Ammunition power - Page 4

Insuber · #31 02-21-2009, 11:42 AM

About the lack of a proper HET belting for the SAFAT, debated sometimes in the forums, an interesting finding of the well-known Quarry Nildram site (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk):

"The .5" Vickers Class B aircraft gun was not purely experimental. Small numbers were sold to both Siam (Thailand) and Japan in the 1930s, although no aircraft installations have so far emerged. It is presumed that these guns were chambered for the semi-rimmed version of the 12.7x81 cartridge.

It now appears that the IJA's use of this cartridge in the Ho-103 aircraft gun was a separate development via Italy (who adopted this calibre for the Breda-SAFAT and Scotti aircraft guns), and the Italian explosive projectiles were adopted by Japan."

Now in this forum someone already poke into the code, you can find some data here (explosion radius of Breda HET 4 cm, vs 15 cm of the Browning M2):

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...?t=2845&page=2

Regards,
Ins

Skoshi Tiger · #32 02-22-2009, 12:07 AM

Well here's my mathematical analysis of the problem.

For sake of brevity I will only deal with a non existing weapon.
In the table below
WP= Weapon Power
RoF= Rate of Fire
PpS= Power per Minute
AP = Applied Power
--------------------------------------------------------
WP.....RoF.........PpM.......%Hit...AP........%Pow er
1 100....700.........70000....4%.....2800....100
2 110....700.........77000.....4%......3080.....110
3 100....700.........70000.....5%......3500......125
---------------------------------------------------------

In line one we have a generic weapon with a "power" of 100 and a RoF of 700 rounds per minute. Historically pilots scored an average of 2 - 5% hits so I've taken a baseline % hits as 4%. This means that 2800 units of power have been applied to the target which is 100%Power.

Line 2 assumes that the code is altered by 10% and power on target increases by 10%

Line 3 assumes you can increase your accuracy by just 1% this means that an extra 25% power is applied to the target above the standard score.

To get the same increase of power applied to the target at line 3 you would have to boost the weapons power (in the code) by 25% over the standard power.

Now if all the time and energy that has gone into arguing the case for changing the weapon powers had gone into gunnery practice, this issue may not have existed in the first place

------------------
warped logics or Excel in the hands of a Chart Monkey is a very dangerous thing!

IceFire · #33 02-22-2009, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Now if all the time and energy that has gone into arguing the case for changing the weapon powers had gone into gunnery practice, this issue may not have existed in the first place

QFT!

Most people suck at aiming their guns...its no small wonder that the really big cannons are preferred due to the increased chance of killing something with a lucky shot rather than a well clustered group of bullets.

Anak · #34 02-22-2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Now if all the time and energy that has gone into arguing the case for changing the weapon powers had gone into gunnery practice, this issue may not have existed in the first place

Signature material

Insuber · #35 02-22-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Well here's my mathematical analysis of the problem.

(...)
------------------
Excel in the hands of a Chart Monkey is a dangerous thing!

Funny! But I would say instead: "warped logics in the hands of a chart monkey is a very dangerous thing" ...

If one changes the reference, he can demonstrate whatever he wants, right ? Even that (15 cm : 4 cm)= (M2 : SAFAT) ... LOL.

Regards,
Insuber

zapatista · #36 02-23-2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Well here's my mathematical analysis of the problem......

............Now if all the time and energy that has gone into arguing the case for changing the weapon powers had gone into gunnery practice, this issue may not have existed in the first place

you are looking at it the wrong way around, by arguing that only accuracy of gunnery matters and that the caliber/belting or explosive charge of the munition has little significance.

the discussion at the moment here is about the importance of having correct historical munitions loadouts for all aircraft in il2/BoB, and that those munitions damage effects on aircraft surfaces are modeled correctly.

imo the way to remove controversy and speculation, is for those values to be openly given, in the same ways we need accurate values for airspeed, climb rate, etc... Not providing that information leads to speculation of incorrect values being used, and that has now been proven to be the case for some aircraft/munitions by the people who have opened the code for il2.

Skoshi Tiger · #37 02-23-2009, 12:47 PM

I'm hip with what your saying man, but with historically correct values for weapon power, I doubt that we would see anything like real world effect.

Although sophisticated for its time, the aircraft physics, systems and damage model in IL2 is simplified and abstracted (as they are in any sim, even the big space shuttle jobbies used by nasa, even if they are several orders of magnitude 'better' and more detailed than IL2! ). This requires tweeking of the values used, in our case, to represent the damage of the various weapons.

I do not know what process they used to determine the values that they settled on, but I would hope they used a process where the results obtained in the sim (statistically) reflected what occured during the war. I know this approach lead to discussions like this and the process used to select these values will cause arguments, but I can't see any simple way around it.

At the moment my average hit percentage is at or below that 4% value I talked about before and I'm having a hell of a time getting that extra 1%. At that point I'll go into this Zen like state, that will last until SoW gets released. (Or I get shot down in flames on hyperlobby again!)

In my opinion, in 8 years time we will probably be having similar discussions about SoW.

Oh and sorry about the 'Hip' remark I've been watching Life on Mars and I'm going through a 70's revival. Dig it Brother!

6S.Manu · #38 02-23-2009, 06:03 PM

Wait! Wait!

Are you really defending the wrong data with a "learn to shot better"?

It's like you buy a bicycle, at home you find out that it has only one wheel and the seller explains that you need to learn to ride it in that way.

Of course Il2 is dead and where will be no changes.. no reason to whine.

But Emil is rightly asking WHY this wrong data in a game who should be a realistic simulator.

Looking at the overall data (FM and DM) with my years of experience I can say that the game is clearly biased toward the Red side.

Of course there is inaccuracy on both the sides, but "usually" (ergo not always) these flaws are a disadvantage for the Blue and an advantage for the Red.

It's like the old story of "the 190's acceleration is wrong" -> "learn to fly". Of course people learned to fly it (mostly because they were prevented from flying the late 109s withone of the latest patches), using tactics and learing to build a good SA. But the accelleration was still wrong (im not talking about data, but comparison between planes) and his performance was/are still worser than those of an A4 with the Stuka's prop.

Anyway you can learn, you can make experience and at last you try to fight I16s flying a G50 and you want to lauch the monitor out of the window.

If only the modders could solve these problems (but I know they decided to not doing it leaving all the original data, even if wrong: I have friend inside that community).

I think I will buy SOW too even if the bias will remain the same... I only hate to find out again and again experts (flying time wise) Red pilots who accuse you of cowardy when they are flying a SpitIXLF and you are in your 190A8...

I still have fun because I play in a virtual community.

Skoshi Tiger · #39 02-23-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote: