Author Topic: 50. cal facts and questions. (Read 747 times)

Virage · « **on:** April 13, 2002, 05:19:09 AM »

# of 50. cal rounds to destroy fuel tank @ 100 yds = 250

# of 50. cal rounds to destroy building @ 100 yds = 225
@ 1000 = 225
@ 1500 = 225

1 round ~= 1 lb. bomb ?
Does AH model 'hardness' or just x hits = damaged?
Round velocity/KE loss vs. distance modeled?

Samm · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2002, 07:59:16 AM »

It's a complex issue and HTC has done a good job .

It would take much less than a 100 rounds in real life to destroy a metal tank full of volitile fuel . Also the buildings would catch fire long before they could be sawed down by the bullet holes . HTC models every 5th round incendiary,(tracer) . Of course that brings up questions like brick vs wooden structures shouldn't sustain damage equally etc., like I said it's a complex issue and I'm satisfied with the current model .

And yes kinetic energy damage diminishes with distance in AH .

Wilbus · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2002, 09:10:39 AM »

Well a building wouldn't blow up by 250 50 cal rounds, nor would it get sawed off and unless very very dry wood or something, would most lilely not catch fire either. It's good the way HTC has done it though, just the gun vs plane/veichle modelling that needs improvement.

Samm · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2002, 09:18:37 AM »

Just about anything will burn if you put fifty .5" phosporous rounds in it . Willy Pete is nasty . I hope you didn't infer that I meant a building could be sawed down ala A-Team with 250 rounds .

FDutchmn · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2002, 09:45:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samm
And yes kinetic energy damage diminishes with distance in AH .

this true? I heard someone online who thinks otherwise...

SKurj · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2002, 10:09:12 AM »

Course it does or 1k kills would be even more common!

SKurj

FDutchmn · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2002, 11:16:49 AM »

so why then does it take 225 bullets from a .50cal to kill a building from 100yrds, and still take 225 bullets at 1500yrds as described in this post?

Hooligan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2002, 12:48:18 PM »

How did you measure the number of rounds required to destroy something?

thanks,

Hooligan

SKurj · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2002, 03:55:56 PM »

dunno how u would measure the distance unless you had a friend park right next to the target in question...

Perhaps the damage model for objects doesn't worry about kinetic energy whereas for hits against player objects it does...

he has a point...

SKurj

Virage · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2002, 04:55:49 PM »

Methods:

offline
m3 parked south of target
.target xx command for range

My first target was a fuel tank but I found I couldn't guarantee a hit with each bullet at longer ranges due to dispersion.

I settled on the large square building as a target because each shot fired produced a hit sprite on target.

Either bullet KE does not decrease with range OR buildings are modeled with an 'amor value' so thin that a slower bullet will still damage. My 2nd question would shed light on this.

Quote

Course it does or 1k kills would be even more common!

This MAY be due to dispersion. Less rounds hitting = less damage.

Samm · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2002, 03:47:57 AM »

The 50cal on m3 has higher muzzle velocity therefore greater KE and longer range than the 50cals on airplanes . This is due to it's heavier, longer barrel .

HTC has said the damage from KE diminishes over distance . Keep in mind the difference would be barely perceptible at distances less than 2kilometers .

Virage · « **Reply #11 on:** April 14, 2002, 03:18:34 PM »

Quote

...KE diminishes over distance . Keep in mind the difference would be barely perceptible at distances less than 2kilometers .

? Bullet velocity loss is usually in the area of .5 V @ 600 m. Some better, some worse but definately perceptible.

? Does AH model the m3's 50 differently then the p51's? Please share your reference.

Samm · « **Reply #12 on:** April 14, 2002, 04:37:01 PM »

Perceptable is a subjective term .
With the heavy barrel group ball ammo will penetrate 2" of concrete at 200meters, 1" at 600meters and 1" at 1500 meters.

The ground units in AH use the M2 with the heavy barrel group . Hitech or Pyro said that in this forum, and they added that is why they perform better than the aircraft mounted M2 .

Yeager · « **Reply #13 on:** April 14, 2002, 04:57:14 PM »

Man, you LW dweebs really have a serious dislike for the browning .50 dont you!

As it should be..........as it should be

Virage · « **Reply #14 on:** April 14, 2002, 06:20:03 PM »

Quote

There is no difference between the damage the bomber's .50s do and the fighters. They both use the same gun. However, the same cannot be said for vehicles. Vehicles use the heavy barrel M2 instead of the aircraft M2. This weapon has a lower rate of fire but uses a 45" barrel instead of the 36" barrel on the aircraft version. This results in slightly higher muzzle velocity and striking power. - Pyro

Thank you for the heads up Samm.

I also came across references to 'decreased KE with range' being added to the game, so that leads me to believe the building tested is too soft. Ill try a bunker. Samms figures of concrete penetration do show decreased performance from 200m to 600m.

Yeager - The 'game' does not fit my 'perception' of what a 50. cal could do at long range. I am posting my attempts to find which is incorrect.