Is This Video Real or Doctored?

[BulletVI]

What?

OOOPPPSSSS my reply has put it self in with the quote lol   

[sandwich]

No, not that.

The reason modern aircraft only carry a couple hundred rounds of ammo is because the primary weapon of every fighter aircraft is a missile.

And because of the disaster of the dogfighting is dead theorum, they put guns on fighters in case they get into a knife fight situation.

And because of the high speeds of jet dogfighting and the high rate of fire of the vulcan cannons, they only need a very, very short burst of rounds to inflict lethal damage to an aircraft.

950 rounds 20mm cannon. Gatling gun 6,000 rounds per minute. 100 rounds per second. 9 seconds of total firing.

That's enough to get some work done. And 100 rounds per second with 20mm cannon.  Think of what that can do to a plane.

The rounds hit a bit harder but are not signifigantly better. Well, some rounds hit much harder but you catch my drift.

And if you really think about it, we carry alot more cannon then WWII planes.


Tempest = 600 rounds 20mm cannon, Hurri 2C = 180 rounds cannon, F-15C = 950 rounds cannon.

[BulletVI]

No, not that.

The reason modern aircraft only carry a couple hundred rounds of ammo is because the primary weapon of every fighter aircraft is a missile.

And because of the disaster of the dogfighting is dead theorum, they put guns on fighters in case they get into a knife fight situation.

And because of the high speeds of jet dogfighting and the high rate of fire of the vulcan cannons, they only need a very, very short burst of rounds to inflict lethal damage to an aircraft.

950 rounds 20mm cannon. Gatling gun 6,000 rounds per minute. 100 rounds per second. 9 seconds of total firing.

That's enough to get some work done. And 100 rounds per second with 20mm cannon.  Think of what that can do to a plane.

The rounds hit a bit harder but are not signifigantly better. Well, some rounds hit much harder but you catch my drift.

And if you really think about it, we carry alot more cannon then WWII planes.


Tempest = 600 rounds 20mm cannon, Hurri 2C = 180 rounds cannon, F-15C = 950 rounds cannon.

Ah so it's true you do learn somit new every day
 

[Sperky]

Ah so it's true you do learn somit new every day
 

In your case, something new in 53 minutes... lol  

[Karnak]

Tempest = 600 rounds 20mm cannon, Hurri 2C = 180 rounds cannon, F-15C = 950 rounds cannon.

N1K2-J = 900 rounds 20mm cannon, F4U-1C = 932 rounds 20mm cannon, Beaufighter = 1200 rounds 20mm cannon.   



All joking aside, modern aircraft are vastly more capable.

[BulletVI]

In your case, something new in 53 minutes... lol  

In your case every 2 years          

[sandwich]

N1K2-J = 900 rounds 20mm cannon, F4U-1C = 932 rounds 20mm cannon, Beaufighter = 1200 rounds 20mm cannon.   



All joking aside, modern aircraft are vastly more capable.

Oh damn, I forgot about those planes.

The majority of the cannon armed planes have less cannon than modern planes.

[AWwrgwy]

From some other thread:

Here is a photo of that Mosquito PR.Mk XVI that was hit by 2-4 30mm rounds from an Me262.

...That subsequently Returned To Base.



wrongway

[Kweassa]

Alto if i use a bit of brain power. A lot of these pictures are of damage that happened on the ground with the aircraft standing still. Now if you think about it the damage to the aircraft in the air can be reduced due to a certain factors.

As much, if there are certain factors in the air that are not present in ground testings which may work against the potential of the round, the opposite also applies: there are factors which may increase the damage, were it in mid-air. Usually, the two adequately offset each other so a theoretical conjecture on the difference between a ground testing and in-flight testing is largely pointless.

1) both air craft are moving at high speed so the cannon and bullet rounds ( projectile's ) have the force of oncoming wind and air resistance to fight. I.E the wake of air left behind by the aircraft in front, the gforce's of the aircraft that is firing the rounds. these are some of the force's that the projectile rounds have to deal with to get to the target. Thus they may affect the speed of the oncoming round by a small fraction.

This factor is more or less offset by the fact that the speed of the plane on which the gun is mounted, actually adds that much more kinetic energy to the round being fired in the form of speed. Unless the plane is already travelling at speeds close to the terminal velocity of the round fired (which is impossible), its largely non-issue. 

