Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Vulcan on October 10, 2004, 03:35:52 PM
-
Can you please comment on this statement:
Real world WWII testing showed that at flat angles of impact (0 -> 3 degrees on average) little actual damage would be done, even to thin aluminium wings, fuselage and tail surfaces. Real world WWII testing determined as high as 90% total ineffectiveness of such bullet strikes.
Look at it this way. You fire 600 rounds at the target. Let's be generous and say 100 of them hit (that IS generous even though many players think ALL their rounds hit, they are very wrong) ... if of those 100 80 of them strike at near flat (up to 3 degrees) angle to the target, that's 20 rounds left that actually do any effective damage.
20 out of 600 would produce a "WTF !!" state of mind if you were the shooter and you felt you got all 600 rounds into the target and expected the equivalent of 600 rounds effective damage from those 20 rounds.
Trust me, if you got an angle of strike greater than 3 degrees on the target it will do exactly what it's intendded to do, every round that achieves such a strike, and yes, even from dead six o'clock ... but only if the angle of strike is higher than 3 degrees. From dead six, you don't have a lot of chances to beat that angle of strike limitation, and a lot of your rounds are missing even though you may think otherwise. You have no real idea how many are striking, you just see debris that is easily overwhelmed by your expectations.
The scenario is dead 6 shots from reasonable close range, the theory above is that 90% of shots are richocheting/deflecting off aluminium wings instead of penetrating them (7.62 and 20mm rounds).
-
There was a thread on another forum (I can’t for likes me remember where) that talked about this very thing. It was suggested that dead 6 shots produced a large number of "grazing ricochets".
There was mention of using a slight off angle to increase the target profile and to ensure a better angle of impact. I don’t think there was any talk of "percentages" but just some anecdotal pilot descriptions.
Maybe Tony Williams has some info.
-
When Kermit Weeks had his excellent Museum at Kendall Regional Airport in Miami, Florida they had a Ki-61 which had been dragged out of the jungle in New Guinea. The plane was displayed in an as is condition, I believe it was slotted for restoration but a date had not been set. This aircraft had considerable battle damage. Two things struck me as odd. first was that the aircraft's aluminum skin was so very thin (.030-.035?) and secondly that many of the rounds fired at it did not penetrate that thin skin. You could see where they had glanced off leaving the metal stretched and dented but not broken. Very cool display.
-
If it's so old, and was drug from a jungle of all places, how do you know those dents are from bullets?
Just curious
-
Originally posted by Krusty
If it's so old, and was drug from a jungle of all places, how do you know those dents are from bullets?
Just curious
The aircraft was in very good shape (well good shape considering it was shot down and crashed in the jungle) The bullet holes/indentations were visible on the fuselage and the wings. They were clearly bullet riccochets because from years of shooting stuff I know what a bullet riccochet off of sheet metal looks like. From bbs glancing off of the side of beer cans to 30.06 glancing off of an abandoned junk car's hood the indentation is distinctive. IIRC it was the 4 12.7mm armed model again IIRC all 4 MGs were in the wings. The Museum was called the Weeks Air Museum and I was a dues paying member allowing me the opportunity to visit any time I wanted and pretty much walk around unsupervised. I had the opportunity touch, feel and sit in many interesting aircraft. I'll check and see if they have any mention of that aircraft on their site at Fantasy of Flight in Polk City Florida. I just contacted them via e mail. the website is http://www.fantasyofflight.com the Ki 61 does not appear in the current collection roster.
-
If you are flying directly behind an opposing fighter and open fire, you are shooting at the sharp edge of the knife, not the broadside of a barn.
The angle of bullet impact on most all surfaces you could hit would be very close to parallel to any given surface rather than perpendicular. A near parallel strike just deflects a bullet only absorbing the energy that is required to redirect the bullet path.
Like in judo the effort to redirect is much less than required to absorb.
Even a shot perpindcular to an aircraft surface will likely only puncture the skin, causing minimal damage, as most of the volume in an a/c is empty space. Pop a hole through both sides of the fuselage, and unless a critical system is damaged, the plane will likely be able to fly home.
Take a random shot at the broadside of a barn and the barn will remain standing.
-
Interesting, I understand the concept but I would have thought the energy from close shots would have overcome the stressed skin?
-
A bullet will skip off the surface of a pond when at a shallow enough angle and all it would need to do is break the surface tension of water. Yet it skips.
-
I remember reading about a corsair pilot who saw his rounds richocheting off the wing of a zeke.
