Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field

[Karnak]

I was curious to see how the various weapons in AH compared when it came to destroying a V Field's VH.  I selected that target because of its relative fragility, taking only 1 1000lb bomb to destroy it.

Below are the results that I got.  In most cases they are rough estimates based on the results obtained by straffing the VH with aircraft, in several cases, all big guns, the results are precise.

The form is <weapon>, <diameter> = <number of rounds required to destroy the V Field's VH>

1000lb GP Bomb = 1
3.5" Rockets = 7
5" HVAR Rockets = 7
PnZ IV H's HE, 75mm = 13
LVTA4's HE, 75mm = 13
NS 37, 37mm = 55
Flak 18, 37mm = 60
M8's HE, 37mm = 75
MK 108, 30mm = 90
VYa, 23mm = 165
Hispano MkII, 20mm = 240
Hispano MkV, 20mm = 240
Type 99 Mk2, 20mm = 260
MG 151/20, 20mm = 275
Ho5, 20mm = 280
B-20, 20mm = 285
ShVAK, 20mm = 285
M2 50 cal vehicle version, 12.7mm = 2100
M2 50 cal aircraft version, 12.7mm = 2400
Ho-103, 12.7mm = 2800
Breda SAFAT, 12.7mm = 2950
MG 131, 13mm = 3025


There are a few stand out oddities.

1) The M8 takes nearly all of its ammunition to destroy the VH, more than any other 37mm cannon, including the Yak-9T's 37mm cannon.

2) The first test I did for the MG 151/20 obtained the result of 475 rounds. This test was done with a Bf109F-4 carrying the 20mm gondola gun pack.  This number was so much higher than the other 20mm cannon that I redid the test using an Fw190F-8 and obtained the 275 number.  There were no significant differences in the test other than the switch of aircraft.

3) Unsurprisingly, AP rounds appear to do functionally nothing to buildings.  I put 80 rounds of 75mm AP from a PnZ IV H into the VH, followed by 2000 rounds from the 7.92mm Pintle MG without destroying the VH.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[GRUNHERZ]

But the AP rounds of the 50cal destroy the VH. Karnak the German 75mm AP had an HE filler as well, I wonder if AH models this, apparently not.

[Karnak]

GRUNHERZ,

It doesn't seem to model the HE core of the German AP rounds.  I'm pretty sure it was doing some damage (the hit sprite was appearing), but given the number of hits likely to be requred, it wasn't doing anything useful in game terms.  After the test with the PnZ IV H, I didn't even bother testing the M8's 37mm AP ammo.

Note the number of hits required of the 50 cals.  It is nearly 9 times then number of 20mm hits required.

[funkedup]

Look at the results for Hispano and MG 151/20.  Hispano has 70% more kinetic energy at muzzle and better ballistics but it only does 15% more damage per round?  How can this be explained?  LW conspiracy?

[funkedup]

PS Karnak can you test the MG 131 or the Italian 12.7 mm guns?  I want to see if this strange unexplained effect extends to those guns as well.

[Raubvogel]

Funked....what about the chemical energy? Against a soft target like a hangar that should be more important. The MG151 should hold more HE if the Mine shell is modeled and should take less hits to destroy it. How would kinetic energy figure into a hangar made out of netting or sheet metal?

[funkedup]

Chemical energy?  HE?  A lot of experts told me these things weren't modeled for German guns in AH.  I think there must be another explanation.  

[Staga]

Funked how much did those bullets had HE-filling ?

And LW conspiracy? Blow me.

[funkedup]

[funkedup]

Good job testing Karnak.  Sorry for the troll/hijack.  I'll be nice now.  

[hazed-]

results dont surprise me at all.

ive tested Mg151s against hangers offline with odd results also.However im glad I havent had to post them, it gets boring being called whiner for everything i test.

I discovered the dispersion bug and posted it and had people on my back for it.

Funked hispano cannon had less HE more energy therfore better suited to armoured targets NOT concrete bunkers (or our neted vehicle hangers?)
The way i always thought it worked was LW guns were HE or hexogen mine modeled whilst the lucky USAAF had a mix of HE and AP?
LW have worse ballistics but greater destructive power if and when they hit according to what ive read.However by destructive power i mean if you fire them both at a different surfaces they both even out in the end.

high velocity AP round hits your wing?
one very nice hole
slower HE round hits the wing
one very much BIGGER hole, possibly most of the wing gone.

high velocity AP round hits bulkhead or very strong structure(armour plate?)
possible penetration  heavy damage if shell does get inside(inside being armoured ammo
trays or the pilot)
slower HE round will explode but depending on the charge may not penetrate and therefore would cause less structural damage
internally

As i see it here you have the hispano with greater penetration,greater explosive/destructive power......add to that its better ballistics and you can see why there are so many questioning why these guns (mg151) were ever used when hispano was available to both sides.

Karnak im sorry for this being mentioned also
but your test does raise my eyebrows on this subject again.My appologies

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[GRUNHERZ]

I wonder why the tests using MG151 showed such wierd resuls with one plane needing almost twice the amount of MG151 bullets to kill VH.


Anyway funked muzzle velocity and kinetic energy has absolutly nothing to do in AH with killing the VH. The shells blow up almost instantly after impact and the only thing that matters is HE effect. By your convenient standard the PzIV 75mm AP would rip the hangar up very  fast, it doesnt do it in AH, you are wrong. The Hispano still models greater HE effect and MG151/20 doesnt model Mineshells.

Sorry to ruin your allied conspiracy delusions.

[funkedup]

I was kidding and trolling guys, sorry.  I'm a tard.  I just couldn't resist.

I can think of scenarios where kinetic energy and penetration could be critical to knocking down a structure, just as chemical energy could be important.  

The fact that the lethality-per-round ratios of one gun to another are not just kinetic energy ratios indicates that AH is looking at more than just kinetic energy.  Which is the opposite of what some have claimed in the past.

Also I think in AH, a ground target is a ground target in terms of the relative lethality of the guns.  I.e. the lethality ratios are the same whether you are shooting at camo netting or a brick building or a steel structure.  In that case some of the arguments that HE damage should dominate aren't valid.

I say Karnak's results indicate HTC are considering a wide range of contruction materials and configurations and doing a good job of balancing different types of hitting power.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Karnak]

OK, I tested the Breda SAFAT, MG 131 and Ho-103.  The was a reason that I hadn't done so.  Dang that took a lot of passes.

Here are the results (I'll add them to the first post too):

Ho-103, 12.7mm = 2800
Breda SAFAT, 12.7mm = 2950
MG 131, 13mm = 3025

These numbers were so different from the M2 numbers that I became suspicious.  Thinking that the VH might be healing at a steady rate, and thus penalizing aircraft that took a long time to down it I decided to run two more M2 tests.  I had originally tested the M2 using the P-38, which has twice as many heavy machine guns as the C.202, Fw190A-8 and Ki61.  I first took a P-47D-25 with 8 guns to see if that took fewer rounds than the P-38 had.  It was within 10 rounds of the same number I obtained with the P-38.  I then took a Spitfire MkIX with 2 M2 guns, that aircraft obtained a number within 25 rounds of the P-38 and within 15 rounds of the P-47.  Clearly the VH is not repairing itslef at a steady rate.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]

[Karnak]

Hazed,

No problem.  It looks funny to me too.