Author Topic: Movies; P38 cannon damage test  (Read 1811 times)

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Movies; P38 cannon damage test
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2006, 03:54:52 PM »
I forgot how vast the knowledge of the "all knowing" Karnak was....

I beg for your forgiveness oh great one.... :rolleyes:

oh one more question oh great one.... ever stuck your head into something other than your arse?  Like perhaps a wing?
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Movies; P38 cannon damage test
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2006, 06:00:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
Like perhaps a wing?

You know, for all your pretenses you are not the only person here to have looked at one of these aircraft.  Yes, you've seen more than I have, but I am not prepared to accept that just because of that you know what the bleep you're talking about when it comes to the effects of explosions inside them.  Your job doesn';t exactly involve blowing them up o'mighty one.

Maybe reading some of the vast amount of WWII stuff out there would help you understand why cannons were superior weapons.

Or you can persist in thinking them harmless toys compared to the Browning .50.  I don't care.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Movies; P38 cannon damage test
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2006, 09:05:57 AM »
A cherry bomb is harmless enough. A fist is nowhere NEAR a sealed pressure system. However, put a cherry bomb inside a fist and you just lost your hand. Same principle has been proven to work on aircraft wings and fuselages. The RAF did their own tests, suspending german ammunition inside fuselages and wings of their planes (including spits and hurris and also bombers) then detonating them. Most of the time the damage was massive.

Karnak is quite on the money with this one.

Batfink: Those images are so amazing because they are the rare exception that survived. Sure the plane was tough, but thousands more (than are shown in those photos) took the same damage and didn't make it home.

P.S. First time I saw this footage (P38's 20mm firing on barrel) I was almost expecting it to have a small entry hole and a large exit hole. I'd heard about some BoB-era stuff passing right through a plane's tail, through the armor plating, through the pilot, and out the front without exploding, I wasn't sure what would happen.

AH's gun damage might not be spot on, but it has to be dumbed down because we have one of the most simplistic damage models since Warbirds. Does no good to model accurate damage if the damage model just goes "pop" and that's it.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Movies; P38 cannon damage test
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2006, 09:15:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
would you agree that our damage model is possible a little too light with regard to HE rounds?


Without Question.  

Karaya
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Movies; P38 cannon damage test
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2006, 09:17:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Maybe reading some of the vast amount of WWII stuff out there would help you understand why cannons were superior weapons.

Or you can persist in thinking them harmless toys compared to the Browning .50.  I don't care.


I disagree.  Cannon (regardless of Manufacturer) OFTEN jammed and were not used as often as you would think.   MG calibers were the most reliable of the two.  

Karaya
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC