Jump to content
71st_AH_Barnacles

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Night0wl said:

Sure if API hits a fuel tank thats a big difference compared to ball hitting the fuel tank.

 

Not typically in my understanding.

Fuel need oxygen in a certain ratio in order to burn. Even in nearly empty fuel tanks, there is not usually enough oxygen relative to the amount of fuel vapour to cause the fuel to ignite. API rounds will usually pass through (or come to a stop inside) fuel tanks without starting a fire.

What is more likely is that incendiary rounds might ignite fuel that is outside the fuel tank in plenty of free moving air (i.e. due to an unsealed, earlier leak).

Edited by [DBS]Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Not typically in my understanding.

Fuel need oxygen in a certain ratio in order to burn. Even in nearly empty fuel tanks, there is not usually enough oxygen relative to the amount of fuel vapour to cause the fuel to ignite. API rounds will usually pass through (or come to a stop inside) fuel tanks without starting a fire.

What is more likely is that incendiary rounds might ignite fuel that is outside the fuel tank in plenty of free moving air (i.e. due to an unsealed, earlier leak).

Yeah thats true i believe even mythbusters covered this. Only the vapor is flammable but if fuel spurts out of a leaking tank it will make quite a vapor trail. Dont know how well self sealing tanks prevents this though.

 

Just saying i dont think ball or API is going to make a difference in hole size.

Edited by Night0wl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Not typically in my understanding.

Fuel need oxygen in a certain ratio in order to burn. Even in nearly empty fuel tanks, there is not usually enough oxygen relative to the amount of fuel vapour to cause the fuel to ignite. API rounds will usually pass through (or come to a stop inside) fuel tanks without starting a fire.

What is more likely is that incendiary rounds might ignite fuel that is outside the fuel tank in plenty of free moving air (i.e. due to an unsealed, earlier leak).

And in a given 1 second burst you might have a few punctures made and then fire started immediately from the following bullets hitting the vapour stream. So it could in theory happen very quickly, just not likely from a single bullet. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Night0wl said:

 

I really doubt API .50 is really going to make a different size hole compared to ball .50 Its not gonna explode into shrapnell like a HE round.

 

Except that shrapnel is not the major cause of aero damage of HE rounds. If that was the case, the mineshells would not be very effective at all, as the whole point of the mineshell is maximizing explosive through minimizing the shell casing. What makes the mineshells so effective in the current modeling is the explosive effect, and the large explosive charge, not the shrapnell.

 

Granted, API has a much smaller explosive effect, indeed it's more of a conflagration than anything like a grenade blast, but there is still an effect. Against aircraft aluminium it would have some sort of effect on top of the bullet's kinetic impact (and any additional effects caused by oblique entry/tumble/what have you). And of course, it would definitely increase the chances of fires in general, as has been mentioned (that was the whole point, after all).

Edited by 71st_AH_Yankee_
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

@CountZero @71st_AH_BarnaclesThanks for info posted above.
 

Now I know where to look in game files I can see that its all AP rounds in the M2 guns. Not surprising they are not as effective as they should be. Pretty confident the belts in M2 guns in ww2 USA were not just AP/APT rounds, and putting only AP/APT rounds in a belt would never have been done IRL in a fighter plane

 

6 hours ago, Night0wl said:

 

I really doubt API .50 is really going to make a different size hole compared to ball .50 Its not gonna explode into shrapnell like a HE round.

 

Sure if API hits a fuel tank thats a big difference compared to ball hitting the fuel tank.

 

I'm also pretty confident API rounds would make quite a difference  if/when they get added, based info I've seen and read.

 

Its also interesting to see APHE is is in game , just not in American planes, (looks like only Italian , German and Russian bullets have this in their ammo belts). Not saying APHE should be in the American M2 just that its likely why the Russian 12.7mm  "UB" rounds seem to be a lot more effective compared to M2 rounds.

 

I did not realise the limited ammo types modeled in IL-2,(esp compared to IL-2 COD which I also own), especially in the M2 on American fighters.

 

image.png.93be1bba963ca8a237556e3127de88c7.png

 

Some info I found on the M2, and other ww2 ammo types used in ww2 planes (see link for full details) its an interesting read.

Quote

The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall. The Browning also makes an interesting comparison with the Japanese Ho-5, which was basically the M2 slightly scaled up to take 20 mm cartridges.

 

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

 

A further validation of the calculations is provided by the outcome of tests by the USN, which stated that the 20 mm Hispano was about three times as destructive as the .50 M2. In the above table, the ratio between their scores is 3.3.

 

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS (REF LINK)

Not sure of accuracy of this information, but it seems plausible , its certainly an interesting read.

 

In regards to aerodynamic penalty of AP/APT current rounds, I'd like to see this re-evaluated...

 

At the moment they are great at damaging critical components, and pilot kills, but otherwise do little damage, is that accurate no idea. If it had the API ammo in the belt also I'm sure it would help considerably (in bringing down planes), but more likely it would cause a fire first, and maybe more often than currently is seen in game.

 

Regarding taking down large bombers, Cannons are always far more effective, and I agree with the quote above in this regard.

And why the Germans went to the larger 30mm cannons, like the MK108. Of course the main target for American 50 cal was fighters and ground targets, not bombers that late in the war.

 

 

 

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
picture added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

@CountZero @71st_AH_BarnaclesThanks for info posted above.
 

Now I know where to look in game files I can see that its all AP rounds in the M2 guns. Not surprising they are not as effective as they should be. Pretty confident the belts in M2 guns in ww2 USA were not just AP/APT rounds, and putting only AP/APT rounds in a belt would never have been done IRL in a fighter plane

 

 

I'm also pretty confident API rounds would make quite a difference  if/when they get added, based info I've seen and read.

 

Its also interesting to see APHE is is in game , just not in American planes, (looks like only Italian , German and Russian bullets have this in their ammo belts). Not saying APHE should be in the American M2 just that its likely why the Russian 12.7mm  "UB" rounds seem to be a lot more effective compared to M2 rounds.

 

I did not realise the limited ammo types modeled in IL-2,(esp compared to IL-2 COD which I also own), especially in the M2 on American fighters.

 

image.png.93be1bba963ca8a237556e3127de88c7.png

 

Some info I found on the M2, and other ww2 ammo types used in ww2 planes (see link for full details) its an interesting read.

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS (REF LINK)

Not sure of accuracy of this information, but it seems plausible , its certainly an interesting read.

 

In regards to aerodynamic penalty of AP/APT current rounds, I'd like to see this re-evaluated...

 

At the moment they are great at damaging critical components, and pilot kills, but otherwise do little damage, is that accurate no idea. If it had the API ammo in the belt also I'm sure it would help considerably , but more likely it would cause a fire first, and maybe more often than currently is seen in game

 

 

 

 

I believe you are right it should do more to aerodynamics but i really dont agree with the API going to cause more damage than regular AP rounds only when it hits a fuel tank.. even if it was a wooden plane like say the mosquito the incendiary wont do much when it travels through a plane unless theres fuel vapors it just wont do much when its in such short contact with something even if its wood.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Night0wl said:

I believe you are right it should do more to aerodynamics but i really dont agree with the API going to cause more damage than regular AP rounds only when it hits a fuel tank.. even if it was a wooden plane like say the mosquito the incendiary wont do much when it travels through a plane unless theres fuel vapors it just wont do much when its in such short contact with something even if its wood.

 

 

No not more damage (that was not my meaning), than normal AP rounds, its purpose is to penetrate and /or ignite things *like fuel*. Setting something on fire of course then would be more damage.

I think how game currently models aerodynamic damage is purely hole size, of which explosive shells do the most in this regard (not twisted/peeled  metal as that is not modeled as far as I know)

 

The exit damage of a bullet is where all the damage occurs , not the entry point. If the AP round can go through the thing hit , then you would see more tearing in the surface (of say a wing). If the bullet tumbles or disintegrates  it may do more internal damage, but its also less likely to exit the structure if that happens.

 

I think the AP rounds in game is all about critical thing (plane part/pilot) being damaged. I would expect depending on plane type and structure this will vary alot. The closer u get the more likely rounds will go through the target. Also some rounds will bounce/deflect off the thing hit depending on what is hit ,the angle of the shot , and distance of the target, and closing speed a little too.

 

Maybe the question to ask what is the likelihood the 50 cal AP  rounds goes through the thing it hits and exits, as this impacts the aero the most???

