Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Lusche on May 14, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
-
Rather than to continue in the P-47 thread, I'm posting the latest version here. I have made some minor corrections and a change to the FW 190A-8 configuration.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2900/firepower20.jpg)
Explanation:
This chart shows the total firepower of a fighter, based on a burst by all weapons for one second.
This is no judgement by myself. I merely compiled the weapon data from Anthony Williams website http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
In a nutshell, firepower of a weapon is defined as (kinetic energy + chemical energy)*ROF, measured at the muzzle. The chart is not taking into account how a weapon is mounted on a plane or the quality of the gun's trajectory (= ease of aim)
For the curious, here the table my chart is based upon. You can see the configuration I chose for each plane:
(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2567/firepowertable.jpg)
A few additional notes
1. Every fighter in the planeset can & will kill it's target under the right circumstances. Being on the lower end doesn't mean you can't kill your enemy. Provided you are shooting at close range and can hold your guns on target, the seemingly "puny" Brownings of the Hurr I will shred a F4U or P47.
This table is meant to give you a rough overview & guide on firepower. It's not meant for "But plane X has 27.5% less firepower, no way you could have killed my B17 blah blah" arguments :D
2. Ballistic characteristics do play a great role. The P-51B may have a lesser destructive power as the A6M2, but the .50cal M2 has the far better trajectory than the mixed armament of the Japanese fighter. Despite having cannons, the A6M2 has often much bigger problems to hit and thus to kill it's target at ranges the P-51B pilot just point and shoots.
3. Ammo supply was not accounted for. The NS-37 is a marvelous gun, but 32 rpg are a serious limit.
4. Different guns, even of the same caliber, can vary vastly in their firepower value.
For example: MG 151/20 (many German fighters and C.205) vs Ho-5 (Ki-61). The Ho-105 is firing a round of similar weight as the MG 151, at slightly higher muzzle velocity and higher ROF. But despite having the highest ROF of all 20mm cannons in the game, it doesn't compensate the fact that the projectile MG 151 is carrying an explosive load three times as large! Second for second, the MG 151 is simply putting more energy on it's target.
5. All data was based on raw, unsynchronized weapon specs. Due to gun mountings the actual ROF (and thus Firepower value) can differ, but these differences are rather small and would sometime be very hard to spot on that chart at all. Once I have tested all weapons in AH for ROF, I could do an updated chart.
6. This table isn't meant to replace the gun comparison table on the Training Corps website. The numbers here are are real world values. The values on the AHTC page show the destructive power of a single round vs objects in Aces High and are tested & verified withing the game. Both tables can give you different results.
And do not hestitate to point out any errors, inconsistencies or "misinformations". As usual - this is a work in progress.
-
I seem to recall that AH applies a generic 10% ROF penalty for syncronized guns.
-
Nice graph.
Personaly I find the planes armed with 4 20mm cannon to be of far greater use than the 30/37mm variety in combat, and they top out on my mental list for anything other than ground attack.
You give a good account of the possiblitys of a few of the more heavily armed aircraft in the game, thanx for the work.
-
I find it quite interesting the C205 is only a hair less powerful than the N1K2... Every time I fly the N1K2 it always seems like the guns are pure and utter crap, landing dozens of hits for what I would have already killed in another plane.
Now I see why!!
Quite interesting!
-
:aok Great graph and interesting data. Thanks for posting. I had always wondered about the incendiary rounds from Allied aircraft. Is there any information that you have for a discussion on this particular type of round? Are they included in Aces High's ordinance?
-
AH has some sort of "averaged" hit power for the 50cals, I believe. That's how it works in other MGs (ones that have mixed belts, for example). AH has API modeled from what I recall, as well.
Historically API was the most common round used in US fighters with 50cal guns.
-
The location of the guns changes the percieved lethality a great deal. Firing the four 50s out of the P-38s feel almost a lethal as six 50s. Trajectory also plays a big part but Im not telling you anything you didnt already know. Kinda curious if there is a way to evalutate damage potential based on actual convergence zones.
Nice work....<S>
Strip
-
AH has an averaged hit power for everything, which is why the Hispanos are the best 20mm in the game.
The MG151 suffers in comparison because the AP rounds and regular HE rounds were god-awful in comparison to the Mine rounds.
-
ammo variation would be really sweet. . . and yah, Hispanos are king, and even though the Poney is a sexy plane, I just can't fly a plane that is so popular. . .
thanks for the graph btw, maby its time to fly those 110s aye, just need to find a friend that will sit in the back all day. :P
-
Nice compilation! :aok
Just one erratum: You have the Fw 190A-8 listed with two MG 17's when it should have MG 131's.
-
The location of the guns changes the percieved lethality a great deal.
There is absolutely no doubt about that.
I can say I can squeeze more kills out of the 109F or G2's small ammo load than I can achieve with the double hispano + double .50cal armament of the Spit 14 or 16.
I'm just wasting a lot more rounds in the Spit's with their wing mounted guns. With the 109's, convergence is no issue, I can shoot much more precicely (I generally fire the single MG 151/20 only). Also the 109's are much stabler gunplatforms for me.
Just one erratum: You have the Fw 190A-8 listed with two MG 17's when it should have MG 131's.
There it is.. the first blunt error.. *sigh*
Ok, total firepower increases by 3.5% to 1648.
-
Ok, so that's the firepower according to Williams. How is it according to Hitech?
-
Ok, so that's the firepower according to Williams. How is it according to Hitech?
We can say that for sure only for damage vs. objects. See AHTC website.
-
I can't find the piece of scrap paper I made the comparative calcs on, but they showed that the Williams and HTC values aren't too disparate.
-
Why doesnt HTC release some info like this on their own??? Why do they not have something that denotes ROF, standard trajectory, typical damage, etc, etc.
One has to wonder why we're always playing a guessing game and why the people have to come up with "guesses" as to why andhow things work.
btw... thanks for posting the info. It is nice to have something to reference. :salute
-
Maybe they're focused on making the game. There's enough available for players to figure things out. Play with arena settings offline and you can tinker your way to those values down to pretty small margins of error.
-
Snailman,
If you notice that it only takes 11 seconds for the Ki-84 to fire 300 rounds of 20mm, vs 11 seconds for the 240 rounds of the Spit's 20mm, it will change your results more dramatically than it might appear at first.
Edit: Oh, I see Ki-61 and Ki-84 are still in the same place.
-
Another thing you'll see when you look at rof:
The Ki-84 fires 300 rounds of 20mm in the same time it takes the Spitfire series to fire 240. Therefore, the Ki-84 actually has greater lethality than any Spit.
-
Snailman,
If you notice that it only takes 11 seconds for the Ki-84 to fire 300 rounds of 20mm, vs 9 seconds for the 240 rounds of the Spit's 20mm, it will change your results more dramatically than it might appear at first.
Edit: Oh, I see Ki-61 and Ki-84 are still in the same place.
:devil
-
Another thing you'll see when you look at rof:
The Ki-84 fires 300 rounds of 20mm in the same time it takes the Spitfire series to fire 240. Therefore, the Ki-84 actually has greater lethality than any Spit.
This argument would be true if both had the same 20mm cannons.
They don't. :)
Lethality is not based on ROF alone. The Hispano is firing slower, but the individual rounds are substantially more powerful. See my intial post.
-
This argument would be true if both had the same 20mm cannons.
They don't. :)
Lethality is not based on ROF alone. The Hispano is firing slower, but the individual rounds are substantially more powerful. See my intial post.
You're still wrong.
Based on hangar tests, 1 Hispano 20mm shell = 4.03 lbs of ordinance. 1 Ho-5 20mm shell = 3.62 lbs of ordinance. Equalized for a 1 second burst, 20mm only:
Ki-84: 98.72
SpitX: 87.92
-
You're still wrong.
Based on hangar tests, 1 Hispano 20mm shell = 4.03 lbs of ordinance. 1 Ho-5 20mm shell = 3.62 lbs of ordinance. Equalized for a 1 second burst, 20mm only:
Ki-84: 98.72
SpitX: 87.92
You should really read my initial posting.
-
I know you're using Tony Williams. I don't know why.
-
I know you're using Tony Williams. I don't know why.
Why not?
-
Because lethality in the game doesn't match his data. It's approximate, but you're under-rating the Ho-5.
-
Because lethality in the game doesn't match his data.
Lethatilty vs. objects. Which doesn't have to be the same than lethalithy vs. enemy planes. For example we do know the damage model of guns vs. objects is very much simplified, for example range doesn't play any role.
We do not not know the exact firepower & effects vs planes in AH. The lethaitly test gives a quite good indication in my opinion, but it is just one indication.
My chart is based on real world data. If you want it's another indicatior.
And may I quote
6. This table isn't meant to replace the gun comparison table on the Training Corps website. The numbers here are are real world values. The values on the AHTC page show the destructive power of a single round vs objects in Aces High and are tested & verified withing the game. Both tables can give you different results.
-
So which would you expect to yield more accurate data for the game, shooting enemy aircraft: Tony Williams' data or hangar test data? I know where I'd put my money.
-
So which would you expect to yield more accurate data for the game, shooting enemy aircraft: Tony Williams' data or hangar test data? I know where I'd put my money.
For the reasons I mentioned above, I wouldn't use any money at all, until I have figured how to conduct valid & meaningful tests vs planes :)
( I have already an idea, but it will have to wait for the return of a 8-player mode before I'm able to try it)
Another thing... were did you get the 3.62lbs vs structures value for the Ho-5 from? It's not listed on the AHTC website, an my own tests gave a rating of 3.33lbs (300 rounds to kill a FH @ hardness 1.0, 600 rounds @ hardness 2.0)
-
What's the justification for assuming that the hangar data (standardized kinetic/chemical damage) is closer to the AH guns' damage against planes than Williams' formula?
-
The one test I did was using the single Hispano on the P-38 from a range of about 100 yards hitting the tail cones of the Bf110G-2, Mosquito Mk VI, Lancaster Mk III and B-17G. It consistently took 2 shots to removed the 110's tail, 3 shots to remove the Mossie's tail, 14 shots to remove the Lanc's and 17 shots to remove the Fort's.
This was in AH1 though.
-
What's the justification for assuming that the hangar data (standardized kinetic/chemical damage) is closer to the AH guns' damage against planes than Williams' formula?
Simply the fact that it's within-game. There's a reason why we test things in the game instead of looking in books for performance data.
-
Simply the fact that it's within-game. There's a reason why we test things in the game instead of looking in books for performance data.
Yes, and that's what i will always prefer. But you have to admit that this test is also somewhat comparing apples and oranges. Shooting at structures is not the same as shooting against planes. It's modeled differently (massively simplified), so we can't be sure our findings are completely valid vs. planes.
And that's why I titled this thread "another comparison" and did put a huge disclaimer in my OP. I'm simply presenting a different approach.
6. This table isn't meant to replace the gun comparison table on the Training Corps website. The numbers here are are real world values. The values on the AHTC page show the destructive power of a single round vs objects in Aces High and are tested & verified withing the game. Both tables can give you different results.
-
One example that may perhaps be of interest:
damage vs structure:
37mm NS-37 = 17.15lbs
37mm M4 = 17.1lbs
Almost the same.
I really hope both rounds do not the same damage to planes because:
NS-37 projectile mass 735g, velocity 900m/c, HEI contend 6%
M4 projectile mass 608g, velocity 610m/s, HEI contend 7.4%
Both rounds carry about the same amount of HEI filling, but the NS-37 shell has 273% higher kinetical energy and 78% greater momentum (which Mr. Williams used for his computations in place of energy) than the M-4.
-
One example that may perhaps be of interest:
damage vs structure:
37mm NS-37 = 17.15lbs
37mm M4 = 17.1lbs
Almost the same.
I really hope both rounds do not the same damage to planes because:
NS-37 projectile mass 735g, velocity 900m/c, HEI contend 6%
M4 projectile mass 608g, velocity 610m/s, HEI contend 7.4%
Both rounds carry about the same amount of HEI filling, but the NS-37 shell has 273% higher kinetical energy and 78% greater momentum (which Mr. Williams used for his computations in place of energy) than the M-4.
I'm glad you brought this up. This was without a doubt the most surprising aspect of this whole chart for me. 424 damage for a Russian 37 mm, 160 for an American? That is less damage than a Hispano V round. Is that a typo, or were the M4 rounds really that weak? I seem to bust planes apart with the 39 in game...
-
I'm glad you brought this up. This was without a doubt the most surprising aspect of this whole chart for me. 424 damage for a Russian 37 mm, 160 for an American? That is less damage than a Hispano V round. Is that a typo, or were the M4 rounds really that weak? I seem to bust planes apart with the 39 in game...
A great factor is the low ROF. Thhe M4 has a ROF of only 2.5. But even while being a comparatively weak round for its caliber, it is still strong enough to kill any fighter with one hit.
"Cartidge Power": Hispano 20, Mk 108 58, M4 64, NS-37 106
-
For comparison:
This is a chart based on "Firepower vs structures"
(http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5247/firepowstructures.jpg)
Methodology:
Damage values for the rounds were taken from the AHTC site. When those were missing I tested the round the following way: offline mode, hangar set to hardness 2.0. Shoot at hangar, note how many rounds it took to kill the FH. Damage value = 2000lbs/#rounds.
Weapon ROF's tested by me. Ammo capacity set to 10. Set timer, pull primary or secondary trigger for 20 seconds. Divide divide number of rounds used by 20.
-
Simply the fact that it's within-game. There's a reason why we test things in the game instead of looking in books for performance data.
You know that kinetic energy isn't calculated in object impacts, right?
-
You said this was calculated with the velocity exiting the muzzle.
It would be interesting to see how the lethality would change at, say, 300 yards when fired from an aircraft flying 300mph. Deceleration of the rounds would vary based on size and balistic qualities, so I would guess the lethality at range could end up being very different.
-
You said this was calculated with the velocity exiting the muzzle.
It would be interesting to see how the lethality would change at, say, 300 yards when fired from an aircraft flying 300mph. Deceleration of the rounds would vary based on size and balistic qualities, so I would guess the lethality at range could end up being very different.
I would be able to do that for German guns only, as I don't have sufficent data on other nations weapons.
Three examples:
30mm Mk-108 Minengeschoss
000m - 505m/s - "cartridge power" 58
800m - 225m/s - "catridge power" 49 = 84%
13mm MG131 Brandsprengranate
000m - 750m/s - "cartridge power" 3.8
800m - 294m/s - "cartridge power" 2.27 = 60%
7.92 mm Panzergeschoss
000m - 810m/s - "cartridge power" 0,81
800m - 290m/s - "cartridge power" 0,29 = 36%
As the 30mm round retains its destructive capabilty better because of its explosive charge, which is very small in the MG 131 and non-existent in the 7.92mm round
And before someone complains, these are real-world values ;)
-
Bullets vs objects is nowhere near the same as bullets vs aircraft. Aircraft take into account penetrating power, explosive power, many other aspects including internal damage systems of the target itself.
Objects are very flawed, and IMO I think they negate a lot of the round power of MGs, and I think they soak up too much "splash damage" from cannons, but this is only personal guesswork.
Since we don't have HTC's exact numbers (other than saying 1 50cal is worth 3 30cal, 1 hispano worth 3 50cal, etc), and we know that certain relationships seem to match up to the real things, I tend to lean more towards Tony Williams than the flawed "rounds to kill a hangar".
-
But what evidence do we have the lethality vs aircraft matches Tony Williams?
-
He's been around for ages. There've been a number of threads over the years and general memory is that they seem to mesh with AH numbers they were compared to. Usually folks compare them to him in a positive way.
Generally speaking, most do. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've really seen many that didn't (aside from the whole MG151-averaged-issue and a couple other specifics)
-
But what evidence do we have the lethality vs aircraft matches Tony Williams?
The lethality is, of course, function of many more factors than simple comparison of projectile energy (mechanical and/or chemical). In other words, one armament combination might have large theoretical advantage on destructive power over another combination. However, in practice other factors, like better probability of hit due to higher velocity of the projectiles, might even out the lethality.
This is rather easy to test in the game; take as example the P-47D and the K-4 (theoretically about equal firepower) and shoot the drones at long range (above 200) with slight deflection. You will find out that the P-47D turns out to be superior in lethality in these conditions.
-
But what evidence do we have the lethality vs aircraft matches Tony Williams?
Plot the Williams and HTC object figures and see for yourself.
-
Yes, I've read a lot of his articles, and I like the work that he's done. But a good reputation and frequent citation is not evidence that his figures match Aces High. Looking to his work to figure out lethality is comparable to asking how fast the P-47 rolls in the game, and then reading a book about it instead of testing the roll rate yourself in game. You'll probably learn a lot of interesting things and enrich your historical understanding of the P-47, but come away with a misunderstanding.
I understand that damage against objects takes no account of kinetic energy loss, which is accounted for in damage versus planes. However, it seems that the most strident debate is generated over auto-cannon lethality, which is mostly chemical energy, kinetic energy only to a lesser extent. This is where discrepancies exist between the two methods of ranking, i.e. Ki-84 vs Spit8.
Plot the Williams and HTC object figures and see for yourself.
If by this you simply mean that I should compare how well Williams matches the hangar destruction data, it begs the question because that's what we're arguing about in the first place. Did you mean something else?
-----------
Edit: I had the thought that maybe you think I'm the one begging the question? After all, since the Williams chart does match the hangar data in most cases, why am I asking what evidence we have to suppose that it matches the game? To be clear, I'm asking, why go with Williams for damage vs aircraft where it disagrees with the hangar test data?...especially when the disagreement is over cannon armed aircraft where kinetic energy matters least.
-
Bullets vs objects is nowhere near the same as bullets vs aircraft. Aircraft take into account penetrating power, explosive power, many other aspects including internal damage systems of the target itself.
Objects are very flawed, and IMO I think they negate a lot of the round power of MGs, and I think they soak up too much "splash damage" from cannons, but this is only personal guesswork.
Since we don't have HTC's exact numbers (other than saying 1 50cal is worth 3 30cal, 1 hispano worth 3 50cal, etc), and we know that certain relationships seem to match up to the real things, I tend to lean more towards Tony Williams than the flawed "rounds to kill a hangar".
