303's ....

[Benny Moore]

The problem isn't the .303s, it's the other weapons.  Most of the firearms in Aces High are far, far too powerful against aircraft structure, at least.  The primary cause of aircraft loss by enemy action in World War Two was fire, followed by pilot death.  Last of all was catastrophic structural failure.  In Aces High, however, the primary cause of death is pilot death, followed closely by catastrophic structural failure.  In the game, fire is the very least common cause of aircraft loss by enemy action.

Last time I remarked on this, I was flamed to Berlin and back.  But do some research.  Read some wartime reports on the subject, and spend half an hour browsing through gun camera footage.  Make a note of how often you see fire, and how seldom you see structural failure of any type, even from cannon fire.  Indeed, almost all of the few times you see structural failure, it's either a FW-190 getting hit in its Mark 108 ammunition containers in the wings, or a Japanese featherweight airplane.  Many films show several seconds of constant hits from cannons (you can tell that they are not heavy machine guns because there are explosions and not simply "sparkles" or flashes) without the aircraft being visably affected, barring large chunks of skin falling away.

Speaking of ammunition, the only time ammunition will make a big kaboom is if there are warheads.  Thirty and fifty caliber rounds do not make a large explosion when hit, but merely "cookoff."  They pop and burn.  Mark 108s, on the other hand, are hefty grenades and a disaster waiting to happen.

[Stoney74]

I'd certainly agree with you as far as the gun camera footage goes.  Saw a clip of a P-47 saddled up on a 109.  The P-47 was probably 100 meters behind, if that, and was getting lots of hits.  The 109 was getting chewed up a good bit, but trailing just a bit of smoke.  No visible fire.  Small pieces coming off the 109.  Plane kept flying down to the deck and augered in pretty much intact.  Lots of PTO pilot reports talk about "I must have killed the pilot, because he just rolled over and hit the ground/water..."

[Angus]

Flying in the MA with light armament normally means you get HO'ed a lot.
But in RL, as in the BoB, the difference in firepower wasn't THAT much.
In RL, getting a rifle bullet through your aircraft is rather....bad. There is more than just armour to penetrate, and if you get close enough and hose an aircraft structure with .303's, it's not too pleasant.
Aim your .303 at the wings or engines. In my 2 little hops in the last BoB scenario, I killed 2 LW aircraft, a JU 88 and a 109, in both cases sawing off parts. Wasn't THAT close, but the shooting was good

[HoHun]

Hi Benny,

>Last time I remarked on this, I was flamed to Berlin and back.  But do some research.  Read some wartime reports on the subject, and spend half an hour browsing through gun camera footage.  Make a note of how often you see fire, and how seldom you see structural failure of any type, even from cannon fire.  

Hm, though you mention cannon fire, the rest of your post seems to imply that you viewed mostly Allied gun camera films (of which of course more were filmed, and more have survived), and with the relatively weak effect of heavy machine guns, I'd expect about the results you describe.

However, German wartime combat experience and ballistic research indicated that the way to kill an aircraft (any aircraft, including fighters) quickly and with a high probability was to cause structural failure by exploding charges within the structure to blow off the load-bearing skin and ruin the structural integrity of the target aircraft.

This lead to the development for the mine rounds, which quickly became the main ammunition type for German fighters in WW2, and which were adopted world-wide after WW2.

Your research, however, is validated with regard to Allied aircraft by US post-war research that (according to Roger Freeman's P-51 book) indicated that the most effective round used in the 12.7 mm machine guns was the armour-piercing incendiary round, which had the capability to start a catastrophic fire in the target aircraft, just as you pointed out.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Benny Moore]

No, I also have watched a considerable amount of Luftwaffe gun camera footage.  Nowhere have I witnessed the sort of violent demolition of aircraft from two or three cannon rounds as we have in the simulator and which you suggest is correct.  As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a single video of an American fighter suffering loss of a wing or tail from a German fighter.  The only time I've seen that sort of destruction is when the aircraft is bearing explosive payloads or is a Japanese lightweight.  If you look at diagrams of the internal structures of aircraft such as the P-47, P-38, and P-51, it will become immediately apparent why the removal of skin, stressed though it may be, was not a significant problem for United States fighters.

Below is a well-known example of the kind of damage cannons can do to well-built (anything not Japanese) aircraft.  American aircraft, in particular, were extremely sturdy, structurally speaking.  Note that the skin is indeed flying off of the aircraft, as the explosive rounds were designed to do.  But do we see wings, fuselages, and other things being removed?  Copy and paste.
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/6.avi

Here are more examples if you think that the above film is an exception to the rule.  These are readily available and easily found and most people here should be familiar with them.  In the last one, if you do not feel like watching the entire compilation, skip forward to two minutes and ten seconds to see an impressive display of the structural might of a heavy bomber.  Try replicating this in the simulator.  I promise you, you cannot.
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/11.mpeg
http://guncam2002.tripod.com/10.mpeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjlN49szFOc

[Angus]

Always the question, where does the bullet hit, at what angle, what does it penetrate, what does it break, does it start fire etc etc.
Is it control cables, wires, the oxygen bottle, the pilot, the ammo casing in the wing guns, control surfaces, hinges,, things related to instruments or weapons, fuel lines, fuel tanks, ordnance, wings, tailplanes, stabs, rudder, the radio, windshield, undercarriage, radiator, oil cooler, and I'm not into anything that a .303 could not do! It's not all about just punching through the armour. But that's where the big guns start shining. There is nothing they won't screw up! They'll knock off many times more than the .303 with a single shot, they'll slam through armour, they rip skin, they punch through entire structures, they penetrate into an engine's chamber, they go through .... a lot.
I've looked at footages, seen lots of pictures, and read lots of reports.
The mine rounds that HoHun mentioned were the nightmare of bombers, since a single one could blow big holes into the structure.
(for that sake, if you look at the inside of WW2 bombers, almost anything will be dangerous to the crew, especially gunnersand navigators. On 200 yards my .22 magnum will penetrate a barrel, which is vastly thicker than aircraft skin, and .22 mag is just a friction of a humble .303)
There are thousands of examples where just the .303 knocked down bombers, and DeWilde ammunition would on many occations "flame" enemy aircraft. I even remember an account where a Stuka got peppered to death with only 2x.303's!
Going up to Hispanos was already a big steps, that's where I started running across things like "parts flying of the enemy aircraft", and "it was incredible how much damage those little cannons could do with only a few rounds", and "with only 13 rounds fired the enemy aircraft (maybe it was 2) was/were down, up to "the enemy aircraft exploded (HO situation) and I flew through the wreckage".
So goes the story. bigger and bigger guns and rounds, - more and more effect. But you can still kill almost anything up close with a .303

[gripen]

Originally posted by HoHun

However, German wartime combat experience and ballistic research indicated that the way to kill an aircraft (any aircraft, including fighters) quickly and with a high probability was to cause structural failure by exploding charges within the structure to blow off the load-bearing skin and ruin the structural integrity of the target aircraft.

Hm... if that had been true, the Germans would have used only "minen" type projectiles when available for the gun. But in reality they used various compositions of mixed ammunition (according to p. 32 in the "Schießfibel"). Also FAF used mixed composition of ammunition in the MG151/20, containing practically allways armour piercing rounds (the Il-2 was met often).

Below is page 33 from the "Schießfibel" showing the effect of various rounds against different targets. Generally a four engined Bomber was quite soft and large target ie a good target for a "minen" type projectile while an Il-2 was rather hard and small target where AP or API projectiles were better.

gripen

[Benny Moore]

I repeat, if you care enough about the issue, watch this large compilation of German gun camera footage.  After you have watched it, then restate your claim that the cannon damage in the simulator is correct, if you still believe so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjlN49szFOc

[gripen]

Interestingly Butch2k posted following to the ORR (translation from a German doc):

"In fighting armored ground-attack aircraft such as the IL 2 up to 50% AP ammunition should be belted (however not for 4 motor bombers, since the best results are obtained with blast and incendiary effect against the nacelle.)"

gripen

[Angus]

Mixed belts normally were mixed for a reason.

[Sombra]

I have a question for Tony, or whoever knows.

Reading the article about BoB, it says RAF selected 225 meters (250 yards?) after trying 360. Does it mean it was the adviced convergence, mandatory convergence...? Did the pilot have a say in the convergence for his plane? I ask mainly because I would like to know if it would be historically "accurate" to fly BoB planes with a custom convergence. Thx.

[HoHun]

Hi Benny,

>No, I also have watched a considerable amount of Luftwaffe gun camera footage.  Nowhere have I witnessed the sort of violent demolition of aircraft from two or three cannon rounds as we have in the simulator and which you suggest is correct.  

Hm, slight misunderstanding: I'm not talking about the visual effects in the simulator. In real life, mine shell damage might be relatively subtle: The weakened wing might distort under load enough to send the airplane down out of control without the exact cause being obviously evident to the shooter. From reading combat reports, it seems that the breaking of wings (or "Abmontieren der Flügel" in Luftwaffe slang) usually occurred when an aircraft dived down (out of control) after a hit. The weakened structure could not withstand the increased aerodynamic loads, leading to the failure of the wings.

In the simulator, it appears that the wings tend to break apart as if separating on a design break line, and if it's that what you are concerned about, I'd immediately agree that it's hardly realistic.

I'm glad to hear you have checked Luftwaffe films, too, but personally have to skip them for bandwidth reasons. Thanks for the links anyway :-)

>If you look at diagrams of the internal structures of aircraft such as the P-47, P-38, and P-51, it will become immediately apparent why the removal of skin, stressed though it may be, was not a significant problem for United States fighters.

I'm afraid merely looking at the diagrams will not readily yield that kind of information. A load-bearing skin is just that, and removing it will generate significant problems for any aircraft regardless of its country of origin.

Heavy aircraft require a heavy structure, but you really have to look at the design load multiple to assess the actual strength of the structure, and at the design principle to assess the role of the skin.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Benny Moore]

Well, if you were able to watch that video, you would see dozens of clips of aircraft taking many times more damage from cannon fire than is possible in the game under the best of circumstances.  I'm talking about several seconds of constant cannon fire, sometimes even in the same location.  In the game, a half second of cannon fire guarantees the destruction of the aircraft.

[HoHun]

Hi Benny,

>In the game, a half second of cannon fire guarantees the destruction of the aircraft.

Hm, might be question of hit ratio more than of damage modelling.

The Luftwaffe figured that 6 randomly placed 20 mm hits would probably destroy a fighter-sized target. That's a half second of fire - provided that every shot hits.

In real life, usually most shots missed (unless we're talking about guys like Marseille, who was an exceptional marksman, or Hartmann, who often flew very close to the unsuspecting target).

Maybe that's the explanation for the different impressions from the game and from the films? Kweassa has already pointed it out for the 0.303" guns as "easy gunnery" problem, and I think he might be right.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Benny Moore]

That surely accounts for some of it.  But as I said, in the film which I am referring to  there are many shots of aircraft being bombarded for several seconds with cannon, clearly showing dozens and dozens of very visible hits.  The Luftwaffe's six round estimation (a lot of people even claim three) is for disabling an aircraft, not structurally destroying it.  Cannon rounds, upon detonation, send shrapnel through the structure, doing the same sorts of damage that .303 rounds do.  But never, in literally hours of gun camera footage, have I seen an aircraft destroyed by three or even six cannon rounds.  As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, I've never seen an aircraft structurally destroyed at all, except for Japanese aircraft and aircraft carrying explosives.

The truth is out there, and readily available for anyone with a halfway decent connection and a few hours to spare.  For everyone to insist that the cannon damage is correct without actually watching a few hours (or even half an hour) of real footage is simply intellectual dishonesty.  I once more challenge anyone to replicate in the game some of the scenes from the video I linked to, such as the scene at two minutes and ten seconds.