Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Stoney on September 21, 2008, 09:18:41 AM
-
According to Tony Williams website found here http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Cartridge Comparison:
MG-FF = .7
MG151 = .8
Hispano II/V = 1
Gun Power Comparison:
MG-FF = .6
MG151 = .9
Hispano II/V = 1/1.2 (Hispano V has a higher ROF which isn't particularly important for this discussion)
I contend that if a credible test is set up in game, William's relationships would be fairly representative of what we have in game...
-
Good link Stoney. After reading the analysis there, we'd expect to see the lethality difference between the Hispano and MG151 change little with greater distance, e.g they should be about the same at 100 vs 1000 yards. The different muzzle velocity shouldn't matter for overall lethality.
Small hijack: the negative evaluation of the M2 .50cal Browning was surprising. So far as I know, it's the most lethal .50 cal weapon in the game, whereas the data you link suggests it should be one of the worst because of its minimal chemical component.
-
A fun quote:
Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality – it doesn't!
:rofl I think AH does a good job here, for the most part, but there are lots who claim to kill routinely from 800 yards out.
Apparently, the best .50 cal round in the game should be on the Yaks:
The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall...It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.
-
Good link Stoney. After reading the analysis there, we'd expect to see the lethality difference between the Hispano and MG151 change little with greater distance, e.g they should be about the same at 100 vs 1000 yards. The different muzzle velocity shouldn't matter for overall lethality.
Small hijack: the negative evaluation of the M2 .50cal Browning was surprising. So far as I know, it's the most lethal .50 cal weapon in the game, whereas the data you link suggests it should be one of the worst because of its minimal chemical component.
I've always thought the theory of American .50s was "throw a hail that's bound to get the pilot" anyway.
-
A fun quote:
:rofl
Apparently, the best .50 cal round in the game should be on the Yaks:
It is. I'll see if i can find murdr's chart. However only having 2 cannot compare to the weight of fire on most US aircraft.
-
Ummm, I exaggerated a bit earlier... Not one of the worst in terms of the bullet itself, but one of the worst in terms of firepower/weight.
-
Ummm, I exaggerated a bit earlier... Not one of the worst in terms of the bullet itself, but one of the worst in terms of firepower/weight.
You lost me... what round?
-
.50cal Browning M2. To be more clear, Tony Williams gives a rating for "efficiency," the firepower of the weapon divided by its weight penalty to the aircraft. It is in this respect that the .50cal Browning M2 was "mediocre."
-
.50cal Browning M2. To be more clear, Tony Williams gives a rating for "efficiency," the firepower of the weapon divided by its weight penalty to the aircraft. It is in this respect that the .50cal Browning M2 was "mediocre."
Alright now that i know what we are talking about. Yup I cant argue with the mediocre. Hindsight being what it is 4 hisooka American iron wold have been better.
-
Btw, our Spitfires and Typhoon are supposed to have the Hispano Mk II, but their ROF is more like a Hispano Mk V. This might explain the amazing lethality of their weaponry: if they only fired 10 r/s instead of 12.5 r/s (like they do now) the difference would be dramatic.
-
Doing my own offline tests, the Hispano II we have in AH has a rof of about 11 rps, which is 10% greater than what it should be. That doesn't seem like a lot, but when you add in extra cannons it starts to add up.
-
Ok, so this would be my final calulation (I hope):
Tony Williams site shows this:
Hispano II
Rof: 10
Gunpower: 200
Hispano V
Rof: 12.5
Gunpower: 250
so a 25% increase in rof gives a 25% increase in gunpower, that's straightforward enough.
If our Hispano cannon has a rof of 11rps, then its gunpower is 220.
The MG 151/20, at 12 rps (confirmed offline in AH), has a gunpower rating of 192.
So the Hispano in AH has ~15% more gunpower than the MG 151/20.
-
I put the following information up for AH guns quite a while ago (2002 I think), so only the guns included in the game at that time are included. If anybody wants to go shoot offline at hangers or re-measure the rates of fire with stopwatches I am sure the information would benefit from some updating.
http://www.lvcm.com/jayb/ahgun102.htm
Hooligan
-
I need to read this stuff more in depth, but off the top, I'm not seeing any mention of the materials used or casing design, barrel lengths? riffling? No time atm.
1) What were the projectile's shell casings made of and what properties did the choices offer?
Lighter/faster or More damage? Hollow tipped? Uranium tipped bullets?
(example: I think m1a1 tanks in Iraq fire a complex shell, Uranium tippped, not just a lead cannonball.)
