weapons rating

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

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).

Calculations were from the Mk108. Which was (by far) the most used 30mm cannon in the luftwaffe.

The Mk103 had a much more devastating punch, because it fired the (bassically) same projectile but in a case with a lot more propellant, and in a much larger gun. To the traditional extreme damage caused by the minengeschoss shell, you'd have to add a much higher damage done by kinetic energy. However the gun was much, much larger than the Mk108, and as a result, much heavier. And because of it's reliance on high muzzle velocity, it's rate of fire was quite lower. The weapon designers of the time had to choose for a high caliber cannon between a low RoF but a high MV -as in the Mk101 or Mk103, as in the soviet high-caliber guns- in guns big both in size and weight, or a high RoF but low MV in a small,compact package, as in the Mk108. Given the excellent reputation the Mk108 had once the initial jamming problems were solved, I'd say the Rheinmetall designers went with the right idea with the Mk108. For many experts the Mk108 was the most weight/efficient cannon design in the whole WW2.

Couple of extra things about the Mk103 in-game.

It has a lower accuracy than the Mk108, wich strongers my belief that accuracy is closely related with rate of fire. I'd say both should have similar accuracy stats (both lower than the MK108 current accuracy stat); the Mk103 might have had a lower rate of fire, but it fired in a very tense trajectory so it was easy to aim, unlike the Mk108.

It has exactly the SAME effect and penetration stats then Mk108, which strongers my belief that the whole weapon rating in the game should be given a serious second-look ([;)]). The Mk103 was positively much heavier hitting than the Mk108. Heck with the proper AP ammunition it was used to knock out tanks! [;)]

It is used as the 109K6 main weaponry. Really dunno about this one, my knowledge of the 109K series fades completely after the K4, but I'd say that, IIRC; the K6 used a Mk108 motorcanone.While it's true that there was a smaller, lighter, faster firing (but at a lower MV) version of the MK103 (MK103M?) in the works so it could be used in motor engine instalations of the 109 series, I think they never went past the prototipe stage. As far as I can recall the only motorcanone installations using the Mk103 (the standard one), were seen in the Do335 and Ta152 series.

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 [:)]

There are many points of view to see this: the american one, the german one, or the impartial one (if there has ever been something as an impartial view of anything). While you're 100% right on this comment, I'd have to add that it was terribly difficult for a bomber gunner crew to hit anything in-flight, if it wasn't closing in slowly up their six. It's true that attacking a formation of bombers meant showing yourself before a lot of enemy gunners, but most of them wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn if given the chance in their conditions (freezing cold, highly stressed and in a life-threatening situation).

However you're right: german sources will mention only 100% lost aircraft. Salvageable or repairable planes were not counted. However in this game a destroyed fighter remains destroyed no matter what. In 2nd Schweinfurt, almost 80 B-17s were killed, most of them by unmodified Fw190As and 109Gs in exchange of 38 german single engined fighters (and a big part of them were killed by spitfires and P-47s in the initial stages of the raid).

In BTR...well, I can only give -my- limited experience on the game as I'm just in turn 8 of my first 1943 campaign. But with what my eyes have seen so far , I'd say that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY to reach those numbers (nor anything resembling that) using single engined fighters. In fact I've -totally- given up the idea of attacking american bombers with the 109Gs; there is no faster way to kill your own men in the game that giving them the order to attack a B17 box; they'll struggle to get -anything- in return and will get mauled by defensive fire. And that, you'll agree with me, was not what really happened historically.

I'll put it this way: Many 109s were shot by B17s, but many B17s were shot down by 109s too. And not all of them (by far) were R6s. If you were given the chance to be in an unescorted B-17 box over the skies of Germany, or be one of the pilots in a 109G6 Gruppe, which one would you choose?. If that scenario happened in real life I'd choose the 109, without a doubt. In the game I'd pray, beg, bite, and puch for a passenger ticket in a bomber. I think that says it all.


All in all I stand on what I said; for me the weapon stats in the game ,as they are now, should be visited and given a thorough revision. I'm not advocating for changes as I know nothing of the inner workings of the system, however seeing the effect/penetration/accuracy rates, one can't help but wonder what's happening when a Mk108 "hit" is given less than twice the effect of a 12.7mm "hit", or that a 20mm Minengeschoss "hit" is given only a 33% advantage over the .50 "hit".

I'd say that, either the .50 cal is overpowered, or the cannons (in general, the Hispanos I also think they are underpowered as it stands now, it's not an issue with a side or the other but with a kind of weapon compared with another) are underpowered. But that's an uneducated opinion because, as I said, I can't give nothing like an educated opinion as any developer, as Hard Sarge, can give. They've done a terrific job with this game, and if they tell me they're allright, I'll have to accept it. [:)]

[Hard Sarge]

LOL

one that statement about the 103, is about a crock, the speed of the shell had nothing to do with the damage it did, unless it was a AP round, a minen shell blew up on contact, doesn't matter what speed it was going at, and the damage remains the same

for damage and what not, don't forget, the 50 was using a API round

for the K6, remember that is more a designer plane, then a real one, a lot of times, the LW wanted to add in weapons that they wouldn't use once it reached the front line

in that area, the one I never understood, was the load out on the Z, 4 108s, and a 103, your aim point is totally shot, you aim to hit with the 103, the 108s will miss, and the other way around

I have been a flight simmer for ages, and been a Alpha/Beta testers on a few, I know those sites inside and out, and the basic arugement they use is, don't worry about what happened in real life, I can prove it didn't happen based on these values, which I have made up

that is why, most flight sims and air combat games, the 30 cal can not shoot down a fighter, let alone a bomber, but, the RAF did it, the IJA did it

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

LOL

one that statement about the 103, is about a crock, the speed of the shell had nothing to do with the damage it did, unless it was a AP round, a minen shell blew up on contact, doesn't matter what speed it was going at, and the damage remains the same

I'll have to disagree on this one, up to a point.

Yes, compared with the chemical damage inflicted by a 30mm round, kinetic damage would be a small portion. But is a more significant portion in the Mk103 projectile than in the Mk108 one. It makes a difference. And it was a difference well noticed by the germans, they indeed saw a higher destructive power in the Mk103 compared with the Mk108. thus their insistence in trying to fit one into single engined fighters.

Also, the minengeschoss did not blow up on impact. Depending on the type they had a timed fuze or a hydrodinamic-activated fuze that went off when/if the round entered into a liquid (those were designed to blow a whole plane if it ever touched a fuel tank). In both cases a higher muzzle velocity was desirable (the more speed, the more the shell penetrates before going off. And with a possible change from air to liquid, even more)

for damage and what not, don't forget, the 50 was using a API round

Well, the germans used incenciary ammunition for the 20mm MG151/20. IIRC it was part of the "standard belt" to have incendiary rounds between others. But the minengeschoss proved more reliable at the hour of infliciting fatal damage to an enemy, specially to bombers.


In any case, API rounds weren't miracle shells. And for sure I'd rather be hit by a 12.7mm API round than a 20mm minengeschoss one.

for the K6, remember that is more a designer plane, then a real one, a lot of times, the LW wanted to add in weapons that they wouldn't use once it reached the front line

I think there were some that reached the front lines, none with the MK103. In any case, well, if it's a designers plane, of course some creativity freedom is always welcome [;)]

in that area, the one I never understood, was the load out on the Z, 4 108s, and a 103, your aim point is totally shot, you aim to hit with the 103, the 108s will miss, and the other way around

Well, contrary to the point you brought the first, the germans were impressed with the effect a Mk103 hit had on enemy aircraft. So much that they did really bang their head against the proverbial wall trying to mount one in a motorkanone position, when the Mk108 was a perfectly viable, effective (and excellent) option.

Ïn any case I wouldn't mind having that weaponry if attacking a bomber stream. To have different projectile trajectories creates a more or less shotgun-kind of effect. That's terrible for MG planes which rely on concentration of fire to inflict fatal damage, but it was never an issue when only three to six hits of your weapons are enough to doom a four engined plane down. Spreading up your fire when the individual hits can (and usually) are catastrophic is never a bad decision from my point of view.

Just look at the soviet practice post-war, up to the MiG19 design time: MiG15 and MiG17s had very different calibers and projectile trajectories, but was never a serious issue for them. A single 23 or 37mm hit would doom any enemy fighter it would hit (and badly maul any bomber), so...

I have been a flight simmer for ages, and been a Alpha/Beta testers on a few, I know those sites inside and out, and the basic arugement they use is, don't worry about what happened in real life, I can prove it didn't happen based on these values, which I have made up

that is why, most flight sims and air combat games, the 30 cal can not shoot down a fighter, let alone a bomber, but, the RAF did it, the IJA did it

ahh so we belong to the same club [:D]. I vividly recall my first flight sim...if you can call that an amstrad CPC game with a little art, green flat ground and flat blue sky .

Yah, I know what you mean. Certain air sims require to empty a 1000 round belt into an enemy and even sometimes that is not enough. The 7.7mm was an effective weapon. But again, I think it's TOO much effective in the game.

MG 303 Browning stats in game: Effect 2, penetration 1 accuracy 26
MG 17 MG stats in game: the same.

Given that a 20mm cannon has an effect of 4, four 20mm cannons will give you a net firepower of 16.
Given that a Hurri I has eight .303s, it will also give you a net firepower of 16. Yeah, less penetration, but added effect is the same in the game.

When the Hurri I has the same firepower as a Hurri 2C...really, Hard Sarge, do you think those numbers make too much sense?. A hurricane I having almost as much firepower as a Hurricane 2C?...

for me it's clear it doesn't add up, but oh well, what do I know...

[Hard Sarge]

and again, you don't know how the code uses the numbers, or what effect combat, or damage

and, since my programmer tells me, I can't mess with the numbers, I can't mess with the numbers

I also think you are missing the/a point when it comes to the numbers, look at the AA numbers, I really dislike having the 50mm in the air, it is too weak, but it has to stay in line with what the other guns of the same Cal type are

now it is funny, you say, the weapons are too weak and you will not be able to do this or that, but others are going to complain the game is too bloody, the Allies don't stay a chance, too many bombers get shot down

damned if you do and damned if you don't

and for the 30mm yes, I have seen the reports and most will say 3-5, 3-8 rounds will bring down a bomber, but they also stat, 3 prefect hits, will bring down a bomber, that part gets overlooked

also, how many pilots fire off there whole ammo load and never got a single hit ?

which is the idea of the Sturmblok, the planes are heavily armored and they come in wingtip to wingtip, and try to fly right into the tail of the bomber, only firing at the last moment (easier to hit from 6 then from anywhere else)

only hassle, how many of the Sturmblok pilots lived to tell there tale

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

and again, you don't know how the code uses the numbers, or what effect combat, or damage

Agreed, that's something I've stated several times. I don't know about the inner workings of the game, nor about how those numbers are treated . I even stated that if you say it's right, then it must be. So much attention to detail everywhere means there can be only the same attention to detail in what regards to weapons.

Is just that I'm having trouble understanding the figures, nothing else. But I guess that the only chance to fully understand it is you explaining the whole process of how the weapons work, and my best guess is that it isn't going to happen (quite understandable, otoh, heheh [:D])

and, since my programmer tells me, I can't mess with the numbers, I can't mess with the numbers

then...FIRE THEM!

(J/K [:D])

I also think you are missing the/a point when it comes to the numbers, look at the AA numbers, I really dislike having the 50mm in the air, it is too weak, but it has to stay in line with what the other guns of the same Cal type are

hmmm don't really undestand this part?.

now it is funny, you say, the weapons are too weak and you will not be able to do this or that, but others are going to complain the game is too bloody, the Allies don't stay a chance, too many bombers get shot down

damned if you do and damned if you don't

but this time I understand it perfectly. Yeah, I know what kind of hell balancing means . But as I already stated, if you say the weapons are OK, then I have nothing to say against it...you're the developer here, after all, I'm just someone ranting about those numbers! [:)]

One minor acclaration though. No, I don't say weapons are too weak. I say the MGs are (in my uneducated opinion) too powerful compared with cannons of 20mm and higher...and, well, yes, that the 30mm seems to have too little an effect. But ,taken overall, my point would be that in the MG vs cannon comparison, the cannon seems to be the weaker weapon. And that is not what history teached us: .50 cals were good enough in the pacific vs rice paper planes, but nothing more than acceptable in Europe. And in Korea a six .50 cal battery (concentrated in the nose, not spread on the wings and with convergence issues) was thought as thoroughly unnaceptable.

The US armed forces (both the navy and army) were actively looking for a possible replacement of the .50 cal weapons for 20mm weapons from early 1944 onwards, and the only reason they didn't do it is because the war was being won with what there was on place, and because the logistic problems of changing the main weaponry of aircraft. But overall, the trend was, even in the USA, to look for heavier cannons to replace MGs. Later in Korea they regretted not having taken the step much before...

And my problem is that in-game I don't see the .50 cal to be that weaker compared with the 20mm. History told us that 20mm guns were quite a bit more powerful than .50 cals. And 30mm rounds were exponentially more powerful than .50s. I don't see translated into the game numbers shown to the user, nothing more (but nothing less [:)]).

and for the 30mm yes, I have seen the reports and most will say 3-5, 3-8 rounds will bring down a bomber, but they also stat, 3 prefect hits, will bring down a bomber, that part gets overlooked

don't really know about that one. I've seen RAF tests showing a Blenheim (I think) aft fuselage bassically torned out up to structural failure: the result of a ground test of a 30mm MK108 round going off inside. I won't say a hit in the aft part of the fuselage is "a perfect hit" (that would be on the wing, engine, or cockpit), but had that plane been flying it would've broken in two.

There's also that test of a german 30mm going off in a spitfire wing. The hole thus created almost ripped the wing off: the hole had a diameter of 75% of the wing chord. That hit in an aloft plane was a 100% kill.

With that kind of destructive power, I think that the 3-6 hits on a B-17 were general hits, not hits placed at a vital. A 30mm minengeschoss with Elektron fuze (the hydrostatic one) going off within a fuel tank would kill a B-17 in just one hit. That is, for me a perfect hit.

I'd have to give another look at the german sources to be sure at the exact quote, though. However, top off my head, the 3-6 hits were "general hits", not "Critical hits". Same with the 20mm minengeschoss (25-30 meant a bomber down, according to those tests).

also, how many pilots fire off there whole ammo load and never got a single hit ?

The part about the pilots not hitting...well, should be taken care of with accuracy numbers and pilot experience. Cannons have a much lower accuracy than MGs (and rightly so).

I'm not arguing about the gun accuracy values, just the effect values.


Said that, I insist, I'm just giving my -private- own views. That doesn't mean I'm trying to imply that I'm right and you're wrong. Quite the contrary probably is all the other way around, as you know the inner workings of the game much better than what I do.

However ,I'm one of those nerdy beings who try to understand why and how things happen (Even in a game), and really, the firepower values of the planes in the game are giving me a hard time [:D][:)]. But nothing else. I'm not putting your work at question, Hard Sarge, just trying to understand why the numbers are as they are and not like the more intuitivelly acceptable (at least for me) ones I posted in my OP.

Yeah, I also linked the weapons discussion to my blatantly unsuccesfull attacks on american B-17 boxes in game (which still are terribly unsuccesful, btw hehehe). But that can be because I'm doing something wrong with my tactics and nothing to do with the weapons themselfs. There I was just wondering if my (perceived) failure with buff interception with single engined fighters was related with my (perceived) view of the MGs as too powerful when compared with cannons. Nothing more, it was neven an argument, or at least never tried to present it as such [:)]


/edit.
found the pic I said. Blenheim fuselage after one single 30mm round hitting the aft fuselage. Live firing tests conducted by RAF:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg

From the same tests; spitfire aft fuselage after one single 30mm round
http://mccoy.nu/109/spitfire_vs_mk108_test.jpg

And finally, video clip of a Mk108 round hitting a spitfire wing. Round was fired from 100 yards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPWlYhfhLrI

I'll still have to check the german LW texts about the number of hits required for a stadistically certain B-17 kill, to find out if it spoke about hits on vital zones, or just general hits. But seeing that kind of damage, I have to say that I think that 6 of those monsters exploding in a B-17 would most probably shred it no matter where they hit.

[Hard Sarge]

you can show all the pictures you want, you can also show how many planes came back home

what is more deadly, a 30mm or a airplane ?

a 109 flew into the side of a B-17, all but cutting the plane in half, and the plane returned and landed, and was scrapped on the spot as unrepairable

one of the last missions of the war, the LW went to ram tactics, some of the planes that were hit, returned

one 30 cal can knock down a B-17, and you can hit one with 200-300 and it will return, it all depends on where it hits, or what it don't hit

[RAM]

Well, this seems to have reached the point of the circular debate [:D]

Yes, there were planes coming back with extreme damage. On both sides. One has only to recall Robert S. Johnson's "day not to die" history to remind that extremely wounded aircraft still **could** take you home. Johnson tried to count the holes on his plane, I don't know where did he stop, at 2 hundred, maybe 3, but there were still many to count (A Fw190 had emptied it's whole 7.92mm ammo supply on him when he almost couldn't maneouver at all). The plane had sustained 2 or 3 20mm hits, aswell. One could tell you that this shows that the light caliber MGs were useless for mid-late war. But as you ,very well btw, said, those weapons were dangerous up to war's end. You wouldn't extract conclussions from an extreme case where luck played a big factor to say that light MGs were worthless.

If you use that instance as an example of, say, the Jug's ability to take a pounding then in a game all Jugs should have a durability of hard rock and light MGs would have almost nil offensive power. But truth is, most of the planes which standed not just what Johnson's plane did, but much less, did fall off the sky. Johnson just got really, really, lucky that day. The Jug was a tough plane, that for sure, and that did save Johnson's life aswell. But in 9 out of 10 days suffering that kind of damage, his plane would've been shot down no matter it was a Jug, a Pony or any other single engined plane.


There are instances of B-17s returning home with extreme damage?. Indeed there were. Dozens of instances, not to say hundreds. Planes that on touchdown cracked in two, planes missing rudders, elevators, some wing surfaces, most of the fore of the aircraft, huge holes in the wing. Even I got to see the pic of a B-17 with an engine nacelle literally smashed away, wingtip on shambles, aileron gone, and the plane did make it home.

I don't recall if it was nowotny or other german ace who got two or three of his BMW801 engine's cylinders blown apart, and the plane made it home. Yet for each time that happened, a german pilot returning home with a blown cylinder, another 10 german pilots burned alive in their plane (the BMW didn't stand cylinder damage very well, because the injection system would keep spraying fuel on a red-hot running engine. Engine fires were the main danger if the BMW was hit)

Several P-47s hit top of trees when on straffing runs. Some of them made it home (to provide some extremely impressing pics of wing damage). Most of them did bite the dust (I think Hub Zemke was captured that way).

There are pictures of B-17s that survived long enough to bring their crew home after a direct 88mm hit. Yet, those were very rare instances. It did happen? hell yeah. But you can't base your opinions in such extremely lucky events. 99 times out of 100, a direct 88mm hit would destroy your plane. That's the fact.


We can't take exceptions as instances of the norm, Hard Sarge. Yeah, some B-17s came back home after suffering a ramming attack. The vast, impressing majority of them crews who were aboard a rammed bomber didn't even got to see another day , however. Which would you take as "the norm" to extract conclussions from?.

Bombers hit by several 30mm shells usually fell down of the sky. Did some of them get lucky and return home?. Of course, there were. But most of them who got repeatedly hit by the feared Luftwaffe's pneumatic drill (I'm sure you have spoken to WW2 bomber crews...they did know the weapon, they knew when they were fired by ut because of the special sound it made, and they were scared as hell about that gun. Much more than when they were shot with other weapons. Or so I've been told, at least) went right down.

Even the luftwaffe number against bombers is an average. The text didnt' say that six 30mm impacts guaranteed a bomber kill. It was the ESTIMATED number of hits that ON AVERAGE would bring a bomber down. Translated: quite some bombers returned home with more than 6 impacts...but also, quite some bombers went down with just a couple of hits. The average was that. And to be honest, I've read a lot about WWII air warfare, but I don't recall a single account of a single engined plane (fighter or not) returning home after an exploding 30mm hit on it. There might be some, but I've seen no instances of something like that. I've read about some fighters returning home with a non- or partially-exploded 30mm hit, but those were rare (the 30mm minengeschoss fusing was quite reliable). But, and that is for real, the average 30mm hits required to bring a fighter down was indeed one. Doesn't look like that in game.

In game a G10 has a firepower of 11. I hope you understand the reason behind me resisting to believe that a plane able to bring a heavy bomber down with an average of six hits of its main gun has a lower firepower than, say, the Spitfire Mk.I, Hard Sarge. In the game a weapon set that had troubles to bring twin engined planes down has a higher firepower rating than another weapon set that was extremelly dangerous for four engined bombers.
I'd say more: in the game the spitfire "b" marks (2x20mm cannons, 4x303 MGs) have a firepower of 16. Exactly the same as the firepower of the hurricane I and Spitfire I. The RAF really worked around the clock to put those guns aboard their fighters (and the pilots were delighted by their new cannons and their ability to destroy enemies fast)...and all that to get a similar firepower?. Every account says the same: the cannon hurricane and spitfires were a -VAST- (not average or modest, vast) improvement in what regards to firepower compared with early marks. However in the game the B-wing spits, the four cannon hurricanes and the early marks of both share exactly the same firepower number.

I'll have no other option than to believe the inner mechanics make those cyphers work right, because you defend your turf really hard, as if everything was right, so it must be right. Still, you'll understand that for the user, who sees those numbers on the screen the whole thing seems really hard to understand.

And summing out the answer to what you said...yeah, extremely damaged planes returned home. But, truth is, for each of those instances of a returning plane, a lot more with similar, or much lower damage levels, did never make it home. Those crews/pilots got their lucky day and returned home. The vast majority never had the chance to even tell their tale later.


so ,as I said, it seems we're reached the point where the discussion gets circular, we are debating a lot of things (and boy it's fun) but not really getting to the heart of the debate. In any case I see your opinion is that the weapon attributes are right on. You're the one who really knows, so I'll accept that view no matter how hard to believe I find it

[Hard Sarge]

ahhhhh

Hub was in a mustang, and his plane broke up in a storm

I think I see where your having trouble with this

a weapon with a effect of 5, is not weaker then 3 weapons with a effect of 2, the data page would show the one with a 5 and the other with a 6, and the pen is importent also

each weapon is part of the attack, not what the data page value states, so two planes may say they have a gun value of 16, but they do not do the same damage

[RAM]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
a weapon with a effect of 5, is not weaker then 3 weapons with a effect of 2, the data page would show the one with a 5 and the other with a 6, and the pen is importent also

each weapon is part of the attack, not what the data page value states, so two planes may say they have a gun value of 16, but they do not do the same damage

This ends the whole debate for me [8D]. If the firepower and effect numbers shown in the weapon database are not linear (thus as you said, 2 .50 cals not neccesarily making more damage than a single 30mm), then I have no further objection about the cannon vs MG comparison anymore.

Thanks a lot for the input, Hard Sarge. It's been a quite long thread but I think well worth it in the end. My apologies if I didn't give a clearer and better idea on why I had a hard time understanding the in-game weapon attributes before, the thread would've been much shorter and required less of your time to solve my doubts. My fault [:)]

[Nemo121]

Would it be possible to set up a conclusive test of this using outliers?
 
E.g. There are a few Italian fighters with 2 x 12.7mm MGs and a firepower of 4 IIRC and the Me-262 with 50mm cannon ALSO has a firepower of 4.
 
If we can mock up a series of attacks on a bomber box using 100 of the Italian fighters and then re-run with 100 Me-262s with 50mm cannon we ought to be able to, pretty conclusively, show that the firepower rating isn't the be all and end all of the model ( I'm sure it isn't but it is always nice to test these things ).

[Hard Sarge]

but that won't tell you much

too many other factors are going to needed

those It planes are not going to have the speed or the range of the 262

plus, there are more attacks going on, that you do not see, only the ones that bring up a result are shown

(IE, you could 20 30mm's on a Cr 42 and it is not going to do anything)

[turska]

Holy Bible of the ww2 aircraft weaponry: Flying Guns: World War II by Anthony G. Williams.
And Tony's forum where pretty much all guns are discussed in detail: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/