 

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

as I Have  shot many of AP and API rounds out of a M2 and some Rifles that would be considered sniper rifles in the real, the AP is very effective at that,  Armor penetrating, but the Incendiary round is so much more magical.  This is a crucial missing feature of our M2 Ammo belts in Game.  It wont make it into a Doom God weapon but it brings the very important chemical component to the terminal ballistics, and when we are talking these rounds hitting Air frames and fuel sources this is a very good combo.

  Those incendiary rounds did magic against many a train, ammo depot, and fuel depots when these fellas went looking for tgts of opportunity. 

 

  Now the AP round can tumble as not all AP rounds are created equal, the penetrator in the round itself is not always inlay-ed perfectly and can have a critical effect at or past the max ord of the round.  So in other words the rounds can tumble mid flight for more than one reason or another and when that happens and hits fuselage  and wings it wont create the perfect nail driver holes as a round that had no issues in flight and or manufacture.   

  I think as much as i would love full terminal ballistics being modeled per round and round type its just reality we will have to settle for a compromise in sim.  So at the very least have the API chemical component added to the mix. 

 

m2 is is a nail driver just like a good 1911 is

Edited by MercCrom175
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, MercCrom175 said:

  Now the AP round can tumble as not all AP rounds are created equal, the penetrator in the round itself is not always inlay-ed perfectly and can have a critical effect at or past the max ord of the round.  So in other words the rounds can tumble mid flight for more than one reason or another and when that happens and hits fuselage  and wings and can create not the perfect nail driver wholes as a round that had no issues in flight and or manufacture.   

  I think as much as i would love full terminal ballistics being modeled per round and round type its just reality we will have to settle for a compromise in sim.  So at the very least have the API chemical component added to the mix. 

 

m2 is is a nail driver just like a good 1911 is

 

While I see AP could be made to tumble in flight , Did the M2 AP rounds used in ww2 tumble before impact?

 

Because I would think that would make them a lot less effective at piecing if that was the case.

And AP rounds used in planes , its all about getting through Armour to kill the pilot or damage something critical like the engine.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true but its something to consider, even after the round has penetrated it will follow path of least resistance and hopefully that path will create cavitation and critical damage to other components on its route.  If a 50 cal round is tumbling it still will easily pass through the weak skin of an airplane and or light skinned vehicle.  I wish i had pics of stuff from real world comparing a nail driver hole vs and tumbled 50 cal round hole.  But anyways  as far as aerodynamic affects i would imagine with enough holes in the right place it should affect many aspects of flight, but nothing compared to a cannon round blast hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, MercCrom175 said:

true but its something to consider, even after the round has penetrated it will follow path of least resistance and hopefully that path will create cavitation and critical damage to other components on its route.  If a 50 cal round is tumbling it still will easily pass through the weak skin of an airplane and or light skinned vehicle.  I wish i had pics of stuff from real world comparing a nail driver hole vs and tumbled 50 cal round hole.  But anyways  as far as aerodynamic affects i would imagine with enough holes in the right place it should affect many aspects of flight, but nothing compared to a cannon round blast hole.

 

yes , so my point is its about the exit damage of the AP round , and the more energy lost inside the object , the less likely to exit. Really depends on energy of the round when it hits target and then the other factors come into play as to whether it exits again. (more likely yes in the wing)

 

Personally I don't believe M2 rounds in ww2 tumbled before impact (in plane guns)

Edited by =RS=Stix_09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yup all depends on what it hits, should punch through most stuff in a 109 minus the engine block and the receiver of a mk108 sort of stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

yes , so my point is its about the exit damage of the AP round , and the more energy lost inside the object , the less likely to exit. Really depends on energy of the round when it hits target and then the other factors come into play as to whether it exits again. (more likely yes in the wing)

 

Personally I don't believe M2 rounds in ww2 tumbled before impact (in plane guns)

From memory, given the muzzle velocity of the M2 they wouldn't start tumbling until over at least 1200 yds, so for the purpose of hitting planes they should hit true.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you have the best case scenario ballistics for the 50 and no tumbling, but in reality many things can contribute to this, one being bad lot of ammo from the depot.....,  I fully agree since at most 300M engagement range against another Aircraft you should be spot on nail driver, matter of fact most engagements would still fall in the rising branch before hitting max ord so lots of power upon impact.    

 

Sorry Feet and Yards dont compute in my Marksmanship brain.  Meters it is for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MercCrom175 said:

 

Sorry Feet and Yards dont compute in my Marksmanship brain.  Meters it is for me.

 

I'd wager that everyone besides Hans Marseille could use yards and meters interchangeably in this situation with no discernable differences at all. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are anecdotes of WW2 pilots who reported being in a fight and weren't sure if they were hit, returned to base and found out if so or not. If aerodynamic consequences of the average hit were significant, you wouldn't read that sort of report. This is even true for larger aircraft being hit, or not, by cannon shells (even though here the wingmen had an easier time to spot possible damage in flight).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JtD said:

There are anecdotes of WW2 pilots who reported being in a fight and weren't sure if they were hit, returned to base and found out if so or not. If aerodynamic consequences of the average hit were significant, you wouldn't read that sort of report. This is even true for larger aircraft being hit, or not, by cannon shells (even though here the wingmen had an easier time to spot possible damage in flight).

That's really good info actually. It'd definitely help me reconcile what I'm seeing with the 50 hits.

But in game there seems to be a wild disparity to that anecdote, and getting hit with even one cannon shell in game at least. Generally if you get hit by 20mm even once your plane obviously takes a massive degradation in ride quality.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interesting to know what the Dev's are trying to approximate with their speed loss: Is it a summation of neat, half inch holes; or does it try to approximate the summation of more serious ripping and tearing to aerodynamic surfaces.

In my old job I had some really good film and pictures of .50" cal hits to engines of speedboats and boat hulls and stuff. I don't have access to them now, but I can assure you it wasn't always just neat .50" cookie cutter holes.

 

I'd argue that their algorithm needs to factor in the possibility that when hitting an aerodynamic surface, there's a good chance, owing to its MV and penetrative properties, that a 50 cal (or indeed any high velocity mg round) will tumble and take a bit of material though the other side with it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 10:12 PM, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

But in game there seems to be a wild disparity to that anecdote, and getting hit with even one cannon shell in game at least.


kind of depends whether you are talking mine shell or ap IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've been re-reading "Thunderbolt!" by Johnson and am currently working on getting all his descriptions of kills from the book into one post. So far it looks like losing speed to drag increase is the LEAST of your worries when being hit by .50s, at least by 8 of them at convergence. So far his first five kills all more or less follow this pattern. 

IMG_1207.PNG

IMG_1208.PNG

Edited by Rattlesnake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've posted this on another topic, I think it might be interesting to show here as well.
this plane got shot by a A-29 armed with browning M3s
 

asa1.jpg.f8139c4d0b6575a9f1f92fc46152e828.jpg

asa2.jpg.ccd0ff773f64ede5d44b4ccb8c3a6729.jpg

asa3.thumb.jpg.c70867a5e5f14df87371591f6b70bbfe.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@alpino

 

Cool photo, nice to see someone having fun using that as target practice!

 

From the exit marks it looks like they are using modern APEI ammunition, not surprising though as the A-29 Tucano is a modern turboprop and they will nowadays be supplied with the latest ammunition technology.

 

I believe FN Herstal produce the M3's for the A-29 Tucano and from the size of the blast and burn marks on exit I'd suggest they're using APEI (Armour Piercing Explosive Incendiary) rounds. This wouldn't have been available in WW2 for the .50 calibre unfortunately. The more typical API (Incendiary) would have been though, but those would just pierce and light-up but not create such large exit holes.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, alpino said:

I've posted this on another topic, I think it might be interesting to show here as well.
this plane got shot by a A-29 armed with browning M3s
 

 

 Nice pics, really interesting indeed. Exit holes clearly showing explosive incendiary devices not available during WW2 though.

 

The most interesting for the thread are the entry holes and the slight deformation of the wing at the impact point, it's not as neat entry holes as i thought they would be.  If assuming that the exit hole is often dirtier than the entry ones this should cause penalty excess drag for sure (not talking about the amount which could be calculated by an engineer). 

 

 

I cannot believe  .50 cal holes or any sort of holes (even the most neat ones) in a wing would not cause noticeable performance loss and noticeable handling changes (while the aircraft could still be controllable more easily than if it was affected by big holes in its wings) . In the test provided by OP a big part of the ammo hits the wing surface causing nothing speed wise.

 

That can simply not be correct if its verified.

 

Civilian pilots know they can add speed by just cleaning the surface of the wing, even more if you repaint it, again some more if you fill holes and little impacts.

No excess drag penalty and loss of speed (and balance) from  50cal impacts causing  holes (some neat some dirty) in a wing, it's impossible imho, especially when you consider that in the test provided they are not hit by 4 or 5 but by 20 or more. If the bullet goes through the wing it damages the wing two times. At a certain point, it become a lot of excess drag, it should be taken into account imho.

 

Strange.

 

PS question for experts:  Is it correct to assume that if hit from uperside to the underside the dirty exits from the ball bullets happen there where the wind pressure is higher thus causing more drag than in the reverse situation? Or to simplify what side of a wing creates more drag if damaged, if there is any difference at all?

 

Edited by Caudron431Rafale
poor english sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Caudron431Rafale said:

 Nice pics, really interesting indeed. Exit holes clearly showing explosive incendiary devices not available during WW2 though.

 

The most interesting for the thread are the entry holes and the slight deformation of the wing at the impact point, it's not as neat entry holes as i thought they would be.  If assuming that the exit hole is often dirtier than the entry ones this should cause penalty excess drag for sure (not talking about the amount which could be calculated by an engineer). 

 

 

I cannot believe  .50 cal holes or any sort of holes (even the most neat ones) in a wing would not cause noticeable performance loss and noticeable handling changes (while the aircraft could still be controllable more easily than if it was affected by big holes in its wings) . In the test provided by OP a big part of the ammo hits the wing surface causing nothing speed wise.

 

That can simply not be correct if its verified.

 

Civilian pilots know they can add speed by just cleaning the surface of the wing, even more if you repaint it, again some more if you fill holes and little impacts.

No excess drag penalty and loss of speed (and balance) from  50cal impacts causing  holes (some neat some dirty) in a wing, it's impossible imho, especially when you consider that in the test provided they are not hit by 4 or 5 but by 20 or more. If the bullet goes through the wing it damages the wing two times. At a certain point, it become a lot of excess drag, it should be taken into account imho.

 

Strange.

 

PS question for experts:  Is it correct to assume that if hit from uperside to the underside the dirty exits from the ball bullets happen there where the wind pressure is higher thus causing more drag than in the reverse situation? Or to simplify what side of a wing creates more drag if damaged, if there is any difference at all?

 

at first I thought the larger holes at the exit were due to bullets tumbling after the first impact, specially the two bigger ones, unfortunately I couldn't find the specific type of ammo used.
I would expect explosive ammo to detonate right at the entry or maybe inside the wing though.

searching at the cbc page (who produces the ammo used here by the military) I couldn't find any .50 HEI: https://www.cbc.com.br/produtos/categoria/municoes-para-fuzis-metralhadoras-e-medios-calibres/linha/municoes-para-fuzis-e-metralhadoras/?calibre[]=127-x-99mm-50
 

Edited by alpino
found more data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also interesting to see the kill here between 3:42 and 3:49, you can see some nasty damage to the left wing followed by loss of control 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd just like to clear something up while we're on topic here as I've been taking some strange comments from players online who think that I'm deliberately trying to portray things to cause problems for the Allied side... I'm all for authenticity on both sides that's what gives the game its credibility however people have to be realistic as to what's achievable in a game - especially when people have such high expectations from online gameplay.

 

No one in their right mind is saying that no aerodynamic effect would occur when using the .50 calibre because it is not a cannon, some speed loss would obviously occur when enough bullets are soaked up. The question is how much so and is it really significant enough to demand the team to spend further time on an already onerous level of detail.

 

The team has limited resources and time, you guys want the new Normandy map and all those aircraft plus every other expansion to be exactly as you each desire it.

 

We're also not saying "every" .50 calibre hole recorded in combat would have been neat, its a little more complex than that and other effects occur but they tend to puncture skin on average (ball ammo / API).. not so much deform or open large areas of it (modern APEI) - there are always outliers if you search hard enough but the game cannot give you every variation exactly.

 

With modern explosive ammunition (APEI) and special filler types these characteristics on the .50 calibre can be altered today (including the timing and fusing of ammunition to explode at a certain point past its impact. They can be engineered to explode early on so to damage skin, or delay and explode further inside but this happened after WW2 regarding the .50 calibre.

 

We need to be realists here - the data transfer involved in calculating each machine gun bullet and its aerodynamic effect would be horrendous for everyone online so that's not a direction anyone is going to like. Those type of changes are unlikely to change the result of an aircraft being shot down or not simply because it is ~7 to 10mph slower than it was from accumulating 20 to 30 hits of machine gun ammo. Much more significant is control damage and stability which is already modelled.

