Jump to content
Barnacles

Thoughts on the aerodynamic penalty for .50" cal hits.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

One bullet hitting the pilot and is game over. What is the lethal range of a fiftie? 2000 m?

Really you think that anybody could hit with a .50"cal. the Bf-109 pilot from 2000 meters, driling the MW-50 tank, the self-sealing fuel tank (with his respective sandwich armor), and the seat armor plate?? ..from 2,000 meters?? ..are you kidding??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Really you think that anybody could hit with a .50"cal. the Bf-109 pilot from 2000 meters, driling the MW-50 tank, the self-sealing fuel tank (with his respective sandwich armor), and the seat armor plate?? ..from 2,000 meters?? ..are you kidding??

 

No, you didn´t understood what I answered.

What I said, is that the .50cal is lethal up to 2000m more or less. So at 600-800m it lethal enough to kill your pilot. Also that your plate will only protect from pure (or near pure) six oclock dead aproach. If there is some angle off to the side or the target banking  then the bullet can hit the cockpit directly without having to pass through all the structures.

So it is possible to be hit at those distances. Not easy and that is why is not that frequent although you will notice the times you have been killed that way and not the more numerous ones in which you weren´t.

Having said that, I also mentioned that, in my opinion, the sim planes are a bit too stable for that kind of gunnery and, in real life, I think that it was relatively much more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

His complaint, I think, is about the fact that the target plane loses no significant speed during these tests, and hence in a manoeuvring battle snap shots at the wings would not cripple the target, while those from cannons often do.  I agree with you, however, that it is not so obvious from any real world source how much, if any, speed they should lose. 

I get your point, but do we positively know if HE shells affected flight performance IRL as much as they do in-game?

For me the question is not so much if this or that DM is historically correct, but rather if the difference between this or that damage is justified and proportionate.

 

I have no doubts that .50cals are bloody effective in-game. Under ideal circumstances, I can down a G14 with 6 to 23 rounds, depending on luck and whatever, and E7s are much easier targets, 7 to 11 hits bring them down.

 

Here we must also factor in that .50cals are mainly wing-mounted. My personal stats show that I'm 3 times less effective with wing-mounted guns. I shoot more and I hit less, even from convergence. Again I ask if the difference in hit ratios is proportionate and justified historically.

 

These two problems merged together (huge differences between flight penalties and hit ratios) can easily lead to the perception that .50cals are off. I don't say they are off, I just say we have two culprits that might contribute to the perception of many that .50cals are off.

 

Edited by sniperton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@III/JG52_Otto_-I- Yeah and this chart is not representing ingame reality at all as ingame .50s are laser beams and irl, they had much greater dispersion which made conv settings ( as on chart) extremely effective as at 300 meters, they would cover extremely large area of plane so they would hit everything, wings, wing roots, tail, fuselage from angle.... Thats part of the problem, realistic convergence. DCS have it and its 10000000000times easier to hit 109s at range, in turns and in deflection shooting and hit vital parts as always few bullets from tens and hundreds of them would find the vital part as engine, MW50 tank, pilot or cooling system(next problem ingame where it was common knowledge that single penetration to cooling system meant few mins of flight time without going on full power, here you pen both radiators of 109, not only it keeps its maneuvering and speed capabilities with holes all around airframe but it will keep flying for around 5 mins at full power, with 2! 2! leaking rads). Combine it with terrible performace of aero damage of .50s. Which is simply wrong ingame as there were presented pics of it and in other thread, there was guy who pulled out info out of pilots reports from missions where they saw chunks of planes flying off after being hit with M8/M20 belts.  Combine it with missing core part of .50s = API M8, M20 and M23 + broken indestructible black hole tail of 109s and you have BB guns. Thats why we all complain all the time as nothing is being done about these. And what they've done instead? They have basically told us to **** ourself as they wont revisit that MAJOR problem rn. And they'll rather keep us with broken weapons where HE filler means nuke and AP means BB gun. They are leaving this major problem, when they want to introduce another P51 with even less guns but yeah. All is OK and germany had all best stuff in the war and 13s and 20s were nuke weapons that oneshotted everything(HE filler means nothing if its small - thats why even "never wrong, all best" germans switched to API belts for 13s).
They should take some inspiration from DCS and their handling of DMG model.... 

