PDA

View Full Version : Ammo



Tomas_W
02-19-2006, 02:19 AM
Just wondering if the ammo loadouts listed here ( http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/ )are correct. Not if they're correct compared to "the real world", but if they're consistent with what's in the game.

I'm quite sure some of the listings there aren't correct with "the real world", for instance:
F6F-3/5:Never seen any references about 4 guns with 270rnds and 2 with 400rnds, but i've seen many references of 400rnds in all 6 guns.
F4U with 20mm guns:All references i've seen say 120rpg, not 250rpg.

IL-2's: The references i've seen say 150rpg in the 23mm guns and 32rpg in the 37mm guns.Not 300rpg in 23mm and 50rpg in 37mm. And did the 20mm's in the early versions really carry 500rpg?

Spitfire MkIXe versions: Shouldn't it be 120rpg for the 20mm's instead of 140rpg?

I've also noticed that the Beaufighter has been given more ammo with 4.03, at leat according to http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/Beau.html . If i remember correctly, it previously had 300rpg for the .50's and 120rpg or 125rpg for the 20mm's. Is that a change in the correct or incorrect direction?

Someone else can probably come up with more examples and/or, hopefully,correct me if i'm wrong.

Finally: These "Extra ammunition" loadouts.
Something bugs me about it.
The P-47's:8x200rpg=1600rnds 8x425rpg=3400rnds
Weight difference(1800rnds)should be ~515lbs.
Still, it can carry approximately 2400lbs(1x1000lb bomb+2x500lb boms+6x4,5" rockets(~400lbs if i'm not mistaken))of external ordnance.If we for the sake of the argument assume that 2400lbs is a maximum,then it should, in the name of logic and me wanting both bombs,rockets and lots of ammo on ground attack missions,be able to carry(2400-515)~1885lbs of external ordnance, with 425rpg.
I know that it didn't always carry 425rpg, but in those cases i seem to recall the number of 267rpg.

Same goes with the "Extra ammunition" option on the Mosquito.Should be a weight difference of somewhere around 125-140lbs between the two different ammo loadouts. But still it can't carry both "Extra ammunition" and 2x500lb bombs. But it can carry 4x500lb bombs.

Ladies and gentlemen, it does not make sense.

If anyone with power reads this, here's a request for further patches;
A thorough review of the ammo loadouts.
What needs to be changed in the name of historical accuracy?

And please, do something about those mathematics defying "Extra ammunition" issues.

And don't tell me i can't both eat the cookie and still keep it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tomas_W
02-19-2006, 02:19 AM
Just wondering if the ammo loadouts listed here ( http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/ )are correct. Not if they're correct compared to "the real world", but if they're consistent with what's in the game.

I'm quite sure some of the listings there aren't correct with "the real world", for instance:
F6F-3/5:Never seen any references about 4 guns with 270rnds and 2 with 400rnds, but i've seen many references of 400rnds in all 6 guns.
F4U with 20mm guns:All references i've seen say 120rpg, not 250rpg.

IL-2's: The references i've seen say 150rpg in the 23mm guns and 32rpg in the 37mm guns.Not 300rpg in 23mm and 50rpg in 37mm. And did the 20mm's in the early versions really carry 500rpg?

Spitfire MkIXe versions: Shouldn't it be 120rpg for the 20mm's instead of 140rpg?

I've also noticed that the Beaufighter has been given more ammo with 4.03, at leat according to http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/Beau.html . If i remember correctly, it previously had 300rpg for the .50's and 120rpg or 125rpg for the 20mm's. Is that a change in the correct or incorrect direction?

Someone else can probably come up with more examples and/or, hopefully,correct me if i'm wrong.

Finally: These "Extra ammunition" loadouts.
Something bugs me about it.
The P-47's:8x200rpg=1600rnds 8x425rpg=3400rnds
Weight difference(1800rnds)should be ~515lbs.
Still, it can carry approximately 2400lbs(1x1000lb bomb+2x500lb boms+6x4,5" rockets(~400lbs if i'm not mistaken))of external ordnance.If we for the sake of the argument assume that 2400lbs is a maximum,then it should, in the name of logic and me wanting both bombs,rockets and lots of ammo on ground attack missions,be able to carry(2400-515)~1885lbs of external ordnance, with 425rpg.
I know that it didn't always carry 425rpg, but in those cases i seem to recall the number of 267rpg.

Same goes with the "Extra ammunition" option on the Mosquito.Should be a weight difference of somewhere around 125-140lbs between the two different ammo loadouts. But still it can't carry both "Extra ammunition" and 2x500lb bombs. But it can carry 4x500lb bombs.

Ladies and gentlemen, it does not make sense.

If anyone with power reads this, here's a request for further patches;
A thorough review of the ammo loadouts.
What needs to be changed in the name of historical accuracy?

And please, do something about those mathematics defying "Extra ammunition" issues.

And don't tell me i can't both eat the cookie and still keep it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-19-2006, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
Just wondering if the ammo loadouts listed here ( http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/ )are correct. Not if they're correct compared to "the real world", but if they're consistent with what's in the game.

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

yes, these numbers are correct for the game.


about the P-47 ammo loadout issue: this is discussed since the appearance of the P-47 in this game . and yes, its very annoying you cant load the full ammoload (wich was so far i understand the default one for real P-47s) with bombs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif - even not with a single droptank !

Tomas_W
02-19-2006, 10:18 AM
Came to think about the BK 3.7 for the Bf-110G2;

Why only HE?
Why not AP?
It would be nice to be able to select between the two ammo types in the arming phase.(i don't think it'd be appropriate to mix HE and AP in the same magazine because of the different trajectories)

I figure that since there's BK 3.7's with AP ammo for the Ju-87G-1, it shouldn't be too much work to add it as an option for the Bf-110G2.

Historians, feel free to yell at me if Bf-110G2's never carried AP in their BK 3.7's for whatever reasons.

Antoninus
02-19-2006, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
F4U with 20mm guns:All references i've seen say 120rpg, not 250rpg.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The navy departments standard aircraft characteristics for the F4U-1D and -1C from 1945 say that the corsair carried a total of 924 rounds 20 mm ammunition, so 231 rpg not 120.

See here:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id73.htm

and here for original documents:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm

Tomas_W
02-19-2006, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Antoninus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
F4U with 20mm guns:All references i've seen say 120rpg, not 250rpg.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The navy departments standard aircraft characteristics for the F4U-1D and -1C from 1945 say that the corsair carried a total of 924 rounds 20 mm ammunition, so 231 rpg not 120.

See here:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id73.htm

and here for original documents:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id79.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, one learns something new every day.

Those documents also show that the F4U's with 6 .50's have 400rpg all the way and not 375rnds in two of 'em as in the game.

The documents also show that the droptank options in the game are incorrect.
And also that there shouldn't be a 2000lb bomb on the centreline pylon. And that it should be able to carry six 100lb bombs on the inner wing pylons.

Just came to think of another questionmark:

http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/Misc.htm

The B-239 and F2A-2 has 250rgp but the Buffalo MkI has 500rpg, should it be that way?

Tomas_W
02-19-2006, 04:05 PM
Man, i can go on with this forever, just checked some info on the Ju-87G-1.

Quote taken from http://www.vectorsite.net/avstuka.html

"That was not quite the end of Stuka development. Attacking moving tanks with conventional bombs was inaccurate, leading to a search for a way to improve the Stuka's antitank capability. In the summer of 1942, a Ju-87D-3 was fitted with heavy antitank cannon, resulting in the "Ju-87G-1", which featured a BK 3.7 / Flak 18 37 millimeter antitank gun with a six-round magazine mounted under the wing outside each main landing gear assembly. The gun pods were removeable and could be replaced with ordinary bomb racks."

Basically, it should have 6rpg instead of 12rpg+the option of carrying bombs instead of the BK 3.7's.

IL2-chuter
02-20-2006, 01:16 AM
There were TWO six round "clips" (they look like a stripper style clip to me) for each gun. I believe they were both loaded in the right side chute ("wing" on the gun pod) one on top of the other and cycled through to the left side where the empty clips wound up end to end. I might have that reversed, but most photos of armorers show them on the right side of the pod with their loaded clips ready to load the gun.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tomas_W
02-20-2006, 02:00 AM
By the way;
Does anyone know how many rounds were carried for the BK 3.7's for the BF-110G-2(says 72 in http://www.partizanska-eskadrila.com/reference/110.html )and the Hs-129B-2(says 32 in http://free-st.htnet.hr/dvd/ammo_AI.html ,reference almost at the bottom). Since the BK 3.7's were loaded with six and twelve round clips i find it hard to accept the numbers 72 and 32.

I also did a little check on the armor penetration of the APCRT round for the BK 3.7.

Claimed to penetrate 140mm@100m.
But in the game it won't even penetrate the side armor of a T-34.

A thorough checkup on penetration data is necessary before a next eventual patch so that in-game armor penetration corresponds with real world armor penetration.

JG53Frankyboy
02-20-2006, 04:43 AM
the BK3.7 in the Bf110G was loaded manualy from the gunner with 6 round stripes.
the cockpit had place for 11 stripes , and if you count one stripe is already loaded in the gun - you have 72 rounds.

the Bf110G2/R1 was short tested as a tankbuster without much success - so it was changed to the Zerst├┬Ârer role , hunting the big US bombers over the Reich.
thats most propably the reason because it has not the same AP ammo load as the Ju87G-1 in game....

Tomas_W
02-20-2006, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the BK3.7 in the Bf110G was loaded manualy from the gunner with 6 round stripes.
the cockpit had place for 11 stripes , and if you count one stripe is already loaded in the gun - you have 72 rounds.

the Bf110G2/R1 was short tested as a tankbuster without much success - so it was changed to the Zerst├┬Ârer role , hunting the big US bombers over the Reich.
thats most propably the reason because it has not the same AP ammo load as the Ju87G-1 in game.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What made the Bf-110G2/R1 unsuccessful in the anti-tank role?

Antoninus
02-20-2006, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
Well, one learns something new every day.

Those documents also show that the F4U's with 6 .50's have 400rpg all the way and not 375rnds in two of 'em as in the game.

The documents also show that the droptank options in the game are incorrect.
And also that there shouldn't be a 2000lb bomb on the centreline pylon. And that it should be able to carry six 100lb bombs on the inner wing pylons.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Earlier standard aircraft characteristics for the F4U-1 from early 1944 says that it carried 2350 rounds for all six guns. Perhaps they equaled the ammo load for all guns in later planes, but I don't think so, since this would afford to change the construction of the wings or the placement of the guns for only minimal benefits. Probably someone mistakenly assumed that the ammount of ammo for all was 400 rpg when they compiled the later documents. ( http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id65.htm On the last page of this comparison between a Fw-190, F4U-1D and F6F the gun ammunition is listed as 2350 rounds for the corsair too.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index1.html ) Also most books say that all F4U-1's with 6 0.50s had only 375 rounds for the two outer guns. Don't know about the F4U-4 model with brownings, all sources I have say 2400 rounds total.

The 2000 pound centerline loadout is real but was a field mod and rarely used in combat.

I am very happy with F4U-1C/D loadouts sice they are rather complete compared with many other planes (as the late FW-190s) in the game but the F4U-1A should only have field mod centerline bombloads and droptank. Not quite sure about the birdcage corsair but I think they had not even a centerline droptank but could carry two 100 ibs bombs on wing racks.

JG53Frankyboy
02-20-2006, 05:58 AM
looking at the loadouts of planes is like opening "pandorras box" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

but deleting existing loadouts will never be an option again i think. Maddox team did it once, with the IAR81 planes, and that caused proplems with older missions or campaigns !
so , they will never do it again , like lately with the Ju88 when they should have deleted the SC2000 option for example !

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 06:33 AM
just remember, that only 109:s sufferend because of gun Jamming, thats why the loadout is derated on it.

Tomas_W
02-20-2006, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
just remember, that only 109:s sufferend because of gun Jamming, thats why the loadout is derated on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really understand what you mean. Would you care to elaborate?

JG53Frankyboy
02-20-2006, 08:47 AM
me too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
the nose canons of the 109 are totaly correct, they are carriing their max loadout in game:
MG151 200rounds
MK108 65 rounds

JG53Frankyboy
02-20-2006, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the BK3.7 in the Bf110G was loaded manualy from the gunner with 6 round stripes.
the cockpit had place for 11 stripes , and if you count one stripe is already loaded in the gun - you have 72 rounds.

the Bf110G2/R1 was short tested as a tankbuster without much success - so it was changed to the Zerst├┬Ârer role , hunting the big US bombers over the Reich.
thats most propably the reason because it has not the same AP ammo load as the Ju87G-1 in game.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What made the Bf-110G2/R1 unsuccessful in the anti-tank role? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not manouverable enough at low altitude and lower speeds.
big and vulnerable target for enemy AAA.

Tomas_W
02-20-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
the BK3.7 in the Bf110G was loaded manualy from the gunner with 6 round stripes.
the cockpit had place for 11 stripes , and if you count one stripe is already loaded in the gun - you have 72 rounds.

the Bf110G2/R1 was short tested as a tankbuster without much success - so it was changed to the Zerst├┬Ârer role , hunting the big US bombers over the Reich.
thats most propably the reason because it has not the same AP ammo load as the Ju87G-1 in game.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What made the Bf-110G2/R1 unsuccessful in the anti-tank role? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not manouverable enough at low altitude and lower speeds.
big and vulnerable target for enemy AAA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ju-87G and Hs-129 are, as far as i know, considered to be decent tankbusters as long as there aren't any enemy fighters around. But is there any significant difference between them and the 110 in regards of low altitude,low speed manouverability and vulnerability against AAA?

Tomas_W
02-20-2006, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
me too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
the nose canons of the 109 are totaly correct, they are carriing their max loadout in game:
MG151 200rounds
MK108 65 rounds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you'll have to explain more clearly if i'm to understand. But i'll take a wild guess;

109's didn't carry max ammo IRL in the nosecannons because if they did they would jam?
Is that it?

Stafroty
02-21-2006, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomas_W:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
just remember, that only 109:s sufferend because of gun Jamming, thats why the loadout is derated on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really understand what you mean. Would you care to elaborate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if i dont understand myself always, how would you expect to understand me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif