Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on November 20, 2001, 04:43:00 PM

Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 20, 2001, 04:43:00 PM
I was curious to see how the various weapons in AH compared when it came to destroying a V Field's VH.  I selected that target because of its relative fragility, taking only 1 1000lb bomb to destroy it.

Below are the results that I got.  In most cases they are rough estimates based on the results obtained by straffing the VH with aircraft, in several cases, all big guns, the results are precise.

The form is <weapon>, <diameter> = <number of rounds required to destroy the V Field's VH>

1000lb GP Bomb = 1
3.5" Rockets = 7
5" HVAR Rockets = 7
PnZ IV H's HE, 75mm = 13
LVTA4's HE, 75mm = 13
NS 37, 37mm = 55
Flak 18, 37mm = 60
M8's HE, 37mm = 75
MK 108, 30mm = 90
VYa, 23mm = 165
Hispano MkII, 20mm = 240
Hispano MkV, 20mm = 240
Type 99 Mk2, 20mm = 260
MG 151/20, 20mm = 275
Ho5, 20mm = 280
B-20, 20mm = 285
ShVAK, 20mm = 285
M2 50 cal vehicle version, 12.7mm = 2100
M2 50 cal aircraft version, 12.7mm = 2400
Ho-103, 12.7mm = 2800
Breda SAFAT, 12.7mm = 2950
MG 131, 13mm = 3025


There are a few stand out oddities.

1) The M8 takes nearly all of its ammunition to destroy the VH, more than any other 37mm cannon, including the Yak-9T's 37mm cannon.

2) The first test I did for the MG 151/20 obtained the result of 475 rounds. This test was done with a Bf109F-4 carrying the 20mm gondola gun pack.  This number was so much higher than the other 20mm cannon that I redid the test using an Fw190F-8 and obtained the 275 number.  There were no significant differences in the test other than the switch of aircraft.

3) Unsurprisingly, AP rounds appear to do functionally nothing to buildings.  I put 80 rounds of 75mm AP from a PnZ IV H into the VH, followed by 2000 rounds from the 7.92mm Pintle MG without destroying the VH.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 20, 2001, 05:05:00 PM
But the AP rounds of the 50cal destroy the VH. Karnak the German 75mm AP had an HE filler as well, I wonder if AH models this, apparently not.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 20, 2001, 05:11:00 PM
GRUNHERZ,

It doesn't seem to model the HE core of the German AP rounds.  I'm pretty sure it was doing some damage (the hit sprite was appearing), but given the number of hits likely to be requred, it wasn't doing anything useful in game terms.  After the test with the PnZ IV H, I didn't even bother testing the M8's 37mm AP ammo.

Note the number of hits required of the 50 cals.  It is nearly 9 times then number of 20mm hits required.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 20, 2001, 05:34:00 PM
Look at the results for Hispano and MG 151/20.  Hispano has 70% more kinetic energy at muzzle and better ballistics but it only does 15% more damage per round?  How can this be explained?  LW conspiracy?
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 20, 2001, 05:35:00 PM
PS Karnak can you test the MG 131 or the Italian 12.7 mm guns?  I want to see if this strange unexplained effect extends to those guns as well.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Raubvogel on November 20, 2001, 05:50:00 PM
Funked....what about the chemical energy? Against a soft target like a hangar that should be more important. The MG151 should hold more HE if the Mine shell is modeled and should take less hits to destroy it. How would kinetic energy figure into a hangar made out of netting or sheet metal?
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 20, 2001, 05:54:00 PM
Chemical energy?  HE?  A lot of experts told me these things weren't modeled for German guns in AH.  I think there must be another explanation.   :)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Staga on November 20, 2001, 06:01:00 PM
Funked how much did those bullets had HE-filling ?

And LW conspiracy? Blow me.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 20, 2001, 06:06:00 PM
:D
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 20, 2001, 06:07:00 PM
Good job testing Karnak.  Sorry for the troll/hijack.  I'll be nice now.   :)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: hazed- on November 20, 2001, 06:24:00 PM
results dont surprise me at all.

ive tested Mg151s against hangers offline with odd results also.However im glad I havent had to post them, it gets boring being called whiner for everything i test.

I discovered the dispersion bug and posted it and had people on my back for it.

