Jump to content
71st_AH_Hooves

.50 cal damage, or lack there of

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

What's interesting, is that in my 3 flights with the HE ammo in 50 cals, the kills were mostly from fire. It's almost as if they've stumbled upon a good way of simulating incendiary rounds
:thinking:

It sure looks like all that real life gun cam footage we see.   Flashes on the target and bad things happening.  It might be a little OP, but I think it's closer the truth than the current situation by far.  

Edited by BCI-Nazgul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

 

 

There are also a lot of military vets and gun nuts in here. Those of us across the pond generally have a lot more experience with firearms than anyone in Europe. We have a gun culture that Europeans in general do not.

 

 

On topic:

 

It appears that most of us agree that HE damage is overblown in both the 20mm and 13mm MG's. The .50s need a tweak and most of all the damage model needs more depth.

 

/thread

^^^^^^this!......people wanna make this complicated, it's not......Smoke jumper hit it right on the nail!

Share this post


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

 

 I can understand why this should be so: people want to have fun blowing things up. Seeing a plane limp off leaking various fluids and smokes is no more satisfying to us, even if in fact it never RTBs,  than it was to USAF pilots who wanted confirmed Ace status, so that they could score a lot of chicks in Piccadilly before they went home to Dullville, Idaho. ;) 

Another thing that's affecting people's perception, in game, is the fact that 1 he hit can often lead to certain death, by virtue of the speed and manoeuvrability loss* and the tenacity of your opponent online. Even dozens of 50cal ap hits will often not do this.

 

Therefore 1 hit from he is probably considered an effective kill* by some people, whereas the in game statistics will show many more hits contributing to airframe loss.

 

* I think the game treats these single he hits disproportionately, compared with the speed loss from missing wheel well covers/airbrakes etc. Ie the round which causes around a 4 square foot hole on many of its hits (there are many photos where 20mm caused that sized hole, survivor bias or not, it shows it's possible for some 20mm) causes about the same speed loss as and area over order of magnitude greater, ie the wheel wells.

 

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Europeans also have military experience, even if they do not blow things up with .50 cals in their back yard. ;) 

 

On the structural lift/drag penalty issue.  Having just run some tests I am:

 

1) 99.9% sure that level 1 damage areas confer no penalty (or so small that I cannot easily measure it)  

2)100% sure that the lift drag penalty from level 2 (+?) areas is cumulative.

 

The test is to have an He111 flying to a WP at close to maximum speed. Open mission, enable full Autopilot, then allow the AI to settle into it's target speed.  Fire the side gun into your own wing in one area, (I started with the outer, aiming at the cross), enough to get level 2 damage, then go back to pilots pov. The AI is attempting to maintain the target speed, but cannot: speed will drop quickly and then stabilise - from 354kph to 346 kph. Wait a while to see that the speed is just about stable.

 

Go other side gun, repeat. At pilot's pov, speed drops to 339 kph.

 

Back to side gun, repeat on inner wing, taking care not to hit engines, flaps area. At pilot's pov speed drops to 328 kph. 

 

So for a bomber formation, level 2 damage will cause a target to drop out of formation, once it has no more excess power, and the more areas you damage the faster it will drop behind. I have not had time to check the effects of going from level 2 to 3, but I expect that to show a similar pattern. (Will check when have time).

 

I think the issue with the effect on fighters is partly just that in most fights the target can compensate for a loss of speed by pushing the nose down (or opening throttle). If you think that the effects are underdone, you also have to consider the effects on bombers in formation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heinkel test is absolutely not a good measure of how the DM affects the aerodynamic performance, as it never pulls off the same crazy hijinks as even AI fighters do. Even in SP, swiss cheese 109s can absolutely whip around and remain reasonably combat effective in spite of massive damage. This is because as far as I can tell, there is barely any perceptible gap between "level 1" damage and "total wing off" at least for fighters. And you can repeatedly shoot any aircraft in the wings and tail with the US .50 cals and only ever see level 1 damage, vs. the 1-2 shots of a 13mm which immediately puts you into level 2 damage and RTB territory.

 

See SuperEntendard's video attached below:

 

Compare the results with this video from 332's Sharksquad where you can see even a substantial number of hits from .50s scoring damage on internals, but barely registering as even level 1 damage on the airfoils.

 

You can argue "oh lol learn to aim dumbasses" to the moon and back, but when literally a dozen 13mm can obliterate even an eternal 109 from rear aspect while multiple passes with .50s from multiple decent pilots can barely cause any appreciable damage I fail to see how what's being argued is anything other than a blue-favored AA metagame with no basis in historical authenticity, ballistics, or fact.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The He111 test is absolute proof that the level 2 damage (1) creates a lift drag penalty and, (2) that damage on different areas is cumulative. Both of which has been disputed.

 

I really do not care whether you think the absolute quantities are too little or to much, that is just your opinion, for which I have yet to see physical, mathematical or historical evidence. You just do not like the MP implications of the current implementation.  I am just sick of seeing people repeating blatant and easily demonstrated falsehoods.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -332FG-LemonQuat said:

Snip

 

The 109 in the video isn't even doing defensive maneuvering.
Hell he's not doing any significant maneuvering at all.
If and when the fifties get back to being worth something those 109 pilots are going to be in for one hell of a wake up call.
Which will be the basis for their renewed whining.
Yeah if you don't maneuver to avoid fire you get to suffer consequences.
Cue Pikachu face...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

The He111 test is absolute proof that the level 2 damage (1) creates a lift drag penalty and, (2) that damage on different areas is cumulative. Both of which has been disputed.

 

I really do not care whether you think the absolute quantities are too little or to much, that is just your opinion, for which I have yet to see physical, mathematical or historical evidence. You just do not like the MP implications of the current implementation.  I am just sick of seeing people repeating blatant and easily demonstrated falsehoods.

 

 

In the same video we see a 110 demonstrate that wonderful drag lift penalty and "cumulative" lift damage. Note how the 110 remains largely controllable despite lacking an aileron and elevator, and how despite dozens of hits to both wing surfaces no damage texture past "level 1". This is in spite of the same wing region literally having its aileron blown off and large prolific streams of steam and fuel from the internal components. The 110 is only forced down not by aerodynamic damage incurred through repeated gun attacks, but by a lucky hit which started a fire and destroyed the remaining aileron. You even see him pull a barrel roll at low level and recover prior to getting hit by the last snapshot.

 

This is why I say that using tests on relatively stable, nonmaneuvering planes doesn't give you the big picture. Yes, you might cause enough damage that impedes station keeping in formation, but in normal BFM conditions such penalties are hardly appreciable and lead to benny hill sequences like this. 

 

Edited by -332FG-LemonQuat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, -332FG-LemonQuat said:

 

This is why I say that using tests on relatively stable, nonmaneuvering planes doesn't give you the big picture. Yes, you might cause enough damage that impedes station keeping in formation, but in normal BFM conditions such penalties are hardly appreciable and lead to benny hill sequences like this. 

 

 

The trouble with this sort of MP video is not that it does not happen - or even that it is unrepresentative, it may or may not be. It is that there are a huge number of variables involved, not just in the FM and DM but in how MP pilots behave (unlike human WW2 pilots much of the time). 

 

Test like mine are the only way in which you can separate out one element at a time - or at least a small subset of elements - and measure it.  Then you can argue about the quantities from an agreed portfolio of basic facts. If people still think that the penalty from different areas is not cumulative in some way, we cannot even begin to have a sensible discussion.

 

@71st_AH_Barnacles made an interesting earlier point about the lift/drag penalty from various hits vs that from having the gear down: which we can measure separately,

So you could, in a controlled test, compare how many areas / levels of pure surface damage compare to dropping the gear. That might be an interesting discussion. I do not know how many 20mm HE shells (for instance) are or should be needed to have a similar drag penalty to gear down: but that at least is the kind of comparison which might get us somewhere.

 

I will see if I can get my He111 test bed to compare gear down and surface damage sometime when I have time to concentrate. Things are a bit strange and fraught here in the City of Angels at the moment - as indeed they seem to be everywhere.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The He111 test is absolute proof that the level 2 damage (1) creates a lift drag penalty and, (2) that damage on different areas is cumulative. Both of which has been disputed.

 

I really do not care whether you think the absolute quantities are too little or to much, that is just your opinion, for which I have yet to see physical, mathematical or historical evidence. You just do not like the MP implications of the current implementation.  I am just sick of seeing people repeating blatant and easily demonstrated falsehoods.

 

 Now it's really easy. Download mod 0.50 HE and re-do all test you've done with default AP and compare numbers with HE one. As easy as that. From the default extreme number to the HE extreme number there's a mid point where API- APIT sure it's right there.

