In-game ammo weight values?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Does anyone know the in-game ammo weights per bullet for the various types in the game? I'm wondering if it may be worth it to purposefully fire off and waste less effective ammo types like .303s or the SsVAKs at the start of a sortie to reduce weight on planes with mixed armaments.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm not sure if there's a published value for the aircraft available. You could look at the minimum weight (no ammo, 10% fuel) and compare that to standard weight and do a calculation on the difference based on fuel.

 

 

IMHO I think its not a useful strategy. You're giving up a combat capability in exchange for maybe a hundred kilogram worth of of weight saving. Unless you're flying a long mission you're better off shaving off a potentially several hundred kilograms worth of fuel (depending on the aircraft) than firing off all of your bullets. The performance difference is going to be extremely negligible.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Thanks. Yeah it's probably not worth it. My napkin math is only showing a ~25 kg gain by blowing the MG 17's on a 109, and only 30 kgs by blowing the Yak SsVAK.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

I'll take the occasion to say that, the .303 AP is, like the .50 used to be, underpowered. 

 

Its a well known fact that Hurricanes armed with 8x .303 were quite successful vs german bombers during the BoB. I can barely take down 3x 109's with 12x .303. It all goes down to will you be lucky enough to get a pilot kill or set the engine on fire? If not, you'll spend your entire ammo not doing any structural damage.

Edited April 1, 2022 by I./JG52_Woutwocampe

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

AP is ?, it would be nice if we could trade it for incendiary or HE.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

I'll take the occasion to say that, the .303 AP is, like the .50 used to be, underpowered. 

 

Its a well know fact that Hurricanes armed with 8x .303 were quite successful vs german bombers during the BoB. I can barely take down 3x 109's with 12x .303. It all goes down to will you be lucky enough to get a pilot kill or set the engine on fire? If not, you'll spend your entire ammo not doing any structural damage.

 

Yes, I personally suspect that they were *slightly* more effective than is modeled. I'm not saying that cannons shouldn't be many times more effective, just that rifle caliber machine-guns might find ways to do damage. In particular, I've wondered if things like internal ricochets damaging components, as well as the bullet having a larger surface area due to yaw induced upon penetrating the aircraft skin.

 

I think this is worth re-evaluating as it will impact the viability of the IAR-80 (and I-153 if we ever get it) will suffer, and the same goes for any early war module with aircraft like the Spit II and Hurricane I.

 

Small caliber rounds might have a larger footprint as a result compared to what would be expected if they behaved like miniature high-calibre AP rounds). There was that nice study that someone posted of British tests against replica He-111 components during the war... that would be a good place to start.

 

Anyway, there is some evidence that aircraft with only two rifle calibre machine guns (e.g. Ki-43a, Ki-27, PZL.11) were able to shoot down other aircraft regularly - sometimes more than one per sortie. The same goes for aircraft with four rifle calibre weapons (e.g. Gloster Gladiator - although at least some cases are likely over-claims).

[[CPT]Crunch]

Problems in most cases is your fighting upgraded later planes with increased armor plating and overall protections.