Minengeschoss

[the_emperor]

the german airforce rated an average of 20 MineShell hits to bring down a  Viermot

Edited July 6, 2024 by the_emperor

[CountZero]

15 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

This video says by US trials, that 17 MG 151 and 4 Mk108 destroyed a B-17.
Hurricane wing can stand 6-8 MK108...
 

 

Did you shoot at hurri from six ? or angle ? and replay ? did they shoot at B-17 from 6 or angle ? i can brake hurri wing with 2 30mm hits, does that prove you wrong or i shoot at it in SP from angle and you did it in MP from six with who knows what net code... details details ...

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Did you shoot at hurri from six ? or angle ? and replay ? did they shoot at B-17 from 6 or angle ? i can brake hurri wing with 2 30mm hits, does that prove you wrong or i shoot at it in SP from angle and you did it in MP from six with who knows what net code... details details ...

2 MK 108 brake the wing close to the fuselage?
Show me...

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

Did you shoot at hurri from six ? or angle ? and replay ? did they shoot at B-17 from 6 or angle ? i can brake hurri wing with 2 30mm hits, does that prove you wrong or i shoot at it in SP from angle and you did it in MP from six with who knows what net code... details details ...

You should no longer be distrustful....last time you asked for a video of the tempest, I proved that I am not making up what I write.

[Avimimus]

17 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

This video says by US trials, that 17 MG 151 and 4 Mk108 destroyed a B-17.
Hurricane wing can stand 6-8 MK108...

 

This video states that these documents say the Fw-190 carried 4xMk-108 autocannons... something the author of the video repeats as a fact.

[HazMatt]

I posted of video of the RAF testing the German 30mm somewhere but I can't find it. One hit would blow the tail off of a spitfire. From the video of the testing it was much more devastating then it is modeled in the game. I have not seen videos of the other 30/37 mm so I don't know about those. If you can find the video I posted it's very eye opening.

[CountZero]

33 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

2 MK 108 brake the wing close to the fuselage?
Show me...

You should no longer be distrustful....last time you asked for a video of the tempest, I proved that I am not making up what I write.

And where are same tests of other airplanes, so it can be clear if all airplanes perform better the way you test stuff or its just some, you cant just focus on one airplane you dont like and disrigard others you like.

 

Also regarding this, you dont say from where is your picture of hurri MP or SP, is it 1 out of 10 try, or 10 out of 10 case same thing happend, in what situation , dead 6 or angle or 90deg of and so on...

Is it realy problem of german guns or airplane structure, did you try it with other guns, on other airplanes in same conditions and so on... 100 tests what is resoult ?

 

so yes i am distrustful because of your aproch to this and other stuff questioning only one side airplanes disregarding other side

 

[Roland_HUNter]

15 minutes ago, CountZero said:

And where are same tests of other airplanes, so it can be clear if all airplanes perform better the way you test stuff or its just some, you cant just focus on one airplane you dont like and disrigard others you like.

 

Also regarding this, you dont say from where is your picture of hurri MP or SP, is it 1 out of 10 try, or 10 out of 10 case same thing happend, in what situation , dead 6 or angle or 90deg of and so on...

Is it realy problem of german guns or airplane structure, did you try it with other guns, on other airplanes in same conditions and so on... 100 tests what is resoult ?

 

so yes i am distrustful because of your aproch to this and other stuff questioning only one side airplanes disregarding other side

 

I quoted my older picture about the Hurricane wing.
You think that is normal, the wing can survive 25 20mm hit?
You really need picture about 6-7 Mk 108 hit?

WHAT WILL ChANGE?! N o t h i n g.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The problems go much deeper than the 108 or 151, the real answer to this is we need a new damage model, and we're getting a new one in Korea.

[Avimimus]

 

 

[HazMatt]

Thanks for finding that. I posted that video somewhere and couldn't find it lol.

[Roland_HUNter]

34 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

Sadly, we dont have this kinda dmg in the game.

[HazMatt]

If the can't model the damage correctly maybe they could add a multiplier to to the current damage to make it more realistic. I've seen a .50 call take a wing off a 109 but I haven't seen a 30mm take a wing off a plane...

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

That's because the 109 wing is suspiciously weak.

[HazMatt]

5 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

That's because the 109 wing is suspiciously weak.

Just like the .30mm?

Edited July 6, 2024 by =HazMatt=HazMatt

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, the DM is a rabbit hole made of pure salt. We can go round and round for eternity.

[HazMatt]

Ya. I like the way hit looks and how the planes react when they take hits. That part is cool.

 

I agree on the DM.

[the_emperor]

The Problem is, that game cannot replicate how the mineshell with delay action works. as it was specially designed to work against (semi)monocoque airframes where essential everyhing is in one way or another load bearing (etc aircraft skin, spars). while it is less effective against the fuselage of more traditional construction (etc  canvas like the fusulage of the Hurricance or Yaks).

 

[357th_KW]

Video game player expectation:

 

 

 

Reality:

 

 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

There's pictures linked above showing what to expect, nothing about missiles there.

[Roland_HUNter]

Bro, thank you for this video, It's really shows, the 20 and 30mms are under performing.

P-47 part:
Az 2:56 after 1! 20mm hit, that wing got a pretty big hit.

Bomber from 4:40
3 20mm hit on the fuel tank part: the plane was ON FIRE.

And btw I used an AMERICAN report about the B17 toughness NOT a German. If that's not valid, than what is?
 

[357th_KW]

Some other films:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's interesting how you just aren't seeing big structural failures in most of these films.  Fires, definitely damage etc. but blowing whole sections of airplanes off just isn't happening, which seems to be what a lot of players complain about. 

 

The first one I posted above was a test shot of an early Sparrow missile against an F6F drone, which you can see ripped the wing off and started an enormous fire.  That's a 20 KG warhead.  A German 20mm had something like .003 to .017 KG of explosive depending on which shell we're talking about.  The 30mm around .087 kg for the HE.  So orders of magnitude smaller.

 

This has been posted before, but I think it's still the best period study of this stuff: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_a2A1tofOlGPMPt3mMaK9g9Qa6Nf1IO5/view?usp=drive_link

 

It's a post war study, where they took a bunch of surplus US aircraft and shot them with the actual weapons while they were running on the ground, examining them after each shot to evaluate what was going on etc.  Weapons included the .50, US 20mm, 37mm and Mk108 (which they rated as the best weapon).  What's also interesting is they broke kills out into an "A" and "B" category, differentiating between damage that would bring the aircraft down within 5 minutes (A) vs. damage that would prevent it from returning to base (B).  Evaluating the P-47 they come to the conclusion that a 20mm has about a 7% chance of downing it with a single round, vs just under 30% for a 30mm.  If you look at those with a probability calculator, that'd mean you'd need around 10 20mms on average or 2-3 30mms (to achieve a 50% or greater chance).  The point of all this, is that it isn't unreasonable to have scenarios where it takes multiple HE hits to down a fighter or bomber.  Now obviously you should also get cases where just 1 is enough.  But if we look through MP stats (and keep in mind, those are highly inflated relative to this study because rounds fired after the aircraft was effectively downed are still counted in the total, rather than being fired 1 at a time and observing the result) that's exactly what we see - a few cases where it might take ten or more 20mm HE hits, a lot where it takes 5 or so, and a few where 1 or 2 get the job done.

[Roland_HUNter]

47 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

Some other films:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's interesting how you just aren't seeing big structural failures in most of these films.  Fires, definitely damage etc. but blowing whole sections of airplanes off just isn't happening, which seems to be what a lot of players complain about. 

 

The first one I posted above was a test shot of an early Sparrow missile against an F6F drone, which you can see ripped the wing off and started an enormous fire.  That's a 20 KG warhead.  A German 20mm had something like .003 to .017 KG of explosive depending on which shell we're talking about.  The 30mm around .087 kg for the HE.  So orders of magnitude smaller.

 

This has been posted before, but I think it's still the best period study of this stuff: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_a2A1tofOlGPMPt3mMaK9g9Qa6Nf1IO5/view?usp=drive_link

 

It's a post war study, where they took a bunch of surplus US aircraft and shot them with the actual weapons while they were running on the ground, examining them after each shot to evaluate what was going on etc.  Weapons included the .50, US 20mm, 37mm and Mk108 (which they rated as the best weapon).  What's also interesting is they broke kills out into an "A" and "B" category, differentiating between damage that would bring the aircraft down within 5 minutes (A) vs. damage that would prevent it from returning to base (B).  Evaluating the P-47 they come to the conclusion that a 20mm has about a 7% chance of downing it with a single round, vs just under 30% for a 30mm.  If you look at those with a probability calculator, that'd mean you'd need around 10 20mms on average or 2-3 30mms (to achieve a 50% or greater chance).  The point of all this, is that it isn't unreasonable to have scenarios where it takes multiple HE hits to down a fighter or bomber.  Now obviously you should also get cases where just 1 is enough.  But if we look through MP stats (and keep in mind, those are highly inflated relative to this study because rounds fired after the aircraft was effectively downed are still counted in the total, rather than being fired 1 at a time and observing the result) that's exactly what we see - a few cases where it might take ten or more 20mm HE hits, a lot where it takes 5 or so, and a few where 1 or 2 get the job done.

Those videos still says the same: 20mm and 30mm guns are ineffective in BOS.

And that kind of argument :"  A German 20mm had something like .003 to .017 KG of explosive depending on which shell we're talking about.  The 30mm around .087 kg for the HE.  So orders of magnitude smaller."

Still does not make a fake what @Avimimus posted here about the Spitfire, etc british planes damage.
 

[the_emperor]

45 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

The point of all this, is that it isn't unreasonable to have scenarios where it takes multiple HE hits to down a fighter or bomber.  Now obviously you should also get cases where just 1 is enough

Yes,

I guess that the current damage model is not able to simulate the very complex nature (many internal systems are not not modelled or cannot be damaged…still waiting for the the .50 API round)

but in comparison the german 20mm is by far the the most potent round. How and if this is correctly implemented in the game should be debated and put into comparison with the other 20mm

 

British/US:

5.6g Tetryl R.E. factor 1.25 ~7g TNT

 

(Later) Soviet:

5.6g A-IX-2 (73% RDX, 23% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 4% wax; R.E. factor 1.54)~8,624g TNT

 

German:

18,6g HA41 (75% RDX, 20% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 5% wax; R.E. factor ~1.5)~28g TNT with delay action

[simfan1998]

Spitfire : 1 hit , one kill

see here in detail, with comments

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

3 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

I think it's interesting how you just aren't seeing big structural failures in most of these films.  Fires, definitely damage etc. but blowing whole sections of airplanes off just isn't happening, which seems to be what a lot of players complain about. 

 

The first one I posted above was a test shot of an early Sparrow missile against an F6F drone, which you can see ripped the wing off and started an enormous fire.  That's a 20 KG warhead.  A German 20mm had something like .003 to .017 KG of explosive depending on which shell we're talking about.  The 30mm around .087 kg for the HE.  So orders of magnitude smaller.

 

This has been posted before, but I think it's still the best period study of this stuff: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_a2A1tofOlGPMPt3mMaK9g9Qa6Nf1IO5/view?usp=drive_link

 

It's a post war study, where they took a bunch of surplus US aircraft and shot them with the actual weapons while they were running on the ground, examining them after each shot to evaluate what was going on etc.  Weapons included the .50, US 20mm, 37mm and Mk108 (which they rated as the best weapon).  What's also interesting is they broke kills out into an "A" and "B" category, differentiating between damage that would bring the aircraft down within 5 minutes (A) vs. damage that would prevent it from returning to base (B).  Evaluating the P-47 they come to the conclusion that a 20mm has about a 7% chance of downing it with a single round, vs just under 30% for a 30mm.  If you look at those with a probability calculator, that'd mean you'd need around 10 20mms on average or 2-3 30mms (to achieve a 50% or greater chance).  The point of all this, is that it isn't unreasonable to have scenarios where it takes multiple HE hits to down a fighter or bomber.  Now obviously you should also get cases where just 1 is enough.  But if we look through MP stats (and keep in mind, those are highly inflated relative to this study because rounds fired after the aircraft was effectively downed are still counted in the total, rather than being fired 1 at a time and observing the result) that's exactly what we see - a few cases where it might take ten or more 20mm HE hits, a lot where it takes 5 or so, and a few where 1 or 2 get the job done.

I don't like taking that X% of a kill per round stat at face value because hitting certain areas of the plane will be more damaging than others, and we don't know in the stats where those rounds were hitting. This ties into what emperor was saying about lack of systems modeling, but I think the main source of salt in the DM isn't that HE bullets aren't always one shotting planes with Hollywood explosions, but that due to the RNG nature of the damage model filling in the blanks they'll sometimes see themselves unload multiple shells into a wing, and see the enemy plane maneuver perfectly fine afterwards, or when you can see bullet holes right on top of a cannon but it will still fire fine. This isn't limited to HE though, AP (and no API) has similar problems.

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

 

I think it's interesting how you just aren't seeing big structural failures in most of these films.  Fires, definitely damage etc. but blowing whole sections of airplanes off just isn't happening, which seems to be what a lot of players complain about. 

 

The first one I posted above was a test shot of an early Sparrow missile against an F6F drone, which you can see ripped the wing off and started an enormous fire.  That's a 20 KG warhead.  A German 20mm had something like .003 to .017 KG of explosive depending on which shell we're talking about.  The 30mm around .087 kg for the HE.  So orders of magnitude smaller.

 

This has been posted before, but I think it's still the best period study of this stuff: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_a2A1tofOlGPMPt3mMaK9g9Qa6Nf1IO5/view?usp=drive_link

 

It's a post war study, where they took a bunch of surplus US aircraft and shot them with the actual weapons while they were running on the ground, examining them after each shot to evaluate what was going on etc.  Weapons included the .50, US 20mm, 37mm and Mk108 (which they rated as the best weapon).  What's also interesting is they broke kills out into an "A" and "B" category, differentiating between damage that would bring the aircraft down within 5 minutes (A) vs. damage that would prevent it from returning to base (B).  Evaluating the P-47 they come to the conclusion that a 20mm has about a 7% chance of downing it with a single round, vs just under 30% for a 30mm.  If you look at those with a probability calculator, that'd mean you'd need around 10 20mms on average or 2-3 30mms (to achieve a 50% or greater chance).  The point of all this, is that it isn't unreasonable to have scenarios where it takes multiple HE hits to down a fighter or bomber.  Now obviously you should also get cases where just 1 is enough.  But if we look through MP stats (and keep in mind, those are highly inflated relative to this study because rounds fired after the aircraft was effectively downed are still counted in the total, rather than being fired 1 at a time and observing the result) that's exactly what we see - a few cases where it might take ten or more 20mm HE hits, a lot where it takes 5 or so, and a few where 1 or 2 get the job done.

 

Thanks for the references!

 

Two observations I'd like to add:

 

1) I think you have a very good point. If we move in our thinking beyond the idea of hitpoints, then the picture gets more complicated. A single 7.92mm round could take down a fighter if it lands in the perfect spot, and a 50mm round if it hits the exact right spot and passes through without detonation could leave a fighter flying back.

 

2) A lot of this gun camera footage is edited/compiled. It likely has a bias towards some of the more dramatic examples. We shouldn't expect them to be representative of typical hits (unless it is from an unedited archival reel which is moving sequentially through all footage from a unit - something which is quite rare).

 

22 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I don't like taking that X% of a kill per round stat at face value because hitting certain areas of the plane will be more damaging than others, and we don't know in the stats where those rounds were hitting. This ties into what emperor was saying about lack of systems modeling, but I think the main source of salt in the DM isn't that HE bullets aren't always one shotting planes with Hollywood explosions, but that due to the RNG nature of the damage model filling in the blanks they'll sometimes see themselves unload multiple shells into a wing, and see the enemy plane maneuver perfectly fine afterwards, or when you can see bullet holes right on top of a cannon but it will still fire fine. This isn't limited to HE though, AP (and no API) has similar problems.

 

I agree. There are some discrepancies from what we are seeing and what is actually going on in the damage model... which could be a major source of disagreements.

 

IMHO, I always found it a bit odd that there is are so many complaints about it sometimes taking 2-3 hits to destroy a fighter with the 30mm cannon whereas the averaging nature of damage outputs means that the current damage model strongly disadvantages 7.92mm and 0.303 machine guns - those are the people who should most be up in arms!

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The 7.92s and .303s in WWII are usually just backup weapons most people just expect to suck, but if we're stuck using just them for whatever reason you'll hear lots of choice words.

[Avimimus]

17 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The 7.92s and .303s in WWII are usually just backup weapons most people just expect to suck, but if we're stuck using just them for whatever reason you'll hear lots of choice words.

 

Tell that to someone flying a Hurricane, I-16, or IAR-80... (plus most other airplanes in 1939). They were intended as primary weapons in a lot of countries, and they could and did take down bombers.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, we are sometimes forced to use those rounds, but most other planes have something stronger as their primary. You can make them work, but there will be lots of interesting commentary while doing it.

[HazMatt]

Does anybody have a link to some 262 attacks on bombers? Seems most of these are .20mm and I'd like to see some .30mm but I haven't been able to find anything good.

[Roland_HUNter]

7 hours ago, =HazMatt=HazMatt said:

Does anybody have a link to some 262 attacks on bombers? Seems most of these are .20mm and I'd like to see some .30mm but I haven't been able to find anything good.

 

 

[357th_KW]

15 hours ago, =HazMatt=HazMatt said:

Does anybody have a link to some 262 attacks on bombers? Seems most of these are .20mm and I'd like to see some .30mm but I haven't been able to find anything good.

 

 

According to the description, this sequence at 1:05 is an attack by an Me163 which only damaged this bomber.

[the_emperor]

since the later soviet 20mm got corrected from 2.8. to 5.6g of HE filling, lets bring up the filling of all 20mm HE-rounds in general.

the game seems to use TNT equivalent for calculation:

 

 

credit to @=MERCS=JenkemJunkie

 

The values are:

5.6g TNT for the later soviet

11.3g TNT for the allied Hispano System

20g TNT for the german Mineshell

 

since all rounds hold explosives that are more effective than pure TNT, the correct values of TNT equivalent should probably be:

 

British/US:

5.6g Tetryl R.E. factor 1.25 ~7g TNT 

 

(Later) Soviet:

5.6g A-IX-2 (73% RDX, 23% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 4% wax; R.E. factor 1.54)~8,624g TNT

or 4.13g (~6.36g TNT)  for the tracer version

 earlier soviet HE-I rounds held about 2,8g of tetryl (~3.5g TNT) or 2.64g A-IX-2 (~4.07g TNT)

 

German:

18,6g HA41 (75% RDX, 20% aluminum powder, phlegmatized with 5% wax; R.E. factor ~1.5)~28g TNT

 

 

in short if staying true to the numbers the in game values must be corrected as followed:

 

20mm Hispano

11.3g reduced to 7g

 

20mm Shvak

5.6g increased to 8.6g

 

20mm mineshell

20g increased to 28g

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by the_emperor

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, although I don't know about nerfing the hispano because I haven't seen any dates on when the switch happened and on what planes/areas. 

[the_emperor]

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Yeah, although I don't know about nerfing the hispano because I haven't seen any dates on when the switch happened and on what planes/areas. 

 

there was no switch. the HE-I always had 5.6g of HE filling.

the late M97 shell only reduced its Incendiary filling, but incendiary is not part of the game (and it does not enhance HE) so 5.6g filling is correct throughout the war for the US/british 20mm.

though the late shells have improved ballistics due to pointed nose.

Edited July 10, 2024 by the_emperor

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

There was both a HE version with a little over 11gs and an HEI version with less HE filling for the hispano in the old versions. I dont know when or where which round was used, but to get anything done, I know 1C will need sources for that before anything happens. This pic is from your Hispano thread in the historical section, you can see both the HE and HEI in the bottom left.

[the_emperor]

43 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

There was both a HE version with a little over 11gs and an HEI version with less HE filling

Nope. that is from a US manual

and for the stationary A.A. 20mm Oerlikon System ammunition

the A/C Hispano system for the British and later for the US only employed the HE-I round (and SAPI...but again incendiaries are not in the game :-() 

The french Hispano System did use a 10g HE only filling....but not the british/US

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by the_emperor

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Then I guess give it the usual spam sources and wait. Round and round it goes, where it stops everyone knows.... it don't.

[HazMatt]

This is how I imagined the 30mm would really be.

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2024 by =HazMatt=HazMatt

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

That looks pretty fake, but if you're a good boy and pray to RNGesus hard enough, then 5% of the time your bullets will work every time!