The main issue we are trying to "fix" here is that Physics, Maths & historical evidences are in game at least 120 degrees in the opposite direction of they should be and these issues are creating Bizarre & odd situations for both side pilots.  

 

We, the players-customers, don't need to demonstrate to be smarter or with higher skills than the official technical team. The fact we insist in 50's, 13's, tails,... issues is because we all like or even love & hate this game but we all want to see it improving in several aspects. You can't and you shouldn't be 150% "accurate" with some aspects from one side and at the same time 150% "unacurate" with some aspects from the other side, also in some aspects from some A/C from  the first side . This is easy to see: If in a short term they don't give any solution or something like that people will quit (in fact it's happening nowadays in MP servers during weekend). You can also check statics of that and do maths.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way a Heavy machine gun caliber HE can do such a catastrophic damage. In real life it was phased out because it was largely ineffective against structure and only questionably good against surfaces.

1g of any HE is not enough to cause large enough local over pressure to have a plastic deformation of materials, you are way inside of elastic band of most aircraft skin materials at the near vicinity of impact site. 

 

The density of 1g of most HE is also small, so it takes allot of space, space that can be used for a dense AP core and incendiary compound. The kinetic energy stored in the AP core is far more likely to deliver more structure damage than any piddly HE filler you can cram in to 12mm +- diameter. 

 

The video of a spit sawing a wing of 110 with HE belt looks like there is again, something odd with damage model. 

7 hours ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

 

 

There are also a lot of military vets and gun nuts in here. Those of us across the pond generally have a lot more experience with firearms than anyone in Europe. We have a gun culture that Europeans in general do not.

 

 

On topic:

 

It appears that most of us agree that HE damage is overblown in both the 20mm and 13mm MG's. The .50s need a tweak and most of all the damage model needs more depth.

 

/thread

 

 

Come visit Finland, we got higher gun/capita density than Texas :biggrin: (Yes we hunt and most of our men go trough mandatory military so when you talk about Europe, what part do you mean? I can equally poo poo on your democrat... *ahem,* states... and their weird aversion to black, evil looking assault clip guns :rofl:)

My point still stands, most of people here have not, under any circumstances, fired a 50 cal at anything resembling a soft, structural target, be it car,  fridge or a plane. 

 

And i am not sure the local 20mm mineshot damage is overblown, just the fragmentation effect is a bit... weird. The HE MG's are... all over the place wrong, tho. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

The trouble with this sort of MP video is not that it does not happen - or even that it is unrepresentative, it may or may not be. It is that there are a huge number of variables involved, not just in the FM and DM but in how MP pilots behave (unlike human WW2 pilots much of the time). 

 

Test like mine are the only way in which you can separate out one element at a time - or at least a small subset of elements - and measure it.  Then you can argue about the quantities from an agreed portfolio of basic facts. If people still think that the penalty from different areas is not cumulative in some way, we cannot even begin to have a sensible discussion.

 

@71st_AH_Barnacles made an interesting earlier point about the lift/drag penalty from various hits vs that from having the gear down: which we can measure separately,

So you could, in a controlled test, compare how many areas / levels of pure surface damage compare to dropping the gear. That might be an interesting discussion. I do not know how many 20mm HE shells (for instance) are or should be needed to have a similar drag penalty to gear down: but that at least is the kind of comparison which might get us somewhere.

 

I will see if I can get my He111 test bed to compare gear down and surface damage sometime when I have time to concentrate. Things are a bit strange and fraught here in the City of Angels at the moment - as indeed they seem to be everywhere.  

 

Thanks!

What I was thinking, is that it's quite easy to deliberately rip the gear door covers of planes. Even the landing gear itself, although you generally lose the control surfaces as well if you don't do it by deliberately clipping a tree or building.

That way you can have a approximation of what size hole (area of the wheel well) equates to what speed loss in game.
Not perfect I know, because IRL a hole made by a shell would be jagged, but it's a good starter for 10.

I've not done a proper test but it seems from first impressions to be the same order of speed loss as 99% of single 20mm hits.

Also, if for example, the speed loss from 1 mineshell was the same order as the speed loss for an airbrake, a device that's specifically designed to slow you down, that would be a bit incongruous IMO.

Finally from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf

the game IMO actually correlates with the doc quite well, as demonstrated in the discussion above. So let me repeat, I think they achieved a tremendous feat of software engineering and thanks and congratulations must go out to AnPetrovich and his team! (I've always from the very start maintained the actual system damage etc of 50 cals seems to correlate closely with objective and quantifiable data, and my IRL experience of using them, with the exception of the consequences of non-airframe loss damage (ie aero damage))

But I think large planes like b25 are not resilient enough, and mg131and UB I think are close to the 20mm figures in the doc.