2) The fact that the lead aircraft that you will be firing at wont be stationary it's moving trying to keep you from hitting it. thus you may only get around 20% of the burst of fire from your gun's impacting on the target.

On the other hand, maneuvering often exposes a larger/broader surface profile which makes it easier to land shots on, and makes shots that landed more effective. So again, this factor is also offset.

3) If the target is on the ground and stationary we all know that a 3 second burst from a 30mm or a 20mm cannon will cause the damage that we see in these pictures. As logically around 85% of a 3 second burst will impact on target. Thus the damage is more concentrated to one spot.

Considering the fact that the rounds fired are HE, and not AP or API, this also makes the assumption pointless. If the shots land more spread out, it simply means a wider area of the skin is torn apart, and thus makes it equally likely to cause immediate structural failures.

[BulletVI]

As much, if there are certain factors in the air that are not present in ground testings which may work against the potential of the round, the opposite also applies: there are factors which may increase the damage, were it in mid-air. Usually, the two adequately offset each other so a theoretical conjecture on the difference between a ground testing and in-flight testing is largely pointless.


This factor is more or less offset by the fact that the speed of the plane on which the gun is mounted, actually adds that much more kinetic energy to the round being fired in the form of speed. Unless the plane is already travelling at speeds close to the terminal velocity of the round fired (which is impossible), its largely non-issue. 


On the other hand, maneuvering often exposes a larger/broader surface profile which makes it easier to land shots on, and makes shots that landed more effective. So again, this factor is also offset.


Considering the fact that the rounds fired are HE, and not AP or API, this also makes the assumption pointless. If the shots land more spread out, it simply means a wider area of the skin is torn apart, and thus makes it equally likely to cause immediate structural failures.

Nice to see a second / Different opinion there haveing read it i believe we are both correct on some fact's and other's we can have a good old debate aboot  

[Jabberwock]

Later Typhoons And other ground attack Aircraft where equip ed with Explosive cannon shell's that where time delayed by means of a double tip on the cannon round simple an effective. Once the cannon round pierced the skin of an aircraft the first layer would crumble thus exploding the actual cannon shell so when that would hit the other side or a strut on the frame Boom Big explosion.

The Germans in some case's after D-Day actually thought they were being shelled as well as attacked from the air.

The RAF and USAAF armorers manuals for the Hispano contain no reference to ANY specific delayed action fuses.

There were two basic fuse types for Hispano ammunition, Mk I and Mk II. Both were 'Superquick' instantaneous percussion fuses, although the various sub-types of fuses did vary slightly in the sensitivity and speed.  The US manual notes the MK II fuse is more sensitive than the Mk I.

US/RAF HE, HE-I  shell types had instantaneous fuses. When you look at pictures of the rounds its obvious, as they have truncated, squared off nose sections.

AP and ball rounds had no fuses

[gyrene81]

Nice to see a second / Different opinion there haveing read it i believe we are both correct on some fact's and other's we can have a good old debate aboot  

You have yet to be correct on anything in this thread, and your knowledge of aircraft, weapons, ballistics and history is atrociously poor to say the very least.


There is going to be some difference in the resulting damage between an explosive shell placed inside an enclosed space then detonated and one that has been fired from a weapon 300 yards away. With an impact fuse, and a shaped charge the damage created upon impact is going to be closer to the surface area. The damage shown in those photos of the Blenheim and Spitfire would be more like the damage cause by a delayed fuse round which would penetrate the surface and explode inside the cavity. It is possible that a Mk-108 round would do that if it passed through an opening and hit something internally or failed to explode until it hit an internal structure.

Reported 20mm damage on B-17s







Unknown caliber but reported damage from unspecified models of FW-190s





Reported damage from a German "Jet"





I don't think the damage effects of the 20 and 30 mm HE rounds are modelled in AH as well as some think. They act more like large caliber bullets than explosives.

[Lepape2]

[...]
I don't think the damage effects of the 20 and 30 mm HE rounds are modelled in AH as well as some think. They act more like large caliber bullets than explosives.

But somehow you can destroy airplanes sitting on the runway/ground without a single direct hit from 20 or 30mm HE rounds.

[BulletVI]

You have yet to be correct on anything in this thread, and your knowledge of aircraft, weapons, ballistics and history is atrociously poor to say the very least.

That is your opinion we all have different history you may know some things i dont and vice versa. Piece of advice stop trying to put other people down on your posts and work with them to better the game remember i have been reading from wikipedia and a few other sight's after googling the topic of destructive power of the 30mm and 20mm canon so i am sorry if in trying to click from one tab back to the other has coused me not to put in some bits and bob's of info from these page's but hey when you try to give a short explination of your answer from a page of info that contains over 6000 word's its bound to not sound totally correct.

And for your info i have studied WW1 And WW2 history for year's but never been intrested in the damage aspect of the armament of the Gun's on the aircraft. More of what they did and took part in. But as i have said in the above paragraph and in previous post's has been correct to some degree. So maybe its you thats 90% wrong and 10% right. And maybe you cant handle being wrong so you decied to put other people down to cover up for you'r inadiquicie's as a human being. And oh by the way picture's of damge to aircraft after the raid's is flawed in my opinion. As you do not Know if or around the same area as the damage shown has been previously patched by ground crew. thus resulting in a drop of srtuctual strength in that area by a small amount/margine. thus resulting in possible more damage the next time that area get's hit by cannon fire or anti aircraft fire.

Now i know you will have something to say about this. But i'd advise you to stay quiet   

[gyrene81]

That is your opinion we all have different history you may know some things i dont and vice versa. Piece of advice stop trying to put other people down on your posts and work with them to better the game remember i have been reading from wikipedia and a few other sight's after googling the topic of destructive power of the 30mm and 20mm canon so i am sorry if in trying to click from one tab back to the other has coused me not to put in some bits and bob's of info from these page's but hey when you try to give a short explination of your answer from a page of info that contains over 6000 word's its bound to not sound totally correct.

And for your info i have studied WW1 And WW2 history for year's but never been intrested in the damage aspect of the armament of the Gun's on the aircraft. More of what they did and took part in. But as i have said in the above paragraph and in previous post's has been correct to some degree. So maybe its you thats 90% wrong and 10% right. And maybe you cant handle being wrong so you decied to put other people down to cover up for you'r inadiquicie's as a human being. And oh by the way picture's of damge to aircraft after the raid's is flawed in my opinion. As you do not Know if or around the same area as the damage shown has been previously patched by ground crew. thus resulting in a drop of srtuctual strength in that area by a small amount/margine. thus resulting in possible more damage the next time that area get's hit by cannon fire or anti aircraft fire.

Now i know you will have something to say about this. But i'd advise you to stay quiet    

Actually Bullet, it's not an "opinion", it's a fact. As in everything you have tried to state as fact has been false, and I'm not the only one who has pointed that out to you regardless of your selective memory, it's in black and white on this thread. Not even Wikipedia has that much false information in it.

Ah yes i read about that but we also have to remember that due to all the testing that was achieved and from it the development of the armor piercing explosive cannon shell led to the development of the vicker's cannon and the need for less ammo to store on today's fighter's.

That's why the like's of the Su27 and MiG 29 only carry inefect of 150 rounds its due to the destructive power of each cannon shell. The same was found to be with western aircraft as-well they carry only 300 -900 cannon rounds depending on type of aircraft.

Not even close to reality. Testing and development of armor piercing ammuntion was started in the 1850s, and years before WWI, armor piercing high explosive ammuntion was introduced for nearly all cannons, especially naval guns. And your Vickers cannon was developed as an anti-aircraft weapon long before those WWII tests you supposedly read about. None of it has anything to do with the number of cannon rounds found in modern jet fighters, it was supersonic flight and the invention of heat seeking missiles.

But also in relation to the picture's these could also be tests of Germany's 30mm cannon from captured or downed Me 109's that where forced down over the UK. As a test bead to design much more destructive cannons than Germany. Remember we would have had an abundance of German Me 109 F's and earlier model's even probally later model's of the Me 109. From a few daylight sneak raid's and so forth.

And the germans in their own rights's where probally testing their weapon's on captured or downed aircraft from the UK.

Again, waaaay out in left field. The only thing you got partially right was the testing of the Mk-108, but it wasn't from downed or captured 109s. There was no "abundance" of intact 109s found in England during WWII. The 109F did not use the Mk-108 30mm or any other 30mm, ever. It had the MG151/20 which was an upgrade from the earlier MG FF or MG FF/M 20mm found in the earlier 109s. Lastly, the Germans and every other country tested the effectiveness of their weapons on objects other than captured or destroyed enemy equipment long before they were put into production.


Shall I continue, or would you like to thrill me with more of your vast knowledge? FYI for future reference, wikipedia should be the very last place you use for reference material.