Author Topic: Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)  (Read 2213 times)

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2003, 10:23:39 PM »
Thanks Guys!!

I was waiting for the common sense cavalry to arrive.

BTW, I have film of my test in the DA.

I just hope HTC takes a look at this in AHII.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
The common sense cavalry
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2003, 12:07:29 AM »
Look at my first post, and I'll make the same statement.  If the rounds open up the structure to the 300 mph wind, the airflow will do the rest of the damage.

Tony, I respect your work and research, but ...  

Think about it.  How many bullets did it take to really knock down an airplane in WW2?  Not 30 cannon rounds.  Not hundreds of rifle-caliber mg rounds.  Not that many.  It's the aerodynamic forces that do the damage, to the weakened structure under unusual stresses.

Here in AH they don't model the slipstream effects, or the vibration of the gun.  OK.  Whatever.  However, the argument that both bodies are moving makes hits nearly impossible is specious, since in real life planes did get shot down, and deflection shots worked.  Remember that the average AH gunner has much more experience than any WW2 gunner.

I'll bet somebody, somewhere has done an engineering study on that.  I'll see what I can find.

And btw, the flaps, oil cooler, etc. were all made of lightweight materials, and probably offered little resistance to the passage of the bullets.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Yet another point, again
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2003, 12:18:14 AM »
Tony, would you not say that the dispersion factor you quoted makes a hit more likely, not less likely?  Think "shotgun".  At 600 rounds/min from a .50 mg, a five second burst puts 30 rounds in that 45 ft. circle (quoted) per gun.  Two guns per turret in a B17 (60 rounds).  Three (minimum) turrets firing (180 rounds).  If the gunner gets the lead right, I would think that there would be some hits to the plane.  Pellets in the sky bring down ducks, and airplanes.

Anecdotally, when I fly real planes, one of the things they want you to inspect carefully is the wing leading edge.  Strange things happen to the lift characteristics of even a light plane wing when it is deformed.  Planes with dented leading edges are supposed to stay on the ground for that reason.  Wing skin damage is nothing to sneer at.

Offline Puke

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
      • http://members.cox.net/barking.pig/puke.htm
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2003, 12:45:28 AM »
I found this interesting..

I went into the CT and took up a Corsair.  My first three flights ended with me losing my left wing, then losing my right wing, then my left again and all with no other damage that I could tell as I spun in or crabbed into the ground.  My fourth death was due to ack and an M60 which basically took off all my parts.  After that, I stopped paying attention and was really fretting about how poorly I was doing.  I got my butt spanked big time...was honestly startled at the amount of HOs going on (wasn't seeing them occur until too late for some reason) and ack running.  My quick little experiment shows the F4U tends to shed a wing when hit.  It has nothing to do with what kind of bullet hits the hog or from what direction (first two deaths direct HO's.)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: The common sense cavalry
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2003, 04:50:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
Think about it.  How many bullets did it take to really knock down an airplane in WW2?  Not 30 cannon rounds.  Not hundreds of rifle-caliber mg rounds.  Not that many.  It's the aerodynamic forces that do the damage, to the weakened structure under unusual stresses.


Only a very small percentage of planes went down due to structural failure. Like I said critical component damage is the real killer in AA combat. Engine and engine systems (radiators and such), pilot/crew, fuel tanks and control surfaces or linkage. Some planes (like the Zeke) did sometimes break up in mid-air, but usually as a result of fire which weaken aluminum a lot (aluminum will actually burn with a catalyst like aviation gas). Some planes exploded, again as a result of a catastrophic fuel fire, again critical component damage.

Only auto cannons had the effect of causing gaping wounds in the airframe ... like a broadsword would do to a human. .30's and .50's are more like rapiers, stabbing weapons. They penetrate and damage the components whithin the structure. The .50 rapier is of course somewhat longer and sharper. ;)

The kind of structural failure we see in AH is gamey IMHO, especially with regard to the bombers. IL2's damage model is better, but still simplistic compared to RL (duh!), but at least it seems more realistic.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2003, 04:52:40 AM 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 GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Yet another point, again
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2003, 05:01:16 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
At 600 rounds/min from a .50 mg, a five second burst puts 30 rounds in that 45 ft. circle (quoted) per gun.


5 seconds is a lifetime in combat. One ... ... ... two ... ... ... three ... ... ... four ... ... ... five ... ... ...

More realistic: One (109 5 O'clock!!!) ... two (training gun/turret) ... three (aiming) ... four (firing) ... five (Wooosh! Where did he go?!?) ...
"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 F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2003, 09:13:10 AM »
rshubert,

I'm not talking about 30 hits from the .30 cal.

I'm mean thirty rounds fired period.

Maybe 3/4 of them hits and then maybe half into my wing root.

So your really talking about maybe 10 hits.

Puke,

Your right, wings fall off like daisy leaves. I also feel like the -1D is more fragile than the -1 although my test showed them to be the same.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
No argument about simplification...
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2003, 01:46:19 PM »
Of the damage model.  My point could be restated to say that the airplane itself does the destruction.  If the wing or tail surfaces are distorted in some way by the damage, the airplane can become uncontrollable.  The resulting departure from controlled flight overstresses the airframe.  The airframe comes apart.

We've both seen a lot of gun camera footage of real airplanes coming apart at the seams when hit by ack, or missiles, or gunfire.  Sometimes they explode, other times they don't   I think a large percentage of in-flight breakups are due to loss of control caused by damage to flying surfaces.  How much?  I don't know for sure.  But it did happen a lot.

I don't have any problem with the amount of damage required to bring me down, as long as it is consistent from player to player.  It seems to be.  Is the discussion of what exactly happens during the process important?  Yes, but not in the game.  The game models damage caused by gunfire consistently.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Burst time
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2003, 01:50:37 PM »
Nice try, G, but the plane was passing left-to-right approaching from behind, at D400 or so, according to F4UDOA's original post.  I would get five seconds at him from that approach vector if I saw him coming.

4.0k identify threat...1.6k aim...1.0 k open up...stop when he flys past.

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2003, 04:30:19 PM »
OK guys, try an experiment. Draw a circle to a convenient scale to represent 30 feet diameter.Superimpose onto this a head-on view of your favourite fighter to the same scale. Calculate the percentage of the area occupied by said fighter. I would expect this to be no more than 10%.

So, even under ideal conditions (both targets stationary, on the ground) the vast majority of your shots are going to miss. Those which do hit will be scattered all over the aircraft. To stand a reasonable chance of several hits impacting on the same spot you would have to be firing for minutes, not seconds.

Sure, sim gunners get better practice than WW2 gunnners did in RL. But, you don't have to cope with the vibration, the bucking around of the aircraft, the slipstream battering the gun barrels, and above all the gut-wrenching fear of combat. Yes, fighters were shot down by bombers (put enough lead in the air and you will eventually get lucky), but (in the case of the USAAF) at a rate of about one-tenth of the claimed figures. And even taking the claimed figures, USAAF bombers still fired 12,000 rounds for every claim, which means the actual figure was around 100,000 rounds per bird, which works out as TWO HOURS continuous firing.

I'd be interested to see evidence for the claim that most planes were shot down due to structural damage. The RAF estimated that 90% of their bombers were lost due to fire.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Offline Rutilant

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1352
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2003, 05:27:05 PM »
Damn.. lookit him go

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2003, 06:20:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tony Williams
I'd be interested to see evidence for the claim that most planes were shot down due to structural damage. The RAF estimated that 90% of their bombers were lost due to fire.


Exactly.
"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 GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Burst time
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2003, 07:02:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
Nice try, G, but the plane was passing left-to-right approaching from behind, at D400 or so, according to F4UDOA's original post.  I would get five seconds at him from that approach vector if I saw him coming.

