Discussing the DM update!

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Pilot kills too high, particularly when shooting at large bombers. If you're shooting at B-26 from dead six, just think of all the systems, equipment and airframe that has to go through before it reaches the pilot. Reports of the Japanese version of the MG 131 stated that the HE round could blow 3 inch (76 mm) holes in wings, airframe etc. The 13 mm doesn't seem to act much better than a standard .50 cal round.

Edit: 30 mm round still too weak 

Edited September 16, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Denum]

You aren't shooting Japanese ammo though? They aren't the same gun. 

 

How is the report relevant when the the MG131 was the shortest round out of the three? (Germany 64mm, Japan 88mm, USA 99mm)

 

Japanese HE (MA102 in the Ho103)  had nearly 3.5 grams of high explosive/incendiary.

 

German HE was at best 1.6 grams

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Denum

[6./ZG26_Custard]

28 minutes ago, Denum said:

You aren't shooting Japanese ammo though? They aren't the same gun. 

 

They are acting like .50 Cal ammunition and if it has half the filler you should half the result one would expect. So presumably 1 and a half inch holed or 33 mm holes. The problem is the lack of usable data as I believe there are only 6 examples of the weapon left. 

I'm constantly told that the 50 cal wonder weapon should create bigger holes etc and more skin damage but not the 13mm ???

The nearest equivalent which is the Ho-103 had 1.4 grams of filler but was blowing 3 inch holes in aircraft?

Edited September 16, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Denum]

If we are comparing AP to AP the .50 is a far superior round, it's heavier and has substantially more KE. I think the penetration on the Americans round is also much higher then the German one. 

 

I'd think that would create a bigger hole? 

 

In game I've been able to remove wings with the 131s on occasion,

 

With the HE component they still seem slightly more effective then the .50. 

 

Usually with the .50s I get the engine or the pilot before I take a wing or anything. 

 

I think the devs did a really good job.

 

I've spent alot of time flying axis as allied has been very popular post patch and often outnumbered 2 to 1 and still had a fantastic time. 

 

My only gripe at the moment is shrapnel still seems to be destroying the engine or killing my pilot with hits way out on the wing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1 minute ago, Denum said:

If we are comparing AP to AP the .50 is a far superior round, it's heavier and has substantially more KE. I think the penetration on the Americans round is also much higher then the German one.

Yes, but more or less by 1944 onwards 90% of US fighters where armoured with the API which was a lighter round with reports from pilots stating that the visible damage and bits flying off of aircraft was much reduced. The . Standard .50 seems to doing more skin damage that a 13 mm HE round.

[Denum]

17 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, but more or less by 1944 onwards 90% of US fighters where armoured with the API which was a lighter round with reports from pilots stating that the visible damage and bits flying off of aircraft was much reduced. The . Standard .50 seems to doing more skin damage that a 13 mm HE round.

 

While I can't speak for everyone, I'd love to have API. But in game we currently have straight AP.

 

The caveat here though is in 1944 API was also sought after by German pilots also. 

 

While the damage caused was a bit less. It was a highly effective fire starter. 

 

I disagree that the .50 is doing more skin damage then the 13mm HE. I've had plenty of sorties where I had 40 .50s rolling around the inside of my 190 and you'd never have known. 

 

Where 40 (roughly 20 HE) rounds into my Tiffy was pretty noticable. (Single player messing around, I should clarify this wasn't online) 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Denum

[QB.Shallot]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, but more or less by 1944 onwards 90% of US fighters where armoured with the API which was a lighter round with reports from pilots stating that the visible damage and bits flying off of aircraft was much reduced. The . Standard .50 seems to doing more skin damage that a 13 mm HE round.

 

 

You are very wrong.

By 1944 onward, American fighters are were armed with API. API had combined the qualities of AP and I rounds that the USAAF had used leading up to the adoption of API. What you're talking about is the effects of I rounds used in combat. Pilots noted less visual skin shedding, but a greatly increased chance of fire.

 

API gave the USAAF the tearing quality of the AP round, with the ignition of the I rounds. 

 

Not to mention there is no API in game, all USAAF aircraft are modeled with AP. (This is a discrepancy present in most AP ammo used in late war birds).

 

[Edited]

Edited September 16, 2022 by SYN_Haashashin

[purK]

1 hour ago, Denum said:

I disagree that the .50 is doing more skin damage then the 13mm HE. I've had plenty of sorties where I had 40 .50s rolling around the inside of my 190 and you'd never have known.

[Edited] it takes approx. 24-25 13mm to cause the same level of skin damage to a wing as 27-28 .50 cals. So no, 13mm is not weaker than .50 cal, it's slightly stronger. As you mention the HE filler in 13mm is minuscule without any AP effects like tumbling or exit wounds, therefore It's not really unreasonable for them to be somewhat similar in causing skin damage.
 

 

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Yes, but more or less by 1944 onwards 90% of US fighters where armoured with the API which was a lighter round with reports from pilots stating that the visible damage and bits flying off of aircraft was much reduced. The . Standard .50 seems to doing more skin damage that a 13 mm HE round.

Here's an after action report of a pilot shooting down 5 planes and praising the effectiveness of his API ammo (the other P51 pilot he was assisting also shot down 5 planes). To imply it was worse than regular AP is very misleading, overall the penetration value would be slightly worse but it would be even better at causing larger holes and skin damage, or causing fires.

Edited September 16, 2022 by SYN_Haashashin

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Whilst I'm waiting for the next pithy comments, I'll state again that the 13 mm HE round doesn't seem as effective as it should be to damage skin as the standard .50 and the 30 mm is nowhere near as effective as it should be.

[Denum]

I'll also disagree with the 30mm, 

 

It's pretty effective. Usually two rounds will secure a kill. 

 

Based on US testing that's pretty accurate. 

 

There's an occasional outlier where they take 3 or 4 but I believe that's more netcode then damage model. 

 

I've had the occasional plane survive my first pass but they weren't getting very far in their condition. 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Denum

[6./ZG26_Custard]

12 minutes ago, Denum said:

I'll also disagree with the 30mm

I'm glad to disagree but when you look at the damage caused by 1 30 mm you have to ask yourself could 99% of aircraft take 3 and still fly?

Edited September 16, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[=RS=EnvyC]

Germany switched to API/T rounds for the MG131 where possible. If it wasn't for the fact they were getting the snot beat out of them and their supply could actually cope with the realities of war, all planes with MG131 would have had APIT.

 

[the_emperor]

47 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

the API which was a lighter round

The AP-Core was the the about the same, but the lead tip was substituted with incendiary hence the lighter round.

 

The Germans are missing the Incend-T round which superseded the HEI and was mich more effective

Edited September 16, 2022 by the_emperor

[=RS=EnvyC]

7 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'm glad to disagree but when you look at the damage caused by 1 30 mm you have to ask yourself could 99% of aircraft take 3 and still fly?

Misleading, that round was suspended within the fuselage for the test. It is not representative of combat conditions.

 

More to the point you wouldn't be using the 30mm in fighter to fighter combat in reality because it jammed when firing at +2G.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[Denum]

4 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

I'll glad to disagree but when you look at the damage caused by 1 30 mm you have to ask yourself could 99% of aircraft take 3 and still fly?

 

You mean that round that hit a parked, fully broadside aircraft? 

 

Have you not hit someone's wing on a high deflection shot? 

 

One 30mm is game over. I'm failing to see the issue? 

 

If we are going to base rounds off perfect scenario's in testing you're really not going to like the .50. 

 

 

There's also plenty of examples where large calibre munitions did nothing but leave a neat hole in aircraft.

 

I'd refer you to the Americans durability testing report for 30mm as it used later aircraft and had more then one example.

 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

Other topic have been closed for a lot less and why this hasn’t is odd. 

 

Edited

 

Smith

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi all,

 

Just don’t get personal with others, opinions are respectable but…

 

Some of you are at the border of breaking rule 17…

 

Haash

PS: We will be revisiting this topic. 