 

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@III/JG52_Otto_-I- we are  not talking about the 30 bro, i know personally that the 30 does damage.  BUT... with that being said, if you think there is an issue I would respect that and if you posted on it I would respect your opinion cause you may have had different experiences then me.  In this thread we are just trying to assess the best way to address the 50 issue.  I think it is obvious there is something not right and it very may well have something to do with the 109 damage model as well.  again meaning no disrespect bro, just hoping we can stay focused on the 50s as to not turn this into a spat that the devs wont look at\

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sniperton said:

I get your point, but do we positively know if HE shells affected flight performance IRL as much as they do in-game?

 

I think that there's no doubt that HE 20mm could cause a large amount of skin damage. I however think there's a difference between "could do" and "always do. There are many photographs of confirmed 20mm mine shell hits where the holes are far more modest, and certainly wouldn't cause the same speed loss that we see in game (eg the game says a wheel cover lost from the wheels of a k4 loses 30kmh, and that's a far bigger area than some of the more modest 20mm damage)

Ok, there's an uncertainty over the frequency of the more modest damage (survivor bias etc) but there's no uncertainty that it could happen.

 

Yes the 30mm damage on that spit is critical, but the USAAF test gave the PK of a 30mm mine shell on a p47 as roughly 50% so it is correct to say they didn't always cause such spectacular damage.

 

Also the HE charge in 131 for example is very small, and was more there for incendiary effect and hit indication rather than substantial skin damage.

 

This game seems to simulate the uppermost credible amount of speed loss IMO, for all sorts of HE,

 

And of course for 50 Cals the speed loss is always small.

 

There is no doubt it should be, a lot of the time, (pass through hits) but there is guncam of 50s removing whole panels from planes, even without ammo explosions or the like. So the question is the frequency, I think there's little doubt there should be some sort of possibility of occasionally a 50cal hit causing significant aero damage

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more confusing as even with all this testing in SP showing there is definitely something missing, I've just gone on CB and .50s seemed absolutely fine. 6 kills, all fairly quick without issue.

 

I have no idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2020 at 7:24 AM, Cass said:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html

 

Feel like it would be quite a challenge to find a report in there that corroborates that this is the damage output the .50 were capable of from dead astern. 

 

 

 

 

 

how can this still be goin  on ??? its been since april now ... multiple videos comments.  yet this is what we are left with^^^^^^^^????????????

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cass said:

It's more confusing as even with all this testing in SP showing there is definitely something missing, I've just gone on CB and .50s seemed absolutely fine. 6 kills, all fairly quick without issue.

 

I have no idea. 

I looked at your stats and seems that those kills were by PK or there were another plane hitting before you (in a couple a cases there were Tempest hitting the same plane before you).

If you connect with the pilot then the .5 cal works fine. For other type of kills it doesn't.

That's why stats on avg hit/kill can be skewed as I think, with the current iteration of dm, the most frequent type of kill is by pk (I think in disproportion with real life).

If you connect with the pilot then the avg hits can be as expected. But if you don't, then you see those ridiculous hugemoungous amount of hits to down a plane, the plane flying away or just turning around and killing you.l

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah that makes more sense then. @HR_Zunzun

 

Seems pk's are the thing that makes .50s effective despite the lack of damage elsewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, =FEW=Hauggy said:

Nice!

Can we get a rework of 50. cal ammunition / guns for the next one please? 😝

What's wrong with it?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 11/13/2020 at 11:10 PM, =DMD=Honza said:


They should take some inspiration from DCS and their handling of DMG model.... 

 


You mean just like DCS was extremely strongly extensively inspired by the Cod Dammage Model?

 

1 hour ago, Sybreed said:

What's wrong with it?


They can't kill dragons , let's not even talk about making them explode or piercing tigers from side to side killing all the crew at once and making the  whole tank column explode with 1sec salvo. And No, it's NOT the fault of a defective 109 DM, it's the fault of the .50being porked!

PS: 99.99% of airplanes (or other mechanical stuff ) do not explode when being hit, except in hollywood movies and propaganda guncams.
PS2:  Need some chips with my delicious Belgian beer...:popcorm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:



PS: 99.99% of airplanes (or other mechanical stuff ) do not explode when being hit, except in hollywood movies and propaganda guncams.
PS2:  Need some chips with my delicious Belgian beer...:popcorm:

Some 8th´s P-47 AF AAR differ´s from you. Around 11% of the 730 of reports I have read so far described the enemy plane exploding.

If instead of making a few trolling jokes you tried to be more constructive maybe we could advance in the discussion.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JV69badatflyski said:



PS: 99.99% of airplanes (or other mechanical stuff ) do not explode when being hit, except in hollywood movies and propaganda guncams.
 