2) Did all cannon rounds have the same chemical substance inside? If so, which? I would assume its all salts, so ionic bonds? Theres 1001 compounds that would go boom I suppose... Or did they put that green liquid metal disolving substance from the 'Alien' movies?
As for the post above, I can't draw conclusions from it. I only see a scale, like a graph, taken from limited data, with the capability to be very deceptive. Sowwy, its about interpretation.
I have two chevy cars, both have 5 bolts per rim. Some other cars have only 4... Are the bolts the same materials? Poured or drop-forged? Purity of the metals counts? Lighter? Structural design of the rim - are the bolts closer or further from the center axel? Carbon treated all the same? Etc, etc, etc.
-----------------------------------------
I do put value on Stoney's tests vs a building, yet I acknowledge that brick/stone is different from a wing.
Stoney, I would ask to pls conduct your tests at two different ranges, might need another player to park near the building to range it. See if any of your data is linear over range pls. A factor is what were looking for.
Suppose for example: 200yards, and from 600yards.
-Same bullet count to bring down the building would mean that the muzzel velocity doesn't matter, only the explosion. Should be a mix of both I'd guess, should take more bullets at a further distance.
-If two different cannons results prove to have the same exact multiplier, say 1.5 times the amo to destroy the target at 600 yards as 200yards, this wouldn't be entirely realistic... the guns/amo are different in *many* ways.
I gota go, no time, going to get a flight in before work! Stoney pls do tests for different ranges, no rush, good topic btw, thx <salute>
*Edit: for that matter, what type of wing? metal protects the interior more than a fabric wing. Fabric wing catch fire or melt?
-
Thanks Anax. The only aircraft carrying the Hispano Mk V in this game is the Tempest.
-
Small hijack: the negative evaluation of the M2 .50cal Browning was surprising. So far as I know, it's the most lethal .50 cal weapon in the game, whereas the data you link suggests it should be one of the worst because of its minimal chemical component.
Actually, the M2 is only the 3rd most lethal .50 cal in AH, both the UBS and Ho103 are more lethal. At least in lbs/s, ballistics not counted in.
-
I put the following information up for AH guns quite a while ago (2002 I think), so only the guns included in the game at that time are included. If anybody wants to go shoot offline at hangers or re-measure the rates of fire with stopwatches I am sure the information would benefit from some updating.
http://www.lvcm.com/jayb/ahgun102.htm
Hooligan
That's a great table hooligan. Your stop-watch test for ROF matches up nicely with mine...which is what I'm really curious about. A HS II with a RoF of 10rps is only marginally better than the MG 151/20 (unsynchronized), but with a RoF closer to 11rps it is a much improved weapon.
Tony Williams gives a RoF of 10 rps for the Hispano Suiza II, but in AH it's closer to 11. Anyone know the real story with a source to back it up?
-
Stoney, I would ask to pls conduct your tests at two different ranges, might need another player to park near the building to range it. See if any of your data is linear over range pls. A factor is what were looking for.
In-game, its going to be difficult to test different ranges against buildings. Reason being, there's no way to elevate the tail to be able to hit from a distance. I suppose the P-38/P-39 could be used, as well as the Me-262 for the Mk108, but seeing how none of the tri-gear aircraft have a weapon that's in the discussion here, it'd only help our knowledge of the .50 cal, U.S. 20mm, 37mm, and Mk108. I guess the U.S. 20mm is the same weapon as the Hispano II, I just don't know if the ammo is equivalent.
-
Stoney,
In AH the American M2 20mm cannon and British Hispano Mk II 20mm cannons are identical in all ways.
-
Stoney,
In AH the American M2 20mm cannon and British Hispano Mk II 20mm cannons are identical in all ways.
Well, in that case, it should be much easier to check the effect of range on the Hispano II. I'll see if I can't set that up tonight when I get home.
-
The 110g2, belly land it, the cannons still fire at a good angle for range. Set the far range by where ya land the 110. Not exactly scientific method though... :D
-
MG151/20s are in the belly though. Fire them and you'll probably blow yourself up. I think the 30mm are in the upper cowling, but they aren't the guns being tested.
Unless I've got my guns positions mixed up? I know the 110C had the 20mm in the belly and I thought the G retained this but replaced the 7mm upper guns with a couple of 30mm.
-
Tail guns of the Ar-234 MG151's???
Might be able to set the tail gun up, and taxi away from a hangar to a certain distance...
-
Unless I've got my guns positions mixed up? I know the 110C had the 20mm in the belly and I thought the G retained this but replaced the 7mm upper guns with a couple of 30mm.
110C has MG-FFs in the under nose-position. Normal G-2 armament consisted of MG-151/20s in the under nose position and 7.9mms on the upper nose. AH's G-2 has those upper nose MGs replaced with MK-108s.
Stoney,
Yes they are 151/20s, good catch there. You should be able to test with that setup.
-
Projectile damage doesn't change with distance against buildings, which is one reason why I believe damage against planes and damage against buildings are two seperate and unequal things.
-
Projectile damage doesn't change with distance against buildings, which is one reason why I believe damage against planes and damage against buildings are two seperate and unequal things.
Why would it not change against buildings as a result of distance, but change against aircraft as a result of distance? Perhaps HTC has made a statement as to this?
-
Yes, HT said that damage against buildings does not change with distance. Had he said only that damage does not change with distance, I would assume that meant damage against all objects. He specifically said buildings. Was in a different gun testing thread years ago. Saw it again searching, could probably find it again.
-
Well then, how exactly do you recommend we test the airborne effectiveness of the two cannon?
Also, and not to be obtuse, but just because HT didn't explicitly state that "damage against aircraft does not change with distance" does not mean that it does. My gut feeling is that they wouldn't have built that type of complexity into the damage model of the ammo, but even this is a suspicion and not a known fact. Best to either develop a test in-game, or just ask HTC outright...
-
I read elsewhere on these forums that the damage model on buildings was different than that on aircraft. They stated that this was the reason that range had no effect on damage on buildings, yet range on aircraft did have an effect.
-
FWIW, I also can anecdotally claim that I remember HT stating specifically that damage against buildings did not change with distance. This issue came up only a few months ago, but I can't recall what thread it was in.
As to why the game might be modeled this way: I would guess that ordnance and cannon projectiles share the same damage coding. If the game would recognize "impacting object velocity" as a factor contributing to damage against buildings, this would influence damage for bombs as well. Terminal velocity would then be a key prerequisite for those seeking to maximize bomb damage. This would discourage low level, or dive bombing.
That is my guess, at least.
-
Tried the test tonight. The P-38 gun is elevated too much at 800 meters. The rounds were sailing over the top of the hangar, so I couldn't test them at range. Since that didn't work, I didn't try the Ar-234 tail gun.
Like I've said before, I know that range affects the kinetic energy of the round, and that is in the game. However, I feel that with the explosive nature of cannon (versus say .50 cal), that the relationship between the two rounds over the same range would still be equal to their relative values vis a vis the hangar test.
-
Problem is that hangars (and ground objects) apparently don't react to impact (penetration, kinetic energy, etc) they only deal with explosive power or basic hit damage from MGs.
Somebody did some tests a long way back and found out the speed of diving at a hangar and firing 50cals vs sitting parked and firing them did not affect the number required to kill a hangar.
Hangars aren't planes, they don't have the damage model, so they won't interact the same way (not that I know the details, mind you!). Basically you'd need HTC to code in a test to run an experiment, hitting the exact same spot on a plane repeatedly at long range with different guns (coding out the dispersion and vibration, so it hits the exact spot) to tell you what the result would be.
-
Like I've said before, I know that range affects the kinetic energy of the round, and that is in the game. However, I feel that with the explosive nature of cannon (versus say .50 cal), that the relationship between the two rounds over the same range would still be equal to their relative values vis a vis the hangar test.
Posted again so everyone understands exactly what my contention is...
-
That doesn't make sense....
So you're saying you think the explosive content won't change regardless of the range? Hangar tests don't reflect impact power so only explosive content is tested.
That means any range at all would have the same results when testing on hangars.
So, I'm not understanding what the point is to this kind of test.
-
What got this started was Urchin claiming that the MG151 was only "60%" as effective as the Hispano in-game.
I used the Hangar test to show that the power of the round against hangars was 90% as effective as the Hispano.
Tony Williams site shows that the MG151 round is about 80% as powerful as the Hispano round.
My contention is that the relationship between the two weapons remains the same, regardless of range. For example, that regardless of the overall power of either round at any range, the MG151 round in-game is 90% as effective as the Hispano round. So, at point blank, the Hispano is worth X, and the MG151 is worth .9X. At 800 meters, the Hispano is worth Y, and the MG151 is worth .9Y.
The 90% may not be precise, but its a whole lot closer to 90% than 60%.
-
Brady (don't know if you know him or not) said several years ago that he had spoken with Pyro and that the AH damage model favored kinetic over chemical energy. So lets say you are absolutely right and the MG151 is every bit as good as the Hizooka at point blank range. Even if that is correct, it wouldn't stay every bit as effective as the range got longer, because it didn't hold its velocity as well.
I'll maintain that the MG151 is roughly 60% as effective. Granted, thats just 7 years of personal experience.
-
They're going to degrade ballistically at different rates over longer ranges. So the faster heavier round will have more punch at longer range (i.e. 30cal vs 50cal). The rounds will be a bit weaker at range against targets because AH does use the kinetic energy as part of the damage. So say the impact is half as much on the MG151 at 800 yards than the impact of the hispano... the relationship of the explosive content will be the same but the overall damage applied to an enemy aircraft may differ significantly. Not something you can really test on a hangar outside of the pure HE content alone.
So the made up formula just to illustrate what I'm getting at may go like:
damage = kinetic energy * no_of_hits + HE_explosion
The HE explosions are fixed but the rest of it will probably make the overall damage stronger.
What round is Tony comparing? As you know HTC averages the mixed belting of the MG151, so it's not a direct HE to HE comparison. HTC averages the HE, AP, and Mgeschoss.
-
I'll maintain that the MG151 is roughly 60% as effective. Granted, thats just 7 years of personal experience.[/quote]
I'm not knocking your experience. All I want to know is what quantitative data you base that opinion on?
And also, I know a single round of MG151 doesn't hit quite as hard as a single round of Hispano--the Hispano has a more massive round. All I'm saying is that there is some relationship between the two rounds (between the .8 of Tony Williams and .9 of my test) and that relationship is maintained between the two rounds regardless of range.
-
So say the impact is half as much on the MG151 at 800 yards than the impact of the hispano... the relationship of the explosive content will be the same but the overall damage applied to an enemy aircraft may differ significantly.
If 20%, for example, of the overall damage of one round is due to the kinetic damage, then the damage relationship between the two rounds will not differ greatly at any range. If, on the other hand, the kinetic energy makes up 60% of the overall damage, then there could be a big difference as a result of range.
IMO, it would seem to me that with respect to cannon, the kinetic energy makes up a much smaller percentage of the overall damage, than with .50 cal, for example. For weapons like the .50 cal where the HE damage is small, kinetic damage will make up almost all the damage potential, and therefore be more affected by range.
I have no idea what the formula is that HTC uses to come up with this stuff, I just don't see there being that big a disparity between the two weapons as Urchin claims. Especially considering there is no data whatsoever to support it, other than our collective annecdotal evidence.
Perhaps HTC can grace us with some insight to settle the issue.
-
I think it plays enough of a role that shots outside of 400 yards have noticable difference in impact. Hispanos are still going strong 1.2k out while MG151/20s are falling to the ground at 600. It "feels" like a major difference more when the shots are longer range. Up close I'd say the HE content "feels" about 75% or less than the hispanos. Hispanos kill most planes in a single ping, but it takes a large hit grouping with MG151/20 to do the same.
-
Hizookas only kill in a single hit if you can hit the tail, or the cockpit, but anything will kill in one hit there. Even the tail shots only outright kill the con maybe 30-40% of the time, the rest of the time you'll blow off an elevator or the rudder.
-
Info has been tested, tabled out, and posted for a very long time.Projectile strength analysis (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/guns/guns.htm)
-
"Tony Williams site shows that the MG151 round is about 80% as powerful as the Hispano round."
IIRC that is with assumption that the explosive content would be TNT also in MGsh but it was not.
It also depends of the distance. Calculating with MV the Hisso is better but as the distance grows the effect of velocity, or lack of, on destructive power of MGsh starts to make 151/20 fare better.
-C+
-
Info has been tested, tabled out, and posted for a very long time.Projectile strength analysis (http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/guns/guns.htm)
Murder, the issue is one of air-to-air effectiveness. So we need a test to determine that versus the object values.
-
Youre the one being educated on the subject in this thread. Do not reply to me as if im not following the subject matter.
-
Youre the one being educated on the subject in this thread. Do not reply to me as if im not following the subject matter.
Hey, I wasn't calling you out Murder. I was trying to state that since the data you linked to was effectiveness versus objects, it wasn't going to help the discussion since Urchin et al had already discussed the fact that the damage versus objects wasn't the same as the air-to-air damage.
-
Ill explain the datas relevence when I have a keyboard.
