Looking into the airplane database I found this ratings.
Browning M2 12.7mm: Effect 3, penetration 2, accuracy 29
Mauser MG151 15mm: Effect 3, penetration 2, accuracy 21
Mauser MG151/20 20mm: Effect 4, penetration 3, accuracy 21
Hispano 20mm: Effect 4, penetration 3, accuracy 26
Rheinmetall-Borsig MK108 30mm: Effect 5, penetration 4, accuracy 18.
Those are some instances only.
My own vision:
the american 12.7mm is vastly over-rated, as it's given the same effect/penetration than a 15mm high-velocity cannon such as the german 15mm which was historically a much harder-hitting weapons (the USAAF and US Navy did some tests to see if it was worth to change to a 15mm weapon similar to the german one, but declined it because of logistic reasons, but they did like the weapon quite a bit)
Compared with other weapons, as the 20mm cannons, it's clear to see (for me) that the effect rating of the 12.7MG is too powerful. The 12.7mm round fired by the american gun was a good round, but did nowhere the same damage than the german 20mm minengeschoss round, which had a huge blast effect.
Even more lopsided it is if we compare it with the historically assasine 30mm minengeschoss round of the Mk108. Repeated tests shown that this round was able to blow a single-figter wing in a single impact, and it was calculated that somewhere between 6 or 8 of this rounds were enough to bring a four engined heavy down. however it has a rating of 5.
This has the absurd result of having a thunderbolt firepower rated at 24, or a Mustang at 18, while a german Me262 (with four deadly mk108s) has a 20 overall firepower rating. I know the penetration effect is higher in the cannons, but the effect seems to be really underrated. The fact that cannons have lower rates of fire than MGs is simulated by the higher accuracy of the MGs. But each time a single cannon round impacted a plane the effect was, generally, devastating, while a single MG round was unlikely to cause serious damage (MGs relied in the concentration of fire effect to do damage, cannons on single, heavily damaging, hits).
The effect is translated into the bombers armed with those MGs. I was wondering how come I was getting so atrocious results from my Fw190 and 109G6R6s against unescorted B-17s...seems I found the reason.
My own ratings the way I see it:
Browning M2 12.7mm: Effect 2, penetration 2, accuracy 31
Mauser MG151 15mm: Effect 3, penetration 2, accuracy 21
Mauser MG151/20 20mm: Effect 5, penetration 3, accuracy 20
Hispano Mk.I 20mm: Effect 4, penetration 3, accuracy 26
Hispano Mk.V 20mm: Effect 5, penetration 3, accuracy 25
Rheinmetall-Borsig MK108 30mm: Effect 8, penetration 4, accuracy 14.
Reasoning:
-accuracy should compensate for lower 12.7mm effect. That weapon was a real fighter killer if relatively long bursts at convergence were achieved. The Browning M2 had the best ballistics of the weapons seen over the reich (along that of the hispano), thus a higher accuracy is seen to compensate for the lower effect.
-MG151/20 effect increased to 5. Accuracy lowered to 20. Taking the MG151 as a baseline, the 20mm had a slightly lower RoF and muzzle velocity, but it was shown in operations as a much harder hitting weapon. Thus, lower accuracy, but almost twice the effect.
-Two hispano guns. Mk I and MkV. the former was the one used in spits, P38s, Mustang IAs, etc. The latter was the one aboard the Tempest, had a lower muzzle velocity (thus lower accuracy on the MkV), and entered service when the hispano explosive rounds entered service (1944, until then the hispano shot AP round only, that's why the Mk.I gets a effect of 4).
-Mk108 30mm had in fact quite more power than twice the hitting power of a 20mm MG151/20 round. But I guess we don't want a miracle weapon either. The gun had a phenomenal rate of fire for its caliber and era, but a very drastic drop of round due a very low muzzle velocity which made it a hard weapon against fighter, but an ideal one against big unmaneouvering bombers (lower accuracy to 14 from 18 should take care of that).
Those are my views, at least. Thoughts? ideas?. Flames? [:'(][:D][:D]
weapons rating
Moderators: Joel Billings, harley, warshipbuilder, simovitch
weapons rating
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
-
Hard Sarge
- Posts: 22145
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: garfield hts ohio usa
- Contact:
RE: weapons rating
I mean
the 15 mm was such a great weapon that the LW couldn't wait to get rid of it, and if you think the 15 mm was as good as a 50 cal, I kind of doubt it
the LW pilots were scare to death of the Jug getting a shot off, those 8 50s would chew up anything they hit
also one 50 could pass though the entire plane, where the 20mm blew up where it hit, lots of planes flew back home with ripped up tail surfaces, large holes in the wings and bodies
most aurgements on weapons, tend to be more based on if you could only hit something with one round, what round would be better
and the other issue is mainly, how much damage would a near miss do, then what damage a good hit would do
a 109 or 190 that hit the target dead center, that target went down, the same with a P-51 or P-47
but for game terms, I was told early on, I couldn't make changes to the ammo system, that there was much more going on behind the numbers
the 15 mm was such a great weapon that the LW couldn't wait to get rid of it, and if you think the 15 mm was as good as a 50 cal, I kind of doubt it
the LW pilots were scare to death of the Jug getting a shot off, those 8 50s would chew up anything they hit
also one 50 could pass though the entire plane, where the 20mm blew up where it hit, lots of planes flew back home with ripped up tail surfaces, large holes in the wings and bodies
most aurgements on weapons, tend to be more based on if you could only hit something with one round, what round would be better
and the other issue is mainly, how much damage would a near miss do, then what damage a good hit would do
a 109 or 190 that hit the target dead center, that target went down, the same with a P-51 or P-47
but for game terms, I was told early on, I couldn't make changes to the ammo system, that there was much more going on behind the numbers
RE: weapons rating
about the 15mm. The luftwaffe did not hate it. It hated the fact that when issued to fighters only one was given to the early 109 Friedrichs. The weapon was nothing but a super-heavy machine gun, and in a single mount couldn't be relied as the main weaponry of a fighter. But now think of four of those guns instead of one.
Another reason why it saw little use by the LW is that the 20mm MG151 was ready for mass production shortly thereafter. And with that 20mm, noone complained about the hitting power of the Bf109F4. In the game the 109G2s have a firepower rating of 8 (see the 109G2). If you think that's high enough...
Here are some quotes about the weapon itself
From Tony Williams' website:
from http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ ... un-pe.html
I could dig and find some quotes from the tests done on the 15mm german weapon by the US armed forces, but take my word on it, they thought very highly of that gun. Unsurprising as it fired a round 50% heavier as the browning M2, at a higher MV, with an only slightly lower rate of fire. The only drawback was that it was also 50% heavier than the M2, but they copied the weapon and even produced it in limited series.
one doesn't do that with a crappy weapon.
unsurprising. Noone questions the P47's being a wing sawer at convergences and with sustained burts. Even out of convergence those guns were fearsome.
But now think of another plane. the P51B. four .50 cal weapons. in-game firepower rating: 12. Compare it with the 109K4 (30mm mk108): firepower rating 11.
Now I can allow discussions about the power of the caliber 50. Up to a point. I guess that noone will try to debate me that a K4 with its 30mm gun WILL hit MUCH heavier than a P51B with four 50 cals. I mean, even the pony-b pilots complained about anemic firepower, while the K4 was reputed by its fearsome punch (if a shell was placed on an enemy plane).
Sorry, Hard Sarge...something doesn't add up here, at least for me.
I'd say that the matter about the weapons hitting or not would be taken care of by the accuracy rating. But if the accuracy rating is -already- much lower in the german weapons than in the american MGs, then why is the MG letalithy so close, comparatively speaking, to the german cannons?.
I mean, a 12.7mm round hits. A 30mm round hits. Are the 30mm round effects less than double than the 12.7mm hit?. HIGHLY unlikely.
will the 12.7mm hit more easily? sure enough, that's why the 12.7mm has a 33% accuracy bonus.
but if a weapon hits, let its full effects be done.
fair enough. But that doesn't mean the "behind the numbers" scene is accurate, does it?.
All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6.
IIRC, german single engine planes chewed unescorted bombers. In game I can only trust in ZGs or NJGs to do the direct assault to B17 formation, and to the singles to kill the stragglers. That was not the way the things worked historically. And so, something could be improved. And the problem seems to be a too small effect on the german weapons, compared to a quite big one by the american ones.
at least that's my take on it
Another reason why it saw little use by the LW is that the 20mm MG151 was ready for mass production shortly thereafter. And with that 20mm, noone complained about the hitting power of the Bf109F4. In the game the 109G2s have a firepower rating of 8 (see the 109G2). If you think that's high enough...
Here are some quotes about the weapon itself
From Tony Williams' website:
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.
from http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ ... un-pe.html
During the war a copy of the MG 151 was designed in the USA, modified to fire a very powerful .60 (15.2 x 114, 76.5 g) round. But this T17 gun never reached service, and only about 350 were made.
I could dig and find some quotes from the tests done on the 15mm german weapon by the US armed forces, but take my word on it, they thought very highly of that gun. Unsurprising as it fired a round 50% heavier as the browning M2, at a higher MV, with an only slightly lower rate of fire. The only drawback was that it was also 50% heavier than the M2, but they copied the weapon and even produced it in limited series.
one doesn't do that with a crappy weapon.
the LW pilots were scare to death of the Jug getting a shot off, those 8 50s would chew up anything they hit
unsurprising. Noone questions the P47's being a wing sawer at convergences and with sustained burts. Even out of convergence those guns were fearsome.
But now think of another plane. the P51B. four .50 cal weapons. in-game firepower rating: 12. Compare it with the 109K4 (30mm mk108): firepower rating 11.
Now I can allow discussions about the power of the caliber 50. Up to a point. I guess that noone will try to debate me that a K4 with its 30mm gun WILL hit MUCH heavier than a P51B with four 50 cals. I mean, even the pony-b pilots complained about anemic firepower, while the K4 was reputed by its fearsome punch (if a shell was placed on an enemy plane).
Sorry, Hard Sarge...something doesn't add up here, at least for me.
most aurgements on weapons, tend to be more based on if you could only hit something with one round, what round would be better
and the other issue is mainly, how much damage would a near miss do, then what damage a good hit would do
a 109 or 190 that hit the target dead center, that target went down, the same with a P-51 or P-47
I'd say that the matter about the weapons hitting or not would be taken care of by the accuracy rating. But if the accuracy rating is -already- much lower in the german weapons than in the american MGs, then why is the MG letalithy so close, comparatively speaking, to the german cannons?.
I mean, a 12.7mm round hits. A 30mm round hits. Are the 30mm round effects less than double than the 12.7mm hit?. HIGHLY unlikely.
will the 12.7mm hit more easily? sure enough, that's why the 12.7mm has a 33% accuracy bonus.
but if a weapon hits, let its full effects be done.
but for game terms, I was told early on, I couldn't make changes to the ammo system, that there was much more going on behind the numbers
fair enough. But that doesn't mean the "behind the numbers" scene is accurate, does it?.
All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6.
IIRC, german single engine planes chewed unescorted bombers. In game I can only trust in ZGs or NJGs to do the direct assault to B17 formation, and to the singles to kill the stragglers. That was not the way the things worked historically. And so, something could be improved. And the problem seems to be a too small effect on the german weapons, compared to a quite big one by the american ones.
at least that's my take on it
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
-
Hard Sarge
- Posts: 22145
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: garfield hts ohio usa
- Contact:
RE: weapons rating
All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6
then would have to say you doing something wrong, ask Swift how he does
I know my runs during this period of testings, the first pass by a G-6/R6 knocked down 6 B-17s, and I know the G5 at the start of the game can knock down 4 or 5 B-17s on the first pass, for the Allies, the trick is to not let it make the first pass in any numbers
then would have to say you doing something wrong, ask Swift how he does
I know my runs during this period of testings, the first pass by a G-6/R6 knocked down 6 B-17s, and I know the G5 at the start of the game can knock down 4 or 5 B-17s on the first pass, for the Allies, the trick is to not let it make the first pass in any numbers
-
wernerpruckner
- Posts: 4142
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 1:00 pm
RE: weapons rating
All I know is that each time a 190A6 gruppe (four 20mm guns, 2 7.92mm MGs) attacks a B17 box, I rarely get more than one damaged B17...while I see my fighters dying in droves. I won't mention what will happen to a 109G6.
??? more information please......usually this is bad luck, I do not have many of such occasions
RE: weapons rating
It very well might be I'm doing something wrong. I don't know what to say. In my game I'm in turn 6 (planning still, so 5 turns played).
On turns 1, 3 and 5 I got heavy B-17 attacks over Bremen (days 1 and 3) and Kassel (day 5).
Generally speaking, the most usual result I see with 109G6s is to lose 1-2 fighters for ,in average, 1 B17F damaged (worse, won't forget, 2 G6 damaged, 2G6 destroyed, no signle B17 damaged nor lost). G6R6 fares a bit better, but not by much.
190 results usually are fighter damaged, bomber damaged. Sometimes a bomber goes down ,but I dare say the 190s attacking bombers are getting results well in the middle of 1-1 to 2-1 (and thats pretty much horrific, if you ask me).
Day 3 I had to keep the single engined planes behind the formations and issue attack orders to the ZGs. Day 5 (over kassel), I directly sent the whole night force against the main bomber forces, and directly forgot about using single engined planes to do it (only ones to try it were the wilde sau squadrons, and they also got very bad results). I used the single engined ones against the jabo strikes instead (and they got quite pathetic results aswell, if you ask me, but that's another issue. In any case my 109G6s seem cannon fodder instead of fighter planes). The result was a carnage of bomber formations, but I had to use every NJG and ZGs to do it.
I'd say that JGs should have a word against B-17s aswell, but not getting the results expected. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't know what it can be. What I did on day one:
Set a "meeting point" for several different Jagdgeschwaders well within germany limits, depending on where I think the bombers are heading. I give them 30.000 feet patrol altitudes.
When the Boxes move into germany, and I think the escorts are about to leave, I order a mass intercept, sending all the JGs in the patrol zone against the middle formation (usually they come in several different "squares". I aim for the 2nd to get through the first one, damage some, then engage the 2nd and kill stragglers of the 1st).
Results were patethic. ZG26 had a field day, but those were in 110G2R3s. I lost some 15-20 109Gs (g5 and g6), and a further 10-15 190A6s (one of them A6R1). In total I think single engined planes killed at the most 5-10 B-17s when engaging main boxes (They got a lot more than those, but those were stragglers, so I can't really say how much of them were killed on engaging the main force).
all in all the results were horrible. Similar on day 3, 2nd attack on bremen. NJGs and ZGs did a carnage. Singled engined planes were forced behind with heavy losses (and then proceeded to smack stragglers piecemeal. But that is not what I expect of a gruppe of Fw190As or 109Gs, to be honest).
On turns 1, 3 and 5 I got heavy B-17 attacks over Bremen (days 1 and 3) and Kassel (day 5).
Generally speaking, the most usual result I see with 109G6s is to lose 1-2 fighters for ,in average, 1 B17F damaged (worse, won't forget, 2 G6 damaged, 2G6 destroyed, no signle B17 damaged nor lost). G6R6 fares a bit better, but not by much.
190 results usually are fighter damaged, bomber damaged. Sometimes a bomber goes down ,but I dare say the 190s attacking bombers are getting results well in the middle of 1-1 to 2-1 (and thats pretty much horrific, if you ask me).
Day 3 I had to keep the single engined planes behind the formations and issue attack orders to the ZGs. Day 5 (over kassel), I directly sent the whole night force against the main bomber forces, and directly forgot about using single engined planes to do it (only ones to try it were the wilde sau squadrons, and they also got very bad results). I used the single engined ones against the jabo strikes instead (and they got quite pathetic results aswell, if you ask me, but that's another issue. In any case my 109G6s seem cannon fodder instead of fighter planes). The result was a carnage of bomber formations, but I had to use every NJG and ZGs to do it.
I'd say that JGs should have a word against B-17s aswell, but not getting the results expected. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't know what it can be. What I did on day one:
Set a "meeting point" for several different Jagdgeschwaders well within germany limits, depending on where I think the bombers are heading. I give them 30.000 feet patrol altitudes.
When the Boxes move into germany, and I think the escorts are about to leave, I order a mass intercept, sending all the JGs in the patrol zone against the middle formation (usually they come in several different "squares". I aim for the 2nd to get through the first one, damage some, then engage the 2nd and kill stragglers of the 1st).
Results were patethic. ZG26 had a field day, but those were in 110G2R3s. I lost some 15-20 109Gs (g5 and g6), and a further 10-15 190A6s (one of them A6R1). In total I think single engined planes killed at the most 5-10 B-17s when engaging main boxes (They got a lot more than those, but those were stragglers, so I can't really say how much of them were killed on engaging the main force).
all in all the results were horrible. Similar on day 3, 2nd attack on bremen. NJGs and ZGs did a carnage. Singled engined planes were forced behind with heavy losses (and then proceeded to smack stragglers piecemeal. But that is not what I expect of a gruppe of Fw190As or 109Gs, to be honest).
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
-
Hard Sarge
- Posts: 22145
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: garfield hts ohio usa
- Contact:
RE: weapons rating
on the coast, you have most of the A-5s those are for dogfighting, the A-6s are back, add rockets or extra cannons, you got to break up the formations
the 110/410 will do good vs the bombers, but that is more based on there fuel load and if they get in back of the raid, they hammer any of the damage planed
the AI will eat up the 17/24, so I think it may be something else
but overall, I not sure I understand the complaint, that is what is suppost to happen, the LW even gave a higher point total for forcing a bomber out of formation, then they did for the final kill of that bomber, you want to kill, or damage bombers, to get them out of the formation, and then pick on them, the stragglers are where you get your kills, not the formation
and it is a war of attrictions, even Galland said, he didn't think the LW had a better then a 1-1 kill ratio vs the bombers (much better early then later)
the 110/410 will do good vs the bombers, but that is more based on there fuel load and if they get in back of the raid, they hammer any of the damage planed
the AI will eat up the 17/24, so I think it may be something else
but overall, I not sure I understand the complaint, that is what is suppost to happen, the LW even gave a higher point total for forcing a bomber out of formation, then they did for the final kill of that bomber, you want to kill, or damage bombers, to get them out of the formation, and then pick on them, the stragglers are where you get your kills, not the formation
and it is a war of attrictions, even Galland said, he didn't think the LW had a better then a 1-1 kill ratio vs the bombers (much better early then later)
-
wernerpruckner
- Posts: 4142
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 1:00 pm
RE: weapons rating
middle of 1-1 to 2-1 (and thats pretty much horrific, if you ask me).
why?? what do you expect?
30k seem a bit high for your patrol? are there escorts with the bombers or are they alone?
what is your fighter tactic for Luftflotte Reich/Reichsverteidigung? (bounce/direct)
where from do you attack? (front, behind,............)
RE: weapons rating
Hard sarge:
The 110/410s smash formations up. I've seen results of even 5 bombers killed in a single assault (not usual, but yet...with single engined planes it's rare to see more than one or two B17s damaged, and even more rare to see more than one killed).
The formation breakers in my game are consistently the heavy fighters, not the ones that should be (the single engined ones).
About Galland... he's been proven wrong in many accounts (starting with his claim about the possibility of me262s in service in january, when engines were not reliable even by 1945 standards). And in this one I think he was talking about the whole war, not just the early war (remember schweinfurt. Or first allied attacks over berlin. Escorts caused a lot of losses in the latter, bombers much, much less).
Swift: I expect better results by a plane armed with four 20mm guns, 20-30 impacts of whom were enough to kill a bomber (speaking of memory here, but I think luftwaffe tests said 25 20mm minengeschoss on a b-17 meant a guaranteed kill). I rarely see a B-17 killed by a single engined fighter, unless is a straggler. Historically was the opposite, the "straggle killers" were the 110/410s, not the single engined planes.
30k is high, yep, but given that B-17s are guaranteed to come higher than 20.000 feet (and escorts even higher), I give them a hefty altitude advantage in the patrol orders.
As I said I set patrols in the areas I expect the attack to develop towards. That means that most of the times the first attacks are done head-on. Then the fight simply goes on without control by myself about vectors (fighters are already in the area so...).
As for doctrine, I got bounce bomber in the luftflotte reich 190A6s and for all luftflottes in what regards to G6R6.
The G6s I give direct fighter orders just in case I happen to enter contact too early and hit the stream of bombers still within escort area. Iinitally the G6s were in bounce fighter but the results were horrible (they haven't improved with direct fighter anyway, the P47 is simply unbeatable no matter what for a G6, or at least that seems to me.)
The 110/410s smash formations up. I've seen results of even 5 bombers killed in a single assault (not usual, but yet...with single engined planes it's rare to see more than one or two B17s damaged, and even more rare to see more than one killed).
The formation breakers in my game are consistently the heavy fighters, not the ones that should be (the single engined ones).
About Galland... he's been proven wrong in many accounts (starting with his claim about the possibility of me262s in service in january, when engines were not reliable even by 1945 standards). And in this one I think he was talking about the whole war, not just the early war (remember schweinfurt. Or first allied attacks over berlin. Escorts caused a lot of losses in the latter, bombers much, much less).
Swift: I expect better results by a plane armed with four 20mm guns, 20-30 impacts of whom were enough to kill a bomber (speaking of memory here, but I think luftwaffe tests said 25 20mm minengeschoss on a b-17 meant a guaranteed kill). I rarely see a B-17 killed by a single engined fighter, unless is a straggler. Historically was the opposite, the "straggle killers" were the 110/410s, not the single engined planes.
30k is high, yep, but given that B-17s are guaranteed to come higher than 20.000 feet (and escorts even higher), I give them a hefty altitude advantage in the patrol orders.
As I said I set patrols in the areas I expect the attack to develop towards. That means that most of the times the first attacks are done head-on. Then the fight simply goes on without control by myself about vectors (fighters are already in the area so...).
As for doctrine, I got bounce bomber in the luftflotte reich 190A6s and for all luftflottes in what regards to G6R6.
The G6s I give direct fighter orders just in case I happen to enter contact too early and hit the stream of bombers still within escort area. Iinitally the G6s were in bounce fighter but the results were horrible (they haven't improved with direct fighter anyway, the P47 is simply unbeatable no matter what for a G6, or at least that seems to me.)
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
-
wernerpruckner
- Posts: 4142
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 1:00 pm
RE: weapons rating
the P47 is simply unbeatable no matter what for a G6, or at least that seems to me
??? im the 43 campaign ???
for me they are more of a nuisance than a danger
-
wernerpruckner
- Posts: 4142
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 1:00 pm
RE: weapons rating
I´d suggest you play the Allied side for a few turns and look how they attack the raids.....maybe this helps
RE: weapons rating
Well, dunno, maybe we're playing different games? 
All I know is that each time I've crossed path with a Thunderbolt, I've been in the losing side.
I think I'm gonna give the forums a second thorough read (already gave it one, but must've lost something important), because in my game ANYTHING that is not B-17s vs heavy fighters (from ZGs or NJGs), is, at its best, a draw.
Gotta need some tips about how to stop those g"dd"mn"d Typhoon strikes on my radar sites, aswell, for instance (lol), because for me are death traps...
All I know is that each time I've crossed path with a Thunderbolt, I've been in the losing side.
I think I'm gonna give the forums a second thorough read (already gave it one, but must've lost something important), because in my game ANYTHING that is not B-17s vs heavy fighters (from ZGs or NJGs), is, at its best, a draw.
Gotta need some tips about how to stop those g"dd"mn"d Typhoon strikes on my radar sites, aswell, for instance (lol), because for me are death traps...
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
RE: weapons rating
ORIGINAL: RAM
Well, dunno, maybe we're playing different games?
All I know is that each time I've crossed path with a Thunderbolt, I've been in the losing side.
I think I'm playing the same game as you! I've taken every 109/190 that's out of fighter range and added cannons/rockets to it and they're winning some and losing some. It is pretty demoralizing when you've got 300 B17's that can nail agile fighters set to 'bounce' coming in head-on attacks when my guys can't hit the broadside of a B17 hanger.
I *love* the 110/410's, they're going to win me the war I hope... I don't use the night fighters during the day, but I did destroy an entire BG of B24's with constant single-engined attacks. The B24's seem to blow up on cue, just gotta teach the B17's the same trick. I think morale might play into it; as I whittle away the B17's, I'm noticing more success as the B17 losses mount over a few days of raids. With this in mind, I'm choosing my battles to preserve my pilots (skill!) and their morale so that they can inflict as much damage on the Americans as possible. I mostly ignore the medium/fighter bomber raids in France and save as many units as I can for the Americans since the fighter/bombers and medium bombers eat my fighters for breakfast. I'm up to about a 2.5/3:1 kill/loss ratio now, and that's definitely a lot better than what I was seeing in the first few turns when the American morale was higher.
I got frustrated with the P47's and started an allied campaign to see if I could replicate their success. Of course, I lose more P47's as the allies than I can kill when I'm the Germans, almost a 2:1 difference... On the bright side, I've got 690+ turns to figure out what I'm doing wrong... I mean, we've been told the AI doesn't get any unfair advantages, so it's gotta be something I'm doing... [:'(]
On a somewhat related note, I'm also running a BOB1941 campaign as the RAF and you want to talk about tough? At least the Germans have space to wait out the fuel-starved escorts and double-engined fighters to wreak havoc on undefended bombers in 1943. Being outnumbered 5:1 against drop tank-equipped 109's that can outlast my Spits and Hurris isn't a pretty picture. Usually I intercept at the last possible moment to conserve fuel, my fighters don't do much until they run out of fuel/ammo and then they get ripped to shreds by the German escorts which never seem to run out of fuel. Even when they're red and running back to France, they still find some time to bounce my hapless hurricanes.
I've changed my production to emphasize Hurricane IIc (for the cannons, hoping they'd be my 110/410 analog) and Spit Vb's but only the spits seem to be able to perform consistently and even then only against fighters. German medium bombers are racking up the kills...
The Hurricanes never have a chance to attack unescorted bombers and when they do somehow fight through the fighters to get a bounce attack against the bombers, their morale/skill is so poor, they tend to lose planes without inflicting any damage. I just don't have the numbers to fight off multiple 200+ plane raids while dodging suicidal Italian fighter sweeps all day long. It's definitely a challenge and I'm getting about a 2:1 kill/loss ratio, but I'll need to up that to 4:1 if I'm to survive... My industry is getting pummeled and I can't reach the bomber streams; I'm changing every squadron to bounce fighter since no matter who I choose to intercept, they always end up attacking fighters and the hurri's need as much help as they can get.
Anyways... sounds like we should try a PBEM together since we're both having the same problems. It would prolly balance out in the end! [:D]
RE: weapons rating
For completeness sake here's Tony Williams article on WWII fighter armament
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
and it's effectiveness
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
and it's effectiveness
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
RE: weapons rating
Look at the real life numbers of the amount of fighters shot down by bomber defensive weapons. More LW fighters were shot down by defensive fire than were lost to enemy fighters.
As to the power of the different weapons. You have to take into account firing rate as well. The 30mm while a very powerful weapon, was also a very slow firing weapon. Based on what I have read the Germans did not like putting new pilots into 30mm equiped aircraft because the process of setting yourself up for a firing pass with a 30mm weapon and then actually hitting the target was difficult.
Play a flight sim like IL-2 and you will get something of an idea of how hard it is to make a high speed slashing 'bounce' on a bomber and then hit them with purely 30mm rounds. The recoil is so heavy that it also throws off the entire airframe when firing.
If you choose to attack rather than bounce to make it easier to hit your target then chances are your fighter will be shot up by defensive fire.
As to the power of the different weapons. You have to take into account firing rate as well. The 30mm while a very powerful weapon, was also a very slow firing weapon. Based on what I have read the Germans did not like putting new pilots into 30mm equiped aircraft because the process of setting yourself up for a firing pass with a 30mm weapon and then actually hitting the target was difficult.
Play a flight sim like IL-2 and you will get something of an idea of how hard it is to make a high speed slashing 'bounce' on a bomber and then hit them with purely 30mm rounds. The recoil is so heavy that it also throws off the entire airframe when firing.
If you choose to attack rather than bounce to make it easier to hit your target then chances are your fighter will be shot up by defensive fire.
RE: weapons rating
Fallschirmjager: source about the ammount of german fighters lost by bomber defensive gunnery?
About rate of fire: that is already figured by the accuracy rating of the weapons. The lower the RoF, the lower the accuracy. And btw, the mk108 recoil was very low. The low MV didn't cause a lot of recoil.
I fly Il-2 almost continuously, btw. And that game has (admitted by Oleg), souped up defensive gunnery for bombers.
About rate of fire: that is already figured by the accuracy rating of the weapons. The lower the RoF, the lower the accuracy. And btw, the mk108 recoil was very low. The low MV didn't cause a lot of recoil.
I fly Il-2 almost continuously, btw. And that game has (admitted by Oleg), souped up defensive gunnery for bombers.
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
RE: weapons rating
For completeness sake here's Tony Williams article on WWII fighter armament
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
and it's effectiveness
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Yep, those are the main sources I'm using to base my belief that the effectivity of the weapons in BTR aren't as accurate as they could be. But of course, that's an outsider point of view [:)]
RAM
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
"Look at me! look at me!!!
Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"
RE: weapons rating
AFAIR the bomber gunners had an overclaim rate of about 15-20:1. Can't remember the exact source though.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
-
Nicholas Bell
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:21 pm
- Location: Eagle River, Alaska
RE: weapons rating
Found a note in one of Alfred Price's book that Germans determined that an average of 3 hits from a 30mm were required to bring down a four engine bomber (whether a Mk103 or 108 is not mentioned).
Bomber defensive fire was more effective than just the number of interceptors shot down. The German pilots absolutely hated attacking our formations - it has been described as standing in a shower and trying not to get wet. This affected their accuracy and willingness to close to a range where kills would be achieved. Perhaps more telling is that research into German loss records where available indicate a huge number of damaged fighters - heavily damaged. Recall that the Germans listed losses in percent terms - a destroyed aircraft was 100%. What has been missed in the history books is the number of interceptors damaged 40-60%, ie a belly-landing. When you read unit histories, that is when you see how many planes were shot up by bomber defensive fire and force-landed in various conditions. Shot down? Not according to the Germans when considering their losses since they were not 100% written-off. OTOH, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot would be awarded a victory for aircraft caused to force-land [:)]
Bomber defensive fire was more effective than just the number of interceptors shot down. The German pilots absolutely hated attacking our formations - it has been described as standing in a shower and trying not to get wet. This affected their accuracy and willingness to close to a range where kills would be achieved. Perhaps more telling is that research into German loss records where available indicate a huge number of damaged fighters - heavily damaged. Recall that the Germans listed losses in percent terms - a destroyed aircraft was 100%. What has been missed in the history books is the number of interceptors damaged 40-60%, ie a belly-landing. When you read unit histories, that is when you see how many planes were shot up by bomber defensive fire and force-landed in various conditions. Shot down? Not according to the Germans when considering their losses since they were not 100% written-off. OTOH, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot would be awarded a victory for aircraft caused to force-land [:)]
-
Hard Sarge
- Posts: 22145
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: garfield hts ohio usa
- Contact:
RE: weapons rating
so would a Yank and so would a CW pilot
there are a number of CW pilots who got kills, because the plane chasing them, dipped a wing into the ground and crashed
it goes both ways
some got kills for when they made a bounce, two planes as they went to break flew into each other
most times depended on who it was and who the guy giving the claims away was
(Heartmann, got 4 kills, when he bounced a IL-2 fired at it, the leader did a Split-S, and the rest of the flight did also, only they were about 500 feet above the ground, they never got close to making the Split, let alone the S)
there are a number of CW pilots who got kills, because the plane chasing them, dipped a wing into the ground and crashed
it goes both ways
some got kills for when they made a bounce, two planes as they went to break flew into each other
most times depended on who it was and who the guy giving the claims away was
(Heartmann, got 4 kills, when he bounced a IL-2 fired at it, the leader did a Split-S, and the rest of the flight did also, only they were about 500 feet above the ground, they never got close to making the Split, let alone the S)