Was there an FM change with v2.02??

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Urchin
As far as I know, the ammunition in Aces High is modelled as an "average round" made by combining the damage potential of a bunch of rounds in a belt.  For example, a typical LW belt was HE-HE-AP-AP-Mine (dunno if thats the actual order, or just the composition).

Actually it was AP-HE(M)-HE-HE(M) initially. Later in the war they changed it to AP-HE-HE(M)-HE(M). Both belts have 50% HE(M). The specialised anti-bomber Sturm units often used an all HE(M) loadout for one or both pair of guns on the 190A-6/7/8.

[GScholz]

At least for the LW ammo belting was the pilot's prerogative.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GScholz
At least for the LW ammo belting was the pilot's prerogative.

To a degree I'm sure,  but if it was entirely so, why didn't all Luftwaffe pilots use 100% MINE shells?  They do twice the damage of a normal German 20mm HE shell.

No, if players were allowed to just pick the most damaging round for their entire belt then there would be no point to HTC modeling the belt sequence and they could simply get the same effect by assuming the most powerful shells are always used.

[storch]

I think the issue with utilizing 100% mine round is that it was a thin walled projectile thus compromising it's damage potential due to poor penetration.  It would burst outside of the airframe.  The combination of AP/HE made it more effective with the AP round clearing the way, as it were and then the mine round bursting within the airframe.  But as usual I could be wrong.  Sikhboy will correct me no doubt.  

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Karnak
To a degree I'm sure,  but if it was entirely so, why didn't all Luftwaffe pilots use 100% MINE shells?  They do twice the damage of a normal German 20mm HE shell.

It was not "to a degree" it WAS the pilot's prerogative. In the LW the aircraft were considered its pilot's "personal aircraft". There were a lot of customised rides flying in that air force (different types of propellers, armament etc.).

The HE(M) shells had no tracers, and had poor armour penetration characteristics. In AH vs. planes I would probably go for a 1 HE(T) + 3 HE(M) belting if given the choice.

[storch]

Imagine the poor overworked staff at HTC no having to COAD individual belting for the likes of us!!!

I would be satisfied if the Axis 20mm worked at roughly 80% efficiency to the hsso 404.  That might actually be closer to reality anyway.  especially in the MGFF and the type 99-1s,  those cannon are all but useless.  while they weren't as efficient as the later models they were by no means useless.  One should reasonably expect results out to 300m.

Question on the P38 cannon.

Was it a Hsso or an Oerlikon model?

If it were an Oerlikon wouldn't it then be similar in design to the MGFF?

[Sikboy]

The Tpye 99I was a total POS, and as far as I know the Japanese didn't use a Mine round. I think the Type 99I is fairly accurately ****ty. It has the worst MV of all the 20s, and I find it impossible to reach out beyond 100 yards (I swear, I suck with that thing).

I guess my point is, there's no justification for changing the Japanese cannon, it would be more effective to add the A6M3, and fix the problem the same way the Japanese did: Make a new gun (the Type 99II)

As far as the "80% as effective as the Hispano"  I don't understand where this comes from. Is it your assumption that Pilots would have included 9 HE(M) rounds for every 1 HE round? I guess the point is, if HTC models the rounds as Hybrids (which I don't even know is true) then what makes any % of HE/HE(M) more valid than any other?

Lastly, no matter what is done with regard to adding more HE(M) rounds to the MGFF, it will do little, if anything to improve the range on that gun. The only way they are going to get results out to 300m is to make a bigger round.

The P-38J and beyond had Hispanos. I don't know about the F and G models.

As a final note, I'm a Yakman. Have you tried the ShVAK? That things a POS. I might give my Kidney for a VYa-23 mounted on that thing lol (and I know that it was probably never used in combat in that configuration).

-Sik

[GScholz]

Sikboy, you don't know what you're talking about. A normal MG151/20 belting of 50% HE(M) would be about equal in destructive power to the Hispano Mk.II. A pure HE(M) loadout would be twice as powerful.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by GScholz
Sikboy, you don't know what you're talking about.

You're absoultely right about that GScholz, I'm only going by what has been posted in this thread, and what's on Tony's website.

Wotan posted that the Brits felt the HE(M) round was the rough equivalent of the Hispano HE in destructive Power. Tony's website shows it to be a bit better, but not the 2x you seem to be indicating.

edit: I just looked, Tony's site has the Hispano HE round with a damage of 82% of the HE(M).


-Sik

[Sikboy]

Hey, what do you know... After doing the math, Storch was right, and I'm a handsomehunk.

According to Tony's site A belting of 50% HE 50% HE(M) would have 88% the destructive power of a Hispano loaed with 100% HE. I excluded any tracers because I'm lazy.

I'm not sure why, but the first time I ran the numbers I think I subtracted the power of the HE rounds on accident lol.

That's pretty cool stuff.

-Sik

[GScholz]

My guessi-math was a bit off too:

According to Mr. Williams' site the MG151/20 has a "gun power" of 192 with typical belting while the Hispano II is rated at 200. So for all intents and purposes they are equal in firepower with typical belting.

Destructive power:

20x80mmRB (MG-FF) HE(M): 206

20x82mm (MG151/20) HE(M) 236

20x110mm (Hispano II) HE: 201


Rate of fire (rounds per second):

MG-FF: 8

MG151/20: 12

Hispano II: 10


Gun power with best belting (one second burst):

MG-FF: 1648

MG151/20: 2832

Hispano II: 2010


As you can see with a pure HE(M) belting the puny MG-FF is 82% as destructive as the Hispano with all HE belting. The MG151/20 is a whopping 41% more destructive than the Hispano's best.

[Sikboy]

The problem with using the "gun power," is that it takes information from the "Cartridge Power" in Table one, but we don't know what forumla he uses for Belting. That's why I used the "damage" collumn from the first chart, so that you could isolate the power of the individual rounds, then multiply by the number of rounds.

While ROF is obviously a huge factor in how good a gun is, I was more trying to see the difference in the effectiveness of an actual hit.

-Sik

[Wotan]

Wotan posted that the Brits felt the HE(M) round was the rough equivalent of the Hispano HE in destructive Power.

From Tony's site:

If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano.

If we use the AH  Hispano as a base then its easy to question whether the  M'geschoß rounds are even modelled, or to ask whether they are diluted by being averaged across the belt.

Again (and someone test it again for AH2) the MGFF losses a great deal of lethalty beyond about 240yards. While the MGFF may have a lower muzzle velocity this doesn't necessariy equate to a large loss in lethality. What it does do is reduce hit probrability.

As Tony points out of his site:

1. The kinetic element of destructiveness is measured at the muzzle, not at combat range.[/b] The subtext of this argument is that the .50 Browning, having better ballistics than cannon, retains a higher percentage of its destructiveness at long range than cannon.

In fact, while it is true that most cannon shells slow down more quickly than the .50 calibre bullets, it is not true that their destructiveness reduces pro rata. As has already been pointed out in this study, much of the destructiveness of cannon shells lies in their HE/I content, which is not affected at all by the striking velocity as long as it is sufficient to actuate the fuze. So while both .50 bullets and cannon shells lose kinetic effectiveness with range (the cannon shells at a faster rate), in overall destructiveness (kinetic +chemical) most cannon shells actually lose effectiveness more slowly than the bullets.

It is also worth pointing out that most successful attacks in WW2 took place at fairly short ranges at which different projectile ballistics would not have had a major effect on destructiveness. During 1940 the RAF rapidly dropped the harmonisation distance for their fighter guns from 370 to 230m, and were annoyed that the narrow gun bays in the Spitfire's wing prevented them from harmonising the 20mm cannon down to their preferred distance of 180m (at which they did most ammunition effectiveness testing). Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality – it doesn't!

I don't question the lethality of the Hisso in AH, but from my experience the MGFF is pretty useless unless you are in very close.

I never took MGFF of the A5 (which should have a 90 round drum option; the 90 round drum fit into the same space of the 60 round drum) because the added weight vrs the lethality gain wasn't worth it.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Sikboy
The problem with using the "gun power," is that it takes information from the "Cartridge Power" in Table one, but we don't know what forumla he uses for Belting. That's why I used the "damage" collumn from the first chart, so that you could isolate the power of the individual rounds, then multiply by the number of rounds.

While ROF is obviously a huge factor in how good a gun is, I was more trying to see the difference in the effectiveness of an actual hit.

-Sik

I don't know what belting Mr. Williams uses, but a API-HE(T)-HE(M)-HE(M) belting gives an average round damage of 172.75 against the Hispano's 201. Factor in a 20% higher rate of fire in the MG151 and you get 207.3.

[Zanth]

Ballistics.  Rounds that fly straighter/faster are more practical - and in that sense - more powerful as a weapon.