Durability of aircraft to MG (< 8mm) guns

[Flying Pencil]

I wonder about durability of aircraft to MG damage.
Will the game challenge fighters players to marksmanship and get in point blank?

In IL-2 and especially many other games, a quick burst and the EA is a flaming ball of fire (speaking of Rifle Caliber Munitions, not .50 and heavier)
Reality is, aircraft on both sides RTB with hundreds of holes. It was said half jokingly "Its not the damage you do, but how much lead you fill the EA with"

Simply a case of armaments not keeping up with times. The guns where practically the same used in WW1. Sure some 20mm was showing up, but in 1940 it was by far 7.62mm and 7.92mm rounds.

RAF pilots reported emptying their entire load into He-111, only to see it fly away (chances are the 111 was to never fly again, and no, the Hurri pilot did not miss)

For example, behind the pilot is a large bulkhead, while not armored, would have stopped most Rifle Caliber Munitions from getting to him, and resulted in He-111's suffering fewer losses then Ju-88's in BoB
Excellent view is located here (huge image) (ignore the engines ;) )
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft_Heinkel_He_111.jpg

In another game I play, rarely is the He-111 pilot killed, usually due to frontal attacks.

http://oz.by/data/img/20/135/608/fr/3.jpg

[Ltbear]

read my post here, abit info on it. Trying hard to find the clip...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18774&page=2

[Flying Pencil]

read my post here, abit info on it. Trying hard to find the clip...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18774&page=2

Already read it.
In fact..


Realy hope this damedge is from an Internal explosion and not from MG`s....

I promise to find the interviuv i have from a German ground crew member who repaired the planes doing bob...

He statet that the Brit guns in many cases killed the crew but left the plane flyable....And he realy disliked repairing damedged HE-111`s because it took werry long pacthing up all the holes....

Hes opinion was that the british planes had werry effective guns against the bombers and the MG`s was a terror weapon against the crews. You dont need to aim at a specific spot, you just spray the entire bomber with these small bullets, no matter what you will kill some crew members.

He also statet that the ME-109 was a great fighter, but the pilots complained that there was not enough cannon ammo to be effective against bombers and the two MG`s was a waste of weight. They should have removed the MG`s and give the pilots 100 cannon rounds more...

He also told that the Pilots even before BOB complaintet that they had so little fuel. Doing the entire BOB ground crews was working on a field mod for a drop tank, that was what they used many hours on, trying to give the fighter pilots 200ltr more fuel. It was so stupid. We got told that we would get racks for bombs, but no one in high command thought about it was fuel they needed. They had so little fuel and then they would add 250KG of bombs so they would use even more fuel, it was stupid. The ME-109 was a fighter, this idea turning it into a Jabo just show how little the high command understood about airwar.

Who in there right mind would send fighters across the chanal with 400 ltr`s of fuel. With combat they had at most 70mins of fuel. We had to salvage many fighters who had to land somewhere because they didnt have the fuel to get back. Sometimes the "swimmer" in the gas tank would not work correctly so it would show the wrong ammount of fuel, it could also get stuck doing heawy combat manouvers. Many of us on the ground was glad that we didnt have to fly "over there"'

He talks werry little about the FW-190, but he says that it was a great plane in air, but could be a nightmare for the groundcrews. And many 109 pilots never got used to fly it. They joked about it. They give me a sportscar (109) then they let me have fun with it and after that they give me a truck(190)

I promise i try to dig the 15 mins clip up i have somewhere on the 1000 CD`s/DVD`s i have lol....

[winny]

This might be of interest to you.

Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber.
Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it.
In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.

Notice how close they were fired from, and the He-111s had better armour than a blenheim.
Add to that the fact that only 2 of the 8 guns would have had AP rounds and you end up with a lot of German bombers getting home when they shouldn't have.

This was not the case when the roles were reversed.

[BigC208]

Aircraft comes home, written off and half the crew is dead. Does not count in that days statistics but was not good for moral and German combat strength.

Maybe I need to take some gunnery training. I have a hard time knocking out He111's with the early mark Spitfire and Hurricane. Only if I aim at a specific spot and concentrate on that, will something fall off or start burning. This to the point that I mostly resort to Ho's when there's escorts around. When you select arcade, you can see the arrows where bullets enter. I've left Heinkels behind looking like a porcupine and crew riddled with arrows. Just kept chugging along. Pretty realistic from what I've read.

[WTE_Galway]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2909/hithe1113bg.jpg

http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/He-111/He-111H-KG26-(1H+JA)/images/1-He-111H-KG26-(1H+JA)-WNr5449-shot-down-Scotland-Oct-28-1939-01.jpg

http://www.south-lancs-aviation.bravepages.com/images/ju88c.jpg

http://oberkampf.muddeln.free.fr/images/German%20losses/he111.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/RedToo/Dornier-303-Damage.jpg

[Biggs]

bring the x8 .303s in from 350-400 yards to 200-150 yards and from a spread to a point harmonization and they will do more than sufficient damage to enemy AC.

they will never give the explosive effects of cannon of course, but they will penetrate far enough and be able to create desirable results (explode ammo stores, fuel tanks, cut controls, damage engines etc) .

the gaping holes in that he111 image are just visual representations of damage and not necessarily literal hit marks from the .303s.

1c said that they are updating the DM to show actual bullet entry holes but they also have some 'generic' damage visuals as well.

If your worried about the damage output being too high because of seeing those big holes don't worry.. they are just visual representations of 'that part of the plane being damaged' not literal MG damage.

[ElAurens]

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

[fireship4]

Will bullets ricochet inside aircraft and do more damage?

[Biggs]

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

yep... and heres proof!! Everything in Purple is part of the damage model.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/ScreenShots_001.jpg

I dont have a pics of the 109 damage model but here are some other development pics that show plenty of internal modeling which will have a DM applied to it like in the spit pic...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/ScreenShots_002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/Bf-109E-3_01.jpg

the .303s will run into plenty of damageable stuff inside these planes :twisted:

[Romanator21]

I think the argument is whether or not the bullets will still have enough energy to do any significant damage to all those parts.

According to Winny, they may not.

However, I know nothing about ballistics, and I will not insert my opinion in this matter.

However, I do wonder if maybe fuel tanks are "too easy" to light on fire, as shown in the leaked Beta footage and others. Even though some rounds are incendiary, it isn't necessarily guaranteed. The round has to pass through a point where fuel is vaporized, such as a leak. The probability of that is low unless hitting at convergence I imagine.

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

[WTE_Galway]

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.


Its discussed here:

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=18246



The reason was because the usual style of cross at the beginning of the war was the small type, as seen in the picture out near the wingtip, but after the combat experience of the Polish campaign, it was found to be a little too small to be easily recognised against the dark green colour scheme, hence the larger ones were introduced in the middle of the wing.

There are several instances of these markings, often on Heinkel 111s, but also observed in varying dimension and upper wing location on Dornier Do17Zs. Chris Goss's excellent publication Dornier 17 in Focus (Red Kite) shows, on page 51, two photos of Do17Zs. In the first, large oversized mid-wing crosses are evident, and in the other, they have been overpainted and replaced, in the same location, with extremely small crosses. These machines operated with KG2.

Additionally, both Ju87s and at least one Do18 flying boat are known to have carried over-sized markings on the wing upper surfaces, also located mid-wing.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think the argument is whether or not the bullets will still have enough energy to do any significant damage to all those parts.

According to Winny, they may not.

However, I know nothing about ballistics, and I will not insert my opinion in this matter.

However, I do wonder if maybe fuel tanks are "too easy" to light on fire, as shown in the leaked Beta footage and others. Even though some rounds are incendiary, it isn't necessarily guaranteed. The round has to pass through a point where fuel is vaporized, such as a leak. The probability of that is low unless hitting at convergence I imagine.

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

I intend to set my convergence to about 50m. With a closing speed of 100Kph this will give me at least one second of deadly fire before I ram the target.

Even though I don't condone intentional ramming I am, well, fairly bad at gunnery and my reactions aren't as fast as they used to be so I expect there will be a few collisions along the way ;)

Cheers!

[winny]

I think the argument is whether or not the bullets will still have enough energy to do any significant damage to all those parts.

According to Winny, they may not.

However, I know nothing about ballistics, and I will not insert my opinion in this matter.

However, I do wonder if maybe fuel tanks are "too easy" to light on fire, as shown in the leaked Beta footage and others. Even though some rounds are incendiary, it isn't necessarily guaranteed. The round has to pass through a point where fuel is vaporized, such as a leak. The probability of that is low unless hitting at convergence I imagine.

PS - I just noticed that He-111 has two crosses on each wing. Interesting.

In the same tests the RAF fired British .303 incendaries and German 7.92mm incendiaries into the self sealing tanks of a Blenheim. Both caused a fire with about 1 in 10 of the rounds fired. The 'De Wides' were more effective, causing a fire with 1 in 5 shots.

[David603]

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.
And yet, 10 years after release, the only CFS with a more complex damage model is Rise of Flight, which has had some major bugs in that respect.

[Romanator21]

In the same tests the RAF fired British .303 incendaries and German 7.92mm incendiaries into the self sealing tanks of a Blenheim. Both caused a fire with about 1 in 10 of the rounds fired. The 'De Wides' were more effective, causing a fire with 1 in 5 shots.

Well, then about 10 shots have to hit the exact same spot then right? :)

I also wonder what constitutes a fire in those tests. Certainly not a roaring inferno? Could a small round 1/10 times always create a pillar of fire?

Maybe I missed it, but will CoD treat fire differently than IL-2? Currently it's fuel leak; grey smoke; black smoke; inferno. By the time it gets to the latter, you've got a few minutes, at best, to bail.

Maybe it should be something along the lines of: small leak, larger leak, largest leak; light grey smoke, heavy grey smoke; light black smoke, heavy black smoke; small fire, medium fire, blazing fire-ball of death, etc.

[winny]

Well, then about 10 shots have to hit the exact same spot then right? :)

I also wonder what constitutes a fire in those tests. Certainly not a roaring inferno? Could a small round 1/10 times always create a pillar of fire?

.

They were looking at how many rounds it took to actually set the whole fuel tank on fire.

I don't know if German fuel tanks were any better protected than Blenheim ones, so that could be a factor. Plus the tests were done on the ground so you don't get the effect of the airflow either putting out, or intensifying the flames.

[JAMF]

They were looking at how many rounds it took to actually set the whole fuel tank on fire.

I don't know if German fuel tanks were any better protected than Blenheim ones, so that could be a factor. Plus the tests were done on the ground so you don't get the effect of the airflow either putting out, or intensifying the flames.

And no aluminium skin to deflect some energy from the rounds, before hitting the tank?

[Skoshi Tiger]

When they first started to armour plate the MK1 Spitfire they placed a 3mm Duralumin sheet over the fuel tank in front of the cockpit to deflect rounds coming in from the front at shallow angles.

I think the second thing they did was place the armoured glass slab on the wind screen because thats where the deflected round ended up! ;)

Cheers!

[JG4_Helofly]

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

I have to agree on the first part. And just to be fair: The Tommys will also whine about the 303 not beeing powerfull enough ;)
We have seen it in the past. Many people are not satisfied with "only" disabling the ennemy. They want to see them explode or at least burn.

But of course, machine guns will be great for damaging the cooling system or other similar sensitive areas. You just have to hit the right places. And imo that's one advantage of the canon shell. Even if you just hit the wing for exemple, you might not damage internal sytems, but the structural damage will be much greater.
People with good shooting skills will probably prefere the canon. The others might favor the machine guns.

[Jaws2002]

And yet, 10 years after release, the only CFS with a more complex damage model is Rise of Flight, which has had some major bugs in that respect.

You forgot a few. Both DCS instalments, Black Shark and A-10 have way more advanced damage model. I don't even think CoD will come close to this. Some planes in Targetware were very good in translating damage to components along the bullet's flight path and it was easy to check in the log by everyone.

[speculum jockey]

You forgot a few. Both DCS instalments, Black Shark and A-10 have way more advanced damage model. I don't even think CoD will come close to this. Some planes in Targetware were very good in translating damage to components along the bullet's flight path and it was easy to check in the log by everyone.

There is no way in hell this is true. Everyone who plays both games agree that the damage modeling is pretty much the biggest shortfall of both games since it's quite simplified.

[David603]

You forgot a few. Both DCS instalments, Black Shark and A-10 have way more advanced damage model. I don't even think CoD will come close to this. Some planes in Targetware were very good in translating damage to components along the bullet's flight path and it was easy to check in the log by everyone.

There is no way in hell this is true. Everyone who plays both games agree that the damage modeling is pretty much the biggest shortfall of both games since it's quite simplified.

I haven't played either DCS sim, but what I have heard and seen in trailers corresponds with what speculum jockey said.

[winny]

And no aluminium skin to deflect some energy from the rounds, before hitting the tank?

I dunno, were blenheims fabric covered? My Blenheim knowledge is practically zero...

And just to add to the DM argument.. CoD will have the most advanced DM around - end of. (It's probably the main reason we're not going to see 100+ bomber formations initially)

[GnigruH]

Well, you seem to forget about a thing called convergence.
At optimum range all eight mgs would hit one spot, with high rof.
This really should be devastating IMO.

I heard in CoD they're boosting mgs and nerfing the cannons, compared to '46 ofc.

If it is true, the times when it was better to have one cannon on board, rather than eight mgs, are unfortunately over.

[speculum jockey]

As for aluminum skins deflecting and dissipating energy from MG rounds, yes and no.

Aluminum is a very soft metal and bullets have little to not trouble penetrating multiple layers of it. Sure you can have a bullet impact at a very extreme angle or at the end of its effective range, but for the most part rounds keep on trucking. A guy I know went out to the bush to test out a new (new to him, but old) .30-30 rifle. This is pretty much the weakest .30 cal rifle out there. He accidentally (negligently) put a round through the side of his mini-van and it went clear out the other side. It went through the outer panel, through one of the support beam leading to the roof, through the plastic casing, through the entire second row passenger seat (metal frame, 4 feet of foam, and then through the other side's plastic casing, support frame, and outer panel.

Bullets do a lot of strange things, but against soft or thin metals they usually go straight through and only vary their trajectory slightly. Hence He-111's coming back intact, but with mostly dead crewmembers.

In your typical WWII airframe the only things that are going to stop them are armour plates, metal cylinders, the engine, or other hard metal fixtures that are not part of the actual airframe and shell.

[LukeFF]

I heard in CoD they're boosting mgs and nerfing the cannons, compared to '46 ofc.

What, from a friend of a friend of a friend? :rolleyes:

[JG53Frankyboy]

I dunno, were blenheims fabric covered? My Blenheim knowledge is practically zero...



the Blenheim was full metall fuselage.

[GnigruH]

What, from a friend of a friend of a friend? :rolleyes:
Could be.

[Former_Older]

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to think the above comments are the case

[Former_Older]

As for aluminum skins deflecting and dissipating energy from MG rounds, yes and no.

Aluminum is a very soft metal and bullets have little to not trouble penetrating multiple layers of it. Sure you can have a bullet impact at a very extreme angle or at the end of its effective range, but for the most part rounds keep on trucking. A guy I know went out to the bush to test out a new (new to him, but old) .30-30 rifle. This is pretty much the weakest .30 cal rifle out there. He accidentally (negligently) put a round through the side of his mini-van and it went clear out the other side. It went through the outer panel, through one of the support beam leading to the roof, through the plastic casing, through the entire second row passenger seat (metal frame, 4 feet of foam, and then through the other side's plastic casing, support frame, and outer panel.

Bullets do a lot of strange things, but against soft or thin metals they usually go straight through and only vary their trajectory slightly. Hence He-111's coming back intact, but with mostly dead crewmembers.

