Bf109's 30mm cannon too weak Poll

Also, is every shot HEI (Minengeshoss) or is it also APHE?

Ok, so... your entire loadout to kill one larger aircraft (also, there are videos out there of B-17G flying on as if nothing happened after taking 8-15 30mm hits- you can COUNT them hitting. They just didn't hit anything important as far as remaining airborne. There are B-17s that had 88mm detonate INSIDE the fuselage that made it home.) Don't put too much faith in the "Luftwaffe says 2-3 hits should do it" studies.

You miss understand, they were talking about/assuming well placed shots, not random hits on a wing tip...this study was done for the only purpose of a guide about how much ammo to order from production facilities

As with killing a man, it is shot placement that matters. I'm sure the DM could use tweaking.... it's a sim after all, but placement (and its role in the DM) are important. If nothing vital is hit, don't expect massive damage.

Cannon shells with crush fuses have to hit sufficient structure to detonate. Even if it hits this, the explosion has to happen near critical parts.

1 shot kills. Damn. You'd think we were talking USMC Scout Snipers....

As with killing a man, it is shot placement that matters. I'm sure the DM could use tweaking.... it's a sim after all, but placement (and its role in the DM) are important. If nothing vital is hit, don't expect massive damage.

 

Cannon shells with crush fuses have to hit sufficient structure to detonate. Even if it hits this, the explosion has to happen near critical parts.

 

1 shot kills. Damn. You'd think we were talking USMC Scout Snipers....

yes I think one shot kills did happen maybe even often, just look at the otto post #13 above and that was a 100 yd shot...that plane would have been finished if it were up in the air

I recommend a DCS repair

Done one today.That's not the problem.

or removing the mod(s) that tweak the smoke, the bullets and add the tracers to the MK-108, as it is not sure if the mod is buggy/breaking things, or if DCS...

Let's say it's the mod's fault. Even if this is just a speculation.

Have you ever seen a plane in DCS with pieces of it's tail blown off ?

Because I have not .It's jut the whole tail section that gets blown off or not.

For a simulation of DCS caliber I want a better damage model this is why I made this thread.

Ok, so... your entire loadout to kill one larger aircraft (also, there are videos out there of B-17G flying on as if nothing happened after taking 8-15 30mm hits- you can COUNT them hitting.

How do you know those are 30mm and not 20mm ?

There are B-17s that had 88mm detonate INSIDE the fuselage that made it home.)

That might be true but it's not a rule.

In the battle for Britain English pilots could shoot down a german bomber with a few well aimed bursts.

If what you are saying would be true every time(and the 88 does so little damage even when exploding inside) than they should have needed 100 million bullets to shoot down a german bomber with those little 7.6mm machine guns.

Have you ever seen a plane in DCS with pieces of it's tail blown off ?

Because I have not .It's jut the whole tail section that gets blown off or not.

For a simulation of DCS caliber I want a better damage model this is why I made this thread.

Indeed I have, An AI P-51D that followed the setting "Reaction to threat" to "Passive defence" so it did not abort and RTB, even as it got mauled badly.

The result was on the visual damage model, right aileron was gone, head size hole in the left wing, elevator missing, bullet holes all over the rest of the plane, fuel leaking from both wings and finally the engine cover gone and the engine in flames and trailing oily smoke...

Yet, this AI P-51D still evaded us (2 Bf-109 in pursuit) and climbed, turned and rolled, like it had no damage at all.

I grant the AI it could not disengage and RTB, through the settings, but it should have been unable to do more as a bit swerving left and right, if at all, with that engien damage, yet it flew like that for 20-30min, as we were out of ammo and had to reload.

Now, changing the bullets to more devastating effect, won't likely fix the underlying issue, with the damage model.

I understood ED is looking into the AI for DCS 2.0, but currently we have to accept, the AI damage model at least, is somewhat more resilient than a real life plane would be.

You miss understand, they were talking about/assuming well placed shots, not random hits on a wing tip...this study was done for the only purpose of a guide about how much ammo to order from production facilities

No, I am not misunderstanding: if it takes 3 hits to kill a bomber, and assumed (and probably overestimated) hit rate was 10%, that means it takes 30 rounds FIRED to get a kill; even assuming that it DOES take only three hits like they say.

That said, unless those three hits go precisely into engine 1,2, and 3, or the cockpit, the chances of outright downing a B-17 with only three hits isn't all THAT great.

 

The vertical and horizontal stabilizer don't fly off or suntain any damage, not even the elevator part of the horizontal stabilizer of the rudder part of the vertical stabilizer sustains any damage.

Yes, 30 mm seems like 20mm gun.

No, I am not misunderstanding: if it takes 3 hits to kill a bomber, and assumed (and probably overestimated) hit rate was 10%, that means it takes 30 rounds FIRED to get a kill; even assuming that it DOES take only three hits like they say.

Hit rate is irrelevant here. No matter how bad a pilot's aim is. If he landed one 30mm shell onto an enemy fighter, it should do some, if not severe, damage to it.

That said, unless those three hits go precisely into engine 1,2, and 3, or the cockpit, the chances of outright downing a B-17 with only three hits isn't all THAT great.

How did you come to the conclusion that one has to hit only engines or the cockpit to knock a bomber out of sky?

3 hits might not be able to bring down a bomber in some cases. But in no way a P-51 can fly away after 3 hits as if nothing happened.

This is a 37mm hit from a Russian yak9T on a german FW 190 wing.

dYeqhFDSgkI

The first shell on the left is a german mk103 shell(same warhead as the 108 we have in game ) The only difference is the 103 has a flatter trajectory because of more propellant.

The first shell from the right is the Russian 37mm like the one we see explode in the film.

Is it such a difference that the 37mm vaporizes the foke wulf in reality and the 30mm in DCS cant do damage to a p51's tale with 3 hits ?

UJHZIjEBxYg

Ok, so... your entire loadout to kill one larger aircraft (also, there are videos out there of B-17G flying on as if nothing happened after taking 8-15 30mm hits- you can COUNT them hitting. They just didn't hit anything important as far as remaining airborne. There are B-17s that had 88mm detonate INSIDE the fuselage that made it home.) Don't put too much faith in the "Luftwaffe says 2-3 hits should do it" studies.

And again... there was one Ac with a big hit inside... NON have ever seen that "bullet" with the 88mm letters on it, but it "must" be several 88mm. And even you can see the tests with the 30mm, you tell this stupid things.

As I said .. again the forum shows that hearing something that is really hard to believe, matters much more as the things we all can see! :doh:

Experience and brains, beats pictures, videos and bull..ting.

By the way, again, it does not help to "tweak" the bullet or ask for stronger bullets, as long as the problem is the heavily armored aircraft modeling, or the net code missing hits, or whatever else is the root cause...

Also it doesn't help to provide YT videos showing these nice devastating hits, as one 7,62 bullet luckily hitting the right spot can have a similar devastating effect, yet nobody would ask to tweak the MG bullets to guarantee instakill...

I agree the effect of damage on the AI aircraft is definitely not realistic, but it isn't the bullet! It is the damage model.

And again... there was one Ac with a big hit inside... NON have ever seen that "bullet" with the 88mm letters on it' date=' but it "must" be several 88mm. And even you can see the tests with the 30mm, you tell this stupid things.

As I said .. again the forum shows that hearing something that is really hard to believe, matters much more as the things we all can see!

Are you really going to argue that? Ok, so, they may not have been able to read the lettering on the shell, but unless you can think of a SMALLER German surface-fired munition that could reach cruising altitude of a B-17, Ima go with "88". Because, y'know, a 3.7cm FlaK 37 can TOTALLY reach 25,000+ feet.

By the same logic, those B-17s could just as easily have survived having a 12.8cm FlaK40 hit them.

No, wait, wait, another bomber above them blew them up with a 1,000 pound bomb, and they flew home afterward!

If the best you have is denial of a fairly obvious circumstances because you "don't know for sure" what the hit was from, that can be used both ways.

Ridiculous argument is ridiculous.

Experience and brains, beats pictures, videos and bull..ting.

By the way, again, it does not help to "tweak" the bullet or ask for stronger bullets, as long as the problem is the heavily armored aircraft modeling, or the net code missing hits, or whatever else is the root cause...

Also it does mm it help to provide YT videos showing these nice devastating hits, as one 7,62 bullet luckily hitting the right spot can have a similar devastating effect, yet nobody would ask to tweak the MG bullets to guarantee instakill...

I agree the effect of damage on the AI aircraft is definitely not realistic, but it isn't the bullet! It is the damage model.

