Why are the cannons so weak on the 109-E, yet so strong on the Russian planes?

[mattmanB182]

Is there a factual reason for this? Or some bias? I am not trying to start a debate, I really just want to know.

The Emile is slow..but a dream to handle. It has 2 MG's and 2 20MM cannons, yet I feel like im shooting spit wads. Actually the same goes for the F-4. From material I read...the F-4 was superior to the Spit MK-IV in most respects....yet I only get kills in the F-4 with well aimed cockpit shots. It only has one cannon..but it seemed to work for the many pilots that it turned into aces.


I know this game is not perfect, and most flaws wont be fixed anyway...I just wanted to discuss the weakness of the armament of the Emile. I am baffled at how 2 cannons and 2 MG's can do so little damage...while an LA-7 with just 2 cannons does not have near as much trouble.

And about the F-4...I thought the cannon in the nose was a 30MM not a 20MM...well either one should do severe damage to anything it hits. It was even mentioned on a "dogfights" episode how just one hit from one of these cannons could obliterate a Mustang..not so in the game, unless I get a direct hit on the cockpit.

Do I have a point at all?

[Zatoichi_Sanjuro]

The E really is underpowered in the game. It can't be bias though as the G6 and K4 are almost overpowered.

[mattmanB182]

Originally Posted by Zatoichi_Sanjuro

The E really is underpowered in the game. It can't be bias though as the G6 and K4 are almost overpowered.

I actually think they are accurate depictions...thos 30MM were VERY destructive.....

[Soviet Ace]

Well to answer the question on the F4. Early F's were equipped with FF cannons that were like 15mm or something? Then the F4 was given a better 20mm cannon, not 30mm.

Anyway, it's well know that the all the Russian planes have more advantage in BoP, than any of the other planes. Whether it was bias, or just not very good modeling; I can't say.

[winny]

Calibre doesn't have an awful lot to do with the comparison. You'd have to know the weight of projectile, % of High explosive per round (if any), muzzle velocity and Rounds per second. Assuming that all of that is accuratley portrayed...

For example the early 109's had 2 wing mounted cannons and 2 nose mounted MGs with 60 rounds of ammo for each gun and fired 520 rpm, the british initially went with 6 or 4 .303 MGs with 300 rounds of ammo for each gun and double the rpm of the german guns, however a 3 second burst from the german gun weighed 8 kg (and exploded on contact) and a 3 second burst from the british only delivered just under 6kg and didn't explode on contact. They started fitting cannons to spitfires in July '40 and the Hurricanes got 4 cannons from '41 onwards.

I don't know enough about Russian guns to say if they are correct but I do know that they were all very efficient. It could be right.

The most destructive cannons used in WWII were the ones fitted to the Me-262, try a training mission in it and see if it brings down a B-17 easily...

[TRC Subaru]

I have to defend the Devs a little here; one of the best overall fighters is the Spit IX, turns with the La-7 but with more firepower (at least in the game). I really like the La-7 but I always seem to go back in the Spit because it seems to have more “Killing Power” although I believe the La-7 should be stronger then it appears in the game.

I am not a munitions expert but I did dig up some facts after I perceived the La-7’s canons seem to be firing faster then the Spits (and other fighters). The La-7 has some formidable canons (ShVAK, 700–800 rounds/min), that fire faster then the Spits (Hispano, 600–700 rounds/min). Although the muzzle velocity is a bit slower and the shell a bit smaller I believe more rounds per minute (about 100 rounds/min) would seem to give the advantage to the La-7 when compared to the spit and other planes using slower firing cannons. I believe in this regard - More is Better…or Deadlier

Data pulled off Wikipedia:

Armament - Spitfire
• Guns: Mk I, Mk II, Mk VA
o (VA) 8 × .303in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg
o (VB on) 2 × 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 60 rpg (drum magazine); (VC) 120 rpg (belt loaded, box magazine)
o 4 × 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg
• Bombs:
o 2 × 250 lb (113 kg) bombs

Armament - LA-7• 2 × 20 mm ShVAK cannons; 200 rpg or 3 × 20 mm Berezin B-20 cannons; 100 rpg
• 200 kg (440 lb) of bombs

Specifications Hispano-Suiza HS.404• Type: single-barrel automatic cannon
• Caliber: 20 mm × 110 (0.79 in)
• Operation: gas operated
• Length without muzzle brake: 2.32 m
• Length with muzzle brake: 2.52 m
• Weight without drum magazine: 43 kg
• Weight (complete): 68.7 kg
• Rate of fire: 600–700 rpm
• Muzzle velocity: 840 to 880 m/s (2,750 to 2,900 ft/s)
• Recoil force: 400 kg with muzzle brake
• Amunition: Ball, Incendiary, HE (High Explosive)
• Projectile weight: 130 g HE and HEI 168 g AP-T
• HE and HEI rounds explosive filler: 6–11 g

Specifications ShVAK cannon
• Caliber: 20 mm
• Cartridge: 20×99R
• Rate of fire: 700–800 rounds/min
• Muzzle velocity: 750–790 m/s (2,460-2,592 ft/s)
• Weight: 88 lb (40 kg) without ammunition for the wing version
• Length: 66.1 in (1679 mm) for the wing version

I’m sure there are others out there that are much more knowledgeable and I would welcome more information on the subject.