 

[Denum]

13 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Why do you want it shut down ???

How often do you think the US or Germany or the UK conducted tests under ideal conditions, nearly all of them were. It's not that easy to test IRL aircraft being hit when manoeuvring and flying at 300 mph

 

My point is that using one test as your baseline is dishonest.

 

It's also worth mentioning the Blenheim is a light bomber and originally began it's life as a commercial plane. It had a notoriously small fuselage. 

 

 

With that being said. I know I can one shot spitfires in game with the 30mm.

 

That would be like suggesting using the Ju52 as a basis for the effectiveness of the hispano. 

 

It's just not realistic. 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Denum

[MisterSmith]

10 minutes ago, 86th_Rails said:

Other topic have been closed for a lot less and why this hasn’t is odd. 

 

Edited

 

Smith

 

So far, this is all opinion. I've never shut down a thread for just voicing one's opinion. Attacks on devs, blatant misinformation and rules violations, yes. I'll continue to monitor for now.

 

For what it's worth, I think the 13 and 30mm are in the ballpark as is, since the DM update. I think the .50 is much improved and also in the ballpark for pure AP ammo.

 

Smith

[6./ZG26_Custard]

2 hours ago, Denum said:

My point is that using one test as your baseline is dishonest.

There are plenty of tests to choose from I just posted 1 picture. The point is almost all tests from the various nations were conducted under ideal conditions. 

2 hours ago, Krupnski said:

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Custard
Quote a edited post

[354thFG_Rails]

15 minutes ago, MisterSmith said:

 

So far, this is all opinion. I've never shut down a thread for just voicing one's opinion. Attacks on devs, blatant misinformation and rules violations, yes. I'll continue to monitor for now.

 

For what it's worth, I think the 13 and 30mm are in the ballpark as is, since the DM update. I think the .50 is much improved and also in the ballpark for pure AP ammo.

 

Smith

 

Edited. Rule 7

 

If you have something to say about our moderation, do it via PM.

Edited September 16, 2022 by SYN_Haashashin

[Denum]

27 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There are plenty of tests to choose from I just posted 1 picture. The point is almost all tests from the various nations were conducted under idea conditions. 

Do you have any examples?

The only one commonly presented is the Spitfire MkII and the Blenheim.

 

The US ballistics research lab did a lot of data collection on it.

 

In the P47s case they only expected it to go down 50% of the time from a single hit, and of that 50%, 30% was from structural damage. So there's the possibility of it taking 3 or more hits to go down. 

 

Against lighter fighters like the Spitfire a single shot is usually pretty devastating. 

 

The P51B at times can be a bit.. odd but nothing I'd call game breaking. 

 

 

If you're expecting planes to loose a wing from a single shot I just don't see that happening on a consistent basis. 

 

This was a quick snap shot on the way by. Maybe 1 30mm landed. 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

4 minutes ago, Denum said:

Do you have any examples?

There is a series of reports that the RAF conducted which I'll have to find for you. 

 

Here is a video of some of the tests.

The test information can be seen at the end of the video.

[Denum]

Now remember, these are the two examples I'm talking about. 

 

Very rarely do we see anything otherwise.

 

 

 

[oc2209]

7 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said:

Misleading, that round was suspended within the fuselage for the test. It is not representative of combat conditions.

 

More to the point you wouldn't be using the 30mm in fighter to fighter combat in reality because it jammed when firing at +2G.

 

So the 30mm wouldn't be used during a bounce?

 

And all non-bounce fighter/fighter kills were at +2G? Nobody ever levelled out in a shallow climb or dive to try to outrun an opponent?

 

Best not to speak in absolutes.

 

12 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Edit: 30 mm round still too weak 

 

Before the latest patch, I'd agree with you. But I'm not seeing an issue at the moment. Here's an example of 4 consecutive tests; no cherry picking.