-
I don't have any data on this, and I've never heard of any tests being carried out, but I have read anecdotal evidence of grazing hits being deflected, and it seems entirely reasonable to me. The penetration of projectiles falls off with increasing steepness as the angle of attack reduces. Once it's the body of the projectile which strikes, rather than the point, then I would expect deflections to start happening.
Of even more significance is the fact that the operation of cannon shell fuzes also becomes increasingly unreliable as the striking angle reduces. That's still the case even today.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I dont know about 80% of them not penetrating or not fusing though. Certianly some% but 80?
-
I don't know. I suspect that it would depend to a degree on the construction of the target plane - and the shape of its rear end. Obviously, a bomber with a tail turret will present a much better target to a rear attack. Fabric-covered control surfaces (which were common even with basically metal planes) would also not deflect the projectiles.
The anecdotal example I know of was i the Korean War when the F-86's .50 cals were said to often graze off the MiG-15.
TW
-
I just received a reply from Paul Stecewyzc of Fantasy of flight re: the Ki 61. The airplane is still in the same condition as it was 18 years ago and is at their facility here in Miami.
-
Bullets do not skip off water, nor do they skip off thin sheets of aluminium. However the skin on the wings and most fuselages is curved and therefore a projectile may very well just grace a small portion of the surface, leaving a furrow that makes it look like the projectile skipped off.
Originally posted by GScholz
It's quite simple: Water provides more resistance than a thin sheet of aluminium at whatever angle. A sheet of aluminium can only offer a finite amount of resistance before breaking and yielding to the projectile. Water (depending on depth) offer an almost infinite amount of resistance and will continue to change the vector of the projectile until it either flies back up out of the water, or loses so much energy that it sinks. The projectiles do not really "skip" of the water surface, but rather dive under it and gets skewed back up by hydrodynamic forces. As someone pointed out, a bullet has an aerodynamic profile that creates lift.
The MiG-15 "flying tank" is also a myth. The .50 cals didn't skip of the though skin ... the MiG was simply so ruggedly constructed that it could take incredible amounts of damage and keep on flying, and the jet fuel didn't burst into flames as easily as the WWII aviation gas the US pilots were used to (many of them were WWII veterans).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Bullets do not skip off water, nor do they skip off thin sheets of aluminium. However the skin on the wings and most fuselages is curved and therefore a projectile may very well just grace a small portion of the surface, leaving a furrow that makes it look like the projectile skipped off.
Well one could expect that response from a person that does not shoot much. projectiles will indeed skip across the water. The .22 cal projectile is notorious for this. Bombs can even be made to skip across the water. Skip bombing was refined to produce very good results by P38 drivers in the PTO among others. The English destroyed/damaged dams on the Ruhr with 10,000 lb skip bombs. If the angle is slight enough to the projectile's flight path even your intellect will deflect it. :D
-
You're misunderstanding. Projectiles "skip" across water just like a speedboat does ... however a speedboat still breaks the water's surface and so did the British bouncing bombs as well. Water provides infinite resistance as long as the projectile's speed is sufficient to create lift by deflecting the water downwards and to the sides. If you look at the films of the dam buster bomb you will notice that a significant portion of the bomb is below the waterline every time it bounces. If it was dropped on a thin aluminium sheet do you think it would skip as well? No, of course not.
-
Btw. I shoot guns every week.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. I shoot guns every week.
at Nilsen? I hope not. The skip thing is semantics
-
No at paper targets mostly. The skip thing is not semantics when people try to equate bullets skipping across water with the fantasy of bullets skipping off paper-thin aluminium sheets. A thin aluminium sheet will not deflect a rifle or cannon projectile, even at high angles. Nor will it deflect bouncing bombs or even speedboats for that matter. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No at paper targets mostly. The skip thing is not semantics when people try to equate bullets skipping across water with the fantasy of bullets skipping off paper-thin aluminium sheets. A thin aluminium sheet will not deflect a rifle or cannon projectile, even at high angles. Nor will it deflect bouncing bombs or even speedboats for that matter. ;)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
"We're out of ammo and they're still flying!!!"
"Fine.. load" *dun dun DUUUUNNNN* "... the speed boat!"
"No, captain, not that! We're too close! The prop wash alone --"
"I SAID DO IT!"
-
:D
-
LMAO Krusty :D
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl Krusty
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Bullets do not skip off water, nor do they skip off thin sheets of aluminium. However the skin on the wings and most fuselages is curved and therefore a projectile may very well just grace a small portion of the surface, leaving a furrow that makes it look like the projectile skipped off.
We could be getting into some very close definitions here. The original poster said:
Two things struck me as odd. first was that the aircraft's aluminum skin was so very thin (.030-.035?) and secondly that many of the rounds fired at it did not penetrate that thin skin. You could see where they had glanced off leaving the metal stretched and dented but not broken. Very cool display.
Note "stretched and dented". Now if you are right, someone sighting along the bullet furrow should observe that it is perfectly even in depth, all the way - if you laid a straight rod along it, it should touch at every point. But if the middle of the furrow was even slightly deeper than the front or back, that would clearly show that the bullet had been deflected. Now all we need is someone to check it out...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Tony, I didn't want to continue the discussion because at times these dicussions with Gunther degenerate to name calling. However a replica of these very distinct indentations is easily enough duplicated. I have created them myself with any projectiles from a B.B on to a 30.06. They are the result of a high angle impact against the sheet metal. At the initial point of impact the indentation is shallow and narrow it widens as the projectile travels and the metal reacts by expanding until the projectile is actually deflected and you end up with an overall shape akin to the silhouette of a lightbulb. The deepest indentation in the sheet metal is also the widest, where the projectile was glanced off. I suspect that the sheet metal may act like a trampoline first absorbing the energy of the projectile then releasing same sending it off on a tangent. The skin is stretched but never broken.
In any event this may be a wonderful excuse to ask for permission to visit Mr. Weeks restoration facility in South Miami and perhaps take some photographs. I'll ask directly.
-
Hi Vulcan,
>The scenario is dead 6 shots from reasonable close range, the theory above is that 90% of shots are richocheting/deflecting off aluminium wings instead of penetrating them (7.62 and 20mm rounds).
Well, I don't expect any worthwhile decrease of weapon effectiveness, and certainly not 90% of the shots deflecting.
I've just checked out a NACA 23012 wing's geometry (typical for the era), and even if you aim right down the wing chord, ca. 90% of the projected area offer an impact angle of larger than 3°.
"Projected area" is the key - any part of the aircraft that's at 3° or less to the line of sight is very hard to hit anyhow.
And 3° is a very narrow angle. Even shooting at a pure 2-dimensional target, at 200 m you only need to move out one wingspan to either side to get out of the "ricochet zone". As real targets aren't 2-dimensional, the ricochet zone is even smaller than that (if it exists at all).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
.50 cals were reported to bounce off the cowlings of Fw190s by B17 crews.
-
Take a look at how thin aircraft skin is:
(http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/birdstrike.jpg)
:D
Anyone who thinks that rifle or cannon rounds would "bounce" off aircraft skin is in serious need of a firepower and penetration demonstration at their nearest army base.
-
.50 cals were reported to bounce off the cowlings of Fw190s by B17 crews.
That is probably due to the armour ring protecting the oil cooler in the front of the FW-190's cowling.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
We could be getting into some very close definitions here. The original poster said:
Note "stretched and dented". Now if you are right, someone sighting along the bullet furrow should observe that it is perfectly even in depth, all the way - if you laid a straight rod along it, it should touch at every point. But if the middle of the furrow was even slightly deeper than the front or back, that would clearly show that the bullet had been deflected. Now all we need is someone to check it out...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
The original poster did not say that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Take a look at how thin aircraft skin is:
(http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/birdstrike.jpg)
:D
Anyone who thinks that rifle or cannon rounds would "bounce" off aircraft skin is in serious need of a firepower and penetration demonstration at their nearest army base.
OK, we need a caption for this. Suggestions?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Anyone who thinks that rifle or cannon rounds would "bounce" off aircraft skin is in serious need of a firepower and penetration demonstration at their nearest army base.
Penetration is good when you get a good angle but at less then 5° from horizontal it would seem logical to assume that the same thing that happens with sloped armor could happen here.
It probably did not happen often, but saying it never happenned with all the shots fired on aircrafts in WW2 is just silly.
-
ACME Aircraft Manufacturing: Guaranteed Results.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Penetration is good when you get a good angle but at less then 5° from horizontal it would seem logical to assume that the same thing that happens with sloped armor could happen here.
Not that I know anything about this, but the comparison of roadrunner-shredded aluminum foil to sloped armor seems somewhat extreme. The same logic indicates that a newspaper can deflect a round at 0.00001 degrees.
-
Penetration is good when you get a good angle
That's what I keep tellin her!
Crumpp
-
How about
"DUCK you!!
-
By the way Tony. Really like the new book.
