reported Incorrect Belt Composition for P51 and P47

[Cass]

Hi, 

 

Not sure where to put this as it's an issue for the P51 and the P47. Please feel free to move or let me know where to post. 

 

I found what is a super quick fix that should finally put the nail in the ".50s aren't effective enough" coffin. 

 

The belt compositions we currently have as options don't appear to be correct for the US aircraft. By the time of the P51s introduction at the end of 1943, the USAAF had switched to full API and Incendiary load-outs.

 

According to the lua, the Combat Mix belt is Ball, AP, AP, API, APIT. This belt had been phased out in 1943 in favour of an API and Incendiary mixture. Ball had been phased out during 1942 so certainly shouldn't be used in any of the belts other than a training belt maybe. 

 

 

Quote

"Early in 1942, the standard belting sequence for the U.S. Army Air Corps was 3 Armor Piercing M2 + 2 Incendiaries M1 + 1 Tracer M1. From early 1943 on, the belting sequence was standardized with that for ground use with 2 Armor Piercing M2 + 2 Incendiaries M1 + 1 Tracer M1. At the end of 1943, in an attempt to fight against more heavily armored German planes, the belting sequence was modified to incorporate Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 while still keeping some Incendiary M1, which was better suited against fuel tanks. Belting sequence was then 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Incendiary M1 + 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Tracer M1. Early in 1944, for the feeding of the numerous Brownings onboard heavy bombers, the proportion of Incendiary M1 was increased with 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Incendiary M1 + 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Incendiary M1 + 1 Tracer M10. In July 1944, a specific belting sequence was adopted for ground strafing with 4 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 tracer M21."

Source: http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2210
https://history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-10/CMH_Pub_10-10.pdf

 

 

 

(Gabreski's silver tip API only loudout)

 

As we don't have a pure incendiary round modeled a more correct standard belt for the P51 and P47 modeled in game would be API, API, API, API, APIT

 

With the CS No Tracers belt being a pure API loud-out - API, API, API, API, API

 

There also appears to be a slight error in the Left wing outboard Air to Ground belt as it contains 1 round of ball instead of AP (all other guns are AP and APIT). Otherwise this is a spot on AG belt. 

 

I took the liberty of modifying the lua to the correct values. Not sure whether you would want to create new belts, or update the current ones. 

 

Quote

-- Guns
        Guns = {
            -- Left wing outboard M2
            BrowningM2({
                muzzle_pos = {-0.045, -0.410, -2.427},
                effect_arg_number = 436,
                mixes = {
                    --[[ CM ]]  {3, 4, 3, 3, 3},
                    --[[ AG ]]  {2, 4, 2, 2, 2},
                    --[[ CS ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                },
                count = 270,
                barrel_circular_error = 0.0,
                rates = {798},
                azimuth_initial = -0.341,
                elevation_initial = 0.257,
                supply_position = {-0.724, -0.180, -3.000},
                ejector_pos = {-1.055, -0.120, -0.013},
            }),

            -- Left wing middle M2
            BrowningM2({
                muzzle_pos = {-0.035, -0.428, -2.231},
                effect_arg_number = 435,
                mixes = {
                    --[[ CM ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 4},
                    --[[ AG ]]  {2, 2, 2, 2, 4},
                    --[[ CS ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                },
                count = 270,
                barrel_circular_error = 0.0,
                rates = {800},
                azimuth_initial = -0.286,
                elevation_initial = 0.458,
                supply_position = {-0.724, -0.180, -3.000},
                ejector_pos = {-1.055, -0.122, -0.009},
            }),

            -- Left wing inner M2
            BrowningM2({
                muzzle_pos = {-0.028, -0.447, -2.032},
                effect_arg_number = 434,
                mixes = {
                    --[[ CM ]]  {4, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                    --[[ AG ]]  {4, 2, 2, 2, 2},
                    --[[ CS ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                },
                count = 500,
                barrel_circular_error = 0.0,
                rates = {803},
                azimuth_initial = -0.379,
                elevation_initial = 0.364,
                supply_position = {-0.724, -0.180, -3.000},
                ejector_pos = {-1.055, -0.123, -0.008},
            }),

            -- Right wing inner M2
            BrowningM2({
                muzzle_pos = {-0.028, -0.447, 2.032},
                effect_arg_number = 433,
                mixes = {
                    --[[ CM ]]  {3, 3, 3, 4, 3},
                    --[[ AG ]]  {2, 2, 2, 4, 2},
                    --[[ CS ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                },
                count = 500,
                barrel_circular_error = 0.0,
                rates = {797},
                azimuth_initial = 0.379,
                elevation_initial = 0.364,
                supply_position = {-0.724, -0.180, 3.000},
                ejector_pos = {-1.055, -0.123, 0.008},
            }),

            -- Right wing middle M2
            BrowningM2({
                muzzle_pos = {-0.035, -0.428, 2.231},
                effect_arg_number = 432,
                mixes = {
                    --[[ CM ]]  {3, 3, 4, 3, 3},
                    --[[ AG ]]  {2, 2, 4, 2, 2},
                    --[[ CS ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                },
                count = 270,
                barrel_circular_error = 0.0,
                rates = {801},
                azimuth_initial = 0.286,
                elevation_initial = 0.458,
                supply_position = {-0.724, -0.180, 3.000},
                ejector_pos = {-1.055, -0.122, 0.009},
            }),

            -- Right wing outboard M2
            BrowningM2({
                muzzle_pos = {-0.045, -0.41, 2.427},
                effect_arg_number = 350,
                mixes = {
                    --[[ CM ]]  {3, 3, 3, 4, 3},
                    --[[ AG ]]  {2, 2, 2, 4, 2},
                    --[[ CS ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                },
                count = 270,
                barrel_circular_error = 0.0,
                rates = {804},
                azimuth_initial = 0.341,
                elevation_initial = 0.257,
                supply_position = {-0.724, -0.180, 3.000},
                ejector_pos = {-1.055, -0.120, 0.013},
            }),

 

 

I understand there are still plenty of complaints about the effectiveness of the .50 equipped planes and I believe the incorrect belts probably play a large part of this. Nineline is obviously dedicating a decent chunk of time to show what is happening under the hood in the new damage model (which has been awesome) to try and quell some of this but having tested it, these historically correct belts seem to be absolutely spot on. 

 

Some testing with a full API belt (please don't be mean about my gunnery):

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2021 by Cass
formatting

[_Spad_]

Wow, that looks like it makes a massive difference!

 

The difference between API and APIT is just the tracer component, right?

Edited June 23, 2021 by _Spad_

[Brigg]

22 minutes ago, _Spad_ said:

Wow, that looks like it makes a massive difference!

 

The difference between API and APIT is just the tracer component, right?

 

Correct

[NineLine]

Hey all, now that the Spit belts are done I will be looking into these as well. Thanks.

[Brigg]

 

5 hours ago, NineLine said:

Hey all, now that the Spit belts are done I will be looking into these as well. Thanks.

That's great news and thanks

[amazingme]

On 6/24/2021 at 7:14 PM, NineLine said:

Hey all, now that the Spit belts are done I will be looking into these as well. Thanks.

Can you please also check why the 30mm has been 'nerfed' after the last updates? Spitfire can eat them like candy.. Thanks!

[NineLine]

6 hours ago, amazingme said:

Can you please also check why the 30mm has been 'nerfed' after the last updates? Spitfire can eat them like candy.. Thanks!

Nothing has changed that I am aware of, please supply tracks in a proper bug report and I will take a look. Thanks

[Nirvi]

While at it, MP synchronisation of tracer rounds was marked as fixed with DCS 2.7.0.4625, but it still is an issue. Other clients can still see tracers, even when a loadout without tracers is used.

 

• MP. Client has gun's loadout without tracers but another client sees tracers - fixed.

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Nirvi

[JHAT]

On 6/27/2021 at 12:23 AM, amazingme said:

Can you please also check why the 30mm has been 'nerfed' after the last updates? Spitfire can eat them like candy.. Thanks!

Online only or offline too? Never had a problem offline. But online… like you say. Put a few rounds from dead low six, close range in a Spitty on SoW (I hit it, for sure) and it just turns and engages you. As if the hits or the damage hadn’t registered. I suspect it was some sort of net sync problem.

 

I unfortunately don‘t have the track anymore.

[xvii-Dietrich]

On 6/24/2021 at 7:14 PM, NineLine said:

Hey all, now that the Spit belts are done I will be looking into these as well. Thanks.

 

Have you had a look at this yet?