 

Spitfire XIV from over 600m; 2x30mm impacts, one apparently in the prop. Pilot heavily wounded, crashed:

 

Spoiler

 

 

P-51. 2x30mm impacts, both in the belly/underside of the plane. Pilot killed instantly:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Typhoon. 2x30mm impacts. Pilot killed instantly. Engine fire:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Now, here's the outlier. P-47. At least 4x30mm strikes. No pilot death or fire:

 

Spoiler

 

 

So, one implausible result out of four. I don't think that's a high enough failure rate to justify a complaint.

 

The P-47 still would never make it back home; that's ultimately more important than anything else.

[Bilbo_Baggins]

On 9/17/2022 at 4:16 AM, Denum said:

Now remember, these are the two examples I'm talking about. 

 

Very rarely do we see anything otherwise.

 

 

 

 

What further examples would be required? The Mk108 with HE simply eviscerates airframes as you can see in these tests. However, using the game QMB you more often than not see planes just keep flying around with what should be without doubt catastrophic damage. 

 

Having said that, others have also noticed that often the AI is somehow able to take a tremendous amount of damage and a single 30mm hit is almost never enough, whereas on the receiving end ourselves the 30mm HE hits do feel more apparent. 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Bilbo_Baggins

[Denum]

7 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

What further examples would be required? The Mk108 with HE simply eviscerates airframes as you can see in these tests. However, using the game QMB you more often than not see planes just keep flying around with what should be without doubt catastrophic damage. 

 

Having said that, others have also noticed that often the AI is somehow able to take a tremendous amount of damage and a single 30mm hit is almost never enough, whereas on the receiving end ourselves the 30mm HE hits do feel more apparent. 

The air frames used aren't applicable to in game. 

Using the Blenheim as a benchmark for plane durability or weapon effectiveness is just... wrong. Its an extremely light aircraft. 

Similarly it would be like me suggesting the .50 cal needs higher penetration then using data from lightly armored 109s (B series if I recall right) to prove my point. 

I should also add, there was a STAGGERING amount of research, testing and data collection done by community members before we even got a sniff of a change to the .50 cals. I think if people want HE changed more they take the time to at least get something more then a picture and video that doesn't even use in game aircraft. 

 

You can already one shot the Spitfire Vb. So in that regard we are exactly where it should be. 



Yeah the AI can take tremendous abuse and keep the plane flying. What people don't realize is the plane is already dead. They're expecting hollywood style wings falling off etc. 

I don't really consider shooting AI to be a worth while benchmark for that reason. 

 

On 9/16/2022 at 8:07 AM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

The nearest equivalent which is the Ho-103 had 1.4 grams of filler but was blowing 3 inch holes in aircraft?

Ho-103 shooting the MA-102 round 

 

• Ma-102 Fuzeless HE-I
- Projectile Mass: ~ 36.30 g
- Muzzle Velocity: 780 m/s
- Explosive type: RDX + PETN + Incendiary
- Explosive mass: ~ 0.96 g + 0.96 g + 1.46 g

 

They packed quite a bit of explosive into these shells. I haven't looked hard enough to find testing information (No point unless we get the pacific...) 
But considering Hispanos on the low side was packing 6 grams of explosive, and these were 3.5 all in. There's a possibility of a 3in hole. No question. 

 

Although I'd still like to see some info on that also because this could be the MG131 all over again.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Denum

[Bilbo_Baggins]

In QMB the AI single engine planes even fly back to base and land okay after hit by 30mm, more often than not. Definitely not expecting anything Hollywood, but that said, the damage inflicted by 30mm very often does not reflect the destruction to that spitfire wing (let alone fuselage) tested on in the video, visual representation aside. 

 

As a side note, I have noticed that P51 can now break the fuselage in half after multiple 30mm hits after this update.

[357th_KW]

There are numerous documented cases of aircraft flying back to base and landing after being hit by 30mm and larger projectiles in WW2.  Many of them known Mk108 hits, as they came from ME-262s and Me-163s.  It wasn't some sort of guaranteed one shot death ray.

 

The US tested those 30mm's extensively after the war by shooting surplus P-47s and B-25s.  They thought it was an incredible weapon that packed amazing firepower for its weight.  And they determined that a single 30mm had just under a 30% chance of downing a P-47 in what we would call a kill (A-kill in the report meaning the aircraft went down within 5 minutes, vs B-kill simply couldn't return from a real mission).  And less than a 7.5% chance of downing a B-25.

 

As it is in game, if you get hit by a 30mm, and somehow you're miraculously still alive and able to fly the aircraft, you are absolutely crippled and will likely be finished off within seconds.  It's not as if people are tanking these and continuing to dogfight.  Occasionally players can limp home with this damage - the AI can handle aero damage far better then a human, as it can find the correct combo of control inputs to keep the plane level near instantly, where a player will be in an unrecoverable spin before they've even figured out exactly what was damaged.

[-332FG-Magic_Zach]

Thanks for your valuable input Cujo ?

 

Considering folks like KW and Denum have provided specific evidence and deeper looks into studies than surface level.

 

Versus some of the usual suspected individuals that only see a big hole in a fragile plane from a broadside shot, and try to apply a visual from that single experiment against other thorough studies that provided more documentation.

[oc2209]

8 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

As a side note, I have noticed that P51 can now break the fuselage in half after multiple 30mm hits after this update.

 

I can't break a P-51 for some reason:

 

Spoiler

 

 

But I could break a Sturmovik's spine in one attempt:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Go figure.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

34 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

But I could break a Sturmovik's spine in one attempt

Currently the P-51 and the P-47 seem to be able to soak up 30 mm hits better than an IL2.

[dbuile]

12 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

The US tested those 30mm's extensively after the war by shooting surplus P-47s and B-25s. 

Thanks KW, cool document.  Hopefully I browsed it correctly, their classification of "A" vs "B" kill being: an "A" kill is the plane is deemed lost/out-of-control within 5 minutes. "B" is within 2 hours.  

[Roland_HUNter]

On 9/16/2022 at 4:55 PM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Whilst I'm waiting for the next pithy comments, I'll state again that the 13 mm HE round doesn't seem as effective as it should be to damage skin as the standard .50 and the 30 mm is nowhere near as effective as it should be.

Boi.....
If THIS is not strong enough for you, then NOTHING will:

Mk-108 hit before wingtip breaks off:
P-47: 3 hit
P-51: 3-4 hit
Spitfire: 2-4 hit
Tempest:3 hit
P-40:4 hit
P-39: 3 hit
P-38: 2 hit
Hurricane LEFT wing: 5 hit (broken I guesss...)
Hurricane RIGHT wing: 6-7 hit (broken I guesss...)
Tempest: 2 hit
Mosquito: 2 hit, and the Mosquito can fly without wingtip:
https://gfycat.com/forcefulfoolhardyanemoneshrimp

Soviet planes: 1-3 hit depending on variants, not tested all of them, because I aimed for the stronger winged planes.

4 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Currently the P-51 and the P-47 seem to be able to soak up 30 mm hits better than an IL2.

Somehow, that's true.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I always genuinely appreciate seeing testing information from the various nations during world war II but probably without fail all of those tests were performed under ideal conditions with no aerodynamic stress placed on the wings or airframe or the aircraft travelling at close to 300 mph. Unfortunately it seems what we having in game at the moment is single wing aircraft being able to take multiple hits from the 30 mm with P-51 and the P-47 being able to take more 30 mm rounds than il-2. 

[oc2209]

12 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Currently the P-51 and the P-47 seem to be able to soak up 30 mm hits better than an IL2.

 

I'm not in agreement with the Denum school that says a Blenheim's waist structure is made of toothpicks and tissue paper, and is 4 inches wide. Clearly, it'd be larger and equal/greater in structural integrity than a P-51's narrowest point just ahead of the tail. 2 impacts to the immediate area probably should break the tail off; and 4 hits anywhere between the tail and rear canopy definitely should.

