Author Topic: 30mm tater.  (Read 3979 times)

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: 30mm tater.
« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »
I think the game doesn't treat aircraft armor the same as GVs.  Think of strafing a tank or an IL2 with 30cals, nothing will bounce off the IL.  If the changes recently to the 30mm are because of penetration considerations, then neutering the 30mms damage over longer distances is not realistic and gives inconsistent results.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: 30mm tater.
« Reply #91 on: June 11, 2014, 04:57:02 PM »
I suspect no one here has researched the MK108 round far enough to know it had a right hand spin drift issue due to the ballistic coefficient and 23 inch short barrel with 1:16 twist to unlock the fuze. Along with crappy dispersion past 100m. The same round fired from the MK103 didn't experience this issue with a 47inch barrel. Past 100m due to it the single MK108 round had stability issues. Throw in some turbulence from the bomber. That's why ganging the MK108 was the preferred platform method. Some 190 pilots would stay back from the bombers and lob the MK108 rounds hoping for the self destruct at 1100m would send shrapnel into the bombers rather than try to get closer to hit the bombers.

Heavy AAF bombers in the ETO were not blown from the air in droves like we do in the game with the MK108. The greatest danger to the bombers was crew being slaughtered by the shrapnel from flack, 20mm, and 30mm round casings. Bombers were very tough without much armor for the crew. A single 20mm going off in the nose, no bombardier. In the cockpit, no flight crew. Many of the Luft combat footage against single bombers from the rear have some common factors. You don't see the other bombers in the tight elements. Not a lot of return fire is happening. And you don't get the sense of high closing speed by the fighter the camera is filming from. You kill the crew from high speed passes sending 20mm into the fuselage and you end up with crippled stragglers to make nice footage of when you finish them off.

I think Hitech pulls his ww2 blast data from an ARMY historical site that has ww2 AAF ETO bomber post mortem data and pictures of the damage a single 20mm HE can do. A common death for crew was bleeding to death from single tiny round casing fragments cutting arteries, then bleeding out in minutes due to the low air pressure. One post mortem photo showed about 70 tiny 20mm fragments collected out of the radio compartment where the radioman died from exsanguination along with a gunner. It was a very common scenario. Killing crew in ww2 was more likely to happen in a single pass than hitting anything critical enough to drop a B17 or B24 out of the air like we do in the game.

The 88 AA round was never expected to hit the bombers. The detonation was expected to kill crew and damage the bombers with shrapnel. That's why the ack fields were so dense. All testing of the MK108 in Germany and subsequently in England was under ideal conditions for that specific round and it's deficiencies on the ground. For penetration, acknowledged by testing at Rechlin, it was a 100m or less round. It's greatest effect was setting off the equivalent of an antipersonnel stick grenade against the skin of a bomber sending shrapnel into the structures around it. This is not to say penetration wasn't possible. Testing dictated to expect using the round for it's shrapnel effect at distances past 100m.

Many of the photos of ammo beltings for the MK108 and attached shot tubes are misleading about the outcome. The shot tubes are from 163, 262, 110, belly pack, wing pack or Schräge Musik installations. Any armor piercing or incendiary rounds will be most likely for a situation in which the plane could survive being 100m and closer from the target like Schräge Musik in a night fighter.   
 
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: 30mm tater.
« Reply #92 on: June 11, 2014, 05:26:51 PM »
 I'm surprize an ex military type like you has never seen a round deflect off a branch or similar substance of less resistance....


  YMMV.




   :salute

Sure I have... Even snow. However that's completely different from a several kilojoule supersonic projectile weighing .73 lbs hitting a tin can. Once the aluminum plate gives it offers no more resistance. Water and snow offers constant resistance no matter how deep they're penetrated.

I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier: At what angle will a sheet of paper deflect a pistol round? The overmatch factor is much greater with a 30mm round and a 1mm plate of aluminum. There is no angle that will cause a deflection. Sure the round can fly parallel to the sheet of paper/aluminum and still touch the surface, but that is really a miss.

 :salute
« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 05:32:18 PM by GScholz »
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline TheCrazyOrange

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
Re: 30mm tater.
« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2014, 07:14:39 PM »
Sure I have... Even snow. However that's completely different from a several kilojoule supersonic projectile weighing .73 lbs hitting a tin can. Once the aluminum plate gives it offers no more resistance. Water and snow offers constant resistance no matter how deep they're penetrated.

I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier: At what angle will a sheet of paper deflect a pistol round? The overmatch factor is much greater with a 30mm round and a 1mm plate of aluminum. There is no angle that will cause a deflection. Sure the round can fly parallel to the sheet of paper/aluminum and still touch the surface, but that is really a miss.

 :salute

Paper is certainly weaker than that 1mm of duralumin relative to the energy is supposed to deflect. It's certainly less stiff.

And you seem to be entirely dismissing the fact that 95% of the round's energy is not directed along such a vector that it will interact with the skin. At 80 degrees, the energy imparted on the skin is less than the force of an 85kg man standing on the wing.

Hell, in your mind, the round could be 3 arcseconds off of parallel, and because the total energy carried by the round is 35kj, 35kj of energy is directed against the skin. In your mind, that round would just go through the wing like it's paper.



Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: 30mm tater.
« Reply #94 on: June 13, 2014, 04:53:24 PM »
Continuing this discussion would be a waste of time, so lets just leave it at that.  :salute
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline MrRiplEy[H]

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11633
Re: 30mm tater.
« Reply #95 on: June 14, 2014, 03:19:38 AM »
Paper is very strong for its weight. You can make an effective body armor by strapping phone books around your body. It will stop most pistol caliber rounds unless you're unlucky enough for the round to pass between the books :)
Definiteness of purpose is the starting point of all achievement. –W. Clement Stone