HE vs AP damage

[JaffaCake]

Several people keep expressing the opinion that AP is more effective than HE rounds. 

 

I recall that the devs mentioned looking into this and finding no abnormalities.

 

Could we start a separate dedicated discussion to collect the evidence or necessary documents to support this case?

 

I imagine besides in-game video evidence we would need some historical data on the HE vs AP damage.

 

If devs are reading this it would be great to understand a little bit more on the simulation mechanics of HE and what the devs expect from HE shells? Could they possibly explain why AP damage would appear to be more effective?

[Asgar]

I'm just gonna leave that here so people know what we're talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjHXVWPe8Gs

[JaffaCake]

I'm just gonna leave that here so people know what we're talking about

----

 

 

I was going to tell myself not to comment about Russian vs German AP effectiveness. But dammit I will because that tail and wing severage by the russian 37mm is incredible.

Edited February 22, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Finkeren]

Pure "feelings" here: I personally find, that AP is appropriately devastating against engines, but possibly too effective against aircraft structure.

 

HE feels very much like hit-and-miss, sometimes a single hit is devastating, and sometimes several hits will result in nothing but superficial damage and a fuel leak.

 

I will never subscribe to the idea, that you can show, that the DM is "wrong" with a video of some aircraft surviving a lot of hits. IMHO odd things like that should happen once in a while. We don't ever want to get to a point, where a certain number of hits guarantee a kill.

 

Just yesterday I flew the first mission of the Ivan's War scripted campaign (SP no netcode or latency issues), intercepting a He 111 (one of the planes never gets accused of being "too tough") I emptied my Yak-1's entire ammo supply (ShKAS included) into the Heinkel hitting with a very large percentage of both cannon and MG rounds, and my flight leader scored a good number of hits as well. The He 111 looked like Swiss cheese and leaked all kinds of fluids, but flew happily along and never crashed during the rest of the mission. As frustrating as that was, I'm glad that this kind of stuff can happen occasionally.

 

If we are to examine these claims properly, it cannot be done through videoes of single events, but rather by calculating averages based on large numbers of rigorous tests. I hope someone can come up with a suitsble protocol for doing these tests.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Finkeren

[Scojo]

I was going to tell myself not to comment about Russian vs German AP effectiveness. But dammit I will because that tail and wing severage by the russian 37mm is incredible.

Are you making some kind of point here or just giving a reaction?

 

Pure "feelings" here: I personally find, that AP is appropriately devastating against engines, but possibly too effective against aircraft structure.

 

HE feels very much like hit-and-miss, sometimes a single hit is devastating, and sometimes several hits will result in nothing but superficial damage and a fuel leak.

 

I will never subscribe to the idea, that you can show, that the DM is "wrong" with a video of some aircraft surviving a lot of hits. IMHO odd things like that should happen once in a while. We don't ever want to get to a point, where a certain number of hits guarantee a kill.

 

Just yesterday I flew the first mission of the Ivan's War scripted campaign (SP no netcode or latency issues), intercepting a He 111 (one of the planes never gets accused of being "too tough") I emptied my Yak-1's entire ammo supply (ShKAS included) into the Heinkel hitting with a very large percentage of both cannon and MG rounds, and my flight leader scored a good number of hits as well. The He 111 looked like Swiss cheese and leaked all kinds of fluids, but flew happily along and never crashed during the rest of the mission. As frustrating as that was, I'm glad that this kind of stuff can happen occasionally.

 

If we are to examine these claims properly, it cannot be done through videoes of single events, but rather by calculating averages based on large numbers of rigorous tests. I hope someone can come up with a suitsble protocol for doing these tests.

Well said, Finkeren

 

If the devs have looked into or are going to look into it, then I'm satisfied. That's all I wanted out of the discussion.

[Gunsmith86]

I dont have the time to translate this but maybe someone here can do it. Basically it gives us a short overview what sort of ammunition worked and what did not work well and why was this so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gunsmith86]

Pure "feelings" here: I personally find, that AP is appropriately devastating against engines, but possibly too effective against aircraft structure.

