weapons rating (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

RAM -> weapons rating (10/4/2009 9:25:25 AM)

Looking into the airplane database I found this ratings.

Browning M2 12.7mm: Effect 3, penetration 2, accuracy 29
Mauser MG151 15mm: Effect 3, penetration 2, accuracy 21
Mauser MG151/20 20mm: Effect 4, penetration 3, accuracy 21
Hispano 20mm: Effect 4, penetration 3, accuracy 26
Rheinmetall-Borsig MK108 30mm: Effect 5, penetration 4, accuracy 18.


Those are some instances only.

My own vision:

the american 12.7mm is vastly over-rated, as it's given the same effect/penetration than a 15mm high-velocity cannon such as the german 15mm which was historically a much harder-hitting weapons (the USAAF and US Navy did some tests to see if it was worth to change to a 15mm weapon similar to the german one, but declined it because of logistic reasons, but they did like the weapon quite a bit)

Compared with other weapons, as the 20mm cannons, it's clear to see (for me) that the effect rating of the 12.7MG is too powerful. The 12.7mm round fired by the american gun was a good round, but did nowhere the same damage than the german 20mm minengeschoss round, which had a huge blast effect.

Even more lopsided it is if we compare it with the historically assasine 30mm minengeschoss round of the Mk108. Repeated tests shown that this round was able to blow a single-figter wing in a single impact, and it was calculated that somewhere between 6 or 8 of this rounds were enough to bring a four engined heavy down. however it has a rating of 5.

This has the absurd result of having a thunderbolt firepower rated at 24, or a Mustang at 18, while a german Me262 (with four deadly mk108s) has a 20 overall firepower rating. I know the penetration effect is higher in the cannons, but the effect seems to be really underrated. The fact that cannons have lower rates of fire than MGs is simulated by the higher accuracy of the MGs. But each time a single cannon round impacted a plane the effect was, generally, devastating, while a single MG round was unlikely to cause serious damage (MGs relied in the concentration of fire effect to do damage, cannons on single, heavily damaging, hits).

The effect is translated into the bombers armed with those MGs. I was wondering how come I was getting so atrocious results from my Fw190 and 109G6R6s against unescorted B-17s...seems I found the reason.


My own ratings the way I see it:

Browning M2 12.7mm: Effect 2, penetration 2, accuracy 31
Mauser MG151 15mm: Effect 3, penetration 2, accuracy 21
Mauser MG151/20 20mm: Effect 5, penetration 3, accuracy 20
Hispano Mk.I 20mm: Effect 4, penetration 3, accuracy 26
Hispano Mk.V 20mm: Effect 5, penetration 3, accuracy 25
Rheinmetall-Borsig MK108 30mm: Effect 8, penetration 4, accuracy 14.

Reasoning:

-accuracy should compensate for lower 12.7mm effect. That weapon was a real fighter killer if relatively long bursts at convergence were achieved. The Browning M2 had the best ballistics of the weapons seen over the reich (along that of the hispano), thus a higher accuracy is seen to compensate for the lower effect.

-MG151/20 effect increased to 5. Accuracy lowered to 20. Taking the MG151 as a baseline, the 20mm had a slightly lower RoF and muzzle velocity, but it was shown in operations as a much harder hitting weapon. Thus, lower accuracy, but almost twice the effect.

-Two hispano guns. Mk I and MkV. the former was the one used in spits, P38s, Mustang IAs, etc. The latter was the one aboard the Tempest, had a lower muzzle velocity (thus lower accuracy on the MkV), and entered service when the hispano explosive rounds entered service (1944, until then the hispano shot AP round only, that's why the Mk.I gets a effect of 4).

-Mk108 30mm had in fact quite more power than twice the hitting power of a 20mm MG151/20 round. But I guess we don't want a miracle weapon either. The gun had a phenomenal rate of fire for its caliber and era, but a very drastic drop of round due a very low muzzle velocity which made it a hard weapon against fighter, but an ideal one against big unmaneouvering bombers (lower accuracy to 14 from 18 should take care of that).



Those are my views, at least. Thoughts? ideas?. Flames? [:'(][:D][:D]



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 11:30:15 AM)

I mean

the 15 mm was such a great weapon that the LW couldn't wait to get rid of it, and if you think the 15 mm was as good as a 50 cal, I kind of doubt it

the LW pilots were scare to death of the Jug getting a shot off, those 8 50s would chew up anything they hit

also one 50 could pass though the entire plane, where the 20mm blew up where it hit, lots of planes flew back home with ripped up tail surfaces, large holes in the wings and bodies

most aurgements on weapons, tend to be more based on if you could only hit something with one round, what round would be better

and the other issue is mainly, how much damage would a near miss do, then what damage a good hit would do

a 109 or 190 that hit the target dead center, that target went down, the same with a P-51 or P-47

but for game terms, I was told early on, I couldn't make changes to the ammo system, that there was much more going on behind the numbers




RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 2:33:11 PM)

about the 15mm. The luftwaffe did not hate it. It hated the fact that when issued to fighters only one was given to the early 109 Friedrichs. The weapon was nothing but a super-heavy machine gun, and in a single mount couldn't be relied as the main weaponry of a fighter. But now think of four of those guns instead of one.

Another reason why it saw little use by the LW is that the 20mm MG151 was ready for mass production shortly thereafter. And with that 20mm, noone complained about the hitting power of the Bf109F4. In the game the 109G2s have a firepower rating of 8 (see the 109G2). If you think that's high enough...

Here are some quotes about the weapon itself

From Tony Williams' website:

quote:

It was a superb design which the Americans tried to copy, producing some 300 guns in .60 inch (15.2 mm) calibre, designated T17, but they never adopted it.


from http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

quote:

During the war a copy of the MG 151 was designed in the USA, modified to fire a very powerful .60 (15.2 x 114, 76.5 g) round. But this T17 gun never reached service, and only about 350 were made.