In your typical WWII airframe the only things that are going to stop them are armour plates, metal cylinders, the engine, or other hard metal fixtures that are not part of the actual airframe and shell.

I think you make a good point

A lot of people seem to not understand how much damage a rifle-caliber bullet can really do. Movies and TV are the basis for a lot of opinions I think.

The 'small' .303 and it's US .30 cousins could go through trees. At the Springfield Armory museum in Massachusetts, USA is a fascinating series of thick hardwood blocks that were shot with .30 and .308 caliber rifle rounds, from M1 and M14 rifles. Well over a foot of penetrating from either round. I recall the .308 as having a 19" penetration through solid hardwood

And that's a single shot, not a barrage of sustained automatic fire pummeling the hardwood block, just one single round.

[speculum jockey]

Yup, the only problem though with MG ammo vs. aluminum is that it makes pretty little holes and you don't get those spectacular exit craters that you see in the hardwood at that museum, which sucks for the Brits or Luft pilots who have spent all their cannon ammo.

[Royraiden]

Could a concentrated mg fire at convergence distance rip a whole wing off by the base?Would be nice to see attacked airplanes go down in a lot of different ways, rather than just setting it on fire and explode.The whole tail blown off by cannon rounds,exploding ammo ripping the whole wings and stuff like that.I havent read much about the new damage model.Would be nice to have some specific details or a video showing them.

[WTE_Galway]

Could a concentrated mg fire at convergence distance rip a whole wing off by the base?Would be nice to see attacked airplanes go down in a lot of different ways, rather than just setting it on fire and explode.The whole tail blown off by cannon rounds,exploding ammo ripping the whole wings and stuff like that.I havent read much about the new damage model.Would be nice to have some specific details or a video showing them.

Mythbusters .303 minigun versus a tree ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY

But in reality if you look at actual WWII gun cams and photos of downede aircraft de-winging was uncommon.

Perhaps we need a "cinematic" mode that allows unrealistic exploding and de-winging of aircraft to satisfy the inner need for people to blow things apart :D

[Royraiden]

Mythbusters .303 minigun versus a tree ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY

But in reality if you look at actual WWII gun cams and photos of downede aircraft de-winging was uncommon.

Perhaps we need a "cinematic" mode that allows unrealistic exploding and de-winging of aircraft to satisfy the inner need for people to blow things apart :D

Well at least Ive seen wings breaking off due to the ammo exploding after getting hit.Cannon rounds could definitely do what Im asking :D

[Avimimus]

There was a really great article posted a few years ago on the SimHQ forum.

Apparently, passing through a 2mm aluminum sheet introduces considerable yaw (in the ballistic - not aeroplane sense) to the bullet. This lowers terminal penetration by something like 30% because it no longer hits head-on.

[WTE_Galway]

I think you make a good point

A lot of people seem to not understand how much damage a rifle-caliber bullet can really do. Movies and TV are the basis for a lot of opinions I think.

The 'small' .303 and it's US .30 cousins could go through trees. At the Springfield Armory museum in Massachusetts, USA is a fascinating series of thick hardwood blocks that were shot with .30 and .308 caliber rifle rounds, from M1 and M14 rifles. Well over a foot of penetrating from either round. I recall the .308 as having a 19" penetration through solid hardwood

And that's a single shot, not a barrage of sustained automatic fire pummeling the hardwood block, just one single round.

On the other hand I had a Vietnamese friend who said they found during the war that 3 feet or so of loose "brush" consisting of cut leafy branches one or two inches thick over a trench or pit would not only camouflaged them from helicopters but effectively stopped a lot of rifle calibre MGs.

[winny]

The main cause for the majority of the holes in German bombers was simple ball ammo. RAF fighters usually had 3 or 4 guns with ball ammo 1 or 2 with AP.

The problem, as someone already said, is that the bullets would deflect or start to tumble and not hit at the correct angle. Only a quarter of the armour piercing rounds fired into the Blenheim reached the armoured plate and hardly any penetrated it.

The same round fired straight at a 12mm armoured plate (8mm thicker than the Blenheims) from the same distance (180m) penetrated the armour 100% of the time. Airframe makes a huge difference.

The Germans knew that AP rounds were ineffective against bombers and they eventually removed them from the ammo belts, except for specialised missions.

[Chivas]

I doubt very much the developers will nerf the cannons and uber the smaller calibers. There is a huge difference in the damage model of IL-2 and COD. The days of shot up fighters staying and being effective in a fight are over. With the new damage model every system on the aircraft can be damaged or destroyed. Pilots will be bailing out or trying to find a way out of the fight as quickly as possible, because the aircraft will no longer be effective.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Mythbusters .303 minigun versus a tree ...


I think you'll find its a 7.62mm Nato round. The rimmed .303 cases were a throw back to the late 1800's and have issues with auto weapons. Without proper loading it's even possible to lock the rims in a Lee Endfield magazine - very embarassing :!)

Cheers and thanks for the video! I wonder if they could mount one of those in my Spitfire?

[GnigruH]

I doubt very much the developers will nerf the cannons and uber the smaller calibres.
Slight boost here, small nerf there - this could happen.
Although I agree that with many things to damage, spraying a burst of small calibre rounds over a target could be effective.

BTW my only complaint about cannons in '46 is that, last time when I played it, when you hit someone with a single round, he would either loose his wing, loose his rear fuselage, have his engine on fire or crumble into dozens of small triangles.
AFAIK this is not like it should be.

In CoD it will be possible to load each gun with different ammo, so I look forward to experiment a little 8-).

[swiss]

BTW my only complaint about cannons in '46 is that, last time when I played it,

that was either some time ago, or a Mk108.
If it was the latter, the effect on fighter is ok.

If I remember correctly, in RL it only took 5 hits to bring down a B17 - and that is one huge mofo.

[Chivas]

Slight boost here, small nerf there - this could happen.
Although I agree that with many things to damage, spraying a burst of small calibre rounds over a target could be effective.

BTW my only complaint about cannons in '46 is that, last time when I played it, when you hit someone with a single round, he would either loose his wing, loose his rear fuselage, have his engine on fire or crumble into dozens of small triangles.
AFAIK this is not like it should be.

In CoD it will be possible to load each gun with different ammo, so I look forward to experiment a little 8-).

I agree it will be much more interesting fighting in the Cliffs of Dover.

I've used the MK108 alot in the sim and it definitely does considerable damage, but I've seen many aircraft in the sim take several MK108's or other cannons and keep fighting. The smaller calibers can also be very devastating too when you fire at your convergence setting. I find most sim pilots are not very good shots and some don't completely understand convergence or deflection shooting.

[Erkki]

Probably all weapons will generally be more lethal, but less de-wings/de-tailings... Remember a cannon HE shell going off isnt just the pressure damage, but also shrapnel. A HE round in the wing tip may result in a shrapnel in the pilots head... Or in the engine, cooling system etc.

[Sven]

I agree it will be much more interesting fighting in the Cliffs of Dover.

I've used the MK108 alot in the sim and it definitely does considerable damage, but I've seen many aircraft in the sim take several MK108's or other cannons and keep fighting. The smaller calibers can also be very devastating too when you fire at your convergence setting. I find most sim pilots are not very good shots and some don't completely understand convergence or deflection shooting.

It's a real matter of luck I've noticed, some times they just absorb the 30mm rounds like nothing happend, other times they explode on the first hit, also deflection shooting really increases that chance of a 1 hit kill.

[WTE_Galway]

Just a small snapshot to keep the whole 30mm versus 0.50 cal thing in perspective ....


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/ammunition.jpg

[GnigruH]

Impressive, but is this the way to prove that they should de-wing instantly?

Also in this whole cannon vs mg discussion you should take into account the rof of weapons which used this ammo.
You fired two cannon rounds. How many rounds 8 mgs fired in the same time period?

that was either some time ago, or a Mk108
Some time ago.

