Jump to content

3cm Mk108 in new dmg model


Recommended Posts

a 30mm shot isn't a guaranteed instant kill to a fighter. Reading expectations that some folks have for the 30mm and I'm laughing. It is deadly, yes. It can cripple your plane, yes. It will likely require you to immediately RTB if you can, yes. It can instant kill you, yes. Is it a guaranteed one shot kill, no.


Edited by Magic Zach

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a post war report on this matter : ADA800394 .

 

"A" kill is : plane goes down within 5 minutes.

 

"B" kill is: plane goes down on the way back home to base (longer period of time 2 hours i think).

 

 

Seems to me 2-4 hits max for p47.

 

Spitfire probably 1-2 hits.

1632587152_Akill1.thumb.jpg.78254f123b18e6113fedf7e0775ab551.jpg

1296618103_Bkill1.thumb.jpg.e5eb92d7242eb8000555326efc7bf07b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impressive. Xray shows shrapnels each exerting force on body and subsystems. Each subsystem also has a material assigned. If its aliminum, shrapnel rips through. If it's steel or cast iron, it's deflected.

I wonder if shockwaves from bombs or blasts will aslo affect and damage planes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a 30mm shot isn't a guaranteed instant kill to a fighter. Reading expectations that some folks have for the 30mm and I'm laughing. It is deadly, yes. It can cripple your plane, yes. It will likely require you to immediately RTB if you can, yes. It can instant kill you, yes. Is it a guaranteed one shot kill, no.

 

There's literally footage in this thread. Is it 100% certain? No, but aside from flukes, yeah, massive structural damage is virtually guaranteed. Not ''explode in mid-air'' damage, but ''silk express'' damage is virtually certain.

 

There's footage just a few posts up. A hit near the pilot will kill or severely injure him. A hit in a wing, even if it doesn't sever it entirely, is going to severely compromise controllability. A hit on or near any load bearing point is likely to cause catastrophic failure.

 

As for ingame, I don't know why some of you are saying it doesn't work well, I've severed wings off large aircraft with 2-3 hits consistently. I'd be more inclined to think the targeted aircraft has a glitchy/bad dm that that there's anything wrong with the gun itself.

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's literally footage in this thread. Is it 100% certain? No, but aside from flukes, yeah, massive structural damage is virtually guaranteed. Not ''explode in mid-air'' damage, but ''silk express'' damage is virtually certain.

You literally just regurgitated what I already said

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You literally just regurgitated what I already said

 

Perhaps misunderstanding. I'm in the ''one shot kill'' camp. Not explode in mid-air, but immediate uncontrollability/structural failure resulting in immediate death. ''Flying on for five minutes'' and ''rtb'' would be the exception, not norm. The norm is ''pilot death or structural failure''. It was intended for bombers, not fighters, and is massive overkill as a result.

 

Your wording implies survival is the norm, which I disagree with.

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your wording implies survival is the norm, which I disagree with.
Problem is, those guncam footage you mention are obviously mostly good kills. The ones only damaging a bit aren't shown, the ones missing the target aren't shown. The ones returning back home even being damaged aren't shown. It's like implying the guncam is the norm, right? But I believe it wasn't necessarily.

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask, how do you know if it's not accurate?

 

It entirely depends on where the hits land as to the extent of the damage.

 

I get the impression people are expecting an I win button, to be fair I expect it to be most of the time but you still have to hit the right area.


Edited by Krupi

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask, how do you know if it's not accurate?

 

It entirely depends on where the hits land as to the extent of the damage.

 

I get the impression people are expecting an I win button, to be fair I expect it to be most of the time but you still have to hit the right area.

 

key word - I THINK

 

because on p47 i need 4-5 shots too, in my mind p47 some more armored and bigger than p51.

 

We have real footage of shooting to spitfire...and i don't think that p51 need X4 more rounds for destroing

Летаю по священным скрижалям Хартмана

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is plenty of test data to suggest its not accurate, no speculation necessary. The British and american ones are publically available, at least to some extent, and Im sure the German tests from Rechlin are out there somewhere as well.

 

Of course I could post some quotes here or there from some excited 109 pilots about having destroyed a Thunderbolt in one shot but why bother when there is test data available.

 

It also does not take a rocket scientist to look at the photos above and see why that amount of structural damage would most likely be lethal more or less independently of where it hits. Maybe on a wingtip or some other extremity a hit like that would be survivable, but at most other locations a mineshell would either destroy, or seriously cripple a fighter.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is plenty of test data to suggest its not accurate, no speculation necessary. The British and american ones are publically available, at least to some extent, and Im sure the German tests from Rechlin are out there somewhere as well.

 

Of course I could post some quotes here or there from some excited 109 pilots about having destroyed a Thunderbolt in one shot but why bother when there is test data available.