I could dig and find some quotes from the tests done on the 15mm german weapon by the US armed forces, but take my word on it, they thought very highly of that gun. Unsurprising as it fired a round 50% heavier as the browning M2, at a higher MV, with an only slightly lower rate of fire. The only drawback was that it was also 50% heavier than the M2, but they copied the weapon and even produced it in limited series.

one doesn't do that with a crappy weapon.



quote:

the LW pilots were scare to death of the Jug getting a shot off, those 8 50s would chew up anything they hit



unsurprising. Noone questions the P47's being a wing sawer at convergences and with sustained burts. Even out of convergence those guns were fearsome.

But now think of another plane. the P51B. four .50 cal weapons. in-game firepower rating: 12. Compare it with the 109K4 (30mm mk108): firepower rating 11.

Now I can allow discussions about the power of the caliber 50. Up to a point. I guess that noone will try to debate me that a K4 with its 30mm gun WILL hit MUCH heavier than a P51B with four 50 cals. I mean, even the pony-b pilots complained about anemic firepower, while the K4 was reputed by its fearsome punch (if a shell was placed on an enemy plane).

Sorry, Hard Sarge...something doesn't add up here, at least for me.

quote:

most aurgements on weapons, tend to be more based on if you could only hit something with one round, what round would be better

and the other issue is mainly, how much damage would a near miss do, then what damage a good hit would do

a 109 or 190 that hit the target dead center, that target went down, the same with a P-51 or P-47



I'd say that the matter about the weapons hitting or not would be taken care of by the accuracy rating. But if the accuracy rating is -already- much lower in the german weapons than in the american MGs, then why is the MG letalithy so close, comparatively speaking, to the german cannons?.

I mean, a 12.7mm round hits. A 30mm round hits. Are the 30mm round effects less than double than the 12.7mm hit?. HIGHLY unlikely.
will the 12.7mm hit more easily? sure enough, that's why the 12.7mm has a 33% accuracy bonus.

but if a weapon hits, let its full effects be done.


quote:

but for game terms, I was told early on, I couldn't make changes to the ammo system, that there was much more going on behind the numbers


fair enough. But that doesn't mean the "behind the numbers" scene is accurate, does it?.

All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6.

IIRC, german single engine planes chewed unescorted bombers. In game I can only trust in ZGs or NJGs to do the direct assault to B17 formation, and to the singles to kill the stragglers. That was not the way the things worked historically. And so, something could be improved. And the problem seems to be a too small effect on the german weapons, compared to a quite big one by the american ones.

at least that's my take on it :)



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 3:07:07 PM)

All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6

then would have to say you doing something wrong, ask Swift how he does

I know my runs during this period of testings, the first pass by a G-6/R6 knocked down 6 B-17s, and I know the G5 at the start of the game can knock down 4 or 5 B-17s on the first pass, for the Allies, the trick is to not let it make the first pass in any numbers




wernerpruckner -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 3:31:12 PM)

quote:

All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6.


??? more information please......usually this is bad luck, I do not have many of such occasions



RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 3:57:14 PM)

It very well might be I'm doing something wrong. I don't know what to say. In my game I'm in turn 6 (planning still, so 5 turns played).

On turns 1, 3 and 5 I got heavy B-17 attacks over Bremen (days 1 and 3) and Kassel (day 5).

Generally speaking, the most usual result I see with 109G6s is to lose 1-2 fighters for ,in average, 1 B17F damaged (worse, won't forget, 2 G6 damaged, 2G6 destroyed, no signle B17 damaged nor lost). G6R6 fares a bit better, but not by much.

190 results usually are fighter damaged, bomber damaged. Sometimes a bomber goes down ,but I dare say the 190s attacking bombers are getting results well in the middle of 1-1 to 2-1 (and thats pretty much horrific, if you ask me).

Day 3 I had to keep the single engined planes behind the formations and issue attack orders to the ZGs. Day 5 (over kassel), I directly sent the whole night force against the main bomber forces, and directly forgot about using single engined planes to do it (only ones to try it were the wilde sau squadrons, and they also got very bad results). I used the single engined ones against the jabo strikes instead (and they got quite pathetic results aswell, if you ask me, but that's another issue. In any case my 109G6s seem cannon fodder instead of fighter planes). The result was a carnage of bomber formations, but I had to use every NJG and ZGs to do it.

I'd say that JGs should have a word against B-17s aswell, but not getting the results expected. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't know what it can be. What I did on day one:

Set a "meeting point" for several different Jagdgeschwaders well within germany limits, depending on where I think the bombers are heading. I give them 30.000 feet patrol altitudes.

When the Boxes move into germany, and I think the escorts are about to leave, I order a mass intercept, sending all the JGs in the patrol zone against the middle formation (usually they come in several different "squares". I aim for the 2nd to get through the first one, damage some, then engage the 2nd and kill stragglers of the 1st).

Results were patethic. ZG26 had a field day, but those were in 110G2R3s. I lost some 15-20 109Gs (g5 and g6), and a further 10-15 190A6s (one of them A6R1). In total I think single engined planes killed at the most 5-10 B-17s when engaging main boxes (They got a lot more than those, but those were stragglers, so I can't really say how much of them were killed on engaging the main force).

all in all the results were horrible. Similar on day 3, 2nd attack on bremen. NJGs and ZGs did a carnage. Singled engined planes were forced behind with heavy losses (and then proceeded to smack stragglers piecemeal. But that is not what I expect of a gruppe of Fw190As or 109Gs, to be honest).



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 4:22:30 PM)

on the coast, you have most of the A-5s those are for dogfighting, the A-6s are back, add rockets or extra cannons, you got to break up the formations

the 110/410 will do good vs the bombers, but that is more based on there fuel load and if they get in back of the raid, they hammer any of the damage planed

the AI will eat up the 17/24, so I think it may be something else

but overall, I not sure I understand the complaint, that is what is suppost to happen, the LW even gave a higher point total for forcing a bomber out of formation, then they did for the final kill of that bomber, you want to kill, or damage bombers, to get them out of the formation, and then pick on them, the stragglers are where you get your kills, not the formation

and it is a war of attrictions, even Galland said, he didn't think the LW had a better then a 1-1 kill ratio vs the bombers (much better early then later)



wernerpruckner -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 4:22:40 PM)

quote:

middle of 1-1 to 2-1 (and thats pretty much horrific, if you ask me).


why?? what do you expect?

30k seem a bit high for your patrol? are there escorts with the bombers or are they alone?
what is your fighter tactic for Luftflotte Reich/Reichsverteidigung? (bounce/direct)

where from do you attack? (front, behind,............)



RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 5:41:55 PM)

Hard sarge:

The 110/410s smash formations up. I've seen results of even 5 bombers killed in a single assault (not usual, but yet...with single engined planes it's rare to see more than one or two B17s damaged, and even more rare to see more than one killed).

The formation breakers in my game are consistently the heavy fighters, not the ones that should be (the single engined ones).

About Galland... he's been proven wrong in many accounts (starting with his claim about the possibility of me262s in service in january, when engines were not reliable even by 1945 standards). And in this one I think he was talking about the whole war, not just the early war (remember schweinfurt. Or first allied attacks over berlin. Escorts caused a lot of losses in the latter, bombers much, much less).

Swift: I expect better results by a plane armed with four 20mm guns, 20-30 impacts of whom were enough to kill a bomber (speaking of memory here, but I think luftwaffe tests said 25 20mm minengeschoss on a b-17 meant a guaranteed kill). I rarely see a B-17 killed by a single engined fighter, unless is a straggler. Historically was the opposite, the "straggle killers" were the 110/410s, not the single engined planes.

30k is high, yep, but given that B-17s are guaranteed to come higher than 20.000 feet (and escorts even higher), I give them a hefty altitude advantage in the patrol orders.

As I said I set patrols in the areas I expect the attack to develop towards. That means that most of the times the first attacks are done head-on. Then the fight simply goes on without control by myself about vectors (fighters are already in the area so...).

As for doctrine, I got bounce bomber in the luftflotte reich 190A6s and for all luftflottes in what regards to G6R6.
The G6s I give direct fighter orders just in case I happen to enter contact too early and hit the stream of bombers still within escort area. Iinitally the G6s were in bounce fighter but the results were horrible (they haven't improved with direct fighter anyway, the P47 is simply unbeatable no matter what for a G6, or at least that seems to me.)



wernerpruckner -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 5:43:57 PM)

quote:

the P47 is simply unbeatable no matter what for a G6, or at least that seems to me


??? im the 43 campaign ???

for me they are more of a nuisance than a danger



wernerpruckner -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 5:45:30 PM)

I´d suggest you play the Allied side for a few turns and look how they attack the raids.....maybe this helps



RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 6:31:27 PM)

Well, dunno, maybe we're playing different games? ;)

All I know is that each time I've crossed path with a Thunderbolt, I've been in the losing side.

I think I'm gonna give the forums a second thorough read (already gave it one, but must've lost something important), because in my game ANYTHING that is not B-17s vs heavy fighters (from ZGs or NJGs), is, at its best, a draw.

Gotta need some tips about how to stop those g"dd"mn"d Typhoon strikes on my radar sites, aswell, for instance (lol), because for me are death traps...



kitridge -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 7:18:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM

Well, dunno, maybe we're playing different games? ;)

All I know is that each time I've crossed path with a Thunderbolt, I've been in the losing side.


I think I'm playing the same game as you! I've taken every 109/190 that's out of fighter range and added cannons/rockets to it and they're winning some and losing some. It is pretty demoralizing when you've got 300 B17's that can nail agile fighters set to 'bounce' coming in head-on attacks when my guys can't hit the broadside of a B17 hanger.

I *love* the 110/410's, they're going to win me the war I hope... I don't use the night fighters during the day, but I did destroy an entire BG of B24's with constant single-engined attacks. The B24's seem to blow up on cue, just gotta teach the B17's the same trick. I think morale might play into it; as I whittle away the B17's, I'm noticing more success as the B17 losses mount over a few days of raids. With this in mind, I'm choosing my battles to preserve my pilots (skill!) and their morale so that they can inflict as much damage on the Americans as possible. I mostly ignore the medium/fighter bomber raids in France and save as many units as I can for the Americans since the fighter/bombers and medium bombers eat my fighters for breakfast. I'm up to about a 2.5/3:1 kill/loss ratio now, and that's definitely a lot better than what I was seeing in the first few turns when the American morale was higher.

I got frustrated with the P47's and started an allied campaign to see if I could replicate their success. Of course, I lose more P47's as the allies than I can kill when I'm the Germans, almost a 2:1 difference... On the bright side, I've got 690+ turns to figure out what I'm doing wrong... I mean, we've been told the AI doesn't get any unfair advantages, so it's gotta be something I'm doing... [:'(]

On a somewhat related note, I'm also running a BOB1941 campaign as the RAF and you want to talk about tough? At least the Germans have space to wait out the fuel-starved escorts and double-engined fighters to wreak havoc on undefended bombers in 1943. Being outnumbered 5:1 against drop tank-equipped 109's that can outlast my Spits and Hurris isn't a pretty picture. Usually I intercept at the last possible moment to conserve fuel, my fighters don't do much until they run out of fuel/ammo and then they get ripped to shreds by the German escorts which never seem to run out of fuel. Even when they're red and running back to France, they still find some time to bounce my hapless hurricanes.

I've changed my production to emphasize Hurricane IIc (for the cannons, hoping they'd be my 110/410 analog) and Spit Vb's but only the spits seem to be able to perform consistently and even then only against fighters. German medium bombers are racking up the kills...

