Heinkels of steel?

[Fredfetish]

I seem to get the best results with loading with incendiary tracers, rest all AP with 2 guns fitted with De Wilde @150m conv. So ok then half AP/ half incendiary. However, I do feel a bit annoyed about the whole .303 effect on the planes.
For 1 everyone states that if you sit on the six of say a Me 109 and fire that there is nothing of importance in the tail and everything gets blocked by the armour behind the seat of the pilot. Firstly, so what then of the AP rounds? Are they not supposed to pass straight through the armour, the fuel tanks the pilot and hit the engine? X4 in my case. I thing all of the default load outs have at least 1 AP load. Isn’t the tail also considered to be of some importance?
Secondly, everyone then states that the .303 is so ineffective. I guess if you shoot the plane with 1 bullet, then yes in retrospect the effects could be minimal. However, you have 8 very high rate of fire guns firing all at once. The effect on the plane would by more like ripping paper than punching a hundred wholes into it one at a time with a couple of seconds in between.
In combat, planes losing their wings were more an effect of being torn off due to the sudden force of the bullet impact and the fact that the wing is already under strain from the wind flow rather than the struts being individually severed by bullet fire. If you see the amount of cartridges that come out of a fellow Hurri firing, it seems it would be more effective to just fly in front of the enemy plane and have it banged up by the incoming cartridges
BUT.... the last mission in the British campaign: Seeing tracers fly out in the night sky to the enemy plane, the glow of bullet impacts, then the ensuing fire and fire ball upon crashing .... Amazing!

[jimbop]

Nothing wrong with the guns, just have to learn how to use them! All my flying for the last few days has been practice against bombers. With the ammo loadout described in the above post set at 150 you can knock anything out of the sky with the rotol.

Even sitting on six of a Heinkel or Dornier (when you've got the gunner) works well if you land enough hits. I've ripped the entire tail off several times and getting the elevator is also good news.

[Fredfetish]

Jip, if I don't fly straight into the 111's straight on (dope), I can usually take out about 3 before my ammo runs out with the above mentioned loadout.
When chasing 111's, they aren't really that slow, so I can understand getting stuck behind their sixes. I usually try to start my attack from a bit above, but I rarely get a fatal hit in the few seconds until I'm right behind the bomber. In that case, wait till you are at your convergence setting (at 150m I can start to see the components I want to hit) away and try to aim for the engines in the wings (which is not all that easy from straight behind.... the tail is somewhat in the way). Some might hit the aileron and some might hit the fuel tank though, so it’s a good area to aim. Try not to fire blindly(usually into the tail) if you get too close, rather wait till you're slow enough to maintain the 150m distance or go around for a second pass). I also just read in the IL 46 plane guide that the plane should be able to fly with only one engine operational, so you’ll have to target both theoretically. Try to use your sidewinders only if need be.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Fredfetish

Firstly, so what then of the AP rounds? Are they not supposed to pass straight through the armour, the fuel tanks the pilot and hit the engine? X4 in my case. I thing all of the default load outs have at least 1 AP load. Isn’t the tail also considered to be of some importance?

The AP rounds were designed for Infantry use. The main reason they are so rubbish against aircraft armour is that they had to hit the armour tip first. The superstructure of the aircraft would 'tumble' the bullets making them spin end over end. The chances of the armour being penetrated were very, very small.

They were designed to be fired directly at armour (tanks etc).

The 8 x .303 should be a good 109 killer because all the vital parts are contained within a much smaller space. (stating the obvious!)

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by winny

The AP rounds were designed for Infantry use. The main reason they are so rubbish against aircraft armour is that they had to hit the armour tip first. The superstructure of the aircraft would 'tumble' the bullets making them spin end over end. The chances of the armour being penetrated were very, very small.

They were designed to be fired directly at armour (tanks etc).

Got it, makes sense. Thanks!
Although, it would be great if you can post a link that describes this in more historical accurate detail (not being sarcastic). The reason why I ask then is if so, they aren't just making perfectly round holes in the surface of the plane and they aren't just "passing through the empty tail section without hitting anything of importance". In my opinion and based on what you have said there should be a far more drastic effect on the tail (especially fighters and Stuka) when hit from the dead six position. Currently what I'm seeing is the rudder or elevators might fall off, but that's about it.

[Fredfetish]

Just to put it a bit into retrospect, this dumb video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7J2rbUFyJ8

shows a 7.62 (.30 mini gun that fires at 3000 rounds per minute. I would certainly think that this baby would saw with ease through the tail section of a ME 109.
Now, if you look at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm you’ll see that the Hurricane and Spitfire equipped with .303s had a firing rate of 9600 rounds per minute. That’s more than 3 of these mini guns. Cleary they would do a lot more structural damage then what is being depicted.
Interestingly enough, in the article they also say that the Germans moved away from AP to HE for the reason of causing large structural damage which was more affective then targeting components. Clearly structural damage is being down played a lot more to what was actually happening.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Fredfetish

Got it, makes sense. Thanks!
Although, it would be great if you can post a link that describes this in more historical accurate detail (not being sarcastic). The reason why I ask then is if so, they aren't just making perfectly round holes in the surface of the plane and they aren't just "passing through the empty tail section without hitting anything of importance". In my opinion and based on what you have said there should be a far more drastic effect on the tail (especially fighters and Stuka) when hit from the dead six position. Currently what I'm seeing is the rudder or elevators might fall off, but that's about it.

All I can say is, bullets do stange things! They would go through aluminium pretty easily and may even stay 'tip first', but there's a lot of stuff within the structure that is more substantial and as soon as a bullet hits these things you can forget about it penetrating armour. The flip side is that AP will go straight through the tail section leaving just small holes at entry and exit, so unless you hit something vital all you're really doing is letting some fresh air in :

I'm basing what I said on 2 things, my understanding of WWII Ammo / ballistics
and a test that has been mentioned on here before where the RAF fired LW and RAF AP rounds at a Blenheim rear gunners armoured plate from 180m away. Only 6% of the RAF AP actually penetrated the armour (4mm) and only 1% of the German equivilent (7.92mm) penetrated the armour. (Remember that this is the rear gunner in a Blenheim, the chances of hitting and penetrating the pilots armour from six o'clock is virtually zero).

The armour on most LW bombers was substantially thicker.


An indicator of the ineffectivness of AP is that the LW stopped using them for Air to Air. They knew the best way to bring aircraft down was HE and fragmentation.

[Fredfetish]

I accept the inefficiency of the .303 rounds and should be pretty useless against internal armour fitted at an angle. Just also do realise that the 1% of the rounds fired at the bomber would mean that of the 160 rounds of one second firing, that 1.6 bullets would at least penetrate.

Anyway, again back to the structural damage and this is in regards to the fighters. If the bullets are hitting internal structures from the dead six positions, than surely the must be damaged? These are the things that hold the aluminium up in the first place. Also, at 160 bullets a second you are going to let in a lot of air in no time as well. If let’s say the .303 bullet makes a 7 millimetre hole in diameter and we times that with 160, a second’s worth of fire would open up a meter’s worth of area.
With regards to 111 bombers, the article states that some returned home with up to 200 bullet holes in them. With a large exclamation on how big this number is. However, that is little more than a second’s worth of firing. Again I state the sheer volume of rounds that is being fired. (Look at what the 1/3 of the volume mini gun does to the derelict car in the video)

[winny]

Originally Posted by Fredfetish

I accept the inefficiency of the .303 rounds and should be pretty useless against internal armour fitted at an angle. Just also do realise that the 1% of the rounds fired at the bomber would mean that of the 160 rounds of one second firing, that 1.6 bullets would at least penetrate.

Anyway, again back to the structural damage and this is in regards to the fighters. If the bullets are hitting internal structures from the dead six positions, than surely the must be damaged? These are the things that hold the aluminium up in the first place. Also, at 160 bullets a second you are going to let in a lot of air in no time as well. If let’s say the .303 bullet makes a 7 millimetre hole in diameter and we times that with 160, a second’s worth of fire would open up a meter’s worth of area.
With regards to 111 bombers, the article states that some returned home with up to 200 bullet holes in them. With a large exclamation on how big this number is. However, that is little more than a second’s worth of firing. Again I state the sheer volume of rounds that is being fired. (Look at what the 1/3 of the volume mini gun does to the derelict car in the video)

The armour that they were penetrating was 4mm. He-111's armour for example was 12mm or 3 times thicker.

I believe that the 8x .303 were actually pretty effective against fighters, main reason being that all the vital stuff (as I said earlier) was concentrated in a much smaller space. You need to also remember that in RL there were only usually 2 guns loaded with AP, the rest were ball ammo (good at killing people, not aircraft) and incendiaries with maybe 1 gun loaded with tracer.

The mini gun comparison only works with RoF, obviously the bullets all get fired from the same place so the concentration of fire is better, and you can independantly aim a mini gun. You're basically aiming the plane with the .303's, the wings are vibrating madly the guns are spaced out over 20 feet the target is moving and possibly firing back. it's almost impossible to hit the exact same spot with a 2 second burst so you'd just end up with lots of holes as opposed to one big hole. Also the loss of velocity associated with tumbling bullets is huge. The ammo in a mini gun is also a lot more modern (most of the RAF .303 rounds in use at the start of the battle were WW1/ 1920's designs)

If you want to put a big hole in a plane then use HE.

You could always try 111 squadrons head on tactics!

[Fredfetish]

Originally Posted by winny

The armour that they were penetrating was 4mm. He-111's armour for example was 12mm or 3 times thicker.

I believe that the 8x .303 were actually pretty effective against fighters, main reason being that all the vital stuff (as I said earlier) was concentrated in a much smaller space. You need to also remember that in RL there were only usually 2 guns loaded with AP, the rest were ball ammo (good at killing people, not aircraft) and incendiaries with maybe 1 gun loaded with tracer.

The mini gun comparison only works with RoF, obviously the bullets all get fired from the same place so the concentration of fire is better, and you can independantly aim a mini gun. You're basically aiming the plane with the .303's, the wings are vibrating madly the guns are spaced out over 20 feet the target is moving and possibly firing back. it's almost impossible to hit the exact same spot with a 2 second burst so you'd just end up with lots of holes as opposed to one big hole. Also the loss of velocity associated with tumbling bullets is huge. The ammo in a mini gun is also a lot more modern (most of the RAF .303 rounds in use at the start of the battle were WW1/ 1920's designs)

If you want to put a big hole in a plane then use HE.

You could always try 111 squadrons head on tactics!

Fair enough in regards to the 111 armour. Not that the entire plane is covered in 12mm armour but let’s leave it at that.
However, I disagree completely in regards to accuracy issue and what you have said about vibration etc. In game, with the exact convergence distance, you can almost fire on a dime with the .303's. Also to get the 1 meter area you'd obviously won't be firing through the same 8 holes. Yes, the independent firing and recoil of the guns would have an effect on accuracy, but not 10 meters variation on 150 meters, surely?
A two second burst as you say would open 2 meters of fuselage if the bullets were to pass through, the same amount on the other side as well. The plane is aimed straight at the other plane, why wouldn't a comparison be legit at the correct convergence? Have I mentioned that it spits out 3 times more than that mini gun per second? If only a third hit where they were actually aimed at, that is still a mini gun chewing away at the planes structure. Question, how must structure is there in the tail section of a Me 109 then?
Also, 1920 designed rifle bullets are still actually pretty effective. Firing from 150 meters away, the tumble effect would be minimal as the intended engagement range is about 400 meters for .303 rifles.