 

Stuff under stress like high RPM or pressure usually fail spectacularly if being hit by hot pieces of hardened steel. 

 

What hollywood does is add gallons and gallons of fuel to go with that spectacular failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2020 at 7:45 AM, VA_chikinpickle said:

 

Typical 109 fight with a group of mustangs. We shot this 109 up with over 150 rounds of ammunition before he dies, and he survived a total of five gunnery passes. I checked the server log. The second and third passes he was hit with 30+ rounds each and fourth pass I put 91 rounds into it which finally damaged him enough to snap the wing off. 

 

The 109 pilot scored a kill with 8 rounds on target. So take from that what you will. 

All I see is spray’n’pray gunnery. Those mustangs were hitting completely useless parts of the 109. If you want to down it shoot precise bursts into engine or pilot, one pass kill guaranteed. .50 cals are the sniper rifles of IL2.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a fine theory you have there. Except that bursts in that video clip did hit the engine and the cockpit too for that matter. The canopy was shot off the plane at one point and it still took a significant amount of hits to bring the plane down; a plane that is no known for being robust in terms of damage absorption at that.

 

But the problems run deeper than that. The wings, where a lot of those rounds hit, are dense with things that would fail if struck by a round and impact the performance of the plane. Except that isn't happening. The enpanage has fragile things in there too but those don't seem to mind the bullets hitting that area either. And then there is the issue of basically zero aerodynamic penalty to hits. Rip and tear into the plane with AP rounds an it will fly on with no speed loss, no maneuverability loss, nothing.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -SF-Disarray said:

That is a fine theory you have there. Except that bursts in that video clip did hit the engine and the cockpit too for that matter. The canopy was shot off the plane at one point and it still took a significant amount of hits to bring the plane down; a plane that is no known for being robust in terms of damage absorption at that.

 

But the problems run deeper than that. The wings, where a lot of those rounds hit, are dense with things that would fail if struck by a round and impact the performance of the plane. Except that isn't happening. The enpanage has fragile things in there too but those don't seem to mind the bullets hitting that area either. And then there is the issue of basically zero aerodynamic penalty to hits. Rip and tear into the plane with AP rounds an it will fly on with no speed loss, no maneuverability loss, nothing.

To be fair though, in the case of this video, as far as the wings are concerned, there a handful of scattered hits, until towards the end there's a couple of devastating bursts which ultimately rip the wing off.

 

However, if the bullets had been mg131 he rounds, that plane wouldn't have been nearly as manoeuvrable. I've seen no evidence that the he component of those rounds is enough to justify a nearly x15 difference in speed loss, in game, that you see between comparing 131HE and 50 cal AP.

 

I lost control in a p47 because I got hit by 2x131s. I've been hit by way over 30 .50s in the wing and the plane flew fine.

 

One of those scenarios has to be 'wrong' surely?

Edited by Barnacles
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 11:44 PM, D3adCZE said:

All I see is spray’n’pray gunnery. Those mustangs were hitting completely useless parts of the 109. If you want to down it shoot precise bursts into engine or pilot, one pass kill guaranteed. .50 cals are the sniper rifles of IL2.

 

The wing I hit with over 90 rounds in one pass a useless part of the airplane. Sure, why not? Each of these passes were 30-40 hits according to server logs.

 

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? 

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how this topic originally was about how much the .50 cal affects speed by inducing drag, and now it‘s so off topic like the other thread that was locked almost months ago. Some of you should read the 1st page instead of dragging it down the drain like the other thread

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

 

The wing I hit with over 90 rounds in one pass a useless part of the airplane. Sure, why not? Each of these passes were 30-40 hits according to server logs.

 

Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? 

Did you provide those logs? You did not. Do those logs specify where the plane was hit? AFAIK they do not. 
 

I do not dispute that 50 BMG is a powerful round, but without proper usage, it is useless. Proper usage is destroying critical INTERNAL components of the airplane. The only critical internal conponent of 109’s wing is the spar, which is incredibly hard to hit. One cannot expect it to be as powerful as minengeschoss regarding structural and therefore aerodynamic damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there are other things in the wing that can be hit that will affect the plane negatively other than the spar. First and foremost, the skin of the plane: If you disrupt the surface the increase in drag should cause a loss of speed. And if the round were to come in from any kind of angle other than perpendicular the disruption to the skin of the aircraft is going to be more than a half inch hole on either side of the wing. This isn't happening in an appreciable sense. Next you have control systems and those are not being damaged with any frequency in so far as I'm aware. In some planes you have pressurized tanks in the wing, the 109 has a nice oxygen tank nestled into the wing on the right side for example. Strike one of those with a round and you can get a nice explosive decompression that would cause all kinds of bother for a plane. Some planes have guns in the wing and the associated ammo box but neither the guns are being broken nor the ammo being detonated with any great frequency. The mechanisms for the flaps and landing gear extension are in the wings too but they never seem to break or jam up. Now, all of these things are bigger than wing spars, perhaps with the exception of control linkages, but we don't see them getting damaged. Instead we see planes regularly taking hits that should result in damages to these things, by virtue of volume of fire if nothing else, but persist in being combat effective. Curious that.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, D3adCZE said:

Did you provide those logs? You did not. Do those logs specify where the plane was hit? AFAIK they do not. 
 

I do not dispute that 50 BMG is a powerful round, but without proper usage, it is useless. Proper usage is destroying critical INTERNAL components of the airplane. The only critical internal conponent of 109’s wing is the spar, which is incredibly hard to hit. One cannot expect it to be as powerful as minengeschoss regarding structural and therefore aerodynamic damage.

I hope youre aware that HE rounds exploded with impact, hence low structural damage against metal constructions if it was below 30mm shell. AP rounds are actually far superior in structural damage compared to same sized or even larger caliber HE ammo. There are hydraulics, gear system, cooling systems, flaps, ailerons and cables for them and multiple spars that will result in massive degradation of G capabilities if penetrated and all of it is cramped due to size of 109, not to mention rng with main spar... AP round hitting something will spin afterwards, will bounce, fly sideways and it will create large exit damage. Yet there is almost none aerodynamic penalty from these hits, already 40 hits in wing should result in noticable loss of control as only polishing rivets on planes was enough to gain way over 10kph in speed, a god damn rivets. Now imagine 40 hits from .50, entry holes creating drag and exit holes, especially from tumbling rounds would create massive drag on this wing, any round impacting at shallow angels will result in MASSIVE skin damage. Not presented currently.

Edited by =DMD=Honza
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, =DMD=Honza said:

Now imagine 40 hits from .50, entry holes creating drag and exit holes, especially from tumbling rounds would create massive drag on this wing, any round impacting at shallow angels will result in MASSIVE skin damage. Not presented currently.

There is a guncam of a p51 shooting a 190 where a wing panel can be seen ripped of the plane, without an internal explosion from ammo/gas bottles. This is certainly not typical and may be extremely rare, but it just goes to show there should be a range of skin damage, from small hole = negligible speed loss to panel off = moderate speed loss. When compared to HE rounds, the mg131/UB HE rounds seems to cause the same effect on aircraft handling as many many more AP hits. As for a 20mm hit you very rarely see less that 70kmh speed loss, and that's the same order as deploying flaps/ losing your landing gear covers. REMEBER this is the LOWEST effect you'll see from HE 20mm. It is of course credible, as 20mm mineshells were capable of doing extensive skin damage, but they also had a range of damage, which I think has been proven to be a hole whose size could not credibly cause the same order of speed loss as an airbrake.

 

Edited by Barnacles
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =DMD=Honza said:

I hope youre aware that HE rounds exploded with impact, hence low structural damage against metal constructions if it was below 30mm shell.

 

Germans did use delay charges to have their 20mm/30mm take advantage of the blast effect in confined spaces.

British/US 20mm rounds did us impact fuzes with no delay.

For the Russians sources seem to indicate, that no delay was used for the 20mm round.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.b56ffcec88a2d28f0ac420491b1f4e1c.png

48 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

 

Germans did use delay charges to have their 20mm/30mm take advantage of the blast effect in confined spaces.

British/US 20mm rounds did us impact fuzes with no delay.

For the Russians sources seem to indicate, that no delay was used for the 20mm round.

 

I couldn't find anything that size that used a delay fuse. Some larger artillery shells did. Maybe there were some air to air shells with special delay fuses, where did you hear that?

 

 

Edited by Barnacles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, D3adCZE said:

Did you provide those logs? You did not. Do those logs specify where the plane was hit? AFAIK they do not. 
 