 

It also does not take a rocket scientist to look at the photos above and see why that amount of structural damage would most likely be lethal more or less independently of where it hits. Maybe on a wingtip or some other extremity a hit like that would be survivable, but at most other locations a mineshell would either destroy, or seriously cripple a fighter.

 

I agree, I just really dislike it when I see someone mention how it should take X number of shells to bring a fighter down. I would expect that regardless of the new damage model you still could find yourself having to hit an aircraft multiple times before you hit it in the sweet spot... though the "sweet spot" 30mm is going to be significantly larger than other calibre :smilewink:

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ground shots from WWII testing are great, but also perfectly placed shots, even my tests above are starting right behind the spit and squeezing of a couple of rounds before he knows I am there. And even the first one I believe a lot of the round exited the plane, so not achieving the same amount of damage as the first one, and purely based on where I aimed.

 

 

The British tested from all sorts of angles (the on in the video was from 30 deg from the back), the result was always the same, 1 hit was fatal.

 

Also keep in mind that ground testing doesn't reflect the extra damage subsequent aerodynamic forces will cause.

 

Really there is zero proof thus far that a Spitfire could survive more than one 30mm hit to the fuselage or wing, like litterally zero. A P-51 shouldn't fair much better either.

 

I mean the it would cut even a small bomber in half:

3fi6rXi.jpg


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a post war report on this matter : ADA800394 .

 

"A" kill is : plane goes down within 5 minutes.

 

"B" kill is: plane goes down on the way back home to base (longer period of time 2 hours i think).

 

 

Seems to me 2-4 hits max for p47.

 

Spitfire probably 1-2 hits.

 

 

Keep in mind also that the US statistic against the P-47 in this report are solely from test firings to the front and slightly below, so the big engine is shielding most parts, incl. the cockpit. So basically a best case scenario for the P-47.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about all the images of aircraft surviving flak damage which could have been a much larger calibre shell.

 

I am intrigued to see how DCS implements it.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im definitely not a FlaK expert, but Im not sure its necessarily as simple as just comparing calibers.... Fuzing plays a large role, and really big FlaK also doesnt necessarily need to hit a target to do damage, just explode in the vicinity.

 

A quick google search shows that at least for German 3,7cm FlaK similar ammo the the airborne cannons existed (HE, Incendiary, Mineshells etc).

 

I also couldnt find any photos of a fighter sized aircraft that took a direct hit from FlaK in a relatively central area and made it back. Was by no means an exhaustive search though.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come across a few where they have been hit mid wing or on the tail and survived.

 

I think to be able to land an aircraft with a large calibre flak hit anywhere close to Central would be game over.

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind also that the US statistic against the P-47 in this report are solely from test firings to the front and slightly below, so the big engine is shielding most parts, incl. the cockpit. So basically a best case scenario for the P-47.

 

The UK test on the spitfire concludes it's one hit usually .

There will always be exeptions, badly damaged planes returning home, but i think those were few .

 

@ all

B17 vs 88mm .If the 88 is a direct hit (explosion on impact) very little change in my opinion for survival (last picture ).

Maybe if the shell hits the tip of the wing the'res a chance for survival .

1.thumb.jpg.fad92447b440eed526a4073cac628450.jpg

2.thumb.jpg.907b9e0c805b8e61d678871894ba000a.jpg

3.thumb.jpg.e10cab076400d8c144e9a55854c76b29.jpg

4.thumb.jpg.187213594ac3ac6ecf9e2abe1aff2c0a.jpg

53820AC.thumb.jpg.434d67d2afc4e4c5750836d939760e5c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damaged_tail_of_B-17.jpg

blah blooh blah muh aerodynamic forces

 

I'm very happy the British weren't that daft when they assessed the damage inflicted by the 3cm HE(M) shells during testing. Shows they atleast knew what they were talking about, in contrast to certain others :music_whistling:

 

SMTixe2.jpg

ZKeZ23T.jpg

 

 

"But MUH random pictures!"

 

:doh::doh:

 

Now please crawl back under that bridge of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UK test on the spitfire concludes it's one hit usually .

There will always be exeptions, badly damaged planes returning home, but i think those were few .

 

@ all

B17 vs 88mm .If the 88 is a direct hit (explosion on impact) very little change in my opinion for survival (last picture ).

Maybe if the shell hits the tip of the wing the'res a chance for survival .

 

 

Indeed, and I think a P-47 would be very lucky to make it back home if hit by a single 3cm HE(M) shell, 2 hits I almost wouldn't believe it could survive and if it did it would only be via extremely careful flight all the way back.

 

I mean even against the Blenheim bomber the British concluded that "for the most part" it requires just one hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...