.50 cal duralumin penetration

[Mac_Messer]

1 hour ago, QB.Rails said:

Is anyone arguing that it should? I think most people have been arguing that it’s not performing as it should compared to the other HMG’s. Knowing how the game is currently working with damage, to me the big difference is AP vs. HE. HE appears to be having a bigger effect on aero damage compared to AP. Making the AP/HE combo guns like the 131 and The UB more effective than the M2. Even when it comes to structural damage the M2 should be better than the other two weapons but they still perform slightly better. 

 

Different people argue different points for .50cal weakness. Comparing some .50 hits to a 30mm HE is one of them and a glaring misinterpretation of data.

 

I`m not denying some people think the very same thing about the .50cal issue - and I`m not denying there is one. Those 7 or so threads people made though speak very aggressively and have outlandish claims of comparable 12mm HE projectiles.

 

If you stop looking only for .50cal faults and observe the bigger picture, all AP based projectiles - even cannons - are inferior to HE ingame. And while .50cal effectiveness takes AP/HE issue into account, it is far from the only one at hand. If .50cal`s problem was only the AP projectile effectiveness alone, I think there would be no such threads.  The way an AP projectile acts is nowhere near the same as HE and should never be modeled as such. AP/HE comparisons are wrong since those are different projectiles for different end results.

 

I disagree with the notice that .50cal should be better. That is not precise at all. Should be faster, have better penetration, slightly bigger range of effectiveness. Yes. Cause better structural damage, no. That is a very broad simplification of the issue and does not do any justice to fixing the fifties.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Mac_Messer It is an inherent AP vs HE problem, it is reflected in the M2 .50 cal because it is one of the main guns that only has AP only projectiles.

The problem here is that given how the DM works, the targets need a disproportionate amount of hits to suffer skin damage compared to the very small explosive content HE rounds.  Roughly 1.5 grams of explosive filler is 62 times more powerful in regards to causing skin damage than an AP projectile doesn't take into account exit holes and tumbling, they are also only half as powerful as a round with 20 grams of explosive filler.

The model also isn't granular enough because it leads to this situation:

Edited March 10, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Mac_Messer]

34 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Even if you just use the calculated kinetic energy portion of the .50 cal to arrive at a damage number based on their stated methods, you still have a round that is performing much better than represented in game relative to other ammunition, even if you only go against aircraft structure and not skin, as per the tests done by others.

But that is different damage type altoghether.

 

35 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I've read the whole thing multiple times over the years. I don't think that chart is really as useful as people think it is. It all flows logically from its main premise but we don't have any real-world tests or anything of the sort to back up the assumptions made about the relative destructiveness of the weaponry. As soon as you venture outside of calculating kinetic energy (well, momentum I guess, which is a valid choice) it all becomes very arbitrary and difficult to compare to anything.

The discussion is open and we can discuss it like grown ups.

I`m not saying that the tables and comments printed above are be all end all to the quantification of power of the guns. But it is something to take into account, because it is data, it is logical and frankly I have yet to see someone post something that would challenge it, in the sense of counterdata or counterpoints.

 

38 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

The study takes kinetic energy and applies multipliers based on chemical energy - but the two types of energy are discrete and there is no reason one directly influences the other. It also lumps incendiary effects in with explosive effects - those are different types of chemical energy with very different possible effects on the aircraft. They hand wave this away by stating that it doesn't change the rank order of the results...but that kind of thinking shows they may have gone into this with a number of assumptions they expected to be true, and they used their method because it lined up with those preconceptions.

It acknowledges how difficult it is and how arbitrary it is, but then they go ahead and just start multiplying, and we have to take their word for it that it lines up with 'various practical tests'. And how do they see it lining up with practical tests that were not conducted by them, or with their chart in mind? Do they rank the amount of damage somehow, and it lines up with their chart? What criteria are they using to evaluate the results of the real world tests?

It looks like they have made a regime for assessing ammo effectiveness and then compared it subjectively with outcomes of other tests and seen that, broadly, it seems to work. Without knowing the parameters of the tests they reference, there is no real way to assess how close the study comes to real life.
 

Could be. But it is much better than what has been posted to date in here forums. Not even mentioning the fifties HE mod.

 

Maybe too many variables? My posts in this topic showed how people cherry pick data to give food to confirmation bias. But the context is not simple, nor it is easy.

All your questions/doubts are valid imo and I take em as mine. I don`t see how we substitute AP by HE and act like all is well though (not saying you are). 

My question is - is there a form of competition to the posted tables/comments? Data that is as consistent?

46 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Frankly, I think the whole central premise of that study is seriously flawed. I don't think you can assess aircraft armament in the way they want. I don't think you can lump together all the different types of damage and arrive at a single number representing cartridge effectiveness. There are too many variables. It's good that they acknowledge the variables, but they should have taken an honest look at what they were trying to produce and realized that they were better off finding another way. Instead we have the authors' confident statements that this is the best way with nothing in the way of validation offered. 

But regardless  the 12.7 X 99 in that chart is still more effective at causing aircraft structural damage than what we have in-sim, where the other HE equipped rounds are substantially better at damaging heavy aircraft structures. Because the study is trying to arrive at a single value, it's fair game to use those relative values to assess how the sim works vs. the chart.

 

It's been presented as if it supports the current way the DM functions regarding HE and AP and it really doesn't. People are arguing that if you take the table at face value and were to apply the various interpretations of cartridge effectiveness in-game, you would actually get a much improved damage output from the M2 .50 cals. Even if you cut the damage in half by removing the chemical component from the 12.7 X 99 round and nerfing it a bit, it is still more effective than in sim, relative to HE rounds of similar calibre. 

It's funny that it's being posted as some kind of proof that the current DM regime is correct when a halfway careful reading shows that it doesn't. 
 

It may be something lost in translation but myself, I thought they acknowledge potential faults but this is the best we have, maybe? Because we can all just paste in USAF pilot accounts on exploding Dora wings and leave it at that. I think this is not the best way.

 

AP/HE act in a different way in causing damage. The end values in tables are simplifications to make it more consistent as an end result, proving a point. The comments obviously point to that and try to explain why. The structural damage caused is different, hence we cannot say AP is better at it than HE. They can be similar at best, in the end result, again, simplified. I disagree that the end single values (POWER yah) are fair play to use ingame. We`ve yet to quantify the game values in any way similar to this, so we don`t have a competition to compare to, so we can`t really say whether it is wrong or right vs the game DM.

 

I don`t support the argument, it is simplified to a degree too far to make it a substantive case. The comments to data hint on why there is so many variables not taken into account but they don`t dismiss them outright. We just have nothing better to work with. There is nothing there that would make me agree with you that .50cal without the Incendiary would be still more effective to same calibre HE projectile.

 

For confirmation bias it is funny, yes, For me it is being dismissed because it doesn`t support what is posted to support the .50 cal complaint.

9 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@Mac_Messer It is an inherent AP vs HE problem, it is reflected in the M2 .50 cal because it is one of the main guns that only has AP only projectiles.

The problem here is that given how the DM works, the targets need a disproportionate amount of hits to suffer skin damage compared to the very small explosive content HE rounds.  Roughly 1.5 grams of explosive filler is 62 times more powerful in regards to causing skin damage than an AP projectile doesn't take into account exit holes and tumbling, they are also only half as powerful as a round with 20 grams of explosive filler.

The model also isn't granular enough because it leads to this situation:

I`m not denying it is such a problem. The problem is how people work their way about it.

 

No, you did not provide consistent and logical data for this asserion. Now you pasted real bullet data onto this - not consistent and not logical - data. That is a very flawed comparison that developpers will not take into account, imo.

So skin dmg or structural dmg, again? See my point?

[354thFG_Rails]

37 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

If you stop looking only for .50cal faults and observe the bigger picture, all AP based projectiles - even cannons - are inferior to HE ingame. And while .50cal effectiveness takes AP/HE issue into account, it is far from the only one at hand. If .50cal`s problem was only the AP projectile effectiveness alone, I think there would be no such threads.  The way an AP projectile acts is nowhere near the same as HE and should never be modeled as such. AP/HE comparisons are wrong since those are different projectiles for different end results

I would suggest to you that you get a mod where m2’s only fire mg131 HE rounds. You’ll see they are very very different. I would argue currently HE is over performing or AP is massively underperforming. I’m not even talking about aero at this point either. It comes down to structural, aero and chance of fire. HE outclasses AP in game currently. To me that a huge discrepancy given the fact that the filler in the 131 was very small. 

[Mac_Messer]

Maybe you could make a thread about 12mm HE vs >/20mm HE? If the 12mm HE projectile overperforms, we take it against the 20mm HE, quantify the results and make a case? Or even 12mm vs 20mm vs 30mm?

 

That way, if a good case was made, all HE projectiles could be toned down, making the .30/.50cal issue somewhat smaller?

[354thFG_Rails]

Wouldn’t the point be to compare AP/HE though? I’m not expecting AP to do aero damage quicker that HE. Nor would I expect HE to do structural damage quicker than AP(in game it’s currently slightly better). That’s the point of comparing similar size HE and AP rounds to each other. Not 20mm vs 30mm

Edited March 11, 2021 by QB.Rails

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

 

 

I don`t support the argument, it is simplified to a degree too far to make it a substantive case. The comments to data hint on why there is so many variables not taken into account but they don`t dismiss them outright. We just have nothing better to work with. There is nothing there that would make me agree with you that .50cal without the Incendiary would be still more effective to same calibre HE projectile.

 

 

I'm not asserting that .50 cal would be better than the same calibre HE projectile . I'm asserting that the study shows the .50 cal performing better than the one we have in-game, relative to the HE equipped rounds. AP rounds would still be inferior to HE but not by the order of magnitude we currently see. 

I mean, if people want to say this is the best study we have, I say use it - because as far as the .50 cals go its actually a big boost to their lethality, compared to where they are now. And the HE -MG rounds would be substantially reduced in power if we follow that chart.
 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

I'm not asserting that .50 cal would be better than the same calibre HE projectile . I'm asserting that the study shows the .50 cal performing better than the one we have in-game, relative to the HE equipped rounds. AP rounds would still be inferior to HE but not by the order of magnitude we currently see. 

I mean, if people want to say this is the best study we have, I say use it - because as far as the .50 cals go its actually a big boost to their lethality, compared to where they are now. And the HE -MG rounds would be substantially reduced in power if we follow that chart.
 

 

It is not the best study we have for this problem - for all the reasons you point out in your previous longer post, it is entirely useless for this debate, if anything harmful. 

 

If you assume a certain "power" for HE based on the proportion of weight, bundling all possible damage outcomes into one number, then of course you will end up with an output that reflects that assumption.  That may not matter so much in the Williams index, that was designed to compare entire weapon systems including factors such as rate of fire and weight etc.  But we have to understand individual hits for the DM to model them. That has to include comparing both AP with HE of equivalent calibre, and how HE damage scales with HE content.

 

Given the rather odd developer responses,  I think they need to do a careful reappraisal of the underlying empirical data, not worry about  a dodgy index.

Excluding the incendiary effect which we all know is not modelled and should be, we have a linked pair of problems:

 

1)  How much do holes of various sizes in aircraft skin slow the aircraft down?

2)  How big are holes from AP and HE hits of various calibres and HE contents?

 

Getting a better grip on these questions is the key.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@Mac_Messer Ok I did some testings to show data numbers in regards to the skin damage.

I took a Pe-2 series 87 on the Kuban Autumn map, with full fuel, tested top speed at 100% mixture and 50% water radiators, and measured how much of a drag penalty (skin damage) different amount of hits of the different types of rounds the Berezin uses (AP and HE) incur on the outer wing section.

The 12.7mm Berezin in the Pe-2 top turret has the following belt: First round is an AP one, second round is an HE one, third and fourth rounds are AP, fifth is HE, and it continues with a AP-AP-HE pattern.

So counting to the first round in the chamber it's: AP-HE-AP-AP-HE-AP-AP-HE-AP-AP-HE-AP-AP-HE-AP-AP-HE, etc

With this knowledge and the ammo counter in the GUI you can single fire the type of round you want ( and fire the unwanted type away from the target)

Top speed at 20 meters of altitude with an undamaged plane => 435 km/h
 

1 AP hit: Level 1 damage => 435 km/h

5 AP hits: Level 1 damage => 434 km/h

15 AP hits: Level 1 damage => 433 km/h

30 AP hits: Level 1 damage => 431 km/h

45 AP hits: Level 1 damage => 428 km/h

51 AP hits: Level 2 damage => 427 km/h

60 AP hits: Level 2 damage => 425 km/h

75 AP hits: Level 2 damage => 422 km/h

90 AP hits: Level 2 damage => 419 km/h

99 AP hits: Level 3 damage => 417 km/h

120 AP hits: Level 3 damage => 417 km/h

(In my first run at 84 hits I got a structural failure of the outer wing panel, however in my second run managed to go past 84 hits without structural failure, they are probabilistic, so I could continue with the scaling.)

1 HE hit: Level 3 damage => 415 km/h

2 HE hits: Level 3 damage => 413 km/h

3 HE hits: Level 3 damage => 410 km/h

4 HE hits: Level 3 damage => 409 km/h

One thing I was wrong about is that there is a damage gradient inside the first two graphical levels, however the issue in regards to the relation between the ammo types is shown quite well.

We can see that the Berezin HE is even more powerful than the MG 131 HE, in this case a single hit got the wing section into Level 3 damage with a 20 km/h speed penalty, to achieve the same level of damage, with the Berezin AP I had to put 99 rounds into the wing. So the Berezin HE is 99 times as powerful as the Berezin AP in regards to skin damage, and this is where we think there is an issue.

Should HE of the same caliber be better at skin damage? of course. Should HE be several times better? Absolutely,  but not 60 times as the case of the 13mm HE or 100 times in the case of the 12.7mm HE.

There is also another problem, once past Level 3 damage there is no real scaling in handling/speed penalty anymore. Any extra damage I was getting with the subsequent HE hits were because of the shrapnel affecting the adjacent wing section, which had Level 1 damage.

Edit: btw just a funny coincidence @unreasonable posted his reply just as I was preparing this post ?

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

Good test. 

 

The last problem you mention probably does not matter much in practise, as almost always in a real fight you will get damage on other sections continuing to adding additional drag, or even loss of the wing section.

 

I had not noticed a gradient inside the lower levels: is it possible that this reflects a gradual slow down of the aircraft to the new equilibrium dictated by the level, rather than additional drag for incremental damage? Depends on how long you wait between shots? The speed is continuing to drop with additional HE hits too. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

40 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Good test. 

 

The last problem you mention probably does not matter much in practise, as almost always in a real fight you will get damage on other sections continuing to adding additional drag, or even loss of the wing section.

 

I had not noticed a gradient inside the lower levels: is it possible that this reflects a gradual slow down of the aircraft to the new equilibrium dictated by the level, rather than additional drag for incremental damage? Depends on how long you wait between shots? The speed is continuing to drop with additional HE hits too. 

The level 3 scaling stop can be an issue in some of the tougher planes such as IL-2s, once they have level 3 damage in all their wing sections while they can't really maneuver anymore they can keep going straight and level tanking hits, and from a damage modelling perspective there would always be more damage to be done, unless the wing is a completely exposed skeleton of ribs and spars, at that point there wouldn't be any lift left and the plane should fall out of the sky. This is why I think there should be a more granular model overall, either having many more smaller sections or ideally consider the wing surface as a whole and keep track of each individual hit position as cliffs of dover and now dcs with their reworked DM do (this from a damage calculation perspective, not graphical).

About the speed slow down, those were the actual top speeds for the amount of hits. When I reached one of the thresholds (either graphic level change or 15 rounds from the previous point) I stopped shooting, went to pilot position, put back engine power to slow the plane down, then went to full power again to check for top speed, once top speed was reached mantained constant at 8x time compression for some time, went back to the gunner station and started shooting again.

I suspect the slight decreases with HE above Level 3 damage is the sharpnel damaging the mid wing section, I noted it had level 1 damage so it could be slowly getting more splash damage with subsequent hits, in a similar fashion to how AP scales, rather slowly.

Edited March 11, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-