 

The original post seems to show exactly how to deal with the problem, and has carefully provided the historical references. It would be really good if this could be passed on to the team to get it implemented. Superficially, from the outside, it looks like this would be a moderately straight-forward thing to rectify, and it would be also relatively easy for a pair of beta-testers to check it in a coop mission, so it could be rolled out into the sim.

 

Thanks.

[Derbysieger]

+1

As this seems such a simple fix with good documentation and write-up I hope this can be fixed sooner than later.

[Cool-Hand]

+1 as well, would love to see this

[Giskvoosk]

Bump

Although on the receiving end it never occurred to me .50s are even slightly underpowered, i'd love to see a historically accurate loadout

[Magic Zach]

This would be a great help, historically and ingame if this were to happen.  +1.  The fix itself is very quick, very easy.  Just needs to be done officially within ED, since modified LUAs aren't allowed past the IC.
Also, seems obvious but don't forget the P-47 as well.

[Walshtimothy]

+1 another hopefully very easy fix for the ww2 team to resolve... also tracers ... no tracer shows no tracer for client only but on mp server other players see tracers  

[_Spad_]

@NineLine any updates on this as yet?

[Snapage]

Didn't know we had API modelled in DCS. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Snapage

[NineLine]

Hey guys so I reviewed these sources and more, and this is what I have so far:

 

Spoiler

1)    -- [1] = Cartridge, caliber .50, ball, M2
2)    -- [2] = Cartridge, caliber .50, armor piercing, M2
3)    -- [3] = Cartridge, caliber .50, armor-piercing incendiary, M8
4)    -- [4] = Cartridge, caliber .50, armor-piercing incendiary tracer, M20

        ammo_type = {
            _("APIT44 1944 M8x4/M20x1"),
            _("API44 1944 M8 No Tracer"),
            _("APT43 1943 M2x4/M20x1"),
            _("AP43 1943 M2No Tracer"),
        },

Outer L: 
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 4},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 2, 2, 4},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Middle L:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 3, 4, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 2, 4, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Inner L:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 4, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 4, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },

Inner R:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 4, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 4, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Middle R:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 4, 3, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 4, 2, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Outer R:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {4, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {4, 2, 2, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },

 

What I would like to also do is have the M1 Incendiary and M1 Tracer added for even more options, but I think these would be fine to start with. 

Let me know your thoughts before I submit these for approval. Note I am trying to format more like the Spitfire rounds I did as I find it more descriptive. 

 

Thanks!

[Cass]

These look spot on @NineLine. Super easy to understand. 

 

Great work!

[Magic Zach]

9 hours ago, NineLine said:

Hey guys so I reviewed these sources and more, and this is what I have so far:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

1)    -- [1] = Cartridge, caliber .50, ball, M2
2)    -- [2] = Cartridge, caliber .50, armor piercing, M2
3)    -- [3] = Cartridge, caliber .50, armor-piercing incendiary, M8
4)    -- [4] = Cartridge, caliber .50, armor-piercing incendiary tracer, M20

        ammo_type = {
            _("APIT44 1944 M8x4/M20x1"),
            _("API44 1944 M8 No Tracer"),
            _("APT43 1943 M2x4/M20x1"),
            _("AP43 1943 M2No Tracer"),
        },

Outer L: 
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 3, 3, 4},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 2, 2, 4},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Middle L:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 3, 4, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 2, 4, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Inner L:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 4, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 4, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },

Inner R:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 3, 4, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 2, 4, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Middle R:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {3, 4, 3, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {2, 4, 2, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },
Outer R:
                    --[[ APIT44 ]]  {4, 3, 3, 3, 3},
                    --[[ API44 ]]  {3},
                    --[[ APT43 ]]  {4, 2, 2, 2, 2},
                    --[[ AP43 ]]  {2},
                },

 

What I would like to also do is have the M1 Incendiary and M1 Tracer added for even more options, but I think these would be fine to start with. 

Let me know your thoughts before I submit these for approval. Note I am trying to format more like the Spitfire rounds I did as I find it more descriptive. 

 

Thanks!

Looks good to me!  Ooooh

Hopefully this also comes along with the fix(take 2) to tracerless appearance across clients on MP

It's gonna get toasty

 

Ik it seems obvious but make sure this applies to the 47 as well!

[Brigg]

Yeah that looks good dude @NineLine Can't wait to use the new belts in the Jug. Thanks

[Marduk879]

@NineLine

Hi i would like to bring your attention to this document - "THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING MUNITIONS FOR WAR" by Conslance McLaughlin, Green Harry C. Thomson and Peler C. Roots

 

At page 430 paragraph "The Problem of Effective Striking Power" is interesting to our problem of USAF ammo belts during WW2.

 

Mainly this part is very interesting:

Quote

The M8, when manufactured in relatively small quantities, proved more efficient than either armor-piercing or standard incendiary rounds, but, when manufactured by mass production methods with the types of powder then available, retention of its high velocity became impossible. Inasmuch as armor-piercing-incendiary with less velocity lost most of its penetrating and its incendiary properties, the Ordnance Department recommended that until something better could be perfected the M1 incendiary continue to be used for general air combat and straight armorpiercing for ground strafing.

 

According to information from this the correct belt compoisiton should be as follows:

General air combat belt:

AP/AP/I/I/T

 

Alternatively there can be belt with tracers only at the end which signaled the pilot that he is out of ammo. This was known modification.

If you decide to include the M8 round in the belts anyway it should neither achieve the penetration power of the M2 AP round nor the incendiary power of M1 round.

 

Ground strafing:

AP/AP/AP/AP/T

 

Next part of the same paragraph describes the development of the API rounds which became available close to the end of war in 1945:

M20

Quote

The something better than either standard incendiaries or the M10 tracer emerged in the spring of 1944 in the T28 armor-piercingincendiary tracer standardized in March 1945 as the M20. Air Forces theatre commanders were authorized to request such quantities as they saw fit.

 

M23

Quote

Meanwhile, in the winter of 1943-44, increasing German employment of jetpropelled aircraft burning kerosene created the need for .50-caliber ammunition capable of igniting aviation kerosene. Half a dozen different Ordnance plants worked on the problem. The Des Moines Ordnance Plant produced the most satisfactory model, a 500-grain bullet containing 90 grains of an incendiary mixture composed of 50 percent magnesium aluminum alloy, 40 percent barium nitrate and 10 percent potassium perchlorate. A singlebase powder was used that was found to be superior to double-base powder for firing extended bursts. Quantities of the Des Moines cartridge, listed as the T48, were shipped to the theatres in the winter of 1944-45 and proved so effective that in May 1945 the T48 bullet was standardized as the .50-caliber M23 and the round as incendiary cartridge M23. A report of June 1945 from Headquarters, U.S. Strategic Air Forces in Europe, was enthusiastic: "Most pilots stated that aircraft burst into flames more readily when hit with this type ammunition in contrast to armorpiercing- incendiary ammunition. Many enemy aircraft burned after having been hit only two or three times. . . . One pilot destroyed 10 aircraft on a single mission by firing short bursts." 31 This testimony notwithstanding, design of incendiary and armor-piercing-incendiary ammunition remained at the end of the war a problem requiring much additional study.

This can further open possibility for belts filled with the newly available API ammunition - M20 and M23 if the scenario is late 1945 or the scenario maker allows it.

 

Link to the complete document below as its total size exceeds the maximum size of attachment here on forums:

https://history.army.mil/html/books/010/10-9/CMH_Pub_10-9.pdf

 

The whole "CHAPTER XV Aircraft Armament: Weapons for Air-to-Air Combat" is worth a study and may contain more information relevant to this topic.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Marduk879

[Magic Zach]

@Marduk879This section of the book is pertaining to Anti-Aircraft Command.  It also implies that due to demands the Air Forces and anti-aircraft had differing belts, priority being given to the Air Forces, so immediately it becomes hard to take any belts from here at least and try to apply them to aircraft.  I also don't see anywhere in your quoted section (or nearby around it when I looked at the doc) that explicitly says any belt loadouts anyways, except once...

Quote

Tests during 1943 proving it satis- factory, the new armor-piercing-incendiary cartridge was adopted under the designation M8.  Thereafter the Ground Forces used a linkage of four M8 cartridges to one tracer.

 

What the book is helpful for particularly though seems to be the developments of each round.  The M20 (T28) didn't even see action until July of 1944.

 

The loadout you list is more akin to 1943 belts. http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2210

Quote

At the beginning of the war, standard belting sequence for ground use was 4 Armor-Piercing (AP) M2 + 1 Tracer (TR) M1. In early 1943, another belting sequence was adopted with 2 Armor-Piercing (AP) M2 + 2 Incendiary (INC) M1 + 1 Tracer (TR) M1. At the end 1943, with the introduction of the Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) M8, the belting sequence became 4 Armor-Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Tracer M1. Finally, from mid-1945 until present day, the standard ground use belting sequence is 4 Armor Piercing Incendiary M8 + 1 Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer M20.

Perhaps if anything, the M20 in Nineline's selection ought to be omitted, and an M1 tracer be included in its place.  But also, this is just Nineline doing this.  We only have four .50 cal round types within DCS, and the M1 tracer isn't one of them.  If you crack open another Lua, you see there is quite a lot (most of it uncommented, at no help to us or I suspect Nineline, unless he says otherwise) of values and calculating behind each round type.  Within DCS, each round type even has different speeds and trajectories, just so subtle (however, included) that you may not notice in combat.  Doesn't help that only one of them even has a tracer element.

For now, with the rounds we have within DCS, the M20 is probably the best solution.  And either way, including an M1 tracer would only be relevant to the time of the initial months of the invasion for a blip before the M20 largely replaced it.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Magic Zach

[NineLine]

7 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

Perhaps if anything, the M20 in Nineline's selection ought to be omitted, and an M1 tracer be included in its place.

This is why I mention I would like to request a few rounds be added. Both the M1 Tracer and M1 incendiary are not in DCS right now, so for a reasonably realistic 43 belt I replaced it with the M20. If I had both M1 I and M1 T I could make a proper 43 belt and a proper belt inbetween the two we have. Although at the end of the day, I think most will want to go with the 44 belt.

 

9 hours ago, Marduk879 said:

Hi i would like to bring your attention to this document

Thanks I will chew on this tonight and tomorrow and see if I can see anything to change what I have right now.

[Marduk879]

On 8/3/2021 at 6:12 PM, Magic Zach said:

@Marduk879This section of the book is pertaining to Anti-Aircraft Command.  It also implies that due to demands the Air Forces and anti-aircraft had differing belts, priority being given to the Air Forces, so immediately it becomes hard to take any belts from here at least and try to apply them to aircraft.  I also don't see anywhere in your quoted section (or nearby around it when I looked at the doc) that explicitly says any belt loadouts anyways, except once...

 

What the book is helpful for particularly though seems to be the developments of each round.  The M20 (T28) didn't even see action until July of 1944.

 

The loadout you list is more akin to 1943 belts. http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2210

Perhaps if anything, the M20 in Nineline's selection ought to be omitted, and an M1 tracer be included in its place.  But also, this is just Nineline doing this.  We only have four .50 cal round types within DCS, and the M1 tracer isn't one of them.  If you crack open another Lua, you see there is quite a lot (most of it uncommented, at no help to us or I suspect Nineline, unless he says otherwise) of values and calculating behind each round type.  Within DCS, each round type even has different speeds and trajectories, just so subtle (however, included) that you may not notice in combat.  Doesn't help that only one of them even has a tracer element.

For now, with the rounds we have within DCS, the M20 is probably the best solution.  And either way, including an M1 tracer would only be relevant to the time of the initial months of the invasion for a blip before the M20 largely replaced it.

 

@Magic Zach i dont understand how you came to a conclusion a section named "weapons for air-to-air combat" has something to do with something called "Anti-aircraft command" which both in US and GB came into existence AFTER the war (1950 for US). Please elaborate

 

This document is about US Ordnance Department during World War 2 and includes everything from infantry rifles to bombs. This department was responsible for supplying the whole US army and all its parts, be it ground force or air force, with weapons,munition and all other ordnance needed.

 

You are right in that the document does not specify the belt compositions.

The ordnance department recommendation can be simplified down to "Dont use the M8 round. Use the AP and Incendiary rounds as you did before in whatever belt configuration for general air to air combat and use AP for ground strafing until we find solution."

 

22 hours ago, NineLine said:

This is why I mention I would like to request a few rounds be added. Both the M1 Tracer and M1 incendiary are not in DCS right now, so for a reasonably realistic 43 belt I replaced it with the M20. If I had both M1 I and M1 T I could make a proper 43 belt and a proper belt inbetween the two we have. Although at the end of the day, I think most will want to go with the 44 belt.

 

Thanks I will chew on this tonight and tomorrow and see if I can see anything to change what I have right now.

Thanks for your reaction. If you decide to keep the M8 round in the belts take into account the ordnance department report on it about its decreased penetration and incendiarsy effects.

This should be somehow reflected in DCS.