The Hurricanes never have a chance to attack unescorted bombers and when they do somehow fight through the fighters to get a bounce attack against the bombers, their morale/skill is so poor, they tend to lose planes without inflicting any damage. I just don't have the numbers to fight off multiple 200+ plane raids while dodging suicidal Italian fighter sweeps all day long. It's definitely a challenge and I'm getting about a 2:1 kill/loss ratio, but I'll need to up that to 4:1 if I'm to survive... My industry is getting pummeled and I can't reach the bomber streams; I'm changing every squadron to bounce fighter since no matter who I choose to intercept, they always end up attacking fighters and the hurri's need as much help as they can get.

Anyways... sounds like we should try a PBEM together since we're both having the same problems. It would prolly balance out in the end! [:D]



MechFO -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 9:44:23 PM)

For completeness sake here's Tony Williams article on WWII fighter armament

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

and it's effectiveness

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm



Fallschirmjager -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 9:44:58 PM)

Look at the real life numbers of the amount of fighters shot down by bomber defensive weapons. More LW fighters were shot down by defensive fire than were lost to enemy fighters.
As to the power of the different weapons. You have to take into account firing rate as well. The 30mm while a very powerful weapon, was also a very slow firing weapon. Based on what I have read the Germans did not like putting new pilots into 30mm equiped aircraft because the process of setting yourself up for a firing pass with a 30mm weapon and then actually hitting the target was difficult.
Play a flight sim like IL-2 and you will get something of an idea of how hard it is to make a high speed slashing 'bounce' on a bomber and then hit them with purely 30mm rounds. The recoil is so heavy that it also throws off the entire airframe when firing.
If you choose to attack rather than bounce to make it easier to hit your target then chances are your fighter will be shot up by defensive fire.



RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 9:56:18 PM)

Fallschirmjager: source about the ammount of german fighters lost by bomber defensive gunnery?

About rate of fire: that is already figured by the accuracy rating of the weapons. The lower the RoF, the lower the accuracy. And btw, the mk108 recoil was very low. The low MV didn't cause a lot of recoil.

I fly Il-2 almost continuously, btw. And that game has (admitted by Oleg), souped up defensive gunnery for bombers.




RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/4/2009 10:59:03 PM)

quote:

For completeness sake here's Tony Williams article on WWII fighter armament

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

and it's effectiveness

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm





Yep, those are the main sources I'm using to base my belief that the effectivity of the weapons in BTR aren't as accurate as they could be. But of course, that's an outsider point of view [:)]



Denniss -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 4:33:47 PM)

AFAIR the bomber gunners had an overclaim rate of about 15-20:1. Can't remember the exact source though.



Nicholas Bell -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 6:55:51 PM)

Found a note in one of Alfred Price's book that Germans determined that an average of 3 hits from a 30mm were required to bring down a four engine bomber (whether a Mk103 or 108 is not mentioned).

Bomber defensive fire was more effective than just the number of interceptors shot down.  The German pilots absolutely hated attacking our formations - it has been described as standing in a shower and trying not to get wet.  This affected their accuracy and willingness to close to a range where kills would be achieved.  Perhaps more telling is that research into German loss records where available indicate a huge number of damaged fighters - heavily damaged.  Recall that the Germans listed losses in percent terms - a destroyed aircraft was 100%.  What has been missed in the history books is the number of interceptors damaged 40-60%, ie a belly-landing.  When you read unit histories, that is when you see how many planes were shot up by bomber defensive fire and force-landed in various conditions.  Shot down?  Not according to the Germans when considering their losses since they were not 100% written-off.  OTOH, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot would be awarded a victory for aircraft caused to force-land [:)]



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 7:24:44 PM)

so would a Yank and so would a CW pilot

there are a number of CW pilots who got kills, because the plane chasing them, dipped a wing into the ground and crashed

it goes both ways

some got kills for when they made a bounce, two planes as they went to break flew into each other

most times depended on who it was and who the guy giving the claims away was

(Heartmann, got 4 kills, when he bounced a IL-2 fired at it, the leader did a Split-S, and the rest of the flight did also, only they were about 500 feet above the ground, they never got close to making the Split, let alone the S)




RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 8:48:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Found a note in one of Alfred Price's book that Germans determined that an average of 3 hits from a 30mm were required to bring down a four engine bomber (whether a Mk103 or 108 is not mentioned).


Calculations were from the Mk108. Which was (by far) the most used 30mm cannon in the luftwaffe.

The Mk103 had a much more devastating punch, because it fired the (bassically) same projectile but in a case with a lot more propellant, and in a much larger gun. To the traditional extreme damage caused by the minengeschoss shell, you'd have to add a much higher damage done by kinetic energy. However the gun was much, much larger than the Mk108, and as a result, much heavier. And because of it's reliance on high muzzle velocity, it's rate of fire was quite lower. The weapon designers of the time had to choose for a high caliber cannon between a low RoF but a high MV -as in the Mk101 or Mk103, as in the soviet high-caliber guns- in guns big both in size and weight, or a high RoF but low MV in a small,compact package, as in the Mk108. Given the excellent reputation the Mk108 had once the initial jamming problems were solved, I'd say the Rheinmetall designers went with the right idea with the Mk108. For many experts the Mk108 was the most weight/efficient cannon design in the whole WW2.

Couple of extra things about the Mk103 in-game.

It has a lower accuracy than the Mk108, wich strongers my belief that accuracy is closely related with rate of fire. I'd say both should have similar accuracy stats (both lower than the MK108 current accuracy stat); the Mk103 might have had a lower rate of fire, but it fired in a very tense trajectory so it was easy to aim, unlike the Mk108.

