The 50 cal. Buff Gun Laser Myth, Part 2: Ballistics andEnergy

[eskimo2]

In a parked M-16:
How easily could you kill a parked P-51 at 760 yards?
How easily could you kill a parked B-17 at 1320 yards?

What does this have to do with buff gun performance?
The 2 examples above illustrate the real-world energy difference between a B-17 exchanging fire with a P-51 at 1000 yards (6:00 chasing at 250 mph).  

Why the difference?  Get a A6M up to 300 mph, auto-pilot on and kill the engine.  Watch the airspeed indicator needle drop like mad the instant you kill the engine.  Now do the same thing at 200 mph.  The needle still drops sharply, but not as fast (300 - 250 = 5 sec., 200 - 150 - 7 sec.).  Faster moving objects have more air drag than slower moving ones, a lot more (drag is a function of the square of the speed, if I recall).  

Imagine: A P-51 chasing a B-17 at 1000 yards, both planes are exchanging fire and are traveling at 250 mph.

The B-17 tail gun round:
When a 50 cal. bullet leaves the muzzle of the tail gun in a B-17, it actually has a slower airspeed than a 50 cal. bullet fired from a fixed ground fired gun (about 367 fps slower if the buff is flying at 250 mph).  This means that it will lose speed and energy at a slower rate than the ground fired gun (even though it has less speed and energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle).  It's target (the P-51), is actually moving toward the point in space from which the 50 cal. bullet was fired, so this round has less than 1000 yards to travel before colliding with the P-51.  When it collides with the P-51, it instantly gains 367 fps to its speed and energy state (the speed of the P-51).

The Mustang round:
When a 50 cal. bullet leaves the muzzle of one of the P-51's guns, it is actually going faster than a 50 cal. bullet fired from a fixed ground fired gun (about 367 fps faster when the stang is flying at 250 mph).  This means that it will lose speed and energy at a faster rate than the ground fired gun (because is has more speed and energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle).  It's target (the B-17), is actually moving away from the point in space from which the 50 cal. bullet was fired, so this round has more than 1000 yards to travel before colliding with the B-17.  When it collides with the B-17, it instantly loses 367 fps from its speed and  energy state (the speed of the B-17).      

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual math:
250 mph is equal to 367 fps (the speed of the planes).
A 50 cal. round weighs 708 gr. and is moving 2845 fps, right out of the muzzle.
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.700
Drag Function: G1

I used the following link to crunch the numbers:
 http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html

The B-17 tail gun round:
Leaves the tail gun at 2478 fps (airspeed).  2845 fps (50 cal. muzzle velocity) - 367 fps (aircraft speed)  = 2478 fps (true airspeed of the 50 cal. round)
The round travels 840 yards (before colliding with the P-51) in 1.284 sec and has a final velocity of 1558 fps.
1558 fps (the speed of the round just before impact) + 367 fps (the speed of the P-51) = 1925 fps (the true impact speed of the round).  A 708 gr. round traveling at 1925 fps has 5800 foot pounds of energy.

The Mustang round:
Leaves the Mustang's gun at 3112 fps (airspeed).  2845 fps (50 cal. muzzle velocity) + 367 fps  (aircraft speed)  = 3212 fps (true airspeed of the 50 cal. round)
The round travels 1180 yards (before colliding with the B-17) in 1.497 sec and has a final velocity of 1750 fps.
1750 fps (the speed of the round just before impact) - 367 fps (the speed of the B-17) = 1383 fps (the true impact speed of the round).  A 708 gr. round traveling at 1383 fps has 3010 foot pounds of energy.

So there you have it.  
In the B-17 / P-51 chase example, the rounds hitting the B-17 have 3010 ft.# of E. and the rounds hitting the P-51 have 5800 ft.# of E.
By the way, a 50 cal. round fired from a fixed point (like a parked M-16) has 5800 ft# of E. at 760 yards.  It drops down to 3010 ft.# of E. at 1320 yards.
That's why bombers' guns seem so powerful at longer ranges.

Back to my original statement:
In a parked M-16:
How easily could you kill a parked P-51 at 760 yards?
How easily could you kill a parked B-17 at 1320 yards?

The greater the distance between the buff and the fighter, the more exaggerated this effect becomes.  At close ranges, however, the difference between the two practically go away.  

To kill buffs with a fighter, you must get in close, WITHOUT GIVING THE BUFF GUNNER A GOOD SHOT AT YOU, before you have the firepower advantage.
There are many effective ways of doing this, but that is a whole new topic.  

eskimo

[Hammerhead]

U gotta be a mathematician to do all that calculating. LOL!
I got the point of what you are saying without thinking of a single number  
But thanks anyway      

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by eskimo2:
To kill buffs with a fighter, you must get in close, WITHOUT GIVING THE BUFF GUNNER A GOOD SHOT AT YOU, before you have the firepower advantage.
There are many effective ways of doing this, but that is a whole new topic.  

eskimo

Awfully, hard to do when said buff is is at an altitude in excess of 28k.  Actually damn near impossible.

But pretty easy to do under 25k  

[Skuzzy]

Nice work eskimo2.

