Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tony Williams on November 27, 2002, 01:32:14 PM
-
I have assembled a comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of WW2 fighter guns and ammunition. See:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Excellent write up Tony.
I dont know if you have played AH but I would say that you really matched what we see here. The factor that you are missing is range. That is where the Hispano family and the M2 50 cals really set themselves appart from the German guns. At 300 yards there is little to tell between the 151/20 and the Hispano. But at 500-600 yards the Hispano is much more deadly. And it stays dangerous out to 1100 yards.. Not very dangerous but you dont want to be a stable target to a Typhoon at 800 yards. Most pilots will be able to spray the guns and nock a large piece off your plane.
There are factors that are missing from the game that probably contribute to that range and there are things like built in range finders in the gun sight in AH that make shooting at that range practicle.
I dont know that the long range ballistic advantage of the Hispano was as noted in WW2 as it is here. But in AH. you have pretty much seperated from a B20 or mg151/20 plane by 500 yards as long as you dont stay too predictable in your flight path. The simular number for the Hispano is 900 yards..
The effect of that range advantage is to make the Hispano a far better weapon in AH then the 151/20.
Great write up. Really enjoy your book.
-
Very interesting Tony!
It's interesting to note the relative efficiencies of the .303 browning and the .50 cal M2. In AH I'd always chose 2 M2s over 4 .303s (in the Spit MKIX for example). However this may show the nature of the AH damage model where fire and system destruction (e.g. hydrualics, control cables) lose out to gross structural damage (e.g. wings coming off: most kills in AH are due to massive structural failures rather than fire or system failures).
It would be interesting to see if there was a way to include reliablity in this data, though that kind of information is hard to come by. I've seen a number of books state that the RAF considered the jam rate of the MKII Hispano to be 1 round in 1500 (which seems quite good considering the common 120 rpg ammo load).
-
Originally posted by Pei
It would be interesting to see if there was a way to include reliablity in this data, though that kind of information is hard to come by. I've seen a number of books state that the RAF considered the jam rate of the MKII Hispano to be 1 round in 1500 (which seems quite good considering the common 120 rpg ammo load).
Very hard to come by. I can verify the Hispano figure, and add that the .50 M2 was about 1 round in 4,000 overall, but fixed guns were twice as reliable as flexibly-mounted ones.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I dont know that the long range ballistic advantage of the Hispano was as noted in WW2 as it is here. But in AH. you have pretty much seperated from a B20 or mg151/20 plane by 500 yards as long as you dont stay too predictable in your flight path. The simular number for the Hispano is 900 yards..
The effect of that range advantage is to make the Hispano a far better weapon in AH then the 151/20.
Let me put it this way: when Spitfires were first armed with two 20mm cannon, the RAF was annoyed because gun bay restrictions prevented them from converging the guns any closer than 300 yards - they wanted 200!
I'm afraid that long-range shooting seems to be one area in which sims remain unrealistic.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
long range shooting isn't unrealistic, just a waste of ammo (all my kills are from 70 to 300) and i never run out of ammo, even when set low:D
-
Let me put it this way: when Spitfires were first armed with two 20mm cannon, the RAF was annoyed because gun bay restrictions prevented them from converging the guns any closer than 300 yards - they wanted 200!
I'm afraid that long-range shooting seems to be one area in which sims remain unrealistic.
This, is probably the most powerful comment upon the problems of gunnery in AH(though it may be unintended.. don't worry Tony, won't drag you in if a flame war ever starts :D )
Come to think of it, if shooting was as range sensitive as it were in real life many of the so-called "dweeb plane" accusations in AH would be dropped. The only planes that are accused as a "dweeb plane", due to purely powerful performance, is the La-7 and the P-51D. The La-7 virtually has no weakness in its element at low-alt, and the P-51D is mediocre in many aspects but just purely outruns everything else excluding handful few unperked planes such as La-7s or Typhoons.
All the other "dweeb plane" accusations mainly falls upon Hispano armed planes and the N1K2. Even with its uninspiring speed in the MA, if a Hispano armed plane can get within just 600 yards range a good shot will knock off something with those cannons. The N1K2 cannons aren't as good as the Hispanos, but it holds 900 rounds... 6 times the amount in 109s, and almost twice the amount in 190s. Lot of spray quality.
...
So, then, what is really the difference in AH and real-life that the results are so drastically different? Maybe the lack of overall tensions of combat? Lack of G forces a pilot feels?? But these are mostly human issues.
If AH uses real-life ballistics charts data for its guns, what could be the reason behind this in the perspective of simulation gaming? Somehow, I don't think the "we're better shots than WWII pilots" answer is very convincing. Feels more like a cop-out and a cheap attempt to blindly support AH.
The range icons? But IL-2 has range icons, too, and yet the distance required to "open fire" in IL-2 is about 200~300 yards shorter than AH. While many consider 400~500 yards adequate distance to start firing in AH, it is widely recognized among IL-2 gamers that in IL-2, generally the distance where you'd really expect to hit something is 200~300 meters. Maybe it's because IL-2 mostly features ShVAKs and MG151/20s, which is fired near 300 yards in AH, too?
Or maybe its because the hit sprites? In IL-2, the visual hit confirmations for MGs and cannons diminish in size according to range.. meaning when you fire from far away, it is a lot harder to see if you are hitting the enemy or not. Since people avoid shooting cannons in fear of wasting ammo above 300 meters range, and the machine guns hits are hardly confirmed over that range, maybe that's why they don't shoot out so far. In AH, you adjust aim, spray a bit, confirm the hits landing visually through hit sprites that are as large as golf-balls. Since you are sure you're landing hits, you adjust the aim again, and fire a bit more.. maybe..
Or maybe the damage modelling. I don't think I've ever seen a plane lose a single stab, except the P-38L(I lost only the left vertical stab once..), when I am pretty sure the trajectory of my shots fired landed in only one certain area of the plane. Also, in AH, any sort of "damage" causes instant destruction of the area.. if someone can get few pings in, it might knock off the entire wing, wing tip, or stabilizers so the plane is instantly off balance and dies out. This might promote the spray mentality to the people who become desperate as they see the enemy extending away 500~600 yards, since they know if a few cannon pings can go in they can kill it.
Or maybe the way how a "hit" is registered? I've heard AH uses the same sort of gunnery/hit modelling as IL-2 - no hit "boxes", hit must register on actual polygon to count. However, somehow, AH feels a lot lacking compared to IL-2. I've never seen an instance where the shots fired pass beside each fuselage of the plane due to firing at a range closer than convergence, in AH. In IL-2, I've seen this happen. I've also seen the cases where it feels "I've hit it" at the gunsight, with the target almost in dead center, but actually misses, with the tracers passing the target as if it is grazing the surface.. only aiming at an "exact" point will hit it. In AH.. the area of that invisible "point" to fire at seems much larger.... In AH, during scissors, with enemy plane swishing by in front of the gun sights, you can fire shots in between the scissors and expect to kill it. In IL-2, this is incredibly hard.
...
Or maybe it is because of all of the reasons above. Maybe that's why we can't just ask for a "realistic change" of one issue and get it - since it involves multiple reasons.
Anyhow, I'd like to know how other people feel about the long-range gunnery aspect of AH, and how it should be changed.. or maybe not changed at all. Kinda curious.. ;)
-
long range gunnery is about as close as you can get for a game killer to me.
-
Intresting article, what makes it even more intresting is:
GUN EFFICIENCY
Hispano II : 4
MG 151/20 : 4.9
Mg151 actually beats Hispano II in everything execpt round power, where the Hispano is 3 points ahead of the Mg151.
-
so does mgff .........
-
Yep, Hispano is a big clunky weapon compared to the German 20 mm. If you've ever seen a Spitfire up close it's amazing how they barely crammed it into the wings.
And Tony's analysis doesn't account for ammo volume and weight. The smaller, lighter, MG151/20 ammo takes up less space and weighs less than the Hispano ammo. Hence the much greater ammo loads of planes like the Fw 190 vs. the Spitfire.
-
So Funked you are saying MG151/20 is better than the Hispano.. :D
Yes I agree that this sim's everyday long range gunnery in no way matches anything I have ever read about in either WW2 or Korea.
-
BTW
Gun: VYa-23
Ammo: 23x152B
RPS: 9
Cartrige power: 26
Gun Power: 234
Weight: 68kg
Efficency: 3.4
This is the best gun overall in AH IMHO, its like a high velocity MK108 but needs two hits kill a fighter instead of one. Its interesting that you rank it so low.
Plus I find your comparsion of MG131 to .50cal very interesting.... :D
-
Maybe the long range gunnery in this game is just due to the fact that we can spray and pray to our hearts content without the penalties a real WWII pilot would get. Ammo consevation was probably a necessity to survive. They didn't have the luxury of spraying until empty and then running quickly back to the base. They probably kept their convergence very close for maximum effect and only pulled the trigger when they were sure of a shot. In this game it is easy to set your convergence at 400-600 and hold the trigger down. Just a thought.
-
Its somewhere in the range icon, lack of enviromental effects, lack of reliablility issues. all guns of a type being identical and all rounds of a type being identical. Ammo counters on all planes..
Basically our enviroment has to be sterile. The alternative is to fudge it like I think Il2 has. It has more enviroment granted but I think they fudged the hit results quite a bit.
GH you really see that 23mm in action taking on m3 and m16 half tracks. It 2 ping kills them at 1k...
-
Tony how would your 'ideal' TW20 and TW30 rate in these tables?
-
I guess I'm not smart enough to understand those charts.
I can tell you that here is what I think is an "AH effectiveness table", or roundabout.
I'd score the 7.92s (or .303s) as just about worthless, so they would get about a .25 (since I want the .50 caliber to be 1).
So, here goes.
Any 7.92 / .303 = .25
Any .50 = 1 (The Mg131, Russian, and Japanese .50s all seem just as effective as the .50 Browning to me)
MG-FF= ~1.25
MG-151/20/ N1K2 guns= ~2
La-7/Yak cannon= ~2.25
Ho-5= ~2.5 (the ones on the Ki-61.. they are pretty nice!)
Hispano= ~4
23mm IL-2 Gun= ~5
30mm Mk108/37mm Yak gun= ~6
Sure, this isnt exactly scientific, but it is based on how effective I think the rounds are.
I've seen Hispanos kill in 1 hit. They'll take off the vertical stabilizer, or *both* horizontal stabs (which makes very little sense to me, to be honest) in one hit. They'll also remove a wingtip in one hit. That may not kill every plane automatically, but it'll kill most everything but the American planes unless there is a very good stick at the controls. I've never seen any other 20mm gun kill in one hit (unless you land a cockpit shot, in which case I've seen .50s kill in one hit). The Hispano is also remarkable effective against Panzers, you can kill them by strafing.
The 23mm IL-2 gun rocks. It is at least as good as a Hispano. I think it is actually better against ground vehicles, and I'm almost positive it is better against air targets, but the IL-2 (at least when I fly it) doesn't really have much of a chance to use them in air combat.
The 30mm Mk108 is really good against planes. I think 3 rounds will kill almost anything except a buff, and only 1 round is needed unless you get really unlucky with the damage. I hit an La-7 4 times once, he flew away missing a wingtip, and leaking fuel and oil. Thats really unlucky. I would rate it equal with a Hispano except for the fact that 1 Mk018 kills a fighter probably 90% of the time, whereas 1 Hispano kills a fighter maybe 25-33% of the time. The Hispanos got the edge in range, ease of aiming, and rate of fire though. Generally if you can land 1 mk108 on a plane, you could've landed the 2-3 Hispano hits needed to kill it too.
I find it interesting that the MG151 is rated as high as it is on your chart. At least the 'gun effectiveness' chart, which is the one I understood. If the M-whatever round was supposed to do as much damage as a Hispano, I'm 99% sure we don't have those rounds. Actually, I think someone told me (Hooligan maybe) that our ammunition is based on a 'clip' that for the German planes at least is like 7 AP rounds, 1 HE, 1 M-whatever, and 1 tracer. I guess if the 151/20 relied on the explosive power of the HE round to make up for a lack of velocity, that would explain why they seem to be about half as effective as a Hispano.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Yep, Hispano is a big clunky weapon compared to the German 20 mm. If you've ever seen a Spitfire up close it's amazing how they barely crammed it into the wings.
And Tony's analysis doesn't account for ammo volume and weight. The smaller, lighter, MG151/20 ammo takes up less space and weighs less than the Hispano ammo. Hence the much greater ammo loads of planes like the Fw 190 vs. the Spitfire.
MG151/15 is even smaller and lighter, so is 7.9mm. both are also less deadly.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Tony how would your 'ideal' TW20 and TW30 rate in these tables?
Good question! I hadn't actually done the sums, but this is the way it looks:
20mm: 105g at 850 m/s, 19% HE content: 259 cartridge destructiveness (rounded to 26)
Gun: 12.5 - 16.7 rps, weight say 37 kg, gun power = 325 - 434, efficiency score 8.8 - 11.7 - pretty good, really!
30mm: 236g at 850 m/s, HE = 21%: cartridge destructiveness = 622, ratio = 62
Gun: 10 - 12.5 rps, weight say 65 kg, gun power = 620 - 775, efficiency = 9.5 - 11.9 - even better!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
As far as long-range shooting and the ease of scoring hits are concerned, it seems to me (speaking as a non-player) that there may be two factors involved.
One is the inability of any sim to reproduce the full range of RL conditions; the noise, vibration, aircraft bucking around under you from the slipstream of the plane you're chasing, powerful G effects of turning and bunting, and so on. Also, even if a sophisticated simulator mounted on a hydraulic platform was able to reproduce these effects, it couldn't generate the tension and gut-wrenching terror of mortal combat.
The second point may be that people play sims for enjoyment so if they were too realistic (for instance, I believe that most fighter pilots never shot down anything) people would get bored very quickly!
This does makes me wonder whether any sims have different levels of difficulty, like computer chess games? This would allow tyros to start with easy kills then, when they felt ready, move up to higher and more realistic levels in which scoring becomes increasingly difficult. Does this sound attractive? Feasible?
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
game would be a little better if guns would jam under high + or - g's, cold weather, ammo malfunction......
-
The Hispano and 151/20 are actually of rather the same size physically. The Hispano has the recoil suppression spring installed in the barrel which requires the fairing seen in the wing of a Spit. In Hurricanes these springs were visible. 151/20 did not have the recoil suppression spring in the barrell. Does anybody know if it had any kind of recoil suppression?
It is also interesting in Tony's article that the 108 was clear winner in efficiency of the LW weapons. One factor that was considered earlier in another thread was the velocity of the ammunition which decides which weapon is the most useful in fighter vs. fighter combat and what is the most effective against heavy bombers (deflection shooting).
I would rather go into a furball equipped with a weapon which has a relatively high ROF and high muzzle velocity to be able to make efficient deflection shots.
Against bombers the 108 would be a good choise especially if fitted on a high speed interceptor such as D9 or 262 as its flight speed is added to the initial velocity of the round.
-Charge+
-
Originally posted by Charge
The Hispano and 151/20 are actually of rather the same size physically. The Hispano has the recoil suppression spring installed in the barrel which requires the fairing seen in the wing of a Spit. In Hurricanes these springs were visible. 151/20 did not have the recoil suppression spring in the barrell. Does anybody know if it had any kind of recoil suppression?
Yes. The MG 151 recoiled around 18mm between shots, the Hispano 20-25mm. However, I believe that the Mauser's movement was contained with the body of the gun, whereas with the Hisso the entire gun moved.
It is also interesting in Tony's article that the 108 was clear winner in efficiency of the LW weapons.