I've used the MK108 alot in the sim and it definitely does considerable damage, but I've seen many aircraft in the sim take several MK108's or other cannons and keep fighting.My comment was about single engine aircraft.

[JG4_Helofly]

Impressive, but is this the way to prove that they should de-wing instantly?

Also in this whole cannon vs mg discussion you should take into account the rof of weapons which used this ammo.
You fired two cannon rounds. How many rounds 8 mgs fired in the same time period?


Some time ago.

My comment was about single engine aircraft.

Have you ever seen the video in which they shoot on a spitfires wing with a Mk108 on the ground? Just one single round, but the damage is considerable. In flight with all the stress on the wing, it would probably just break. The germans reported that it took about three 30mm rounds to down a bomber and about seven 20mm rounds for the same result.
Talking about rof: The MGs might have a higher rate of fire, but you still have to hit. If you are not at gun convergence range, most of your bullets will miss.
An other element is the energy which is delivered to the target. MG bullets only have kinetic energy, canon shells have also chemical energy (mine shells etc.).

To sum it up. In any case you have to keep your aim at the enemy long enough to bring a sufficient amount of led on target. Canons will of course be more destructive, but more skill is requiered in order to hit, because of the low rof. MGs will probably be easier to use, because even with bad shooting skills, you still can score a few hits and hope to hit a vital internal system.

[swiss]

On the other hand I had a Vietnamese friend who said they found during the war that 3 feet or so of loose "brush" consisting of cut leafy branches one or two inches thick over a trench or pit would not only camouflaged them from helicopters but effectively stopped a lot of rifle calibre MGs.

Actually that is exactly the opposite of what some Swiss tests showed.

They put barricades right in front of trench, but instead of trying to hit into the trench they fired right upon the stuff in front of it. Ammo was 7.5x55mm Swiss.
When they went to check, the targets in the trench were perforated from the debris.

[BadgerSmedly]

I can't criticise the damage model in 1946, but I have to admit that on-line the P-47 has been most resistant to my 109's mk108 at about 250M, on more than one occasion too.

Interestingly the off-line results are more predictable with significant damage incurred, so I suspect that the model dynamics etc. have to accommodate many scenarios with differing results.

Maybe I should fly the P-47 on-line instead.... ;)

[major_setback]

This might be of interest to you.

Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber.
Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it.
In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.

Notice how close they were fired from, and the He-111s had better armour than a blenheim.
Add to that the fact that only 2 of the 8 guns would have had AP rounds and you end up with a lot of German bombers getting home when they shouldn't have.

This was not the case when the roles were reversed.

Yes, there was one pilot, can't remember who (Moran?) who purposely didn't finish off bombers, and let them return damaged because it was a bigger blow to morale if the rest of the bomber unit saw a bomber with dead crew members return, than if it just went missing.
The bomber would be out of action anyway until repaired.

[Flying Pencil]

In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.

Notice how close they were fired from, and the He-111s had better armour than a blenheim.
Add to that the fact that only 2 of the 8 guns would have had AP rounds and you end up with a lot of German bombers getting home when they shouldn't have.


I had read this test before, (It was a Blen I, but practically same rear to Blen IV), but the lower penetration of 7.92 is new to me!

Thanks!

[Flying Pencil]

Remember that you cannot compare results in IL2 with CoD.

IL2's damage model, while state of the art in 2001 is now very out of date, and actually rather simple when compared to the new sim.

Just be prepared for the whines of "The .303s are UBER!!!" by Jerry, who will not take into account that there will literally be hundreds more things that can be damaged in the new sim. (Shooting individual spark plugs, or the pilot oxygen system, for example).

I am not, and Visual /= Actual.

I am all about an exaggerated power of .303 for the sake of getting to zit faced teen happy.

All the damage point simply make it possible to take out parts, but still fly the aircraft.

For instance, the elevator cable may be shot away, but you can still fly using the TRIM (forget about trying to combat, but at least you can maintain control).

[Flying Pencil]

Yes, there was one pilot, can't remember who (Moran?) who purposely didn't finish off bombers, and let them return damaged because it was a bigger blow to morale if the rest of the bomber unit saw a bomber with dead crew members return, than if it just went missing.
The bomber would be out of action anyway until repaired.

...which would also take a lot more resources to repair.

Drive home the FeAr!

[swiss]

...which would also take a lot more resources to repair.


More than what?

While you can't scrap a wounded soldier it works pretty well with ACs. ;)

[winny]

I know Bader was of the opinion that the other German aircrew seeing a badly shot up bomber returning home was very bad for their morale. More so than another 'failed to return'.

I know of one RAF squadron that that reckoned they fired around 7,000 rounds into a He-111 and it still managed to get away. I'd hate to know what was going on inside it though

[swiss]

. I'd hate to know what was going on inside it though

Ever put a tomato in a microwave?

[Flying Pencil]

Just a small snapshot to keep the whole 30mm versus 0.50 cal thing in perspective ....


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/ammunition.jpg


Some excellent info on the effectiveness of those weapons:

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

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4127-Luftwaffe-Cannons-amp-Machineguns.

[Flying Pencil]

I dunno, were blenheims fabric covered? My Blenheim knowledge is practically zero...


Full metal except for the control surfaces being fabric covered.

[Flying Pencil]

More than what?

While you can't scrap a wounded soldier it works pretty well with ACs. ;)

Wounded soldier takes a lot of resources as well.

And the Germans would repair very badly damaged aircraft simply because they could not get replacements.
Germany did not really ramp up production until late in war when they realized they needed significantly more units then they had.

[winny]

Ever put a tomato in a microwave?

You have a way with words Swiss.

[swiss]

And the Germans would repair very badly damaged aircraft simply because they could not get replacements.


..and therefore it's a bad idea not to down it. ;)

[334th_Gazoo]

Well at least Ive seen wings breaking off due to the ammo exploding after getting hit.Cannon rounds could definitely do what Im asking :D


Glacier Girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p8h43TRXwk

[WTE_Galway]

Some excellent info on the effectiveness of those weapons:

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

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4127-Luftwaffe-Cannons-amp-Machineguns.


Good links.

This small pic caught my eye. The parts of a bomber vulnerable to rifle calibre machine gun according to a French study:

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/advcan.jpg

[Biggs]

Good links.

This small pic caught my eye. The parts of a bomber vulnerable to rifle calibre machine gun according to a French study:

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/advcan.jpg

ha, notice the entire cockpit section is blacked out... not really vulnerability to the 'bomber' but more the 'inhabitants' :rolleyes:

[trademe900]

yep... and heres proof!! Everything in Purple is part of the damage model.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/ScreenShots_001.jpg

I dont have a pics of the 109 damage model but here are some other development pics that show plenty of internal modeling which will have a DM applied to it like in the spit pic...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/ScreenShots_002.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Biggs222/Bf-109E-3_01.jpg

the .303s will run into plenty of damageable stuff inside these planes :twisted:

Sorry to dig up an old thread but this is very interesting- does anyone have any pics of the Do17z, Ju88 etc?

Also perhaps nice for a change to realize one of the truly cool features and capabilities of this simulator...

[Flanker35M]

S!

As comparison the Finnish Fokker D.XXI pilots quickly noted that the .303cal guns were not enough to reliably kill a well armored bomber nor a fighter with good armor plate behind pilot. For example in many occasions the I-16 had been peppered by all 4 x .303cal but the plane puttered on as the rear armor behind pilot stopped the bullets. Same applied to Soviet bombers like DB-3 that had tough armoring in the fuselage, pilots had to aim very carefully to kill the engines so the plane fell. Fokker D.XXI had 2200rds of ammo and many times most of it was used. So you can imagine the joy when Brewsters with 4 x .50cal came and shredded the opposition compared to Fokkers. Bf109G-2 and G-6 later on brought the cannon into play and pilots all stated that the 20mm was more than enough to kill a fighter easily and bombers with short bursts.

Just adding some thoughts :)