[Soviet Ace]

So I did some research on the topic last night, and came up with basically what TRC found, but I looked up what the German FF cannon (which should be what the 109E in BoP is armed with), had. Here's what I found.

+ Weight : 26.3 kg
+ Length : 1.37 m
+ Muzzle Velocity : 600 m/s (MG FF), 585 m/s (FF/M with AP or HE), 700 m/s (MG FF/M with mine shell)
+ Rate of Fire : 520 rpm (MG FF, FF/M with AP or HE), 540 rounds per minute (MG FF/M with mine-shot)
+ Round types: armor piercing (AP), high explosive (HE), incendiary, all with or without tracer; high explosive mine-shot (HE(M)) (only MG FF/M)

[winny]

RoF is important but not that important..
It's all about how much weight/HE you can get into a target.

To work it out properly you need projectile weight, % of HE in it and RoF then you could see what the difference would be for a 2-3 second burst..

The Russian projectile weighs 95 grams and is 6% HE.
The British projectile weighs 130 grams and is 8% HE
The German projectile weighs 92 grams and is 22% HE

Russian RoF = 13 RPS = 74g HE per second. (shVAK 20mm)
British RoF = 10 RPS = 104g HE per second. (Hispano MKII)
German RoF = 8 RPS = 161g HE per second. (MG-FF with HE rounds)

Then x that by the number of guns...

(this is ignoring the fact that the spitfire had MG's too)
Muzzle velocity isn't that important (although it does have a significant effect on accuracy).

[TRC Subaru]

Originally Posted by winny

RoF is important but not that important..
It's all about how much weight/HE you can get into a target.

To work it out properly you need projectile weight, % of HE in it and RoF then you could see what the difference would be for a 2-3 second burst..

The Russian projectile weighs 95 grams and is 6% HE.
The British projectile weighs 130 grams and is 8% HE
The German projectile weighs 92 grams and is 22% HE

Russian RoF = 13 RPS = 74g HE per second. (shVAK 20mm)
British RoF = 10 RPS = 104g HE per second. (Hispano MKII)
German RoF = 8 RPS = 161g HE per second. (MG-FF with HE rounds)

Then x that by the number of guns...

(this is ignoring the fact that the spitfire had MG's too)
Muzzle velocity isn't that important (although it does have a significant effect on accuracy).

Great analysis Winny, you clearly are knowledgeable of the subject of ballistics and I agree with your findings, M+V=D, (Mass + Velocity = Destruction…lol)

This formula I believe works very well if you are hitting a stationary object with all the projectiles, but when a moving plane is trying to hit another moving plane, you are often most likely to get a “sweeping” firing line where all the projectiles are not hitting, so with the faster firing gun (la-7), you will get more “hits”. Yes, the gun with higher mass has more “hitting power” but I believe you have enough destructive power with the La-7’s 95 gram projectile and when taking down a plane you need to get a hit in a “critical spot”, motor, fuel tank, etc. so with a higher rate of fire you have a greater chance of hitting a “critical spot” and taking down the plane. In other words, lets just say you have a gun with a 500 gram projectile and only 2 rps as apposed to a gun with a 50 gram projectile and 20 rps, both have the same theoretical destructive power but in a “sweeping fire path” the larger round may miss completely and the lighter round may land several hits, possibly hitting a critical spot and taking down the plane.

Same theory is why a 9mm full auto UZI is more valued in a fire fight then a 44 magnum six-gun. Bigger isn’t always better…

I’m not taking into account what armor the enemy plane has and several other factors, this is just my theory as an engineer, and I’m curious if this made a difference in actual combat, and if “More really is Better”

[Steyr_amr]

[QUOTE=TRC Subaru;140976]M+V=D, (Mass + Velocity = Destruction…lol)

Kinetic energy (Joules) = 0.5 x Mass(kg) x Velocity(metres per second) squared.

This only takes into account inert projectiles though, taking into account HE, AP, actual velocity at which the projectile impacts the target (taking into account range, relative speeds of the aircraft involved, gravity) and whatnot opens up a myriad of mathematics which I'm too tired to be troubled with at the moment.

I don't know much about the specific ballistics, rates of fire and what not of each of the autocannons being discussed here. But although 30mm cannons hit harder their lower muzzle velocity makes fighters much harder to hit with them. The Browning .50 cal was praised for its nice flat trajectory and therefore ease of aiming.

I think i remember reading somewhere also that the MG151/20 as mounted in the 109F was thought much more highly of than the dual MGFF's mounted in Emil due to superior ballistics and a much higher rate of fire. (Personally, I find it much easier to aim just due to it's location in front of the cockpit rather than out on the wing.)

Sorry if this has gone way off topic.