4.0k identify threat...1.6k aim...1.0 k open up...stop when he flys past.


Nice try R :)

You'd be hard pressed to see a fighter head-on at d4k to say nothing about identifying it. You start aiming at d1.6k a mile out? ... and you start firing at d1k. By that time you have been attacked by the other fighers you didn't see while aiming and wasting your ammo at d1k.


Here's a little anectodal evidence for you:

The Schweinfurt
Raid
-----
By Sgt. WALTER PETERS

There were fighters everywhere, but mostly on our tail. "The whole Golly-gee Luftwaffey is out today," somebody said over the inter-phone. There were the single-engined Me.109s and twin-engined Me.110s; there were Ju.88s and FW190s; there also were Me.210s, even Dornier bombers, and God only knows what else the Germans had thrown into the fight. The only things they did not throw at the division were the plane factories themselves, or such factories as they have left to throw.
    "This is nothing," Zorn reassured me. "We've seen worse in other raids. About 25 minutes more to the target."
    The captain took a little evasive action. The plane banked to the left, then to the right. To the right we sighted a huge column of smoke, which looked at first like a big black cloud. It was the target. Libs and Forts had already passed the ball-bearing works and hit the plants solidly. We'd soon be there, but we wondered just how soon. The passage of time is a little different up there. The Navigator told me to look out of the left side. There were a couple of planes burning there, a Fort and an enemy fighter. Three white parachutes and one brown one floated in the sky. The whites belonged to our boys. Under the brown one was a German.
    When in hell are we getting to that target? Time has passed so slowly these past 15 minutes. Ten minutes more and we'll surely be there. Heuser was still calling them off. The fighters were coming in from all sides now, but not too close. Maybe about 500 yards away, often as much as 1,000. I looked back toward the fuselage. There was Tex, his left foot planted on a box of caliber 50s, his right foot lazily dangling in space. From the inter-phone we knew Tex was a very, very busy top turret gunner. His gun was tracking fighters all around the clock. Occasionally he concentrated his gun to the tail, where his friend Sweeney was busy firing at the enemy as they queued up from the rear.
    A Ju.88 and a 190 attacked Sweeney's position from 4 and 8 o'clock, and high. Tex's guns worked fast. Both planes peeled off. The 190 shied off but the 88 came back from about 500 yards to the rear, flying smack into the ex-tire salesman. Sweeney calmly pressed his triggers. Meanwhile, Tex directed his fire. "You're shooting at him just a little high. Get him lower. A little lower." Sweeney did; the 88 came closer, and lobbed out two of the rockets which the Germans are now using. They were deadly looking affairs as they shot out like flames.
    Tex still guided his pal over the inter-phone. "A little lower, Bill," he said. A little lower Bill went. The 88 wavered, flipped over and as it did we could see that it was afire, trailing smoke. Then there was one less Ju.88; also one less Ju.88 crew of two. They didn't get out.

---

These guys had trouble hitting a Ju88 at 500 yards steady on their six, a bloody twin-engined bomber!

The selfdefending bomber formation concept was violenty proven faulty on Oct. 14, 1943.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2003, 07:07:10 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 MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2003, 07:09:50 PM »
My father was a WAG (radio op/gunner) in the RCAF during WW2. During training, he had a 5% hit rate, firing from a turret, on the target drone and was complimented by the instructor on his score since it was double what the average was for a trainee gunner. This was under a controlled condition, not in a combat situation.

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Bomber gun madness(Tony Williams please)
« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2003, 08:32:25 PM »
Quote
...So, even under ideal conditions (both targets stationary, on the ground) the vast majority of your shots are going to miss. Those which do hit will be scattered all over the aircraft. To stand a reasonable chance of several hits impacting on the same spot you would have to be firing for minutes, not seconds...


 This is good stuff!