Cannons 109E firing rate

Concerning the canons of the 109 my observation is that in 90% of all cases when I give a broadside shot (aspect angle 90% seeing nearly top view of target plane) with canons at a close target (60m) or medium distant target (100-130m) my canons just don't hit. For me it is basically impossible to score a hit with canons by letting a target fly through my bullet stream. I only score very few hits with my machine guns.

Somehow I have some doubts if the cadence is correctly modelled. I may accept that few cannon rounds hit - perhaps only one or two and that occasionally the target just flies through. But really almost in any case? This seems to me very strange.

[Sven]

To be honest, I can't hit a thing at point blank range. My aim seems to be right on the target and the smoke trails are covering my target completely, yet only a few hit and sometimes start a little fire on the enemy's fuselage. But I'm not on the receiving end most of the time so I can't tell what damage I am really doing.

[TomcatViP]

Canon shells and machine gun bullets hve not the same speed. If you use your MG for aiming you need to compensate for the extra time the canon shell will take to hit the same point( raise the nose)

Canons are great for high aspect ratio shots (when you target is more in plan view than from dead six)

But I hve the same problem as both of you. On many occasion my target will disappear in the smokes of the canon shells just to reappear 1 sec latter apparently unscathed. The uge smoke trails is making aiming difficult.

Basically I never really look at the smoke trails as I do not care. I place the point where I want and then press button.

However, during high aspect ratios (basically from above) when I just let the target fly through my bullet stream I simply do not score hits or only very few with the MG. Hardly ever with the cannons. And often I am really close with the target filling basically almost the whole windshield.

I wonder if (like in old IL2) perhaps not all bullets are physically modelled but only some.

I really would like to have your experience with this kind of situation.

Anyhow both replies seem to confirm my observation.

[Flanker35M]

S!

TIE fighters will make their appearance with Battle For Moscow so do not cheer too early

Actually with 10 rounds per second you will have every 0.1s a round from one cannon. With two cannons basically I have two rounds every 0.1s with one shell being slightly behind the first one.

Assuming a travel speed of a plane in a turn of 250 kph, this equals to a travel speed of a little less than 70 m/s. In 0.1s this plane will have travelled 7m. A fighter is about 10m in length. So in between 0.1s it would not have slipped through between two rounds of one cannon as it would had just moved by 70% of its length.

So basically I will have 1.3 rounds shot during the time the fighter enters the shooting spot and leaves it. This is based on one cannon. With two cannons this will be 2.6 rounds.

But please take into account that this situation is only when I do not track the target but only shoot straight at a fighter that passes at 90° to my flight path. Usually I will track him at least slightly and hence will increase his exposure time.

And please remember: The mentioned situation occurs at close range (difficult to miss) and while I let him fly through my shots (so not big g applied to my plane; I start firing before really well he enters my sight to accound for lead and I stop after he has left it)

I understand that a fighter is not a flying square and that quite a few rounds might just pass through and often I just miss. But really in almost EVERY case? This is what I cannot understand.

[robtek]

Is your conversion set to 60 -80 m?

If not your target for the cannon are the wings only because the fuselage is only 0,8 m wide, so the cannon shell pass by the sides.

As the wings are max. 1.5m wide there is a lot of space left for the rounds to pass.

To hit a fast moving target with the cannon is pure luck!!!

The cannon works well against stable targets at conversion range (fighter dead six) or big targets (bombers).

[JG53Frankyboy]

according to Saburo Sakai to hit anything with the canons (the Zero canons are very simiular to the 109E canons) was VERY difficult. He got his most kills with the MGs only...

one of the "funny" things about the BoB is for me, that the LW had the better weapons to kill bombers but their main targets were fighters and in the RAF it was otherway round.

[SNAFU]

The success of the Bf109 depended on the surprise and positional advantage. Some JG leader on escort duty was reported to have waited 15 minutes for the chance to dive on steady targets before he ordered to engage, because he wanted his 109s to make kills and no just to drive off the interceptors. They experienced that they had only one chance to shoot down a Hurricane or a Spit, and that was the first bounce out of a favourable position. In that time the Hurricanes caused havoc amongst the bombers and the JG leader a few friends less.

What we are used to from 1946, to get scores with high deflection shots on evading targets, was reserved for some few virtuoso pilots like Marseille methinks. Well, on the other side the pilots back then, didn´t have endless hours of combat experience as we have. Anyhow I think hits as you described or in the situation a matter of luck and maybe only your AP rounds hit, so you simply don´t see the impact at all.

[drewpee]

In my own experience I found it easier to hit things in IL2. I could bring down a tough target like a FW-190 or a P-47 by wrecking control surfaces. In COD I struggle to bring down a target. I do have more success destroying targets in a Spitfire than a BF109 but I prefer to fly the BF109.
It's harder to use historical reference's for tactics and AC design because no one really knows what parts of the game are accurate and whats not. For me I think my flying skills have improved but the ability to quickly dispense of an opponent has not.