PDA

View Full Version : S~! Oleg Please Fix The Shvak



HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 02:30 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! Oleg

As a former OKL man I commend you on fixing the mg 151/20. It needed to be done and while I am now on the recieving end I think the balance for the 109 is perfect. Good Job.


Now please fix the SVAK.


11 hits average required to bring down a bring down a G2. Hispano is on the money, MG 151/20 fixed. .50 cal fixed. How about doing something for the VVS. SVAK only slightly less powerful than mg151 in real life.

Please make it so in the game.

While you are at it Oleg, please restore the Yak 9 it has been GUTTED.</span>

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-13-2005, 02:56 AM
Yep, i agree, last day i was on the recieving end of a La5 canons, i clearly hear hits on my 109 and ... Nothing, even a little hole in my tail, nothing.

After i've made a pass on this plane an shoot him with the new 151/20...
I feel a bit ashamed, he must have shooted me.

At the opposite the russian 12mm let no chances to the plane in the gunsight.
Better have 12mm than 20mm? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 03:03 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! Kartofe

My Compliments & Respects.

Thanks for being a straight up, honest LW Pilot and telling the truth.</span>

JG54_Arnie
06-13-2005, 03:09 AM
hm, once more, test it on a lot of different planes? Maybe we should start a thread about testing different weapons on various planes. It could very well be that 109's and 190's both are a little bit too tough now.

for example, having tested .50's vs some planes I got this:
(in a P-40, conv dist. 200m, firing at conv distance.)
zero == 1 second burst, instant death
P-39 == 1 second burst, instant burning
FW190== 5 second burst, some control surfaces lost, PK, no fuelleaks or structural damage.
Me109== 3-5 second burst, light or black smoke, no fires, goes down due to PK or control loss.
Me110== 1-2 second burst, instant burning

Do this with a lot of weapons to get an idea.. I dont think the SVAK changed at all. Rather the DM of planes you shoot at. Note: I'm not disregarding your findings here, just mentioning my feelings about it and what I think needs to be done to reach a good conclusion.
Also check Von Zero's test here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4101001923

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 03:23 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Quote From Von Zero

"One thing i noticed, the AP shells on the ShVAK made small sprites on impact, on the Mg151/20 all shells seemed to make an explosion (smaller or bigger)."

In real life these two guns were very comparable.

Thanks for the link Arnie. Great to see LW support on this one, I truly didn't expect it.</span>

tigertalon
06-13-2005, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
hm, once more, test it on a lot of different planes? Maybe we should start a thread about testing different weapons on various planes. It could very well be that 109's and 190's both are a little bit too tough now.


My observations exactly. ShVAK probably hasn't changed, Fw and Bf DMs have. A bit too tough now, at least 109.

JirkaF
06-13-2005, 05:15 AM
As for me, it is right.

anarchy52
06-13-2005, 05:54 AM
AFAIK Shvak is still the same: 1 hit in the wing - 109 crippled, 2 hits barelly-flyable or wing off, 3 hits wing off. Know that first hand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VF-29_Sandman
06-13-2005, 05:55 AM
could reducing convergance range work? it did for the 50 cal's a couple of patches ago. i'll try this and see what i come up with.

OldMan____
06-13-2005, 06:03 AM
On the FW190 you have now to aim for ailerons and cockpit. This one is very big and it not hard to hit from slighty above. Also side of engine is vulnerable.


maybe FW and Bf now are harder to catch on fire (on 3.04 was too easy for FW.. so maybe.. maybe a little bit overdone)

Badsight.
06-13-2005, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> In real life these two guns were very comparable.</span> in your opinion , do you think they have changed from v3.04 ?

i know i used to fly the LA's because of its guns in v3.04 & i have to confess i havent really tested their guns in v4.0 yet

VF-29_Sandman
06-13-2005, 06:28 AM
seems to me that reducing the convergance to 200-185 meters on this thing is deadly. if u shoot a 190 from behind and below (an old japanese pilots' method of attack) u'll cut a 190's tail off with a couple of bursts. on the other hand, if u shoot from dead 6 like most onliner's do, it'll take more.
i've noticed that with the 50 caliber's also. from dead 6, an early model fw will soak up some ammo from dead 6, but will at times break a wing comin up from below. the 20mm of the 38 coupled with the 50's is devastating in just 1 burst

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-13-2005, 06:45 AM
Heuuu,is it possible that the shvak suffer the same problem than the 151/20, lack of eplosive shells?
I'm not expert in belt composition for the Shvak's.

alert_1
06-13-2005, 06:52 AM
IMO ShVAKs are as potent as MG151/20, at least against Me109. As for Fw190, dont forget that it was one of the best armored fighter of WWII. it does't weight 600 kg more then La5 for nothing!

chaikanut
06-13-2005, 07:39 AM
One question concerning the damage from HE shells? How is this calculated in the game? I remember from screenshots that one HE explosion created many little arrows on the struck fuselage. Does every HE count as a ''claymore mine'' to calculate the damage? Could this be the reason that HE rich guns were weaker online?

VW-IceFire
06-13-2005, 07:49 AM
ShVAK 20mm was not quite as good in hitting power as the MG151/20 or the Hispano. It was third place. Its best abilities were reliability and fire rate - which pays off at closer ranges.

Whats interesting is that the cannon has quite a few less tracer rounds now than before.

3.JG51_BigBear
06-13-2005, 09:30 AM
Right now the weapon doesn't have nearly the stopping power of the 151/20 but it still seems highly effective. As said before, it seems like its the DMs not the cannon.

new-fherathras
06-13-2005, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Whats interesting is that the cannon has quite a few less tracer rounds now than before.



yes, the oposite is true on the B-20`s of the la-7 3xb-20



it seems like every round contains a tracer there

Tvrdi
06-13-2005, 09:50 AM
this must be a cruel joke....VVS weapons weak...if somethin was uber that was the f*** russian planes and their f*** weapons...I know that for sure because I was in VVS squad from the first il2 release....now Im flyin for both sides in dog and for blue side in online wars....I think VVS weapons are fine now as others are (after 4.0)...the time of the arcade in il2 is gone....

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by VF-29_Sandman:
could reducing convergance range work? it did for the 50 cal's a couple of patches ago. i'll try this and see what i come up with.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Convergence is rarely an issue on Russian ships as the cannon are almost always nose mounted. I also agree with the poster who said that their is much less tracer than before.

So obviously their HAS been some change to the guns. </span>

F19_Olli72
06-13-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
this must be a cruel joke....VVS weapons weak...if somethin was uber that was the f*** russian planes and their f*** weapons...I know that for sure because I was in VVS squad from the first il2 release....now Im flyin for both sides in dog and for blue side in online wars....I think VVS weapons are fine now as others are (after 4.0)...the time of the arcade in il2 is gone....

Funny argument, if the VVS guns previously was uber...and MG 151 is now stronger....whats your conclusion from that?

unusual rethorics.

Calling VVS weapons uber cos MG 151 was weaker is like saying Gunther Rall was a cr@ppy pilot cos Hartmann shot down more planes.

Vipez-
06-13-2005, 10:36 AM
Just one thing I do not understand.. Shvak rounds weights 95 grams compared to 130 g of the hispano, 120 of mg151/20 regular HE shell.. It has 4 times less explosive, than german 20mm MG-shell, twice as less as Hispano. It has 20 % less kinetic energy, than Hispano.

Anthony G's study showed MG151/20 having about 30 % higher chemical energy. Chemical energy is equally important with kinetic energy, when talking about High explosive shell effectiviness.

How in earth should Shvak be even close to Mg151/20, or hispano ? When looking at the specs It really should not. Fire rate is very similar compared to mg151/20, ~ 800 vs 750 , muzzle velocity are pretty much the same, shvak has much less explosive material in the shell. Hispano beeing superior in muzzle velocity, and kinetic energy.

So just because you have used to see Shvak beeing über since first Il-2 demo does not mean it deserves to be über compared to mg151/20 or hispano http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Shvak's advantages in real life: it was compact, it was more reliable, than MG151/20, Much more reliable than Hispano. It suited for russian, extreme field conditions. But it still does not make it so much better gun, than these MG151/20 or Hispano.. Soviets made reliable guns..

And YES, IT is challenging to fly Yaks now, since you have used to absorb tons of damage from Mg151/20 from last three years.. but you can't absorb it now. Learn to live with it, don't get shot at.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Now I am not posting this as a (serious :P ) Luftwhiner, but just facing the facts. Maybe Oleg has learned it too.

PS. Imho still most cannons in the game are still undermodelled, in real life the differences would probably be unnoticable, after all, it was very unlikely for any WW-2 fighter to withstand more than three 20 mm HE-hits.. ofcoz i am not counting planes known for their extremy durability, like the P-47 . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
06-13-2005, 10:48 AM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/3.04Mg151vBf190.jpg

The Fw190 in 4.0 still catches fire easily with a short burst to the fuel tank. Much more so than the Bf109???

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/3.04Mg151vBf109.jpg

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 10:54 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Thats nice........ but this is a Svak thread. Please don't hijack.</span>

faustnik
06-13-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Thats nice........ but this is a Svak thread. Please don't hijack.</span>

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just help with the question of if it is weapon power or DM.

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 11:17 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Rgr.

May I suggest sir that the test would be more accurate if a Svak equipped plane like a La 5 was used. I don't see how shooting an MG 151/20 is going to give us much useful data about the Svak.

Perhaps a test with a LA 5 on BF 109 would be useful.

Regards and thank you for your post.</span>

p1ngu666
06-13-2005, 11:21 AM
hm, always thought the russian 20mm was considered a good solid weapon, germans respected it and the 12.7mm.

most of teh mainstream non uber soviet aircraft have been toned down alot recently, there really average now or where in 3.x anyways.

jurinko
06-13-2005, 11:42 AM
once I read the German report about Soviet planes, where they told the Russian guns are quite good but the quality of ammunition is behind the Western types.

BigganD
06-13-2005, 11:50 AM
I think that the svak is ok, kills my pilot almost every time :-/ ....it made my FW heavily damaged after 4hits..had a BIG wing tip.
Its the lag that makes the svak weak same thing with 151/20 and 50cal, on faster servers with out laggers all these guns are good, people with high pings can take so much damage from 151/20 some times nothing happens to them.

faustnik
06-13-2005, 11:53 AM
This was posted some time back. I think it should be credited to either Tony Williams' website or his book "Flying Guns of World War Two". Link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1840372273/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-3503540-6064106?v=glance&s=books)I have highlighted the Mg151 (blue), ShVak (green) and Hispano (red).

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/CartridgeDest.jpg

Tvrdi
06-13-2005, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tvrdi:
this must be a cruel joke....VVS weapons weak...if somethin was uber that was the f*** russian planes and their f*** weapons...I know that for sure because I was in VVS squad from the first il2 release....now Im flyin for both sides in dog and for blue side in online wars....I think VVS weapons are fine now as others are (after 4.0)...the time of the arcade in il2 is gone....

Funny argument, if the VVS guns previously was uber...and MG 151 is now stronger....whats your conclusion from that?

unusual rethorics.

Calling VVS weapons uber cos MG 151 was weaker is like saying Gunther Rall was a cr@ppy pilot cos Hartmann shot down more planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


no....wher uv been in 2001.? in first IL2 release and a bit later vvs planes were uber as their weapons were....later, vvs planes and weapons were fixed (still there is a lot of things which could be discussed, read the boards) but much later mk108 was fixed and mg151 are fixed finally in 4.0....I think now we got weapons close to real (with all the limitations in the game code)....how many times i was raping someone with my guns in BF109 and hes f vvs plane was stil flying an he was joking with me....I was uncomfortable shooting down those numeorous veterans in LW planes with my uber La5 nad his guns, back then in VEF.....but, as you know, who smiles the last - his smile is the sweetest one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Olli72
06-13-2005, 12:30 PM
Tvurdi, I was merely commenting on your rethorics. Personally, i have no opinion on Shvak's since i didnt test them thoroughly rather than just play one or two missions and make a verdict from that (like many seems to do in lot of their complaints). Many complain, but few test (thoroughly).

As an example, i can mention there seems still to be ppl who thinks Mg 151 is undermodelled... apparantly (why i cannot understand).

Imo many are shortsighted and just happy the Mg 151 is fixed. I have no problem with that, but there might be other issues that arent, or new issues (and thats why theres a bugreport thread).

LLv34_Stafroty
06-13-2005, 04:48 PM
dont understand what u mean Olli, really cant.

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 04:49 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! Faustnik

Interesting table.

I notice (according to what you have highlighted) that the Svak throws out a heavier round at a significantly higher muzzle velocity than the Hispano. Where the two differ is in regards to chemical content.

I have no issue with that in real life. However I do have issues of penetration and damage in the game. There is no way that Svak as they are currently modelled are "penetrating" and leaving their KINETIC energy into the target as they should. I wont' comment on He as I would like to gatther more data.

However would you agree that number of tracer is reduced and that this would seem to indicate a change in loadout?</span>

ImpStarDuece
06-13-2005, 05:17 PM
WHA??

HelSqnProtos, are we reading the same chart? I think your mixing up the MG51/20 mm round the 20x80 with the Hispano round which is 20X110

Rnd---Weight---M/V---Cemical content

Hispano 20/110 130g 860m/s 8% HEI content

ShVak 20/99 96g 860m/s 6% HEI content

The Hispano round is 44 grams heavier, has much more HE content and is fired at the same M/V.

The Hispano is the only 20mm that tops 20 in the "Power Ratio" category on the cahrt.

Basically the Hispano fired the heaviest 20mm round of the war and did so at 860 m/s, something which only the ShVak matches it in.

hobnail
06-13-2005, 05:18 PM
MG151/20 and ShVAK are 3rd and 4th from the left respectively. Large shell/low propellant v small shell/high propellant is not an over simplification of the issue.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/20mm1.jpg

Interesting to see how honkingly large the Hispano 20x110 looks but that's for another time.

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 05:26 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! ImpStarDuece

My bad, I transposed the numbers. Thanks for the pic Hobnail. I posted it so others can see at a glance.

</span> http://www.13th-hellenicsqn.com/Images/20mm1.jpg

hobnail
06-13-2005, 05:52 PM
EDITED:

Cheers for the hosting Protos

HelSqnProtos
06-13-2005, 06:00 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I hosted it. No problem. Again appreciate the link.</span>

Fennec_P
06-13-2005, 07:09 PM
To put all of this in perspective, the damage of each weapon in IL-2 is based upon the real mass, velocity, and explosive values for each shell.

The ability of each shell to penetrate, ignite, fragment, etc, will be in correct proportion to other shells, so long as the values used are correct.

DMs might change, and belt composition might change (like did for MG151), but the actual abilities of each shell will always be based on it's RL stats. If these specs are right, then the shell effectiveness should be correct (in proportion to other weapons).

If you think X gun is too weak, probably it is just not good for the you are using it for. Eg. AP bullets not good for lighting fuel. Explosive bullets not good for penetrating armor. The shvak has different belt than say, Hispano, so it will be better at different things. The uberness of the weapon in question is subjective, depending on what you're shooting (which is why everyone has a different experiences on the subject).

Here is the direct table of shells and bullets from source code of IL-2. (repost from OM)



Table itself.
==========================


Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API

API/APIT
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0.0018

AP
mass = 0.010668491403778
speed = 835.0
power = 0

Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP

APIT
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.002

AP
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0

HE
mass = 0.0485
speed = 870.0
power = 0.00148

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

M4
// HET - (APT/HET)

HET
mass = 0.604
speed = 612.0
power = 0.044

MG 131
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.035
speed = 710.0
power = 0.00148

AP
mass = 0.034
speed = 750.0
power = 0

MG 15
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.0128
speed = 760.0
power = 0

MG 151
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.057
speed = 960.0
power = 0.0019

AP
mass = 0.072
speed = 859.0
power = 0

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

MG 17
// AP - AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 810.0
power = 0

MG 81
// AP - APT

AP/APT
mass = 0.010
speed = 920.0
power = 0

MG/FF
// APIT - HE - HE - MG

APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 580.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 585.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 690.0
power = 0.0186

MK 103
// APT - MG - MG - HE

APT
mass = 0.502
speed = 752.0
power = 0.0

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 900.0
power = 0.072

HE
mass = 0.455
speed = 800.0
power = 0.024

MK 108
// HEIT - MG

HEIT
mass = 0.455
speed = 500.0
power = 0.024

MG
mass = 0.330
speed = 525.0
power = 0.072

NS-37
// HEIT - APT

HEIT
mass = 0.735
speed = 900.0
power = 0.0406

APT
mass = 0.760
speed = 880.0
power = 0

NS-45
// HEIT - AP

HEIT
mass = 1.065
speed = 780.0
power = 0.052

AP
mass = 1.000
speed = 850.0
power = 0.0

PaK40
// HEIT

HEIT
mass = 6.800
speed = 770.0
power = 0.680

ShKAS
// APIT - API - T - API

APIT
mass = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0.0005

API
mass = 0.0096
speed = 871.0
power = 0.0005

T
massa = 0.0096
speed = 869.0
power = 0

ShVAK
// APIT - HE

APIT
mass = 0.096
speed = 800.0
power = 0.001

HE
mass = 0.0676
speed = 800.0
power = 0.0068

UBS / UBT
// APIT - AP - HEI

APIT
mass = 0.0448
speed = 850.0
power = 0.001

AP
mass = 0.051
speed = 850.0
power = 0

HEI
mass = 0.0428
speed = 850.0
power = (0.00114+0.00128)

VYa
// SIT - API - API

SIT
mass = 0.195
speed = 890.0
power = 0.0156

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008

API
mass = 0.201
speed = 890.0
power = 0.008

NonWonderDog
06-13-2005, 07:39 PM
Funny, my second kill in 4.00m took a second of machine gun fire and about 8 rounds from a ShVaK; I sawed a FW190 in half.

I haven't done any dedicated testing, but I haven't noticed much of a change in the Russian cannons' hitting power. It's as random as ever, but average damage seems about the same.

Badsight.
06-13-2005, 10:49 PM
there never used to be any comparison

the 20mm ShVAK was the premiere 20mm cannon in FB untill 400m

it hit harder & at further distances than any other 20mm , NO comparison

yet its RL performance lagged behind the 151 & Hispano in everything except ballistics

maybe the ShVAK has been "corrected" now along with the MG151

faustnik
06-13-2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! Faustnik

Interesting table.

I notice (according to what you have highlighted) that the Svak throws out a heavier round at a significantly higher muzzle velocity than the Hispano. Where the two differ is in regards to chemical content.

I have no issue with that in real life. However I do have issues of penetration and damage in the game. There is no way that Svak as they are currently modelled are "penetrating" and leaving their KINETIC energy into the target as they should. I wont' comment on He as I would like to gatther more data.

However would you agree that number of tracer is reduced and that this would seem to indicate a change in loadout?</span>

Protos,

The ShVak round is much lighter than the Hispano round (ShVak 96g, Hispano 130g) so the Hispano hits harder with greater kinetic and chemical energy.

The Mg151's minengeschoss rounds uses its large explosive content to deliver more chemical energy than either the Hispano or ShVak to the target.

I will do some tests and post some screens on the 20mm AP ability. The ShVak should be similar to the Mg151 although not as good as the Hispano.

HelSqnProtos
06-14-2005, 12:27 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Rgr Faustnik,

I dont know what to say but it pretty tough in the online war competitions. My guy pasted a G2 with 9 rounds from the Hurricane Mk II field mods we were flying, the G2 was smoking bad, but flying like he never took a shot. He came around and toasted us BOTH. Perhaps this is a DM issue after all. I have one of me in a LA 5 banging the cr@p out of one for 11 rounds and NOTHING.

Many Many such examples. Stats available.

Whether GM or DM there is something wrong. It needs to be addressed. Ok Shvak not as powerful as Hispano, agreed. But didn't take more than 11 20mm cannon rounds to bring down a G2 in real life either.

Lets get to the bottom of this, so fairness can return.</span>

<span class="ev_code_RED">Honest Luftwaffe Pilots have posted in this thread confirming that there is a problem. Let find it and send it to Oleg.</span>

faustnik
06-14-2005, 12:53 AM
Protos,

I have been testing the ShVak and UBS. Both have been good in tests. The UBS is really powerful. Can you run some tests on the Bf109 DM please. Fw190s will light up easy from under .20 with any 20mm dead six, but, Bf109s are another story.

EDIT: Tested again, check this track in arcade mode, ShVak looks good, especially vs. Fw190. ShVak 4.0 test (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/La5vsLW.zip)

Can you get some ntrks next time you are online please Protos? I like testing and investigating the PF weapons and would be happy to help out.

HelSqnProtos
06-14-2005, 01:29 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Rgr.

I do a lot of hosting.I will get some of my pilots to make tracks. I don't want to lag others out.

There is definite problem with G2. I just did some offline. But it seems to me more pronounced online. Tracks will hopefully uncover more.</span>

HelSqnProtos
06-14-2005, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Protos,

I have been testing the ShVak and UBS. Both have been good in tests. The UBS is really powerful.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Exactly. Maybe even more than Shvak. This is wrong imho.</span>

Fennec_P
06-14-2005, 01:47 AM
Um, it's not. UBS is a machine gun. It's powerful for a 50cal (best in the game) but not even close to a cannon.

Lazy312
06-14-2005, 01:49 AM
http://kv.clarionet.cz/yabbfiles/Attachments/TestingGuns.zip

This is a coop mission - shoot until the bomber explodes and count hits. The bomber is placed in your gunsight so you don't have to bother with flying and aiming.

I really don't find shvak comparable with MG151/20 in this test.. I too think shvak was weaker than MG151/20 IRL but most sources suggest MG151/20 was about 50% stronger than shvak. This is clearly not the case here.

BTW in game ROFs are:
shvak - 800
mg151/20 - 720

Tipo_Man
06-14-2005, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:

How in earth should Shvak be even close to Mg151/20, or hispano ? When looking at the specs It really should not. Fire rate is very similar compared to mg151/20, ~ 800 vs 750 , muzzle velocity are pretty much the same, shvak has much less explosive material in the shell. Hispano beeing superior in muzzle velocity, and kinetic energy.


You are right Vipez , ShVAK is not close, it's even better than the MG151...

Don't believe me?, look here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

Look at the Q and M factors of both guns. Now keep in mind that ShVAK was acceped into service two years earlier than MG151, was more reliable
and easier to maintain.
The only advantage MG151 has was it's MG shell, but the fact that it contained 4 times more explosive does not mean it will cause 4 times more damage!
What causes damage, it's not the explosive, it's
the fragments. And both rounds weighted about the same, so they produced the same amount fragments...

ClubAstir
06-14-2005, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
ShVAK is not close, it's even better than the MG151...

Don't believe me?, look here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

Look at the Q and M factors of both guns.


On the linked page it says:
---quote---

The quality factor Q is a standard that Russian designers have been using to evaluate and compare guns. Basically, it is a power-to-weight ratio: The kinetic energy at the muzzle (which is one half the projectile weight multiplied with the square of the muzzle velocity) multiplied by the rate of fire in rounds per second, and divided by the weight of the gun. Essentially, this says how much power a gun produces for a given weight, and is similar to the horsepower-per-weight figure for engines. This Q value is a measure of the efficiency of a gun, not of its firepower: A light gun with a modest ballistic performance will have a better Q value than a powerful, but too heavy gun. Evidently it contains no information about reliability, accuracy, range, ammunition performance, or manufacturing cost. Nevertheless it is a sensible way to compare guns.

The factor M is another quality factor: The mass output, divided by the weight of the gun. The mass output is the weight of the projectiles, multiplied by the rate of fire in rounds per second. This too is a measure of the efficiency of the gun, not of its power.

---unquote---



It would seem both M and Q value are a measure of a particular gun's efficiency, not its power as such.

Tony Williams's site has tables on gun power: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

anarchy52
06-14-2005, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
You are right Vipez , ShVAK is not close, it's even better than the MG151...

Don't believe me?, look here:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

Look at the Q and M factors of both guns. Now keep in mind that ShVAK was acceped into service two years earlier than MG151, was more reliable
and easier to maintain.

Q factor is power-to-weight ratio: Ek * ROF/m
M factor is mass output divided by the mass of the gun.
Both factors show relative KINETIC energy per weight of the gun, they really don't say anything about total destructive power. You can consider them as eficiency coeficients. Also it should be noted that M-geschoss shell had Vo 800m/s.


The only advantage MG151 has was it's MG shell, but the fact that it contained 4 times more explosive does not mean it will cause 4 times more damage!

Concerning kinetic Shvak and MG151/20 are pretty close (MG151/20 heavier shell, slightly lower muzzle velocity, Shvak - lighter shell, slightly higher muzzle velocity). For total destructive power - there is no comparison: MG151/20 is notably superior.


What causes damage, it's not the explosive, it's
the fragments. And both rounds weighted about the same, so they produced the same amount fragments...
Very wrong.
Main effect is overpressure from detonation (with high explosives such as PETN used in german 20mm shells mach stem effect might develop if shell explodes inside the aircraft structure - hence the delayed fuzes).
Secondary effect is incidentary especially in case of HEI shells.
Tertiary effect are shell fragments. none of these shells had pre-fragmented warheads as today's anti-aircraft missiles have. Fragments were irregular in shape, distribution and had low penetrating power.

