190A vs SpitVB

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by GScholz
Yes it is. The .233 round is balanced on the verge of being unstable in flight and is easily “upset”, not like any WWII ammo and even modern cannon rounds. Anyways, the kinetic energy difference of the .223 and the .22LR is astronomical compared to the .50 cal and MG131. They could both shred like you described, but they were not easily “upset”.

A more comparable test would be to shoot at that can with 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x63 Long. Do you think you would see any difference?

EDIT: Alternatively 7.62x39mm Russian vs. 7.62x51mm NATO.

My point is the difference in kinetic energy between a MG 151 round and a Hispano round  or the 13mm and the 50 BMG was significant enough to have a considerable differences in terminal ballistics, and that the effects of a projectile expending kinetic energy on a metal AC structure would be dramatic.

note-  The super velocities of the .223 in Rifle length barrels was not the stability problem.  The problem was the 55 grain bullet was not well suited for the 1-10 twist for many common rifles.  This was alleviated with many weapons getting a 1-9 twist.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by -ammo-
My point is the difference in kinetic energy between a MG 151 round and a Hispano round  or the 13mm and the 50 BMG was significant enough to have a considerable differences in terminal ballistics, and that the effects of a projectile expending kinetic energy on a metal AC structure would be dramatic.

Wrong. I’m sorry, but you are. I have personally shot up an M113 APC (which has more than 1.5 inch thick hardened aluminum armor) with 50 rounds of .50 cal MP1 ammo. The structural damage was little more than from the MG-3 using 7.62mm AP except that the .50 cal MP1 AP core went out the other side of the vehicle. Clean holes from both (some blast fragmentation at the entry point from the .50 cal MP1 chemical component though).

Originally posted by -ammo-
note-  The super velocities of the .223 in Rifle length barrels was not the stability problem.  The problem was the 55 grain bullet was not well suited for the 1-10 twist for many common rifles.  This was alleviated with many weapons getting a 1-9 twist.

The .223/5.56x45mm NATO was designed to be almost instable in flight (heavy in the rear) so it would be upset easily to cause maximum damage to a human target (thereby avoiding Geneva Conventions against so called “dum-dum” bullets).

[-ammo-]

I very well could be wrong, and that will be OK too.  

I have personally shot up an M113 APC (which has more than 1.5 inch thick hardened aluminum armor) with 50 rounds of .50 cal MP1 ammo. The structural damage was little more than from the MG-3 using 7.62mm AP except that the .50 cal MP1 AP core went out the other side of the vehicle. Clean holes from both (some blast fragmentation at the entry point from the .50 cal MP1 chemical component though).

WW2 Fighter AC panels were thin and the framework wasn't armor either.  More kinetic energy= more damage on a typical WW2 fighter AC.

[Batz]

gsholz your killing me here

mw 50 was around for the whole war. It wasnt apart of standized  production until 1944. The 190a4 had all the "plumbing" for mw 50 right off the production but very few actually had it.

 There were odd ball test variants that could of had anything from GM1 to MW50.

The Bf 109G-5 was the first of the Gustavs to introduce the bulges (blisters) on the cowling to accomodate the breech and ammuntion feed chutes of the MG 131 machine guns.  A few g5s recieved the DB 605AS . There were a smaller number of g5s with mw50 but the g5 had the 3cm hub cannon and 13mm cowl guns (the blisters).

The 109 with the db605d was the g10. Any 109 with a db 605 D would be noticable by chin bulges as a result of water tubing which on the DB 605 D went outside of the fuselage profile - probably due to the bigger head cams of the engine - thus necessitating a bulge to enclose it and causing a "slit" to be cut on the fuselage under the bulge.

Like our g10.

Through out the war the lw tested mw50 but as a part of standized production it wasnt until 44 when planes came out of the factory equipped for mw50.

There were technically g6 with mw50 but they werent wide scale.

mg131 had .74g of "explosive charge"

the 50 cal had .87g

I agree with gruen the 13mm are fine guns.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by -ammo-
I very well could be wrong, and that will be OK too.  

I have personally shot up an M113 APC (which has more than 1.5 inch thick hardened aluminum armor) with 50 rounds of .50 cal MP1 ammo. The structural damage was little more than from the MG-3 using 7.62mm AP except that the .50 cal MP1 AP core went out the other side of the vehicle. Clean holes from both (some blast fragmentation at the entry point from the .50 cal MP1 chemical component though).

WW2 Fighter AC panels were thin and the framework wasn't armor either.  More kinetic energy= more damage on a typical WW2 fighter AC.

Seems like we will just have to agree to disagree, because IMHO you don’t make sense at all. A thin aluminum skin would take less damage than a thick aluminum plate since the projectile can only transfer a tiny part of its energy before penetrating. The thicker the plate – the bigger the hole as long as the projectile penetrate. It would still be a clean hole though, no shredding.

Again the issue has been debated to death … without being resolved

[-ammo-]

I can live with that.  I also agree that a projectile cannot expend energy on empty space.  However,  AC fuselages and wings were filled with components of all sorts. They provide the medium for the bullet to transfer its energy into the AC.  Again, more kinetic energy, more damage.  Makes perfect sense to me.  Some AC like the Allied heavy bombers were not like that at all and I agree that API would generally just pass through without alot of damage.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Batz
gsholz your killing me here

mw 50 was around for the whole war. It wasnt apart of standized  production until 1944. The 190a4 had all the "plumbing" for mw 50 right off the production but very few actually had it.

 There were odd ball test variants that could of had anything from GM1 to MW50.

The Bf 109G-5 was the first of the Gustavs to introduce the bulges (blisters) on the cowling to accomodate the breech and ammuntion feed chutes of the MG 131 machine guns.  A few g5s recieved the DB 605AS . There were a smaller number of g5s with mw50 but the g5 had the 3cm hub cannon and 13mm cowl guns (the blisters).

The 109 with the db605d was the g10. Any 109 with a db 605 D would be noticable by chin bulges as a result of water tubing which on the DB 605 D went outside of the fuselage profile - probably due to the bigger head cams of the engine - thus necessitating a bulge to enclose it and causing a "slit" to be cut on the fuselage under the bulge.

Like our g10.

Through out the war the lw tested mw50 but as a part of standized production it wasnt until 44 when planes came out of the factory equipped for mw50.

There were technically g6 with mw50 but they werent wide scale.

mg131 had .74g of "explosive charge"

the 50 cal had .87g

I agree with gruen the 13mm are fine guns.

I'm I killing you? ... I'd better stop doing that then lest you die.

Didn’t the 109G10 have the DB605G?

According to the evolution table at bf109.com the

G1 had DB605A-1 with GM-1
G5 had DB605D with MW-50
G6 had several variations of the DB605
G10 had DB605G with WM-50

You still haven't answered why the climb chart that hazed mentioned showed a vastly better climb rate (10 minutes!) to 30k with MW-50 if it was only effective at low levels?

The .50 cal AP/I had no explosive element, only incendiary chemicals.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by -ammo-
I can live with that.  I also agree that a projectile cannot expend energy on empty space.  However,  AC fuselages and wings were filled with components of all sorts. They provide the medium for the bullet to transfer its energy into the AC.  Again, more kinetic energy, more damage.  Makes perfect sense to me.  Some AC like the Allied heavy bombers were not like that at all and I agree that API would generally just pass through without alot of damage.

Yes, like I said the higher kinetic energy of the .50 cal would give it a greater chance of damaging critical components like the engine or fuel tank (because they have the mass to be damaged by kinetic energy transferred at a small point). Structural failures from .50 cal hits were very rare (from MG131 too I'm sure).

EDIT: Aircraft structures are mostlly filled with two things: Air or fuel. Especially the wings.

[GRUNHERZ]

Ammo gscholz is right. Think of it this way, lets say you shoot two bullets, one at a piece of paper and the other at a sheet of steel. Which bullet would have less energy after penetrating the material it was shot at. obviously the one shot at the steel as that extra lost energy was transfered from the bullet into generating the penetrating effects on the much harder steel - no more no less - remember the bullet will try to find the path of least resistance.  So actually unless the total obstacles exceed the total energy of the 13mm there should be no difference in effect vs the power 50cal.  Now we know the 50cal has more muzzle enegy and keeps it better over distances but unless there is more to punch through it doesnt matter.  In fact the lower velocity bullet could sometimes be more dangerous because it, unlike the faster bullet which would simply pass through, might not be able to penetrate all the material and would keep bouncing around with enough energy possibly cutting wires, cables, people, fuel tanks and setting fires.  and there are very few areas of most ww2 fighters which were armored in any significant way.

So I still think the major difference in 50cal vs 13mm is ease of aim at longer ranges and the fact that there are least twices as many of them firing at any given time.  Actually if there is one thing that intrests me about AH gunnery setting these days is the ability to set convergence at 600 yards, is there any historical precednt for this?

[Batz]

Hazed hasnt posted any chart that I see.