That is inevitable, because high-velocity weapons require more gun weight and usually achieve a lower rate of fire.
I would rather go into a furball equipped with a weapon which has a relatively high ROF and high muzzle velocity to be able to make efficient deflection shots.
In general I agree. However, I think that the greater efficiency of cannon over HMGs would make the right choice for that the Hispano.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Charge
The Hispano and 151/20 are actually of rather the same size physically.
Hispano Mk. V maybe.
The Mk. II (most common in WW2) is quite a bit longer than the MG 151/20 if you've ever seen them next to each other in a display case.
-
I've been flying some Il-2 lately and I have to admit I find it's gunnery and damage model more "believable" than AH.
I'm talking without anything near to a cientifical or rational approach, only my feeling.
While the view system in Il-2 is vastly inferior to AH, and I'm not specifically referring to 6 view, in gunnery and damage modelling, my feeling is quite the opposite.
Nice thread, btw :)
Cheers,
-
Proper hit sprites is really something I would like added to AH, including here are also the elimination of "i-can-see-hits-through-my-cockpit". Both as a way to increase realism, but of course also for eye-candy.
Good hitsprites would reduce the effectiveness of especially the MG's at longer ranges, while cannon hits probably still have a big enough boom to be seen far out.
The cockpit-thingie would make big deflection shooting ten times harder than now. I often use the 30mm cannon, and being able to see that hit in middle of panel, I know (95% of the times) that the kill is certain and I can turn away. For me in that instance we are only talking about a small disadvantage, because of the usual 1-hit-ability of the 30mm, and I only will loose some time before I realise he is down.
For the smaller calibers however it will hinder the ability to "walk" the hits on the target, as they have found the sweet spot by use of "the force". Well they might still do it, but then The Force truely is involved.
-
Originally posted by Pepe
I've been flying some Il-2 lately and I have to admit I find it's gunnery and damage model more "believable" than AH.
I'm talking without anything near to a cientifical or rational approach, only my feeling.
I entirely agree with you here, including the last sentence. The key to getting kills in il2 is either getting many concentrated hits with 20mm cannon (and I mean really close together) which will take off wings or tails on most fighters or hitting vulnerable systems like engines, radiators and pilots. To get either kind you need to be pretty close in (I don't use icons in il2 so I just use the "fill the windscreen" method). I've found that high ROF machine guns with plenty of ammo (such as those in the nose of most LW fighters) are good for longer range shots but unless you get lucky those shots are only good for forcing the bandit to turn so you can get closer.
Tony Williams wrote:
This does makes me wonder whether any sims have different levels of difficulty, like computer chess games? This would allow tyros to start with easy kills then, when they felt ready, move up to higher and more realistic levels in which scoring becomes increasingly difficult.
Tony, most boxed sims (e.g. Il2, CFS3) allow you to play with the difficulty levels for gunnery, flight models and icons which makes life easier for the casual gamer. Certainly if you are not a simmer I would recommend using these settings to get started but progression onto the more difficult levels should be done as soon as you are comfortable otherwise they become a crutch (this is assuming you are interested in being a so-called hard-core simmer like us fools here :) - there's nothing wrong of course with playing on the easier settings if that's what someone enjoys).
As for 1 shot Hispano kills in AH: I can't recall ever seeing one and I fly Spitfire and Typhoons a lot. The minimum I've seen for a kill is 3 hit sprites, but 5 or more on the same location is more common.
I also can't hit beyond 450 yards (in fact I can't really hit reliably beyond 300), but that just might be my lack of gunnery skills :).
I generally will use .50 cals out to 450 yards (against a steady target) and keep my Hispanos for 250-275 or less.
-
'I also can't hit beyond 450 yards (in fact I can't really hit reliably beyond 300), but that just might be my lack of gunnery skills .
I generally will use .50 cals out to 450 yards (against a steady target) and keep my Hispanos for 250-275 or less."
You must be pretty much alone in that.
-
yup he must be the only one.................
-
Nice tables Tony, very interesting info.
I agree with the above comments that the gunnery model of IL2 is more convincing.
My observations suggest that the "hit boxes" in AH are much bigger than in IL2. In my opinion, this is the biggest reason why long range gunnery is so much easier here.
By "hit box" I mean the invisible shape around the 3D model that "catches" the bullets. It seems to me that the AH "hit boxes" are bigger than the actual 3D shape of the plane. In IL2 the "hit boxes" are really close to, if not exactly, the shape of the plane.
This can be tried offline in AH: take a plane with 7.9mms/.303s and set lethality really low. Fly really close behind a P51 drone and start peppering it. Observe the hit sprites.
I hope the AH gunnery model will be updated in the future. :)
Camo
-
how similar are the mg131 and the 50cal according to this method of comparison?
As for range for hitting Ive hit out to 1.2k with 50 cals or hispanos and i can hit 90 degree deflection shots out to almost 1k.Ive taken wild shots at these ranges and still taken wings off.Realistic? hell i dont know but it doesnt sound too similar to the write ups from WW2 pilots.They always seem to mention not firing until the aircraft fills your view, as in almost colliding! :)
I cant do this with mg131 or mg151/20's as it requires blind shooting with their ballistics although i have hit at 800 yards with mg151's very rarely.
I think there is a huge gulf between peerformance/effectiveness of the 50 cals and other similar calibre weapons in AH(12.7mm/13mm) but whenever i express this opinion its always taken as if I have some hidden agenda.When i see info like those charts i often wonder why its so hard to question the 50s in AH.Its there in black and white that there was nothing particularly amazing about them in terms of lethality.Still what can you do? :D
-
I think that comparing the 131 and the 50 cal almost exactly paralells the Hispano and 151/20 comparison. If your talking about 300 yards they are near identical. If your talking about 600 yards there is no comparison.
-
I think part of the ".50 calibers are 'uber'" thing comes from the fact that there are at least 6 of them on any plane thats common in the MA.
I've gotten kills out to 600 yards before on La-7s that were flying straight and level, just using the twin 13mms in the nose of the 109G-10.
I really think that if you compare 1 Mg131 to 1 .50 caliber, they will come out damn near the same in 'damage output'.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I really think that if you compare 1 Mg131 to 1 .50 caliber, they will come out damn near the same in 'damage output'.
On my table, for each shot the MG 131 scores an average (AP and HE) of 3, the M2 scores 4.5. In gun power, the MG 131 closes up a bit with its higher rate of fire, giving a score of 45 against 58 (both unsynchronised). In gun efficiency, the lightweight MG 131 pulls ahead, scoring 2.65 against 2.0.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
On my table, for each shot the MG 131 scores an average (AP and HE) of 3, the M2 scores 4.5. In gun power, the MG 131 closes up a bit with its higher rate of fire, giving a score of 45 against 58 (both unsynchronised). In gun efficiency, the lightweight MG 131 pulls ahead, scoring 2.65 against 2.0.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
ah yes i must admit i often forget about the slower rate of fire due to synchronisation through propellors.But when i say i think the 50s are a little too effective imo im merely stating an opinion.I dont want changes or anything but i do feel its a hell of a lot more easy to hit at long range with them and often they seem to behave just like a cannon round, ie taking tails off or wingtips etc.Of course there are times where you pepper other aircraft from quite close ranges and see nothing happen.I think the net factors make a larger difference than we give it credit for?
the one aircraft im constantly surprised by is the p51b with just 4x50's which i find very effective. People say its an assist fighter, as in all you get are assists :) but I havent found that much at all.When i use them i get cleaner kills than ive had with the 190d9 which i find often hits with little effect, less effect sometimes than i feel i get with 190a5's or 190a8's.This is where im often confused by the modelling as the guns are the same.
Another thing id have to say is the russian guns are less effective than the mg151's from my experience in AH but according to those charts they should be as good.Am i alone in feeling they are less effective in AH? obviously its very hard to judge guns in AH as so many factors effect their hits and damage not least of which is how used to using certain types we are.I do get annoyed when people accuse you of bias if you feel one gun is more or less effective than they should be though.Im just interested to see if i have the same feelings as others concerning these weapons.
Tony i have to ask, did that chart i posted about guns effectiveness recently from 'fighter combat' , R.Shaws book, help you in this new addition to your mountains of info? :)
If it did Im very glad it helped you, its about time i posted something that wasnt ignored and was actualy usefull hehee :D
-
> Tony i have to ask, did that chart i posted about guns
> effectiveness recently from 'fighter combat' , R.Shaws book,
> help you in this new addition to your mountains of info?
I'm sorry to have to say that I did this one without reference to other tables, just to the basic ammo and gun data.
I have since discovered that the ShVAK/B-20 muzzle velocity of 860 m/s may be too high, as other (very reliable) sources quote 750-790 m/s, depending on the loading. It is possible that the 860 m/s refers to the very long-barrelled versions used in engine mountings.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I've modified the article, to take account of:
Corrections to the ShVAK/B-20 ballistic data,
Amendments to the power rating of some cartridges (mainly German) to take account of more accurate ammunition load data,
More precise calculations for HMG power ratings,
Arguments concerning the importance of velocity and range, and why ammunition weights aren't included.
See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Nice article Tony.
IMO, AH gunnery may be decent (ballistics), but damage model is very poor, and that includes the typical one-hit-BOOM, several 30mm hits and no-BOOM, random damages (u hit the tail and the enemy starts smoking, etc) or heavy armour ineffectiveness.
-
AH gunnery can't be compared to real life, IMO, if it keeps the highly unrealistic (and gunnery aiding) hit sprites. They can be seen at any distance, through the cockpit and regardless of type of round impacting (which gives AP and small caliber rounds an advantage over HE shells). Fairly gamey for a combat flight sim, can't believe it is here for 3 years.
In Il-2, the way to go is icons off. As for inferior views in Il-2, you probably didn't try TrackIR. With its damage model, graphics, FM and necessary hardware it is lightyears away from AH.
P.S.
I always had hard time to believe that one 20 mm round, being 100 g in weight, with some 15g of explosive and traveling 600 m/s would bring down a 4000 kg plane.
-
It would be nice if the hit sprites were revamped, true.
In Il-2, the way to go is icons off. As for inferior views in Il-2, you probably didn't try TrackIR. With its damage model, graphics, FM and necessary hardware it is lightyears away from AH.
lol 'Neccessary hardware' Like everyone has the money to buy a TrackIR system to make Il-2's view system even half decent. :rolleyes: Most people have better things to spend the money on, surprisingly
I always had hard time to believe that one 20 mm round, being 100 g in weight, with some 15g of explosive and traveling 600 m/s would bring down a 4000 kg plane.
And I've always had a hard time believing the volume of whine produced by some people, despite their lack of evidence and/or credentials. Basic physics tells you that that round has a huge amount of energy. The mass of the target has very little to do with it - more important considerations like the ruggedness of the area of impact and its importance in relation to structural integrity would seem paramount to me.
-
Jumpy, eh... ? ;). Not every comment is intended against your dweebfire.
With Track IR you don't get half decent, that is a serious understatement. With it, you get superb and lightyears better than AH (an overstatement).
Money, you say ? Track IR is 1/3 of my monthly income, I do have a life, but my enthusiasm gets Track IR for me in few months.
If you insinuate my whining, please make it clear.
100 g + 15 g HE to 4000 kg is like 30 g + 4.5 g to 1200 kg car.
Let's say car is normal, not rugged one. The round is close to a .50 cal with HE component.
Would such a round destroy a car ? Robocop did it for sure ;).
P.S.
Can someone explain what is wrong with Il-2 views ? I hear it so many times, yet I can't see how it is bad.
-
I don't fly the spitfire. You're more likely to find me in a Yak or La-5.
As for the IR thing. That's your choice. But saying imploring people to get one to make the view system workable, doesn't really cut any ice. It's like the WW2OL diehard fans, who went out and bought an extra gig of RAM to make the game *almost* run well. It doesn't put the game in a good light. :)
-
A more interesting question is why dont 100 such projectiles seem to hurt enemies in Il2 some times.
I dont like the head stuck in one place limitation of Il2. Other then that its view system is good.
-
Sorry for hijacking this thread. I guess I got jumpy as well ;).
Anyway, Il-2 view system has only one drawback compared to AH (IMO), and it is what Pongo said. You can only rotate your head, but not to move it around.
As for realism, I don't think that turning your head 360 degrees without changing direction is realistic either.
Without TrackIR Il-2 view system is quite usable, if nothing else. With TrackIR, it is another dimension, and rightly so - for the money ;).
Gunnery in Il-2 is hard, I can say that. If it is more realistic or not, I cannot tell. I sure like it more due to scaled hit effects, different impact flashes, probably more complex damage model etc. Without icons it is just great (IMO). But that's a matter of choice, I guess.
-
from the article:
There is some reassurance in the fact that the 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE emerge with similar scores, as a comparative test by the RAF rated them as about equal
in AH the german mg151/20 is WAY weaker then the hispano.
2 hispano hits will almost always result in a crippling damage while in the mg151/20 it takes about twice as many. I spent some time blasting away at the drones off-line and the hispanos kill much easier.
just my impression, nothing scientific.
Bozon
-
IL-2 view system is good. Frankly, the now-standard "SNAP"-style view changes are almost entirely the same in quality in every game that uses this method.
However, as some philosopher mentioned, "God's in the details". A small modification makes such a great impact, typically concerning the views, in the air combat sim genre. A half-inch "bar" represented on the monitor that conceals the enemy plane for only half a second is enough to make you completely lose your track of the enemy, and the fact that there is no way around it becomes the single largest problem in an otherwise superb game that is likely to influence other games for a generation.
The customizable head positions, while too lenient in the older planes, is a very reasonable choice, an innovative small idea which people rate so highly of AH! The recently modelled planes have a very reasonable 6-view limit.
Another thing is the "snap" speed in IL-2 is so damned slow. I would understand if it had something to do with the G-forces, and differs upon different conditions, but however, in every given situation the snap is so undesirably slow that frustration builds for people used to AH.
If AH would have a view system that would not allow a transition from 5->6->7 O'clock views(there's an old thread concerning this idea which I've suggested on two programmable 6 views), and would implement some neat-o features such as seen in IL-2, it would be absolutely perfect!
......
Another problem:
IL-2 cockpits are pictoresque, with photo-realistic levels of detail, which is very good. However, there might be a problem with this.
Generally, there is a possibility that a 3D perspective from the actual cockpit, and a 3D perspective represented in a separate way by 2D methods, might actually differ in perspective.
What I mean by this is the cockpits in AH are actual views from inside of the cockpit that is modelled within the plane. To put it simply, AH builds a 3D model with cockpits intact, and then they put a "video cam" on the seat of the cockpit.
However, IL-2 uses cockpits that are modelled separately from the plane. I have reason to believe that the perspective of the cockpits in IL-2 is modelled from photo data taken at the pilot's seat. In other words, they build a 3D model for the plane, then, they take pictures from the pilot's seat, and then, they build a "panoramic-3D" view around the lens of a video cam based on the pictures they got.
So, in effect, AH perspective goes from 3D to 2D(monitor), while IL-2 goes 3D(actual cockpit)->2D(photo data)->3D build based on 2D(cockpit modelling process) and then again to 2D(representation on monitor). This might tend to warp the views a bit, compared to what AH offers.
The two examples are the cockpits of the Fw190 and Yak series in IL-2. These two planes both offered excellent visibility in real-life, and yet in IL-2 they are severely limited even in forward visibility(!), due to problems of the "3D" built cockpits somehow being depicted in a way which it feels more like "2D" than 3D. The forward canopy bars are humongous for both these planes, and a real frustration factor to the people who fly these planes. You can struggle to find a way aroud this by switching view angles with SHIFT+F1, but it still is severely limited.
In AH, while the cockpit bars are too thin, still it represents a more accurate "scale" of perception which would be closer to what a pilot sees in real life.
I'm not sure if I described this in a way people can actually understand.. :D , but I hope you can get the general idea.
-
Tony, the discussion you posted on the effectiveness of guns and ammo was great. I also really enjoyed the relative merits of the BBs on your link.
Thanks, NHRapier
-
Originally posted by bozon
from the article:
in AH the german mg151/20 is WAY weaker then the hispano.
2 hispano hits will almost always result in a crippling damage while in the mg151/20 it takes about twice as many. I spent some time blasting away at the drones off-line and the hispanos kill much easier.
Note that I only said that the M-Geschoss was equal to the Hispano. The Luftwaffe usually mixed these rounds with others; typically, there were two M-Geschoss, two HEIT (with only a very small amount of HE) and one API or APHE. The overall effectiveness of the ammo belt would have been less than the Hisso's, which is why the MG 151/20 ammo scores 16 while the Hisso's scores 20.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by RAPIER
Tony, the discussion you posted on the effectiveness of guns and ammo was great. I also really enjoyed the relative merits of the BBs on your link.
Thanks, NHRapier
Thanks for the message, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I really think that vs Aircraft. And at 300 or less yards. the 151/20 is the equal of the Hispano in AH.
-
Just a question:
Why is the russian Shvak shell listed as a "x99R", when the length of the shell was only ~60mm??
A relict of the original 12.7mm project?
And how does it come that T. Williams page lists a m.v of 750-790m/s (confirmed by a german doc i have), while many other pages list 860m/s for the 20mm Shvak?
thx
niklas
-
But Pongo.... EVERYTHING is equal to everything else at those ranges! :D
-
Originally posted by niklas
Why is the russian Shvak shell listed as a "x99R", when the length of the shell was only ~60mm??
It's the cartridge case which measures 99mm long, not the shell it fires. Along with the calibre, this is the standard measure of a cartridge because the shells or bullets fired can vary in length, but the case never does (well, not normally anyway).
And how does it come that T. Williams page lists a m.v of 750-790m/s (confirmed by a german doc i have), while many other pages list 860m/s for the 20mm Shvak?
Probably my fault. I discovered a reference to 860 m/s years ago and have used it ever since. However, I have recently looked a better references, more closely, and discovered that the 750-790 m/s is accurate. It is possible that the very long-barrelled version of the gun used in engine mountings produced the higher velocity.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Tony, I would be interested in seeing the same tables at different ranges. I.E 200 400 600 800 and 1000 yards. Would also be interesting in your rate of fire table if you could put in a factor for frequency of hits (i.e. flatter traj = higher rate of hit ).
3rd you could also put in altitude factors for each 5000 ft, because it drasticly changes the energy side of the equation.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
But Pongo.... EVERYTHING is equal to everything else at those ranges! :D
Not really. Rof and hitting power are not. Even the mgff seems considerably worse then the 151/20 at 300 yards.
-
Tony,
I noticed in your chart you have the M2 .50 cal AP but not the HE. I understand that the typical loadout especially in the PAC theater was a mix of AP, HE and tracer.
How did the HE (or incendiary) round fair??
Also based mostly on AH it seems the .50 cal has great trajectory ability. Is this directly because of muzzle volocity or are other factors more important?
-
Hi Hitech,
>Would also be interesting in your rate of fire table if you could put in a factor for frequency of hits (i.e. flatter traj = higher rate of hit ).
Here the shooting accuracies the Luftwaffe considered to be realistic against heavy bombers under combat conditions:
d (m) - Ph MG151/20 - Ph MK103 - Ph MK214
500 - 9.1% - 10.0% - 10.5%
1000 - 3.3% - 3.8% - 3.8%
1500 - 0.8% - 1.3% - 1.5%
The 50 mm MK214 as a large-caliber high-velocity weapon of course had a significantly flatter trajectory than the MG151/20, but that only paid off beyond effective range.
As pointed out above, flatter trajectory, i. e. higher muzzle velocity, also equalled higher dispersion, which would decrease the number of hits.
Time of flight of course is a beneficial factor, but it's value is greatest against moving targets - which means shorter effective firing ranges so the velocity advantage doesn't get to full effect.
Here's a time of flight comparison (from http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67068&highlight=hispano)
d (m) - MG151/20: t (s) - 20 mm AP (2800 fps): t (s)
100 - 0.13 - 0.12
200 - 0.29
300 - 0.47 - 0.42
400 - 0.69
500 - 0.94 - 0.73
In practice, this works out to these limiting target speeds for each type of gun for a 90° crossing shot, based on the assumption that the sight from each cockpit is 100 mil below the sight line (as in the P-51D).
d (m) - MG151/20: v (km/h) - 20 mm AP M75: v (km/h) - Hispano advantage (%)
100 - 277 - 277 - 0%
300 - 230 - 245 - 7%
500 - 191 - 228 - 19%
(From http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67068&highlight=hispano)
I'd say that any weighting of the results from Tony's tables according to assumptions about the hit probability would distort the results. The reason is that finally it's up to the pilot to choose his combat tactics according to the capabilities of his weapon.
Implying certain accuracies means implying certain tactics - which impedes the value of the weapon comparison as a tool for unbiased analysis.
(The most important tactical difference I'm thinking of is tracking shot versus snap shot.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Tony,
I noticed in your chart you have the M2 .50 cal AP but not the HE. I understand that the typical loadout especially in the PAC theater was a mix of AP, HE and tracer.
How did the HE (or incendiary) round fair??
Also based mostly on AH it seems the .50 cal has great trajectory ability. Is this directly because of muzzle volocity or are other factors more important?
There was never a service HE round for the .50. The loadout for most of the war was equal numbers of incendiary and AP bullets, sometimes with 20% tracers added. From April 1944 this was largely replaced by the M8 API, which combined the features of both types in one.
The .50's flat trajectory out to long range is partly the result of muzzle velocity, partly the result of a very good ballistic coefficient (i.e. a heavy bullet, well streamlined).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hitech,
>Would also be interesting in your rate of fire table if you could put in a factor for frequency of hits (i.e. flatter traj = higher rate of hit ).
Here the shooting accuracies the Luftwaffe considered to be realistic against heavy bombers under combat conditions:
d (m) - Ph MG151/20 - Ph MK103 - Ph MK214
500 - 9.1% - 10.0% - 10.5%
1000 - 3.3% - 3.8% - 3.8%
1500 - 0.8% - 1.3% - 1.5%
Henning (HoHun)
It should be noted that Luftwaffe research distinguished between single precision shots, and continous shooting.
A higher muzzle velocity of course helps for a single precision shot, but due to the larger recoil the result is different for continous shooting.
I assume Hohun values are for continues shooting
niklas
-
This picture may give you an imagination of the influence of altitude and speed.
The goal is to hit a target at an distance of 1000m.
The trajectory is printed for altiude 0km and 10km and 10km with a approching relative speed of 200m/s
Obivously the trajectory varies so much that hits with satisfactoring precision at long range with different approching speeds and altitudes are only possible with a gunsight that "knows" speed, altitude, weapon trajectory etc.
niklas
-
I think by far the biggest factor in simulation gun accuracy is practice. I consider myself a pretty good shot in AH but when I started playing its predecessor 7 years ago my gunnery sucked. I can remember for the first couple of weeks it seemed I could not hit anything even at extremely short range. I started becoming a decent shot after my first thousand kills or so. Between WB and AH I've probably shot down 40,000 aircraft. Gunnery in this game is extremely hard. It just gets a lot easier after you shoot down a few thousand targets.
Hooligan
-
Is there any difference in the ballistics or damage coefficient of a incindiary round compared to an AP round.
What is an incindiary round??
Is there any difference in AH??
-
An incendiary round is a round that is supposed to start a fire when it hits. I guess it'd be like a tracer, except it bursts into 'flame' when it hits and not when it leaves the gun barrel.
-
Urchin,
I know what the purpose of the round is but how does it achieve it's goal. Is it an exploding shell? Is it coated in a combustable substance? Does it have the same ballistics etc.
I know these rounds were extremely effective as they were tested by a number of Pac theater squadrons. So the next question is this.
Are incendiary rounds modeled in AH?
-
There were several different types of incendiary rounds.
The original ones in WW1 ignited on firing and burned through their flight. They left a smoke trail which was useful as a tracer, and the RAF were still using these in the BoB. However, by then the most effective type was ignited by impact. The British "De Wilde" was of this type, and the Americans copied a simplified version of it for their .30 and .50 incendiary ammo. These bullets ignited quite violently giving a flash visible to the pilot, so they were useful in revealing hits. They burned for only a fraction of a second as they passed through the plane.
In cannon calibres, incendiary material tended to be mixed with HE. Sometimes the shells were mainly incendiary, with an HE burster to scatter the material, blow holes in fuel tanks etc, sometimes the proportions were 50:50, sometimes the HEIs were mainly HE.
The essential aspect of incendiaries v HE were they they burned for a significant fraction of a second instead of going bang, so they had more chance of setting light to anything inflammable.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
There were several different types of incendiary rounds.
The original ones in WW1 ignited on firing and burned through their flight. They left a smoke trail which was useful as a tracer, and the RAF were still using these in the BoB. However, by then the most effective type was ignited by impact. The British "De Wilde" was of this type, and the Americans copied a simplified version of it for their .30 and .50 incendiary ammo. These bullets ignited quite violently giving a flash visible to the pilot, so they were useful in revealing hits. They burned for only a fraction of a second as they passed through the plane.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Tony, can you please tell us which version Soviet and Germn guns used, so we can have a full picture?
-
I believe that almost all WW2 incendiaries were of the sort which ignited on impact, as this made much more effective use of the material. The British .303 Mk.IV was kept on mainly because it was also useful as a tracer.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Having been in the military for over 20 and in the ordnance field I must say Tony I'm very impressed with your web sight, the sheer work of gathering from all those sources (most of which I have on some dusty shelf somewhere) makes me tired, but too the point Back in the late 60s I had a chance to fire some WW II 303 (.311 dia) "De Wilde" ammo, it was easy to see why the US used it as a basis for developing incendiary for both 30 and 50 cal, even firing 25 year old ammo the light blue "winks" on impack were a clear marker for recording hits on the targets. API has always been one of my favorite when firing the 50cal. The flashes of hit in AH remind me of API hits.