Funked hispano cannon had less HE more energy therfore better suited to armoured targets NOT concrete bunkers (or our neted vehicle hangers?)
The way i always thought it worked was LW guns were HE or hexogen mine modeled whilst the lucky USAAF had a mix of HE and AP?
LW have worse ballistics but greater destructive power if and when they hit according to what ive read.However by destructive power i mean if you fire them both at a different surfaces they both even out in the end.

high velocity AP round hits your wing?
one very nice hole
slower HE round hits the wing
one very much BIGGER hole, possibly most of the wing gone.

high velocity AP round hits bulkhead or very strong structure(armour plate?)
possible penetration  heavy damage if shell does get inside(inside being armoured ammo
trays or the pilot)
slower HE round will explode but depending on the charge may not penetrate and therefore would cause less structural damage
internally

As i see it here you have the hispano with greater penetration,greater explosive/destructive power......add to that its better ballistics and you can see why there are so many questioning why these guns (mg151) were ever used when hispano was available to both sides.

Karnak im sorry for this being mentioned also
but your test does raise my eyebrows on this subject again.My appologies

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 20, 2001, 06:49:00 PM
I wonder why the tests using MG151 showed such wierd resuls with one plane needing almost twice the amount of MG151 bullets to kill VH.


Anyway funked muzzle velocity and kinetic energy has absolutly nothing to do in AH with killing the VH. The shells blow up almost instantly after impact and the only thing that matters is HE effect. By your convenient standard the PzIV 75mm AP would rip the hangar up very  fast, it doesnt do it in AH, you are wrong. The Hispano still models greater HE effect and MG151/20 doesnt model Mineshells.

Sorry to ruin your allied conspiracy delusions.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 20, 2001, 07:48:00 PM
I was kidding and trolling guys, sorry.  I'm a tard.  I just couldn't resist.

I can think of scenarios where kinetic energy and penetration could be critical to knocking down a structure, just as chemical energy could be important.  

The fact that the lethality-per-round ratios of one gun to another are not just kinetic energy ratios indicates that AH is looking at more than just kinetic energy.  Which is the opposite of what some have claimed in the past.

Also I think in AH, a ground target is a ground target in terms of the relative lethality of the guns.  I.e. the lethality ratios are the same whether you are shooting at camo netting or a brick building or a steel structure.  In that case some of the arguments that HE damage should dominate aren't valid.

I say Karnak's results indicate HTC are considering a wide range of contruction materials and configurations and doing a good job of balancing different types of hitting power.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 20, 2001, 07:51:00 PM
OK, I tested the Breda SAFAT, MG 131 and Ho-103.  The was a reason that I hadn't done so.  Dang that took a lot of passes.

Here are the results (I'll add them to the first post too):

Ho-103, 12.7mm = 2800
Breda SAFAT, 12.7mm = 2950
MG 131, 13mm = 3025

These numbers were so different from the M2 numbers that I became suspicious.  Thinking that the VH might be healing at a steady rate, and thus penalizing aircraft that took a long time to down it I decided to run two more M2 tests.  I had originally tested the M2 using the P-38, which has twice as many heavy machine guns as the C.202, Fw190A-8 and Ki61.  I first took a P-47D-25 with 8 guns to see if that took fewer rounds than the P-38 had.  It was within 10 rounds of the same number I obtained with the P-38.  I then took a Spitfire MkIX with 2 M2 guns, that aircraft obtained a number within 25 rounds of the P-38 and within 15 rounds of the P-47.  Clearly the VH is not repairing itslef at a steady rate.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 20, 2001, 07:59:00 PM
Hazed,

No problem.  It looks funny to me too.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 20, 2001, 08:07:00 PM
I should add that in no way do I think these ratios translate to air-to-air combat. I know that the 20mm cannons aren't hitting aircraft 9 to 12 times harder than the heavy machineguns.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Tony Williams on November 21, 2001, 01:53:00 AM
A few comments:

The HE content on AP shells is probably not relevant as the fuze would only have triggered on (actually, slightly after if it worked properly) impact with armour.  A lighter structure wouldn't have done the job.

The 20mm was about three times as effective as the .50"

The RAF reckoned that there wasn't much difference in the effectiveness of the German and Allied 20mm.  The Hispano could penetrate deeper and do more structural damage, but the M-Geschoss had more blast effect.  Which did nore damage depended on exactly where they hit.

The effect of cannon shells on a building like a hangar is (theoretically) interesting. To work properly against aircraft, shells were fuzed to detonate after penetrating a couple of feet.  Blast effect was greatly magnified by being concentrated in a small space (which is why the M-Geschoss was more effective against bombers when fired into their wings rather than the fuselage).  A hanger is a very BIG space so much of the blast would have been dissipated.  Instant-action fuzes would have been more effective, but the air forces regarded these as not very useful against aircraft. AP would have done little damage.  Probably the best bet would have been to use incendiaries and hope that you could set light to something inside the hangar and burn it down....

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
NOTE NEW ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams (http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams)
Gun and ammunition discussions at: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Vermillion on November 21, 2001, 09:45:00 AM
The only way the MG151 has more HE content than the Hispano is if you consider it to have a pure mine shell belting to the ammunition.  Something of which I have NEVER seen historical proof.

If you look at a mixed belt (what AH represents) ie the Allied late war standard of 1 AP - 1 HE, and the German late war standard of 1 AP - 1 HE - 1 Mine (from memory its on Gustins website), you will see that the HE content of the two mix's is almost equal.  

Therefore Funked's point about the historically greater kinetic energy of the Hispano, but the ingame results show that the difference in lethality is not there, is a very valid point.

Nice test Karnak  :)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 11:04:00 AM
Verm.

The problem with AH "mixed" belting is that each Hispano round has the full HE and full AP performance. Thats the way they model it for the Hispano. There is only one bullet that has both AP and HE modeled to full.
 
They model the MG151/20 the same way each round has the full HE and full AP. If the mineshell was modeled at all ( I dont think it is) then every MG151 shell should have a full mineshell and full AP.

The way we have it now the Mg151/20 is weaker in hit power than the Hispano, if Mg151/20 had any sort of mineshell modeling it would be even or the Mg151/20 would have greater destructive power.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 21, 2001, 11:53:00 AM
GRUNHERZ,

 
Quote
The problem with AH "mixed" belting is that each Hispano round has the full HE and full AP performance. Thats the way they model it for the Hispano. There is only one bullet that has both AP and HE modeled to full.

Have they said this?

I'd expect that the Hispanos would be a lot more effective if this were true.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 11:59:00 AM
This is what im told by all the "AH expert" know it alls. It certainly might be wrong, but thats what I hear olver and over. Anyway it think it sucks that HTC doesnt just come out and say how they do it.

You think the hispanos can possibly (should?) be more powerful than they are now....  :) Oh lord?
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 12:01:00 PM
Mind you I really dont care how the guns are now all that much anymore, the whole thing is not to get into position to get shot at in the first place. Except for some of that 900yard bizzare toejam.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 21, 2001, 01:36:00 PM
GRUNHERZ,

Heh.  No, I don't think that they should be better than they are now.  It just seemed to me that they would be a lot better than they are if they were modeled like you described.

If they are modeled with 100% AP and 100% HE, and yet manage to obtain a number only 15% better than MG 151/20s modeled at 50% AP and 50% HE the Mg 151/20 would have to be an absolute monster.  That would imply that if the MG 151/20s were modeled at 100% AP and 100% HE they would do about twice the damage that the Hispano MkIIs do.

Formulas (100 is used as the damage that the MG 151/20s do in AH):
 
115/2 = 57.5 (Hispanos modeled at 50% AP and 50% HE)
100*2 = 200 (MG 151/20s modeled at 100% AP and 100% HE)

57.5 against 100 or 115 against 200.  That would make the MG 151/20 out to be, by far, the most damaging 20mm cannon, doing more than the Russian HV 23mm cannon.

In that case the MG 151/20 would have had these characteristics when compared with the Hispano MkII:

Higher rate of fire than the Hispano MkII.
Much lighter than the Hispano MkII
Vastly more damaging than the Hispano MkII
More reliable than the Hispano MkII
130 meters per second lower muzzle velocity than the Hispano MkII
Lighter, smaller shell than the Hispano MkII

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 02:25:00 PM
I think the modeling of the MG151 ammo is identical to that of hispano. I belive both have full AP and full HE modeling in each shell.

What I dont think is that the MG151 has any modeling of Mineshells in any form.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 02:27:00 PM
BTW your summary at the bottom is pretty much accurate and is prolly why many people say the MG151/20 is one of the best overall if not the best 20mm cannon of WW2.  :)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: HoHun on November 21, 2001, 02:46:00 PM
Hi Vermillion,

>If you look at a mixed belt (what AH represents) ie the Allied late war standard of 1 AP - 1 HE, and the German late war standard of 1 AP - 1 HE - 1 Mine (from memory its on Gustins website), you will see that the HE content of the two mix's is almost equal.

The effect of explosives is not linear, and simply adding up might lead to false conclusions here.

The mine shells were designed to explode within the aircraft structure and destroy the load-bearning aircraft skin. A small charge would blow a hole in the skin, and the damage would be confined between the ribs or stringers the skin was rivetted to.

