obsolete 13mm damage effects acting like 30mm in at least some cases

[icuham]

Situation:

Within a multiplayer test server we used a 109 to fire extremely short (~0.1s) bursts of 13mm at a target and observed the damage resulting. The player flying the target aircraft reported explosion sounds, control system damage, and pilot damage (concussions, double vision, etc) similar to that received by 30mm shells even when the bullets hit sections of the aircraft where non-explosive rounds would not affect the pilot.  We suspect that 13mm fire is being treated as 30mm fire by some subsystems within the damage model including at least control surfaces and pilot health.

 

Steps to reproduce:

1. Launch a multiplayer server

2. One player in 109 one in a target plane (we used a P47)

3. 109 pilot fires off all cannon rounds to avoid any confusion in test (ONLY use 13mm in the test)

4. 109 pilot fires 13mm only at the target plane, specifically targeting systems like control surfaces, engine, cockpit, etc.

5. Target pilot reports damage received by hits

 

Results:

1. Control surfaces destroyed by minimal rounds, explosion sounds are heard as though being hit by 30mm fire.

2. Pilot experiences concussion effects, double vision, and wounds and death without reasonable penetration of the cockpit area (we attribute this to 30mm style explosive damage from what should be 13mm rounds)

3. Engine does not seem to be affected similarly to 30mm rounds.  13mm doesn't seem to act like 30mm here in our limited test, but should be considered anyway.

 

Videos and some commentary (only captured one side):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHnljJwHc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ss2N9z6TvE

https://youtu.be/FTOM53xCtN8

 

Track file attached.  There is a de-sync it seems in the trk after the first couple passes, but the first youtube link shows a record from the shooter cockpit. 

 

 

13mm-test-server-20201220-035513.trk

[amazingme]

That's FALSE. 13 is MUCH weaker than the 30mm. Besides, the 30 mm is still underpowered..

[icuham]

It is much weaker against the engine.  It seems somewhat weaker against systems in so far as it doesn’t affect systems far from the impact zone, but seems significantly more damaging than other machine gun rounds to local systems.  And the point of the bug report is primarily the impact to pilot health.  The presence of explosion effects (sound/visual effect/pilot concussion effect) indicates the 13mm may be affecting the pilot specifically in a way that’s very different from other machine guns.  What did you find upon testing this @amazingme?  Did you witness explosions and concussions as a pilot in the target plane?

[JG13Wulf]

13mm is far more powerfull than other machine gun. It's more close to a 20mm than a 12.7mm.
It won't make as much as damage as a 20mm, but the gun is designes like a mini-20mm gun.

The major difference is the presence of exploding ammo.
The exploding ammo of the MG 131 will enter the plane and explode. That make a lot of damage to surounding systems. Far less than a 30mm. But if you hit the right part, it will destroy lot of things.

12,7 mm and 13mm AP will work aother way. They will enter the plane et go as far as possible "in straight line". Piercing anything they hits. So the major difference is that 12,7mm you have to actually hit the system. When 13mm just need to be close of it (like 20mm or 30mm).

MG131 should not be seen as a machine gun but as a small canon.

[icuham]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:06 AM, JG13Wulf said:

MG131 should not be seen as a machine gun but as a small canon.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of a MG151/15? The MG131 has even less kinetic energy than a Browning M2... It's HE shells aren't useful for much more than spotting... They have less than 1/10 of the explosive in a 15mm shell and 1/50 of the explosive in a 30mm.  Do you think that will knock out a pilot or kill them in the explosion? The only thing smaller is the .303 rounds on the Spit (which also shouldn't explode):

 

MG131:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_131_machine_gun

• "13 mm AP-T (Pzgr. L'Spur) - 710 m/s, projectile mass 38.5 grams (594 gr), muzzle energy 989 m/kg^[2]
• 13 mm HE-T (Sprgr. L'Spur) - 710 m/s, projectile mass 34 grams (520 gr)^[3]
• 13 mm HEI-T (Br. Sprgr. L'Spur) - 750 m/s, projectile mass 34 grams (520 gr) with 1.4 grams (22 gr) PETN + 0.3 grams (4.6 gr) thermite, muzzle energy 975 m/kg^[4]"

http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-am.html

• "1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl
• 1 Brandsprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl
• 1 Sprenggranatpatrone L'Spur Üb m. Zerl

This load is a mixture of AP and HE/I with training ammunition (Übung) with self-destruct fuses! This was used in the MG 131 because it detonated after about 700m, and the flashes had a deterrent effect on attacking fighters. The relatively generous use of tracer and phosphorus ammunition in the MG 17 probably had a similar background."

 

AN/M2 .50

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning#Ammunition

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3055

"Further testing in the 1940’s by reducing the projectile weight from 750 grain to 710 grain increased the velocity to an incredible 2,810 (presumably f/s, 856m/s)

 

So this ammo is nearly 20% heavier and flying 20% faster.... I assume then you are suggesting the 1.7g of high explosive is giving the 13mm round basically all of the effect?

 

MG151/15 (yes this is a mini-cannon... It is also not on the 109):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151_cannon#Ammunition_specifications

Minengeschosspatrone X 151 ohne L'Spur[13]

HE

104 grams

25 g HE (Ha-41)

705

Nose fuze, no tracer

Edited December 25, 2020 by icuham

[JG13Wulf]

Yes, I'm talking about the MG131.
There are lot of various munition for the MG131. What I mean, is that 12,7mm and 13mm are 2 guns that were designed with 2 different way to think.

M2 is a machinegun that was made to fire projectile that would go trough a lot of things. (like all classical machinegun). It rely on high kinetic to work well.
MG131 is a machinegun too but it was made to hit and make damage to what is around (like canon). It used ammo that is comparable to the ammo used in M2 (AP, Iciendiary). But it replace old 7,92mm because it can carry explosive ammo. German noticed that explosive or inciendiary was much more effective than classic ammo. Because the goal is not to make hole trough a plane. The goal was to make as much damage as possible in the plane. This do not rely on high kinetic to work. 

The M2 would not make any damage except with a direct hit. When a MG 131 could make damage (not a lot but still damage) to anything around explosive ammo.
The difference between US and German was the US increased their chance for a direct hit by adding more guns in their plane. When german used less but more efficient guns.

 

That's why the MG 131 is closer to a canon than a machineguns. Similar caliber to M2. But different way to think to make it. What you compare is correct to me. But only for comparable ammo (classic or AP) that both guns used. M2 is more effective with these than the 13mm.

But you can see in the picture that MG131 munition have a design closer to 20mm than 12,7mm. And you should look for ammo description without tracers. I don't have the data here. But they had more explosive than what the tracers can carry. Note that I don't mean it would do similar damage to 20mm ! Just say the gun was made to behave like a small canon not like a "classical" gun.

 

[icuham]

The amount of explosive is an incredibly small fraction no matter how you try to position it.  (Does the default DCS CM belt even have HE? The references above note an explosion at 700m, we don't witness this with 13mm do we?)

 

It simply shouldn't create a similar effect to 30mm, yet the pilot of the target aircraft experiences this in the effects, particularly the pilot health model and control surfaces.  The other tell tale sign is that the engine doesn't experience the same effect.  It suffers much more damage from a 30mm shell than a 13mm.  If 13mm HE was the explanation then how does that reconcile?

 

To make this even more obvious, the Spitfire's .303 rounds ALSO cause explosive effects (sounds, etc).  Surely that's not HE packed into a .303 round?  This line of justification doesn't hold together at all for me.

Edited December 25, 2020 by icuham

[JG13Wulf]

3 hours ago, icuham said:

The amount of explosive is an incredibly small fraction no matter how you try to position it.  (Does the default DCS CM belt even have HE? The references above note an explosion at 700m, we don't witness this with 13mm do we?)

 

It simply shouldn't create a similar effect to 30mm, yet the pilot of the target aircraft experiences this in the effects, particularly the pilot health model and control surfaces.  The other tell tale sign is that the engine doesn't experience the same effect.  It suffers much more damage from a 30mm shell than a 13mm.  If 13mm HE was the explanation then how does that reconcile?

 

To make this even more obvious, the Spitfire's .303 rounds ALSO cause explosive effects (sounds, etc).  Surely that's not HE packed into a .303 round?  This line of justification doesn't hold together at all for me.

 

 

The 13mm have HE in it. Can't prove it anymore. But it was possible month ago to read in the files what was inside the belt. There was few different type of ammo in it.

 

What you talk about frst were 2 problem

1) Visual and audio of impact.
About this I agree with you. But I suspect it's still a WIP. There was a discussion on discord few weeks ago that told the visual does not match yet the damage. I imagine, the sound is at the same state for now.

 

2) The 13 mm does not do similar damage as other machineguns. You discuss the fact the 13mm behave like 30mm sometimes.

But about this I disagree with what you tell. The 13 mm is much more weaker than the 30 or 20mm. It does not behave like 12.7 or 7.7 because it was not made to work like these. And it actually seems to be pretty correct how it works. 

 

The explosive have a big importance. It will damage / destroy much more systems. It will trigger the start of fire more easily (like incendiary).

After I have done test on Spit and Bf 109 using all different guns we have on warbirds, I can tell you that the 13mm is far more weaker than 20 or 30 mm.

But it's hard to compare with 12.7mm. Because with 12.7mm guns, I was able to make much more damage to system that were at the opposite side of the plane. When 13 mm made terrible damage to the system near the impact point.
To me both work correctly. But those 2 guns can't compare as they are 2 guns that were developped to do different kind of damage.

 

About the 7.7mm, I don't know.
I know there was explosive round that were not really effective (you can even find them in Cliffs od Dover as the observation rounds). I first believe like you 7.7mm were not used with HE. But there was. Now about the sound ? I come back to what I told before. I suspect it's still a WIP. But 7.7mm, even with a loud bang, don't make damage like 20 or 30 mm.

[icuham]

Here’s an article which quantifies the energy to account for kinetic and chemical energy and compares directly:

https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&file=print&kid=483&page=1

 

I still don’t see a substantial difference between 12.7x99 and 13x64.... So 1 MG131 is roughly equivalent to 1 M2.  

 

 

Edited December 25, 2020 by icuham

[amazingme]

Don't forget that 'convergence' plays a significant role here..

[icuham]

1 hour ago, amazingme said:

Don't forget that 'convergence' plays a significant role here..

Harmonization plays absolutely no role in whether or not a 13mm or .303 creates explosive damage effects.

[JG13Wulf]

16 hours ago, icuham said:

Here’s an article which quantifies the energy to account for kinetic and chemical energy and compares directly:

https://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&file=print&kid=483&page=1

 

I still don’t see a substantial difference between 12.7x99 and 13x64.... So 1 MG131 is roughly equivalent to 1 M2.  

 

 

 

 

It's funny because what you send is this study I read month ago : https://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

And it clearly point out what I mean by explosive (and incendiary) are more effective than classic or AP ammo.

 

The score as it's given everywhere in the discussion is an approximation and not a strict definition of the power of the gun.
It's told that you must take in account lot more parameters to have correct result (in particular what you hit in the plane).

 

So here we have a calcul done for few particular ammo from each guns using few known parameters such as the mass of the projectile and the mass of the chemical inside AND the muzzle velocity of each guns. From few statistics, the author tell the the approximation seems quite fair and I agree with it. From the start to the end, it point out what I told. The Explosive and Incendiary ammo are far more dangerous than classic AP ammo.

 

Now read again what I write before ...

The 13 mm was designed to work like a canon with HE ammo because HE was more efficient than AP. And I even think it's more efficient than API (I will explain later).

AP will make nice holes in a plane. But if it does not actually hit something vital, it will be useless. When HE or incendiary will make damage even without making a direct hit at a particular component. It only need to get close. (And it's logic that 13 mm < 20 mm < 30mm as we have in game).

 

So to me, it's logic that the 13mm will make more damage than 12.7mm. The difference is not big. But it's logic as the 13mm more rely on HE than AP and because most of the ammo of 12.7mm are APx.

 

A little remark about the table in the study that shows both 13mm and 12.7mm are equivalent :

It compare 13mm AP and HE to 12.7mm API. And the doc clearly tell that

- there are lot of approximation

- Incendiary and explosive are considered to be equivalent

- the content of chemical incendiary and explosive of all kind are considered to be all the same

 

So there are no difference in this study between HE and I ammo.

As the point was to show that AP and HE/I are quite different, it's not a problem to make these assumption. But it does not allow to make a complete study of the difference between 12.7mm API and 13mm HE !

So because of these assumption, it's logic to have 13mm HE that is quite equivalent to 12.7mm API.

 

Now why I think API is less efficient than HE. 

I think that because HE will eplode and add kinetic damage and chemical damage (risk of ignite).
When API will go trough everything in front of it and ignite what it can ignite. Making those 2 ammo quite different.

 

So to me it's logical to have the results we see in this study. But there are too much assumptions to tell that API and HE are equivalent.

[icuham]

9 hours ago, JG13Wulf said:

From few statistics, the author tell the the approximation seems quite fair and I agree with it. From the start to the end, it point out what I told. The Explosive and Incendiary ammo are far more dangerous than classic AP ammo.

 

Perfect! So we've arrived at a common baseline to reference and we can leave these statistics for ED to consider.  The 'dangerousness' of the 13mm HE ammo is clearly quantified in the paper and we can stop throwing subjective statements.

 

Here was the conclusions of the paper, once again. Note the columns DAMAGE and ENERGY SCORE. Based on our mutually agreeable data source, a single 13mm HE should cause about 6% of the damage of a 30mm round (13mm AP should be <5%) while a single .50 bullet should cause about 8% of the damage of a 30mm round factoring in the combined kinetic + chemical energy. 

 

Considering ONLY explosive energy....

 

The blast energy of a 13mm HE round based on the author's method is 35% of the total damage (~7 in the damage column, 9 if you run the calculation yourself) compared to the 30mm blast energy of ~414 (580 * (250)/(100+(250)), where the shell is composed of 25% HE and this then increases the kinetic energy damage by +250%).  So, a 13mm shell should cause 2% of the explosive damage of the 30mm.  We arrive at the same conclusion as my first response.:

 

CARTRIDGE	TYPE	ROUND WEIGHT	MV M/SEC	PROJECTILE WEIGHT GM	% HEI CONTENT	DAMAGE	POWER
13x64B	AP  /  HE	76 /  72	710  /  750	38.5  /  34	-  /  3.5	27  /  34	3.2
12.7x99	API	112	890	43	2	46	4.6
30x90RB	HE (M)	480	505	330	25	580	58

 

CALIBRE	PROJECTILE	TABLE 1 SCORE	ENERGY SCORE	ENERGY / TABLE 1
30 x 90RB	HE (M)	12.61	23.03	1.83
13 x 64B	HE	0.70	0.74	1.07
12.7 x 99	API	1.00	1.00	1.00
13 x 64B	AP	0.70	0.44	0.64

Edited December 26, 2020 by icuham

[JG13Wulf]

Did you even read what I post ?

Did you even read the study ?

It actually tell that the number are completely approximate ...

And it compare API 12.7mm with HE 13mm ... Without making any difference between Incendiary and HE ...

 

So those number gives absolutly nothing to compare ...

[icuham]

The comparison is between 13mm and 30mm. There's no need to confuse the issue. Compare HE to HE!

 

I read your posts and the study, I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic as it relates to this bug report... You started by saying a 13mm gun is more similar to a 20mm gun than a 12.7mm gun based on the use of HE ammunition, but provide no quantification of the difference, just 'design'.  So I quantified the difference in HE material to show you that a 30mm shell has delivers 50x more energy at the point of detonation. (Remember, this bug is about the 13mm causing damage to the pilot and control surface subsystems ...but not the engine... in a way that is similar to 30mm, NOT 12.7mm) 

 

Then you drag the discussion to a comparison between a 12.7x99 round and a 13x64 round rather than 30mm vs 13mm.  I showed you that there's no substantial difference between a 12.7mm round and a 13mm round by supplying a study which tries to baseline and quantify damage produced by these two cartridges, and then directly compares them to HE damage in a 30mm shell.  You ignore this point, but agree that 12.7mm API is 'quite equivalent' to 13mm HE but once again ignore the 30mm.

10 hours ago, JG13Wulf said:

So because of these assumption, it's logic to have 13mm HE that is quite equivalent to 12.7mm API.

 

So, I'm happy that we agree and I summarize the comparison between 13mm HE (or it's equivalent 12.7mm API) and 30mm HE to show once again that a 13mm HE shell has just 2% of the energy at detonation that a 30mm HE shell has based this new commonly accepted source of data for HE damage. 

 

...And you bring it back, again, to API vs HE! That's NOT the point of this thread! It is completely irrelevant to the bug (though I'm starting to think it might warrant its own based on this new information I'm learning!). There's no 12.7mm being fired in the bug report, it's all 13mm and 30mm.  Every source I've provided has quantification of explosives or the destructive quality of that explosive, or provides in-game evidence that the model doesn't seem to match the realistic amount of damage dealt by a 13mm round (...2% of a 30mm round).

 

There's no point debating this further unless you share some real numbers regarding HE damage potential between 13mm and 30mm shells.  The report provided is sufficient in that respect. ...The idea that a 34g shell with 2g of explosive would act anything even remotely similar to a 330g shell with 85g of explosive is a ridiculous comparison and I've shown this now in a couple of different ways.  There's been no evidence offered which disputes this so far.

[JG13Wulf]

 

On 12/20/2020 at 2:41 PM, icuham said:

... The player flying the target aircraft reported explosion sounds, control system damage, and pilot damage (concussions, double vision, etc) similar to that received by 30mm shells even when the bullets hit sections of the aircraft where non-explosive rounds would not affect the pilot.  We suspect that 13mm fire is being treated as 30mm fire by some subsystems within the damage model including at least control surfaces and pilot health ...

 

...

1. Control surfaces destroyed by minimal rounds, explosion sounds are heard as though being hit by 30mm fire.

2. Pilot experiences concussion effects, double vision, and wounds and death without reasonable penetration of the cockpit area (we attribute this to 30mm style explosive damage from what should be 13mm rounds)

3. Engine does not seem to be affected similarly to 30mm rounds.  13mm doesn't seem to act like 30mm here in our limited test, but should be considered anyway.

...

 

The visual and audio effect are clearly weird. We totally agree on this.
But What I don't agree with you is that you tell the 13 mm act like 30 mm which I do not agree. Making too much damage on pilot and few subsystem. Testing it too multiple times, I can assure you there are large difference between those two guns in the damage they inflict.

Then you told this :

Then you said :

On 12/22/2020 at 11:12 PM, icuham said:

The presence of explosion effects (sound/visual effect/pilot concussion effect) indicates the 13mm may be affecting the pilot specifically in a way that’s very different from other machine guns. 

To what I answer the 13mm is more like a canon so more like a 20 or 30mm because it more rely on chemical than kinetic.

The study clearly gives that M2 was an inefficient gun as all the kinetic guns when compared to chemical one. (But it was widely used for other reason).

The design of the 13mm was made knowing that the chemical was the number 1 priority.

So that's why MG 131 should not behave like other machine guns we have in game (7.7 and 12.7).

 

Then the study you take number from is completely wrong about how you use them. I'm not afraid to say this because there is the reason :

This study was made to compare CHEMICAL and KINETIC ! And to compare roughly large gun to smaller one.

 

So the author make a lot of assumption and regroup all non-kinetic in the chemical family (so HE and incendiary).

And it clearly tell : 

The computation is based on few parameters such as the chemical mass in the round.

But it does not make difference between Icendiary or HE.

It does not make any difference if ammo A used chemical material A and ammo B used chemical material B (which is really important).

And it continue with other assumption.

 

This is not a problem when you want to point out that chemical IS so much more efficient than kinetic.

BUT

It became completely irrelevant when you compare to CHEMICAL guns such as 30mm and 13mm. Or 13 mm HE to 12.7mm API. The number are completely false (and it's logical they are false, it's said everywhere those are approximation). There are too many assumption to make a correct comparison between 2 chemical ammo. And it's because of these assumption that it's logical that the table (the computation) gives the 12.7mm API equivalent to 13mm HE. But it's completely WRONG ! It gives only an idea but these are not number that you can take and tell "this is the truth".

 

Incendiary and HE rounds are not equivalent ! And to me HE are always more efficient than incendiary, because incendiary must hit a flamable part (or be very close) when HE make few kinetic damage at impact + chemical damage (explosion) + more kinetic damage (schrapnel).
(And this is true for every guns)

 

CONCLUSION :

• Agree 100% with weird grey view and weird sound that seems to be the same for each guns,
• Disagree that 13mm and 30mm make equals damage (from my test, I didn't observ the same),
• Logic to me that 13mm does not behave like other machine guns but more like 20 or 30mm because MG 131 was designed as a (mini)-canon not as a machine gun. It does not make as much as damage as 20 or 30mm. But it's still in the same category as them.
  To me there are 2 categories of gun in game :
  7.7mm - 12.7mm (machine guns) ==> Kinetic as priority.
  13mm - 20mm - 30mm (mini-canon and canon) ==> Chemical as priority.
• Disagree with your calcul. You base them on too many assumption. No one can tell "the 13mm is 50x less powerfull than a 30mm". It's less powerfull yes. But this is a too simplest way to compute it. And I won't give any number as there are NO WAY to obtain something correct. The only possibility would be to take all these guns, with all these exact munition and to shoot at multiple targets at multiple angles and distances. I don't know any study that make this comparison work. 

So I don't bring the discussion to other topic. I answer to what you first say.
I used 12.7mm as the closest in-game machine gun for reference. I could use 7.7mm but it would be irrelevant.

And I used 20 mm as the closest in-game canon for reference. (and 30mm because you keep telling both gun do the same effect).

 

Lucky/critical shoot :

A small detail to add to your test. Reason to repeat again and again test in scientific research.
All gun in game can destroy every plane in 1 shoot if you have *the lucky shoot*. And as I saw, lucky shoot became more and more probable with bigger gun.

Why ?

Because of HE again.

 

Lucky shoot happen when you hit and destroy a vital component of the plane. You can kill the engine with 1 shoot. You can kill the pilot with 1 shoot. You can rip off a wing in 1 shoot. You can set the fuel tank on fire in 1 shoot. But as HE send schrapnel ans have explosion damage, it's more probable to have lucky shoot on "externat component" (include control surfaces, pilot, lot of other stuff). Because all guns have similar probability to make direct hit. But HE, you need to add the probability for a Schrapnel to hit too. And the probability for the explosion to damage it too.

 

So if you aim for particular area on a plane that fly straight without moving, there is a large probability to make big damage to small area quite easily. You can rip off an aileron in 1 shoot if you hit the aileron attach.

 

A big difference with 13mm and 30 mm (why I don't agree with you), is that the area the MK 108 will critically damage is far bigger than the area 13mm will damage (when you hit at about the same spot). Most of the test we did show this. But few test showed too that you can destroy/critically damage a plane in 1 hit.

 

**Note that Incendiary does not increase the probability of lucky shoot. It increase the probability to ignite a fire IF we had an impact on something that can actually burn !

