... then said he got shredded by a 190 going head on. :)

 

-Ryan

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorne
On 3/31/2021 at 4:03 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

to the effect that his prop, his canopy and part of his wing was blown off by an FW190 and the aircraft caught on fire.

 

This is more in line with what I would expect to happen with the 151

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
gimpy117
On 4/1/2021 at 10:20 AM, Hitcher said:

I'd agree buuuuut 1 20mm mineshell to the wing will spread damage all over the wing with varying levels of skin damage and even injuring the pilot or causing engine damage. I know mineshell are good but not THAT good. 

Something seems off with shrapnel radius or blast radius.

indeed you are right. I damaged my engine via my own round with a 20mm mine shell hitting another plane with it, i was very close sure, but I'm dubious about that, especially since it's an HE round and has a more hollow case that should cause less fragments. certainly it should strongly effect anything in the immediate vicinity, but throwing shrapnel all the way to the aircraft that shot the round? baloney. 

  • Upvote 1
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...