A larger charge would blow a larger hole into the skin, and addionally rip the skin from the rivets and destroy the load-bearing capabilities of the adjacent skin panels as well. This would weaken the aircraft structure much more seriously than two smaller, confined holes would have done.

As a result, one mine shell was considerably more desctructive against aircraft targets than two conventional high-explosive rounds, even when their combined charge weight was equal to that of the mine shell.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 21, 2001, 02:53:00 PM
GRUNHERZ,

I think the summary was accurate, except for the "Vastly more damaging" bit.

I think that the MG 151/20 would be more effective against bombers and less effective against fighters than the Hispano MkII.

In any case, it doesn't take a lot of 20mm hits fram any cannon to render a fighter, or even a medium bomber, inoperable.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Vermillion on November 21, 2001, 03:06:00 PM
HoHun, I know that. But for the purposes of this discussion its accurate enough without having some really high end explosive simulations software.

FYI the effect of explosives is linear, ie the energy liberated by the explosives themselves. Its the application of that energy, ie the shockwave, fragmentation, and other transmission effects, that is not linear.

And thats not even getting into issues such as fuzing.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 03:30:00 PM
Exactly Hohun! And thats why the Mk109 30mm is soooo nice.  :)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on November 21, 2001, 03:32:00 PM
I am definately developing a fondness for the MK 108 30mm.  It hits SO hard.  :D
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Wutz on November 21, 2001, 03:44:00 PM
- - - -Energy        - -Energy
          - - - -kinetic       - -Explosive
             -  - - -(kJ)       - - -(kJ)
30 mm MK 103      --854         --2765
30 mm MK 108      --318         --2987
20 mm Type1(ho5)  --654         --1004
20mm M2           --557         --636
20mm Mk V Hispano --516         --632
20 mm ShVAK       --410         --553
20 mm MG 151      --343         --589
20 mm Type 99     --157         --442
20 mm MG FF       --146         --388

12.7mm UBK        --303         ---0
12.7mm UBS        --231         ---0
.50 M2 Browning   --220         ---0
12.7mm Type I     --130         ---0
13mm MG 131       --112         ---0

7.62mm ShKAS       --98         ---0
7.9mm MG 81        --67         ---0
7.9mm MG 17        --57         ---0
.30 M2 Browning    --52         ---0
.303 Browning      --47         ---0
7.7mm Type 97      --36         ---0
7.7mm Type 92      --32         ---0

 Essentially, the lethality of a gun can be measured by multiplying the destructive power of its projectile and the number of hits.  For nonexplosive projectiles, destructive qualities are generally proportional to Kinetic Energy: One half the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity.  To be more technically correct, the velocity used should be the relative impact velocity, but for comparison purposes, muzzle velocity will do.   Cannon are a somewhat different case, since much of the lethality of these weapons are derived from their explosive shells.  When computing the lethality of a cannon, an additional amount of Energy from the explosive component of the shell must be added to the Kinetic Energy, ie Explosive Energy + Kinetic Energy = Total Energy.

This is how it is in RL so the faults in AH should be easy too discover.

Web page abt Energy and guns+++++ (http://www.vermin.net/table-leth.htm)

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Wutz ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Wutz ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Wutz ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Wutz ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: BenDover on November 21, 2001, 03:59:00 PM
i don't know if this was said before or not,but does the mk5 hispono round have both ap and he properties in one round???
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: GRUNHERZ on November 21, 2001, 04:00:00 PM
Ahhh, theres hope for you yet Karnak!
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: HoHun on November 21, 2001, 04:46:00 PM
Hi Vermillion,

>FYI the effect of explosives is linear, ie the energy liberated by the explosives themselves. Its the application of that energy, ie the shockwave, fragmentation, and other transmission effects, that is not linear.

Well aware of that, I used the term "effect" and not "energy". It's your reply that first suggests its the same, then explains why it isn't :-)

>But for the purposes of this discussion its accurate enough without having some really high end explosive simulations software.

For a hangar target, total energy should be quite adequate :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Wutz on November 21, 2001, 04:48:00 PM
Here is an example of the real life facts Vs AH facts.

Hispano 20mm Mk V used 240 rd's too destroy a VH. Ok 240 rd x Total Energy of the Hispano (516+632) =1148 in Total Energy = 275520 Energy too destroy a VH. Ok Total energy of the Japanees Ho 5 20mm (654+1004) = 1658 in Total energy. Divide the total energy of the VH on the dest.power of the Ho5 20mm 275520/1658= 166,17 rds. Not the 280 rds used in the test. the Ho 5 20mm is in fact not made correct in AH. The dest power of the 20mm Ho 5 is greater than the Hispano in Real Life.  