 

The main issue that I can identify with 30mm kill (in)consistency, is angle of impact. It seems like the greatest variability exists when making attacks from directly, or nearly so, behind the target. For lack of a better word, the sim seems to treat many of these strikes as 'glancing blows'. Regardless of how realistic that is, that's the mechanical explanation as I see it.

 

When you manage to increase the angle from dead six, the results of a 30mm strike seem much more predictable and devastating:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Now, in the case of the IL-2's breakage, I was close to dead six and it didn't matter.

 

So, from that we can infer that either the internal structure modelling for each plane is the cause (with planes like the P-51 having greater strength values than perhaps is reasonable), or, something to do with the exterior skin shape is affecting 30mm blast radius. In other words, causing the explosive force of the shells to somehow 'deflect' away from the internal structure. The sim registers these glancing shots as skin damage and not much else, evidently. While in the IL-2's case, the shells seemed to 'dig in' to the structure more readily.

[Denum]

34 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

'm not in agreement with the Denum school that says a Blenheim's waist structure is made of toothpicks and tissue paper, and is 4 inches wide. Clearly, it'd be larger and equal/greater in structural integrity than a P-51's narrowest point just ahead of the tail.

Well, no it wouldn't be. The P51s structure needs to be stronger. Its smaller, shorter and has a higher allowable G load. 


Blenheim max weight- 12,200lbs
P51 max weight- 12,300lbs. 

Blenheim cross section 



P51 cross section 


I probably don't need to explain that having closer spaced cross bracing is going to make the aircraft considerably more durable 
 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Denum

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, Denum said:

Well, no it wouldn't be. The P51s structure needs to be stronger. Its smaller, shorter and has a higher allowable G load. 

I probably don't need to explain that having closer spaced cross bracing is going to make the aircraft considerably more durable 
 

 

The fact that the Mustang's bracing is compressed into a smaller area would also mean that a single 30mm explosion would destroy more of that bracing, correct?

 

The only reason why bombers could reliably take multiple 30mm strikes, is that there are enough dead spaces in their airframe for the explosive force to be dissipated. There is no reason for a small-ish fighter like the Mustang to take the same levels of punishment.

 

Let's think about your argument for a moment.

 

When you were previously trying to dismiss the catastrophic level of damage the Blenheim suffered, you said it's not a useful test because the Blenheim was small.

 

Now, a P-51 is even smaller, but you're saying it should absorb MORE damage than a Blenheim before suffering structural failure.

 

I probably don't need to explain that you just undermined your own argument.

[Denum]

 

 

Nope. 

 

Not wasting my time.

 

If you don't understand how ridiculous your statement is. 

 

Legitimately can't help. At this point I don't want to. 

 

Put some real data up. Until then. Have fun with Microsoft paint. 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Denum

[oc2209]

54 minutes ago, Denum said:

 

Nope. 

 

Not wasting my time.

 

If you don't understand how ridiculous your statement is. 

 

Legitimately can't help. At this point I don't want to.

 

 

Gee, condescend much?

 

You're assuming a lot of things. That I need help, that you have the authority to help me, etc.

 

It's not my fault you talked yourself into a corner.

 

You were showed test results in which the tail was blown off a Blenheim by one 30mm shot. You said it didn't mean anything because the Blenheim is small. The implication of your original argument--before you moved the goalposts to suit your current needs--was that small planes are destroyed more easily by 30mm hits than big planes. 

 

I show in-game footage of a P-51 taking 4x30mm shots to the rear fuselage, and your only response is to say the P-51's structure is stronger than a Blenheim's, because the P-51 is smaller.

 

Even though you have absolutely zero evidence to support the claim that a fighter can take 30mm hits better than a bomber; even though common sense tells us fighters are less capable of absorbing 30mm hits. Your linking of tests where 1x30mm hit often isn't enough to shoot down a P-47, does not equate to 4x30mm hits to a Mustang not causing structural failure.

 

Sorry I don't speak in GIFs to indicate my level of exasperation.