-
The table I posted a link to eariler is a fair representation of the chemical power, or potential energy of HE rounds. Both of these are HE cannon rounds, and it is entirely accurate to cite that in AH the MG151 has 88% the explosive power of the Hispano, which is constant regardless of range. It is not completely irrelevent to 'vs aircraft'. Anyone who has vulched with cannons, without actually hitting the plane with the round would be aware of this.
Sorry if I got testy, but I was just trying to point out a reference to the test you already tried to perform with more accurate results expressed in a game based metric rather than some abstract scale. And the linked page already stated the difference between objects and enemy damage modeling.
On the kinetic energy side, here are some velocity figures I derived from offline testing.
MG151/20
average speed at 400 yards = 2146fps (average of 15% loss of kinetic energy from point blank)
average speed at 800 yards = 1294fps (average of 50% loss of kinetic energy from point blank)
20mm M2
average speed at 400 yards = not measurable
average speed at 800 yards = 2478fps (average of 15% loss of kinetic energy from point blank)
average speed at 1000 yards=2190fps (25% loss)
As an anicdotal point of reference, a head on shot at a 600mph closure rate adds 880fps of effective speed.
-
If you don't mind me asking Murdr, how did you arrive at those numbers?
Also, while I know I have read that AH's damage model favors kinetic energy over chemical energy (which is why the MG-FF sucks so much, even compared to the MG-151), I don't know of any way to test and see what that impact is.
-
AFAIK we should not have a plane that uses MG-FF without M option. The M would bring a significant boost to its power as it sucks so much in muzzle velocity department.
MGs has 700m/s MV even in MG-FFM but due to its chemical nature it cannot really use it to its advantage except for better ballistics.
Something to consider when calculating HE power:
Hispano HE: 11.3 grams of Tetryl 7,570m/s (RE1,25) or Composition A (91% RDX (EV 8,750m/s) +9%wax)
MGs: 18.6 grams of Penthrite (PETN) 8400m/s (RE1,66) or RDX with aluminum powder (called HA41) claimed to add 40%* effect to normal penthrite, RDX has 8,750m/s (RE unknown) (additional clay in HA41?)
*Aluminum powder is used because it can use the excess oxygen from the RDX explosion to increase the heat and blast effect of RDX.
Considering that most calculations on the subject are made with TNT figure it can be concluded that the filling of the HE grenade does make a difference. But even if it does it is just too bad for MG151/20 that blast effect is not given much emphasis in AH.
Note: RE (relative energy) for TNT (6900m/s) is 1.
-C+
-
By measuring average bullet drop at range with convergence set to minimum. With drop and gravity "time to fall a distance" can be determined. With time and distance downrange average velocity can be determined.
-
As a matter of interest, official German velocity loss and time of flight figures for their aircraft ammo were as follows:
Loading/notes MV m/s V/300m V loss secs/300m V/600m V loss secs/600m
7.92 mm AP 10g 810 538 33% 0.453 348 57% 1.159
13mm HEI 34g 750 501 33% 0.49 337 55% 1.22
15mm HEI 57.5g 960 743 23% 0.357 583 39% 0.816
20mm HEI 92g 1 695 432 38% 0.551 281 60% 1.428
20mm HET 117g 2 720 552 23% 0.477 422 41% 1.101
30mm HEI 330g 3 500 370 26% 0.696 264 47% 1.660
30mm HEI 330g 4 500 429 14% 0.649 370 26% 1.403
30mm AP 355g 5 960 862 10% 0.33 776 19% 0.697
Notes:
1 – M-Geschoss fired from an MG-FFM.
2 – fired from an MG 151/20.
3 – M-Geschoss Ausf.A fired from an MK 108.
4 – M-Geschoss Ausf.C fired from an MK 108.
5 – Hartkernmunition fired from a MK 101 or MK 103.
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.
-
Murdr, I'm not sure what you're saying, but isn't convergence independent of drop rate?
If ya set it 100 or 650, it only affects where a pair of cannons' bullets cross right? I mean, the gun barrels don't actually adjust up or down? (this has been a question of mine because it doesn't seem to make sense setting a center firing cannon on a 109... let alone the cowl guns, soo close...Or the inner guns on a 190...
Anyways, we're getting lots of info, and it seems like some of it is conflicting... if someone really really knows what they're talking about, sum this stuff up! pls :)
-
Murdr, I'm not sure what you're saying, but isn't convergence independent of drop rate?