Edit: I see someone beat me to it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-14-2005, 04:29 AM
Lets make it a joined operation.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5011059923

Fennec_P
06-14-2005, 04:56 AM
Very nice test, Arnie.

If you don't mind me simplifying it further, the shvak killed each plane in an average of 7 hits, compared to 4.7 hits for the MG151.

Considering that shvak has 1/3 more ROF than MG151, the overall effectiveness is about the same. Then consider that most Russian planes have two guns, rather than one, and you've got a huge advantage with the shvak.

tigertalon
06-14-2005, 05:01 AM
Good job Arnie,

I'll just repost with code tags:


Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Very nice test, Arnie. I'll just copy paste this bit.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
weapon Lagg(35series) zero(a6m5) La5 109G2 190A6 P-47(22) P-39(N)
Svak 6.6 2.8 7.4 6.6 6.6 14.2 4.8
151/20 3.5 2.4 3.6 2.8 7.8 8.8 4
</pre>

Tipo_Man
06-14-2005, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

Q factor is power-to-weight ratio: Ek * ROF/m
M factor is mass output divided by the mass of the gun.
Both factors show relative KINETIC energy per weight of the gun, they really don't say anything about total destructive power. You can consider them as eficiency coeficients. Also it should be noted that M-geschoss shell had Vo 800m/s.

Both guns weight the same- 42kg.
Q factor of the ShVAK is bigger => it's kinetic energy is bigger. Don't say muzzle velocity are
almost the same.THEY ARE NOT. Should I remind you that if you double the muzzle velocity you have four times bigger kinetic energy...





Very wrong.
Main effect is overpressure from detonation (with high explosives such as PETN used in german 20mm shells mach stem effect might develop if shell explodes inside the aircraft structure - hence the delayed fuzes).
Secondary effect is incidentary especially in case of HEI shells.
Tertiary effect are shell fragments. none of these shells had pre-fragmented warheads as today's anti-aircraft missiles have. Fragments were irregular in shape, distribution and had low penetrating power.

Edit: I see someone beat me to it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry, simply can not agree...
Here is an example for you:

MK-108 MG Round
mass = 0.330
speed = 525.0
power = 0.072

NS-45 HEIT
mass = 1.065
speed = 780.0
power = 0.052

So the German 30mm MG round has more explosive power than the Soviet 45mm round, although the latter is 3 times heavier.
You are trying to convince me that the 30mm round is more powerful and inflicts more damage?! Well some dude like you said that some time ago, and Oleg's comment was:
"Comparing the 30mm MK-108 round to the 45mm NS-45 round is like comparing the NS-45 to the 88mm flak gun."

Please don't distort the facts: ShVAK had 10% more kinetik energy than the MG151, so it's a better gun.
German shells were better and caused more damage
than russian ones, but comparing shells performance is not just comparing their TNT loads.

Tipo_Man
06-14-2005, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Very nice test, Arnie.

If you don't mind me simplifying it further, the shvak killed each plane in an average of 7 hits, compared to 4.7 hits for the MG151.

Considering that shvak has 1/3 more ROF than MG151, the overall effectiveness is about the same. Then consider that most Russian planes have two guns, rather than one, and you've got a huge advantage with the shvak.
And you have 12 .303 MG with higher rate of fire
on the Hurri, so you've got sssoooo much better advantage with it.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Synchonized ShVAK had the same(or even slightly lower) rate of fire than a synchronized MG151. The latter had much more advanced electrically ignited fuse of the cartridge.

And we compare the power of the guns,not fighters.

Having 2 times more powerful MG151 than a ShVAK is somewhat suspicious to me...

JG54_Arnie
06-14-2005, 05:24 AM
Hm, do keep in mind that the test is in my opinion not complete enough to bind conclusions to it. I think it needs the same test at least 2 more times to get a better idea.

Having said that, the Svak worked suprisingly well against the FW, its AP round caused it to explode two times out of five. AP round through fueltank is instant death for the FW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Is it correct that the 151/20 has less AP power than the Svak and Hispano in that regard? So the FW is well protected against the 151/20's high explosive power?

faustnik
06-14-2005, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Exactly. Maybe even more than Shvak. This is wrong imho.</span>

Protos,

I found the original source on that chart, it is in Flying Guns of World War II. I screwed up on the German 20mm. The one I had highlighted was Mg FF. I corrected it here. The Mg151 minengeschoss adds more kinetic energy for even more power.

The UBS looks to be the king of heavy MGs but, the M2 isn't far behind.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/CartridgeDest.jpg

KraljMatjaz
06-14-2005, 01:50 PM
Sorry guys, looks like I don't get the basics here: What does it mean: Mg131 with HE??? Does Mg131 use explosive rounds or what?

faustnik
06-14-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
Sorry guys, looks like I don't get the basics here: What does it mean: Mg131 with HE??? Does Mg131 use explosive rounds or what?

Yes

Vipez-
06-14-2005, 02:11 PM
I Think most (ah finally i can say this first time in three years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) Shvak-whiners are greatly underrestimating chemical power in cannons..

HelSqnProtos
06-14-2005, 03:24 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vipez please go away, LW trolling not needed here. We are looking for fairness. As it stands, UBS is as effective if not more than Shvak. At least imho and many others.</span>

EJGr.Ost_chamel
06-14-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Vipez please go away, LW trolling not needed here. We are looking for fairness. As it stands, UBS is as effective if not more than Shvak. At least imho and many others.</span>

Yes, you are right - my greatest respect to you! I really didn't expext a VVS-Pilot to admit this and to sugest, that the UBS has to be toned down in the next patch!

Regards
Chamel

Fennec_P
06-14-2005, 05:45 PM
Vipez please go away, LW trolling not needed here

Protos, you're the one not supporting your argument. He is completely right that you are ignoring chemical component.

The issue is not gun effeciency, but destructiveness.

By your standard, MK108 should be a useless gun because it has poor velocity. In reality, it is one of the best fighter guns. This is because of the chemical component.

Even without speed at all, even if you tossed it like a grenade, MK108 would still kill planes by explosive alone.

Especially in the case of aircraft, which are mostly aluminium foil and unprotected internal components. If you are talking tanks, then yes, all is penetrating power, but not for planes.

If shvak has 10% more KE per shell, but MG151 has many times more explosive on average, which is going to kill fighters in fewer hits? MG151. Which is exactly what happens in PF.

A more logical method of shell destructiveness would be the sum total of KE and CE. Efficiency or kg/s is nice academic info about a gun, but does not kill what you want to die.

If now you think (randomly assume) than UBS is better than shvak, why don't you prove it?

NonWonderDog
06-14-2005, 06:19 PM
UBS better than ShVaK?

Nonsense. It's even the easiest comparison in the game to test! Just take a Yak-9 up for a spin. I get much better results firing only the ShVaK than only the UBS, how 'bout you?

faustnik
06-14-2005, 10:07 PM
What, so know a VVS guy wants the ShVak checked into and you're giving him a hard time??? Just like the pinheads who gave a few of us a hard time for asking that the Mg151 be looked at??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Protos might have a legitimate gripe, why not look into it before passing judgment?

Badsight.
06-14-2005, 10:36 PM
when it comes to making the damadge that we like happen , HE is your freind more than AP

HE is the business in FB , AP kills motors & pilots , but HE is what makes planes break up

Fennec_P
06-14-2005, 11:37 PM
you're giving him a hard time

Not giving hard time. Just testing his claim.

It's just annoying when people assume something is broke based on some subjective experience they have, or based on poor knowledge of the historical data. I mean, the thread title is "S~! Oleg Please Fix The Shvak". That's presumtuous, don't you think?

Then Protos even says that UBS is better than shvak. This is even more odd than the original claim.

From what ppl have been kind enough to post here, and who were kind enough to do tests ingame, it doesn't appear to be broke at all. The shvak is less destructive, shot per shot, than MG151 or Hispano, just like the weapon data would suggest.

So, you could even say that the time you, I and all spent responding to this thread was wasted. Maybe not completely, since we learned some usefull things about weapons and how damage works in PF. Arnie's test was particularly informative.

Maybe I sound like a jerk, but think, how many threads have there been like this demanding X imaginary bug must be fixed? I mean, if you think it's broke, do the tests and find the data yourself before you post. Not other people to do it for you.

The original post in the thread has so many falacies it's not funny. Everything useful came from other people.

NonWonderDog
06-14-2005, 11:59 PM
Well, I don't mean to be harsh, but the burden of proof rests on those who are making the claim that something is wrong.

If someone says something is wrong, or if someone makes an outrageous claim (such as a 12.7mm HMG being more powerful than a 20mm cannon in game), he or she is the one that has to bring data to back it up. Simply stating that something is wrong without bringing proper justification can not possibly lead to meaningful changes.


Honestly I thought the ShVak was *too powerful* the first day or so I had the 4.00 patch. I should have clarified my earilier post; it took a *total* of one second of UBS fire and 8 ShVak rounds from a range of 400 meters and a 30 degree deflection angle to saw a FW190 completely in half the first time I flew a yak in 4.00. I doubt many of those rounds even hit. (I used the machinegun for targetting, and fired the cannons when I had a solution. Please don't spout any nonsense about this being due to an overpowered UBS.) Now I know that this was an isolated case, much like the planes that require 25 rounds to kill are an isolated case. The ShVak does not seem to lack any destructive power, and I'm frankly surprised to see a thread complaining about it.

HelSqnProtos
06-15-2005, 01:26 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It s incredible to read some of the posts here. I particularly love the Luftewhiner stuff. Got to love it. Anyway its all good, it serves my purpose. Spam the thread and make it 20 pages long. Then Oleg will look at it.

G2 is surviving hits that should cut it to ribbons.

HONEST PILOTS HAVE ADMITTED THIS.

What a bunch of Lw whiners have to say on the matter means squat. You got your guns fixed, but are terrified of losing your edge. G2 now the new Lagg and you want to keep it that way.

I love guys like you in particular fennec. Speaking as if your a forum admin or on the dev team or something.As if you provided something useful here. Your just a smuchk like the rest of us. So give it a rest blowhard.

You don't like this thread. Simple --- Don't follow it or don't post in it.

Mkay??.... bye troll.</span>

HelSqnProtos
06-15-2005, 01:42 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~!

To Faustnik and Arnie and all the HONEST LW Pilots who posted here I offer my sharpest salute and sincerest compliments. You are a credit to your Squadrons and the IL2 community.

In truth when I posted I fully expected to see flames from post 1. My point in creating the thread was to expose what I an many other online war pilots are experiencing post patch. Some want to ignore our observations, others seek to dismiss discussion out of hand as a means of validating their existence.

When people can't rise to a certain level, of necessity they are forced to try to bring the discussion down. How else can they be relevant??

I save my greatest praise for the Pilot IIJG69_Kartofe who posted directly after the first post in this thread. Sir I ~ Salute ~ your honesty and integrity. To all who have participated with fairness as the objective. I extend to you my highet respects.

Let the discussion roll on.

Arnie and Faustnik I am seriously reevaluating my thoughts about the GM and am now leaning towards a DM problem. I have had several of my pilots in online war missions and the stats are pretty convincing at least to me. One of my guys put 23 rounds from a bird into a G2 and nothing.I will start putting something together and then will post or mail it to you.

By the way is there a method to edit or shorten Ntracks?</span>

Fennec_P
06-15-2005, 01:43 AM
I love guys like you in particular fennec.


I love you too! http://img.smiliedb.de/f312da01/sdb11967.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-15-2005, 02:30 AM
HelSqnProtos, I really don' tthink that you are doing yor own argumet any favours by getting personal in this.

Your method should be something like this;

Observe,
Test,
Research,
Re-Observe,
Re-test,
Posulate theory,
Post findings.

You post more opinion than fact and more hot air than evidence. If you really think something is worng, provide the evidence.

Also, your reference to 'honest and truthful' LW pilots makes it seem like all those that disagree with you are neither honest or truthful. Just an observation, but it might marginalise some of the people who otherwuse would of supported you.

On your contention that 151/20 and ShVak are similar, that is mostly nonsense. The MG151/20 primarily relies on the chemical conntent of its shells, while the ShVak relied on a combination of high velocity, heavy AP shells with a very low HE content for a shell that size. German beling shows that MG rounds were much prefered to either sstandard HE or AP rounds.

Going off most performance comparisons ( such as already posted as well as here (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm) ) ] the ShVak rates anywhere from 1/3 to 1/4 less effective than the MG151/20 with MG rounds.

Additionally, the UBS should be quite powerful. Not comparable to a 20mm cannon, but it was the best 12.7mm machine gun used by any side during the war. It fired the heaviest round of any 12.7mm of the war (12.7x108 at 125 total weight and 48 grams round weight) , with the highest HE content, at the highest rate of fire. It had a fairly low installed weight of 25kg and was only beaten in terms of M/V by the US M2. The UB is probably 15-20% more efficient than the US M2 Browning, its nearest competitor.

JG5_UnKle
06-15-2005, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
HelSqnProtos, I really don't think that you are doing yor own argumet any favours by getting personal in this.

Word!

IMHO it is a DM issue as many "honest LW" pilots have already suggested. I'm waiting for 4.01m before I rush to any conclusions or do any proper testing.

As a DM issue it might be similar to the problem with the LaGG-3 and it's simplified DM? You can shoot from dead six with little effect. Shooting a 109 from dead 6 seems less effective (than before) , any other angle is a different story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Vipez-
06-15-2005, 03:21 AM
Protos I am not a anti-vvs whiner, i am just saying what i think is right.

Do me a favour and take a look one more time at this page:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Take a look at this page, and see how Shvak-shell compares against MG151/20 (mg) and Hispano-shell . Perhaps now you see the light ?

PS. I do not thing it will stay this way anyway for long (Shvak beeing weaker than MG151/20), after all, experience since the first il2 demo has shown the great effect of russian community in this game, and their influence on Oleg .. I am not trolling, but it is simply the truth . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-15-2005, 04:44 AM
Protos, Although I respect your opinion of me being honest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I think phrasing it in such a way is too much based on emotions. I found the posts others made here overall pretty constructive. Just ignore the whine that pops up so now and then.. although your thread title kind of asks for it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm still busy testing the DM's here. I feel kinda like a madman testing this much on a "fill empty space with a betapatch-patch" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But it keeps me from studying (usefull right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Anyways, I have been shooting both the 109 and the 190 15 times each, with four different planes (15 x 4 x 2 = 120 times http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif ) of which I have to post the results later as I havent finished shooting all planes on the list.
The Svak has very powerful AP shells, comparable to the Hispanos AP capacity. Its explosive damage is considerable less than both the Hispano and the 151/20. So hit a target at the wrong place with only those and you get little damage. Aim at the pilot/engine or fueltank and you have a wreck in mere seconds due to its high rate of fire.

I will post a better comparison between weapons and DM later when I finished the tests. Hopefully today, otherwise tomorrow.
So far, it looks fairly realistic to me, if I read the posts here, some good knowledge around
here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Protos, your posts about pumping 20 shells into a 109 without damage, was that exagerated? From dead six 14 shells was the max I got to down a 109G2, and that was a high peak.
I think online is also not the way to test it as its very dependant on the connection, packetloss etc. Plus, the problems that show online where planes take massive amounts of damage is one that happens to all weapons. Nobody can say his own favourite weapon is less effective online than offline compared to others, because of such problems.

Anyways, looking forward to your mail. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lazy312
06-15-2005, 04:47 AM
Vipez at the page you referenced you can find estimated gun power of shvak is 143 and that of MG151/20 is 192. That would mean MG is <span class="ev_code_RED">1.34</span>times stronger. What most test results here suggest is, the difference in the game is significantly greater.

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 04:47 AM
sure Svak has power also.
One Finnish Ace (juutilainen?) was fighting in 109 against Russians and he got one hit on wing with russian 20mm HE, he had to flee from fight cos that hit affected so much on flying and he feared that wing might fell off. Skin panels were bit loosen and hole on wing. Dunno if there is photo about that hit. Svak has same power in game, if u get wing hit, u sure dont want to stay in fight anymore, if u try to stay alive. about wing folding, that isnt coded in game so its not included in DM.

im not aware about svak power now agaisnt 109 or 190 in 4.0 but before it was effective at least. Cant make any comment yet about if its wrong or right now on sim. all i know that its much more effective than 12,7(.50cal)

JG54_Arnie
06-15-2005, 05:15 AM
EDIT: proven to be nonsense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight.
06-15-2005, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
What a bunch of Lw whiners have to say on the matter means squat. You got your guns fixed, but are terrified of losing your edge. G2 now the new Lagg and you want to keep it that way.

I love guys like you in particular fennec. Speaking as if your a forum admin or on the dev team or something.As if you provided something useful here. Your just a smuchk like the rest of us. So give it a rest blowhard. & who the hell are you & what have you done ? you should re-read what Fennec_P posted over this , hes a serious player of this game as are most who bother to test as well as play FB . or are the users of this game too lowly/stupid to do accurate testing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

as far as the ShVAk goes , after flying the Yak-3 & La-5 in a series of tests , it (the 20mm ShVAK) sure doesnt hard like it did in v3.04 , i still have v3.04 & hitting FW-190s & Bf109s causes ripped tail sections & flames & chopped wings with less rounds than in v400m

but do you seriously believe that rubbish you typed out above ?!?! "but are terrified of losing your edge." i mean wtf protos , who in here hasnt tried to discuss the topic ?

Lazy312
06-15-2005, 05:35 AM
Arnie,

"To calculate the destructive power of the gun, the 'POWER' factor from the above table has been multiplied by the RoF, expressed in the number of rounds fired per second."

So you are right about m-geschoss power but still shvak is not 2 times weaker but 1.34 times weaker.

JG54_Arnie
06-15-2005, 05:39 AM
hmm, ok, sorry.. should read better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LLv34_Stafroty
06-15-2005, 06:14 AM
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#weapons

Me 109 G:
"My easiest victory (happened) on the 28th of May 1944. I was based at Malmi. Suursaari sent us a report: buzzing to the west. I was sent to identify. The coastline was covered by a thin veil of cloud, having climbed above it I saw a contrail. I began to climb to it, and when I reached the same altitude the contrail stopped. I kept a sharp lookout and saw a Pe-2. I caught it easily, and because the gunner shot at me, it was an enemy. Since it did not have any chance of escaping, I decided to play cat and mouse. I pulled a 360 degree turn, during which the bomber got about 2000 m away. As I approached again, the Pe went into a slightly left-turning glide. I took aim and estimated that the range was 1000 m. I further estimated that taking into account the range and the turn, the correct deflection would be 8 plane lengths. I decided to test my cannon and pushed the trigger with my thumb as briefly as ever possible. Some pieces flew off from the left wing of the Pe and it went into deeper dive. I thought the bomber is trying to escape, so I followed and more debris flew off from it. The dive became deeper and deeper, I could not follow because my speed was approaching the red line. I had to pull out, but I kept watching the Pe. It crashed near the village of Kuusalu, east of Tallinn. At Malmi I told the armourers to check my guns. They found three spent 20mm cases. "
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- The Messerschmitt had weapons placed in the nose...
That is the ideal place, one cannot think of anything better! The guns fire straight without dispersal!
- Did you apply the same range (with the Messerschmitt)? Did the cannon affect shooting in any way?
The weapons did not need to be focused because they were side-by-side. Only wing cannons, if installed, needed that."
- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

intresting stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG54_Arnie
06-15-2005, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
Arnie,

"To calculate the destructive power of the gun, the 'POWER' factor from the above table has been multiplied by the RoF, expressed in the number of rounds fired per second."

So you are right about m-geschoss power but still shvak is not 2 times weaker but 1.34 times weaker.

Hmm, actually. Thinking about it again.. the Svaks effectiveness in this case goes up because of its rate of fire.. but the tests like that which I'm working on is based on the power of shells itself. Not based on the time in which they are delivered. So this means that you do have to look at the DAMAGE colomn, not the POWER one.
So the Svaks HE shells are in fact 1/2 the power of the MG shells in the 151/20...

Your calculation is the weapons effectiveness based on the ROF, where the Svak gains again.

Tipo_Man
06-15-2005, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:

Hmm, actually. Thinking about it again.. the Svaks effectiveness in this case goes up because of its rate of fire.. but the tests like that which I'm working on is based on the power of shells itself. Not based on the time in which they are delivered. So this means that you do have to look at the DAMAGE colomn, not the POWER one.
So the Svaks HE shells are in fact 1/2 the power of the MG shells in the 151/20...

Your calculation is the weapons effectiveness based on the ROF, where the Svak gains again.

You are correct, but don't forget that both DAMAGE and POWER columns do not take into account the shell velocity.
Look at this table:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

Here gun effectiveness is measured according to its round kinetik energy.

And the ShVAK has an advantage of 8,7/7,9 = 1,10
i.e ShVAK projectiles deliver 10% more kinetik energy than those of the MG151...

Lazy312
06-15-2005, 11:24 AM
Arnie,

1. ShVAK has higher ROF as you said.

2. also MG151/20 doesn't fire only mgeschoss.. so the average round from (AP-HE-HE-MG-MG) does maybe 1.4 damage of shvak average round..

HelSqnProtos
06-15-2005, 11:50 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! Gentlemen

Post patch 4.1 impressions.

Has definetly been an improvement. What are your thoughts?

Was online last night testing with one of my pilots, we took Yak 1, 7, 7b and La 5 against G2. All angles all shots.

G2 fuselage still like an armored tank. Headon pass only takes out machineguns 6/10 passes, rest of the time not much else happening. Quick kill requires aiming for wingroot. Anything on wings will be significantly more destructive than fuel tank hit for example.

My impressions are that I get better result with yaks than La5s. Again wingshots WAY more destructive than fuselage shots even under 100m

Dead six requires about 30% less shots than before. I am fairly pleased. Would like to see them bumped up another 10% or make G2 fuselage less invulnerable.

P.S Yak FM still gutted, goes into flat spin at the drop of a hat. La 5 is better but still a lot of torque.

G2 is a dreamship, WOW. LW guys really lucky. Beautiful bird.Almost impossible to stall compared to VVS rides.


PPS
Shvak tracers. Still seems like not enough of them. Definetly seems like less than 3.04. Could we have just a touch more tracer.</span>

crazyivan1970
06-16-2005, 12:01 AM
Disagree about Yaks FM Protos, just had a little dance in COOP with a wulf pack of G10s and G6/AS in Yak3 and "lived" to tell about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Proper trim... and all your problems will go away. Shot down 4 109s with short birsts of 20mm, 2 of them totally fell apart.

HelSqnProtos
06-16-2005, 12:21 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">S~! My good friend CrazyIvan

I will agree with you Shvak are better than 4.0 -- not up to 3.04 but better -- and what happened to the tracer?? much less than in 3.04.

I have Squadron full of pilots who will disagree with you about Yak FM. Your Russian, ask around.

3.04 Yaks were beautiful !!!!! , flew like eagles, especially 9 series. Now that is sadly no longer the case. Only thing competitive with G2 right now is La 5FN. I know you won't like me saying it but it is the truth according to my testing and flying in online wars. Yaks currently too prone to flat spin,stall, energy retention blows. Torque is not so bad with rudder trim you are right, but hard manoevers which the yak was famous for are a thing of the past. Again my friend imho. Other VVS will confirm or deny.

CI, you are Russian and have access to that side of the equation. As for Western VVS Pilots, there are plenty of Squads that I could point you too who would confirm my assessment of the Yak.

By the way thanks for taking the time to post.

P.S.
Ivan try to do that dance against G2s in Yak1s or 7s. I would be interested in your findins. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Take a look at what Hardball's Aircraft Viewer had to say about Yaks. I found it quite interesting.</span>.

Badsight.
06-16-2005, 01:07 AM
HelSqnProtos : im afraid its just you WRT the ShVAK DM

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">maybe your just too used to the Mini-Nuke hit power that we have had since v1.0</span>

what was it again that lead you to believe that v3.04 was accurate ?

prehaps its time you either post some actual real honest-to-goodness proof about what your claiming , <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">something you have not done yet</span>

im chopping the tails off Bf109s with 4 rounds in v4.01m , its not as good as the MG rounds in the 151/20 but is dealing out punishment more so than what v400m was giving me

have you even looked at the graphs posted here ? the ShVAK isnt the uber gun it should have been all this time . it USED to be the premiere 20mm in this game , <span class="ev_code_RED">BAR NONE</span> , hitting with critical power at further distances than any other 20mm

maybe its finally been corrected , that ever cross your mind

btw , i see your the CO of the 13th Hellenic Squadron , does your whole squad follow your lead by accusing one & all of bias & trolling who differ in views & results ?

JG54_Arnie
06-16-2005, 03:30 AM
Yeah, will do the 109 again in my tests, its defenitely weaker now. Last night I shot the G2 of a teammate in half and at the same time deprived it of a wing with only 3 shells hitting. It was turning as well and it seems there is some kind of factor modelled there as well, meaning aircraft under stress have structural failures sooner when shot upon.

JG54_Arnie
06-16-2005, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
Arnie,

1. ShVAK has higher ROF as you said.

2. also MG151/20 doesn't fire only mgeschoss.. so the average round from (AP-HE-HE-MG-MG) does maybe 1.4 damage of shvak average round..
Thats whay I said.. although TigerTalon's test showed AP-HE-MG-MG-MG, in game?

And whats the Svak having? Seems to me like AP-AP-HE-HE-HE or something.