Hispano 20mm Energy kinetic (kJ) 516
             Energy Explosive (kJ) 632
             Total Energy pr Shell 1148

20mm Ho5     Energy kinetic (kJ) 654
             Energy Explosive (kJ) 1004
             Total Energy pr Shell 1658

1 sek burst from the Hispano will shoot 11.25 shell and do 12915 Dammage in Energy

1 sek burst from the 20mm Ho5 will shoot 14.17 shell and do  23493 Dammage in Energy

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Wutz ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: BenDover on November 21, 2001, 05:05:00 PM
huh?????  :confused:   :confused:   :confused:
 
 
 
   ;)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Wutz on November 21, 2001, 05:25:00 PM
Lethality has been computed using the equation detailed in Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering, by Robert Shaw in Chapter 1, Fighter Weapons.   Essentially, the lethality of a gun can be measured by multiplying the destructive power of its projectile and the number of hits.  For nonexplosive projectiles, destructive qualities are generally proportional to Kinetic Energy: One half the mass of the projectile times the square of the velocity.  To be more technically correct, the velocity used should be the relative impact velocity, but for comparison purposes, muzzle velocity will do.   All rankings are computed in kilo-Joules, the SI unit for energy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy(k) = Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * ( Mass ) *   (Velocity ) ^2

Mass = Total mass of projectiles hitting the target in one second = Weight of Fire
              Weight of Fire = ( Rate of Fire {#/sec} * Projectile Mass {grams/#} ) / 1000
              Velocity = Muzzle Velocity ( meters/sec)

E(k) = 1/2 ( Weight of Fire {kg/sec} ) * ( Muzzle Velocity {meters/second} ) ^2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cannon are a somewhat different case, since much of the lethality of these weapons are derived from their explosive shells.  When computing the lethality of a cannon, an additional amount of Energy from the explosive component of the shell must be added to the Kinetic Energy.   The Kinetic Energy is calculated as above.

Total Energy = Explosive Energy + Kinetic Energy

E(t) = E(x) + E (k)

Explosive Energy, E(x), can be calculated by determining:  (1.) the type of explosive, (2.) how much explosive is in each projectile, (3.) and the Energy yield per mass of explosive.

(1.) Many different types of explosives were used in cannon shells during the Second World War, such as TNT, Amatol, RDX, HBX, PETN, and Tetryl.  The most commonly used by far was TNT.  It was used by all the major combatants as their primary shell loading explosive due to its ease of manufacture, stability, low cost, and wide availability.  Therefore, it is assumed that for these calculations that TNT is the explosive used in the bursting charge of the cannon shells.    Source:  Explosives, 4th Edition.  By Rudolph Meyer.   ISBN:  1-56081-266-4

(2.)  The amount of explosive per cannon shell, varies slightly from shell type to shell type, and country to country.  However, the percent weight of explosive compared to the total weight of the shell is fairly constant.   Since data for each countries shell types is not available, a representative shell for each class was found and its percent mass of explosive was used for the calculations.

    20mm Class:  (this includes all 20mm & 23mm Cannon Shells)

    The US Army's 20mm High Explosive/Incindiary cannon shell used during WWII has the following characteristics.      

Total Projectile Mass =  1565 grains
Explosive Mass = 165 grains of TNT
% Mass of Explosive =  10.54 %
Therefore, it is assumed that all 20mm cannon shells contains explosives equal to 10.54 % of their total mass.

Source:  US Army's Small Arms Ammunition Pamphlet, 23-1 SSA.  August 1968. Picktany Arsenal. Or alternatively, US Army Ammunition Data Sheets, Small Caliber Ammuntion. TM 43-0001
 

    30mm Class:  (this includes all 30mm & 37mm Cannon Shells)

    The US Army's 30mm High Explosive/Incindiary cannon shell used during WWII has the following characteristics.      

Total Projectile Mass =  2295 grains
Explosive Mass = 600 grains of TNT, plus 70 grains of RDX
% Mass of Explosive =  29.19 %
Therefore, it is assumed that all 30mm cannon shells contains explosives equal to 29.19 % of their total mass.

Source:  US Army's Small Arms Ammunition Pamphlet, 23-1 SSA.  August 1968. Picktany Arsenal. Or alternatively, US Army Ammunition Data Sheets, Small Caliber Ammuntion. TM 43-0001
 

(3.)  The explosive yield of TNT is reported as 1080 kCalories / kilogram of mass, or as 4.10 kJoules/ gram of mass.  Since we are working with the Unit of joules already, the second factor will be used here.  Source:   Explosives, 4th Edition.  By Rudolph Meyer.  ISBN:  1-56081-266-4


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explosive Energy = (Explosive yield) * (Mass of explosive), therefore

E(x) = 4.10 kJ  * (Weight of Fire* 10.54%)             for 20mm class shells
E(x) = 4.10 kJ  * (Weight of FIre * 29.19%)             for 30mm class shells

So, TOTAL ENERGY =

[ 1/2 ( Weight of Fire {kg/sec} ) * ( Muzzle Velocity {meters/second} ) ^2 ]   + [ 4.10 kJ  * (Weight of Fire (grams/sec) * 10.54%) ]

  :D   :p   :eek:   :confused:   :mad: The normal order when trying too understand this.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Raubvogel on November 21, 2001, 05:26:00 PM
That's a pretty good analysis Wutz. Did the Ho5 have a heavier projectile? Just wondering why the higher kinetic energy.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: funkedup on November 21, 2001, 05:29:00 PM
Wutz, Vermillion made those tables and calculations you are posting a long time ago and I'm sure he will agree that they aren't valid for predicting real life damage.  However they are still interesting.

     
Quote
This is how it is in RL so the faults in AH should be easy too discover.

It's not nearly that simple.  You can't just add the energies like that.  As Vermillion says, it's non-linear.  How much of each type of energy actually does damage is dependent on a lot of variables.  If the round over-penetrates or deforms then there is lost kinetic energy.  And the explosive energy has losses from several sources.  Only a small percentage of the chemical energy is transferred to the target.  As Vermillion says, a real answer requires a quite fancy computer analysis.

Those tables are an interesting reference though.  <S> for reminding me about them.

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Wutz on November 21, 2001, 06:36:00 PM
Raubvogel

the Ho 5 20mm shell weight 164.00 (g)
the Hispano 20 mm shell weight 130.00 (g)

As said abowe, there is many factors too take into consideration. But these tabels should give an indication on how powerfull a shell/bullet was.

Eks 8x303 from a spit I does a damgd of 376
while 2x50.cal Browning does a damgd of 441 in other words. A 1 second burst from 2x.50 does more damage than a 1 second burst from 8x303. It is in other words a reason for why the 303 was replased by .50 and 20mm. So if you take a spit IX with 4x303 and 2x20 you should IF YOU FOLLOW THESE CHARTS end upp with more firepower if you take 2x.50 cal and 2x20mm. Pure hypotetical offcourse.

It should sure have been fun too know how HT calculate the Dammage model in AH for shell/bullets.

Does anyone here know?????????????
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Tony Williams on November 21, 2001, 06:44:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Wutz:
[QB]
"(1.) Many different types of explosives were used in cannon shells during the Second World War, such as TNT, Amatol, RDX, HBX, PETN, and Tetryl.  The most commonly used by far was TNT.  It was used by all the major combatants as their primary shell loading explosive due to its ease of manufacture, stability, low cost, and wide availability.  Therefore, it is assumed that for these calculations that TNT is the explosive used in the bursting charge of the cannon shells.    Source:  Explosives, 4th Edition.  By Rudolph Meyer.   ISBN:  1-56081-266-4"

Not so for aircraft ammo.  This is a freebie from my next book (with Emmanuel Gustin):

The types of high explosive chemicals used in shells did vary, although not by as much as might be thought, as different names were used for similar substances.  The basic HE in general use was TNT, as used in the Great War.  This was often mixed with ammonium nitrate to create Amatol; cheaper but just as effective, except for increased susceptibility to damp.  Before the Second World War, more powerful substances were introduced into service.  One of these was PETN, also known as Penta or Penthrite.  The problem was that this was too sensitive to use by itself, as it was inclined to be detonated by the shock of firing.  It was accordingly desensitised by adding about 15% of Montan wax to produce Penthrite Wax, or Nitropenta.  An alternative use was to mix PETN with TNT or Amatol to form one of the Pentolites; this actually helped with pouring TNT and Amatol into shells, as by themselves they solidified too quickly and tended to leave holes.  Another new explosive, as powerful as PETN but less sensitive, was RDX, which was also known as Cyclonite or Hexogen.  
Aluminium powder was often added to HE, as this both increased the power and provided an incendiary effect.  A typical German HEI mix was 63% Penthrite, 29% aluminium and 8% wax, although these proportions did vary. Shell fillings for the 30mm M-Geschoss typically consisted of 75% Hexogen, 20% aluminium and 5% wax.  The (rarely used) M-Geschoss for the BK 3.7 contained a mix of 45% Hexogen, 40% TNT and 15% aluminium.  Much use was made of HA.41, a mixture of 80% Cyclonite and 20% aluminium.
Allied explosive fillings included Pentolite, Torpex (a mixture of RDX, TNT and aluminium) and Tetryl or CE.  The Japanese used several types, with TNT, Pentolite and Cyclonite all being recorded, by themselves or in various combinations.  The Soviets used a mixture of RDX and aluminium.
These explosives exhibited some differences in the temperature, volume and rate of expansion of the gasses on detonation, but all of the newer compounds based on Penta, Cyclonite/Hexogen/RDX and Tetryl/CE were in approximately the same class in terms of effectiveness, and indeed have not been much exceeded in destructive power since.