 

I'd be very surprised if every bullet (firing 750 - 800 rounds in a minute) of a gun could ever be calculated individually in its exact aerodynamic effect. It's a bit much to expect this, and more likely it is a function of accumulated damage as a larger total calculation which for data transfer is efficient and makes sense.

 

11 hours ago, alpino said:

also interesting to see the kill here between 3:42 and 3:49, you can see some nasty damage to the left wing followed by loss of control 

 

 

I like the video, and the scene chasing the '109's makes me smile. It looks like the pilot is desperately trying to snap roll but then loses balance and control because of the damage.

 

Without meaning to be cynical - and in relation to what we're discussing - its the imbalance in aerodynamics or loss of control not the performance or speed loss that causes the biggest problems here with the .50 calibres. Note the pilot cannot hold the maneuver properly because one side is hit / imbalanced, not because the aircraft is so punctured that it lost all its speed (its still moving relatively quick even in maneuvres for a good amount of that video). I'd suspect that the blown left radiator at 3:40 has just caused a load of aerodynamic drag on one side of the aircraft, due to the heat and disruption to the airflow which is shifting around and also clouding over the left hand side of the fuselage and tail - causing imbalance and stalling it. Adding any kind of strong evasive maneuver into that situation, such as a snap roll as he does.. will make that much worse and it helps to initiate that ensuing spin.

 

It's hard to tell if that is in fact ripped skin damage on the edge of the left wing (its still possible), its pretty obscure and it could be the aileron.

 

Cheers,

Edited by Aurora_Stealth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

M2 need a bit of love

:)

 

Edited by HRc_Tumu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the M2 and other 12.7mm guns in the game is that they are rigidly connected to the airframe, and crowded in among other similar guns. This limits their freedom of individual expression and makes them feel like just a number, another cold dead machine that nobody loves, which decreases their performance.

 

To really live up to their potential they need to be mounted on a pintle all by themselves, where they can aim in all directions and enjoy the breeze and the personal touch of a handsome young gunner. In that situation they can absolutely shred.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha! let that M2 go free or mount it on a horse with no name 😃

 

I think that's also the story with many of the aircraft too, they all have big personalities which collide and it can feel a bit bruising at times.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 6:15 PM, CountZero said:

Its comon knowlade that when Germans saw Mustangs over Berlin, they just relised the flys and drop bugs in air and won the war. P-51 was rather poor peace of machine and pilots trown in it didnt even know that single bug could be death to them.

We're just luckily that the Germans didn't use a mine shell on New York. They would have won the war. We've all seen the simulations, a single MG/FF mine shell can destroy anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP, but I'd like to add a few other things that affecting .50 cal performance at the moment.

 

Lack of Harmonization: The guns in game right now all fire to a fixed point. In reality the standard was to have each of the gun pairs converge at different ranges. Watch gun camera footage, analyze convergence pattern charges, or simply look at video games where this is modeled (DCS etc.) What harmonization does is create a dense field of fire so that when the enemy aircraft passes through that general area you get a shot gun effect. So instead of all your rounds hitting at one point, the entire aircraft gets saturated, making it more likely to hit vital components and do combination effects. It also makes it more likely that you get any hits at all when you are not at the best range for a harmonization cone, because you have some guns converging at closer and further ranges. Ideally the game would allow (as it was done IRL) for the pilot to customize both the convergence range and the harmonization pattern. This could be done easily by simply allowing the player to adjust convergence for each pair of guns. So for example in inboard guns could be at 275m, center guns at 300m, and outboards at 325. Etc.

 

Lack of API: My understanding is that we do not have API modeled in game right now. Obviously API is not some kind of explosive round, but it would certainly increase the chance of causing fires. However another problem regarding this is that we do not have the hit flashes modeled very well in the game right now. This isnt just a problem with the American .50s, but most other rounds like 20mm HEI give off other effects that let you know you hit. The hit flashes from .50cal impacts should be large and obvious, and this matters because it would let the player know how well they are hitting the target. With the current .50 cal impact effects if can be hard to know where you point of impact is, and sometimes you cant tell if you hit at all.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2020 at 6:08 AM, alpino said:

I've posted this on another topic, I think it might be interesting to show here as well.
this plane got shot by a A-29 armed with browning M3s
 

asa1.jpg.f8139c4d0b6575a9f1f92fc46152e828.jpg

asa2.jpg.ccd0ff773f64ede5d44b4ccb8c3a6729.jpg

asa3.thumb.jpg.c70867a5e5f14df87371591f6b70bbfe.jpg

 

Shots went through the spar, hit the tank and did some heat- or fire-damage, exiting the tank.

Very interesting find, thanks!

 

Another pic:

 

ptexp-fab-2.jpg

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Shots went through the spar, hit the tank and did some heat- or fire-damage, exiting the tank.

Very interesting find, thanks!

 

Another pic:

 

ptexp-fab-2.jpg

It is clear form these images that .50 cal causes more structural damage than some would like to think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

It is clear form these images that .50 cal causes more structural damage than some would like to think

 

Only if there's a significant secondary event triggered off - like a fuel-fed fire in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Only if there's a significant secondary event triggered off - like a fuel-fed fire in this case.

Nah you can see from these images that the large holes in front are caused by the exit of the bullets. The entry holes line up with the huge gashes left by the exit wounds. The fire is not what caused those huge holes. But whatever damage the fire did is certainly where are missing API would come in. The one I did not mark exited the front.

 

image.png.4785430e2737284c833cb4551168e83b.png

Edited by [TLC]MasterPooner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Only if there's a significant secondary event triggered off - like a fuel-fed fire in this case.

No, I only partially agree on this. It is possible to get significant exit wounds because of 'rip and tumble' effects, without secondaries. I have no evidence at what frequency it would happen, but I have seen 50 cal hits for real on engine casings on boats, and it does occur with significant frequency 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, [TLC]MasterPooner said:

Nah you can see from these images that the large holes in front are caused by the exit of the bullets. The entry holes line up with the huge gashes left by the exit wounds. The fire is not what caused those huge holes. But whatever damage the fire did is certainly where are missing API would come in. The one I did not mark exited the front.

 

No, the exit-damage can't be much larger than the projectile's projected area - even with outward ripping and peeling (keep in mind, at the airspeeds involved, there's little backward peeling due to airstream).

 

There is no way of figuring out which size the exit-holes actually were, due to the fire-damage.

It is safe to say that the fire-damage played an integral part in the damage-picture. All the exit-holes show extensive fire-abrasion and none are originally sized.

On top, the skin shows extensive heat-damage.

 

Curb your enthusiasm.

 

 

image.png

 

I think the second trail from the bottom is wrong.

The exit is associated with the entry on the left. The entry you attached with that exit is actually associated with the exit below the large gash.

Like this:

Inkedimage.png.4785430e2737284c833cb4551168e83b_LI.jpg.09cdc15d2428446df0b58c5b518af23a.jpg

 

Gives you an idea about a normal "punch through" exit without tumbling.

Note the lack of additional fire-damage associated with the normal punch through

Edited by Bremspropeller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

No, the exit-damage can't be much larger than the projectile's projected area - even with outward ripping and peeling (keep in mind, at the airspeeds involved, there's little backward peeling due to airstream).

 

There is no way of figuring out which size the exit-holes actually were, due to the fire-damage.

It is safe to say that the fire-damage played an integral part in the damage-picture. All the exit-holes show extensive fire-abrasion and none are originally sized.

On top, the skin shows extensive heat-damage.

 

Curb your enthusiasm.

That's true. In damage assessment diagrams, there's a cone of 'fragments' that radiate from the back of the point of impact. Worst case scenario you get a fairly bigger area of damage in the surface behind the hit, but I think you're right in that these holes may have been enlarged by a violent burning of fuel. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

No, the exit-damage can't be much larger than the projectile's projected area - even with outward ripping and peeling (keep in mind, at the airspeeds involved, there's little backward peeling due to airstream).

 

There is no way of figuring out which size the exit-holes actually were, due to the fire-damage.

It is safe to say that the fire-damage played an integral part in the damage-picture. All the exit-holes show extensive fire-abrasion and none are originally sized.

On top, the skin shows extensive heat-damage.

 

Curb your enthusiasm.

No that is flat out wrong. Exist holes are generally significantly larger than the entrance diameter, this due to the fact that the metal must be pushed outward. Find tons of images of this online including videos of .50cals specifically going through metal targets like cars.

 

Also the fire damage did cause that color changing entirely, most of that is just paint peeling off from the impacts.

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...