WW2 fighter gun effectiveness

[Pongo]

Tony how would your 'ideal' TW20 and TW30 rate in these tables?

[Urchin]

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.

[whgates3]

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.

[Tony Williams]

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 and discussion
forum

[Tony Williams]

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 and discussion
forum

[buzkill]

game would be a little better if guns would jam under high + or - g's, cold weather, ammo malfunction......

[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?

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+

[Tony Williams]

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 and discussion
forum

[funkedup]

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.

[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.

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,

[LLv34_Snefens]

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.

[Pei]

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.

[Pongo]

'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.

[Wotan]

yup he must be the only one.................

[LLv34_Camouflage]

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