"(2.)  The amount of explosive per cannon shell, varies slightly from shell type to shell type, and country to country.  However, the percent weight of explosive compared to the total weight of the shell is fairly constant.   Since data for each countries shell types is not available, a representative shell for each class was found and its percent mass of explosive was used for the calculations.

    20mm Class:  (this includes all 20mm & 23mm Cannon Shells)

    The US Army's 20mm High Explosive/Incindiary cannon shell used during WWII has the following characteristics.      

Total Projectile Mass =  1565 grains
Explosive Mass = 165 grains of TNT
% Mass of Explosive =  10.54 %
Therefore, it is assumed that all 20mm cannon shells contains explosives equal to 10.54 % of their total mass."

Not a valid assumption.  The actual percentages I have collected varied from  3% to 24% for 20mm ammo.  Just adding a tracer knocked out almost half the HE.

    "30mm Class:  (this includes all 30mm & 37mm Cannon Shells)

    The US Army's 30mm High Explosive/Incindiary cannon shell used during WWII has the following characteristics.      

Total Projectile Mass =  2295 grains
Explosive Mass = 600 grains of TNT, plus 70 grains of RDX
% Mass of Explosive =  29.19 %
Therefore, it is assumed that all 30mm cannon shells contains explosives equal to 29.19 % of their total mass."

What US 30mm?  They never used one.  The figures I have for German 30mm range from 7% to 26%.  The US 37mm was 7.4%.
null

Other comments:

The ammo types used in the Hispano were HEI and SAPI.  Both contained around 10-11 gram of chemicals.  The HEI was expected to blow a large hole in 12mm armour, the SAPI to penetrate up to twice that.

The Ho-5 looks overrated.  It was a good gun, but the pressures and velocities had to be seriously downloaded as the war progressed because they were having to make the guns from inferior materials.  The HEI shell weighed only 79g (at around 730 m/s) so kinetic energy was low, but the HE content wasn't bad, either 9.7% or 15% (fuzeless) although the latter replaced the fuze with a PETN exploder which would have had no delay effect.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm (http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm)
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
null
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Vermillion on November 21, 2001, 11:54:00 PM
Damn I'm famous  :D

Its really funny when someone quotes my own website, to contradict me.

Even when I state in several places that I make assumptions based upon data available at that time.

Since then I've learned a little bit more, but the overall basis is "ok" for a SWAG  computation (Scientific Wild bellybutton Guess) as its known in Engineering circles.

Tony is the true "expert" in the field and I bow to his knowledge. But considering I put that information together something like 5 years ago, based upon what I can find, its still a decent SWAG.

FYI, the original data used on the HO-5, specifically the shell weight of the projectile, which I referenced from Gustins' original site, is an error. Its since been determined that the shell mass of the HO-5 is quite a bit less. Its around the 100 gram range if I remember, which would make it still a very good gun, but slightly less effective than the Hispano.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Tony Williams on November 22, 2001, 01:16:00 AM
The Ho-5 loadings were odd, as apart from the 79g HEI there were APT loadings weighing between 112 and 120g, depending (believe it or not) on the hardness of the steel used.  Measured (by Americans) muzzle velocities at the end of the war were 730 m/s for the HEI and 700 m/s for the APT (exact proj weight unspecified).  So the APT was rather more energetic.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm (http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm)  
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Wutz on November 22, 2001, 05:14:00 AM
I never said I did these analyses. I included a Link to Verm's page. Where U all could see these greate tables. They are realy interesting, and it is realy good info.

=Salute too Vermillion=
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: HoHun on November 22, 2001, 08:10:00 PM
Hi again,

Here's some more information on MG151/20 ammunition (quoted via the "Waffen-Revue").

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

(The ammunition used in air combat was equipped with primers
that blew up the charge after some time to avoid collateral
damage on the ground. I don't know how this is called in
english (in german it's "Selbstzerlegung", literally
"automatic disassembling" :-) I called it "destruction" in
the list.)

