Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: ghi on January 24, 2006, 12:58:05 PM

Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: ghi on January 24, 2006, 12:58:05 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3316529261715180734 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3316529261715180734)   and many more on the same site , click on the right: More from this user
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: LePaul on January 24, 2006, 01:40:16 PM
I remember seeing that on the History Channel too.  Great clip
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Iceman24 on January 24, 2006, 02:10:38 PM
that has to be the 20mm they are firing correct ? Only posting this because in the video they say machine gun
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Karnak on January 24, 2006, 02:45:17 PM
Yup, that is a M2 20mm cannon, or Hispano Mk II if you're British.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Iceman24 on January 24, 2006, 02:47:36 PM
thought so, was wondering why the guys said machine gun, I was like wow if thats a .50 cal LOL
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Krusty on January 24, 2006, 04:30:49 PM
Don't forget that 50gal drums are made of steel (last I heard) and combat aircraft are only made of paper-thin aluminum!
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Iceman24 on January 24, 2006, 04:36:23 PM
yeah especially the japanese planes, wooden structures, covered in paper, no self sealing fuel tanks, what a combo... thats what i want in an airplane, just a big fireball waiting to happen LOL
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: 38ruk on January 24, 2006, 05:40:43 PM
I dont know if id want to squeeze off 60 year old ammo, wonder how much power would be lost by that old  ammo sitting below ice? 38
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Karnak on January 24, 2006, 06:24:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Iceman24
yeah especially the japanese planes, wooden structures, covered in paper, no self sealing fuel tanks, what a combo... thats what i want in an airplane, just a big fireball waiting to happen LOL

I hope you're being sarcastic and are not actually that ignorant.  Can't quite tell.  Hopefully my sarcasm meter is broken.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: thebest1 on January 24, 2006, 08:20:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Iceman24
yeah especially the japanese planes, wooden structures, covered in paper, no self sealing fuel tanks, what a combo... thats what i want in an airplane, just a big fireball waiting to happen LOL



was it construction paper?  lol
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Wolfala on January 24, 2006, 10:11:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by 38ruk
I dont know if id want to squeeze off 60 year old ammo, wonder how much power would be lost by that old  ammo sitting below ice? 38


Worked for the battleships in Gulf War 91, and those bags were packed 50 years before.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Ghosth on January 24, 2006, 10:28:33 PM
Lets see, shells hermeticly sealed in a block of ice for 60 years.
Beats the heck out of fluctuating temps, wet, then dry, etc.

If you must use old ammo, thats the stuff I want!

biggest thing I'd be worried about is the primers getting a bit unstable.
Might not want to be dropping them.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Bodhi on January 24, 2006, 11:06:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Don't forget that 50gal drums are made of steel (last I heard) and combat aircraft are only made of paper-thin aluminum!


It was a steel drum, 16 / 18 guage if I am correct....

It also had about 15 gals of gas in it.  Guys on site added it.

Kinda defeats your sarcasm now doesn't it.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Karnak on January 24, 2006, 11:34:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
It was a steel drum, 16 / 18 guage if I am correct....

It also had about 15 gals of gas in it.  Guys on site added it.

Kinda defeats your sarcasm now doesn't it.

I think you misread Krusty.  I think he was saying "It did that much damage to a steel drum.  Imagine what it would do to a fragile Aluminium structure!"
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 12:37:42 AM
er......were they expecting a 20mm explosive round to make a nice neat entry and exit hole?


that is assuming i am correct in thinking they were explosive rounds being fired.


this is the perfect example to show the next person who complains about a 'ping-splat-tower' death.


one of these even enters the cockpit area and explodes you are in serious trouble. I think i remember a report i read about a single 20mm round from a 109 hitting a B17, tearing a hole the size of a small car in the skin, and shredding the navigator to within an inch of his life.


and that was a single shot, imagine being hit by this on full auto for a 2 second burst.


if anything our damage model is too weak for 20mm and 30mm hits.




although, saying that, as mentioned, a thin aluminium skin may just let the round pass through and not cause such an impact.



whatever the case, cool vid, thanks for posting.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Karnak on January 25, 2006, 12:46:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
although, saying that, as mentioned, a thin aluminium skin may just let the round pass through and not cause such an impact.

Not likely.  The Hispano HE rounds were  designed to explode very shortly after hitting an aluminium skin.  The German mine shells were designed to explode on contect, ripping the large chunks of skin off for even greater effect.

'Course, you could get lucky and be hit by a dud.  I've seen a photo of a P-51B that got hit by a dud 30mm round just behind the cockpit.  Hole in one side and out the other.  If it'd exploded the P-51 would have been blown in half at the very least.  I doubt the pilot would have lived.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 12:54:37 AM
on more occasions than i'd care to remember you're obvious knoledge on our subject has been proven so i will take your word for it for sure. my comments as ever are mostly instantanious speculation.



would you agree that our damage model is possible a little too light with regard to HE rounds?
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Wolfala on January 25, 2006, 02:06:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by B@tfinkV




would you agree that our damage model is possible a little too light with regard to HE rounds?


Yes.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Treize69 on January 25, 2006, 02:18:25 AM
Every time I start to complain about the MGFF, I remember that image of the Hurri from the BoB where the shell exploded on impact and only knocked off the paint.

Does anyone have that picture of the Blenheim that was accidentally hit by a 30mm round during testing? THAT is terrifying.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 02:29:00 AM
check these out, and then go to the main menu and check some of the other stuff.


not really 30mm damage but pretty terrififying none the less.


http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/nose.htm
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 02:31:22 AM
more on topic, bottom pic shows some cannon damage.


http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/wings.htm
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 02:32:49 AM
yet more cannon damage, 30mm and rockets hit this page


http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselage.htm
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 02:38:58 AM
possibly the most incrdible section of pics here


http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/tail.htm
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: gofaster on January 25, 2006, 09:34:02 AM
You guys should check the other videos that guy loaded.  Some neat stuff there.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Bodhi on January 25, 2006, 10:38:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
I think you misread Krusty.  I think he was saying "It did that much damage to a steel drum.  Imagine what it would do to a fragile Aluminium structure!"


since when has Aluminum been considered fragile?  Another thing that irks me about that video damage being compared to a aircraft, is that it is a pressure vessel, sealed and holding flammable liquid.  Quite different from an open aircraft structure.  Ohh, and the fuel tanks in most aircraft were not steel pressure vessels either, but either nylol and butyrate rubber, or just aluminum, or just soft rubber.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Toad on January 25, 2006, 10:42:34 AM
The most interesting thing about the pics in Bat's links is that these photos were taken after the aircraft returned to base and landed.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: B@tfinkV on January 25, 2006, 10:46:16 AM
agreed Toad, some of these pilots must have had piloting skills literally oozing out of every pore!
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Toad on January 25, 2006, 10:48:01 AM
That and the fact that the B-17 was one tough aircraft.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Karnak on January 25, 2006, 11:16:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
since when has Aluminum been considered fragile?

Aluminum is not as strong as steel.  Fact.  Smaller quantities of a weaker metal will be comparitively fragile.  Fact.

That is not to say that aluminum is fragile compared to, say, glass.


The second point is that wing structures are also functionally pressure vessels when dealing with HE explosive rounds as are the fuselages of fighters.  For the blast to have enough room to be mitigated you need something more in the range of a bomber's fuselage.

Oh, I know that the wing isn't a sealed structure, but the blast of an HE device is not slow enough to allow the air contained in the wing to leave through the joints, gaps or holes.  The pressure builds too fast and the air must move now and something needs to give.  What gives is the weakest part, which is usually the thin aluminum skin.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Klum25th on January 25, 2006, 03:38:29 PM
heres a nice B17 film. 17:17 min long
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2257018867806151378&q=B17
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Bodhi on January 25, 2006, 03:54:52 PM
I forgot how vast the knowledge of the "all knowing" Karnak was....

I beg for your forgiveness oh great one.... :rolleyes:

oh one more question oh great one.... ever stuck your head into something other than your arse?  Like perhaps a wing?
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Karnak on January 25, 2006, 06:00:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi
Like perhaps a wing?

You know, for all your pretenses you are not the only person here to have looked at one of these aircraft.  Yes, you've seen more than I have, but I am not prepared to accept that just because of that you know what the bleep you're talking about when it comes to the effects of explosions inside them.  Your job doesn';t exactly involve blowing them up o'mighty one.

Maybe reading some of the vast amount of WWII stuff out there would help you understand why cannons were superior weapons.

Or you can persist in thinking them harmless toys compared to the Browning .50.  I don't care.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Krusty on January 26, 2006, 09:05:57 AM
A cherry bomb is harmless enough. A fist is nowhere NEAR a sealed pressure system. However, put a cherry bomb inside a fist and you just lost your hand. Same principle has been proven to work on aircraft wings and fuselages. The RAF did their own tests, suspending german ammunition inside fuselages and wings of their planes (including spits and hurris and also bombers) then detonating them. Most of the time the damage was massive.

Karnak is quite on the money with this one.

Batfink: Those images are so amazing because they are the rare exception that survived. Sure the plane was tough, but thousands more (than are shown in those photos) took the same damage and didn't make it home.

P.S. First time I saw this footage (P38's 20mm firing on barrel) I was almost expecting it to have a small entry hole and a large exit hole. I'd heard about some BoB-era stuff passing right through a plane's tail, through the armor plating, through the pilot, and out the front without exploding, I wasn't sure what would happen.

AH's gun damage might not be spot on, but it has to be dumbed down because we have one of the most simplistic damage models since Warbirds. Does no good to model accurate damage if the damage model just goes "pop" and that's it.
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Masherbrum on January 26, 2006, 09:15:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
would you agree that our damage model is possible a little too light with regard to HE rounds?


Without Question.  

Karaya
Title: Movies; P38 cannon damage test
Post by: Masherbrum on January 26, 2006, 09:17:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Maybe reading some of the vast amount of WWII stuff out there would help you understand why cannons were superior weapons.

Or you can persist in thinking them harmless toys compared to the Browning .50.  I don't care.


I disagree.  Cannon (regardless of Manufacturer) OFTEN jammed and were not used as often as you would think.   MG calibers were the most reliable of the two.  

Karaya