Also you dont understanding what that evolution table is telling you. Its not giving an evolution table of standardized production. The db601as with GM1 were recon aircraft etc...I gotta head out for tonight but if you arent busy head over to Butch site and pose these same questions there and you may find I am right.

http://pub131.ezboard.com/ballboutwarfare

ww2 air war here

http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31

Tony Williams covered all this stuff in previous post. Unless a 50 cal hits something the best you will get in a cleaner hole. With M'geschoss you dont need to hit something vital because the explosive content is enough blow out the stressed skin. The brits looked at 50 cals prior to BoB but were happy with 303s. They had a higher rate of fire and you could have more 303s then 50s.

But the Brits were thinking that they main target would be slow moving 1920s style bombers they wererelatively unprotected. They learned quickly that the 303 wasnt going to cut it. The 50s have greater penetration and as such were effective against all armor plate with in given ranges.

50cals hold energy better and hit harder at range. But range wasnt much of a factor in choosing gun load outs. The us would have went to 20mm had it been problem free. The seriously looked a round similiar to the german mg151/15mm.

What 50s do for you is with a high velocity and flat trajectory is allow you to get more rounds on target at convergence, or shooting range.

search the board for Tony Williams.

or go check his site.

I dont have time right now but all this has been beaten as much as the original topic.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Batz
Hazed hasnt posted any chart that I see.

No, he mentioned the chart that was presented to HTC and HTC said it was for a 190A8 with MW-50.

[Toad]

Originally posted by GScholz
I’m guessing you meant kinetic energy.

Yeah, I guess I did. Because that's the term I used throughout that post with the one exception you seized on.

You can dispute the unimportance of kinetic energy all day long but you're still left with the fact that those poorly equipped USAAF aircraft still shot down other aircraft.

The LW, using their ammunition, did too.

As Hazed pointed out, "This is one which is understandable as if you have read up about how the various forces try to rate guns they also have a problem with rating the AP verses the HE. Its so complicated that generally the two types are rated seperately!!"

Now Urchin, Hazed, et al, you can argue that HTC doesn't model the individual round types in the typical LW beltings. They average them; that's the way I remember Pyro's explanation.

Now is the glass half empty or half full?

Using Urchin's example, one out of five rounds, 20%, should have "more power". If you had individual round modeling, you'd get that. Of course, the HTC programming would now have to track the belting, where you were in the belt on each trigger pull, which round/type hit and then apply appropriate damage. And, of course, take into account the different beltings for different aircraft.

For example: (I think I have this right. I'm not deep into the minutiae of the WW2 airwar.)

Fighter belting for the 13 mm (MG 131)

1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl
2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur o. Zerl
 
Bomber belting  for the 13 mm (MG 131)
 
1 Panzergranatpatrone L'spur o. Zerl
1 Brandsprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl
1 Sprenggranatpatrone L'Spur Üb m. Zerl

I have no idea how difficult it would be to add programming to track beltings and aircraft, where you were in the belting and applying appropriate damage. I'd guess it would not be an insignificant task and I'd guess it would add something to the server load. I have no idea how much though.

OTOH, in the present situation, you have that one round in five that is hitting with less force than it should BUT the other four are hitting with more force than they should due to the averaging.

So, is the glass half empty or half full? One way with a detailed model you'd get a "golden BB" type effect 20% of the time if you hit. But the other four out of five rounds would do decreased damage from what they do now.

The "average" model gives 80% of your rounds a statistical boost and the other round takes a statistical "hit". I haven't heard anyone complaing that the other four rounds are benefitting from the averaging.

Which is better?

I think reasonable people would accept the compromise because in the great scheme of things it really isn't making any difference in the gameplay. It is, after all, just a game. IMO, of course.

I think reasonable men would take Ammo's P-47 approach.

I truly dont care if my P-47 is not perfect. It does not keep me from logging in and having a good time with it. There are a few things that I have noted that were wrong with the D11 and the D30, and provided credible information to back it up. But you know what, I havent beaten the horse till its black over it.

That's me. I don't care if it isn't absolutely perfect down to the last rivet. I just want to log in and have fun.

Now, since this has none of the earmarks of a reasonable discussion, I think I'll be on my way.

You may want to check into selling the pulverized horsemeat to dog food company though........

[GScholz]

Talking about 190A8's and .50 cals. A few minutes ago I did a head-on attack on a B17 in a 190A8. Dipped down at 2k and pulled up into him *ping* *ping* *bang* and my left wing goes flying by itself. This is .50 caliber BS.

[Toad]

Yeah, it's kinda like when you make a vertical diving attack on a JU=88 in a Spit I. You're whaling away on his wing tip for 3 seconds with 8 .303's and his single 7.92 goes "ping ping ping" and your wing comes off as he flies a away.

I don't think it's just the .50's on the buffs...........

[GScholz]

You may be right about that. Btw if you're up in a B17 or B26, don't worry. I won't bother you anymore, I'm tired of this.