The ammunition described was used in the german MG151/20
cannon.

Incendiary explosive tracer round:

total mass   205g
projectile   115g
warhead      2.3g Nitropenta + 2.1g electron-thermite
tracer       3.3s = 1300m
destruction  a) none / b) at 1200m
propellant   14.8g Nz. R. P.
v0           705m/s
usage        a) only against ground targets / b) in air combat
effect       fragmentation, additional blast and incendiary
             effect
penetration  none

There were two variations of this round (additional to the
self-destruction primer), one bright tracer and one dim
tracer round. The dim tracers were used by night fighters to
avoid blinding of the pilot.


Explosive round:

total mass   183g
projectile   92g
warhead      a) + b) 18.6g Nitropenta c) HA41
tracer       none
destruction  a) none / b) at 900 to 1200m / c) at 1400m
propellant   19.5g Nz. R. P.
v0           785m/s
usage        a) only against ground targets / b) + c) in air combat
effect       blast effect
penetration  none

There were two variations of this round (additional to the
self-destruction primer), the conventional Nitropenta round
and a round with a 40% more powerful explosive that was only
used in air combat.


a) Armour piercing round / b) Armour piercing explosive round:

total mass   205g
projectile   115g
warhead      a) none / b) 4g Nitropenta
tracer       none
destruction  none
propellant   18.5g Nz. R. P.
v0           705m/s
usage        a) against ground and air targets
             b) mostly against armoured ground targets
effect       a) armour penetration
             b) after penetrating at least 5mm armour: blast and fragmentation
penetration  a) at 100m, 60degs impact angle 13mm armour of 120kg/mm**2
             b) at 100m, 60degs impact angle 13mm armour of 150kg/mm**2


Armour piercing incendiary round

total mass   207g
projectile   117g
warhead      6.2g incendiary in metal capsule
tracer       none
destruction  none
propellant   19.8g Nz. R. P.
v0           695m/s
usage        against merchant ships and light warships
effect       after penetrating at least 4mm steel and traveling ca. 1m:
             incendiary effect by burning capsule
penetration  at 100m, 75 degs 15mm steel

Note that penetration is given against steel as used with
ship's hulls, not against armour steel.


Armour piercing incendiary round

total mass   202g
projectile   115g
warhead      3.2g incendiary (phosphor) in aluminium capsule
tracer       none
destruction  none
propellant   18.5g Nz. R. P.
v0           705m/s
usage        against heavily armoured air targets and lightly armoured ground
             targets, automobiles, trains, etc.
effect       after penetrating at least 4.5mm steel at 60 degrees and
             traveling 20 to 120cm: incendiary effect
penetration  at 100m, 60degs impact angle 13mm armour of 150kg/mm**2

I've found an incendiary round mentioned that could eject
incendiary on 5 to 7 impacts and was much more effective
than the previously used rounds. I suppose that it refers to
this round.


While the MG151/20 ammo usually had a projectile mass/total
cartridge mass of 115g/205g, the older MG/FF's masses were
134g/202g. However, the MG151/20 had a higher muzzle
velocity. MG/FF ammo exisited in similar variety as the
MG151/20 ammo. The 30mm MK108 cannon's ammo was much
heavier: Its values were 330g/470g. Finally the 13mm MG131:
34g/85g (weight of ammo belt included)

The ammo belts were loaded with a pattern of different
rounds. One example of what a Bf 109F-4 used in 1941 against
bombers: MG151 2 incendiary explosive tracer, 2 explosive;
MG17 4 armour piercing, 1 full metal jacket, 1 full metal
jacket with tracer.

The MK108 was slightly unreliable and sometimes jammed.
There is a case in which a Me 109 suffered a stoppage after
firing the first round, but the single projectile fired
succeeded in blowing up a four-engined bomber anyhow.
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Tony Williams on November 22, 2001, 11:22:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun:
Hi again,

Here's some more information on MG151/20 ammunition (quoted via the "Waffen-Revue").

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


While the MG151/20 ammo usually had a projectile mass/total
cartridge mass of 115g/205g, the older MG/FF's masses were
134g/202g.


Not entirely correct.  The MG-FFM fired 115/92g projectiles, just the same as those used in the MG 151/20.

This also misses out the MX-Geschoss, an interesting high-capacity round which came out at the end of the war.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm (http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm)  
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages (http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages)
Title: Test results of munitions required to destroy a VH at a V Field
Post by: Karnak on October 05, 2003, 12:47:19 AM
Punt for scJazz.