PDA

View Full Version : I have been compairing 20mm's in game. please read.



fordfan25
11-10-2006, 12:58 AM
ok first let me try to stress this is not intended to be a troll thread. also, im going into this with NO bias. german,USA,Brit I dont care. i am not tryn to play favorits or push for changes that make things easier for me or wich ever plane set i choose to fly. i think most anyone who has talked with me online will agree im fairly ballenced in my veiws and open to being proven wronghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Also im not trying to "whine" in fact im not even sure if im complaining. for all i know this game may be 100% on targets as far as the deffernt 20MM's are conserned. now with that said i would like to ask anyone who has a opinion and post in this thread to please do at least some Q mission test of your own and try to remain fair and not let bias influince your eye sight, wich is not to say that if you completly disagree with me then you must be bias lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Ok i have just receantly started flyn 20mm equiped "RED" fighters with any regularty. manly Tempist but to a lesser degree the spit and iv been flyn them for the better part of 3 mounths. used to, i would fly the FW190 alot on arcade servers such as 334th ect and offline. so i am well exp with that awsome bird. D-9 1944 is my Fav "blue" plane by far.
well i relized that dispite the spit having equil weapons as the D9 2x20mm's and 2xMG I was not able to get the results as i could in a D9. And thats not counting deffernce in ammo capacity. the tempist seems from my exp on par with the FW and is my normal "red" 20mm equiped plane so i never gave it much thought untill tonight.

Just for kicks i did some "testing in QMB. I used B25's, B17s, P-47s and Fw190D-9s as friendly targets. Now i dont have tracks. never used that feature in the 3+ years iv been playn this sim and i would not know how to up load them any way so ill ask that every one please take my word that im not makeing things up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

From my "test" i used ONLY the cannons in my test planes. I did LOTS of runs in each plane that i tested. fired from more or less the same distence. aimed more or less at the same spots as best i could on targets ect ect.

i found first of all that the Spit and tempist were VERY VERY unstable when fireing compaired to the FW190D-9 now Im no expert so for all i know that may be the way it should be and i supose it could be argued that the fact that the Tempist haveing two extra 20mms is why its more unstable in its case or that thay are farther out on the wings may be the problem.The spit ....maby because its a lite weight plane could also be argued. but at any rate thay would shake all over the place and made long burst MUCH less effective as far as hit%. I adjusted tactics in those planes later in my test and used short burst.

Now compairing power. The spit with its 2x20MM Vs the FW, It was night and day the FW was IMHO from what i could tell roughly twice as effective in knocking out the targets. i got much higher % of airframe damnge such as wings falling off,Fighters and bombers breaking in half ect. As well as fires ect. i cant say as to there respective effects on contole surface's. but from the MANY Targets i shot with each of the two planes it was with out a dout for me that the FW 20mm were much better. seemed to have a faster fire rate so maby thats why, i dont know.

FW vs Tempist. as far as damnge per hits. it was a toss up more or less. if i had been able to keep the tempist on target better for longer accurite burst maby it would have made me see things deffernt. but from best i could tell. Hit for hit the tempist was a bit stronger but like i said its hard to tell when haveing so wildly a shooting style needed not as radicly deffernt between it and the FW as it was between the spit and FW thats for surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

i also tested the rule of 1 20mm being as effective as 3 .50's. in the case of the FWD-9
vs the p51D id say 2x20mm are closer to 8.50s on the jug. the only targets i tested the stang vs FW on was b25's. the Fw useing ONLY its 20mm as i did on ALL test it was able to down each bomber in nearly half the time as near as i could tell. but i did not spend as much time on those test.


Now as i said at the start im not a expert. im just calling things like i see them in game and im asking for feed back as to whether things as i found them are true of what one would expect IRL. And also feed back as to wether or not your respected exp is deffernt. i tested in QMB and i would say i tested for nearly 3 hours. "yea i was that bord" now from my exp on this site and on TS i know there are alot of Bias people out there that are blind to any over moddled faults in there team/countrys planes ect, Kinda like the old sayn the grass is always greener on the other side. let me say that at the very least as far as these test go im not one of them and if you know that you are then please do not post in here. i dont want this to turn into a blaze.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: <gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Daiichidoku
11-10-2006, 01:01 AM
MG 151's kill T 34s<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/visibleathf.jpg

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
MG 151's kill T 34s and .50s kill tigers lets move on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: <gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 01:08 AM
any web sites compairing the two cannons?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: <gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 01:17 AM
ok something i just thought of that MIGHT explain things for me. i used the same 250M convergence on the 3 planes. the Tepmist and Spit of course have there camnnons farther out on the wings that the D9. so i would be hitting at a deffernt converg rate at and given time. maby thats it?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: <gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Monty_Thrud
11-10-2006, 01:32 AM
I have thought for some time the German cannon were more powerful(in game) than the Hispano, is this correct?

Here's an old link (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//beatup.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif..http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//2006-02-23_012924_pilot11.gif ..http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Soviet Fighter Tactics (http://luthier.stormloader.com/home.html) Merlin (http://www.spitfire.dk/Chapter5.htm) The Doors (http://www.thedoors.com/index.cfm?fa=home1)

La7_brook
11-10-2006, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
any web sites compairing the two cannons? http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

Abbuzze
11-10-2006, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
ok something i just thought of that MIGHT explain things for me. i used the same 250M convergence on the 3 planes. the Tepmist and Spit of course have there camnnons farther out on the wings that the D9. so i would be hitting at a deffernt converg rate at and given time. maby thats it?

I think this is a very important point! It??s far easier to miss the target with wingguns than with a nose cannon for example. The config of the P38 and the Lagg3 with all the guns in the nose is the best way to get a good result.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p1234/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Antoninus
11-10-2006, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
any web sites compairing the two cannons?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________________
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3734/il2sig26hf.jpg

Actually everybody talks about aerial combat. I maintain that hitting ground targets, and especially ships is more dangerous than aerial combat. - Joe Foss

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 02:30 AM
that site will not display for some resone<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: <gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Badsight-
11-10-2006, 02:43 AM
do they shoot the same ammo , the same way FordFan

because they are both 20mm - are they supposed to be equal

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
do they shoot the same ammo , the same way FordFan

because they are both 20mm - are they supposed to be equal i dont know you tell me.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
CIA_WildCard: <gunstat :server 1 rounds fired, 0 (100%air hits, 0 ground hits, 2 air kills)

I love the mk108
-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

F19_Ob
11-10-2006, 02:49 AM
Hello m8's don't want to spoil the fun but during my years of testing and comparing I've found that even a simple test may be very complicated and timeconsuming.

Doing a test like this is very unpredictable I'm afraid, because One must hit at the same spot all the time, and on the same range.
Remember that cannons also may have different type of ammo in its belt but the hit-explosions may look the same for different explosives or solid round.
The best one can hope for is to get a hunch.

A better way to test is to use arcademode and get an idea of the power of different rounds of a gun or cannon by looking at the hitarrows thickness,lenght and how many they are.
( Go into the conf.ini file in the gamefolder and under GAME change the line Arcade=0 to Arcade=1 and save)


Set up 4 friendly planes and use the gunsight to get the same distance to target and note where the round hits.
Notice that hits close to eachother may have very different results.
That is because one hit may hit the so called hit box and record damage, while the other may totally miss the box even if the hit is very close.
This is yet another variable to take into count.
This is why testing is very difficult and I suggest doing up to atleast 50 or preferably more tests per gun to get usable statistics.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
11-10-2006, 03:10 AM
I agree with Ob. This tests are very subjective.
Online and Offline weapon performance is different.Spitfire is not stable when firing hardly find a more stable plane maybe trim it correct ?

Anyway here is a detailed comparison.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------------------
High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

karost
11-10-2006, 04:28 AM
Just using search engine in this forum with keywork like MG 151/20 or 151/20 then you will find A LOT OF... info or intel about 20mm gun in this forum.

specially MG 151/20 which many friends in this community help hand by hand spend over three years to put this gun (fire power) in to the right place.

S! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
11-10-2006, 04:59 AM
MG151/20 is better than hispano ingame.

irl, it was the other way round..

and yeah the german planes are more stable than allied planes, this is because allied designers wherent clever enough to make stable planes.

be shure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

TheBandit_76
11-10-2006, 05:13 AM
Much easier to shoot with a blue 20mm plane, and do more damage.

As pingu says, wrongo irl.

Glad folks are beginning to see this.......<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



http://members.cox.net/sparksco/PacificFighters/BlackAndGoldSig.jpg

For the good old American lifestyle: For the money, for the glory, and for the fun... mostly for the money.

Brain32
11-10-2006, 05:38 AM
In game Hispano is far more powerful and has far better ballistics. IRL it was not like that, and Hispano was unreliable. Actually in-game I would trade 2 MG151/20 for one Hispano...
Stability comment is bullsh1t except when it comes to P51 which was ruined by Red whiners anyway<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
11-10-2006, 05:49 AM
Hispano worse than MG151/20 what a joke!!!

IF you can aim,Hispano ownz all!For n00b shots MG151/20 with higher ROF does the job.But as for reliability I take Hispano any day.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sigjzg23upgraded.jpg
Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002
: Badsight.:"increased manouverability for bf-109s was satire" :
Please bring back 3.01 dots!

mynameisroland
11-10-2006, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
do they shoot the same ammo , the same way FordFan

because they are both 20mm - are they supposed to be equal i dont know you tell me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German Mg 151 fires rounds with a greater HE content so their rounds inficlt more explosive damage. Hispanno has greater KE power and less HP.

A test has been done on this topic FordFan by JTD who achieved 100 kills each using 3 different 20mm armed types : Hispanno, Mg151 and Shvak.

I think the results were

MG 151
Hispanno
Shvak

This is pretty reasonable as Mg 151 tends to be more centrally mounted, Hispannos are invariably in the wings and Shvaks fire the least heavy of the 3 rounds.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-10-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ????<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Abbuzze
11-10-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:

I'd disagree, with wing guns you have two streams of shell's, ok both for most of their journey offcentre but two streams none the less. Net result is you have the chance of one stream hitting and not the other, with nose guns (which IRL of course for the most part had their ROF slowed by interrupter gear - apart from through spinner cannon ) you only have a hit or miss scenario. PLUS in low light conditions the muzzle flash to contend with which on some aircraft is seriously bright.

Generally also wing mounted solutions have more guns, thus more damage per second.


I don??t think so! Two streams are nice to hit accidently, but this causes problems if you aim properly. P47 for example. More than 5m distance between the guns. If you set all to 150m convergance and you aim at a plane at 300m the two streams allreay divided again and allready have the same distance - 5m. If you set the convergance to 300m and shot a plane 150m away the distance ist still 2,5m (creating a lot of whining http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). And also if you hit acccidently you usually hit with just the half of the guns. In the convergance point the result is devasting - devasting like you would hit with noseguns at any range.

The reduction in rate of fire for noseguns is also not that big if you use an electrical system.

Except for nightfighting the muzzleflash is also not a problem, a MG-gunner at that ground would have much more troubles if this would be such blinding at many people believe. The only cannon that causes such a problem was the BK5, a 5cm cannon.

To shot down fighters the 20mm is more than enough. You are right for the load out with wingguns, but you need the convergance point to put this complete loadout into a plane. Nose guns/cannons offer the same result at the target at any range you can hit the plane.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p1234/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Abbuzze
11-10-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Schie??fibel (shooting guide) published in June 44, called 3x mineshell + 1x incedary + 1x API "embattled" for both MGFF and MK151/20. So it seems it was allreay in use at this time. Whats your source?

I did a fast search in the web:
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=127;t=001378

In this thread there is a document of the Mineshell from late 1941:
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgecho...-20%20ballistics.jpg (http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgechoss%20MG151-20%20ballistics.jpg)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p1234/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Blutarski2004
11-10-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Schie??fibel (shooting guide) published in June 44, called 3x mineshell + 1x incedary + 1x API "embattled" for both MGFF and MK151/20. So it seems it was allreay in use at this time. Whats your source?

I did a fast search in the web:
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=127;t=001378

In this thread there is a document of the Mineshell from late 1941:
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgecho...-20%20ballistics.jpg (http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgechoss%20MG151-20%20ballistics.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Abbuzze, my reference source is "German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2", by Hoffschmidt.

I don't think that our respective data are inconsistent. The date of your document and the service introduction of the 151/20 M-geschoss are the same - June 1944. It stands to reason that the ammunition belting instructions would cover all official service ammunition as of date of publication.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

faustnik
11-10-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

Tony Williams states that the MGFF minengeschoss rounds were used as early as May 1940????

Also the Mg151/20 was designed to used M-geschoss from inception AFIK. From Williams:

"The Germans were not satisfied with the MG-FFM, which
had been adopted as an interim measure pending the
development of a purpose-designed cannon. This duly
emerged as the Mauser MG 151, which gradually took
over from 1941. Initially, the Mauser had been
designed to use a high-velocity 15 mm cartridge, but
it saw relatively little service in this form. Wartime
experience led to the cartridge case being modified to
accept the 20 mm shells from the MG-FFM, surrendering
muzzle velocity and penetration in the interests of
far greater destructive effect. The 15 mm version was
available with HE shells, but they were considered too
small. The resulting MG 151/20 was intermediate in
size, weight and muzzle velocity between the MG-FFM
and the Hispano, but was faster-firing at 12 rps. It
was a superb design which the Americans tried to copy,
producing some 300 guns in .60 inch (15.2 mm) calibre,
designated T17, but they never adopted it."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

JtD
11-10-2006, 12:47 PM
From my tests, not only the online test Roland mentions, the MG 151/20 is the most powerful 20 mm cannon in game, thanks to the Minengeschoss. without it, it's not that strong. MG FF is similar. Hispano is quite good as well, but not as strong, while the ShVAK and IJA cannons suck.

BBB_Hyperion
11-10-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the MG/FF.

The MG/FF was a manufacture under license of the short Oerlikon Bekker cannon, which for manual control in bomber conditions or the rigid installation with mechanical or electrical/pneumatic charging and ignition was intended. The 20-mm weapon weighed 26.3 kg and had a rate of fire of 520 firing/min. The v0 amounted to 585 m/s. However the execution MG/FF M was the modified version for firing the lighter (about 20 gram less) more effective mine projectiles, the recoil mechanism was modified and did not permit to any more a firing of the heavier mg FF ammunition (if nevertheless, damages could arise); 540 shot/min, 700 m/s (mine projectile). The fact that /M for engine cannon stands is one gladly and often misinterpretation repeated.

So using something else than M-Shells on MG FF M is dangerous.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MilRel.htm

This might intrest in the matter of interchangeable ammo .
Normaly 20x82 MG151/20 20x80RB MG FF

Incidentally, the MG 151/20 was created simply by adapting the 15mm case to take the shells already in production for the MG-FF (20x80RB). The MG-FF was a modified version of the Oerlikon FF (20x72RB) which was in turn derived directly from the WW1 Becker (20x70RB). The case was stretched to 100mm to make the higher-velocity SEMAG L (later developed to the Oerlikon FFL), but when Oerlikon wanted more power still, they increased the case diameter to make the Oerlikon Type S/FFS. Hispano made this under licence, but then produced a more powerful weapon, the HS 404, which basically took the FFS as a starting point for development.

http://img151.imagevenue.com/loc322/th_87930_0032_122_322lo.jpg (http://img151.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=87930_0032_122_322lo.jpg)

For the whinners.

Just to remember we have now something like ap,het,m sequence whining would start with this suggested historical settings from Schie??fibel for ammo sequences.
http://img109.imagevenue.com/loc525/th_20157_Gurtung_525lo.JPG (http://img109.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc525&image=20157_Gurtung_525lo.JPG)

Or even worse 44 introduced MX shell with 25g HE content (19,6 HE in M shell). Maybe we should ask Oleg to include it in 46 add on as there were more used than plane types in 46 did fly.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-------------------
High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Xiolablu3
11-10-2006, 01:45 PM
I wasnt talking about the hitting power of the Tempest, just trying to aim the guns. I find that very hard.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I wasnt talking about the hitting power of the Tempest, just trying to aim the guns. I find that very hard. yea. i just did a little testing. i compaired the Tempest to the A-6 FW i think it was. what i did was take the 20mm gunpods on the FW wich is 4x20mms just like the tempist. thay are even on simular spots on the wings only of course the gunpods are hanging under the wings of the FW. now I would think haveing the guns under the wing would Make the FW bounce around ect more than the Tempist when fireing long burst but this is not the case. the Tempist is still far more unstable. also took the same FW but with the defualt load out 4x20mm
2 on outer wing and two on the inside wing near the wing root pluse the 2 nose mounted MGS. and it was ALOT more stable with all 6 weapons fireing than the Tempest and even the spit. i cant see how this could be correct. the Tempist is a pretty big plane.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

La7_brook
11-10-2006, 01:57 PM
on the 50,s Compared with previous Mustangs, the P-51D had two more .50 guns, and the armament installation had been redesigned to make it more reliable. [20]

Six Browning .50 machine guns. The two inboard guns had 400 rounds each, enough for 32 seconds. The four outboard guns had 270 rounds, enough for 22 seconds.
Output per second was 75 rounds, or a weight of 3.64kg per second. Muzzle power was 1374 kW.
Six .50 guns was the armament of most US fighters. Most pilots liked the .50 gun, but it lacked the power to do structural damage to enemy aircraft. Postwar research demonstrated that only armour-piercing incendiary rounds were really effective, by setting fire to ammunition or fuel. This armament was sufficient for the Mustang, because it was an escort fighter, that had to fight mostly against enemy fighters. The guns were usually set to converge at 300 yards, and 2 degrees above the normal flight attitude. The ammunition supply was relatively large, and that was also beneficial for an escort fighter. Last but not least, the Browning was very reliable and had good ballistics.
this what this says /http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html

DomJScott
11-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:

I'd disagree, with wing guns you have two streams of shell's, ok both for most of their journey offcentre but two streams none the less. Net result is you have the chance of one stream hitting and not the other, with nose guns (which IRL of course for the most part had their ROF slowed by interrupter gear - apart from through spinner cannon ) you only have a hit or miss scenario. PLUS in low light conditions the muzzle flash to contend with which on some aircraft is seriously bright.

Generally also wing mounted solutions have more guns, thus more damage per second.


I don??t think so! Two streams are nice to hit accidently, but this causes problems if you aim properly. P47 for example. More than 5m distance between the guns. If you set all to 150m convergance and you aim at a plane at 300m the two streams allreay divided again and allready have the same distance - 5m. If you set the convergance to 300m and shot a plane 150m away the distance ist still 2,5m (creating a lot of whining http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). And also if you hit acccidently you usually hit with just the half of the guns. In the convergance point the result is devasting - devasting like you would hit with noseguns at any range.

The reduction in rate of fire for noseguns is also not that big if you use an electrical system.

Except for nightfighting the muzzleflash is also not a problem, a MG-gunner at that ground would have much more troubles if this would be such blinding at many people believe. The only cannon that causes such a problem was the BK5, a 5cm cannon.

To shot down fighters the 20mm is more than enough. You are right for the load out with wingguns, but you need the convergance point to put this complete loadout into a plane. Nose guns/cannons offer the same result at the target at any range you can hit the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I hit with all guns then I'm going to do more damage than the nose installation, if I hit with half of them I'm doing about the same (excluding 30mm nose cannon as they are not dogfighting guns). PLUS the nose guns are not all the same velocity so most of the time in fact I will be missing with some of the guns and hitting with others.

FWIW the best (IMO) gun installations where in the aircraft without a nose propeller as you can mount 4 identicle cannon which makes aiming easier and damage very good. However for a single engined propeller fighter you just cannot put out the damage you need to be effective using a nose installation only. Even with a 30mm cannon generally 4 cannon put's out more damage and is probably not just a better dogfighting but also a better bomber solution due to the nice high velocity allowing greater range engagements. Unless you put the wingpod 30mm in too but then you badly effect the aircraft's performance.

I'm not saying a wing solution is ideal. I'm saying it's the best solution for a single engined WWII fighter for fact it puts out more damage is easier to maintain and the spread of fire gives an extra chance against a manoveuring aircraft.


Incidently I've never considered British aircraft unstable :/.. going off to check that.

faustnik
11-10-2006, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
Incidently I've never considered British aircraft unstable :/.. going off to check that.

This depends on your particular install, drivers, hardware, something???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Basically, the answer is as hard to find as sasquatch, maybe harder. Spitfires are rock stable on my system but, almost unflyable on my friend P1ngyu's. We've compared tracks and the difference is shocking. Lots of us have looked for the answer but, so far, there isn't one, you either have the wobbles or you don't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 02:38 PM
just to make clear. when i say the tempist and spits are unstable. im not talking flight charicteristics. just when fireing the cannons for more than quick burst. the recoil makes the planes jerk and bounce around alot more.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

DomJScott
11-10-2006, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Incidently I've never considered British aircraft unstable :/.. going off to check that.

This depends on your particular install, drivers, hardware, something???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Basically, the answer is as hard to find as sasquatch, maybe harder. Spitfires are rock stable on my system but, almost unflyable on my friend P1ngyu's. We've compared tracks and the difference is shocking. Lots of us have looked for the answer but, so far, there isn't one, you either have the wobbles or you don't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did some testing none the less..

Scenario - I figured a fixed target was best so set a ME323 as the target. 700m altitude gentle dive ( 323 on far side of carpiquet, start position over caen railway station ) open fire when the aircraft had stabilized and was at what I considered a good range.

Wing mounted cannon DID produce more shake but still destroyed the target more effectively than the nose guns. It seems to be an effect caused by the dynamics of the guns not all firing at once and the effect is TERRIBLE on the 108 wing pods. This test also proved the point that the mismatched 108+MG armament is definatly not converged at all ranges as whilst the MG rounds hit the target.. the 108's shells all fell short ( can tell by dint of the craters in front of the target ).The lighter nose armement destroyed the target slower despite the lesser stability of the wing solution.

No tracks - test it yourself :P - not going to save 10+ tracks.


Aircraft tested :-

Tempest
Vc 4 Hisp
Hurr IIC
Several marks of 109.

VW-IceFire
11-10-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
just to make clear. when i say the tempist and spits are unstable. im not talking flight charicteristics. just when fireing the cannons for more than quick burst. the recoil makes the planes jerk and bounce around alot more.
Well the Hispano is a larger cannon firing a larger shell and while I have no idea what the actual different (by the numbers) should be, I would expect a little more kick from the Hispano than the MG151.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

mynameisroland
11-10-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Incidently I've never considered British aircraft unstable :/.. going off to check that.

This depends on your particular install, drivers, hardware, something???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Basically, the answer is as hard to find as sasquatch, maybe harder. Spitfires are rock stable on my system but, almost unflyable on my friend P1ngyu's. We've compared tracks and the difference is shocking. Lots of us have looked for the answer but, so far, there isn't one, you either have the wobbles or you don't. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did some testing none the less..

Scenario - I figured a fixed target was best so set a ME323 as the target. 700m altitude gentle dive ( 323 on far side of carpiquet, start position over caen railway station ) open fire when the aircraft had stabilized and was at what I considered a good range.

Wing mounted cannon DID produce more shake but still destroyed the target more effectively than the nose guns. It seems to be an effect caused by the dynamics of the guns not all firing at once and the effect is TERRIBLE on the 108 wing pods. This test also proved the point that the mismatched 108+MG armament is definatly not converged at all ranges as whilst the MG rounds hit the target.. the 108's shells all fell short ( can tell by dint of the craters in front of the target ).The lighter nose armement destroyed the target slower despite the lesser stability of the wing solution.

No tracks - test it yourself :P - not going to save 10+ tracks.


Aircraft tested :-

Tempest
Vc 4 Hisp
Hurr IIC
Several marks of 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read Johnnie Johnsons (or was it Bader?) opinions he regarded the German nose gun layout as superior to the RAFs general wing gun layout.

Wing guns are more effective at certian zones of convergence and drastically loose efficiency outside of these ranges. That is why armament closer to the centerline is of a higher net value because its accuracy is higher. For example a Fw 190 D9s config of 2 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm is superior to a Spitfire IX e wing which has half the weapon ammunition seperated by more than twice the distance.

What has not been mentioned is that wing guns often suffered jamming under high G manuvers, they were less reliable and suffered more from freezing at high alts too.

Aircraft these days almost without exception mount guns in the nose. It is the most accurate position.

As for 1941 aircraft Dom, you forgot that the Fw 190 A2 qualifies as 1941. The RAF rated its firepower as greatly superior to the Spitfire Vb. 2 x Mg 151 20mm with 250 rpg, 2 x MgFF 20mm with 60 rpg and 2 x 7.92 mm Mgs with 1000 rpg vs the Spitfires 60 rpg for its 2 canons.

Once again rather than looking at the relative merits of gun disposition I feel ( as in the Tank thread ) you are letting your opinion be clouded by the fact that one method was generally favoured by Britain while another was generally favoured by one of her enemies.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
11-10-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

...........?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

strange........... because AFAIK a lot of Bf109E-4 flew during BoB in 1940 and were armed with MG-FF/M - main difference to the E-3 with its not "M"-shell capable MG-FF ?!?!?!

DomJScott
11-10-2006, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
As for 1941 aircraft Dom, you forgot that the Fw 190 A2 qualifies as 1941. The RAF rated its firepower as greatly superior to the Spitfire Vb. 2 x Mg 151 20mm with 250 rpg, 2 x MgFF 20mm with 60 rpg and 2 x 7.92 mm Mgs with 1000 rpg vs the Spitfires 60 rpg for its 2 canons.

Once again rather than looking at the relative merits of gun disposition I feel ( as in the Tank thread ) you are letting your opinion be clouded by the fact that one method was generally favoured by Britain while another was generally favoured by one of her enemies.
I took the aircraft data from a webpage, if the A2 was indeed 1941 then it was missing from those I chose. I admit it was a quick look.

Whilst I understand what your saying it IS very much a personal opinion based on what flying I've done in IL2 than who's country it is. I do enjoy low light flying too and find the flash a menace but It's very much based on my experience. Actually I quite enjoy the P39's layout of 6 .50's and a cannon.

The A-4 is in the table I used and appears to have similar weapon loadout and is indeed superior in damage to the VC although conversly it has to be remembered this is NOT a nose loadout but a nose, inner wing ( both synchronised ) mid wing layout so technically, for this discussion ( wing layout vs nose layout ) not applicable. I DO like the A-4's damage though but it did take wing mounted guns to do it.

faustnik
11-10-2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
Actually I quite enjoy the P39's layout of 6 .50's and a cannon.

P-39s with wing guns either have 2x.50 in the nose and 4x.30 in the wings (P-400, P-39D, P-39N) or 2x.50 in the nose and 2x.50 wingmounted with the P-39Q-1.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

DomJScott
11-10-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Actually I quite enjoy the P39's layout of 6 .50's and a cannon.

P-39s with wing guns either have 2x.50 in the nose and 4x.30 in the wings (P-400, P-39D, P-39N) or 2x.50 in the nose and 2x.50 wingmounted with the P-39Q-1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected, it's the P39N-1 I enjoy a lot. Apart from hard abuse putting it into spin I find it great fun and competitive. Weaponloadout is effective too and destroy's the 323 very effectively.

Jaws2002
11-10-2006, 03:46 PM
Fordfan and everyone else, the title of the tread is saying "I have been comparing <span class="ev_code_RED">20mm's</span> in game"

Please let's try to isolate the things we are testing. let's isolate the guns from the planes.
I had the impression that we are talking about the GUNS not the GUN PLATFORMS.
We can either change the title or try to stick to the guns, so we don't cause confusion.
The most reliable 20mm gun tests in game are done with single nose mounted gun.
If we are talking about the guns let's just test the guns. You can't expect to have good results with different multi cannons gun platforms, because we have more problem with the stability of the platform and convergence, then with the gun itself.
Ever heard anyone saying that Hurricane 2C has weak firepower? It has Hispano cannons just like the spitfire but in game is a lot more stable and because of that is way more deadly. even more deadly then Tempest.
You can compare the Hurricane 2c with the FW-190 A6 for example but just so you get an idea.

Still the most reliable gun tests are done with single cannon installation. And if you want to be even more accurate you can do the tests with static planes. Make a mission in full mission builder with the tested aircraft spawning at the base of a hill. You place a static plane (in your example the B-25) on the hill so it will be right in your gunsight at certain distance (the convergence). Then shoot it with the single cannon. Do the test 20 times wright down the results and then go to next plane. This way you can get more reliable results and you know you've tested the gun not the flight model and stability of the aircraft.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

faustnik
11-10-2006, 03:50 PM
Yeah Cobras are great!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Jaws2002
11-10-2006, 03:52 PM
The M-Geschoss round was only introduced to service in mid-1944 (according to my data).

Document dated february 1941
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgechoss%20MG151-20%20ballistics.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

noace
11-10-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just saw that Jaws was faster - the same Table is in the linked thread. But there is also some other data there.

Oh well - here we go again. Deja vu after deja vu (And no, the germans did not get a kill per engine...)

Anyway, goto http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=127;t=001378 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=001378) and scroll doen to the picture "Schusstafel fuer das 2 cm M-Geschoss" and have a look at the date. And as already mentioned later in the war the MX shell was introduced which contained even more explosives.

So not only close but also burn that book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

noace

p1ngu666
11-10-2006, 04:17 PM
point 1)nightfighters had 20mm cannon UNDER the nose mostly, so the crew couldnt see the flash

point 2) they may also use night muzzles (used on 303 guns) and night amunition mixture (less bright tracer)

point 3)wing guns are normaly greater in number, and u have 2 streams of fire. sometimes its better sometimes its not

point 4)game tends to pick the worst sync/unsync solution for guns. eg spit or il2 cannon, unsynced, mossie nose cannons, synced

point 5) recoil should be worse on hispano, but how much worse?

point 6) german aircaft are better gunplatforms, less likely to "snap" stall, more feel, prodictable handling when being thrown around espcialy. less recoil, you simiply haveto fight the plane less for a given gun solution, the lower recoil helps you sustain that gun solution. fw190 with its spread out guns gives a wave of death too which helps...

point 7)a wobbly spitfire is actully pretty damn pants, and so a significant challenge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

point 8) tempests closely housed cannons means theeres often a decent chance of a double dewingment of a fighter, which is really great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

Abbuzze
11-10-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Schie??fibel (shooting guide) published in June 44, called 3x mineshell + 1x incedary + 1x API "embattled" for both MGFF and MK151/20. So it seems it was allreay in use at this time. Whats your source?

I did a fast search in the web:
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=127;t=001378

In this thread there is a document of the Mineshell from late 1941:
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgecho...-20%20ballistics.jpg (http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgechoss%20MG151-20%20ballistics.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Abbuzze, my reference source is "German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2", by Hoffschmidt.

I don't think that our respective data are inconsistent. The date of your document and the service introduction of the 151/20 M-geschoss are the same - June 1944. It stands to reason that the ammunition belting instructions would cover all official service ammunition as of date of publication. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. Yes you are right, but even if the date is identical in the document they used "bewehrt" which means embattled or relaiable, so it seems it was allready in use.

Found something differnt. I wasn??t sure so I didn??t mentioned it.
From Ring/shores: Fighters over the desert



Werner Schroer - Oberleutnant (1st Lieutenant?) 61 kills in Africa: I believe that our weapons in Africa where better than the one the Hurricans. Our planes came back with 40-50 hits. Our Ammonition was phenomenal. Often the pilots decide the sequence of the shells. HE - mine - AP or incedary bullets. But you have to hit"


So if the mineshells were allready used in Africa it would fit to the "embattled" situation mentioned in the shooting guide. The 151/20 Mineshell datasheed from late 1941 labled with final report also let me believe that it was in use with the advent of the 151/20.
And for the MGFF. The MGFF/M in the Emil was build in to use this shell, because it couldn??t be fired by a usual MGFF.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p1234/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

Brain32
11-10-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
In game Hispano is far more powerful and has far better ballistics. IRL it was not like that, and Hispano was unreliable. Actually in-game I would trade 2 MG151/20 for one Hispano...
Stability comment is bullsh1t except when it comes to P51 which was ruined by Red whiners anyway you know, i have talked with you a few times in TS wc. i thought you to be a fairly level headed guy. maby you sat on your head before coming in hear today or something i dont know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . but that comment is complete BS from top to bottom. now IMHO the power per shot is arguable 100% in game. wich is why i made this post but any numb nu* with the game and a flight stick can fly the FW and then fly the tempist and spit,Fire the cannons for more than a secound and see clear as day that the FW is nice and stable while the spit and Tempist bounce all over the place. it is not arguable for me. the deffermce in stabilty is far to aparent. next time were on TS if you want we can talk about it in greater detail. though i dout your mic will pick up your voice if your head is still up there besides echo's cause LAG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif j/k . but seriously i have to call Bias on your post my friend. and how did RED whinners ruin the stang? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool down m8, everybody knows I occasionally write BS just to counter BS(see above my first post).
Now for real, if you carry out tests on the same target you will notice Hispano and MG151/20 are exactly same in hitting power, the point of debates is IMHO in the fact that Allied planes often have cannons set in wings and here convergence plays a huge role. Also Hispano has a much flatter trajectory, this is not necesarily better, just suits ME much better.
Regarding stability, I find Tempest and Spitfire PERFECTLY stable, that's not my fault. If you have nose bobing problems check your "Yaw" settings, Tempest has exceptional rudder authority and small movements can lead to oversteer rather easily, Spit is like on rails for me, I think stability is individual http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Furthermore regarding stability, especially irritating is P51 and not in "Yaw" but in "Pitch", and here we come to Red whiners ruining P51. Current elevator authority was whined in, it wasn't like this before so now you have an extremely pitching sensitive nose and wing brakeing and other bad stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

This is my sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
11-10-2006, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

point 6) german aircaft are better gunplatforms, less likely to "snap" stall, more feel, prodictable handling when being thrown around espcialy. less recoil, you simiply haveto fight the plane less for a given gun solution, the lower recoil helps you sustain that gun solution. fw190 with its spread out guns gives a wave of death too which helps...

point 7)a wobbly spitfire is actully pretty damn pants, and so a significant challenge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


So you actually find the handling characteristics of the Fw 190 are superior to the Spitfire's when it comes to bringing its weapons to bear ... interesting.

You also think that flying the 'wobbly' Spitfire poses a significant challenge. As opposed to flying a Fw 190? or a Mustang? What is the context. For me Spitfire ranks as one of the easiest fighters to bring ones guns to bear on a target.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

fordfan25
11-10-2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
In game Hispano is far more powerful and has far better ballistics. IRL it was not like that, and Hispano was unreliable. Actually in-game I would trade 2 MG151/20 for one Hispano...
Stability comment is bullsh1t except when it comes to P51 which was ruined by Red whiners anyway you know, i have talked with you a few times in TS wc. i thought you to be a fairly level headed guy. maby you sat on your head before coming in hear today or something i dont know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . but that comment is complete BS from top to bottom. now IMHO the power per shot is arguable 100% in game. wich is why i made this post but any numb nu* with the game and a flight stick can fly the FW and then fly the tempist and spit,Fire the cannons for more than a secound and see clear as day that the FW is nice and stable while the spit and Tempist bounce all over the place. it is not arguable for me. the deffermce in stabilty is far to aparent. next time were on TS if you want we can talk about it in greater detail. though i dout your mic will pick up your voice if your head is still up there besides echo's cause LAG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif j/k . but seriously i have to call Bias on your post my friend. and how did RED whinners ruin the stang? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool down m8, everybody knows I occasionally write BS just to counter BS(see above my first post).
Now for real, if you carry out tests on the same target you will notice Hispano and MG151/20 are exactly same in hitting power, the point of debates is IMHO in the fact that Allied planes often have cannons set in wings and here convergence plays a huge role. Also Hispano has a much flatter trajectory, this is not necesarily better, just suits ME much better.
Regarding stability, I find Tempest and Spitfire PERFECTLY stable, that's not my fault. If you have nose bobing problems check your "Yaw" settings, Tempest has exceptional rudder authority and small movements can lead to oversteer rather easily, Spit is like on rails for me, I think stability is individual http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Furthermore regarding stability, especially irritating is P51 and not in "Yaw" but in "Pitch", and here we come to Red whiners ruining P51. Current elevator authority was whined in, it wasn't like this before so now you have an extremely pitching sensitive nose and wing brakeing and other bad stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>hay I'll have you know i was perfectly calm when i said you were full of BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif. so your sayn when you fire the cannons on the Tempist it does not shake and jump around? flight stick settings has nothing what so ever to do with it. i can trim out and fire the Tempist/FW190 guns with out any control input. the deffernce is extreamly noticble. the tempist goes a** wild while the FW has much less recoil jumps. now im not talking about what is called the wobbles. im talking about stabilty while fireing guns. The FW hardly vibrates ect while the Tempist as well as spit have very prononced recoil stabilty issues. its like if you hold down the cannon fire trigger the tempist starts to rock from side to side. almost like one of the cannons randomly does not fire. the plane will rock back and forth by more than a inch on my 17 " monitor. the spit is the same.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Blutarski2004
11-10-2006, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Schie??fibel (shooting guide) published in June 44, called 3x mineshell + 1x incedary + 1x API "embattled" for both MGFF and MK151/20. So it seems it was allreay in use at this time. Whats your source?

I did a fast search in the web:
http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=127;t=001378

In this thread there is a document of the Mineshell from late 1941:
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgecho...-20%20ballistics.jpg (http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/warplanes/GWeapon/Mgechoss%20MG151-20%20ballistics.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Abbuzze, my reference source is "German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2", by Hoffschmidt.

I don't think that our respective data are inconsistent. The date of your document and the service introduction of the 151/20 M-geschoss are the same - June 1944. It stands to reason that the ammunition belting instructions would cover all official service ammunition as of date of publication. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. Yes you are right, but even if the date is identical in the document they used "bewehrt" which means embattled or relaiable, so it seems it was allready in use.

Found something differnt. I wasn??t sure so I didn??t mentioned it.
From Ring/shores: Fighters over the desert



Werner Schroer - Oberleutnant (1st Lieutenant?) 61 kills in Africa: I believe that our weapons in Africa where better than the one the Hurricans. Our planes came back with 40-50 hits. Our Ammonition was phenomenal. Often the pilots decide the sequence of the shells. HE - mine - AP or incedary bullets. But you have to hit"


So if the mineshells were allready used in Africa it would fit to the "embattled" situation mentioned in the shooting guide. The 151/20 Mineshell datasheed from late 1941 labled with final report also let me believe that it was in use with the advent of the 151/20.
And for the MGFF. The MGFF/M in the Emil was build in to use this shell, because it couldn??t be fired by a usual MGFF. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... It is indeed a mystery, Abbuzze. Maybe the answer is in the difference between official bureaucratic announcements and what actually was going on at the front.

OTOH, it's possible that the use of "bewehrt" MIGHT have bee related to the fact that the FFM M-Geschoss projectile itself was used in the manufacture of the 151/20 M-Geschoss cartridge. That projectile design had certainly proved itself in action when fired by the FFM

"Fighters over the Desert" is a great book - a copy sits on my bookshelf also. I suspect that Schroer's remarks might have been related to the 109E's with the FFM cannons. Schroer flew with staffels I and III/JG27 I/JG27 flew the E series to the very end of 1941; they did not get 109F's until sometime in November of 1941. Also, the 109F2's which they did operate in N Africa, being early production models, would have been delivered with the 151/15. It was not until the F4 that the 151/20 was finally standardized.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
11-10-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by noace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just saw that Jaws was faster - the same Table is in the linked thread. But there is also some other data there.

Oh well - here we go again. Deja vu after deja vu (And no, the germans did not get a kill per engine...)

Anyway, goto http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=127;t=001378 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=001378) and scroll doen to the picture "Schusstafel fuer das 2 cm M-Geschoss" and have a look at the date. And as already mentioned later in the war the MX shell was introduced which contained even more explosives.

So not only close but also burn that book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

noace </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Boy that thread was a long time ago. I participated in it, but had forgotten about it. My handle there was Lord Byron. Anyways, Oleg also had a mid-1944 date for the introduction of the 151/20 M-Geschoss, and that thread never came to a final conclusion about dates.

The Feb 1941 report that Jaws posted is titled at the top "Development of munitions for the 2cm MG (1)51/20" and was issued by Rechlin, which was a test and evaluation center. It basically reports on range table data which was measured at Tarnewitz, which IIRC was the German weapons proving ground.

It is a document that proves that the 151/20 M-Geschoss was in development in 1941. It is not a document that proves it was in actual service at that time.

So, I'm still not ready to close that book, much less burn it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

AnaK774
11-10-2006, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:


You also think that flying the 'wobbly' Spitfire poses a significant challenge. As opposed to flying a Fw 190? or a Mustang? What is the context. For me Spitfire ranks as one of the easiest fighters to bring ones guns to bear on a target.

Fly spit like you think you should fly a 190 and it really rocks.
Use hispanos like single shot weapon, only aimed shots.
Most important thing is knowing WHERE to aim.
Left eye of pilot has still low armour value http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"On your machine the plane seems to perform quite poorly.
I think that there may be something nearby the machine that is causing this problem for you. You may need a mirror to find out what it is specifically." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AKA LeOs.K_Anak

HellToupee
11-11-2006, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You also think that flying the 'wobbly' Spitfire poses a significant challenge. As opposed to flying a Fw 190? or a Mustang? What is the context. For me Spitfire ranks as one of the easiest fighters to bring ones guns to bear on a target.

bear guns on target as in turn or bear guns on target as gunnery platform.

Its easy to outurn an opponent but as far as shooting gos i rate it far harder than a tempest a 190 and many others, its wobbles around and when you shoot theres huge recoil that wobbles.

p1ngu666
11-11-2006, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You also think that flying the 'wobbly' Spitfire poses a significant challenge. As opposed to flying a Fw 190? or a Mustang? What is the context. For me Spitfire ranks as one of the easiest fighters to bring ones guns to bear on a target.

bear guns on target as in turn or bear guns on target as gunnery platform.

Its easy to outurn an opponent but as far as shooting gos i rate it far harder than a tempest a 190 and many others, its wobbles around and when you shoot theres huge recoil that wobbles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

pretty much, plus u cant rely on turn/lowspeed handling at all, because you will probably be popped out of your turn by a wobbly tip stall.

vs say a 109 which is a small target with hero slats, you can spend ages trying to shoot him down. the hero slats give great ability at low speed, and also snap movements are much easier, the spitfire may well repeatidly stall trying to follow the 109.

you end up having to setup a approach where you keep your plane as stable as possible, and the targert slowly flies into your sights<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

JG52Karaya-X
11-11-2006, 06:28 AM
LOL are you serious p1ngu?

If your stalling/spinning while trying to follow a 109 in a contemporary Spit you're definitely too hamfisted on the stick. You know you dont have to pull a lead turn on him all the time. Just follow him in pure pursuit until he has burnt his energy and finish him off, it's so easy when done right and the 109 will have nothing to do about it. The Spit has the better initial turn, lower stall speed and better sustained turn rate/time. It does enter spins easier than the 109 because of the lack of leading edge slats which increase the critical AoA but then again if you get into one you did something wrong in the first place.

Anyway if your turning with a 109 at very slow speed instead of ever increasing the AoA in the turn to pull lead on him just follow in pure pursuit as mentioned already and wait a bit for him to burn all his energy, should render him an easy picking and if you're in danger of overshooting him just make a high yoyo which he will not be able to follow as he has no energy.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/300club-2.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
Kein andrer als ein J??ger sp??rt den Kampf und Sieg so konzentriert,
Drum sind wir gl??cklich, stolz und froh,
Der J??gerei ein Horrido!

JG53Frankyboy
11-11-2006, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Mk108 MineGeschos rounds, not 20mm


..... I'm afraid we have to leave the book open for the moment. I went back and checked my reference (German Aircraft Guns WW1-WW2, Hoffschmidt). There are two entries for 2cm M-Projectile ammunition: one for the 2cm FFM series and one for the 2cm 151 series.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just saw that Jaws was faster - the same Table is in the linked thread. But there is also some other data there.

Oh well - here we go again. Deja vu after deja vu (And no, the germans did not get a kill per engine...)

Anyway, goto http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=127;t=001378 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=001378) and scroll doen to the picture "Schusstafel fuer das 2 cm M-Geschoss" and have a look at the date. And as already mentioned later in the war the MX shell was introduced which contained even more explosives.

So not only close but also burn that book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

noace </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Boy that thread was a long time ago. I participated in it, but had forgotten about it. My handle there was Lord Byron. Anyways, Oleg also had a mid-1944 date for the introduction of the 151/20 M-Geschoss, and that thread never came to a final conclusion about dates.

The Feb 1941 report that Jaws posted is titled at the top "Development of munitions for the 2cm MG (1)51/20" and was issued by Rechlin, which was a test and evaluation center. It basically reports on range table data which was measured at Tarnewitz, which IIRC was the German weapons proving ground.

It is a document that proves that the 151/20 M-Geschoss was in development in 1941. It is not a document that proves it was in actual service at that time.

So, I'm still not ready to close that book, much less burn it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in Tolliever/Constable's book about the german fighteraces there is one killreport of Adolf Galland posted, its from 18.11.1941.
the weapons that were used were 2xMG17, 2xMG-FF (i think they left the M out because all MG-FFs were of the -/M kind end of 1941 i belive...) and 1xMG151/20 (it was one of this Galland special armed Bf109F).

about ammo that was used in that mission they are talking for the MG151/20:
Panzer Spreng 151/20
Brand Spreng 151/20
and
M (Mine) 151/20

p1ngu666
11-11-2006, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
LOL are you serious p1ngu?

If your stalling/spinning while trying to follow a 109 in a contemporary Spit you're definitely too hamfisted on the stick. You know you dont have to pull a lead turn on him all the time. Just follow him in pure pursuit until he has burnt his energy and finish him off, it's so easy when done right and the 109 will have nothing to do about it. The Spit has the better initial turn, lower stall speed and better sustained turn rate/time. It does enter spins easier than the 109 because of the lack of leading edge slats which increase the critical AoA but then again if you get into one you did something wrong in the first place.

Anyway if your turning with a 109 at very slow speed instead of ever increasing the AoA in the turn to pull lead on him just follow in pure pursuit as mentioned already and wait a bit for him to burn all his energy, should render him an easy picking and if you're in danger of overshooting him just make a high yoyo which he will not be able to follow as he has no energy.

not being hamfisted, just wobble changes everything, completely different game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

Lucius_Esox
11-11-2006, 10:43 AM
Pulling lead when chasing down a 109 can be very preferable in a furball despite the stall risk, and yes it is better to go into pursuit if you have the time. Trouble is, for me at least it presents you with the tougher part of the aircraft to kill, i.e. the rear.

Pulling lead gives you a better angle for a killing shot and means you can concentrate on regaining E quicker.

I think with the wobble caused by sustained firing of the guns makes using the Spitfire as a snapshooter a better option in a lot of cases

fordfan25
11-11-2006, 11:33 AM
in the hands of a piloet thats worth his net connectiom a 109 is a match for a spit. trick is not to go into nrmal turns. if you use climbing manuvers it even things out. get the fight as low a speed as you can. in 1 on 1 against a spit speed is his friend not yours. the 109 has a BS abilty to remain VERY controlble even when stalling. use that.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

mynameisroland
11-11-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You also think that flying the 'wobbly' Spitfire poses a significant challenge. As opposed to flying a Fw 190? or a Mustang? What is the context. For me Spitfire ranks as one of the easiest fighters to bring ones guns to bear on a target.



bear guns on target as in turn or bear guns on target as gunnery platform.

Its easy to outurn an opponent but as far as shooting gos i rate it far harder than a tempest a 190 and many others, its wobbles around and when you shoot theres huge recoil that wobbles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

pretty much, plus u cant rely on turn/lowspeed handling at all, because you will probably be popped out of your turn by a wobbly tip stall.

vs say a 109 which is a small target with hero slats, you can spend ages trying to shoot him down. the hero slats give great ability at low speed, and also snap movements are much easier, the spitfire may well repeatidly stall trying to follow the 109.

you end up having to setup a approach where you keep your plane as stable as possible, and the targert slowly flies into your sights </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But Pingu with all due respect your opinion doesnt count for anything when talking about how planes handle and fight... we kow you have atrocious wobbles. Your experience is not the standard IL2 Spitfire experience. If flying it was this tough dont you think more people would voice this ?

Do you understand that Spitfires are widely regarded as easy planes to fly and score kills with? This isnt a slight against the Spitfire its a known fact. Spitfire is docile, extremely competitive and often dominates if flown by a pilot who has more than half a brain cell.

The Fw 190 is very tough to bring its firepower to bear on a manuvering target. Sharp movements bleed too much energy and you are liable to stall if you get desperate, the gunsight view is infamous and needless to say effects gunnery in EVERY engagement.

Firing a Fw 190 when it is unloaded is fine, as soon as you are pulling Gs and you cant see the target you are screwed. I try to shoot unloaded as often as possible, predicting a bandits flight path without following it. Doing this its steady.

In the Spitfire firing while pulling G is aided by the fact that your stall is predictable and you have a large margin of error before you enter its threshold. Its gunsight is superior and its weapons have a straighter trajectory meaning you have to pull less lead in the 1st place.

So when I compare my experiences ( and others I feel ) to your P1ngu I think increasingly that you are in a world of your own.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-11-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
in Tolliever/Constable's book about the german fighteraces there is one killreport of Adolf Galland posted, its from 18.11.1941.
the weapons that were used were 2xMG17, 2xMG-FF (i think they left the M out because all MG-FFs were of the -/M kind end of 1941 i belive...) and 1xMG151/20 (it was one of this Galland special armed Bf109F).

about ammo that was used in that mission they are talking for the MG151/20:
Panzer Spreng 151/20
Brand Spreng 151/20
and
M (Mine) 151/20


..... That's what I meant about official bureaucratic announcements and the real world.

But I did a little research in Caldwell's book on JG26. He mentions that Galland was complaining about ineffective fighter armamament as early as the second half of 1941. Galland was also in Germany in very early November of 1941 (coincidence?).

I'm wondering if the 20/151 M-Geschoss he apparently used in his "special" 109 was "Beta" ammunition - ammunition sent to the front for testing by a reliable man.

Later on in the book, Caldwell makes the following comment -

"Morale in the Jagdgeschwader picked up, although the apparent low destructive capacity of their weapons was frustrating. More effectiveammunition was promised shortly."

The timing of this in the book was approximately September of 1943, after the first large-scale experiences with American 4-engine bombers. IF this refers to 151/20 M-Geschoss, and I can't think of any other ammunition type it could be, it fits with the June 1944 date for service adoption.

I realize that this is no "smoking gun" proof either, but clearly the case remains open ... at least IMO.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

p1ngu666
11-11-2006, 04:06 PM
other people do have similer spitfires to me, they often keep quiet, or only say stuff on comms.

if the spit i flew had all the things u say, id be happy.

but the one i fly is mostly pants, *shrug*

rule of thumb, if you have wobble

mynameisroland
11-11-2006, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
other people do have similer spitfires to me, they often keep quiet, or only say stuff on comms.

if the spit i flew had all the things u say, id be happy.

but the one i fly is mostly pants, *shrug*

rule of thumb, if you have wobbles, lw aircraft are easier and outclass most allied planes by *lots*

if dont have wobbles allied aircraft have some viable handling advantages.

different game, like i said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rule of thumb ? I have wobbles on the Corsair and on the Fw 190 what does that make me? You are giving a lame dig that wobbles effect only Red aircraft and not Blue.

I stand by what I said that to the vast majority of IL2 players the Spitfire handles like a dream.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-11-2006, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ????

Nope, the MGeschoss round was introduced in mid-1940 for the MG-FF/M during the Battle of France. The Bf 109E-4 introduced the MG-FF/M guns, the suffix indicating the gun was redesigned to fire the high capacity Minengeschoss.

For the MG 151/20, it was available from the start. The British test fired captured examples early in the war. There was an increased capacity experimentl 'X' Minegeschoss round, maybe that's the root of confusion.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Blutarski2004
11-11-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 2cm FFM in April, 1942.

The M-Projectile was introduced as a service round for the 151/20 in June 1944.

I don't believe that the ammunition was interchangeable between the FFM and the 151/20.


The devil always seems to be in the details. Comments ????

Nope, the MGeschoss round was introduced in mid-1940 for the MG-FF/M during the Battle of France. The Bf 109E-4 introduced the MG-FF/M guns, the suffix indicating the gun was redesigned to fire the high capacity Minengeschoss.

For the MG 151/20, it was available from the start. The British test fired captured examples early in the war. There was an increased capacity experimentl 'X' Minegeschoss round, maybe that's the root of confusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... That might be it. If so, what do you think Caldwell was referring to about pilot dissatisfaction with ammunition effectiveness circa Sept 1943?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
11-11-2006, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
do they shoot the same ammo , the same way FordFan

because they are both 20mm - are they supposed to be equal

<extreme stunned mode>

They must be the same since they have the same name!

And there's the same problem with this sim -- how many 109's and they're different!
Hey, a 109 is a 109, right? So how can they not be the same?
And Spitfires too! Spitfire is Spitfire. I read so many posts here from experts and they
always just refer to the main part of the name of a plane when making statements that hey
there should be no difference but there IS!
Must be revisionist-biased-arcade-politics and a side order of conspiracy, that's all!

Ratsack
11-11-2006, 10:12 PM
I normally fly Fw 190As and I recently did a couple of online sorties in a Spit IXe.

I found that getting hits with either plane was about equally hard or difficult.

I found that hits with the Spit IXe's 20 mm Hispanos and 0.50s:

a.) set fire to a Dora after a single burst; and
b.) shot the entire tail off a Gustav with a single burst. The Gustav was burning, too.

I set my convergence to 500 m for all weapons. I have weapons 1 & 2 mapped to a single button, so when I'm firing in the Anton 6, it's with four MG 151/20s and two MG17s. In the Spit it's cannon and guns.

I did some offline QMBs to have a look as well. Killed several La-7s very easily with the flat-shooting Hispanos. They seemed to disable the plane (controls?) after the first hits. The pilots usually bailed. (AI set to ACE).

My subjective impression is that the Hispanos are more deadly than the MG 151.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-11-2006, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
... to the vast majority of IL2 players the Spitfire handles like a dream.

Yep.

Ratsack

faustnik
11-11-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:


My subjective impression is that the Hispanos are more deadly than the MG 151.


Ratsack,

I agree that the Hispanos are more accurate for straight shooting. Where the Mg151 is better for me is deflection shots. The higher rate of fire works better for me. Like you said though, it's subjective, the two are very close.

Try B&Z with the Spit VIII clipped if you have the chance, the thing is a killer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
11-12-2006, 01:41 AM
Doesn't Tony Williams rate the two about equal with some points to each?

-------------------

LB, I think Kurfurst has got ya on the 109E-4's having MGFF/M guns. They did fire MG shells.

And there's enough about the MX shell (or is that XM?) being introduced in June 44 to put the
original M-shell as being prior to that so that maybe your document is where the error begins.

faustnik
11-12-2006, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Doesn't Tony Williams rate the two about equal with some points to each?


Yes, please see my post on page 2 of this thread, I quoted Mr. Williams there.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

tigertalon
11-12-2006, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I do not know what the situation really is. Perhaps IL2 has 2 models of the MG151/20, early and late. Can anyone confirm/deny?


Yes, IL2 simulates two different Mg151/20 ammo belts. However, they should both be rated as 'late', one as general purpose, one as 'anti bomber'.

1. Most Mg151/20 cannons have this sequence:
...-APIT-HE-MG-MG-MG-...
2. Bf109 20mm gondolas only, He162 etc. cannons have this sequence:
...-APIT-HE-MG-...

This should, historically be correct, as Hyperion posted:


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
http://img109.imagevenue.com/loc525/th_20157_Gurtung_525lo.JPG (http://img109.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc525&image=20157_Gurtung_525lo.JPG)

(sorry for 'leaching' Hyp, not at home computer right now)


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
As for 1941 aircraft Dom, you forgot that the Fw 190 A2 qualifies as 1941. The RAF rated its firepower as greatly superior to the Spitfire Vb. 2 x Mg 151 20mm with 250 rpg, 2 x MgFF 20mm with 60 rpg and 2 x 7.92 mm Mgs with 1000 rpg vs the Spitfires 60 rpg for its 2 canons.


A small correction, MgFF mounted on Fw190 had late drum with 90 rpg, not 60 as it is in PF (and as it was used in 'early' drum on 109E/T).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK"><pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">???An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child in this great nation.

Lucius_Esox
11-12-2006, 05:43 AM
If the Spitfire wasn't the best plane in the game where would all the EH wannnabees be...

Inferior plane, still taking em down.... nooooooo...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Blutarski2004
11-12-2006, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
LB, I think Kurfurst has got ya on the 109E-4's having MGFF/M guns. They did fire MG shells.

..... Gunz, I never disputed the early use of M-Geschoss in FFM's. IIRC, Hoffschmidt gives a date of April 1942 for "date issued to service".

I'm also absolutely willing to accept that the 151/20 M-Geschoss could well have been put into some sort of wide use prior to that official June 1944 date - perhaps as a large-scale combat field test. Perhaps it was even widely issued. That's why I mentioned the possibility of a disconnect between actual events and official bureaucratic announcements in some of my previous posts.



And there's enough about the MX shell (or is that XM?) being introduced in June 44 to put the original M-shell as being prior to that so that maybe your document is where the error begins.

..... Perfectly possible! My position in this matter all along has been one of careful skepticism as opposed to downright opposition. An earlier date may perfectly well be correct. I just made a comment based upon a textual reference. It was disregarded, rather offhandedly in my opinion. My position thereafter has been - show me some conclusive proof to the contrary. I accept the possibility that my reference source might simply be incorrect or might relate to official acceptance rather than actual usage at the front. I have no emotional problem about being in error on either basis. But so far what has been put forth in the way of supporting evidence has been inconclusive, as has been much of the anecdotal evidence.

Kurfurst has now weighed in on this, and that's fine. But I'd still like to know upon what evidence he bases his statement that M-Geschoss for the 151/20 was in widespread use early on in the war.

Just so long as everyone understands that I view this exercise as an investigative process and not as a debate.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
11-12-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Yes, IL2 simulates two different Mg151/20 ammo belts. However, they should both be rated as 'late', one as general purpose, one as 'anti bomber'.

1. Most Mg151/20 cannons have this sequence:
...-APIT-HE-MG-MG-MG-...
2. Bf109 20mm gondolas only, He162 etc. cannons have this sequence:
...-APIT-HE-MG-...

This should, historically be correct, as Hyperion posted:


..... Thanks TT. I was wondering how IL2 ws handling this.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

p1ngu666
11-12-2006, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
other people do have similer spitfires to me, they often keep quiet, or only say stuff on comms.

if the spit i flew had all the things u say, id be happy.

but the one i fly is mostly pants, *shrug*

rule of thumb, if you have wobbles, lw aircraft are easier and outclass most allied planes by *lots*

if dont have wobbles allied aircraft have some viable handling advantages.

different game, like i said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rule of thumb ? I have wobbles on the Corsair and on the Fw 190 what does that make me? You are giving a lame dig that wobbles effect only Red aircraft and not Blue.

I stand by what I said that to the vast majority of IL2 players the Spitfire handles like a dream. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

think i mentioned other planes wobble? yes fw190 and 109 wobble, but not as much and not as bad.

curiously the corsair wobble hardly effects me at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

mynameisroland
11-12-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
other people do have similer spitfires to me, they often keep quiet, or only say stuff on comms.

if the spit i flew had all the things u say, id be happy.

but the one i fly is mostly pants, *shrug*

rule of thumb, if you have wobbles, lw aircraft are easier and outclass most allied planes by *lots*

if dont have wobbles allied aircraft have some viable handling advantages.

different game, like i said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rule of thumb ? I have wobbles on the Corsair and on the Fw 190 what does that make me? You are giving a lame dig that wobbles effect only Red aircraft and not Blue.

I stand by what I said that to the vast majority of IL2 players the Spitfire handles like a dream. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

think i mentioned other planes wobble? yes fw190 and 109 wobble, but not as much and not as bad.

curiously the corsair wobble hardly effects me at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was thinking more about this , I get wobbles on Ki 84 but never on J2M3, Mustang C but not B ??? and I also get rudder twitching on Mossie sometimes but not on B25. Its hit or miss.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

fordfan25
11-13-2006, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
do they shoot the same ammo , the same way FordFan

because they are both 20mm - are they supposed to be equal

<extreme stunned mode>

They must be the same since they have the same name!

And there's the same problem with this sim -- how many 109's and they're different!
Hey, a 109 is a 109, right? So how can they not be the same?
And Spitfires too! Spitfire is Spitfire. I read so many posts here from experts and they
always just refer to the main part of the name of a plane when making statements that hey
there should be no difference but there IS!
Must be revisionist-biased-arcade-politics and a side order of conspiracy, that's all! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wow.... just wow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

WWMaxGunz
11-13-2006, 05:00 AM
Hey FF, don't get carried away with what something MIGHT mean!

Sorry but I hit my limit and unloaded. IMO Badsight felt at least in the same direction.

How many posts you see complaints that only give the make of the plane they complain about
exactly as if 'all should be the same'?

There are copies of Oleg's Gun and Ammo chart he posted years ago that show for each gun
then, ammo mix, ammo types with muzzle velocity, mass of projectile and explosive power each.

Want some fun? For some cannon check out the differences in MV and mass of different shells.
The gun is fixed in place so the different ammos have different trajectories so even with a
nose cannon you may have to fire at or near convergence to get all the shells to hit. If the
tracers are only one kind of shell then you won't see the others go just over or under and if
you don't understand the seperation of trajectories then what do so many players do? The same
as when they don't understand about slip... they come on and say the guns are no good!

Okay FF, you did manage to not be in that group at least! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I Salute you!

p1ngu666
11-13-2006, 06:28 AM
i can actully get the mossie todo wobble with just the tiniest trim change, and it can get into a tizzy where it just wobbles about out of control for awhile fairly easily. otherwise inflight its ok, a large amount of wobble often...

wobbles is pretty random on the planes it effects, simily no its got X feature so it wobbles stuff...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-13-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Kurfurst has now weighed in on this, and that's fine. But I'd still like to know upon what evidence he bases his statement that M-Geschoss for the 151/20 was in widespread use early on in the war.

Here's a few :

The MG-FF/M was a modded in it's recoil mechanism to fire the lighter M-geschoss. Plus, almost all 109e3s (MGFF) were modernized to E4 standard (MGFF/M) by the start of the BoB mid40. Why, if the ammo was not ready...?

Plus I have a quote from Tony Williams from a post somewhere on AH board. He says : 'M-Geschoss was first issued in 1940, in the MG-FFM, so it was available from the start in the MG 151. '

I also have a British firing test with 151/20 M-geschoss, dated 41 or '42 IIRC, but I can't find at the momement, IIRC it's from Ring's pro docs site, which is down at the moment unfortunately.

There were a lot of versions and models of the M-geschoss introduced during the war. I have a more or less complete WW2 German manual on bordwaffen munitions ('Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffen Munition, 1936-1945) here, and alone for the 2cm rounds there are some 37 pages of datasheets - some 14 of them are various 2cm Minengeschoss variants... all spread through the years. The earliest I can find is for '2cm M-Geschoss Patrone FFM m. Zerl' (Mshell for Oerlikon FFM with self-destruct) , and it notes it's a 'neu ausgegeben Juni 41 - new issue from June 1941. Besides, just that a datasheet is dated 1943 doesn't mean it's the introduction date, I have GLC-E datasheets showing the Bf109G-6, dated November 1944... then what?

As for why the complains about around Sept 1943... first of all Caldwell is not a very good source of fighter technology, it's not the profile of his book. As for why the pilots complained - I guess that's normal, the new US heavies were much more rugged that anything they saw before. On avarage it was noted that some 20 good concentration 20mm rounds were required to bring a viermot down, and that's quite a lot under combat conditions. Hence going for 3cm cannons for hunting heavies in the daylight fighters - curiously enough the Nachtjagd preferred 20mm cannons, as they found the 30mm rounds too destructive, endangering with their blast and resulting debris the night fighter lurking close below that unsuspecting Lanc.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

mynameisroland
11-13-2006, 08:20 AM
Most frustrating wobbler for me is Tempest. I am used to it now but it ruined my Tempest experience for so long http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

And I do love that plane, now its worthy of my attention lol<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

p1ngu666
11-13-2006, 09:32 AM
190 is a good learner plane for the tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

probably the hardest bnzy type is p51b/c, wobbles wing break and **** guns (insufficent in number). yay.

dates on data sheets may only give you a rough indication on date something started being used, if its used at all. im sure weve all come across stuff like that irl..<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666/spitfiresig.jpg

Zoom2136
11-13-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I normally fly Fw 190As and I recently did a couple of online sorties in a Spit IXe.