Also although the Pk for 50s is ok, it doesn't take into account aero damage that doesn't cause a loss of the airframe.
If you use the maths for 50 cals : 1-(1-0.01^25) = around 30% is roughly the p=structural loss for a 30mm hit. This is just speculation, but if you're close to 1:2 odds for structural loss, is it not beyond the realms of possibility that there's significant aero damage. ie. if you just rolled a 2:1 chance of knocking a wing off, you probably had a good chance of removing a panel or something, assuming the 33% chance of airframe loss didn't actually occur?

 

2 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Come visit Finland, we got higher gun/capita density than Texas :biggrin: (Yes we hunt and most of our men go trough mandatory military so when you talk about Europe, what part do you mean? I can equally poo poo on your democrat... *ahem,* states... and their weird aversion to black, evil looking assault clip guns :rofl:)

My point still stands, most of people here have not, under any circumstances, fired a 50 cal at anything resembling a soft, structural target, be it car,  fridge or a plane. 

 

And i am not sure the local 20mm mineshot damage is overblown, just the fragmentation effect is a bit... weird. The HE MG's are... all over the place wrong, tho. 

I live in UK, which as a massive aversion to gun ownership, but in my old job I came into work and someone had left 2 Glocks in my desk draw :D.

Edited by 71st_AH_Barnacles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update, the airbrake on the ju88 incurs a 100kmh speed loss.

On the p38 there's an 8kmh speed loss for the air brakes (although they're anti compressibility flaps, not really speed brakes)
135kmh for landing gear being lowered.
60kmh for the wheel well covers

k4
45kmh for wheel well covers

Tempest
145kmh for landing gear being lowered.

AAAND it didn't lose any speed for the wheel well covers being ripped off. A bug maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

My point still stands, most of people here have not, under any circumstances, fired a 50 cal at anything resembling a soft, structural target, be it car,  fridge or a plane. 

 

And i am not sure the local 20mm mineshot damage is overblown, just the fragmentation effect is a bit... weird. The HE MG's are... all over the place wrong, tho. 

 

Finland.... Okay. If I ever get the chance I'll visit!

 

In the Canadian sub arctic we shoot old mining equipment and abandoned cars a lot. A 30.06 will punch right through 30s era steel plate over 10mil thick.

 

I've also seen them embedded quite deep into 30's era boilers which are inches thing in spots.

 

For your last bit... Where they not more useful as spotting rounds?  I'm sure if they hit a sweet spot they could be good but I'm sure that it was no where near as consistent as an AR or incendiary round.

 

Pretty cool bullet anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -332FG-Buddy said:

.

 

My favourite part about this is the 109 doesn't even try to maneuver because they know they have plenty of time to keep making shots before they'll feel any damage to the plane

 

The inconsistent damage of American rounds lets people play in such a meta and "gamey" way and it's just eye-rolling to watch

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

was it a PK? 

Nope..... that is the standard  case of the G14 when A/C after absorving an ingent quantity of rounds sudently lost any tail surface control. G14 enters in a sudent nose pitch down. You can see the dummie pilot alive til the moment of impact (in the subway level). One point to keep in mind for those who stil thinking 50's generates drag in the fight interim : I can't see any sudent change in the A/C in the roll axis due the lost of the left aileron. Even more,  I've only observed a very stable A/C absorving a great amount of fire impacts (Yes, I also observed a lot of tracers missing the target) that gives a lot of time to its pilot to play in the "gaming" way due there's a minimal (IMAO near zero values) aerodynamic penalty til the final control collapse. There's a complete lack of progression  in the accumulated damage and its aerodynamical effects in the FM envelope, as you can easily observe in a P-47,P-51 & P-38 when been hitted in the wing tip or in the tail by 13 mm. ( in a matter of seconds, mustang experiments a great drag, lack of control sensiveness and speed decreasing). Don't be mistaken I'm not complaining about the effects what a late WW2 Heavy MG rounds can inflict to an A/C, all the opposite I'm complaining what a late WW2 Heavy MG rounds cannot inflict to an A/C, but they used to do.

Edited by Tatata_Time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of discussion about this topic round and round. 

 

There are many issues here it seems, but I'm not a weapons expert so I will focus on what I see as the least controversial element of this discussion.

 

The facts as I see them:

 

1. There is no model for the effects of incendiary ammunition as I understand it.

 

2. This was the main ammunition type of the USAAF during this time period. 

 

My simpleminded conclusion is the .50 caliber machine gun used in US aircraft is not accurately modeled. It does not have the correct ammunition.

 

My limited understanding is that the incendiary ammunition was one of the critical components of the weapons systems effectivity against aircraft. Not having it is the same as having 20mm cannon shells without an explosive effect in my opinion. A large oversight in the accuracy of the simulation. The results of this inaccurate model is that the weapons system is much less effective in combat, due to it missing a critical element of effectivity. You can see the results of this in multiplayer flying styles. It is far easier to render an aircraft ineffective in combat with a peppering of cannon rounds due to the aerodynamic damage they cause. It renders you unable to fly your aircraft through high performance combat maneuvers anymore. If your enemy then decides to finish you off at his leisure, he is able to do so. You must now disengage to deal with your damaged aircraft.

 

Peppering an aircraft with .50 caliber armor piercing ammunition, unless you set fire to the engine or kill the pilot is currently not capable of causing enough structural damage to prevent the opponent from flying high performance maneuvers with his aircraft against you. And players understand this, so they alter their flying style to not be afraid of getting hit by snapshots or opponents with .50mgs on their six for some time. They alter their flying style to be much more aggressive than is possible with allied aircraft, where you must fear any possibility of getting hit by the enemies weapons. Certain "neutral" situations are now only dangerous when the opponent has cannons. (I would argue that the scenario allied players currently experience is the more realistic one.) You alter your gunnery from accurate bursts to instead spraying for the lucky shot. etc. 

 

But what would happen if instead, those 5-10 incendiary rounds you pepper into their wing fuel tank had a high chance to start a fire on their aircraft? Even 50%? You have more parity, the burning aircraft must disengage from combat to deal with the fire. The blue plane would fear the possibility of getting hit by the enemies guns as well as the red team (as it should be). Let's talk about burning aircraft for a second. The figure I found for the temperature of a gasoline fire is 1500 degrees F. Duralumin alloy such as was used in aircraft at the time has a melting point of 1,166 degrees F. It gets soft and weak even before then, and you will have lasting structural damage even if you put it out. If you can't put it out, your aircraft structure softens, melts and disintegrates and you go down in flaming chunks. The smaller the structure, the faster that occurs. 

 

Now in the context of this discussion, I think the the whole .50's should do more aero damage argument is the wrong focus. The disparity in aero damage between cannons and MGs (Lets exclude 13mm German MGs) is probably closer to the truth than not (and 13mm German MG should do similar damage to all other ~13mm MG class weapons including .50 M2). The real issue is that the .50 AP cannot render aircraft combat ineffective anywhere near the way that cannons can when in reality I suspect they were much closer.

 

The cause of the issues and complaints is the inaccurate model of .50 caliber MG weapons systems. The .50 MG rendered aircraft ineffective by burning them instead of blasting big holes in them. Until the model is accurate you won't see the results you expect from it.

 

My request to the developers would be, as part of your next damage model development cycle, to create a model of the effects of incendiary ammunition. If the goal of the simulation is historical accuracy, then this is a critical element of the western allied aircraft set that is missing and must be added. You all have done a great job on other aspects of this sim, and this is one which needs that same attention to detail. To anyone who wants to argue that the weapons are ok because you can still get kills with them: You are 100% correct they can be used effectively, I have done so myself. I would also direct you back to my underlined statements to settle that discussion. It's just not relevant to what I see as the core issue of modeling inaccuracy. 

Edited by VA_chikinpickle
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much of that - been lobbying for incendiaries to be explicitly modelled for years, they are missing from FC too.

 

Only qualification: 109s and 190s do not have wing fuel tanks: you will still have to get rounds into the tanks behind and under the pilot through the armour or from an angle. The 1.7g of incendiary on an API-T M20 ignites on contact: it is not fuzed, so hits on the rear of the plane will have lessened incendiary effect by the time the AP element gets to the tank through the skin, armour plate and any other equipment (radios) in the way.  A side hit will have a much higher chance of starting a fire.

 

Additionally, not all fires are kills - some fires will go out simply because the self sealing tanks limit the fuel flow: the lower the calibre the harder it is to create a self sustaining fire. So the idea that 1 API hit to fuel tank = 1 fire = one kill (as has been confidently asserted) is not right, as the US Ballistics Lab testers state explicitly in a800394.   You would usually need a few hits, but certainly less than we see now. 

 

Even with API, I would still expect PKs to be the largest cause of 109/190 kills. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Devs got it.

Way more uproar than. Physiology. Non issue to most. 

Weapons represented properly way more concern.

But. We know who we are dealing with. So be patient.

Share this post


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

Only qualification: 109s and 190s do not have wing fuel tanks: you will still have to get rounds into the tanks behind and under the pilot through the armour or from an angle. The 1.7g of incendiary on an API-T M20 ignites on contact: it is not fuzed, so hits on the rear of the plane will have lessened incendiary effect by the time the AP element gets to the tank through the skin, armour plate and any other equipment (radios) in the way.  A side hit will have a much higher chance of starting a fire.

a small addition:

the M8 API carries 15gr/0.97g incendiary and the incendiary component is ignited by friction.  It would be nice to know how much and how deep the icendiary is driven after ignition, since I would guess some stays outside of the plane seen as the visible flash we all love and would love to see in IL-2 :)

(e.g. the German 13mm Incendiary sprays its incendiary component forth over 5 meters of travel)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know (perhaps someone has evidence?) but I suspect that API rounds will almost always fail to ignite anything by hitting a fuel tank. They're isn't enough oxygen in the tank for fire and not enough fuel outside of the tank for fire. 

Only once fuel had leaked out of the tank for some time will there be a volatile enough mixture. 

 

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I don't know (perhaps someone has evidence?) but I suspect that API rounds will almost always fail to ignite anything by hitting a fuel tank. They're isn't enough oxygen in the tank for fire and not enough fuel outside of the tank for fire. 

Only once fuel had leaked out of the tank for some time will there be a volatile enough mixture. 

 

 

That is true. Only one or two API rounds seldom will ignite a fire. It is the sum of bullets on target that gradually increase the chance of igniting a fire. But take into account that it wasn´t only fuel tanks that were needed to hit to ignite a fire. Fuel lines severed also served as source of fuel. The same can be said for oil and oil lines. Metanol deposit could be another source too.

Regarding the fuel tank itself will also depend on the amount of fuel inside and the proportion of volatile gas (that is what is really flamable). An empty tank fuel will have more vaporized fuel inside and thus is much more likely to be ignited than a full one (unless it has a system like some russian planes that introduced inert gas in the tank as it was becoming empty).

How easy was to ignite in a typical bounce of 2-4 seconds burst? The AARs of P-47 indicate that of about 730 claims they reported fires/explosions in about 320 attacks. Hardly insignificant.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

The AARs of P-47 indicate that of about 730 claims they reported fires/explosions in about 320 attacks. Hardly insignificant.

 

Whilst I don't disagree that it will be a significant number, I don't trust this particular number.

I suspect  that when your kill credit depends on you spotting fire, the old phrase "where there is smoke, there is fire" tends to get used more often than it should.

I would be unsurprised if this number is an overestimate by 15% or more.

Edited by [DBS]Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US ballistics study that's been posted here numerous times involved some tests on P-38s and B-25s on the ground using M20 API-T.  They never observed a first round ignition, but reported that subsequent rounds fired into a damaged tank had about a 70% chance of starting a fire.  The other testing that I've seen is this which @=362nd_FS=RoflSeal posted a few months back.  I'm not sure what the exact source is, but it's interesting as it used M1 incendiary and M8 armor piercing incendiary, using German type self sealing tanks at various altitudes, and based on their average rounds per tank for ignition below 2, they must have seen some first round fires.

 

unknown.png

 

 

 

Edited by KW_1979

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even firing into previously damage fuel tanks, the p of causing a fire was high, but the p of that fire causing an A kill was low. (Table E2, page 157) Clearly the addition of more hits increases that probability rapidly, but it is a mistake to assume that one ignition in a test = (edit, whoops!) fire sufficient to kill.  The fire has to be sustained and of sufficient intensity.  

 

I suspect we could probably find common ground on this fairly quickly. It is the issue of aerodynamic penalties which I suspect is the hardest to solve definitively. That is just not something that was easy to test.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Whilst I don't disagree that it will be a significant number, I don't trust this particular number.

I suspect  that when your kill credit depends on you spotting fire, the old phrase "where there is smoke, there is fire" tends to get used more often than it should.

I would be unsurprised if this number is an overestimate by 15% or more.

 

I am afraid that is pure especulation on your side. Unless you have any information to back it. Not saying that is imposible what you suggest but that was an official record. Lying deliberatidely could faced severe consecuences. More over, If lying was as common as you suggest I bet we would have seen an proporcionate and significant increase in the amount of claims. Anyone could lie back then so if pilot number could lie then so could number two and number three....

While we can agree that, of all those claims, a significant amount made it back to base, we are just judging damage. A diving smoking plane can be wrongly be claimed as destroyed when, in fact, he surely made it back. But there is much less doubt about that it was damaged and it was smoking. Unless your claim of lying hold a signficant truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm quite disappointed that we've only got to 20 pages so far.  With a concerted push you can all keep this thread going until Christmas and at least 25 pages.

 

von Tom

Share this post


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

Only qualification: 109s and 190s do not have wing fuel tanks:

Agree with 109, but 190 contained in its wings the ammo to feed the 30's of the wing roots and, as sure you know, were a mixture of AP's and HE's rounds. As I mentioned if past posts USAAF experts realized 0.50 caliber API-APIT rounds were the best they had in their arsenal. They're a good balance between size and lethality. They could carry a lot of ammo instead cannons, so they can put a great amount of balistic material per second with a great level of accuracy, due the great muzzle speed and great kinetic energy of API rounds due their material composition and density. 

Again we're talking in circles because, even the fact API rounds don't create a fire all times they impact in every part of the airframe they produce entry holes (relatively small) but, in their travel thru "empty" spaces of the wings they generate sortie holes (bigger ones than the round diameter). Ooops again with aerodynamic penalties and a lack of them and, I almost forget: 109 got instaled the radiators in the wing roots and you know: shooting rads and coolant leaks  is the worst and at same level of leaking oil ( the bleed out of any internal explosion engine). So yes, I would agree with your sentence if it means that any system I explained aren't be well modeled in the DM or directly they're not modeled. But on the other hand if you test that with the 50's HE you would check those "2nd and 3rd. damage layer" damages are generated with a few impacts. 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

They're isn't enough oxygen in the tank for fire and not enough fuel outside of the tank for fire. 

When german crews entered combat they'd consume part of their initial mission full loaded tanks in the climbing and holdings at rendevouz point. API rounds don't ignite the fuel, they ignite the mix of fuel vapors and air inside the fuel tank. In the triangle of fire:

 

     Fire triangle - Wikipedia

So yes, you can do the test or check it out in internet: A match, a puddle of fuel and a slow motion camera. Then you could check fuel never ignites in direct contact with the flame of the match. It's always the on-top mixture layer formed by air and fuel vapors that ignites first and generates enough temperature, in a chain reaction, to detonate the rest of the fuel.  If you won't be so daring you can observe a zippo lighter.

 

I said fuel DETONATES not FIRES due the aviation fuel high NOC number 

Edited by Tatata_Time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, von_Tom said:

 

 

 

I'm quite disappointed that we've only got to 20 pages so far.  With a concerted push you can all keep this thread going until Christmas and at least 25 pages.

 

von Tom

 

I am fairly sure that this will run until the developers either introduce an incendiary round, or completely change the range of aerodynamic damage caused by different ammo types, dramatically, in favour of AP.  

 

Hell hath no fury like a MP gamer scorned.   

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

I'm quite disappointed that we've only got to 20 pages so far.  With a concerted push you can all keep this thread going until Christmas and at least 25 pages.

 

You need to troll on every others' posts then sure the thread will reach 25 or even 30 pages. Are you the same that one week ago wanted to leave thread diying? Seems you're not too much interested in this thread dont' you? or the opposite? It is as easy as unclick any thread notification if you're not really interested in it.  

Edited by Tatata_Time
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

I am afraid that is pure especulation on your side. Unless you have any information to back it. Not saying that is imposible what you suggest but that was an official record. Lying deliberatidely could faced severe consecuences. More over, If lying was as common as you suggest I bet we would have seen an proporcionate and significant increase in the amount of claims. Anyone could lie back then so if pilot number could lie then so could number two and number three....

While we can agree that, of all those claims, a significant amount made it back to base, we are just judging damage. A diving smoking plane can be wrongly be claimed as destroyed when, in fact, he surely made it back. But there is much less doubt about that it was damaged and it was smoking. Unless your claim of lying hold a signficant truth.

 

Lies are not necessary for biases to show in statistics.

It isn't a lie to report a plane on fire if you believe it's on fire because of the thick black smoke and what you thought where flames from 500m away.

You might have some small doubts about if it really was fire. Hard to tell with so much smoke, but you're certain it was a kill and if you don't report the fire you think you saw, you won't be credited with your first kill as everyone was too high to see the plane impact.

If there is a motivation for a bias, one will show. There is nothing speculative about that.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Tatata_Time said:

When german crews entered combat they'd consume part of their initial mission full loaded tanks in the climbing and holdings at rendevouz point. API rounds don't ignite the fuel, they ignite the mix of fuel vapors and air inside the fuel tank. In the triangle of fire:

 

Absolutely! If the fuel air mix was just right in the tank, that would lead to an explosion. Any non-explosive fire that inside the tank it's self will quickly consume all the oxygen available and extinguish in a fraction of a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

I'm quite disappointed that we've only got to 20 pages so far.  With a concerted push you can all keep this thread going until Christmas and at least 25 pages.

 

von Tom

 

What do you expect when there's been no official response from the team? Do you have anything useful to say or are you just here to be a prick?

 

There's been some pretty good discussion in this thread recently, despite your stated desire for everyone to just "let it die". There isn't even any more arguing, everyone has come together for a very productive, and civil, discussion in the hope of improving this sim. 

 

If you're not interested in this topic, I have an incredibly simple and effective solution: don't read it. If you're somehow incapable of doing that, then a 20 page thread should be the least of your worries. Ironic that you complain about the length of the thread when your own comment is completely pointless and adds nothing to the discussion but clutter.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

Lies are not necessary for biases to show in statistics.

It isn't a lie to report a plane on fire if you believe it's on fire because of the thick black smoke and what you thought where flames from 500m away.

You might have some small doubts about if it really was fire. Hard to tell with so much smoke, but you're certain it was a kill and if you don't report the fire you think you saw, you won't be credited with your first kill as everyone was too high to see the plane impact.

If there is a motivation for a bias, one will show. There is nothing speculative about that.

Well, I can only see speculations on your assestment. Forcing the possible circumstances to only count what would prove your point is just speculations. Fire is something really hard to miss or missinterpret.

I am not denying that it is imposible they made mistakes  but you will have to come with a better evidence to deny that when they reported a fire/explosion that is what they saw. And most importantly, that as you imply, it happened in a signficant percentage as to invalid the basic stastistic of the AARs.

I will let my points rest here until you are coming with some strong evidence to support yours.

Edited by HR_Zunzun

Share this post


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

 

Are you the same that one week ago wanted to leave thread diying?

 

Sarcasm isn't your thing is it?

 

von Tom

42 minutes ago, Dirtbag_Jim said:

 

... or are you just here to be a prick?

 

 

blah blah blah

 

 

Sarcasm isn't your thing either is it?  I'm just adding to the general pointlessness of the discussion at this time.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

Sarcasm isn't your thing is it?

 

von Tom

 

Sarcasm isn't your thing either is it?  I'm just adding to the general pointlessness of the discussion at this time.

 

von Tom

Why do you consider the discussion pointless? Although the main points with regards the complaint has been fullfilled there is still some discrepancies to deal with and many new sources of information have been added.  Right now is not just adding to the main subject but learning about aero damage in general..

I will dare to say that there have been many good points taken out of the discussion so far.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Well, I can only see speculations on your assestment. Forcing the possible circumstances to only count what would prove your point is just speculations. Fire is something really hard to miss or missinterpret.

I am not denying that it is imposible they made mistakes  but you will have to come with a better evidence to deny that when they reported a fire/explosion that is what they saw. And most importantly, that as you imply, it happened in a signficant percentage as to invalid the basic stastistic of the AARs.

I will let my points rest here until you are coming with some strong evidence to support yours.

 

Well, it's speculation to doubt the accuracy of the reports, but it's also speculation to consider the reports completely accurate.

The question isn't what is speculation and what isn't. Instead, the question is "which is more likely?".

 

It's just as difficult to find evidence that backs up reports of fire as it is to find evidence that refutes reports of fire.

Fire is very easy to miss and misinterpret as smoke is often the biggest visual clue to fire. Sometimes smoke is the only signal that a plane is on fire, especially from a distance.

 

What I absolutely can prove is there is a degree of inaccuracy in After Action Reports. Kill claims regularly were made that exceed the number of losses that the opposing side suffered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...