I do not dispute that 50 BMG is a powerful round, but without proper usage, it is useless. Proper usage is destroying critical INTERNAL components of the airplane. The only critical internal conponent of 109’s wing is the spar, which is incredibly hard to hit. One cannot expect it to be as powerful as minengeschoss regarding structural and therefore aerodynamic damage.

468393183_Capturadepantalla2020-10-1510_12_07.png.aa3c5af9bd8fd50e019064a0f82c98b4.png1347171529_Apeffect.png.f2850c6c2875951058eb64d124d00911.png1209859673_Damagetofuselage.png.a965fcd2bae8cf1fa267bb286092e85b.png

 

AP caused pieces coming off.

All of these about only creating neat holes is a bit of a legend.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

image.png.b56ffcec88a2d28f0ac420491b1f4e1c.png

I couldn't find anything that size that used a delay fuse. Some larger artillery shells did. Maybe there were some air to air shells with special delay fuses, where did you hear that?

 

 

 

I think what the_emperor was referring to is that the German fuzes would ignite after the shell slowed down, for whatever reason, while the UK 20mm HS fuzes needed a hard impact. (No.253 Mk.IA Direct Action (Percussion) Fuze).

 

This is correct: however, what is not correct is his implicit assumption that this means that the UK type fuze would normally initialise on the skin of the aircraft rather than inside the structure. For a 20mm shell to penetrate aircraft skin does not take much force and would not usually slow the shell enough to trigger the fuze. Hitting an internal stringer or other structure probably would. So in practise I doubt that the effective delay between entering a structure  and explosion would be material, although I am open minded to a documented refutation of this view.

 

What it does mean is that the German shells would self destruct after losing enough speed, while the UK ones would not. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I think what the_emperor was referring to is that the German fuzes would ignite after the shell slowed down, for whatever reason, while the UK 20mm HS fuzes needed a hard impact. (No.253 Mk.IA Direct Action (Percussion) Fuze).

 

This is correct: however, what is not correct is his implicit assumption that this means that the UK type fuze would normally initialise on the skin of the aircraft rather than inside the structure. For a 20mm shell to penetrate aircraft skin does not take much force and would not usually slow the shell enough to trigger the fuze. Hitting an internal stringer or other structure probably would. So in practise I doubt that the effective delay between entering a structure  and explosion would be material, although I am open minded to a documented refutation of this view.

 

What it does mean is that the German shells would self destruct after losing enough speed, while the UK ones would not. 

Here are some pics from MGFF hits. 20MM HE round, skin is bend inwards so explosion must have happened on impact and hole is much smaller than in IL2 and no more holes around like in IL2 where one 20MM hit looks and acts like 5 another around.
 

Spoiler

V9FkjYC.jpg.3b670d958d8e9a442072499ad75f8bf3.jpgBzJxvZd.jpg.b53c299b2b66d7b498e6da2c177bd05a.jpg

Same plane, entry and exit holes (these looks like exploded right after entering plane but look at how little damage they have done compared to IL-2


Spitfire-MkIIb-RAF-306Sqn-Polish-UZN-P8342-damaged-after-Circus-88-based-RAF-Northolt-29th-Aug-1942-01.thumb.jpg.019f92bffb39c65cbeeb08539f9d0c17.jpgd94e5b683c4fe53e58eeb2e5a1fbf663.jpg.0ff8351e9c36e8dfbb8efb4d38fa7b72.jpg

and these two clearly detonated at impact, observe little damage again. Thats even smaller damage than god damn 13s are doing RN.

 

Edited by =DMD=Honza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barnacles said:

I couldn't find anything that size that used a delay fuse. Some larger artillery shells did. Maybe there were some air to air shells with special delay fuses, where did you hear that?

The delay charge came in addition to the fuze.

VC70.PNG

VCStern.PNG

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =DMD=Honza said:

Here as some pics from MGFF hits. 20MM HE round, skin is bend inwards so explosion must have happened on impact and hole is much smaller than in IL2 and no more holes around like in IL2 where one 20MM hit looks and acts like 5 another around.
 

  Hide contents

V9FkjYC.jpg.3b670d958d8e9a442072499ad75f8bf3.jpgBzJxvZd.jpg.b53c299b2b66d7b498e6da2c177bd05a.jpg

Same plane, entry and exit holes (these looks like exploded right after entering plane but look at how little damage they have done compared to IL-2


Spitfire-MkIIb-RAF-306Sqn-Polish-UZN-P8342-damaged-after-Circus-88-based-RAF-Northolt-29th-Aug-1942-01.thumb.jpg.019f92bffb39c65cbeeb08539f9d0c17.jpgd94e5b683c4fe53e58eeb2e5a1fbf663.jpg.0ff8351e9c36e8dfbb8efb4d38fa7b72.jpg

and these two clearly detonated at impact, observe little damage again. Thats even smaller damage than god damn 13s are doing RN.

 

I always thought that the philosophy of using mine shells was to increase the skin damage of hits against aircraft, therefore it'd be better to have the shells detonate on impact anyway.

 

Also 20mm mineshells could cause larger pieces of damage than the holes in the picture above, but that's one of my earlier points; the game acts like every mine shell does the massive damage you see sometimes, with massive speed loss always, not smaller handling effect commensurate with the photo's above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

however, what is not correct is his implicit assumption that this means that the UK type fuze would normally initialise on the skin of the aircraft rather than inside the structure. For a 20mm shell to penetrate aircraft skin does not take much force and would not usually slow the shell enough to trigger the fuze. Hitting an internal stringer or other structure probably would. So in practise I doubt that the effective delay between entering a structure  and explosion would be material, although I am open minded to a documented refutation of this view.

 

Here I compiled everything I could find on the 20mm british/US rounds for aircraft use which fits our time frame of 44/45.

The Fuze is described as "super quick" and "instantanious on impact with light material surface"

Compared to other 20mm aircraft rounds the 20x110 Hispano is quite heavy and has a lot material to distrubite for fragmantation and incendiary effects.

7 minutes ago, Barnacles said:

I always thought that the philosophy of using mine shells was to increase the skin damage of hits against aircraft, therefore it'd be better to have the shells detonate on impact anyway.

 

The Blast effect is much more effective inside of the air frame structure (e.g. a fire cracker in your open palm vs a fire cracker in your fist).

 

Edited by the_emperor
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that: but the issue is what is in practice "instantaneous" in the case of a shell moving at ~500m/s. 1/10,000th of a second? The shell is still 5 cm inside the skin.  To all practical intent, the German aircraft munition fuzes are also "instantaneous", when compared to true delayed fuzes, in which you could dial in a delay from a few seconds to several days, depending on type.  The German fuze simply incorporates an ingenious mechanism which also allows for self destruction in the air, which the UK 20mm fuze does not. (40mm Bofors shells did have such a fuze).

 

Hence my scepticism that the results after impact from the two kinds of fuzes would have differed in practise. 

2 hours ago, Barnacles said:

I always thought that the philosophy of using mine shells was to increase the skin damage of hits against aircraft, therefore it'd be better to have the shells detonate on impact anyway.

 

Also 20mm mineshells could cause larger pieces of damage than the holes in the picture above, but that's one of my earlier points; the game acts like every mine shell does the massive damage you see sometimes, with massive speed loss always, not smaller handling effect commensurate with the photo's above.

 

No, the mineshell philosophy was to create damage through a pressure difference, rather than through splinters, so having the shell go off in a (partially) confined space is very useful. Huge pressure inside, compared to outside, sheets of metal just fly off.  If a mineshell goes off externally - as a lot of them would have done, they would have less effect than a conventional HE shell.

 

Actually for any HE shell vs aircraft the best case is an internal detonation - apart from the pressure, this means all the fragments have to pass through some part of the target rather than being completely wasted shooting off into space.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, D3adCZE said:

Did you provide those logs? You did not. Do those logs specify where the plane was hit? AFAIK they do not. 
 

I do not dispute that 50 BMG is a powerful round, but without proper usage, it is useless. Proper usage is destroying critical INTERNAL components of the airplane. The only critical internal conponent of 109’s wing is the spar, which is incredibly hard to hit. One cannot expect it to be as powerful as minengeschoss regarding structural and therefore aerodynamic damage.

 

I have reveiwed the logs, but I am not going to follow down this tangent. If you are so interested, look at my sorties from that day. You can choose to believe me or not. I have no reason to lie, this is a discussion about a video game. Nobody is expecting it to be a cannon so that is just putting words where they have not been said. I beleive your mind on the subiect is already decided and you are trying to derail the discussion.

 

Back to the topic at hand. I am a simple man, and the bf109 is a small airplane. The wing is not large, and there are things in there which are important. Also even more important things in the fuselage which the bullets can pass most of the way through. So if you are shooting into the plane, I would submit you are shooting important things. Lots of stuff in there to break all packed in nice and tight. 

