Author Topic: The Void between Machine guns and cannons. (Read 9956 times)

Toad · « **Reply #105 on:** August 07, 2003, 07:10:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady
the rest of the data you mentioned is readly available on a ton of web sights in in a number off book's.

Well Brady, I did another web search and I still can't find the BC's for the common Japanese aircraft rounds. I know you have lots of that data, can you point me to a source for the MG's and Cannon rounds? Just BC, projectile weight and muzzle velocity will do for now. Thanks in advance.

brady · « **Reply #106 on:** August 07, 2003, 04:49:28 PM »

Some of the following scans and Data come form this source:

Look at Tony sight for the MV questions and the Weight's:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bellow are some more scans that show a bit more detail on some of the prodjectiles, if somthing is missing please let me know and I can scan it for you or look it up. My TM series does not have the BC's listed and I thought it did, I will look around and try and find a source for them, many of the Japanese rounds are very similar to know types howeaver and the BC's for them might be usefull enough to come close, but I will look and see what I can find.

Toad · « **Reply #107 on:** August 07, 2003, 04:55:47 PM »

I do appreciate it.

While I know you've told me that BC's for most of the major combatant's aircraft gun projectiles are readily available on the web, I certainly haven't had much luck in finding them.

Muzzle velocity is pretty common. Projectiles (exact) weights are pretty uncommon and BC's are rare at best.

And anyone wanting to talk hit probability has to consider trajectory, so this kind of data is important, don't you think?

Do you think you ought to just call Pyro and ask him about the two Type 99 rounds? Might be the fastest way to get the explanation.

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #108 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:06:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams
Qoute from 'Flying Guns: WW2':

"German information from a different source document indicated that HS 404 HET shells slowed from 880 to 675 m/s at 300 m and about 500 m/s at 600 m, reductions of 23 % and 43 % respectively."

In contrast, the 20 mm HE-T (117g) from an MG 151 was doing around 540 and 410 m/s respectively at the same distances, while the 92g M-Geschoss was doing 490 and 310 m/s.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Thank Tony, I was just looking for such data for the Hispano round velocity at 300m. Now I can make my firepower comparison with more exact data!

BTW, do you happen to have similiar data for all types of shells the Hispanos used?

brady · « **Reply #109 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:22:31 PM »

Ho-103

brady · « **Reply #110 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:27:46 PM »

Type 2:

brady · « **Reply #111 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:34:10 PM »

"While I know you've told me that BC's for most of the major combatant's aircraft gun projectiles are readily available on the web, I certainly haven't had much luck in finding them. "

Ya, I recall seing them but I am having a problem finding them myself, I will look around some more tomarow AM when I have more time.

"Muzzle velocity is pretty common. Projectiles (exact) weights are pretty uncommon and BC's are rare at best. "

Ya MV's and rof is easy to come by, exact weights are hard to find, thats why I am posting some of the more common Japanese rounds hear from the above source, if their is somthing specific you nead let me know and I will scan it.

"And anyone wanting to talk hit probability has to consider trajectory, so this kind of data is important, don't you think? "

O I do.

"Do you think you ought to just call Pyro and ask him about the two Type 99 rounds? Might be the fastest way to get the explanation."

I was going to do it toady since I was going to ask Skuzzy some CT questions but I got side tracked, and wanted to go the Museum anyway:) I should have time tomarow to call though.

More scans coming....

brady · « **Reply #112 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:47:14 PM »

Gota love that 7.7mm HEI:)

brady · « **Reply #113 on:** August 07, 2003, 05:53:41 PM »

Ho-5:

brady · « **Reply #114 on:** August 07, 2003, 06:01:39 PM »

Type 99:

brady · « **Reply #115 on:** August 07, 2003, 06:08:34 PM »

I did find a great TM on the US ammo Balistics, it apears to be very indepth, and lists pentration for 50cal's (amongst other's) on all types of surfaces, I was going to coppy parts of it but I was short on time, I might go back though and look it over more closly.

Toad · « **Reply #116 on:** August 07, 2003, 06:24:02 PM »

Good stuff on the weights there.

brady · « **Reply #117 on:** August 07, 2003, 06:55:01 PM »

Ya it's a realy cool series, prety much anything that went boom, burned or smoked, is covered in it Bomb's, ammo, Artillery and other sundery devices are covered as well.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #118 on:** August 08, 2003, 02:44:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Thank Tony, I was just looking for such data for the Hispano round velocity at 300m. Now I can make my firepower comparison with more exact data!

BTW, do you happen to have similiar data for all types of shells the Hispanos used?

No, such data is hard to come by except for the German ammo. However, the HEI and SAPI used by the RAF had similar weights and profiles, so I would expect them to be ballistically virtually identical.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

F4UDOA · « **Reply #119 on:** August 08, 2003, 10:34:27 AM »

Quote

From Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II
A. H. Peterson
Rand Corporation, 1950
Document number # RM-402
Page 53

Aircraft lost to hit ratio for hits on components (F4U, F6F, SB2C, TBM,
Note: all radial-engined)
From Japanese Aircraft Fire – Sept 44 –August 45

Hit location # hit #lost Loss %
Propellor 9 0 0
Powerplant 37 23 62.2
Structure 215 23 10.7
Pilot/flight controls 97 74 76.3
Surface Controls 27 0 0
Oil System 27 23 85.3
Fuel System 30 24 80.0
Hydraulic System 35 21 60.0
Electrical System 6 0 0
Other 18 5 27.8

Total 501 193 38.5

If I arrange the causes of losses in weighted order:

Hit location #lost % cause of total losses
Pilot/flight controls 74 43.0
Fuel System 24 14.0
Powerplant 23 13.4
Oil System 23 13.4
Structure 23 13.4
Other 5 2.9

This is the point gents.

In AH (you remember AH?) most kills by far are from wing failure or even more absurd your entire fusalage splitting in two peices. And then there is the complete loss of your tail section.

Everyone is so hung up on who had the biggest bullets but nobody cares that the relative damage was minimal unless the pilot or engine was knocked out.

But hey I like looking at pictures of bullets too.

Here is one of my favorites, the 37MM smart shell developed by Colonel Sanders of the Confederate Air force. Obviously it has been undermodeled because there is no way an aircraft could survive a strike from an object that heavy.