-
Thanks guys, in summary it looks like yes ammo does deflect but it is the exception - not the rule - and certainly not the basis for a 90% degradation in weapons effectiveness.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Thanks guys, in summary it looks like yes ammo does deflect but it is the exception - not the rule - and certainly not the basis for a 90% degradation in weapons effectiveness.
not even 20%
-
Originally posted by phookat
Not that I know anything about this, but the comparison of roadrunner-shredded aluminum foil to sloped armor seems somewhat extreme.
Imagine the bullets hitting at 1° from horizontal.
It won't go through the wing for sure since it's going in almost exactly the same direction as the wing.
So what happens?
Without testing their is no way to be sure.
The word impossible is what made me post.
Never say impossible unless you got proof.
I'm not saying it happenned all the time, just saying that it might be possible under very specific circumstances.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Not that I know anything about this, but the comparison of roadrunner-shredded aluminum foil to sloped armor seems somewhat extreme. The same logic indicates that a newspaper can deflect a round at 0.00001 degrees.
Yup. In fact a whole newspaper (not just one page) would offer more resistance to a projectile than aircraft skin would.
Projectiles were probably on more than a few occasions ricocheting of engine blocks and other high-strength components of the aircraft giving the impression of bullets "bouncing off the skin of the plane", but aircraft skin is in no way strong enough to actually deflect anything but hail, and sometimes even hail is a stretch.
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/zme/111_1110hail.jpg)
Btw. Storch, nice character assassination. "Name calling" is your speciality it seems.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Imagine the bullets hitting at 1° from horizontal.
It won't go through the wing for sure since it's going in almost exactly the same direction as the wing.
Why wouldn't it go through the wing? It would enter the wing at the point of impact and exit on the opposite side. A .50 cal round would for instance enter the wing near the trailing edge make a nice small hole as it punches through the thin skin, make similar small holes in the wing spar and any other wing structure in its path and finally make a small hole as it exits the wing near or at the leading edge. The bullet may be upset at some point and make the damage near the front of the wing somewhat worse, but not by much.
-
It depends on the relative speed. Two slow a/c with high muzzle velocity guns -> the penetration is inevitable what ever the angle. Two fast a/c in high speed with guns with light ammo eg. .50 Cal and moderate distance the probability of ricochet is high.
I don't really believe in that story of a Corsair pilot seeing his bullets ricocheting off Zeros wings. They were prolly ricocheting from wingspars after a clean penetration.
-C+
-
No Charge, the impact of aircraft speed is almost negligible. An aircraft flying at 400 mph is travelling 177 meters per second. A .50 cal projectile has a muzzle velocity of 890 m/s ~2000 mph. If two planes are flying at 400 mph in a tail chaise the projectiles have a muzzle velocity of 1067 m/s relative to the ground, and still 890 m/s relative to the target.
Even if the really low velocity weapons like the MK108 30mm cannon were to shoot a solid slug instead of a HE shell, it would crash through a plane at 550 m/s ~1200 mph. Even the lowest velocity projectiles are still supersonic and not really "slow" by anyone's standard.
-
Of course but they also slow down more rapidly despite high initial velocity and their ballistic behavior is also different when compared to ground firing because of the transonic effects which are worse for lighter projectiles. 400 meters of firing distance is not the same when firing on the ground than firing in the air. AFAIK of course. I may be wrong.
-C+
-
Nice of sholtzie to posts pics of a/c surfaces that were perpendicular to the object that hit the surface.:rolleyes: :eek: :lol
-
Originally posted by Charge
Of course but they also slow down more rapidly despite high initial velocity and their ballistic behavior is also different when compared to ground firing because of the transonic effects which are worse for lighter projectiles. 400 meters of firing distance is not the same when firing on the ground than firing in the air. AFAIK of course. I may be wrong.
-C+
Transonic effects? A .50 cal projectile is supersonic by a pretty wide margin. Mach 2.6+ in fact. Also the higher the altitude the thinner the air and the less air resistance.
To put it bluntly: A 9mm pistol round will penetrate aircraft skin at any angle, and I would bet money on it still penetrating at 100 yards at any angle.
-
If you haven't already seen this weapons test:
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/wing-test.wmv
.30 cal, .50 cal and 20mm test firing against a simulated wing profile of 0.05 inch thickness. IIRC some of the shots were at pretty low angles.
-
I have seen that.
Who to believe:
"Real world WWII testing showed that at flat angles of impact (0 -> 3 degrees on average) little actual damage would be done, even to thin aluminium wings, fuselage and tail surfaces. Real world WWII testing determined as high as 90% total ineffectiveness of such bullet strikes. " by DoC.
Would be interesting to test, though...
-C+
-
400 meters of firing distance is not the same when firing on the ground than firing in the air. AFAIK of course. I may be wrong.
Pretty sure your correct on this, Charge.
To put it bluntly: A 9mm pistol round will penetrate aircraft skin at any angle, and I would bet money on it still penetrating at 100 yards at any angle.
Yeah I would put my money on it penetrating at even greater distances.
Thanks guys, in summary it looks like yes ammo does deflect but it is the exception - not the rule - and certainly not the basis for a 90% degradation in weapons effectiveness.
I think it is definately the exception and not the rule.
Not claiming I know for sure. I think Tony has the right idea for testing this with the straight rod.
From my experience I think what the pilots are seeing are richochet's off hardenend structures in the airframe. Armour, engine, and other solid components will cause richochet's.
Even the pilots body will cause them as the bullets strike bone and exit. Know a guy who got hit with a .50cal bullet in the hip. It "deflected" and exited the top of his skull.
Crumpp
-
There is quite a leap from "little actual damage would be done" to "bullets ricocheting of aircraft skin".
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Even the pilots body will cause them as the bullets strike bone and exit. Know a guy who got hit with a .50cal bullet in the hip. It "deflected" and exited the top of his skull.
That has more to do with the bullet being upset and skewing its path trough the dense matter of his body. An upset bullet will do the same in air, but since the density of air is so much less the turn radius is much greater. The Russian 5.45 round is notorious for its ability to rapidly change course in a human body after only travelling an inch, much more so than the 5.56mm N. The Russian round does not fragment like the 5.56mm though, so damage is less overall. I think we can safely say that a human bone does not "deflect" .50 cal rounds ;) ... They can however upset the balance of the bullet.
-
Yes, that is true but the upset flight path can be radically different from the original and in that sense it resembles the effect of a ricochet. Even a heavier 7.62 rifle bullet may change its direction quite a bit if it hits a branch, or as well it may not. It depends.
-C+
-
Yes Charge, but the change in direction is not instant (like a ricochet), the change in direction is the effect of the bullet itself being twisted off course and thereby acting as a aerodynamic profile literally turning like a wing in flight. The bullet will stay on the same course (or very close to the same course) for quite some distance before there's any noticeable change in vector.
-
Yes, that is my observation too and it explains why the bullet may hit the hip and come out from the head as the disturbed bullet does not fly in the air but in a thicker matter so the aerodynamical disturbance has a more radical effect in thicker matter ie. body matter. The situation would be same in water I guess..and more easily observed too...
-C+
-
cc
-
I just received a reply from Paul at Fantasy of Flight. He states that the damage I saw on the wings and fuselage were likely to be attributed to vandalism and not .50 cal projectiles. I still maintain the opinion that they are consistent with my own vast experience at shooting sheet metal from all angles. The skin on the Tony is .040.
-
What kind of sheet metal, and what thickness?
-
I often hunt in heavy brush. I usually take a .35 Reminton or a shotgun for this type of boar hunt. the reason being is that more than once I've had 30.06 rounds deflected by palmetto leaves.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What kind of sheet metal, and what thickness?
Anything from refridgerators to abandoned cars to beer cans. I would guess aluminum and A36 mild steel would be the most common. certainly nothing thicker than 18 ga. which is .047 How thick is a beer can?
-
Originally posted by storch
I often hunt in heavy brush. I usually take a .35 Reminton or a shotgun for this type of boar hunt. the reason being is that more than once I've had 30.06 rounds deflected by palmetto leaves.
This is the case I described above. The bullet is not deflected by the leaves (lol) but they upset the bullet making it skew through the air.
Originally posted by storch
Anything from refridgerators to abandoned cars to beer cans. I would guess aluminum and A36 mild steel would be the most common. certainly nothing thicker than 18 ga. which is .047 How thick is a beer can?
The car door is made of steel and usualy around .080 to .100 inch in thickness. A beer can is much less, .010 perhaps?
Don't tell me you've had bullets ricocheting off beer cans. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
This is the case I described above. The bullet is not deflected by the leaves (lol) but they upset the bullet making it skew through the air.
The car door is made of steel and usualy around .080 to .100 inch in thickness. A beer can is much less, .010 perhaps?
Don't tell me you've had bullets ricocheting off beer cans. ;)
The hood of most cars and the roofs are probably around .047 but I'll check. The door panels or fenders really don't matter because they would present a zero degree point of impact. I didn't know that Scandanavian vehicles were so stoutly built. 16 ga. is .065 inch which is what most mfgs use for door/fender material except for the Japanese. I believe Mercedes still uses 14 ga. which is .074 I doubt any mfg uses anything heavier as we are approaching 1/8 inch thickness at this point. That would make it impenetrable to pistol ammunition even at point blank. It would also be very very heavy. Some refers are made out of thin insulated aluminum others still use steel in any event the sheet metal is also thin.
A beer can will deflect a B.B travelling at 1000fps if the hit is to side but not a .22 I don't think but I will try it out this weekend just to be sure.
-
Let's face it, that is not going to be a nice meal...
Originally posted by GScholz
Take a look at how thin aircraft skin is:
(http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/birdstrike.jpg)
:D
Anyone who thinks that rifle or cannon rounds would "bounce" off aircraft skin is in serious need of a firepower and penetration demonstration at their nearest army base.
-
Originally posted by storch
I believe Mercedes still uses 14 ga. which is .074 I doubt any mfg uses anything heavier as we are approaching 1/8 inch thickness at this point.
Actually .080 is approx. 1/12 inch thickness. 1/8 inch is .125.
Modern cars with few exceptions use thinly rolled plates, but it is not unusual for older cars to have 1.5-2.0 mm plates. Lada used/uses over 3 mm thick plates ... it's almost a tank. 2 mm is aprox. .080 inch.
Originally posted by storch
A beer can will deflect a B.B travelling at 1000fps if the hit is to side but not a .22 I don't think but I will try it out this weekend just to be sure.
Be sure to nail the beer can down, or weigh it down. An empty beer can does not weigh much more than a rifle bullet, and a gracing shot might just make the can move out of the way. Try it with the BB too. Also an empty beer can will give in to the bullet, try filling it with water or sand and see what happens. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why wouldn't it go through the wing?
I never said it would not.
I just said that using the word «impossible» was a dumb idea.
I agree that it's «improbable», I disagree that it's impossible.
I am talking about a bullet travelling almost parralel to the wing barely touching the upper surface here.
Seems likely the bullet would not penetrate in this situation.
Are you telling me that's not possible. :confused:
-
How does a bullet travel parralel to a curved surface like a wing?
This was my first post in this thread:
Originally posted by GScholz
Bullets do not skip off water, nor do they skip off thin sheets of aluminium. However the skin on the wings and most fuselages is curved and therefore a projectile may very well just grace a small portion of the surface, leaving a furrow that makes it look like the projectile skipped off.
-
What we are still lacking is any hard evidence one way or the other - we just have opinions (including mine). Now it would be nice of some of those warbird owners would line them up and allow them to be shot at from behind with a variety of weapons, but somehow...
The next best thing would be to find a shot-down wreck with evidence of 'grazing shots' and try the 'rod' test I suggested earlier - if the bullet was NOT deflected, the rod should be in contact with the groove all the way; if the bullet WAS deflected, the middle of the groove would be slightly deeper.
There would seem to be four variables at work:
1. The power of the projectile; the heavier and faster-moving it is, the harder it will be to deflect.
2. The shape of the projectile; a very tapered nose (like a .50 bullet) would actually encourage deflection as it would make it more likely that the body of the projectile, quite far down from the tip, would strike first. This surface would be almost parallel with the surface it was hitting. Blunt-nosed cannon shells would be less likely to deflect.
3. The construction of the target; how thick is the alloy skin? What if the bullet strikes the skin at a point where it is supported by a rib or other structural member?
4. The angle of the strike.
I have read nothing in this thread to change my opinion that in the right circumstances, deflection would have been possible. However, I doubt that we're going to be able to prove it either way.
Tony Williams
-
Forget my last comment - I've just had a Eureka moment - I remembered a small detail in a report I read at the Public Record Office in preparation for writing 'Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945'. This is a quote form the book, taken from that report on the 30mm Aden cannon:
"Besides, the theoretical effectiveness was not always achieved. A February 1957 report admitted that with the existing Aden ammunition, 20% of all strikes on target would ricochet and another 55% to 60% would explode prematurely, on the target’s skin!"
Gotcha!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
What target did the report cite? And your quote does not say that the shells would ricochet off the skin. There is no argument on projectiles ricocheting off hardened components or armoured surfaces.
-
The expected target would have been Russian bombers. And the shells wouldn't ricochet after penetration because they would have detonated. - the fuzes were very sensitive.
TW