 

 

Thats not just a feeling its doubtless the case. Most AP rounds that have a small explosiv filler are devastating if they hit something that is hard enough to trigger the detonator for the explosive the skin of the airplane is not enough to do this only massive aircraft structure ( engine, armour, wing spar, ...)  can do this in all other cases the round flys through your plane and does little more than leave a hole that is somewhat bigger than the calibre of the gun.

 

[Scojo]

Thats not just a feeling its doubtless the case. Most AP rounds that have a small explosiv filler are devastating if they hit something that is hard enough to trigger the detonator for the explosive the skin of the airplane is not enough to do this only massive aircraft structure ( engine, armour, wing spar, ...)  can do this in all other cases the round flys through your plane and does little more than leave a hole that is somewhat bigger than the calibre of the gun.

 

109damage-1.jpg

But if that's the case in real life, then why are all the puffs from the rounds behind and outside the skin of the aircraft in the sim?

Edited February 22, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Semir]

I'll add this here from http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/588465-Damage-From-50cal-20mm-30mm-The-French-or-Hogs-Forums

.50 cal damage

#

 

20mm 151/20 damage

 

MK108 (30mm HE) vs Blenheim

 

MK108 (30mm HE) vs spitfire

 

 

 

 

I do not know the difference in HE filler between BK 3.7 and MK108.

[-SF-Disarray]

But if that's the case in real life, then why are all the puffs from the rounds behind and outside the skin of the aircraft in the sim?

 

Those are the HE shells detonating on or shortly after impact I should think. I've read that German HE shells were fused to work this way, I haven't looked into Soviet munitions to be honest. But if this is the case, that these shells are fused to detonate when they strike another plane it makes sense that the HE shells aren't doing much in the way of catastrophic damage. The explosive force is mostly wasted on the air around the plane and relatively little is effecting the plant itself. Logically for substantial damage to be caused by a round detonating on the surface of the plane it would have to blow up near something close to the surface of the plane, say the engine or the fuel tank or maybe a magazine. At the end of the day a 20mm round isn't all that big so you can't pack that much high explosive material into it. A 37mm round can pack a substantial amount of boom into it but it still may not be enough to cause serious harm from the surface.

 

The AP rounds on the other hand are going to get inside of the plane, regardless of where they hit they are going to expose internal bits of the plane to harm. If the round hits a wing, for example, there is a chance it will sever or severely damage the wing spar or spars as the case may be. This will cause a spectacular failure in the wing. If the round enters for the aft section of the plan it may travel all the way up the length of it and smash into the engine block, effectively putting a stop to it's function.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

1 thing the video shows well...

How broken PE2 damage model is i mean WOW.. 3 x 37mm hits 2 to wingroot and 1 to tail..

Come on if that was he-111 first shot would have blow the wing off
Even tho its a much larger and much stronger better built plane than the PE2

[Dakpilot]

Even tho its a much larger and much stronger better built plane than the PE2

 

Where do you get the info that the 1934 design He-111 is stronger and better built than the Pe-2?

 

It is certainly bigger, I will give you that, but the Pe-2 was quite a modern design when introduced in 1941, also designed with dive bombing stresses in mind

 

airframe weight comparison when size is taken into account do not suggest the Pe-2 being particularly lightweight/weak, but then I am not a structural engineer 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Wing mount design
Material thickness
plane size of course
also historical accounts of he-111's returning with soo many holes all over.

sorry i was not making a scientific claim
just going by what it appears to be..

Best test would be a custom mission and some friendly fire needed
Have PE-2 and he-111 fly side by side (gunners off)
Then have a 37mm fired At each same 50m range and relative spot (eg, wing roots or main fuselage just forward of tail)


Also i just found out what i was told about pe-2 wings skinned in wood is 100% Wrong..
Lol sorry

[Dakpilot]

sorry i was not making a scientific claim

just going by what it appear to be

 

 

Fair enough, but when you make a statement that

 

"He-111 is... much stronger better built plane than the PE2"

 

it is suggesting a historical fact rather than what you 'perceive' from observations of in game

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Scojo]

A quick video search gave me this

And this

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The 111 quite definetly isn't as structurally Strong as a Pe-2. Ju-88 and Pe-2 would be a better comparison. 