If ya set it 100 or 650, it only affects where a pair of cannons' bullets cross right? I mean, the gun barrels don't actually adjust up or down? (this has been a question of mine because it doesn't seem to make sense setting a center firing cannon on a 109... let alone the cowl guns, soo close...Or the inner guns on a 190...
Anyways, we're getting lots of info, and it seems like some of it is conflicting... if someone really really knows what they're talking about, sum this stuff up! pls :)
Actually, they are adjusted "up and down"... Think of it like this.. The cannon or mg round drops as it travels. So, if you fire a cannon or mg and set the convergence out to D650, the gun itself has to be raised to compensate for drop.. The bullet or cannon round takes the trajectory of an arc.. I wish netaces.org was up because I'd just link they're explanation along with images...
-
If ya set it 100 or 650, it only affects where a pair of cannons' bullets cross right? I mean, the gun barrels don't actually adjust up or down?
The gun barrels do actually adjust up and down. Convergence settings also effect gun elevation angle so that rounds trajectories will be passing through verticle center of the reticule at convergence range.
-
So, is the bottom line of this that German 20mm shells stuffed to the gills with high explosives should possibly do as much or more damage per hit than Hispano 20mms? Or something else?
-
As a matter of interest, official German velocity loss and time of flight figures for their aircraft ammo were as follows:
Loading/notes MV m/s V/300m V loss secs/300m V/600m V loss secs/600m
7.92 mm AP 10g 810 538 33% 0.453 348 57% 1.159
13mm HEI 34g 750 501 33% 0.49 337 55% 1.22
15mm HEI 57.5g 960 743 23% 0.357 583 39% 0.816
20mm HEI 92g 1 695 432 38% 0.551 281 60% 1.428
20mm HET 117g 2 720 552 23% 0.477 422 41% 1.101
30mm HEI 330g 3 500 370 26% 0.696 264 47% 1.660
30mm HEI 330g 4 500 429 14% 0.649 370 26% 1.403
30mm AP 355g 5 960 862 10% 0.33 776 19% 0.697
Notes:
1 – M-Geschoss fired from an MG-FFM.
2 – fired from an MG 151/20.
3 – M-Geschoss Ausf.A fired from an MK 108.
4 – M-Geschoss Ausf.C fired from an MK 108.
5 – Hartkernmunition fired from a MK 101 or MK 103.
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.
It's too early in the morning for me to comprehend that. Does that add up to what Murdr posted? Or is there a difference in the way HTC models our 20mms?
-
So, is the bottom line of this that German 20mm shells stuffed to the gills with high explosives should possibly do as much or more damage per hit than Hispano 20mms? Or something else?
If the belt were 100% mine shells, yes. With the normal belt being a mix of regular HE and mine shells, no. What you would have is a bunch of shells that didn't hit as hard as the Hispano mixed with a few shells that hit harder. AH doesn't model individual round types in abelt though so it just averages the amount done of that entire standart belt and assigns the damage evenly across the shells. That means you have each shell hits a tad softer than the Hispano without the lower damage of the normal HE shells or the spikes of the mine shells.
This is actually the reason I am most concerned about players being able to set their own belts. Everybody would just set 100% mine shells in German fighters and to hell with any historical accuracy.
-
It's too early in the morning for me to comprehend that. Does that add up to what Murdr posted? Or is there a difference in the way HTC models our 20mms?
The RL velocity losses are much higher.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
-
It's too early in the morning for me to comprehend that. Does that add up to what Murdr posted? Or is there a difference in the way HTC models our 20mms?
And, unless I did my math wrong, Murdr's velocity numbers are a bit higher than those posted by TW.
-
And, unless I did my math wrong, Murdr's velocity numbers are a bit higher than those posted by TW.
That's correct. What I posted was average speed which is simply distance/time. It appears the numbers Tony provided are instantanious speeds. The average would always be higher than instantanious on a decelerating object.
I tested at the 300 and 600 meter ranges that Tony provided data for.
Time of flight at 300 meters was about 0.36 seconds. (it's hard to be exact when the degree of drop is so small)
Time of flight at 600 meters was 1.137
It appears faster at short range, but by the time it hits 600 meters, it appears slightly slower than the data Tony provided.
And by the way, the numbers I posted were more a comparitive measure between the two guns in the game, as opposed to precisicly measuring respective round velocity. There are factors that could skew measuring in game round drop to determine actual velocity, but it's the only method I could come up with to give a general idea of kinetic energy loss.
-
"Everybody would just set 100% mine shells in German fighters and to hell with any historical accuracy."
I'd put 1 API, 1 (HE)Incendiary and 3 MGs.
-C+