I found that getting hits with either plane was about equally hard or difficult.

I found that hits with the Spit IXe's 20 mm Hispanos and 0.50s:

a.) set fire to a Dora after a single burst; and
b.) shot the entire tail off a Gustav with a single burst. The Gustav was burning, too.

I set my convergence to 500 m for all weapons. I have weapons 1 & 2 mapped to a single button, so when I'm firing in the Anton 6, it's with four MG 151/20s and two MG17s. In the Spit it's cannon and guns.

I did some offline QMBs to have a look as well. Killed several La-7s very easily with the flat-shooting Hispanos. They seemed to disable the plane (controls?) after the first hits. The pilots usually bailed. (AI set to ACE).

My subjective impression is that the Hispanos are more deadly than the MG 151.

cheers,
Ratsack

The Hispanos is a great weapon and very accurate (I have a 11%+ accuracy with it on WC with over 400+ sortie flown). BUT and this is a biggy... you MUST fire short burst... sustain burst in a Spit IXe will make the nose rock from left to right... making it IMPOSSIBLE to kept the pipper on target (well not if he's 100m out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but if he's far...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"http://www.oacsquad.com/images/sigs/zoom.gif "

fordfan25
11-13-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Zoom2136:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I normally fly Fw 190As and I recently did a couple of online sorties in a Spit IXe.

I found that getting hits with either plane was about equally hard or difficult.

I found that hits with the Spit IXe's 20 mm Hispanos and 0.50s:

a.) set fire to a Dora after a single burst; and
b.) shot the entire tail off a Gustav with a single burst. The Gustav was burning, too.

I set my convergence to 500 m for all weapons. I have weapons 1 & 2 mapped to a single button, so when I'm firing in the Anton 6, it's with four MG 151/20s and two MG17s. In the Spit it's cannon and guns.

I did some offline QMBs to have a look as well. Killed several La-7s very easily with the flat-shooting Hispanos. They seemed to disable the plane (controls?) after the first hits. The pilots usually bailed. (AI set to ACE).

My subjective impression is that the Hispanos are more deadly than the MG 151.

cheers,
Ratsack

The Hispanos is a great weapon and very accurate (I have a 11%+ accuracy with it on WC with over 400+ sortie flown). BUT and this is a biggy... you MUST fire short burst... sustain burst in a Spit IXe will make the nose rock from left to right... making it IMPOSSIBLE to kept the pipper on target (well not if he's 100m out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but if he's far... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>we know you have the stabilaty cheat hack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Blutarski2004
11-13-2006, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Here's a few :

The MG-FF/M was a modded in it's recoil mechanism to fire the lighter M-geschoss. Plus, almost all 109e3s (MGFF) were modernized to E4 standard (MGFF/M) by the start of the BoB mid40. Why, if the ammo was not ready...?

..... I have no dispute regarding early use of the M-Geschoss in the MG-FF/M. I have found strog circumstantial evidence of it being commonly used in 1941.

My interest was strictly in the use of the M-Geschoss in the MG151/20. Please keep in mind that this entire discussion has been an attempt to rationalize "accepted for service use" dates which appear in Hoffschmidt's book with statements that it was in common use at an earlier time.

Based upon Hoffschmidt's date of April 1942 for official date for service acceptance of the M-Geschoss for the MGFF/M, the likelihood is strong that Hoffschmidt's information represents the issuance of bureaucratic paperwork validating at a later date a reality which had existed for as much as two years prior for the 151/20.



Plus I have a quote from Tony Williams from a post somewhere on AH board. He says : 'M-Geschoss was first issued in 1940, in the MG-FFM, so it was available from the start in the MG 151. '

I also have a British firing test with 151/20 M-geschoss, dated 41 or '42 IIRC, but I can't find at the momement, IIRC it's from Ring's pro docs site, which is down at the moment unfortunately.

..... Ring's site has been down for months now. It's a shame.



There were a lot of versions and models of the M-geschoss introduced during the war. I have a more or less complete WW2 German manual on bordwaffen munitions ('Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffen Munition, 1936-1945) here, and alone for the 2cm rounds there are some 37 pages of datasheets - some 14 of them are various 2cm Minengeschoss variants... all spread through the years. The earliest I can find is for '2cm M-Geschoss Patrone FFM m. Zerl' (Mshell for Oerlikon FFM with self-destruct) , and it notes it's a 'neu ausgegeben Juni 41 - new issue from June 1941. Besides, just that a datasheet is dated 1943 doesn't mean it's the introduction date, I have GLC-E datasheets showing the Bf109G-6, dated November 1944... then what?

..... I agree re documents and dates. That was my criticism (in a reverse way) of the Rechlin 151/20 M-Geschoss document.




As for why the complains about around Sept 1943... first of all Caldwell is not a very good source of fighter technology, it's not the profile of his book. As for why the pilots complained - I guess that's normal, the new US heavies were much more rugged that anything they saw before. On avarage it was noted that some 20 good concentration 20mm rounds were required to bring a viermot down, and that's quite a lot under combat conditions. Hence going for 3cm cannons for hunting heavies in the daylight fighters - curiously enough the Nachtjagd preferred 20mm cannons, as they found the 30mm rounds too destructive, endangering with their blast and resulting debris the night fighter lurking close below that unsuspecting Lanc.

..... Maybe so re Caldwell, although the statement was not Caldwell's own technical interpretation, but his report of alleged sentiments among the JG26 pilots at that time. I was intrigued by Caldwell's use of the term "ammunition" rather than "weapons". At the end of the day, however, it is at best nothing more than circumstantial.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
11-14-2006, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Based upon Hoffschmidt's date of April 1942 for official date for service acceptance of the M-Geschoss for the MGFF/M, the likelihood is strong that Hoffschmidt's information represents the issuance of bureaucratic paperwork validating at a later date a reality which had existed for as much as two years prior for the 151/20.


OTOH at the level that particular report was made it may have lain at the bottom of an in-box
or two for a long time. Military-Technical subject, meet wartime manpower shortage.

151/20 was designed to fire mine shells right from the start?

And did the fuse problems of 30mm mine shells also happen with 20mm minen?
And when was the fix? Cause I know there was for at least the 30mm.

Blutarski2004
11-14-2006, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Based upon Hoffschmidt's date of April 1942 for official date for service acceptance of the M-Geschoss for the MGFF/M, the likelihood is strong that Hoffschmidt's information represents the issuance of bureaucratic paperwork validating at a later date a reality which had existed for as much as two years prior for the 151/20.


OTOH at the level that particular report was made it may have lain at the bottom of an in-box
or two for a long time. Military-Technical subject, meet wartime manpower shortage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Hiya, Gunz. That's one likely reason from a galaxy of possibilities. Anything can happen in a "mature" bureaucratic environment.




151/20 was designed to fire mine shells right from the start?

..... I honestly don't know whether the design of the 151/20 was in any way guided by a specific interestneed to cater to M-Geschoss ammunition. From what I have read, the M-Geschoss projectile was able to tolerate at least medium muzzle velocities (hemispherical base - clever). And the original FFM M-Geschoss projectile was able to be fitted to the 151/20 cartridge case without alteration.




And did the fuse problems of 30mm mine shells also happen with 20mm minen?
And when was the fix? Cause I know there was for at least the 30mm.

..... The 30mm fuze issue is a mystery to me. The only German fuze problem of which I was aware related to lack of sufficient delay in HE ammunition for the original 20mm MGFF.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Zoom2136
11-14-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoom2136:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I normally fly Fw 190As and I recently did a couple of online sorties in a Spit IXe.

I found that getting hits with either plane was about equally hard or difficult.

I found that hits with the Spit IXe's 20 mm Hispanos and 0.50s:

a.) set fire to a Dora after a single burst; and
b.) shot the entire tail off a Gustav with a single burst. The Gustav was burning, too.

I set my convergence to 500 m for all weapons. I have weapons 1 & 2 mapped to a single button, so when I'm firing in the Anton 6, it's with four MG 151/20s and two MG17s. In the Spit it's cannon and guns.

I did some offline QMBs to have a look as well. Killed several La-7s very easily with the flat-shooting Hispanos. They seemed to disable the plane (controls?) after the first hits. The pilots usually bailed. (AI set to ACE).

My subjective impression is that the Hispanos are more deadly than the MG 151.

cheers,
Ratsack

The Hispanos is a great weapon and very accurate (I have a 11%+ accuracy with it on WC with over 400+ sortie flown). BUT and this is a biggy... you MUST fire short burst... sustain burst in a Spit IXe will make the nose rock from left to right... making it IMPOSSIBLE to kept the pipper on target (well not if he's 100m out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) but if he's far... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>we know you have the stabilaty cheat hack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DAMMIT YOU'VE BUSTED ME http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"http://www.oacsquad.com/images/sigs/zoom.gif "