It has exactly the SAME effect and penetration stats then Mk108, which strongers my belief that the whole weapon rating in the game should be given a serious second-look ([;)]). The Mk103 was positively much heavier hitting than the Mk108. Heck with the proper AP ammunition it was used to knock out tanks! [;)]

It is used as the 109K6 main weaponry. Really dunno about this one, my knowledge of the 109K series fades completely after the K4, but I'd say that, IIRC; the K6 used a Mk108 motorcanone.While it's true that there was a smaller, lighter, faster firing (but at a lower MV) version of the MK103 (MK103M?) in the works so it could be used in motor engine instalations of the 109 series, I think they never went past the prototipe stage. As far as I can recall the only motorcanone installations using the Mk103 (the standard one), were seen in the Do335 and Ta152 series.

quote:


Bomber defensive fire was more effective than just the number of interceptors shot down.  The German pilots absolutely hated attacking our formations - it has been described as standing in a shower and trying not to get wet.  This affected their accuracy and willingness to close to a range where kills would be achieved.  Perhaps more telling is that research into German loss records where available indicate a huge number of damaged fighters - heavily damaged.  Recall that the Germans listed losses in percent terms - a destroyed aircraft was 100%.  What has been missed in the history books is the number of interceptors damaged 40-60%, ie a belly-landing.  When you read unit histories, that is when you see how many planes were shot up by bomber defensive fire and force-landed in various conditions.  Shot down?  Not according to the Germans when considering their losses since they were not 100% written-off.  OTOH, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot would be awarded a victory for aircraft caused to force-land [:)]




There are many points of view to see this: the american one, the german one, or the impartial one (if there has ever been something as an impartial view of anything). While you're 100% right on this comment, I'd have to add that it was terribly difficult for a bomber gunner crew to hit anything in-flight, if it wasn't closing in slowly up their six. It's true that attacking a formation of bombers meant showing yourself before a lot of enemy gunners, but most of them wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn if given the chance in their conditions (freezing cold, highly stressed and in a life-threatening situation).

However you're right: german sources will mention only 100% lost aircraft. Salvageable or repairable planes were not counted. However in this game a destroyed fighter remains destroyed no matter what. In 2nd Schweinfurt, almost 80 B-17s were killed, most of them by unmodified Fw190As and 109Gs in exchange of 38 german single engined fighters (and a big part of them were killed by spitfires and P-47s in the initial stages of the raid).

In BTR...well, I can only give -my- limited experience on the game as I'm just in turn 8 of my first 1943 campaign. But with what my eyes have seen so far , I'd say that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY to reach those numbers (nor anything resembling that) using single engined fighters. In fact I've -totally- given up the idea of attacking american bombers with the 109Gs; there is no faster way to kill your own men in the game that giving them the order to attack a B17 box; they'll struggle to get -anything- in return and will get mauled by defensive fire. And that, you'll agree with me, was not what really happened historically.

I'll put it this way: Many 109s were shot by B17s, but many B17s were shot down by 109s too. And not all of them (by far) were R6s. If you were given the chance to be in an unescorted B-17 box over the skies of Germany, or be one of the pilots in a 109G6 Gruppe, which one would you choose?. If that scenario happened in real life I'd choose the 109, without a doubt. In the game I'd pray, beg, bite, and puch for a passenger ticket in a bomber. I think that says it all.


All in all I stand on what I said; for me the weapon stats in the game ,as they are now, should be visited and given a thorough revision. I'm not advocating for changes as I know nothing of the inner workings of the system, however seeing the effect/penetration/accuracy rates, one can't help but wonder what's happening when a Mk108 "hit" is given less than twice the effect of a 12.7mm "hit", or that a 20mm Minengeschoss "hit" is given only a 33% advantage over the .50 "hit".

I'd say that, either the .50 cal is overpowered, or the cannons (in general, the Hispanos I also think they are underpowered as it stands now, it's not an issue with a side or the other but with a kind of weapon compared with another) are underpowered. But that's an uneducated opinion because, as I said, I can't give nothing like an educated opinion as any developer, as Hard Sarge, can give. They've done a terrific job with this game, and if they tell me they're allright, I'll have to accept it. [:)]



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 10:08:29 PM)

LOL

one that statement about the 103, is about a crock, the speed of the shell had nothing to do with the damage it did, unless it was a AP round, a minen shell blew up on contact, doesn't matter what speed it was going at, and the damage remains the same

for damage and what not, don't forget, the 50 was using a API round

for the K6, remember that is more a designer plane, then a real one, a lot of times, the LW wanted to add in weapons that they wouldn't use once it reached the front line

in that area, the one I never understood, was the load out on the Z, 4 108s, and a 103, your aim point is totally shot, you aim to hit with the 103, the 108s will miss, and the other way around

I have been a flight simmer for ages, and been a Alpha/Beta testers on a few, I know those sites inside and out, and the basic arugement they use is, don't worry about what happened in real life, I can prove it didn't happen based on these values, which I have made up

that is why, most flight sims and air combat games, the 30 cal can not shoot down a fighter, let alone a bomber, but, the RAF did it, the IJA did it



RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 11:29:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

LOL

one that statement about the 103, is about a crock, the speed of the shell had nothing to do with the damage it did, unless it was a AP round, a minen shell blew up on contact, doesn't matter what speed it was going at, and the damage remains the same


I'll have to disagree on this one, up to a point.

Yes, compared with the chemical damage inflicted by a 30mm round, kinetic damage would be a small portion. But is a more significant portion in the Mk103 projectile than in the Mk108 one. It makes a difference. And it was a difference well noticed by the germans, they indeed saw a higher destructive power in the Mk103 compared with the Mk108. thus their insistence in trying to fit one into single engined fighters.

Also, the minengeschoss did not blow up on impact. Depending on the type they had a timed fuze or a hydrodinamic-activated fuze that went off when/if the round entered into a liquid (those were designed to blow a whole plane if it ever touched a fuel tank). In both cases a higher muzzle velocity was desirable (the more speed, the more the shell penetrates before going off. And with a possible change from air to liquid, even more)


quote:

for damage and what not, don't forget, the 50 was using a API round


Well, the germans used incenciary ammunition for the 20mm MG151/20. IIRC it was part of the "standard belt" to have incendiary rounds between others. But the minengeschoss proved more reliable at the hour of infliciting fatal damage to an enemy, specially to bombers.


In any case, API rounds weren't miracle shells. And for sure I'd rather be hit by a 12.7mm API round than a 20mm minengeschoss one.


quote:

for the K6, remember that is more a designer plane, then a real one, a lot of times, the LW wanted to add in weapons that they wouldn't use once it reached the front line


I think there were some that reached the front lines, none with the MK103. In any case, well, if it's a designers plane, of course some creativity freedom is always welcome [;)]


quote:

in that area, the one I never understood, was the load out on the Z, 4 108s, and a 103, your aim point is totally shot, you aim to hit with the 103, the 108s will miss, and the other way around


Well, contrary to the point you brought the first, the germans were impressed with the effect a Mk103 hit had on enemy aircraft. So much that they did really bang their head against the proverbial wall trying to mount one in a motorkanone position, when the Mk108 was a perfectly viable, effective (and excellent) option.

Ïn any case I wouldn't mind having that weaponry if attacking a bomber stream. To have different projectile trajectories creates a more or less shotgun-kind of effect. That's terrible for MG planes which rely on concentration of fire to inflict fatal damage, but it was never an issue when only three to six hits of your weapons are enough to doom a four engined plane down. Spreading up your fire when the individual hits can (and usually) are catastrophic is never a bad decision from my point of view.

Just look at the soviet practice post-war, up to the MiG19 design time: MiG15 and MiG17s had very different calibers and projectile trajectories, but was never a serious issue for them. A single 23 or 37mm hit would doom any enemy fighter it would hit (and badly maul any bomber), so...


quote:

I have been a flight simmer for ages, and been a Alpha/Beta testers on a few, I know those sites inside and out, and the basic arugement they use is, don't worry about what happened in real life, I can prove it didn't happen based on these values, which I have made up

that is why, most flight sims and air combat games, the 30 cal can not shoot down a fighter, let alone a bomber, but, the RAF did it, the IJA did it


ahh so we belong to the same club [:D]. I vividly recall my first flight sim...if you can call that an amstrad CPC game with a little art, green flat ground and flat blue sky :D.

Yah, I know what you mean. Certain air sims require to empty a 1000 round belt into an enemy and even sometimes that is not enough. The 7.7mm was an effective weapon. But again, I think it's TOO much effective in the game.

MG 303 Browning stats in game: Effect 2, penetration 1 accuracy 26
MG 17 MG stats in game: the same.

Given that a 20mm cannon has an effect of 4, four 20mm cannons will give you a net firepower of 16.
Given that a Hurri I has eight .303s, it will also give you a net firepower of 16. Yeah, less penetration, but added effect is the same in the game.

When the Hurri I has the same firepower as a Hurri 2C...really, Hard Sarge, do you think those numbers make too much sense?. A hurricane I having almost as much firepower as a Hurricane 2C?...

for me it's clear it doesn't add up, but oh well, what do I know...



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/5/2009 11:48:01 PM)

and again, you don't know how the code uses the numbers, or what effect combat, or damage

and, since my programmer tells me, I can't mess with the numbers, I can't mess with the numbers

I also think you are missing the/a point when it comes to the numbers, look at the AA numbers, I really dislike having the 50mm in the air, it is too weak, but it has to stay in line with what the other guns of the same Cal type are

now it is funny, you say, the weapons are too weak and you will not be able to do this or that, but others are going to complain the game is too bloody, the Allies don't stay a chance, too many bombers get shot down

damned if you do and damned if you don't

and for the 30mm yes, I have seen the reports and most will say 3-5, 3-8 rounds will bring down a bomber, but they also stat, 3 prefect hits, will bring down a bomber, that part gets overlooked

also, how many pilots fire off there whole ammo load and never got a single hit ?

which is the idea of the Sturmblok, the planes are heavily armored and they come in wingtip to wingtip, and try to fly right into the tail of the bomber, only firing at the last moment (easier to hit from 6 then from anywhere else)

only hassle, how many of the Sturmblok pilots lived to tell there tale



RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/6/2009 12:27:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

and again, you don't know how the code uses the numbers, or what effect combat, or damage


Agreed, that's something I've stated several times. I don't know about the inner workings of the game, nor about how those numbers are treated :). I even stated that if you say it's right, then it must be. So much attention to detail everywhere means there can be only the same attention to detail in what regards to weapons.

Is just that I'm having trouble understanding the figures, nothing else. But I guess that the only chance to fully understand it is you explaining the whole process of how the weapons work, and my best guess is that it isn't going to happen (quite understandable, otoh, heheh [:D])


quote:

and, since my programmer tells me, I can't mess with the numbers, I can't mess with the numbers



then...FIRE THEM!

(J/K [:D])

quote:

I also think you are missing the/a point when it comes to the numbers, look at the AA numbers, I really dislike having the 50mm in the air, it is too weak, but it has to stay in line with what the other guns of the same Cal type are


hmmm don't really undestand this part?.

quote:

now it is funny, you say, the weapons are too weak and you will not be able to do this or that, but others are going to complain the game is too bloody, the Allies don't stay a chance, too many bombers get shot down

damned if you do and damned if you don't


but this time I understand it perfectly. Yeah, I know what kind of hell balancing means ;). But as I already stated, if you say the weapons are OK, then I have nothing to say against it...you're the developer here, after all, I'm just someone ranting about those numbers! [:)]

One minor acclaration though. No, I don't say weapons are too weak. I say the MGs are (in my uneducated opinion) too powerful compared with cannons of 20mm and higher...and, well, yes, that the 30mm seems to have too little an effect. But ,taken overall, my point would be that in the MG vs cannon comparison, the cannon seems to be the weaker weapon. And that is not what history teached us: .50 cals were good enough in the pacific vs rice paper planes, but nothing more than acceptable in Europe. And in Korea a six .50 cal battery (concentrated in the nose, not spread on the wings and with convergence issues) was thought as thoroughly unnaceptable.

The US armed forces (both the navy and army) were actively looking for a possible replacement of the .50 cal weapons for 20mm weapons from early 1944 onwards, and the only reason they didn't do it is because the war was being won with what there was on place, and because the logistic problems of changing the main weaponry of aircraft. But overall, the trend was, even in the USA, to look for heavier cannons to replace MGs. Later in Korea they regretted not having taken the step much before...

And my problem is that in-game I don't see the .50 cal to be that weaker compared with the 20mm. History told us that 20mm guns were quite a bit more powerful than .50 cals. And 30mm rounds were exponentially more powerful than .50s. I don't see translated into the game numbers shown to the user, nothing more (but nothing less [:)]).


quote:

and for the 30mm yes, I have seen the reports and most will say 3-5, 3-8 rounds will bring down a bomber, but they also stat, 3 prefect hits, will bring down a bomber, that part gets overlooked


don't really know about that one. I've seen RAF tests showing a Blenheim (I think) aft fuselage bassically torned out up to structural failure: the result of a ground test of a 30mm MK108 round going off inside. I won't say a hit in the aft part of the fuselage is "a perfect hit" (that would be on the wing, engine, or cockpit), but had that plane been flying it would've broken in two.

There's also that test of a german 30mm going off in a spitfire wing. The hole thus created almost ripped the wing off: the hole had a diameter of 75% of the wing chord. That hit in an aloft plane was a 100% kill.

With that kind of destructive power, I think that the 3-6 hits on a B-17 were general hits, not hits placed at a vital. A 30mm minengeschoss with Elektron fuze (the hydrostatic one) going off within a fuel tank would kill a B-17 in just one hit. That is, for me a perfect hit.

I'd have to give another look at the german sources to be sure at the exact quote, though. However, top off my head, the 3-6 hits were "general hits", not "Critical hits". Same with the 20mm minengeschoss (25-30 meant a bomber down, according to those tests).


quote:

also, how many pilots fire off there whole ammo load and never got a single hit ?



The part about the pilots not hitting...well, should be taken care of with accuracy numbers and pilot experience. Cannons have a much lower accuracy than MGs (and rightly so).

I'm not arguing about the gun accuracy values, just the effect values.


Said that, I insist, I'm just giving my -private- own views. That doesn't mean I'm trying to imply that I'm right and you're wrong. Quite the contrary probably is all the other way around, as you know the inner workings of the game much better than what I do.

However ,I'm one of those nerdy beings who try to understand why and how things happen (Even in a game), and really, the firepower values of the planes in the game are giving me a hard time [:D][:)]. But nothing else. I'm not putting your work at question, Hard Sarge, just trying to understand why the numbers are as they are and not like the more intuitivelly acceptable (at least for me) ones I posted in my OP.

Yeah, I also linked the weapons discussion to my blatantly unsuccesfull attacks on american B-17 boxes in game (which still are terribly unsuccesful, btw hehehe). But that can be because I'm doing something wrong with my tactics and nothing to do with the weapons themselfs. There I was just wondering if my (perceived) failure with buff interception with single engined fighters was related with my (perceived) view of the MGs as too powerful when compared with cannons. Nothing more, it was neven an argument, or at least never tried to present it as such [:)]


/edit.
found the pic I said. Blenheim fuselage after one single 30mm round hitting the aft fuselage. Live firing tests conducted by RAF:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

From the same tests; spitfire aft fuselage after one single 30mm round
http://mccoy.nu/109/spitfire_vs_mk108_test.jpg

And finally, video clip of a Mk108 round hitting a spitfire wing. Round was fired from 100 yards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPWlYhfhLrI

I'll still have to check the german LW texts about the number of hits required for a stadistically certain B-17 kill, to find out if it spoke about hits on vital zones, or just general hits. But seeing that kind of damage, I have to say that I think that 6 of those monsters exploding in a B-17 would most probably shred it no matter where they hit.



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/6/2009 1:31:24 AM)

you can show all the pictures you want, you can also show how many planes came back home

what is more deadly, a 30mm or a airplane ?

a 109 flew into the side of a B-17, all but cutting the plane in half, and the plane returned and landed, and was scrapped on the spot as unrepairable

one of the last missions of the war, the LW went to ram tactics, some of the planes that were hit, returned

one 30 cal can knock down a B-17, and you can hit one with 200-300 and it will return, it all depends on where it hits, or what it don't hit




RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/6/2009 3:28:24 AM)

Well, this seems to have reached the point of the circular debate [:D]

Yes, there were planes coming back with extreme damage. On both sides. One has only to recall Robert S. Johnson's "day not to die" history to remind that extremely wounded aircraft still **could** take you home. Johnson tried to count the holes on his plane, I don't know where did he stop, at 2 hundred, maybe 3, but there were still many to count (A Fw190 had emptied it's whole 7.92mm ammo supply on him when he almost couldn't maneouver at all). The plane had sustained 2 or 3 20mm hits, aswell. One could tell you that this shows that the light caliber MGs were useless for mid-late war. But as you ,very well btw, said, those weapons were dangerous up to war's end. You wouldn't extract conclussions from an extreme case where luck played a big factor to say that light MGs were worthless.

If you use that instance as an example of, say, the Jug's ability to take a pounding then in a game all Jugs should have a durability of hard rock and light MGs would have almost nil offensive power. But truth is, most of the planes which standed not just what Johnson's plane did, but much less, did fall off the sky. Johnson just got really, really, lucky that day. The Jug was a tough plane, that for sure, and that did save Johnson's life aswell. But in 9 out of 10 days suffering that kind of damage, his plane would've been shot down no matter it was a Jug, a Pony or any other single engined plane.


There are instances of B-17s returning home with extreme damage?. Indeed there were. Dozens of instances, not to say hundreds. Planes that on touchdown cracked in two, planes missing rudders, elevators, some wing surfaces, most of the fore of the aircraft, huge holes in the wing. Even I got to see the pic of a B-17 with an engine nacelle literally smashed away, wingtip on shambles, aileron gone, and the plane did make it home.

I don't recall if it was nowotny or other german ace who got two or three of his BMW801 engine's cylinders blown apart, and the plane made it home. Yet for each time that happened, a german pilot returning home with a blown cylinder, another 10 german pilots burned alive in their plane (the BMW didn't stand cylinder damage very well, because the injection system would keep spraying fuel on a red-hot running engine. Engine fires were the main danger if the BMW was hit)

Several P-47s hit top of trees when on straffing runs. Some of them made it home (to provide some extremely impressing pics of wing damage). Most of them did bite the dust (I think Hub Zemke was captured that way).

There are pictures of B-17s that survived long enough to bring their crew home after a direct 88mm hit. Yet, those were very rare instances. It did happen? hell yeah. But you can't base your opinions in such extremely lucky events. 99 times out of 100, a direct 88mm hit would destroy your plane. That's the fact.


We can't take exceptions as instances of the norm, Hard Sarge. Yeah, some B-17s came back home after suffering a ramming attack. The vast, impressing majority of them crews who were aboard a rammed bomber didn't even got to see another day , however. Which would you take as "the norm" to extract conclussions from?.

Bombers hit by several 30mm shells usually fell down of the sky. Did some of them get lucky and return home?. Of course, there were. But most of them who got repeatedly hit by the feared Luftwaffe's pneumatic drill (I'm sure you have spoken to WW2 bomber crews...they did know the weapon, they knew when they were fired by ut because of the special sound it made, and they were scared as hell about that gun. Much more than when they were shot with other weapons. Or so I've been told, at least) went right down.

Even the luftwaffe number against bombers is an average. The text didnt' say that six 30mm impacts guaranteed a bomber kill. It was the ESTIMATED number of hits that ON AVERAGE would bring a bomber down. Translated: quite some bombers returned home with more than 6 impacts...but also, quite some bombers went down with just a couple of hits. The average was that. And to be honest, I've read a lot about WWII air warfare, but I don't recall a single account of a single engined plane (fighter or not) returning home after an exploding 30mm hit on it. There might be some, but I've seen no instances of something like that. I've read about some fighters returning home with a non- or partially-exploded 30mm hit, but those were rare (the 30mm minengeschoss fusing was quite reliable). But, and that is for real, the average 30mm hits required to bring a fighter down was indeed one. Doesn't look like that in game.

In game a G10 has a firepower of 11. I hope you understand the reason behind me resisting to believe that a plane able to bring a heavy bomber down with an average of six hits of its main gun has a lower firepower than, say, the Spitfire Mk.I, Hard Sarge. In the game a weapon set that had troubles to bring twin engined planes down has a higher firepower rating than another weapon set that was extremelly dangerous for four engined bombers.
I'd say more: in the game the spitfire "b" marks (2x20mm cannons, 4x303 MGs) have a firepower of 16. Exactly the same as the firepower of the hurricane I and Spitfire I. The RAF really worked around the clock to put those guns aboard their fighters (and the pilots were delighted by their new cannons and their ability to destroy enemies fast)...and all that to get a similar firepower?. Every account says the same: the cannon hurricane and spitfires were a -VAST- (not average or modest, vast) improvement in what regards to firepower compared with early marks. However in the game the B-wing spits, the four cannon hurricanes and the early marks of both share exactly the same firepower number.

I'll have no other option than to believe the inner mechanics make those cyphers work right, because you defend your turf really hard, as if everything was right, so it must be right. Still, you'll understand that for the user, who sees those numbers on the screen the whole thing seems really hard to understand.

And summing out the answer to what you said...yeah, extremely damaged planes returned home. But, truth is, for each of those instances of a returning plane, a lot more with similar, or much lower damage levels, did never make it home. Those crews/pilots got their lucky day and returned home. The vast majority never had the chance to even tell their tale later.


so ,as I said, it seems we're reached the point where the discussion gets circular, we are debating a lot of things (and boy it's fun) but not really getting to the heart of the debate. In any case I see your opinion is that the weapon attributes are right on. You're the one who really knows, so I'll accept that view no matter how hard to believe I find it :)



Hard Sarge -> RE: weapons rating (10/6/2009 4:36:42 AM)

ahhhhh

Hub was in a mustang, and his plane broke up in a storm

I think I see where your having trouble with this

a weapon with a effect of 5, is not weaker then 3 weapons with a effect of 2, the data page would show the one with a 5 and the other with a 6, and the pen is importent also

each weapon is part of the attack, not what the data page value states, so two planes may say they have a gun value of 16, but they do not do the same damage




RAM -> RE: weapons rating (10/6/2009 9:55:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
a weapon with a effect of 5, is not weaker then 3 weapons with a effect of 2, the data page would show the one with a 5 and the other with a 6, and the pen is importent also

each weapon is part of the attack, not what the data page value states, so two planes may say they have a gun value of 16, but they do not do the same damage


This ends the whole debate for me [8D]. If the firepower and effect numbers shown in the weapon database are not linear (thus as you said, 2 .50 cals not neccesarily making more damage than a single 30mm), then I have no further objection about the cannon vs MG comparison anymore.

Thanks a lot for the input, Hard Sarge. It's been a quite long thread but I think well worth it in the end. My apologies if I didn't give a clearer and better idea on why I had a hard time understanding the in-game weapon attributes before, the thread would've been much shorter and required less of your time to solve my doubts. My fault [:)]



Nemo121 -> RE: weapons rating (10/6/2009 11:37:19 AM)

Would it be possible to set up a conclusive test of this using outliers?

E.g. There are a few Italian fighters with 2 x 12.7mm MGs and a firepower of 4 IIRC and the Me-262 with 50mm cannon ALSO has a firepower of 4.

If we can mock up a series of attacks on a bomber box using 100 of the Italian fighters and then re-run with 100 Me-262s with 50mm cannon we ought to be able to, pretty conclusively, show that the firepower rating isn't the be all and end all of the model ( I'm sure it isn't but it is always nice to test these things ).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.25