 

The skin is going to be full of holes, and we have tested this and found that .50 caliber guns take off the wing before you get second stage aero damage. This seems unlikely, the sheer number of rounds would make swiss cheese out of the aircraft skin by the time you get to that many. If you hit at oblique angles as others have pointed out, the holes will not be neat 1/2 circles but torn ovals. Then you have the fact that airflow might just rip the hole bigger. 

 

That they should cause aerodynmic penalties at some point, even a high number of rounds say 150 would seem reasonable. But to not cause any stage 2 penalties at all is a stretch.

 

Then there is the incendiary problem separate from this which compounds it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, VA_chikinpickle said:

 

I have reveiwed the logs, but I am not going to follow down this tangent. If you are so interested, look at my sorties from that day. You can choose to believe me or not. I have no reason to lie, this is a discussion about a video game. Nobody is expecting it to be a cannon so that is just putting words where they have not been said. I beleive your mind on the subiect is already decided and you are trying to derail the discussion.

 

Back to the topic at hand. I am a simple man, and the bf109 is a small airplane. The wing is not large, and there are things in there which are important. Also even more important things in the fuselage which the bullets can pass most of the way through. So if you are shooting into the plane, I would submit you are shooting important things. Lots of stuff in there to break all packed in nice and tight. 

 

The skin is going to be full of holes, and we have tested this and found that .50 caliber guns take off the wing before you get second stage aero damage. This seems unlikely, the sheer number of rounds would make swiss cheese out of the aircraft skin by the time you get to that many. If you hit at oblique angles as others have pointed out, the holes will not be neat 1/2 circles but torn ovals. Then you have the fact that airflow might just rip the hole bigger. 

 

That they should cause aerodynmic penalties at some point, even a high number of rounds say 150 would seem reasonable. But to not cause any stage 2 penalties at all is a stretch.

 

Then there is the incendiary problem separate from this which compounds it.

 

Yes, the Bf 109 is actually a very small fighter aircraft and very compact; a small target, which is advantageous.  But, if the small target is hit then the percentage of damage for that small target should be on the larger side and a disadvantage in terms of the odds of serious damage when compared to a larger fighter aircraft target.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VA_chikinpickle said:

 

 

The skin is going to be full of holes, and we have tested this and found that .50 caliber guns take off the wing before you get second stage aero damage. This seems unlikely, the sheer number of rounds would make swiss cheese out of the aircraft skin by the time you get to that many. If you hit at oblique angles as others have pointed out, the holes will not be neat 1/2 circles but torn ovals. Then you have the fact that airflow might just rip the hole bigger. 

 

That they should cause aerodynmic penalties at some point, even a high number of rounds say 150 would seem reasonable. But to not cause any stage 2 penalties at all is a stretch.

 

Then there is the incendiary problem separate from this which compounds it.

 

It is entirely possible to create second stage surface damage on a 109 wing, or any other wing, with .50 cals. I have done it many times while testing the guns.

 

The wing section will break off because you have damaged the virtual spar: you are more likely to do this if you are shooting from directly behind (or in front) - it is just geometry. Shots from a higher angle have a lower probability of rolling for a spar hit. So if you test fire from a trailing aircraft against the rear of a wing, you will less often see level two damage before the wing section breaks: but it still can happen. IIRC even one of the initial test videos complaining about lack or aerodynamic damage did exactly that.

 

Here are screenshots of outer wing damage level one and two on a 109 K-4 from .50 cal hits.

 

2020_11_20__14_53_14.thumb.jpg.db8bcf282662d9499b949a297a3da0ef.jpg2020_11_20__14_53_50.thumb.jpg.3db3c718476bbce46f61043e2fe472fa.jpg

 

edit - the angle of fire was the same in each case - it is the same test - close to the view of the pic on the left.

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2020 at 10:44 PM, D3adCZE said:

All I see is spray’n’pray gunnery. Those mustangs were hitting completely useless parts of the 109. If you want to down it shoot precise bursts into engine or pilot, one pass kill guaranteed. .50 cals are the sniper rifles of IL2.

Because we all know that in real life American pilots had the  time and training to carefully aim at certain parts of the enemy all the time???  Do realize how ridiculous this statement is?  Or are you being sarcastic?

On 11/19/2020 at 9:18 PM, H_Stiglitz said:

Funny how this topic originally was about how much the .50 cal affects speed by inducing drag, and now it‘s so off topic like the other thread that was locked almost months ago. Some of you should read the 1st page instead of dragging it down the drain like the other thread

That's part of the problem.   They don't anything UNLESS there is a critical hit, so your opponent just keeps on fighting and killing you.  Meanwhile one hit from any HE round and you out of the fight including 13mm.  ONE HIT.   People are frustrated.  If the .50 hits actually did something to make the other plane less flyable on non-engine and pilot hits people would probably shut up.

15 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

It is entirely possible to create second stage surface damage on a 109 wing, or any other wing, with .50 cals. I have done it many times while testing the guns.

 

The wing section will break off because you have damaged the virtual spar: you are more likely to do this if you are shooting from directly behind (or in front) - it is just geometry. Shots from a higher angle have a lower probability of rolling for a spar hit. So if you test fire from a trailing aircraft against the rear of a wing, you will less often see level two damage before the wing section breaks: but it still can happen. IIRC even one of the initial test videos complaining about lack or aerodynamic damage did exactly that.

 

Here are screenshots of outer wing damage level one and two on a 109 K-4 from .50 cal hits.

 

2020_11_20__14_53_14.thumb.jpg.db8bcf282662d9499b949a297a3da0ef.jpg2020_11_20__14_53_50.thumb.jpg.3db3c718476bbce46f61043e2fe472fa.jpg

 

edit - the angle of fire was the same in each case - it is the same test - close to the view of the pic on the left.

Sure, if you have a nice stationary target that lets you fill it full of holes in one place.   That will NEVER happen online or in single while a plane is actually flying.   The precision required is impossible.  You'd have to be at exact convergence firing at completely non-maneuvering target.  I've never seen it in the entire time I've played this game.   The problem is that the damage model does not account for hits all over the plane to achieve the same effect as level 2 damage in one certain area.   My guess is that dozens of holes all over the plane would make it at least as hard to fly as 20 holes in one part of the wing like your picture shows.

On 11/13/2020 at 2:10 PM, =DMD=Honza said:

@III/JG52_Otto_-I- Yeah and this chart is not representing ingame reality at all as ingame .50s are laser beams and irl, they had much greater dispersion which made conv settings ( as on chart) extremely effective as at 300 meters, they would cover extremely large area of plane so they would hit everything, wings, wing roots, tail, fuselage from angle.... Thats part of the problem, realistic convergence. DCS have it and its 10000000000times easier to hit 109s at range, in turns and in deflection shooting and hit vital parts as always few bullets from tens and hundreds of them would find the vital part as engine, MW50 tank, pilot or cooling system(next problem ingame where it was common knowledge that single penetration to cooling system meant few mins of flight time without going on full power, here you pen both radiators of 109, not only it keeps its maneuvering and speed capabilities with holes all around airframe but it will keep flying for around 5 mins at full power, with 2! 2! leaking rads). Combine it with terrible performace of aero damage of .50s. Which is simply wrong ingame as there were presented pics of it and in other thread, there was guy who pulled out info out of pilots reports from missions where they saw chunks of planes flying off after being hit with M8/M20 belts.  Combine it with missing core part of .50s = API M8, M20 and M23 + broken indestructible black hole tail of 109s and you have BB guns. Thats why we all complain all the time as nothing is being done about these. And what they've done instead? They have basically told us to **** ourself as they wont revisit that MAJOR problem rn. And they'll rather keep us with broken weapons where HE filler means nuke and AP means BB gun. They are leaving this major problem, when they want to introduce another P51 with even less guns but yeah. All is OK and germany had all best stuff in the war and 13s and 20s were nuke weapons that oneshotted everything(HE filler means nothing if its small - thats why even "never wrong, all best" germans switched to API belts for 13s).
They should take some inspiration from DCS and their handling of DMG model.... 

 

I need to look into DCS.  Clearly they have the .50s figured out.  Maybe it's time for a switch.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, unreasonable said:

but the issue is what is in practice "instantaneous" in the case of a shell moving at ~500m/s. 1/10,000th of a second? The shell is still 5 cm inside the skin. 

 

Well, I dont know the detonation speed of the fuze, but so so far there are no hints that indicate, that the shell is deliberately detonated inside plane structure and most of the blast happens when hitting.

I am sure, some of the blast is directed forward, but the round seems to be a combination of Blast/fragmentation (heavier than other 20mm rounds  -> higher frag potential)/incendiary.

It seems to be more of a multipurpose HE/I round since it seems quite effectiv vs unarmourd vehicels and due to its higher fragmentatio  potential also vs personel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...