IMHO objects like field acks should not suffer so much from cannons vs being hosed by machine guns, - the simulation would be killing the crew and not the gun, or?
-
Yes, I've read a lot of his articles, and I like the work that he's done. But a good reputation and frequent citation is not evidence that his figures match Aces High. Looking to his work to figure out lethality is comparable to asking how fast the P-47 rolls in the game, and then reading a book about it instead of testing the roll rate yourself in game. You'll probably learn a lot of interesting things and enrich your historical understanding of the P-47, but come away with a misunderstanding.
I understand that damage against objects takes no account of kinetic energy loss, which is accounted for in damage versus planes. However, it seems that the most strident debate is generated over auto-cannon lethality, which is mostly chemical energy, kinetic energy only to a lesser extent. This is where discrepancies exist between the two methods of ranking, i.e. Ki-84 vs Spit8.
If by this you simply mean that I should compare how well Williams matches the hangar destruction data, it begs the question because that's what we're arguing about in the first place. Did you mean something else?
Did you try to compare them or not?
How many different ways would it be modeled in AH? The factors in Williams' formula are what it will always boil down to when you compare the guns in the game. Kinetic power and chemical charge. You're doing the same thing as in the ENY arguments. Arguing the theory to no end instead of assessing what concrete evidence there is and going from there. Back then you were saying the ENY values were wrong and that there needed to be an exact math formulation of the ENY values based on paper figures, and never (that I saw) admitted that an intermediate step (plain human quantitative/qualitative guesstimate; HTC arbitrary) is good enough for the time being (however long the ENY formulation debate would take - forever), nevermind that it might just be good enough. There's only so many integers to set the ENY to, and that HTC guesstimate certainly looks like it's beyond the depreciating returns of the chase for "perfect values".
The only way that taking Williams' values is a mistake is if the data points/curves don't even look familiar. Which you could rule out for good by actually crunching the numbers right off the bat.
IMHO objects like field acks should not suffer so much from cannons vs being hosed by machine guns, - the simulation would be killing the crew and not the gun, or?
You wanna stand in that ack hole while someone shots a burst of 20mm within it, without any body armor?
-
For your convenience... I have converted both charts in this thread into Z-scores:
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7517/firezwillhangt.jpg)
-
You're doing the same thing as in the ENY arguments. Arguing the theory to no end instead of assessing what concrete evidence there is and going from there.
This time you are the one doing this. Williams' account is the the theoretical account, hangar test data is practical and concrete.
-
No. The topic is AH fighter firepower comparison - that's level 0 of abstraction. If Williams' formulation matches the AH hangar data to negligible difference, it's no more excessively theoretical than the very topic itself is. It's as good a baseline as any to build on for any more practical, concrete extrapolations on how AH fighters compare in firepower. In fact, it's better, because it gives us a clue (a confirmation) as to how things are modeled in AH, as opposed to extrapolating firepower against planes from firepower against buildings. We see that the Williams figures are likely "good enough" to build a z-score from. You wanted to reject it apparently without even looking at the data. Purely on principle.
As far as I can tell, we can now build a couple of more specific charts, e.g. z-score against a target flying at zero relative velocity and short, medium, and long range. Maybe make it a 3D bar chart with Z-Score, Range (three sets), and ambient speed, as dimensions.
-
For your convenience... I have converted both charts in this thread into Z-scores:
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7517/firezwillhangt.jpg)
WoW lusche they are remarkably close!!!
I do have 1 question tho,it seems the tempest has more firepower than the mossie,what loadout did you have in mossie??
The 100 hispano rounds that the tempest has over mossie couldnt better the 3100 303 rounds??
I'm only curious and applaud your work.
:salute
-
I do have 1 question tho,it seems the tempest has more firepower than the mossie,what loadout did you have in mossie??
The 100 hispano rounds that the tempest has over mossie couldnt better the 3100 303 rounds??
Ammo capacity is not figured in, it's a pure 1-second-burst comparison.
The Tempest is carrying the Hispano V, the Mossie the Hispano II. The V has about 25% higher rate of fire, which more than equalizes the additional 4 rifle-caliber Brownings the Mossie is carrying.
-
ahhhh thx.
:salute
-
Can't you use the offline mission planner to create a one on one scenario to test lethality? Make the con fly straight and level at a fixed speed while you start from a fixed distance and speed behind it? I thought the offline mission planner had that much granularity. Being on the training staff you should have the settings to duplicate the environment in the MA. But then it would be testing offline with no internet connection issues to interfere with the interaction.