[icuham]

So.... we'll stick with my numbers then, cool. 

 

Can you post your test tracks to help with the research please?

 

 

[JG13Wulf]

I have lot of long track. Will make new one as soon as possible.

[icuham]

Additional track files for a comparison of ammunition types CM/HE/AG/No Tracer.  Results showed explosions present in all ammo types despite most presumed ammunition loadout mixtures not having explosive ammunition. (Assumptions: CM - 1x Brandgranate (Leuchtspur?), 1x panzergranate (Leuchtspur?) presumed, HE - some mix of Pzgr. (L'Spur), Br. (L'Spur) with Sprenggranate (L'Spur), AG - Panzergranate & Pzgr. L'Spur possibly w/ Br. (L'Spur), No Tracer - Panzergranate, possibly with Brandgranate (both w/o L'Spur))

 

The assumption of CM including AP(-T) & API(-T) being based on standard loadouts in a 1944 gunnery instruction manual Des Jaegers Schiessfibel pg 32. : both "4 motorige Bomber" an "alle anderen Flugzeuge" to use "1 Brandgr. + 1 Panzergr." with MG131.

 

Accounting for Wulf's disagreement above, the only time HE ammo should then be present at all is in an HE loadout assuming as well that this selection doesn't only add HE rounds to the MK108.  However, explosions are still witnessed with CM, AG, and No tracer loads.

 

Particular damage to pilot was reported with CM and No Tracer specifically, similar but not quite as pronounced as in the previous test (rounds directed to mid-fuselage but not directly to the pilot), but significantly harder to produce with HE and AG even when HE and AG were directed to the canopy itself to attempt to kill the pilot directly.  Further track files included in following posts.

target-CM-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-004359.trk target-notracer-2of2-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-013443.trk target-Notracer-1of2-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-012852.trk

tracks....

target-HE-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-005739.trk target-AG-ctrlsurfaces-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-011033.trk

tracks...

target-AG-pilot-WW2-WEAPONTEST-2p-20201228-012004.trk shooter-no-tracer-2of2.trk

tracks....

shooter-ag-pilot-server-20201228-001946.trk

tracks...

shooter-no-tracer1of2-server-20201228-002806.trk

tracks...

shooter-ag-ctrlsurfaces-server-20201228-000948.zip

[JG13Wulf]

9 hours ago, icuham said:

 

 

"the only time HE ammo should then be present at all is in an HE loadout assuming as well that this selection doesn't only add HE rounds to the MK108"

 

 

It's not possible to see it anymore.

But in files ammo are referenced as number.
For exemple :

1 = AP

2 = HE

3 = Incendiary

4 = Tracers

 

And ammo loadout look like that (it's not one of the one we have in game) :
{2,1,3,2,1,3,4}

This would be a loadout when HE - AP - Inc - HE - AP - Inc - Tr - REPEAT

 

I remember we asked about what ammo was in each loadout. No one could tell us precisely.

All loadout mixed all ammo in different number and order. Seems logical that HE have more HE and AP have less HE. But all loadout have all type of ammo except the no tracer loadout that allowed us to find which number stand for the Tracer one (I don't remember it).

So just for precision from the time we had the possibility to see the content of ammo loadouts, all loadout contain all ammo. It only vary the number of ammo of one type we have. And from what I remember, the loadout are about 6 to 10 ammo length. So it repeat quite fast.

=> To make better test we requested on the discord to have the possibility to load the gun with only 1 particular kind of ammo. But it was never done.

Edited December 29, 2020 by JG13Wulf

[JG13Wulf]

I use my double sent post to precise that all plane have particular ammo loadout.
Ammo seems to be defined globally in game.

Loadout is then generated for each guns of each plane independently.

I never check, but I think we can consider that same guns have same ammo loadout from one plane to another.
So HE loadout in MG 131 of Bf 109 is the same as HE loadout in MG 131 of Fw 190.

Edited December 29, 2020 by JG13Wulf