 

And  these two are tough as nails ingame. Never had a Wing Failure in my 88. 

[Asgar]

i think you forgot the time we were flying P-40 and suprised a group of 88s. we blew off the wings of a couple of them with nothing but .50cals

[Scojo]

Those are the HE shells detonating on or shortly after impact I should think. I've read that German HE shells were fused to work this way, I haven't looked into Soviet munitions to be honest. But if this is the case, that these shells are fused to detonate when they strike another plane it makes sense that the HE shells aren't doing much in the way of catastrophic damage. The explosive force is mostly wasted on the air around the plane and relatively little is effecting the plant itself. Logically for substantial damage to be caused by a round detonating on the surface of the plane it would have to blow up near something close to the surface of the plane, say the engine or the fuel tank or maybe a magazine. At the end of the day a 20mm round isn't all that big so you can't pack that much high explosive material into it. A 37mm round can pack a substantial amount of boom into it but it still may not be enough to cause serious harm from the surface.

 

The AP rounds on the other hand are going to get inside of the plane, regardless of where they hit they are going to expose internal bits of the plane to harm. If the round hits a wing, for example, there is a chance it will sever or severely damage the wing spar or spars as the case may be. This will cause a spectacular failure in the wing. If the round enters for the aft section of the plan it may travel all the way up the length of it and smash into the engine block, effectively putting a stop to it's function.

You missed my point. Gunsmith showed that HE rounds would enter through aircraft skin and then detonate inside when hitting the structure/armor/engine. In the video, the puffs make it appear that the rounds are not entering the aircraft skin before detonation, but rather exploding on contact with the skin

 

1 thing the video shows well...

 

How broken PE2 damage model is i mean WOW.. 3 x 37mm hits 2 to wingroot and 1 to tail..

 

Come on if that was he-111 first shot would have blow the wing off

Even tho its a much larger and much stronger better built plane than the PE2

Ehhh I don't understand why you guys insist on comparing the He-111 and the Pe-2. Please compare the Pe-2 to the Bf-110. On a 110, I rarely have the structure fail. It's usually the engines or the pilot that explodes/dies first(exact same case on the Pe-2), so as far as absorbing hits, when I have armor plating on, the absorbtion is comparable. The engines difference I expect because the 110 engines seem much less robust than the Pe-2 engines. I can run the Pe-2 engines at full power practically indefinitely

Edited February 23, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[Asgar]

The engines difference I expect because the 110 engines seem much less robust than the Pe-2 engines. I can run the Pe-2 engines at full power practically indefinitely

 

 

also, the most common cause for dead Bf 110 is that a wing falls off

Edited February 23, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Gunsmith86]

 

 

The AP rounds on the other hand are going to get inside of the plane, regardless of where they hit they are going to expose internal bits of the plane to harm. If the round hits a wing, for example, there is a chance it will sever or severely damage the wing spar or spars as the case may be. This will cause a spectacular failure in the wing. If the round enters for the aft section of the plan it may travel all the way up the length of it and smash into the engine block, effectively putting a stop to it's function.

 

Exactly the opposite is the case while the AP round will go inside the plane its even more likely that it will go through the plane without hitting anything to trigger its very small explosive charge. This is because aircraft are build to be light so they can fly faster and higher. This is a problem for the AP round which is designed as a projectile that has to go through as much steel as possible. If we shot at a aircraft we have very view objects in it that are thick enough to set the explosive off. In the wing for example we have only the main spar that is important enough to cause a failure of the structure and we have to hit it even if we miss it just by one cm we will not do any damage than punch a 40mm hole into the wing nothing is opend up its just a hole. If you want to shot down aircraft quickly than AP only is not doing a good job in real live. Thats the reason most nations started useing API ammo this has the downside that we have to sacrifice some of the penetration of the projectile to get enough space inside the projectile that we can fill whit incendiary material. The API rounds have the advantage that they can also set fuel tanks on fire which does increase the area on the airplane which we can do damage to. But it still does not open the inside of the airplane for other rounds that follow

 

HE rounds can do just that and they have a nummber of advantages against airplanes and badly armored targets.

1) they explode eighter on the way inside the airplane or right inside if they have some delay like german Mine shells have.

2) They dont lose energie whit distance because they don´t depend on kinetic energy there destructive power depents only on the explosive in them

3) the fuse to detonate them is sensitive enough to be triggerd by the skin of the airplane this they do not fly through the airplane whitout exploding.

4) They open a large are of the surface and cause a lot damage to the internal structure even if you don´t score a direct hit on a spar or something other imprortant.

[Scojo]

also, the most common cause for dead Bf 110 is that a wing falls off

 

My experiences in the 110 since one of the patches back in December is different.

 

Also, if I'm so wrong about the Pe-2 engines please inform me why instead of providing a useless picture.

 

The Pe-2 at 100 throttle 100 RPM does similar speeds to the 110 at settings that will blow the engine after a time. Also when the Pe-2 gets engine damage, you can run it at higher settings longer than the 110

[Retnek]

Partly we compare apples and squashes

 

Ju-88 ca 13,000 kg with 54.7 m2 wing-area
He-111 ca. 13,000 kg with 87.60 m²

 

The metaphorically spoken "dense packed", structurally enhanced Ju-88 versus the much larger He-111 composed of weaker elements. The Ju-88 was build much stronger, a plane ready for acrobatics. But strong, stiff elements don't have that much the ability to evade under stress, they tend to break if damaged. The loads and the dynamics for the Ju-88 were much higher. If there was a hit, the Ju-88 had a higher chance some critical element was near that hit. The loss of some planking soon had a large impact on the aerodynamics.

The He-111 had a lot more "non-critical" structure, the soft elements were able to spread and absorb some blast stress. Dozens of small calibre gun or AA-splinter holes, losing a few square-meters planking, the He-111 was able to digest that kind of damage very well.

I don't know how detailed the damage model in Il2-BoX is calculating blast stress, structural weakening by small calibre holes, overstressed elements, heat etc pp - I think it had to be simple because there is not much CPU-time left for this kind of calculations. And not much developers time to establish a academic, multi-factor damage system. There might be some rough assumptions within the actual damage system, hopefully the developers find some time to check and re-balance if needed.

 

 

The Pe-2 is a far relative to the Ju-88, a class of it's own, useful to compare with the 110:

 

Bf-110 G2 ca 7,500 kg with 38.8 m²

Pe-2 ca 8,000 kg with 40.5 m²

 

Is the 110 that strong under 37-mm-fire, too? If one looks for a "typical horizontal bomber" in that class, there is the

 

Do-17 ca. 8000 kg with 55 m²

[Blutaar]

I never know that 20mm AP rounds do have a small explosive charge, thx for that info.

 

I thought of it like a slug, it just punches holes, so are all AP rounds with some explosives or just some?

 

How about the low caliber MGs or are they to small and there is only place for some HE filler in larger calibers, i mean 7.62mm is not much but what about 12,7mm?

[Gunsmith86]

1) so are all AP rounds with some explosives or just some?

2) How about the low caliber MGs or are they to small and there is only place for some HE filler in larger calibers, i mean 7.62mm is not much but what about 12,7mm?

 

 

1) Just some AP rounds have explosives too.

 

2cm AP+HE (MG FF/M and MG 151/20)

3cm MK 101 and MK 103

 

 

 

2cm AP

15mm AP

15mm APCR

 

 

 

Projectiles 3cm and larger have sometime AP+HE+Incendiary inside

 

 

3cm AP+Incendiary

 

 

2) 7,62mm - 15mm ammo mostly has eighter AP only or AP+Incendiary , AP+Tracer for more they have no place inside.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Gunsmith86

[Blutaar]

Thank you, i really like this kind of information.

 

So a german AP round needs to penetrate 5-10mm armor, depends on the caliber, before the fuse can go off.

 

I read here that Mineshells also need to penetrate a thin layer of whatever to then explode inside, how does that function, the fuse must be really sensitive, but i assume its not dangerous to handle these rounds on a busy airfield.

 

What i also read is that modern 20+mm are armed after leaving the barrel because of the rotation of the projectile, something with centrifugal forces, is that true for these munitions?

 

Of course i could google it but i think you like sharing knowledge so maybe you can answer easily and i learn something.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Ishtaru

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I don't think AP with HE filling would do that much damage, I think their filling is very low, when you compare it with the full filling HE rounds.

 

A good example in game is the German 37mm AP. Since that round is capable of penetrating a KV-1's side (75mm) there is no doubt that this round is a HVAP or APCR: a soft metal cover containing a smaller tungsten carbide penetrator, lighter than a normal full caliber AP round (that's why it manages a higher velocity) concentrating the impact force in the smaller penetrator (achieving high penetration), no explosive power. Unless directly striking a critical structure like a wing spar, the pilot or the engine, it should leave a 37mm hole in the plane and not much more (maybe less if it's only the smaller penetrator going through).

 

 

 

And we can see in the video the damage it can cause compared to the 37mm HE. In the HE belt there should be 2 regular HE rounds (26g of explosives), 1 Mine shell which has a bit more explosive filling than the famous 30mm MK 108 (90g vs ~75-85g, which Semir just above have posted pictures of the damage it causes to airframes), and one HE-I round (which I don't know how much explosives it had). In Asgar's video we can see him hitting several times the Pe-2 with the HE shells, and some of those are consecutive hits so at least some 37mm Mine should have gone in there, and the damage overall doesn't correspond to the pictures of the comparable 30mm Mine shell.

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[-SF-Disarray]

I've been doing some looking into things, trying to wrap my head around this subject. I think we need some clarification on this subject before we can make any claims. I looked into the ammo used in WW2, specifically in the MG151/20 as that is one of the more common guns for the Germans in so far as I can see in the planes in the game; it was also the gun I could find the most info on the ammo for. In game we can see that there are HE rounds and AP rounds, but there are 4 rounds that can be accuratly described as AP rounds but they will have different effect on target. 2 are AP incendiary rounds one using a white phosphorous agent and another using something called Elektron. The other two are are a simple AP slug with a tracer and the other is an APHE shell. So which one is used in game? Are all of them used? There are 2 HE shells as well, one with an Elektron incendiary charge and the other is just HE.

 

From what I can see the HE charge in the 20 mm APHE round probably wouldn't cause much damage, it is only 4 g. Granted the charge should be going off inside the plane if it dose detonate so it will do more there than it would from outside. But even if it hits something that doesn't set off the HE charge it is going to put a 20 mm hole in it, maybe a little bigger. I'm not an expert in aircraft design but, I think it is a safe assumption that if you put a 20 mm hole in a structural member that member will fail. On top of that I don't know that we can say with any certainty that the 20 mm AP round fired by the German guns are even using the APHE round.

 

The same appears to be true for the ShVAK 20 mm cannon; lots of ammo types, 4 HE types and 4 AP types with 2 practice rounds.

 

Without knowing what kind of ammo is being shot it is hard to know what kind of damage to expect, I think. Long story short, do we know precisely which ammo we are using?

[Gunsmith86]

 

I read here that Mineshells also need to penetrate a thin layer of whatever to then explode inside, how does that function, the fuse must be really sensitive, but i assume its not dangerous to handle these rounds on a busy airfield.

 

What i also read is that modern 20+mm are armed after leaving the barrel because of the rotation of the projectile, something with centrifugal forces, is that true for these munitions?

 

 

transport save = it does not explode if you drop it while handling it on transport

loading save = it does not explode when being chambered into the gun

bore save = it cant explode as long as it has not left the barrel and has some distance to your aircraft (5m-10m)

 

2cm Mine shell fuse:

 

one more:

 

and another one:

 

2cm AP-HE:

 

and one more with tracer

[von-Luck]

some interesting information on this gentlemen's website.

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/miltech.htm

[Blutaar]

Very interesting, i thought this kind of safety mechanism was some newer stuff, read about it for modern autocannons like the one on the apache and gattling guns.

 

After reading a bit i learned why a chain gun and a gattling are not the same categorie and that there are another categorie, the revolver cannon, sounds a bit like gattling but without multiple barrels.

 

Thank you again for sharing.

[curiousGamblerr]

 

 

also, the most common cause for dead Bf 110 is that a wing falls off

 

They addressed this a few patches ago and it is no longer the case. 

[Asgar]

really? i was flying yesterday and 2 times out of 3 i died because my wing fell off after a couple of hits

[Scojo]

really? i was flying yesterday and 2 times out of 3 i died because my wing fell off after a couple of hits

I personally feel they fixed it. Before the patch I remember having to sideline my PWCG Bf-110 Campaign because AAA would always rip off my wing. Now it only seems to happen when someone gets a really good MG/Cannon burst into my wing, especially if the wing root is hit well

[Gambit21]

I want to address something here, and that's the .50 cal damage vs cannon damage posted above.

As far as I'm aware, there wasn't an aircraft equipped with a single .50 cal. That damage is best described as "near miss"

Also a remark I saw somewhere about "cannons are better, period" or something to that effect.

 

If we're just talking "here's one one shell will do" then fine, but that's not really relevant to how things actually happened with regard to the .50's

 

What matters is not only what guns the aircraft has, but how it's equipped with said guns.

That photo above of the Spit vs Mk108...well that aircraft would look no better on the receiving end of the 8 .50 cals of a Jug converging on it.

Further the escort pilots escorting the B-17's often found themselves going head on with the cannon equipped German attackers.

Should you happen to find yourself being hit by that single, slow Mk108 round it would not be a good day for you...however being one of the German

attackers you're far more likely to find yourself intersecting the flight path of the 6 or 8. 50. cals massed against you, and eating far more than one round to boot.

 

It's a question of massive but less likely (hit) damage vs almost or equally as massive damage and the hit being far more likely.

The .50's were the right weapon on the platforms it was employed.

 

I've actually asked Jug/Mustang pilots (352nd, including Don Bryan, Bob Powell, James Wood and Alden Rigby) about this, going head to head against the Mk 108. To a last they shrug it off and insist they had the advantage with the 8 or even 6 .50's in those encounters.

 

This book has some interesting first hand accounts of what those .50's can do. 

https://www.amazon.com/Untold-American-Savaged-Hitlers-Wehrmacht/dp/0760338256

[Gambit21]

An analogy would be illustrating damage from a 12 gauge by showing a person that got lucky and caught one piece of buckshot on the outskirts of the pattern.

Possible, but far from the more likely result of taking a hit from said weapon.

[-SF-Disarray]

The MiG came from the factory with one .50 gun and one .30 gun. It would still probably hit fairly hard, even with that armament. In any event the MGs in game seem to pack a satisfying punch, even the little 7 mm guns. You have to be a little more exact with the aiming, or just shoot a bunch rounds, but you can take down planes with them just fine.

 

I would still tend to agree that a cannon is better though. Yes, MGs fire faster and the law of large numbers comes into effect, but round for round a cannon is better if you put them in the right spot.

[Gambit21]

Quite so, but the entire point of my post is that it's not a "round for round" equation - it's a "trigger squeeze for trigger squeeze" equation.

My point isn't that one is better than the other, but rather late war planes at least with .50's were properly armed.

The same true for cannons.

[von-Luck]

the 50's were adequate for what America was fighting however they could have been easily swapped for either a mix of cannon and 50 or pure cannon.  50 cal HMG's are heavy for what they accomplish and a cannon is more efficient.  

For a more in depth argument as such I would suggest checking out this link which has a good comparison of MG, HMG, and Cannon in aircraft.   

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

 

 

von Luck

[Gambit21]

I enjoy flying AC with cannons a bit more - always loved that MK 108 in the old sim. The horribly modeled .50 cals helped that along.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

you cannot compare the engines in BF110 to PE2 (in terms of time @ max power and overheating rates.)

They are entirely different designs