LW cans are porked

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by Gwjr2
first off i love Finn-Rus but the IIC needs to go put a Hurri MK1 and F4F there as the Brewster and when it takes over 40-50 20mm to knock down a Hurri its a little stupid.

These are the reasons no one will come and stay in CT I fly both sides and LW Guns are porked a Hurri IIc hit my 190 from 600+ and no tail, I hit a rope floping IIc with ONLY cans and he flys away with a smoking engine, please fix this or I will see you next map as most others Im sure.

When we were prepping for the Rangoon scenario, I noticed Dok used the SBD subbing for the Brewster.  I asked him why, and he said because the performance of the F4F/FM2 was nowhere near a Brewster, and the SBD was close.  He was absolutely right.  I noticed we are not using "subs" anymore.  Is this an official rule, or has it just not come up yet?

Thanks.

[Krusty]

I was in a G-10 last night coming up against a formation of B24s with another plane in an HTH room. All damage settings were normal. Ammo was increased (thus is HTH life), but I came in fast and low from below, and pulled up for a perfect belly shot. Firing only my hub 30mm I landed hits but saw no damage and was HIGHLY annoyed so I leveled out and kept shooting (my mistake, shoulda zoomed and dove down).

Anyways I landed no less than 5 hits to the B24 fuselage and 1 to the wing. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. ZILCH. ZERO. He didn't even lose a flap. He didn't even smoke. No oil no gas no anything leaking. No flames. No instant pilot kill. No %$!#@%$#!#@ nothing.

The 30mm is porked. I get more kills with the 13mm than I do with the 30mm

[StarOfAfrica2]

Ah, the Hurricane got metal skinned wings earlier than I thought even.  

From "Encyclopedia of Aircraft of WWII"

Mk IA (late production)

Metal-skinned wings, a longer propeller spinner and a three-bladed, variable-pitch propeller were among the features introuduced in the late-produciton Mk IA's.  The variable-pitch propeller improved take-off and climb performance, as well as top speed.  

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Ah, the Hurricane got metal skinned wings earlier than I thought even.  

Wotan's point is still valid.  Whether the Hurri had metal or canvas skin, the structure was still the framework, unlike monocoque stressed skin planes.

- oldman

[StarOfAfrica2]

I agree, and I'm not trying to argue that point.  And Wotan was right on the money with what he said about the reasons why cannon shells did not work well against canvas skinned Hurri's during the BoB.  No question that the Hurricane was always the tougher bird compared to the fairly fragile Spitfire.  Thats one reason why the Hurricanes were ususally tasked with bomber interception (along with the fact that they outnumbered the Spitfire 3 to 2), and Spits were tasked with bringing down the 109's.  Thats also why most of the II series Hurricanes were the IIc model with the 4x20mm cannons, but relatively few Spitfires were fitted with that configuration.

I just wanted the point made that Hurricanes could withstand more of a beating because it was such a robust platform and so well "tied together", and not because of what the wings were made of.  At least not after the first few hundred.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Wotan
The hurricane has a wood 'skeletal' structure wrapped in canvas. It is highly resistant to M'geschoss and HE rounds.

What exactly is a mine round, wotan?  How does it differ from an HE round?



shubie

[Urchin]

Mine round has thinner walls and more explosive than a regular HE round... as far as I know that is the only difference.  

It is lighter, so it gets a faster MV, but the velocity decreases faster than an ordinary round.

[Wotan]

All you need to know about German ammo can be found right here:

http://www.munavia-21.org/indedoc/Lw-Ammos.htm

mine rounds = M'geschoß (Minengeschoß)

MGFF/M
Mg151/20mm
MK 108 3cm

As Urchin said they were thinned walled but carried a higher amount of HE content. They were lighter and had a higher MV but lost velocity down range.

They were designed to detonate in the spaces or voids within the aircraft and blow out the stressed skin causing structural failure.

They were highly effective. The majority of their destructive power was derived from chemical energy (high explosives). They didn't rely on velocity at impact to cause damage, they just needed enough energy to penetrate an aircraft's skin. In Ah the damage is more a factor of impact velocity. As such rounds like the MGFF/M (110C-4/b, Bf 109E-4, outboard cannon on the FW 190A-5 etc...) are penalized in that beyond about 240 yards they loss lethality due to their low muzzle velocity (and subsequent even lower impact velocity).

 In reality the lower muzzle velocity of the MGFF/M only reduce hit probability, not lethality. There's a similar issue with the Type 99 Mk 1 in AH (A6M2).

The Brits rated the MGFF/M  M'geschoß as about equal with the 20mm Hispano round.

Take an AH Bf 109E-4 up and you will see for yourself that:

 1. There is no M'geschoß round model in AH or

2. The Ah damage model doesn't account for realistic chemical energy.

The MGFF is now where near 'about equal' to the hispano.

With most of the 'modern' aircraft in ww2 ( to include the 109, Spitfire etc...)
the skin of the aircraft was an integral component in the aircraft's structural integrity. Early A6M2's had anm issue with shedding the skin on its wings  in high speeds dives. When the skin failed the wings failed.

The Hurricane had an inner skeleton and the skin was just applied over that skeleton. As such the M'geschoß rounds may explode in the voids and blow away large sections of the aircraft's skin but the aircraft would not fail.

Whether the hurricane had canvass or metallic skin its inner skeleton still allowed it to survive what would most likely be lethal damage on say the spitfire.

Not all rounds were M'geschoß (exception MK 108). The LW used a mixed belt of API, HE-T, M'geschoß etc...

 From what I read Hurricanes were more likely to catch fire and burn rather then be blown away by M'geschoß .

Here's an article by Tony Williams entitled:

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN: ARMAMENT OF THE COMPETING FIGHTERS

[Urchin]

I think that has to do more with the belting.. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I've done the "calculations" using Tony Williams numbers for "damage" per round, and the belting that is floating around here somewhere (believe 2 AP, 2 HE, 1 Mine).. with that I *think* the MG-FF is about half as effective as a Hizooka, and a MG-151 is about 2/3rds as effective, pretty close to AH.

[Wotan]

Yes the belting will impact 'averaged' lethality. What the Brits compared was the MGFF/M M'geschoß round to the Hispano, not gun package to gun package.

Never-the-less in AH the MGFF is as lethal as one would expect inside 240 yards. The problem is that beyond 240 yards its lethality drops equally with every round fired.

We all know that 'belting' in AH is a hybrid affair in regards to how each round is modelled. This effects LW belting inparticular because the effect (lethality) of the M'geschoß rounds are spread out over the entire belt.

So beyond 240 yards the entire belt is weak, where in real life every 5th round (according to your re-collection of 2 AP, 2 HE, 1 Mine) would be just as lethal at 400 yards as it was at 240 yards. A single mine round is exponentially more lethal then the API or HE-T rounds.

This type of thing isnt unique to AH. Warbirds has (or had; they recently did a complete gun review) issues as well.

There's plenty of threads over on the UBI forums discussing this very issue in regards to FB/AEP/PF and LW rounds. Inparticular the MG151/20mm.