Particularly when you consider that we don't know what make of Fw190 that was, and therefore it could easily have been an -A8 with a wingful of 20 and 30mm ammo, known for sympathetic detonation when hit; that huge explosion could have been a 37mm, or a 37mm and DOZENS of 30mm

Also, how do you KNOW it was from a 37mm Russian cannon? Could you read the lettering on the 37mm? Maybe it was a 76.2mm AA gun. :megalol:

I have not seen anything like this in DCS.

Probably the DM of all airplanes must be checked. ..or Mk-108 is weak and must be checked too.:music_whistling:

I have not seen anything like this in DCS.

 

Probably the DM of all airplanes must be checked. ..or Mk-108 is weak and must be checked too.:music_whistling:

.... I see what you did there :smilewink:

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we SHOULD allow cherry-picked youtube videos to serve as unquestioned, absolute proofs.

I mean, obviously .50 cal was so explosive it could blow the wing clean off a Fw190 in a massive explosion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU , 8:52)

No, wait, I mean, obviously the .50 API was so destructive, it would vaporize TRAINS! Just look at it! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU , 7:30 )

Probably the DM of all airplanes must be checked.

This exactly! It is a common problem, at least with AI planes, they can endure beatings, that would kill or at least incapacitate any real airplane... Not that they need to explode with every little hit like in an arcade game, but if the visible damage shows fuel leakage and an AI P-51D or Mig-21 fly on for hours, there is something wrong.

As far as I know, this is already in the works and hopefully DCS 2.0 introduces an overhaul of the AI etc.

But tweaking just the bullet to do more damage won't really help, it may even make other balances worse...

This exactly! It is a common problem, at least with AI planes, they can endure beatings, that would kill or at least incapacitate any real airplane... Not that they need to explode with every little hit like in an arcade game, but if the visible damage shows fuel leakage and an AI P-51D or Mig-21 fly on for hours, there is something wrong.

As far as I know, this is already in the works and hopefully DCS 2.0 introduces an overhaul of the AI etc.

But tweaking just the bullet to do more damage won't really help, it may even make other balances worse...

Methinks your sarcasm detector needs to go in for calibration...

Nope... no bombers in DCS yet.

30mm damage model Vs Human driven p51 (Online Recording but 3x slower to see the hits clearly)

 

UJHZIjEBxYg

 

The vertical and horizontal stabilizer don't fly off or suntain any damage, not even the elevator part of the horizontal stabilizer of the rudder part of the vertical stabilizer sustains any damage.

 

The p51 was fine,after this,i killed it after a long chase with the mg's.

I would post a track too .But they all go stupid at some point and don't record MP action correctly.

Seen this so many times with strikes on human flown Mustangs using both the 30s and Dora's 20 that I've given up hope on a fix until EDGE. Usually I get pilot kills or totally unload to quickly finish off the damage count for that area of the Mustang to bring them down from the rear. I've never expected them to just fall apart from one hit but like your video shows ... no rudder or elevator damage at all. The Mustangs damage model seems to be by far the one that needs the most work from damage to control surfaces to the governor bug.

Particularly when you consider that we don't know what make of Fw190 that was, and therefore it could easily have been an -A8 with a wingful of 20 and 30mm ammo

It's highly unlikely the fw had 30mm ammo since usually this kind of ammo was used to shoot bombers on the western front.

Also, how do you KNOW it was from a 37mm Russian cannon? Could you read the lettering on the 37mm? Maybe it was a 76.2mm AA gun. :megalol:

It's a Russian documentary : weapons of victory part 28. The narator tells you in russian what kind of plane, gun is in video I posted.

If you want to see another example of 37mm damage you can see in DCS the mig15 can kill a f86 with one 37mm shot from any angle 90% of the time.

But you can't blow a horizontal stabilizer or vertical stabilizer with three shots to the tail ? That's at least questionable.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we SHOULD allow cherry-picked youtube videos to serve as unquestioned, absolute proofs.

Your "unquestioned, absolute proof" : "There are B-17s that had 88mm detonate INSIDE the fuselage that made it home". Is not even a video. It's just words.

Where is your video ?

Why SHOULD we allow such words is.This is "UNALAWELABLE".:megalol:

No, wait, I mean, obviously the .50 API was so destructive, it would vaporize TRAINS!

Of course it can .You find out that now ? :megalol: