It is currently Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:36 pm

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:22 pm
Posts: 103
Ok.. really tired of this. I put 10 hits on a lancaster with 37mm from a p39. He didn't start shedding parts until I hit him with 50 cals.
THen his 4x303 blew me up. The other day, i hit a zeke with 3x37mm and watched it fly away with no damage. I know these were cannon hits because that's all I was shooting. NO MG. Just the cannon. Boom boom boom boom- BULLSHIT!
What the hell happened to the 37mm in the p39? Has it been deballed completely? It was specifically designed to kill bombers. In WB, it has trouble killing time.
Is there a problem with the way hits are recorded and transmitted to the aircraft being hit? Or did somebody just decide that the 37mm was too good and knocked it back? Either way...
Something is VERY wrong, and it needs fixing.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:48 pm
Posts: 532
Yep I can say bullshit. Nothing has been changed with the 37mm cannon.

What has changed is lag, wifi, routers, etc. with the net. Have you made some amcams while you're seeing these problems? I have and you'll be surprised by what
you see when you watch the raw video. Yes it's that simple to see what the problem is.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:53 pm
Posts: 674
if I recall correctly several of the heavy cannon in the 40mm range that are classed as ground attack and have reduced effectiveness against airplanes
Hurri IID, IL2 and Stuka G for example. (to prevent dweebiness) Could be that the P39 falls into this category

Did you try the British version with 20 mike mike ?

_________________
VISIT OUR FACEBOOK PAGE HERE
https://en-gb.facebook.com/RAF-Duxford- ... 822661588/


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:54 am
Posts: 807
I've checked the damage values for the various cannons. Whether these values are accurate relative to each other, or not I don't know and it can always be good to discuss. First the blue box shows the damage per bullet caused for the various guns. For some reason the damage value for the 37 mm M4 cannon of the P-39D/Q is only 60% that of other 37 mm cannons, and it's lower than the 30 mm cannon of the Bf 109K-4. Why this is I do not know, and I have not done any research regarding the hitting power of various ww2 cannons. In the red box you can see the actual hitpoint values for the different plane parts of the average fighter in Warbirds (I've summed them all up and calculated the average number). The damage is transferable, so if you destroy the elevator, the remaining damage will go into the vertical stabilizer etc. I've also included the hitpoints for the A6M Zero that you encountered.


Image


Image


As we can see the A6M Zero, which was fairly large but had a light and fragile structure, has generally lower hitpoint values than the average fighter. For an average fighter you would often need two 37 mm cannon hits to the fuselage or wing to destroy the airplane, or one 37 mm hit and some machine gun bullets. The elevator and rudder are gone in a single 37 mm hit, but the vertical stabilizer would be intact unless also hit by a few machine gun bullets. For the A6M Zero both vator/rudder + corresponding stabilizer would be destroyed by a single 37 mm hit. Also the A6M's fuselage would be destroyed by a single 37 mm hit. It's wing can just barely survive a 37 mm hit, and will go poof by a few machinegun bullets extra.

When it comes to the P-39D/Q's 37 mm M4 cannon however you would often need three 37 mm M4 hits in the same part to down any fighter. If your hits are spread out among the plane parts then you could hit it with many M4 shells without causing any fatal damage. Again I don't know why the M4 is set at a lower damage value than the other 37 mm cannons. If you score two M4 cannon bullet hits in the right wing, two in the central fuselage, two in the rear fuselage and two in the right wing, then the enemy fighter will be very fragile and go down in a few more hits from machine guns, but would not have lost any integral part from those eight M4 cannons hits. The Zero would be somewhat easier to down but still follows the same principle.

Especially when spraying an enemy with machine gun hits, it makes a very big difference if you hit all those bullets in the same spot, which will cause the loss of that plane part, or if the hits are spread out over the enemy fighter's whole surface, at which point the various parts will have been weakened, but not yet any damage has been taken. Try to always see where your bullets are hitting home and try to aim your future bursts at the same parts that have been previously hit.


<S>
/Robert


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:10 pm
Posts: 197
Bollok has a point.....in early days tank buster aircraft were beingused against bombers with devasting results. the ammuniation cannot be modeled, only the weapon so certain tank busters were coded to not do as much damage to aircraft as they do tanks....just as tank guns used against airplanes have been ( or were 3 or 4 years ago) modeled to do not very much damage to airplanes.....the m4 gun on p-39 may be onthat list, and that one is debatable ...but its the likelist explanation....and its been to long for me to remember exctly if it is or isn't.
I know Finn has always had some gun issues that can only be explained by connection in the past, so not sure which it is in this case...


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:41 pm
Posts: 110
Speaking of ammo performances, do we know which types of ammo are being used by which aircraft? I remember some years ago Target and the then dev team were trying to get the HE rounds and/or the AP rounds to function in the game but seemed to be having trouble modeling them.. or something like that. I think they gave up and settled on just' ammo' but i'm not well versed on this subject and may have it wrong., But there were several types of rounds used in the warplanes such as incendiary and tracer rounds as well as the armor piercing and high explosive ones as well as the cannons.. But which is which and which are we using in game? Should it be pilots loadout choice? Sorry if I have this wrong but I do remember this being attempted back then and then shelved.. Curious minds want to know!

_________________
iMac 27"
3.4GHz Intel Core 7
16GB DDR3
Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 29048MB
OSX 10.13.6


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:48 pm
Posts: 532
When I looked up data on the 37mm M4; it was showing the M4 a rather low muzzle velocity and a low amount of ammo. The P-38 had the 37mm M4 in the first prototypes, but went to the 20mm for some reason besides ammo amount I would think. Then maybe not.

Now to find what rounds they used.


Pak,

If I remember right "cough"; they didn't succeed with the damage values being able to be adjusted properly to get the desired effects. They also played with the .50's back then which made the P-47 kill like it should. It seemed the consensus was these changes wouldn't make good game play.

Disclaimer: That was many years ago and my recollection could be off. ;)


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:10 pm
Posts: 197
No ammo files, just weapons files, you model the weapon, and 1 type of ammo for it...and its mainly MV, projectile weight modeled is all, a damage value can be adjusted but its points only applied to the point value of the target.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:48 pm
Posts: 532
http://p63kingcobra.com/m4_37mm_auto_cannon.html

Quote:
Ammunition

Ammunition was issued in the form of fixed rounds, consisting of H.E. shell, M54, with P.D. fuse, M56; practice shell, M55A1, with dummy fuse, M50; and A.P. shot, M80.

The rapid strides in aircraft protection made it necessary to develop an aircraft weapon that would fire projectiles with greater explosive and armor-piercing qualities than smaller caliber weapons. As a result, the 37 mm (1.46 in) automatic gun, M4, was developed and standardized for aircraft use.


The 37 mm gun (1.46 in), M4, used the same high-explosive (M54) and practice (M55A1) projectiles as the 37 mm (1.46 in) antiaircraft gun, M1A2, but different cartridge cases are necessary due to the larger chamber of the M4 gun.

However, the overall length of the armor-piercing projectiles, M51 and M74, which were used in the M3A1, M5A1 and M6 tank and antitank guns, was too great to permit their use in the M4 gun and the 37 mm (1.46 in) armor-piercing shot, M80, was developed and standardized.

M54 37mm Cannon Shell - High-explosive shell, 37 mm, M54 standard

This shell used the M56 point detonating fuse. The complete round weighs 1.99 lb (900 g); as fired, the projectile weighs 1.34 lb (608 g). The 0.16 lb (70 g) charge of M2 powder is a Hercules NG formula of single perforated grains with 0.030 in (0.76 mm) web and gives the projectile the prescribed muzzle velocity of 2,000 ft/s (610 m/s).

The M54 used a shell-destroying tracer in addition to the point-detonating fuze. The tracer had a burning time of three seconds at the end of which it set off an igniting relay charge of 1.68 gr (0.109 g) of Grade A-5 Army Black Powder which ignited a relay pellet that detonated the charge, destroying the shell before ground impact.

The bursting charge of tetryl weighed 0.10 lb (45 g), and the alternate Composition "A" charge weighs 0.105 lb (48 g). The tetryl loading consisted of a 200 gr (13 g) tetryl pellet pressed into the shell cavity under 9,000-10,000 psi (60-70 MPa) pressure and the remainder of the charge of two equal increments pressed under approximately 9,000 psi (60 MPa) pressure. The Composition "A" bursting charge is loaded in the same manner as the tetryl charge, except that the relay pellet with the Composition "A" weighs 36 gr (2.3 g) as against 23 gr (1.5 g) for the pellet used with the tetryl load.

Armor-piercing shot, 37 mm - M80 standard

The AP shot was a monoblock projectile with a tracer element of three seconds burning time. It did not need a fuse or bursting charge. The weight of the complete round was 2.31 lb (1.05 kg), the weight of the AP shot was 1.66 lb (750 g). The propelling charge was 0.15 lb (78 g) of M2 powder of a Hercules NG formula with a single-perforated grain and 0.030 in (0.76 mm) web.


Quote:
A. S. Was a 37mm cannon necessary? Wasn't this too large a caliber for a fighter? You had so few rounds of ammunition. And wasn't its rate of fire slow?

From an interview with a Soviet P-39 Pilot. - http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm - about 1/3 down page

N. G. One cannot say that the 37mm cannon was a disadvantage or an advantage. Look at it from this perspective. The M-6 [this is incorrect; it was M4] cannon had its strong and weak points. One had to take advantage of the strong points and compensate, as much as possible, for its weaknesses.

These were the weaknesses: 1. Low rate of fire. 8 rounds/second [this is incorrect; the correct rate is slightly over 2 rounds/second (130 rounds/minute) - J.G.] This is indeed a low rate of fire.

2. The ballistics of the projectile were abysmal. The flight trajectory of the projectile was arching, which required large lead angles. But again this was at long ranges, especially when firing at ground targets. When firing at ground targets we had to apply two rings of the sight for lead.

3. Minimal ammunition supply. Thirty rounds.

All these deficiencies could be compensated for by proper selection of firing range. If one fired from 70-50 meters, there was sufficient rate of fire, the ballistics at this range were acceptable, and the lead required was minimal. Thus, all the weaknesses of the 37mm cannon listed above revealed themselves only at long ranges.

Now regarding the strengths: 1. The projectile was very powerful. Normally, one strike on an enemy fighter and he was finished! In addition, we fired this cannon at other types of targets. Bombers, vessels at sea. The 37mm cannon was very effective against these targets.


It appears there should be 2 different rounds to choose as a load out as the other aircraft that have this option available. The complaints about the weapon is the loopy trajectory, slow firing and small ammo load. With it being a short muzzled, low muzzle velocity weapon this would seem a true description of the weapon.

FWIW


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:54 am
Posts: 807
Thank you Grumpy! You are a gold mine of information :-P.

Hmm, so if it required 1-2 hits to down an enemy fighter according to the Russian ww2 pilot, then maybe a damage value of 50, like all the other 37 mm cannons, would be more accurate. This since the M4 at 30 damage value currently requires 3 direct hits at the same integral part of the enemy plane to fully destroy it, and currently one will most probably need 6+ rounds hitting home since the hits will often be fairly spread out over a maneuvering enemy fighter.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: qweqwe and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited