Jump to content

Comparing HMG Damage, and issues with .50 cals


Recommended Posts

I think its impossible to actually know specifics without more information, from the developers. (not likely)

Too much is still guesswork, based on methods of testing that are indicative, because thats all that possible currently.

 

It needs work, and i'm confident it will improve, i'd def like to see HMG's work better.

Edited by =RS=Stix_09
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

yes , its not a simple problem, I'm glad thats not my job.

 

Well..... implementing such a complex DM more than 1 year ago was their own decision, so basically they should thought pros and cons of such a complex system and a so simple 0.50 cal only AP rounds implementation. 

Is DM showing in a high grade of accuracy the damage power of an AP 0.50 round? Highly plausible. But this plausibility also shows a lack of work in internal systems ingame representation that an AP round could dissable... and a API round would dissable those systems even better than a simple AP round. I don't complain about the DM in itself I complain about how they've implemented it and the lack of improvement in all this period.

 

... but the problem is still here, and YES it is a HUGE PROBLEM in all ways, but 1 month ago they've talked of "starting studying". In last DD they've shown us the DVD tech: a long term project.... bla,bla, bla, just to generate a kind of hype, but we can find ZERO references to any study in progress related to this. The possitive impact that could generate any news of all this mess is 1000 times better than any new tech to show us an actual hole done by my useless 50's but unlinked to any DM.... but don't worry they're going to implement it first in tanks and maybe some day....."if things go as they expect then...What could be wrong?" 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@=RS=Stix_09 I notice you're being pretty light handed on the matter. I'm linking the dev claims here, some elementary school math can confirm pretty easily that 12.7mm rounds make 12.7mm holes, and 13mm HE tipped rounds make 300mm holes. If you want to keep being wishy washy to maintain your stance, that's fine, but the proof is in the pudding for anyone that wants to taste it. 

 

And to quote from my response:

Quote

 

"As stated before, the following claims were made: 

“13mm AP rounds makes makes 13mm holes in skin, or may be 13x25mm holes in case of shallow angle hit.

13mm HE round may do a hole up to 300mm in diameter approx."

Through testing that was performed for the earlier bug report, we found that on average, AP ammunition is 2,352% less effective than German and Russian HE tipped HMG's at creating aerodynamic damage.

 

It seems that 300mm, the hole size that Han stated was possible for an HE tipped 13mm round to make, is exactly 2,350% larger than 12.7mm, the hole size that 12.7mm AP ammunition was claimed to make. The DM seems that the best and worse case scenarios for each ammunition type and stack them head to head.

 

 

 

I'll also take a chance to quote @VBF-12_KW on this matter.

Quote

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/139640.pdf

 

Starting on page 17. US test of incendiary ammo at altitude using a drone B-17 with cameras rigged to observe, and its own waist guns used to fire into the wing tanks. TLDR, on the second try 2 rounds of M23 .50 into a wing tank were able to produce a catastrophic fire that ripped the wing off after a few minutes.

 

They also note in that test, that the entry hole of the .50 round at that low angle on the wing was 4" x 6" - so not a 12.7mm hole

 

 

 

So current state of the game has every AP rounds entry modeled as a perfect hole, but in this real world, verified test, a pure incendiary round at a low angle generated a rather large hole. Note that the low angle shot for AP ammunition is currently one of the less effective ways of dealing damage.

 

 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an M23 test: M23 is not API. It is a pure incendiary shell filled with 5.83g of incendiary mixture and no penetrator, so it will go splat on a target surface. (And only used after WW2).  M20 APIT has only 1.74g, of a different composition. 

 

The M23 hole is quoted as being 4inch by 6 inch: (102mm by 152mm) so 24 sq inches maximum, perhaps as little as half that, if the hole is diamond shaped. 

 

If you assume similar functioning (which might not be right), adjusting damage area by ratio to weight of incendiary mix, you could be looking at 1.74/5.83 =~30% of the area: say 8 square inches maximum, probably closer to 6 sq inches assuming an oval hole. Same ratio width to length gives something around 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches, which sounds much more plausible for a low angle API hit. 

 

1884156313_50calammotypes.thumb.JPG.9de000cd0a46b85f82b2b7f29aa4d9ea.JPG

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@=RS=Stix_09 I notice you're being pretty light handed on the matter. I'm linking the dev claims here, some elementary school math can confirm pretty easily that 12.7mm rounds make 12.7mm holes, and 13mm HE tipped rounds make 300mm holes. If you want to keep being wishy washy to maintain your stance, that's fine, but the proof is in the pudding for anyone that wants to taste it.

Mathematically, if a charge of 2 grams of HE in a 13mm makes a 300mm hole then a 20mm with 18 or 20 grams of HE should make a hole about 10x the area OR roughly 950mm in diameter.  That's a little over 3 feet across for non-metric types.  That's ridiculous.  Someone find us photos of a 20mm hit that's 3 feet across if you actually believe that.  If 20mm was that powerful NO ONE would have used anything else on their planes.

 

Below is a purported real 30mm HE hit.  That's 85 grams of HE.

 

image.jpeg.35f41097359abe0e536e7a1efc1ef6f6.jpeg

 

 Below is a real 20mm HE hit.  It's about 14 inches (350mm) across I'd say.   Or the size that the devs claim a round with 1/10 the charge makes.

 

image.jpeg.9bd3f3b125125836b31034b79f977f60.jpeg

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

That is an M23 test: M23 is not API. It is a pure incendiary shell filled with 5.83g of incendiary mixture and no penetrator, so it will go splat on a target surface. (And only used after WW2).  M20 APIT has only 1.74g, of a different composition. 

 

The M23 hole is quoted as being 4inch by 6 inch: (102mm by 152mm) so 24 sq inches maximum, perhaps as little as half that, if the hole is diamond shaped. 

 

If you assume similar functioning (which might not be right), adjusting damage area by ratio to weight of incendiary mix, you could be looking at 1.74/5.83 =~30% of the area: say 8 square inches maximum, probably closer to 6 sq inches assuming an oval hole. Same ratio width to length gives something around 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches, which sounds much more plausible for a low angle API hit. 

 

1884156313_50calammotypes.thumb.JPG.9de000cd0a46b85f82b2b7f29aa4d9ea.JPG


That’s assuming that the incendiary compound is entirely responsible for the increased size of the hole, as opposed to the round striking thin aluminum at a high angle, resulting in tearing of the skin, or hitting a stringer underneath the skin resulting in more damage.  Either way, I think it’s fair to assume that the 4x6” result is probably a best case scenario, with the worst case being two clean 12.7mm holes.  So if we could see a result somewhere in between like you propose, that would be a nice improvement over the current system that always assumes a worst case result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Mathematically, if a charge of 2 grams of HE in a 13mm makes a 300mm hole then a 20mm with 18 or 20 grams of HE should make a hole about 10x the area OR roughly 950mm in diameter.  That's a little over 3 feet across for non-metric types.  That's ridiculous. 

1) the 13mm/12.7mm HE use a a point detonating fuze with no delay, so it will more likely create a "dent" bending the air craft skin inward, with some of the explosive force happening outside of the aircraft skin doing no to minor damage (hence why the Luftwaffe dropped the 13mm HE round)

2) the german Mineshell containing 18g of HA-41 epxlosive used a delay charge to set the round of inside of the aircraft structe taking advantage of the blast effect in confined spaces (e.g. a fire cracker going in your open palm vs in your closed fist), not only making one hole an the entry side, but blowing of the aircraft skin in both side of the structure. the sequence does show what seems to be a perfect hit of a 20mm mineshell (shell gong of perfectly inside the horizontal stablizer of a B-17), maybe some one can do the math  on the approx. hole size:

 

20mmvsB17.1.PNG

20mmvsB17.2.PNG

20mmvsB17.3.PNG

20mmvsB17.4.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable I edited my post to be more accurate. Thanks for catching that mistake. I guess that speaks to the whole "trust but verify" mentality. 

 

@the_emperor do you have any sources on the effects of MG131 HE round, or some sort of documentation around why they dropped it? I'm not contesting your first claim, but I am very curious as to where you've heard whisperings of this. 

Edited by QB.Shallot
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, QB.Shallot said:

 

@the_emperor do you have any sources on the effects of MG131 HE round, or some sort of documentation around why they dropped it? I'm not contesting your first claim, but I am very curious as to where you've heard whisperings of this. 

The german 13mm HE contained only 1g of PETN  which will have little effect on heavy 4 engine bombers and was dropped in favour of the incendiary round which spewed its ignited content forth over 5 meters of flight travel igniting everything (fuel, hydraulic fluids, oil etc) that was not protected by a steel armour plate posing a threat to everything from a single seat fighter (allied planes with unarmoured wing fuel tanks are especially in danger) to a heavy viermot. 
 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 3:23 PM, the_emperor said:

1) the 13mm/12.7mm HE use a a point detonating fuze with no delay, so it will more likely create a "dent" bending the air craft skin inward, with some of the explosive force happening outside of the aircraft skin doing no to minor damage (hence why the Luftwaffe dropped the 13mm HE round)

2) the german Mineshell containing 18g of HA-41 epxlosive used a delay charge to set the round of inside of the aircraft structe taking advantage of the blast effect in confined spaces (e.g. a fire cracker going in your open palm vs in your closed fist), not only making one hole an the entry side, but blowing of the aircraft skin in both side of the structure. the sequence does show what seems to be a perfect hit of a 20mm mineshell (shell gong of perfectly inside the horizontal stablizer of a B-17), maybe some one can do the math  on the approx. hole size:

 

20mmvsB17.1.PNG

20mmvsB17.2.PNG

20mmvsB17.3.PNG

20mmvsB17.4.PNG

I wish I could, but the photo quality is too poor.

 

Had another long look...it looks to me that rather than blow a hole in the skin the hit plied up the lower skin panel and part of the upper one as well.  So, I think you are right, it went off between the panels and lifted them aka popped the rivets.  I'm not sure if that helps the conversation much though, as AP hits from .50 and up can do this if they hit the right spots at the right angles as well.  Obviously, the ideal hit with an HE round is the one in this photo.

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 6:22 PM, the_emperor said:

The german 13mm HE contained only 1g of PETN  which will have little effect on heavy 4 engine bombers and was dropped in favour of the incendiary round which spewed its ignited content forth over 5 meters of flight travel igniting everything (fuel, hydraulic fluids, oil etc) that was not protected by a steel armour plate posing a threat to everything from a single seat fighter (allied planes with unarmoured wing fuel tanks are especially in danger) to a heavy viermot. 
 

cheers

If nothing else, this quite clearly indicates that 13mm HE wasn't ~2000% more effective than API. IRL, the luftwaffe chose to switch their MG armament from HE to API rounds, as it would be more effective. And yet in-game you would currently be a fool to take AP over HE.

 

HE is overperforming, and/or AP is underperforming. (I suspect small-cal HE is overperforming due to the erroneous damage estimate and all AP is underperforming as every shell is assumed to be a laser beam that punches through and only creates a single neat hole, and all the components that would really suffer don't exist to have holes punched through them)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DJBscout said:

If nothing else, this quite clearly indicates that 13mm HE wasn't ~2000% more effective than API. IRL, the luftwaffe chose to switch their MG armament from HE to API rounds, as it would be more effective. And yet in-game you would currently be a fool to take AP over HE.

 

the AP(I)T round was present before and was kept. the switch was from the HE(I)T to the Incendiary tracer round. But yes the main reason was the better perfomance of the Incediary tracer round over HE(I)T round. which becomes clear when you look at the description of the 13mm incendiary and the way it works as it was designed as a dedicated air to air round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I go back to a 50s plane and think "these aren't so bad". Until I get into the position where you've landed good rounds but not hit anything vital and the planes fly on as if nothing.

 

It's just so frustrating that a weapon that is very well known for shredding planes just isn't able to do that in game. The 50s as they are currently implemented may as well be a rifle caliber round with slightly higher penetration. If they're going to cause no skin and limited structural damage despite being 4x the weight of a .303 then there's just no point in having them. Their needs to be something within the system that simulates a good hit. A single 12.7mm hole is going to happen but only of the round has completely destroyed whatever it's emptied all it's energy into inside the aircraft. Modeling that for every round though is a pretty large oversight.

 

Some examples of good hits from dead 6 where bits of aircraft are flying all over the shop:

 

50s1.gif.4482577e63606cc20819b42bf41b4e94.gif

 

Causes the gear to lower and completely smashes the tail to bits.

 

50s2.gif.99e62cf9d2350a46ddab7749e0953b97.gif

 

Bf110 confetti and causes a panel or something to drop out of the left wing.

 

50s3.gif.d5bc0c4bee498eaffeae440ad9d84933.gif

 

Bf109 confetti galore

Edited by Cass
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cass said:

It's just so frustrating that a weapon that is very well known for shredding planes just isn't able to do that in game. The 50s as they are currently implemented may as well be a rifle caliber round with slightly higher penetration. If they're going to cause no skin and limited structural damage despite being 4x the weight of a .303 then there's just no point in having them.

Pretty sure the chance for wing offs, fires and shooting off flaps and gear doors is still significantly higher than rifle rounds. Yes, they are lacking skin damage but they are still more than rifle rounds with higher pen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that's the case, but not as much as you think in some areas. 

 

K4

 

Rudder:

.50 - 30-35 rounds

7.92 - ~40 rounds

 

Flap:

.50 - ~6 rounds (why we see it fly off a lot)

7.92 - ~12 rounds

 

Aileron

.50 - ~12 rounds

7.92 - ~50 rounds

 

Elevator

.50 - ~10-40 rounds (ridiculously inconsistent, the second elevator you shoot off seems to take more rounds for some reason)

7.92 - ~70 rounds..

 

Most of those hit numbers just aren't achievable under normal engagement circumstances to such specific areas so it's largely irrelevant other than the flap. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In contrast to your presented areas/parts coming off, there is the quite frequent occurance of landing gears falling off (or is it the wheels from the struts even?). That to me doesn't make sense.

Would be great if we could riddle the landing gear uplock mechanism like the first clip you posted though, 109 insta-drops it's gear, atleast that would cause drag enough to provide us with crippled and slow 109's, every now and then. But the DM in the game is not there at all, not even close.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was reasn why for long time most kills would come from airplanes losing wings, when that got adjusted you could see how old DM in this game is under the skin of airplane, and to fill in gaps it will take time, 4.005 DM changes just show how simple AP/HE system for ammo types is simply not enought anymore.

Now when they add DVD to uninformed people basic DM will be even more glaring problem as they will think what they see on skin is what is damaged... if they plan to do fixes step by step it will take long time to fill in gaps. Thats why when wings were falling of quickly there was not many problems with ammo types or DM, as it was best for simple DM under skin.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

just a small tipp and by far no solution is setting convergence to 150m, it helps to get fire and PKs with lesser time on target when engaging  at 200m and below but is a bit annoying when engaging ground targets. it would be nice if we could finaly set horizontal and vertical convergence for each gun individually (not sure how hard to implement that would be but the older Il-2 Cliffs of dover series already has that feature ).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cass said:

Every time I go back to a 50s plane and think "these aren't so bad". Until I get into the position where you've landed good rounds but not hit anything vital and the planes fly on as if nothing.

 

It's just so frustrating that a weapon that is very well known for shredding planes just isn't able to do that in game. The 50s as they are currently implemented may as well be a rifle caliber round with slightly higher penetration. If they're going to cause no skin and limited structural damage despite being 4x the weight of a .303 then there's just no point in having them. Their needs to be something within the system that simulates a good hit. A single 12.7mm hole is going to happen but only of the round has completely destroyed whatever it's emptied all it's energy into inside the aircraft. Modeling that for every round though is a pretty large oversight.

You can cherry pick and say such things all day. Two can play this game : 6x50cal and 4xHispano 20mm was roughly the same weight but Hispano was twice more powerful.

 

23 hours ago, Cass said:

Some examples of good hits from dead 6 where bits of aircraft are flying all over the shop:

 

50s1.gif.4482577e63606cc20819b42bf41b4e94.gif

 

Causes the gear to lower and completely smashes the tail to bits.

 

50s2.gif.99e62cf9d2350a46ddab7749e0953b97.gif

 

Bf110 confetti and causes a panel or something to drop out of the left wing.

 

50s3.gif.d5bc0c4bee498eaffeae440ad9d84933.gif

 

Bf109 confetti galore

Ingame engagements look very similar, with often fire and pk. What you may take a look at here is that the shots are made at close range, not how you ppl use it at 300m.

On 3/18/2021 at 12:01 AM, DJBscout said:

 

HE is overperforming, and/or AP is underperforming. (I suspect small-cal HE is overperforming due to the erroneous damage estimate and all AP is underperforming as every shell is assumed to be a laser beam that punches through and only creates a single neat hole, and all the components that would really suffer don't exist to have holes punched through them)

There is also a question how AP projectiles deal with pilot compartment. Attacking any plane with machineguns leave cracks on the canopy yet still the plane keeps flying. No info on whether those are clean penetration or ricochets and what exactly in pilot compartment got damaged or hurt.

Pretty sure if got hit in arm with 12.7mm you would lost consciousness from bleeding alone.

On 3/15/2021 at 7:40 AM, ZachariasX said:

It would help a lot if it was understood that thise puny 2 g of PETIN do hardly more internal damage than a tumbling ball round of that caliber potentially can do. This with the downside that this small HE round is far less efficient penetrating hard stuff.

 

The only practical real world advantage such a small HE round has is when it hits almost nothing, as shown by the video posted by the devs of those dudes shooting such barrels.

 

The more densely packed a section of an aircraft is, the more effective AP gets. The larger your aircraft (in these days), the more higher is the ratio of sections consisting of empty space. Hence, it was a good idea that the Germans retained HE, while the Americans shot mostly smaller aircraft like fighters, that are denser packed with structure. As the incendary doesn‘t really come with a downside regarding penetration damage, there you go.

 

This means, if you shoot a wing from above you will have indeed a much higher skin damage from HE rounds, as they go through only skin and make larger exit holes instead of ounching clean through. If you shoot e.g. wing structure from the front or from behind, all the hard stuff in there like the spars etc. will send the round tumbling. Hence you get exit damage very comparable to HE damage. (As the famous damage photo of this smuggler aircrafts wing shows.)

 

I would say in context of our current DM, for wing damage, aerodynamic penalty should reflect a function of impact angle, from very little penalty (as we have) to what we see currently caused by HE.

 

I just think it is not ideal taking best case for HE and worst case for AP and model just from that. I seriously doubt that having AP-I will change much, unless you declare self sealing tanks not really self sealing. But in both the 109 or the 190, you will get most tank fires only after you shot through the pilot first. So yes, you get the effect, but fragging helping, little it does.

 

Having this wrong leads to the grotesque situation in the planes being largely immune to BMG fire from dead 6. It just assumes these tiny finger thick holes per strike, takes that for aerodynamic as structural damage. (But this is largely fine if you hit at a high striking angle.) You can do that for SMG that have relatively little energy and impulse. But it negates what BMG rounds will do if you send them through 1+ meter of relatively dense structure, as the wing is, seen from behind (or the front).

 

Bottom line is, if HE reduced time on target in the real world, the Americans had used them. Also the Germans wouldn‘t have laced their gun belts with what basically required them to kill the pilot. It can also be said that HE rounds certainly do not extend time on target on average, hence the Germans and the Russians would have ceased doing as they always did, namely making mixed belts for heavy machine guns in aircraft.

 

Taken together, I don‘t think the cal.50 rounds as we have them are wrong per se, I think what is wrong is assuming one case (where these rounds do poorest) and apply that for all cases in the DM. That the DM can process angular strikes AnP has demonstrated with FC where the striking angle factors the probability of spar damage. This where I want to see changes.

 

I agree, with addition that fuselage section of aircraft react differently for AP hits. You can place many AP hits in this section and it will not effect anything if there is no penetration to cause pk. This is easily indicated when shooting from high six, where pilot and engine section are very much exposed and not "protected" by fuselage. At the same time, hitting the tail section will often result in destroying vertical stab or one of the elevators.

 

In case of HE hitting the fuselage, it explodes rightaway, causing some shrapnel damage - damages wings, fuel tanks and/or undercarriage aswell.

 

Using AP ingame suggests the wings aswell as fuselage is empty inside.

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

Ingame engagements look very similar, with often fire and pk. What you may take a look at here is that the shots are made at close range, not how you ppl use it at 300m.

When? Pk's are often but fires usually aren't. It's takes 35 rounds ingame to take the rudder off a K4 - how are you going to do that in one pass like the clip? The actual tail structure is indestructible as well. You can hit with all the .50s you like it won't come off. That guy managed to do it one pass.

 

All of those little chunks you see flying at the camera are pieces of aircraft, mostly likely skin, yet you need to fire 80+ rounds of .50 into a single wing section to reach level 2 damage, which is the point at which there is an appreciable difference to handling and top speed.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 10:11 AM, VBF-12_Snake9 said:

 

I enjoy reading the comments trying to explain how the 50s are good.  

 

So much fun and hilarious at the same time.  😂

It's still fun.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

YOu just have to use extra low convergances and get realy close up to your enemy and make him not do any evasive manovers and aim for pilot but in that way you avoid concreat tail and then you have to hit with all your bullets at point of convergance and this is how it was done in real ww2 by the way and then in game you get kill every time proving everything is ok with .50s even though in game they dont have historical ammo type but all is ok 😄

  • Haha 8
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 2:12 AM, BCI-Nazgul said:

Except the HE is grossly overrated in these rounds.  2 grams of HE just isn't enough to produce the damage that the Devs have given these rounds.  They seem to think a 12" hole is outcome which is complete fantasy.   I've detonated 20 grams of less powerful explosives personally (10x as much) and I can assure you there is no way 2 grams of slightly more powerful HE is going to blow dinner plate sized hole in an airplane wing.  I could see 3" or 4" maybe, but 6" or 12" is ridiculous.

 

2 grams of HE, even from high explosives won't do much on its own. It's a tiny blast and the blast pressure. However 2 grams of HE is perfectly enough to break up a shell into a dozen of smal fragments. The fragments will do the damage that pressure from 2 grams of HE  just hanging in the airwon't be able to do, and in doing so, they will transfer the entire KE of the round (since fragments keep going forward at original speed initially) to make 'useful' work, aka make some sort of damage in the structure. The fragments themselves will loose their KE very quickly, as their aerodynamic form is very poor, but within a few centimeters or meters they will be still quite deadly, while normal non-exploding solid rounds will just pass through structure, transferring very little of their KE state in doing so.

 

Basically it's a shotgun blast vs a rifle shot. Shoot light sheet metal point blank with a shotgun and fairly extensive damage is guaranteed (as long as they hit something thin and soft), while rifle round will just pass through it and make a single tiny hole. The opposite is true when they hit something hard - fragmetns / shotgun pellets won't make much of an impression, while the rifle round maintains its effectiveness in defeating hard targets.

 

The fact that some ammo types are effective against one kind of target and ineffective against other types of targets is why most countries tended to use mixed belts with various ammunition. 

 

This video is a pretty good demonstration.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@VO101Kurfurst yes, HE should be much better at skin damage than a purely kinetic projectile, the problem is the ratio used in game.

A single 12.7mm Berezin HE is equal to 100 rounds of Berezin AP in regards to skin damage (drag and lift penalty), that just doesn't feel right.

I think it would be better if it was say 15 times more powerful, not 100 times.

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

And saying that a AP round will make just a round hole all the time is false, and has been proved false.

9 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

2 grams of HE, even from high explosives won't do much on its own. It's a tiny blast and the blast pressure. However 2 grams of HE is perfectly enough to break up a shell into a dozen of smal fragments. The fragments will do the damage that pressure from 2 grams of HE  just hanging in the airwon't be able to do, and in doing so, they will transfer the entire KE of the round (since fragments keepgoing forward at original speed initially) to make 'useful' work, aka make some sort of damage in the structure. The fragments themselves will loose their KE very quickly, as their aerodynamic form is very poor, but within a few centimeters or meters they will be still quite deadly, while normal non-exploding solid rounds will just pass through structure, transferring very little of their KE state in doing so.

Basically it's a shotgun blast vs a rifle shot. Shoot light sheet metal point blank with a shotgun and fairly extensive damage is guaranteed (as long as they hit something thin and soft), while rifle round will just pass through it and make a single tiny hole. The opposite is true when they hit something hard - fragmetns / shotgun pellets won't make much of an impression, while the rifle round maintains its effectiveness in defeating hard targets.

 

 

 

 

Assuming that a AP round will make a single round hole all the time is wrong. As soon as the round hit something solid inside (and a fighter plane is cramped inside with "solid things") will start fragmenting and tumbling and leave much bigger exit holes. Again, not all the time but much more frequently than is currently being displayed in the sim. Actually, the ability to damage internal structures together with the damage caused to skin as well with the ability to ignite fires is what I think made the API round being considered superior to HE (at least in USAAF and Luftwaffe).

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

However 2 grams of HE is perfectly enough to break up a shell into a dozen of smal fragments

 

The issue I would see is, that the 12.7mm HE is a fairly thin walled round so except for the fuze, there is not that much fragmentation potential.

And again the 13mm HE(I) though thicker walled, only carries 1g of PETN.

 

 

12.7mm.png

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, the_emperor said:

 

The issue I would see is, that the 12.7mm HE is a fairly thin walled round so except for the fuze, there is not that much fragmentation potential.

And again the 13mm HE(I) though thicker walled, only carries 1g of PETN.

 

 

12.7mm.png

Actually thin walled shells are better for fragmentation.  Thick walls trend to break up into a few big fragments while thin walls tend to break into many small metal slivers.  Of course, there are limits on both sides of this relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

Actually thin walled shells are better for fragmentation.  Thick walls trend to break up into a few big fragments while thin walls tend to break into many small metal slivers.  Of course, there are limits on both sides of this relationship.

🙂 thanks for clearyfing I admit I dont have much knowledge in that regard.

But regarding the fairly thin walled  12.7mm round I would say with that backround one could say: good fragmentation potential for the round itself but not much frag damage potential? ( we are still talking about a 45g 12.7mm round compared to a 130g 20x110mm for example).

Again I am no expert and if someone has a better knowledge on that subject, I am eager to learn.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you don't find much in the way of satisfactory fragmentation damage from a round like the 13mm round is the mass of the round. There just isn't that much material to turn into shrapnel. The whole round is only 34 grams and about 2 of those grams are the HE filler; so you have about 32 grams of metal that can become shrapnel. For reference this is a little more metal that is found in a AA battery. Contrast that with the Hispano 20mm HE round, that was notable for very good shrapnel production, at 260 grams 14 of which were explosive filler leaving 246 grams to be zipped about as shrapnel. This is almost twice the mass of a baseball or the average mass of a hamster. The difference in HE filler mass is going to play a role as well but in terms of fragmentation it can be ignored in some respects as long as the amount of filler is sufficient to break the round up and send the pieces flying at a damaging speed and I suspect that 2 grams of HE filler could indeed shatter a 13mm round, but you also need to take into account geometry and material hardness of the round and that can be quite complex.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -SF-Disarray said:

...or the average mass of a hamster. ...


And now I have the mental image of 600 hamsters being fired per second. 
 

Thanks for that. 
 

von Tom

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, von_Tom said:


And now I have the mental image of 600 hamsters being fired per second. 
 

Thanks for that. 
 

von Tom

The Germans found that even Hamster rounds were not enough to stop heavy bombers and upgunned their fighters to the dreaded Mk 108 Woodchuck cannon.

 

image.png.a4867d933475289f7e9a79bb1690d142.png

Edited by BCI-Nazgul
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here think that 1 gram of HE filler in the 131 creates a blast radius of 1.3 meters? Or even 2 grams of HE filler in the UBs cause a blast radius of 2.2 meters?

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, QB.Rails said:

Does anyone here think that 1 gram of HE filler in the 131 creates a blast radius of 1.3 meters? Or even 2 grams of HE filler in the UBs cause a blast radius of 2.2 meters?

No, but I've made that quite clear for months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BCI-Nazgul said:

The Germans found that even Hamster rounds were not enough to stop heavy bombers and upgunned their fighters to the dreaded Mk 108 Woodchuck cannon.

 

image.png.a4867d933475289f7e9a79bb1690d142.png

 

I assume this was because the Capybara cannon velocity was too low to be effective?

 

 

images.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I assume this was because the Capybara cannon velocity was too low to be effective?

 

 

images.jpeg


No, the issue was that the Capybaras were too friendly.

 

221BDB99-638C-4030-8FEC-05868F838421.jpeg.25680a06c50e35d05b7cf04ae4a3afb6.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The test I did on the P47 show this is very much an AP/HE issue rather than a specific .50 issue. Other than 1 gun on the P38 the fact US planes have no HE makes them at a much more significant disadvantage than others.

 

image.png.1aa79e3110e5cdb859e3d40bd901b7ae.png.98550a3749849d17f4ac2e475d106f89.png

 

For an FF 20mm AP round to take 15 rounds to a single section of wing to have an appreciable effect is a massive oversight in the modelling. I've wondered why Hispanos can sometimes seem a little lackluster. I assume their AP round is similarly affected.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...