Hispano vs. MG151 In-Game Relative Effectiveness

[Stoney]

Tried the test tonight.  The P-38 gun is elevated too much at 800 meters.  The rounds were sailing over the top of the hangar, so I couldn't test them at range.  Since that didn't work, I didn't try the Ar-234 tail gun.

Like I've said before, I know that range affects the kinetic energy of the round, and that is in the game.  However, I feel that with the explosive nature of cannon (versus say .50 cal), that the relationship between the two rounds over the same range would still be equal to their relative values vis a vis the hangar test.

[Krusty]

Problem is that hangars (and ground objects) apparently don't react to impact (penetration, kinetic energy, etc) they only deal with explosive power or basic hit damage from MGs.

Somebody did some tests a long way back and found out the speed of diving at a hangar and firing 50cals vs sitting parked and firing them did not affect the number required to kill a hangar.

Hangars aren't planes, they don't have the damage model, so they won't interact the same way (not that I know the details, mind you!). Basically you'd need HTC to code in a test to run an experiment, hitting the exact same spot on a plane repeatedly at long range with different guns (coding out the dispersion and vibration, so it hits the exact spot) to tell you what the result would be.

[Stoney]

Like I've said before, I know that range affects the kinetic energy of the round, and that is in the game.  However, I feel that with the explosive nature of cannon (versus say .50 cal), that the relationship between the two rounds over the same range would still be equal to their relative values vis a vis the hangar test.

Posted again so everyone understands exactly what my contention is...

[Krusty]

That doesn't make sense....

So you're saying you think the explosive content won't change regardless of the range? Hangar tests don't reflect impact power so only explosive content is tested.

That means any range at all would have the same results when testing on hangars.

So, I'm not understanding what the point is to this kind of test.

[Stoney]

What got this started was Urchin claiming that the MG151 was only "60%" as effective as the Hispano in-game.

I used the Hangar test to show that the power of the round against hangars was 90% as effective as the Hispano.

Tony Williams site shows that the MG151 round is about 80% as powerful as the Hispano round.

My contention is that the relationship between the two weapons remains the same, regardless of range.  For example, that regardless of the overall power of either round at any range, the MG151 round in-game is 90% as effective as the Hispano round.  So, at point blank, the Hispano is worth X, and the MG151 is worth .9X.  At 800 meters, the Hispano is worth Y, and the MG151 is worth .9Y.

The 90% may not be precise, but its a whole lot closer to 90% than 60%.

[Urchin]

Brady (don't know if you know him or not) said several years ago that he had spoken with Pyro and that the AH damage model favored kinetic over chemical energy.  So lets say you are absolutely right and the MG151 is every bit as good as the Hizooka at point blank range.  Even if that is correct, it wouldn't stay every bit as effective as the range got longer, because it didn't hold its velocity as well.

I'll maintain that the MG151 is roughly 60% as effective.  Granted, thats just 7 years of personal experience.

[Krusty]

They're going to degrade ballistically at different rates over longer ranges. So the faster heavier round will have more punch at longer range (i.e. 30cal vs 50cal). The rounds will be a bit weaker at range against targets because AH does use the kinetic energy as part of the damage. So say the impact is half as much on the MG151 at 800 yards than the impact of the hispano... the relationship of the explosive content will be the same but the overall damage applied to an enemy aircraft may differ significantly. Not something you can really test on a hangar outside of the pure HE content alone.


So the made up formula just to illustrate what I'm getting at may go like:

damage = kinetic energy * no_of_hits + HE_explosion

The HE explosions are fixed but the rest of it will probably make the overall damage stronger.

What round is Tony comparing? As you know HTC averages the mixed belting of the MG151, so it's not a direct HE to HE comparison. HTC averages the HE, AP, and Mgeschoss.

[Stoney]

I'll maintain that the MG151 is roughly 60% as effective.  Granted, thats just 7 years of personal experience.[/quote]

I'm not knocking your experience.  All I want to know is what quantitative data you base that opinion on?

And also, I know a single round of MG151 doesn't hit quite as hard as a single round of Hispano--the Hispano has a more massive round.  All I'm saying is that there is some relationship between the two rounds (between the .8 of Tony Williams and .9 of my test) and that relationship is maintained between the two rounds regardless of range.

[Stoney]

So say the impact is half as much on the MG151 at 800 yards than the impact of the hispano... the relationship of the explosive content will be the same but the overall damage applied to an enemy aircraft may differ significantly.

If 20%, for example, of the overall damage of one round is due to the kinetic damage, then the damage relationship between the two rounds will not differ greatly at any range.  If, on the other hand, the kinetic energy makes up 60% of the overall damage, then there could be a big difference as a result of range.

IMO, it would seem to me that with respect to cannon, the kinetic energy makes up a much smaller percentage of the overall damage, than with .50 cal, for example.  For weapons like the .50 cal where the HE damage is small, kinetic damage will make up almost all the damage potential, and therefore be more affected by range.

I have no idea what the formula is that HTC uses to come up with this stuff, I just don't see there being that big a disparity between the two weapons as Urchin claims.  Especially considering there is no data whatsoever to support it, other than our collective annecdotal evidence.

Perhaps HTC can grace us with some insight to settle the issue.

[Krusty]

I think it plays enough of a role that shots outside of 400 yards have noticable difference in impact. Hispanos are still going strong 1.2k out while MG151/20s are falling to the ground at 600. It "feels" like a major difference more when the shots are longer range. Up close I'd say the HE content "feels" about 75% or less than the hispanos. Hispanos kill most planes in a single ping, but it takes a large hit grouping with MG151/20 to do the same.

[Urchin]

Hizookas only kill in a single hit if you can hit the tail, or the cockpit, but anything will kill in one hit there.  Even the tail shots only outright kill the con maybe 30-40% of the time, the rest of the time you'll blow off an elevator or the rudder.

[Murdr]

Info has been tested, tabled out, and posted for a very long time.Projectile strength analysis

[Charge]

"Tony Williams site shows that the MG151 round is about 80% as powerful as the Hispano round."

IIRC that is with assumption that the explosive content would be TNT also in MGsh but it was not.

It also depends of the distance. Calculating with MV the Hisso is better but as the distance grows the effect of velocity, or lack of, on destructive power of MGsh starts to make 151/20 fare better.

-C+

[Stoney]

Info has been tested, tabled out, and posted for a very long time.Projectile strength analysis

Murder, the issue is one of air-to-air effectiveness.  So we need a test to determine that versus the object values.

[Murdr]

Youre the one being educated on the subject in this thread.  Do not reply to me as if im not following the subject matter.