[minus]

all what i can say, shoting with real heavy machine gun and what AH have  is just ............................. to a\way what i can hit

and buff guns are shaking in real life !!!
even electric turets get vibrated like hell


about kinetic E states Eskimo2 your teory can work when bulets hit inaf hard component to transform kine E  othervise all E are useles on aluminium parts  
or ar they explode with aluminium contact ?  


sory but  realy dont like this kinda arguments,

[hazed-]

are you claiming all of this is modeled in AH and therefore what we see is as such correct??
even though we know the effectiveness has been adjusted by HTC in order to help with netlag effects etc?
if you claim HTC has this 'all down' correctly and their math is spot on and this explains what we see then why did HTC have to change/adjust it to what they 'think' is more in the interest of the 'game'?
Im begining to suspect that no matter how good you programme a game and try to use data from old documents as templates things dont always work right, eventually it has to be adjusted to behave in a manner deemed fair by all or that the games behaviour matches the charts etc.I would put money on the p51 chasing the b17 winning in real life but in AH it favours the bomber just a bit too much.AH as a 'game' needs to promote bomber use but not at the expense of fighter pilots sense of immersion or fun.
I would prefer personally to HAVE to be carefull in bombers and need escorts.
Its how it was for gods sake  
No bomber went into germany alone climbing at 140mph at 10-20k and expected to live.It seems those that fly in AH and are argueing against any adjustment are simply ignoring this fact.
I fly ju88s,I generally fly at 10k,I pick my targets, i try to organise a few others to come with me and ask for escorts.If no escorts? hell i'll go anyway and complain about the lack of help    . If i end up going alone i sneak in or try alternative approach to target and hope.I DO NOT demand my poor bomber be fitted with extra gun effectiveness because the real weapons arent good enough.I as a bomber fan want to learn their strenghs and weaknesses and have to fly the same way they did in order to be effective(eg in formations).
seems to me any compromise for any of the 'UNITS' we have (gvs,fighters,buffs) that dont go down well with the majority should be looked into again.dont cry 'attack on all bomber pilots', i agree its wrong(bomber guns bit too good) and i fly bombers!.

P.s. just in case you start saying i have been demanding better guns on the ju88 this is true in that ive asked to see what is written in the books added(eg.1x13mm on ju88s) but i want the same ballistics as a fighters 13mm not extra range etc.If the ju88 didnt have them then fair enough i dont want them.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

[eskimo2]

I don't know exactly how HTC has it modeled.  But I know that they are pretty bright guys and I bet they probably haven't overlooked much.  I'm sure it's not perfect, but it might be pretty close.

At 1000 yards and 250 mph, I would bet on the B-17.  The real world ballistics also show the B-17 has the advantage.  6 x 3010 ft# of E  VS.  4 x 5800 ft# of E.

That is my point.
 
My impression of how things would stack up before I did the math, was pretty much the same as to how the math actually came out.  
As far as how AH models this, all that I or anyone (other than Hitech or Pyro) have are impressions based on our virtual experiences.  My impression is: The buff guns in AH seem OK compared to RL ballistics.

eskimo

[Toad]

Originally posted by hazed-:
eventually it has to be adjusted to behave in a manner deemed fair by all

Ah, so now we adjust the game by vote? I want to speak out then for the C-202. It's a sexy looking airplane and I love the way the guns sound. I think it's a shame and very unfair that it's not real competitive in the arena. I'd like to have a vote on giving it about 500 more horsepower and another 2000 rounds of ammo without weight penalty. Thanks for your support!

 

Originally posted by hazed-:
No bomber went into germany alone climbing at 140mph at 10-20k and expected to live.

I don't know about going "in". However, I think I can point you to some mission reports where damaged bombers made it OUT all alone at these altitudes and speeds... with one or several enemy fighters harassing them all the way.

How did they do that, anyway?

"Dick was flying as Co-pilot with the "Eightball" crew. Bill Cabral was the Pilot. Just after dropping its bombs, the "Eightball" was hit by an aerial rocket from a Messerschmitt 110 on a frontal attack. The right wing was almost sheared off about 12 feet from the tip. The "Eightball" was forced to leave the formation. The aircraft appeared destined to go down. The right wing had lost its lift capability. The plane dove radically to the right. By using the trim tabs, excess left rudder and help from the Bombardier who with the pilots pulled on the control column, they were able to get the bomber headed home. The Luftwaffe continued their attack on the lone crippled Flying Fortress. It was not possible to do much evasive action. The pilots had to concentrate on keeping the plane on a reasonable keel and at a respectable altitude. In addition, they had to worry about fuel consumption. They still had about an hour and a half of flying to do before they would hit the coast of England. The drag of the right wing required additional power to be expended. This meant the use of more fuel than contemplated.

The German pilots immediately noted that the "Eightball" was out of formation. They made endless attacks. The American gunners kept their 50 calibers busy until the Germans left to apparently obtain more fuel. During this attack several of the Fort's guns ran dry. The gunners kept pointing their guns or moving their turrets to fool the attackers anyway. "

..and there's more like that one, if you do a little web searching.

[whirl]

the exception, toad, not the rule--thats like taking half a dozen phrases out of the bible and basing your entire doctrine on those phrases; because they suite your thinking.

i know i've logged many times because i was knifing a buff and a stray 50 clipped a wing.

[Toad]

Whirl, I'm not the one writing in absolutes here.

[Karnak]

I put 10 rounds into a pursuing C.205 with the twin .50s on the Lanc.

By your guy's description he should have exploded.

You know what happened?

Nothing.

He pulled off and proceeded to do it cautiously.  He got me in the end.

[Westy MOL]

"I put 10 rounds into a pursuing C.205 with the twin .50s on the Lanc."

 Your ammo counter shows you fired 10 rounds. How many do you KNOW hit? You don't.

 Westy

[Karnak]

Westy,

My ammo counter showed that I had fired more than 200 rounds.

I saw 8+ hit sprites.

[Westy MOL]

In that case he should have at least suffered damage, imo.

  Westy

[eskimo2]

Bump.