Jump to content

=362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Members
  • Content Count

    840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

548 Excellent

About =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1327 profile views
  1. Theres not much out there but I've superimposed the table data on the prototype AO Smith blades (the one mounted on our P-47) with the 150 Octane test which was done on a P-47 that had the Curtis 836 series paddle prop Respective reports http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/P-47D_42-74616_Eng-47-1649-A.pdf Both aircraft weigh around 13,200 lb, but the 150 Octane P-47 had wing racks fitted, so they reduce top speed by a little. The Redline is for the P-47 with the AO smith prop at 52" hg as that was the only data available According to this the AO smith blade has better perfromance in level flight at high altitudes by up ~10mph, but the same as you go lower. The climbrate is the opposite, with the AO smith blade being better at Sea level by ~300ft/s and equalizing as you go higher.
  2. Pretty sure all flying warbirds run on 100LL or 145 Octane (if they are racers)
  3. From the P-47N manual, water consumption is listed as 1.9gal/min at 54.5 "Hg to 2.5 gal/min at 72 "Hg. I know its a different plane and engine variant, but ultimately the engine is really the same but beefed up to handle 2800 hp with no problem and a new turbocharger to achieve that at 30,000ft, the flow rates probably are the same.
  4. The German tanks are "front (sprocket) wheel drive", so when going forward, the top of the track is under tension as the sprocket is pulling it towards it.
  5. Its easy to be the best tank sim on the market when you are the only modern tank sim out there in development (I don't really consider Steel Beasts modern)
  6. Yes, all Shermans except 105mm Howitzer variants had a stabilizer, did Russian crewmen utilize then? Dunno 🤷‍♂️
  7. British examination of burned out tanks Of note is that the British did not use APHE shells, infact they removed the HE filler for every M61 APC-HE they recieved from the Americans, yet it clearly shows that the design of the tank is far more important then whether an AP round has an miniscule percentage of explosive filler or not. Pz IV is more likely to brew up being shot at by British Shermans firing AP rounds then Shermans beimg shot at by exclusively APHE rounds. Now in the Document CASUALTIES IN BURNING AND NOT BURNING TANKS shows us fatalities in burning tanks, and fatalities in non burning tanks 75mm AP has 16g of explosive, 88mm has 60g. 88mm has 3.75x more explosive mass and 2.5x more percentage mass of the total shell, yet in the case the tank is not set on fire, there is no difference in the casualty rates between 75mm APHE and 88mm APHE (12% vs 13%). There is a large difference in the case of the tank burning up, which can be surmised that the 88mm was more effective at causing ammunition to set on fire quickly in such a way that the crew cannot escape the tank, is this because its a larger APHE round, or because it is a larger round overall? I specified M318 which were the next generation of US shells that were AP shells with no cap and no HE filler. The performance of the T33 (prototype/low rate production predecessor) had a much better effectiveness when tested against the Panther, the M82 bouncing at point blank range, the T33 series being able to punch through out to 1000yds. This due to the heat treatment processs improving the hardness from initially 61 Rockwell C to 63.5 Rc in the T33E7. Another improvement is that for some reason, the penetrator of M61, M62, M82 has a rounded nose and not a point. This is counterproductive and the Germans and the British and later the Americans and Russians have the penetrator end in a point The WW2 era APHE (M61, M62, M82) had a much lower Rc of 56. Pzgr 39 for the 75mm had 61.5 Rc and for the 88mm had 59.5 Rockwell C of Soviet WW2 era shells tested in the US is 46 to 53 Rc, but only 1 shell of each caliber of 45 to 85mm was tested, and such could suggest a high variability. The post war Pzgr 39 copies were most certainly treated to have a higher nose hardness
  8. Encased explosives are less powerful because you have to break out of the case, i.e transfer kinetic energy to the case, i.e create fragments, so less energy is left to create a pressure wave APHE is not a grenade that goes boom inside a tank it is a small weight of explosives that is 0.5% of the weight of the shell. The energy is all to break it up, not create a wave front. The German stielhandgranate by comparison had 170g of explosives in a 600g package. Some Veterans also believe that 50cal bullets can dismember your arm just by passing close and that every tank they met was a Tiger. This StuG commander believes he could brew up T-34s with one shot nearly every time yet we have allied accounts of Germans tanks and anti tank guns continuing to shoot at abandoned tanks multiple times until it was in flames which in this case contradicts that APHE was excellent in brewing up a tank. Veterans aren't necessarily the best source when it comes to technicalities. The British did study effectiveness on AP vs APHE on their own, American and captured German shells and didn't see any major advantage of the miniscule % explosive filler seen in tank shells. The US evidently saw the same since their next generation of AP shell that started appearing in prototypes from 1945 (M318, M339 and M358) were all solid shot. The Soviets just copied the Germans (overlay cutaway drawings of BR412D, 471D, 367 to pzrgr 39 and they are pretty much exactly the same in scale). This isn't really surprising because, according to US examination of Soviet WW2 era AP, they were barking completely up the wrong tree with improper heat treatment etc.
  9. The pressure increase is quite irrelevant with such a small amount of explosive charge. The US performed multiple runs with 113 grams of pentolite in the middle of a M113 with 2 sheep inside each test within 1 meter away. In all 16 sheep exposed to the explosions, none were killed or had any major injuries, all had burst eardrums. A tank especially can't really be considered an confined space, when you are exploding ~60g of explosive that is encased in a steel shell, so no dangerous overpressure takes place. But we do know. US VII Corps which was part of the First US Army engaged in Cologne. Expenditures of First Army regarding ammunition is the following from 23rd Feb to 8th May 1945. StuG commander can say what he likes, he is probably wrong. Especially when he has nothing to compare to. He probably fired 000s of Pzgr 39, and maybe at best a handful of Pzgr 40, which doesn't have the same fragmentation effect as full bore AP. There are many things in a tank, that when hit can make it brew, in the case of the T-34, the Hull is lined with ammunition on the sides and on the floor, with floor ammo "protected" by sheet metal covers. That wont be stopping any fragments. Reality is that any advantages of APHE over AP are marginal in a shell that is appropriate to be fired from a tank, and a holdover from naval combat where APHE shells had A) much larger bursting charge,nearly 20 kg in Bismarcks 15 inch guns, vs 60g in the 88mm B) much higher mass percentage being explosive, in the case of the 15 inch guns, 2.25%, in the case of the 88mm Pzgr 39 0.55%, so that there is enough energy left to form a pressure front, rather then just have enough energy to break up the shell.
  10. It really wouldn't. Most of the energy in APHE is used to break up the metal shot. Also, the US 90mm would of most likely been firing M82 APCHE The Germans used AP shells with a bursting charge inside, I imagine that's probably a big part of the reason why Russian tanks blew up alot upon penetration. Germans, Russians and Americans primarily used a form of APHE shell. The German APHE shells would have an even smaller explosive effect inside since they were a much smaller percentage of the total shell weight. Again, most of the explosive energy was to break up the shot after it penetrated the tank for increased shrapnel cone, not act like a handgrenade. One of the big mistakes (or gameplay features depending how you see it) of War Blunder is that APHE acts like a nuke inside with the shell for some reason loosing all momentum and sending shrapnel 360 degrees in all directions when in reality all the shrapnell keeps the remaining velocity of the shell and is pushed outwards from the line of travel in a cone. The reason for fire vs explosion is propellent powders are different from bursting charge in HE shells. Propellent powders when hit tend to start an intense fire, explosive charges in HE shells tend to explode violently. From Destroyer Report: Gunfire, Bomb and Kamikaze Damage Including Losses in Action 17 October, 1941 to 15 August, 1945
  11. Thanks for the giveaway [=362nd_FS=] RoflSeal + BoN
  12. It's possible it is a 40mm Bofors. Germans captured hundreds of them during the war (Poland, BEF, Norway) and when the Germans captured the Kongsberg factory in Norway, the factory kept producing guns and repairing 40mm guns and ammunition for the Germans.
  13. The tactical characteristics chart shows very little difference between the bubble and razorback P-51s, though what is to note is the P-51D had new bomb racks that reduced speed by only 4mph instead of 12mph. The P-47s on the other hand show a much bigger difference in performance between bubble and razorback.
  14. 340mph on the deck at +18lbs boost makes it very fast. With 150 Octane, that goes to ~360mph. I guess one modification could be less powerful Merlin 23 that some early Mk VIs were fitted with. "Tsetse" version is also viable since it is basically the same airframe and engine, just with a 57mm 6 pdr fitted.
  15. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a 21 cm NbW 42, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your airplane apart, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"
×
×
  • Create New...