-
I've been curious for some time about the object damaging qualities of the different guns in AH. While I have heard things mentioned from time to time on this subject I have never seen an actual study. How much damage does a 20mm round cause? How much for a .50 round? How many bullets equal a 1000lb bomb? This sort of thing. Today I conducted a test. What follows is the test setup. Results and analysis of the weapons onboard the F4U-1C, N1K2-J, and P47-D30. Results of the total effective payload (guns plus maximum ordnance) of the respective aircraft. Possible errors in the test caused by range, poor gunnery, more rounds being fired than necessary, etc.
The test was conducted Offline on the Baltic map. Damage multiplier was set to 1.0, the default. Fighter Hanger and Bomber Hanger objects were set to values of .500, 500lbs of damage resistance. Each of the 3 test aircraft was launched from A43 and flew to A42 to conduct the tests. All AAA at A42 was destroyed using the destroy command prior to the planes arrival. This was done to prevent the AAA from interfering. Each of the Fighter and Bomber Hanger objects on A42 were restored prior to the test sequence for the aircraft. The guns of all aircraft were fired in controlled bursts of roughly .15 seconds to .75 seconds (quick tap or sustained burst). All passes were made at approximately 600 yards maximum closing to near point blank range. A different number of samples were gathered for each aircraft depending on available ammo supply. Before firing on a hanger the current ammo level was noted. After each hanger was destroyed the current ammo level was again noted. Each hanger was fired on individually; at no time was there more than 1 damaged hanger on the field. Each hanger was destroyed well before the 15-minute damage timer could expire.
F4U-1C
Gun Type: 20mm M2
Ammo Load: 924 rounds
Rnds Req Avg Dam in lbs
Hanger 1 163 3.07
Hanger 2 125 4
Hanger 3 125 4
Hanger 4 132 3.79
Hanger 5 128 3.91
N1K2-J
Gun Type: 20mm Type 99 Model 2
Ammo Load: 900 rounds
Rnds Req Avg Dam in lbs
Hanger 1 133 3.76
Hanger 2 135 3.70
Hanger 3 141 3.55
Hanger 4 137 3.65
Hanger 5 143 3.50
Hanger 6 139 3.60
P47-D30
Gun Type: .50 M2
Ammo Load: 3400 rounds
Rnds Req Avg Dam in lbs
Hanger 1 474 1.05
Hanger 2 475 1.05
Hanger 3 435 1.15
Hanger 4 507 0.99
Hanger 5 439 1.14
Hanger 6 469 1.07
Hanger 7 429 1.17
From the above tables the following conclusions and comments can be made regarding effective damage in pounds of each of the aircraft mounted guns.
1) I was surprised by how few rounds were required on the first sample with the F4U-1C. Since this was also the very first sample in the entire test sequence and since the results are so at odds with the other samples in the F4U-1C sequence it can be discounted.
2) Hanger kills 2 and 3 in the F4U-1C both required the same exact number of rounds, 125. This can be considered a near perfect result and validates the overall testing method. Please note that in these two tests the actual range to the target as each round was fired varied and hence the following comment is validated.
3) In previous posts to the BB at large it has been stated that cannon rounds have a fixed or near fixed damage level. This was stated to be an effect related to cannon rounds inflicting their damage based on the explosive quality of the shell rather than kinetic energy. Conversely, it has been stated that machine gun rounds inflict damage based solely on kinetic energy and therefore inflicts a variable amount of damage based on the range to the target. My apologies for not being able to refer to a specific post(s).
4) In several test sequences more rounds were fired than was necessary to destroy a hanger. The root cause of this was the firing of a short burst at a hanger that was already very close to the 500lb damage limit. This, along with the fact that a single round could not be fired individually causes the variation in the results shown in the tables.
5) Slight mistakes in gunnery did occur during the test. In some runs on the hangers a very small number of rounds actually missed the target. I was as meticulous as possible in my gunnery yet people can and do make mistakes. Of the 4629 rounds fired during this test I can safely state that not more than 2% or 90 rounds actually missed. I can further state that I believe that the level of error is much smaller probably on the order of 0.75% or perhaps 30 rounds. (only saw misses on 3 passes, 1 for each aircraft)
6) Based on the tables, observation, and comments the following values have been generated for each of the aircraft mounted guns on the aircraft.
20mm M2 damage per round is 4 lbs.
.50 M2 damage per round is 1 lb @ approximately 500 yards.
20mm Type 99 Model 2 damage per round is 3.75 lbs.
Conclusion: Effective Gun and Maximum Ordnance Payload
F4U-1C
Gun Payload: 3696 lbs
Ord Payload: 2624 lbs*
Total Effective Payload: 6320 lbs
N1K2-J
Gun Payload: 3375 lbs
Ord Payload: 1100 lbs
Total Effective Payload: 4475 lbs
P47-D30
Gun Payload: 3400 lbs @ 500 yards
Ord Payload: 4060 lbs*
Total Effective Payload: 7460 lbs
* rockets considered to be 156 lbs each based on previous posts to this board.
I invite any and all constructive criticism of this test, its' methods, and conclusions and hope to continue testing all other weaponry available in AH.
Thank you,
-
interesting study. Anyone else have similar data?
Seems it could be done landed shooting friendly hanger in near identical condidions (distance, etc.) I would love a full break down of the various guns,cannons.
It seemed reasonably close to what I would imagine the damage to be.
Thanks!
-Lute
III/JG26th 9ST
-
As flyingaround mentioned, go offline, turn off "protect friendly objects" and simply taxi up to your own airfield buildings and strafe them down. That way you can't miss and can get exact numbers for range and rounds. You can always bump up the ammo multiplier to give planes more rounds so you can use things like the P-38 (with a single hispano) to get basically single round perfection on your firings.
-Soda
-
I hadn't considered the idea of blowing up my own hangers. Thanks for the idea. In a way I'm actually glad I didn't since doing it the way I chose allowed statements 2 and 3. Cannon rounds do cause a fixed amount of damage and MG rounds do not. I will go hunting for the friendly object protection button though.
-
You might want to test your points 2 and 3 again though. You can always park your aircraft (not a tail-dragger) at some distance from a hanger and shoot and check. The P-38 is perfect for this as it has both .50's and hispano. Set the ammo multiplier higher and fire away at a bunch of different ranges and see. You should get single round type accuracy with your numbers then.
-Soda
-
Main problem is not knowing exactly what the range is when I open fire. Hangers don't have icons and hence no way of knowing exact distance. Unless you know a neat trick?
I can envision a map setup as a gun range but since I haven't a clue about the Terrain Editor I have no way of making this vision come true.
Map would basically have the HQ object set right at end of one runway. The land at end of runway would basically slope down to the HQ. Quonset huts and the tall radio tower object found in Radar Factories would mark off range every 100 yards, using the radio tower at every 500 yard mark.
-
A couple of thoughts:
1) if you are just looking to test the kinetic energy damage vs chemical, then you need not look for exact ranges. You could simply drive up point blank using outside views to park right against the hanger (or JUST away from it so you don't take cannon shrapnel damage) and test. That should give you values within only 1-2 rounds. Then, just do the same thing but at some distance away and see of the rounds do less damage (ie, takes more rounds to kill it).
2) you can also use some features like the .target command. .target X places a gunnery target at X distance from the aircraft, always to the north. It gives exact ranges right to the yard. You can probably use this to gauge your range to a structure by adjusting the X until you get the correct range. .target 0 turns it off.
Just thoughts.
-Soda
-
And very good ones... hadn't thought of using the target command to gauge distance to a hanger but that would certainly work.
See why I put this post up and asked for criticism!
Thank you!
-
No need to test, with ground structures range has no effect.
HiTech
-
No need to test, with ground structures range has no effect.
HiTech
And then the Lord spoketh and it was good and much confusion was caused to be avoided... thank you sir.
I must however humbly disagree. Obviously since you can not be wrong and I was so meticulous that I am not either, the source of the problem must be one of those creepy crawly things that sometimes gets into code.
Using Soda's suggestions I tested using an LVT and an A-20G. I cruised up to a hanger and commenced testing at 150, 250, 500, 650, and 1000 yards. I won't bore you with all the details that are not interesting. I'll just mention the ones that apparently disprove your statement.
Tests under 150 yards had very odd results. Specifically the LVTs .50 M2 machine gun took 407, 414, and 415 rounds to destroy a 500lb object. I have gotten very good at firing extremely short bursts with this machine gun at this point. Maximum error is a single round. I can fire 1 or 2 round bursts reliably. Every test conducted at 250, 500, 650, and 1000 yards took 400 rounds to destroy the target. No rounds missed the target during any of the tests. Similar results occured for the A-20Gs forward firing guns. Is there a problem with the damage function? Could the problem lie in the "bullet hit target" function? You might want to look into this.
Since you took the time to reply to this post perhaps you'll be kind enough to just give us a list of how much damage machine gun and cannon rounds actually do to ground targets. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Specially since I found a pretty bug for you to squish. For the love of god man don't make me do this full battery of tests! Please!
-
We tested this a while bach against ground targets and found range had no effect. Eack round translate to X lbs. If enough hit and add up to the structures hardness it gets destroyed.
We even made charts, but all I kept was lw stuff
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/ammo.jpg)
All tests were done at main standard hardness.
-
Hey Batz thanks for that table it will certainly help. Any chance that anyone else who helped in the creation has the non-LW section?
-
A quick update...
I've tested the .30 M2 and .50 M2 vehicle mounted guns now. I've also re-tested the .50 M2 aircraft mounted gun. I suspected that there was a difference between the aircraft and vehicle versions of this weapon. There is of course. In addition HiTech's comments cleared up quite a few things and will make the whole testing process much faster. With any luck he'll make it even faster by just telling us the answers instead of making me go through and test the whole damn thing. (HiTech if your listening God will kill a puppy if you don't give us this table.)
Current tested values...
Weapon Damage per Round in lbs
.30 M2 GV .3125
.50 M2 GV 1.25
.50 M2 AC 1.17
Type 99 Model 2 3.75
20mm M2 4
Additional Data from Batz (UNTESTED)
Weapon Damage per Round in lbs
20mm MG 151/20 3.5
30mm MK108 11.59
More on this subject as it becomes available.
Thank you,
-
With any luck he'll make it even faster by just telling us the answers instead of making me go through and test the whole damn thing. (HiTech if your listening God will kill a puppy if you don't give us this table.)
What exactly are you looking for anyway? I mean, is the exact number of lb's/bullet all that useful or the differences between them? HT has said that range is not modeled against GVs for purposes of kinetic energy hits. I mean, it's probably not even worth modeling to be honest. The table that Batz provided is useful to see what kind of ammo you will expend destroying things but I'm not sure what you are getting after now?
Besides, ground structures can't whine that they got shot down with a lucky shot, overmodeled gun X, etc..
-Soda
-
A deeper understanding of the environment is always good. Specifically the question is... what is the best JABO plane and why? Which plane brings the most to the table? Yes, P38s and P47s and 110s appear to be on top of this list but just how good is good? To put it another way just how many 110s does it take to turn the HQ into a smoldering ruin. How many buildings can a M3 destroy on its' own?
-
Most of umm no longer play ah so I dunno. We had a chart like the above for each country.
Most of us quit the "building stuff" and i guess the info went with it. I will email a few guys and see if they still have it.
-
Your basing the pound equilvencys by doing the math right?, based on 2500 pounds to kill a hanger corect?, and It was understanding that Rockets were 100 pound equilvancy in AH.
-
ScJazz,
Total damage capability doesn't define the best Jabo bird though. If that is what you are looking for then the answer is pretty obvious, the P47D30. It carries more bombs (2,500lbs), plus rockets and 8 .50's. Thing is, you need to be able to use the bombs properly. The gunfire power is really trivial compared to the bombload, same goes for rockets. Strafing is ok, but none of the aircraft in AH have enough ammo, or guns, to make strafing the most important component of their Jabo capability against buildings. Typically people can't get near their potential anyway with Jabo attacks... they miss with the bombs all too often when that is the most important part of the attack.
There are all kinds of situations though to consider that are totally non-damage potential related to a good jabo bird. Survivability, situation, damage tolerance, defenses, etc.
-Soda
-
Originally posted by scJazz
How many buildings can a M3 destroy on its' own?
It takes 250 rounds from a .50 cal to destroy a town building. So the answer is four.
I've had the chance to test this out once or twice. :D
-
Originally posted by Soda
ScJazz,
Total damage capability doesn't define the best Jabo bird though. If that is what you are looking for then the answer is pretty obvious, the P47D30. It carries more bombs (2,500lbs), plus rockets and 8 .50's. Thing is, you need to be able to use the bombs properly. The gunfire power is really trivial compared to the bombload, same goes for rockets. Strafing is ok, but none of the aircraft in AH have enough ammo, or guns, to make strafing the most important component of their Jabo capability against buildings. Typically people can't get near their potential anyway with Jabo attacks... they miss with the bombs all too often when that is the most important part of the attack.
There are all kinds of situations though to consider that are totally non-damage potential related to a good jabo bird. Survivability, situation, damage tolerance, defenses, etc.
-Soda
Soda, I'm not sure why you seem to be dismissing the idea of this study. If in fact dismissing is what you are doing. I couldn't agree more with your comments about survivability, defenses, etc. As for the ability to use the droppable ordnance correctly again you are 100% correct. However the information I already have gathered shows that the P47-D30s ability to destroy a target rests in large measure on its' guns. Quoting myself earlier here...
P47-D30
Gun Payload: 3400 lbs @ 500 yards
Ord Payload: 4060 lbs*
Total Effective Payload: 7460 lbs
The above information obviously doesn't reflect the comments that HiTech gave us about range, doesn't have updated damage information for the guns, and includes an unproven statement about rocket damage. However it does show pretty clearly that a P47-D30s ability to inflict damage rests on the guns to a large degree, somewhere around 35% - 50%.
Originally posted by mos
It takes 250 rounds from a .50 cal to destroy a town building. So the answer is four.
I've had the chance to test this out once or twice.
It was a fairly rhetorical question. I was trying to convey to Soda why such information could be considered useful. Yes, it does take 250 rounds. It also takes the same 250 rounds for any vehicle mounted .50 to destroy fuel, ammo, troop, or radar.
Originally posted by brady
Your basing the pound equilvencys by doing the math right?, based on 2500 pounds to kill a hanger corect?, and It was understanding that Rockets were 100 pound equilvancy in AH.
A standard MA Fighter/Bomber Hanger requires 2781.2 lbs of damage to reach destruction. This figure straight out of the settings. I've heard comments that rockets do 100 to 156 lbs of damage at varying times. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 156lbs is the correct answer. A Vehicle Hanger at a Vehicle base can be killed using 6 US 5" rockets. The hanger has a damage level of 781lbs. If the rockets only did 100lbs of damage each then the hanger wouldn't be destroyed. I haven't yet had a chance to determine the exact amount of damage a US 5" rocket does but this is on the list of things to do.
-
I'm not dismissing the test at all, I just think the answers you are looking for are pretty easily calculable in about 10 minute total time.
I went offline, fired into a hanger, killed it in ~2375 rounds of .50. Given that, and the bomb/rocket potential (rockets are right around 150lbs each), we see numbers similar to what you suggest (2,500lbs + 1,500lbs + ~3,400lbs (bombs, rockets, guns)).
I'd love to see these number calculated, don't get me wrong, but it should be really easy and only take a couple of minutes for each. Not many aircraft have the 3,400 round capacity of a P-47 though.
The only thing HT said was that range didn't make a difference for bullet damage calculation on ground targets. So hits at 100 yards = hits at 800 yards.
Feel free to test these, I'd love to hear the results for a number of gun systems in the game. I just don't think this is the way to classify the best "jabo" bird as total damage potential is just one aspect. If we classified best bomber by bombload then the Lanc would be the winner hands down, but it is not.
-
The whole JABO/Field Pork factor is an offshoot of another conversation rolling around these boards. Personally my main question is really the "how many 110s are needed to turn HQ into rubble" thing.
As for it taking 10 minutes. Perhaps if I was willing to accept less than perfect results but in actuality takes a little bit longer for the extra precision. If the precision wasn't such an issue we would have missed the bug that occurs firing at D150 or less.
-
Thats interesting, it was to the best of my knowledge 2,500 pounds for a hanger, but HT did say at some point that he was going to adjust it higher if he fixed the Killogram/pound equilvancy issue, so if the 2,700 pound adjustment was indead made than I gues he did so, howeaver in the CT we still almost always use 2,500 pounds for hanger's It has also been my experance that each 5 inch US rocket had a 100 pound equilvancy, but it could well be the higher figure you sight, howeaver if this is so then I think the P38 is overload at max load, I know for a fact that the P47 caryes more ordance than it should.
All that aside the Question of Which is the Best Jabo is kinda to a degree a mater of taste, depending on what you want to do with it. When I was score whoing around the MA fro my first couple years in AH, imo the P38 was the best Atack plane...
Why: It caried it's ordance very easly climbed better than the P47 and handeled much better, pluss it had an Hispano. For a Rank atack sortie, I would Kill one hanger, in one dive two 1K bombs were droped followed by 5 rockets into the target, then I pulled out and used the 5 remaing rockets on a field object or two, then I entered Vulch mode and typicaly 12 kills was easly acheavable with the ammo load.
The P38 did all the much better than the P47 did, although the P47 had more potential destructive power it was not nearly as handy in the doing of it.
The only other contender is the Me 110G, which after the Adaption of the Killorgam/Pound equilvancy fix was now competative, howeaver the P38 still has the advantage if the Hanger hardness is in fact 2,700 pounds, espichaly if the rockets are higher than 100pounds. The cannons are very lethal on the Me 110, but having to use them aganst ground targets is not the best use for them, killing is, and hear you see the differance between the P38 and the 110.
The C-hog is another Killer Atack platform, it's quartet of Hisppanos and the huge ammo load for them are a formadable combo, but the P38 does the same thing easer, in terms of carying the ordance to target, and it caryes more weight in ordance than the C-hog,but those cannos are deadly thats for shure, magore killing can be done with them aganst everything, Planes, GV's ect...
But this is all as I said a matter of tast, since I use atack planes or would in a MA type seting for a rank sortie, if your looking at it from a shear potiental distructive effect then I beleave the best atack plane is the JU 88.
-
I for one would love to see the finished list too scJazz. Wel done on the testing so far.
I have always wondered where on the list of best weight carriers the rarer less used planes are. Tempests and P40E's and other rarely used jabo capable planes.
If i had the information i could certainly plan better missions involving the lesser used aircraft. For instance if i know i need 1 hanger and several ammo/fuel bunkers I can then tell what the minimum number of aircraft of a certain type i need to take.This means instead of getting as many as we can and waiting to roll we can go as soon as we have what we know is enough ordinance to do the job.This will lessen the gangbang type attacks which is a good thing.
please continue, or of course like you said better still if HTC gives the values out, that would indeed be a cool thing to give the customers.
-
I have tested the guns shooting friendly ground structures and was unable to ever get two identical test results (i.e. the number of .50 rounds it took to kill a hangar varied with each test). My guess is that there is some element of randomness in the damage that each round does or the damage that the building absorbs. Since ht says range does not effect weapon lethality against buildings this is probably what you are observing...
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
I have tested the guns shooting friendly ground structures and was unable to ever get two identical test results (i.e. the number of .50 rounds it took to kill a hangar varied with each test). My guess is that there is some element of randomness in the damage that each round does or the damage that the building absorbs. Since ht says range does not effect weapon lethality against buildings this is probably what you are observing...
Hooligan
Hooligan,
I have 11 tests of both the .30 and .50 GV Mounted M2 done at ranges greater than 150 yards. 10 of these tests were equal to each other respectively. 1600 rounds for the .30 and 400 rounds for the .50. The 11th test varied by exactly 1 bullet.
I also have 3 tests of the .50 taken at under 150 yards that show the variation 407, 414 and 415 rounds. No problem with aiming. Hitech has said that damage is constant. Has to be a bug of some sort.
-
What follows is the current update on gun damages. To finish all aircraft the following planes and vehicles still needs to be tested.
IL2, Hurricane II D, C.202, C.205, 109G10, 109E4, Tempest, and Ostwind, M8, Panzer, Tiger
Once I finish this list I'll put up a webpage where you can download the Excel spreadsheet or view the contents in HTML.
Gun Type Mounted On Rounds* Dam in #
.30 M2 GV LVT 1600 0.3125
.50 M2 GV LVT 400 1.25
.50 M2 AC A20-G 427 1.17
12.7mm Ho-103 KI-61 501 0.998
20mm Ho-5 KI-61 149 3.36
7.7mm Type 97 A6M2 1686 0.30
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 A6M2 146 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 N1K2-J 130 3.85
.303 Browning AC Spit V 1685 0.30
20mm M2 AC P-38L 124 4.03
12.7mm UBS Yak-9T 433 1.15
20mm ShVAK Yak-9U 144 3.47
37mm NS37 Yak-9T 30 16.67
20mm B-20 LA-7 144 3.47
* Rounds is a count how many were necessary to inflict 500lbs of damage.
-
ScJazz, did you manage to finish the tests on the guns you were missing?
-Soda
-
Sorry not yet... have had a cold for past few days and spent what energy/time I did have flying.
-
Here is some old gun data from AH 1.02...
http://www.lvcm.com/jayb/ahgun102.htm
In general the lethality ratios seem close to what scJazz's current tests show.
Hooligan
-
Bigger guns! We need bigger guns!" - line in unknown movie
Godzilla, I think
-
scJazz,
I was thinking about what you are doing and remembered that I had done a similar test two years ago. I did a search for the thread and found this one:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26470
I have punted it for you.
-
The following is the current results of the tests and is complete for Aircraft mounted weapons. Some ground vehicles still need testing namely; Ostwind, Panzer, Tiger, M8, and PT Boat.
Gun Type Mounted On Rounds Dam in #
.30 M2 GV LVT 1600 0.3125
.50 M2 GV LVT 400 1.25
.50 M2 AC A20-G 427 1.17
12.7mm Ho-103 KI-61 501 0.998
20mm Ho-5 KI-61 149 3.36
7.7mm Type 97 A6M2 1686 0.30
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 A6M2 146 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 N1K2-J 130 3.85
.303 Browning AC Spit V 1685 0.30
20mm M2 AC P-38L 124 4.03
12.7mm UBS Yak-9T 433 1.15
20mm ShVAK Yak-9U 144 3.47
37mm NS37 Yak-9T 30 16.67
20mm B-20 LA-7 144 3.47
7.7mm Breda - SAFAT C.202 1788 0.28
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT C.205 525 0.95
7mm MG 17 109E4 1687 0.30
20mm MG-FF 109E4 154 3.25
7.6mm ShKAS IL2 1685 0.30
23mm VYa IL2 89 5.62
40mm Vickers S Hurricane IID 36 13.89 *
20mm MG 151/20 109G10 141 3.55
30mm Mk 108 109G10 43 11.63
* The Vickers S is the only weapon I am not 100% certain
of the full series of tests had very inequal results. The
value shown is the maximum damage inflicted per round.
-
No the quote isn't from Godzilla can't remember which movie it is though.
Thank you for the other information sources. I'm going to examine them now.
-
The line is from a horrid 1991 thriller called "Split Second."
Why I happen to remember this, I have not the foggiest. But I find it rather sad and frightening.
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
The line is from a horrid 1991 thriller called "Split Second."
And actually, if I am remembering the line correctly, the quote is:
"We need bigger guns. BIG F**KING GUNS! We're gonna go get big guns, right? That's where we're going, to get big guns. Stone, we need some big big f**king guns!"
-
Originally posted by Shiva
And actually, if I am remembering the line correctly, the quote is:
"We need bigger guns. BIG F**KING GUNS! We're gonna go get big guns, right? That's where we're going, to get big guns. Stone, we need some big big f**king guns!"
Alright you two are actually starting to scare me. I think that the two of you are right. What is the title of the movie? As I remember it the scene takes place in a subway tunnel. Can't remember the actors, plot, etc. My blood brother and I refer to this line idea often and have for the last decade. The name of the movie is???
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Alright you two are actually starting to scare me. I think that the two of you are right. What is the title of the movie? As I remember it the scene takes place in a subway tunnel. Can't remember the actors, plot, etc. My blood brother and I refer to this line idea often and have for the last decade. The name of the movie is???
The movie is "Split Second", starring Rutger Hauer, Neil Duncan, and Kim Cattrall.
Plot synopsis: London of 2008 where the city has become partially submerged due to rising seawater levels. Burned-out police detective Harley Stone has premonitions of a series of killings in which the killer eats each victim’s heart and leaves astrological symbols at the scene of each crime. (The same killer also murdered Stone’s partner). Stone is paired with by-the-book Glaswegian detective Dick Durkin and the two realize that the killer they are tracking is not human, that it may even be Satan. Realizing it has a link with Stone (as a result of it slashing him during the murder of his partner), the creature begins taunting Stone and then abducts Stone’s partner’s wife (with whom Stone was having an affair) as its next intended victim.
-
OK here it is in the final version. All Ground and Aircraft mounted guns have been tested. This post can be used as a reference for damage in Aces High version 1.11 patch 4. When AH II comes out we can see what changes were made if any.
I'll work out a nicer, prettier version of this information and post it to a website when I find the time and energy.
Gun Type Mounted On Rounds Dam in #
.30 M2 GV LVT 1600 0.3125
.50 M2 GV LVT 400 1.25
.50 M2 AC A20-G 427 1.17
12.7mm Ho-103 KI-61 501 0.998
20mm Ho-5 KI-61 149 3.36
7.7mm Type 97 A6M2 1686 0.30
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 A6M2 146 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 N1K2-J 130 3.85
.303 Browning AC Spit V 1685 0.30
20mm M2 AC P-38L 124 4.03
12.7mm UBS Yak-9T 433 1.15
20mm ShVAK Yak-9U 144 3.47
37mm NS37 Yak-9T 30 16.67
20mm B-20 LA-7 144 3.47
7.7mm Breda - SAFAT C.202 1788 0.28
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT C.205 525 0.95
7mm MG 17 109E4 1687 0.30
20mm MG-FF 109E4 154 3.25
7.6mm ShKAS IL2 1685 0.30
23mm VYa IL2 89 5.62
40mm Vickers S Hurricane IID 36 13.89 *
20mm MG 151/20 109G10 141 3.55
30mm Mk 108 109G10 43 11.63
37mm HE Ostwind 33 15.15 *
7.9mm MG 34 Ostwind 1600 0.3125
37mm HE M8 31.2 #1
37mm AP M8 15.6 #1
75mm HE Panzer 156.2 #1
75mm AP Panzer 78.1 #1
88mm HE Tiger 234.3 #1
88mm AP Tiger 117.1 #1
* The Vickers S and 37mm HE Ostwind are the only weapons I
am not 100% certain of the full series of tests had very
inequal results. The value shown is the maximum damage
inflicted per round. I suspect that the variance is caused
by a bug in the burst dispersion code.
#1 Testing for the GV main guns was different. I fired 1
round into a hanger and constantly tweaked the hanger's
damage resistence until I found the maximum single round
damage.
-
With the data above and knowing the strength of rockets (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96128) the total ordnance capacity (in lbs) of the best fighter/attack -planes are as follows:
Bf110G-2....8628
P-47D-30....8038
P-47D-25....7036
P-38L.......6505
A-20G.......6457
F4U-1C......6348
F4U-1D......6056
MOSQUITO....5757
F6F-5.......5744
Fw190A-8....5666
P-51D.......5136
N1K2-J......4565
Fw190F-8....4427
Typhoon.....4257
IL-2........3956
-
Thank you Tim... I had been meaning to post what is essentially the same list with 1 small change. As Soda pointed out the dropping of bombs is the most important aspect of the attack plane. Therefore I decided to create a formula that would reflect this...
Deadliness = Droppable Ordanance + (1/2 Gun Damage)
Using this formula the Top 20 list is...
P-47-D30
bf 110G2
A-20G
P-47-D25
P-38L
P-51D
F4U-1D
F4U-4
F4U-1C
F6F-5
Mosquito
190A8
Tempest
Typhoon
P-47-D11
bf 110C-4b
190F8
190A5
N1K2-J
190D9
Note the F4u-4 and 1D are tied.
Just looked at this list closely and realized the P51D is listed way to high... should be under the F6F-5. My bad!
-
ScJazz,
Did you ever test the 13mm MG 131 cowls on the LW models? I don't see them in your list.
-Soda
-
Yes I did test them and yes they are missing... dunno why just are...
I'm not home right now. I'll look it up when I get back. The damage was just under 1.0 lbs per round from memory.
-
OK after Soda pointed out the missing 13mm MG131 I went back over the list and found a few missing items. Note the Hispano MK IIs and Vs. I retested those today just because it was strange but the results are correct. I've also sorted the list by weapon caliber. Added to this list are the rocket damages as well.
All tested in AH 1.11 patch 4
Gun Type Dam in #
.303 Browning AC 0.296
.303 Browning GV 0.3125
7.6mm ShKAS 0.296
7.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.28
7.7mm Type 97 0.296
7mm MG 17 0.3
.50 M2 AC 1.17
.50 M2 GV 1.25
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.95
12.7mm Ho-103 0.998
12.7mm UBS 1.15
13mm MG 131 0.92
20mm B-20 3.47
20mm Hispano Mk II 4.03
20mm Hispano Mk V 3.94
20mm Ho-5 3.36
20mm M2 AC 4.03
20mm MG 151/20 3.55
20mm MG-FF 3.25
20mm ShVAK 3.47
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 3.85
23mm VYa 5.62
30mm Mk 108 11.63
37mm NS37 16.67
40mm Vickers S 13.89 *
37mm HE Ostwind 15.15 *
37mm AP 15.6 #1
37mm HE 31.2 #1
75mm AP 78.1 #1
75mm HE 156.2 #1
88mm AP 117.1 #1
88mm HE 234.3 #1
3.5" Rocket 140.0 #1
4.5" Rocket 93.0 #1
5" Rocket 156.0 #1
RS132 125.0 #1
RS82 93.0 #1
WGr21 200.0 #1
* The Vickers S and 37mm HE Ostwind are the only weapons I
am not 100% certain of the full series of tests had very
inequal results. The value shown is the maximum damage
inflicted per round. I suspect that the variance is caused
by a bug in the burst dispersion code.
#1 Testing for the GV main guns and rockets was different. I
fired 1 round into a hanger and constantly tweaked the hanger's
damage resistence until I found the maximum single round damage.
-
scJazz,
You reallize that the Hispano Mk II and M2 20mm are the same exact gun, right? Testing both is simply duplicating your efforts.
-
Yes I realize, but the MG/FF design was used by many countries and the variants of it are a bit different. Besides I had already tested 37 other weapon systems no real harm in testing the 38th and concluding it was no different.
-
This update includes PT Boat's 37mm and 40mm guns as well as damage from Shore Batteries and Cruiser main guns.
Gun Type Dam in #
.303 Browning AC 0.296
.303 Browning GV 0.3125
7.6mm ShKAS 0.296
7.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.28
7.7mm Type 97 0.296
7mm MG 17 0.3
.50 M2 AC 1.17
.50 M2 GV 1.25
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.95
12.7mm Ho-103 0.998
12.7mm UBS 1.15
13mm MG 131 0.92
20mm B-20 3.47
20mm Hispano Mk II 4.03
20mm Hispano Mk V 3.94
20mm Ho-5 3.36
20mm M2 AC 4.03
20mm MG 151/20 3.55
20mm MG-FF 3.25
20mm ShVAK 3.47
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 3.85
23mm VYa 5.62
30mm Mk 108 11.63
37mm NS37 16.67
40mm Vickers S 13.89 *
37mm PT Boat 13.2
40mm PT Boat 15.6
37mm HE Ostwind 15.15 *
37mm AP 15.6 #1
37mm HE 31.2 #1
75mm AP 78.1 #1
75mm HE 156.2 #1
88mm AP 117.1 #1
88mm HE 234.3 #1
3.5" Rocket 140.0 #1
4.5" Rocket 93.0 #1
5" Rocket 156.0 #1
RS132 125.0 #1
RS82 93.0 #1
WGr21 200.0 #1
Shore Battery 250 - 500 #2
Cruiser Gun 250 - 500 #2
* The Vickers S and 37mm HE Ostwind are the only weapons I
am not 100% certain of the full series of tests had very
inequal results. The value shown is the maximum damage
inflicted per round. I suspect that the variance is caused
by a bug in the burst dispersion code.
#1 Testing for the GV main guns and rockets was different.
I fired 1 round into a hanger and constantly tweaked the
hanger's damage resistence until I found the maximum single
round damage.
#2 The Main Guns on the Cruisers fire 3 shells at a time
each shell does 250lbs to 500lbs of damage. If all 3 hit then the
target just took 750lbs to 1500lbs of damage. The damage is scaled by range 250lbs at maximum range, 500lbs at point blank, 390lbs at 6400 yards.
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Gun Type Dam in #
13mm MG 131 0.92
[/B]
you sure about that?
shouldnt it be MORE powerfull then the 12.7mm \ 0.5cal ?
:confused:
-
I'm very certain about everything in those tables. Considering granularity issues the minimum damage is .909lbs and the maximum is .926. I used .92lbs in the table for the MG131.
-
this make no sense to me, why did the LW install those guns in the first place then?
-
Flyboy this thread is not for pondering such issues.
The only thing I've done here is to post the definitive answers as to just how much damage a weapon does to a ground target as a way of showing weapon lethality. Period.
A better question would be...
Why in hell did the LW put big fat slow velocity cannons on their planes when the US idea of banks of .50s seems to work so much better?
-
Another "issue", for me at least, is that the damage tables for objects seem to be quite different than the damage tables for planes and GVs. There is, quite simply, no way that the Hispano is only 20% more powerful than the Mg151.
At least not in the simple "test" I did of shooting drones offline.
Try it, see what results you get.
-
Bravo to all of you who put your time into testing this, you got very good results with a lot of effort. Great thread.
:)
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
you sure about that?
shouldnt it be MORE powerfull then the 12.7mm \ 0.5cal ?
:confused:
I agree with scJazz. I'm not sure what methodology is used, but the outcomes in at least this case (I haven't checked them all) look similar to mine. 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/)
-
Originally posted by scJazz
Why in hell did the LW put big fat slow velocity cannons on their planes when the US idea of banks of .50s seems to work so much better?
Well, if you read the 'gun effect' article I posted the URL for above, you might begin to understand why....
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I read and re-read your article several times as I went and figured out the damage table presented in this thread. After cruising around in many flight sims it is definitely easier to hit a target with US .50s or the equivalent. If you can hit it you can kill it. Being able to land a few 30mms or dozens and hundreds of .50s seems like the winner goes to the .50s!
Quoting your website...
It is sometimes argued that a projectile with a high muzzle velocity and a good ballistic shape (which reduces the rate at which the initial velocity is lost) provides a longer effective range. To some extent this is true, but the greatest limitation on range in air fighting in the Second World War was the difficulty in shooting accurately. The problem of hitting a target moving in three dimensions from another also moving in three dimensions (and probably at a different speed and on a different heading) requires a complex calculation of range, heading and relative speed, while bearing in mind the flight time and trajectory of the projectiles. Today, such a problem can easily be solved by a ballistic computer linked to a radar or laser rangefinder, but at the time we are examining, the "radar" was the human eyeball and the "ballistic computer" the human brain. The range, heading and speed judgements made by the great majority of pilots were notoriously poor, even in training. And this was without considering the effects of air turbulence, G-forces when manoeuvring, and the stress of combat. These factors limited the effective shooting range to around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m.
-
There is certainly no point in having a devastatingly effective gun if you can't hit the target, but nor is there any point in having guns which can always hit if the hits do negligible damage. The problem is to get the balance right.
The six .50 armament was at one end of the 'acceptable' scale, three MK 108s (for the same total gun weight) were at the other. Against lightly constructed fighters, the .50s were clearly superior. Against heavy well-protected bombers, the MK 108s were clearly superior. The optimum was somewhere in between.
The experience of those air forces which enjoyed the benefit of a range of different weapons (HMGs and cannon) led them to move to cannon as their primary fighter armament well before the end of the war: the USAAF was the only exception, partly because they no real option; there was no other reliable weapon available to them. Fortunately for them, their opponents were generally small fighters and they had no tough bombers to deal with.
IMO the best all-round armament to see service during the war belonged to the later Tempests: four 20mm Hispano Mk V. This weighed slightly less than six .50s and was about twice as destructive. The ballistics at effective fighting ranges were very similar to the .50s, and while the rate of fire was only two-thirds as much, each hit did about three times as much damage.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
sorry for the "hijacking" of the threat but did the Mg131 was so weak in comparison to the allied 0.5cal Mgs?
i would assume it would be morepowerfull cause the larger caliber, but what do i know :)
-
Flyboy please check Tony's website linked in this thread. For all intents and purposes to this discussion we can say that Tony is the expert on how things really were and I am the expert on how these real things are being modelled in AH.
I would like to answer this one to test my own knowledge. I might screw this up, Tony please correct my mistakes.
The MG131 used a 13mm cartridge the .50 M2 is a 12.7mm cartridge. Although cartridge diameter or caliber is nearly equal the length of the cartridge is not. The 13mm cartridge is roughly 2/3rds the length of of the .50 cartridge. This basically allows the .50 to pack about 50% more propellant than the 13mm. This extra propellant give the .50 projectile a much greater muzzle velocity. In addition the aerodynamics of the .50 were slightly superior allowing the projectile to maintain striking power over greater distances. Looking at Tony's table and using his Damage values for the two rounds we see that the 13mm x64B round has a Damage of 34 while the 12.7mm x 99 round (.50 M2 Aircraft mounted if I remember correctly) has a Damage of 46.
Adding to the complexity is the fact that the US generally did not use explosive ammunition for sub-cannon rounds. Instead they had an incendiary tip. The Axis forces almost always used HE content in their bullets. While an excellent idea in some respects it has the added effect of lowering the bullet weight and density. Explosives are less dense and hence weigh less than lead. This again shortens the range and accuracy of a round that already had a lower muzzle velocity to begin with.
Generally what you see from Axis weapons and Axis design philosophy is the idea that hitting with even a few slow, short-range rounds was adequate since they were almost invariably HE rounds. The MK108 30mm gun is a perfect example of this idea.
The US had quite a different idea in that they tried hitting a target with a whole bunch of incendiary tipped fast moving, long range bullets. The .50 M2 is a perfect example of this idea.
The British lucked out when they developed a cannon that was way ahead of its' time in many respects. The 20mm Hispano MK II an V. This combined the best of all worlds and is without a doubt the pinnacle of WWII guns. The round had a muzzle velocity that was 95% that of the US .50 so it was long range and accurate. It also used HE and hence caused considerable damage to anything it hit.
-
Tony your point about 3 MK108s weighing as much as 6 .50s is noted. However in almost no cases were highly produced aircraft fitted with 3 MK108s. The exception to this would be the ME 262s. However as you point out since it was the human brain that acted as the ballistics computer the ME 262 presents some extreme problems.
Since it had an attack speed well in excess of the speed of its' target (bombers) managing to land hits with a MK 108 round became difficult at best. For less weight and probably even less volume the ME 262 could have been fitted with 12 MG 131s. In a nose mounted arrangement with no convergence problems this would have been devestating! Longer ranged and faster slugs would have made the odds of actually landing a hit extremely probable. Roughly 6 MG151s could have also been used and this would have worked out almost as well. Considering LW design concepts it would have been the most likely choice besides the MG131. However I don't think it would have been as effective.
-
Originally posted by scJazz
I would like to answer this one to test my own knowledge. I might screw this up, Tony please correct my mistakes.
Nothing I disagree with there, but I would add a point. The MG 131 was very low-powered for an HMG because it was intended as a direct replacement for the 7.92mm guns. It therefore had to be small enough to fit where the 7.92mms would fit, so could only fire a small, low-powered cartridge. The gun weighed little more than half the weight of a .50 M2, so it was really an 'intermediate' weapon between the rifle-calibre and .50 guns.
You can compare the ammo by looking at the 'Ammunition Photo Gallery' on my website. In this photo of HMG cartridges: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/HMG1.jpg
the 13x64B is the smallest cartridge, third from the right. Second from the right is the 15mm MG 151. The .50 (12.7x99) round is second from the left.
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 scJazz
Tony your point about 3 MK108s weighing as much as 6 .50s is noted. However in almost no cases were highly produced aircraft fitted with 3 MK108s.
I know, I was comparing the guns rather than specific aircraft fits. The only single-engined fighters I can think of offhand which had three MK 108 were some of the last anti-bomber Bf 109s (they also had a pair of MG 131's of course).
For less weight and probably even less volume the ME 262 could have been fitted with 12 MG 131s. In a nose mounted arrangement with no convergence problems this would have been devestating! Longer ranged and faster slugs would have made the odds of actually landing a hit extremely probable. Roughly 6 MG151s could have also been used and this would have worked out almost as well. Considering LW design concepts it would have been the most likely choice besides the MG131. However I don't think it would have been as effective.
The German experience was that large numbers of small shells were not as effective as one big shell of the same weight; what usually mattered in bringing down an aircraft was the concentration of damage at one point, rather than scattering lots of hits all over the aircraft.
Of course, the Germans became obsessive about knocking down heavy bombers, and their armament was increasingly biased towards this. As you say, for the same weight as four MK 108 they could have had six MG 151s, which would have been much better against fighters because of the higher hit probability, couple with the fact that 20mm shells were generally powerful enough to do the job. I don't think that a battery of MG 131s would have been as good; the ballistics were worse, the little shells contained very little HE and the AP versions didn't have much penetration either.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Tony,
What purpose does the blunt nose on some of those rounds serve?
-
Originally posted by Furious
Tony,
What purpose does the blunt nose on some of those rounds serve?
Those were the HE shells. They were parallel-sided as much as possible in order to maximise the HE capacity, and the fuze was blunt to ensure that it was ignited on impact, rather than just glancing off.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I'd disagree about the 12 MG131s. The ballistics are quite reasonable out to say 500 yards. 12 mounted within what 4 square feet on the nose would unload one hell of a lethal stream. No longer looking at the normal couple of hits from MG fire. Now some chunk of aircraft is going to get perforated badly!
-
Does someone still have that color picture of all the ammo rounds lined up in a row?
-
Zanth, Tony posted the link a few posts ago
-
<>
-
Originally posted by scJazz
I'd disagree about the 12 MG131s. The ballistics are quite reasonable out to say 500 yards. 12 mounted within what 4 square feet on the nose would unload one hell of a lethal stream. No longer looking at the normal couple of hits from MG fire. Now some chunk of aircraft is going to get perforated badly!
You could use the same argument in favour of the 12 x .303 armament of the Hurri IIb and early Typhoon, in that anything caught in the fire at the harmonisation range should have been shredded (14,000+ rpm!). However, it was considered ineffective compared with cannon.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
They were using .303 spitwads. They were wing mounted. They are hideously short range. They have really pathetic ballistics. No I'm not making the same point.
12 nose mounted Heavy MGs would have done the trick. Too bad we can't do quick mods on aircraft. Would be great to test it out in AH.
-
The MG151/20 was probably the best weapon the Germans fielded in WWII. Good ballistics and hitting power. For the weight of 6 .50 cals you could have between 4 and 5 MG151/20s. For 4 Hispano IIs you could have 5 MG151/20s.
-
Originally posted by scJazz
They were using .303 spitwads. They were wing mounted. They are hideously short range. They have really pathetic ballistics. No I'm not making the same point.
The point I was trying to make is that you need to balance quantity with quality. IMO the MG 131 was a fine replacement for a rifle-calibre gun where you couldn't fit anything bigger, but in destructive efficiency for a given armament weight it fell well short of an outfit of good 20mm cannon.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
oops edit