Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wilbus on June 21, 2001, 02:08:00 PM
-
I and Mandoble met in the Training arena and started testing, started with 190 F8 and then went on to the A8.
We spent pretty much time in there, took some time to figure out where to hit and took some time to learn how to aim good. Quite hard with the dispersion to get accurate shots where you want them.
Mandoble did most of the Shooting while I was a target.
Link to the films bellow.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/films.zip (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/films.zip)
My conclusions is, that when the enigine gets a hit, especially from slightly bellow, slightly above or side/slightly from the side, it dies right away. Radiator hit and Oil leak doesn't exist in these planes, A5, A8 and F8.
This is something that needs to be fixed fast, I know I am not the only one gettign tired of having my enigne quit after a single hit early in a fight or furrball. Most of my deaths in teh A8 are due to this :(
Big Thanks to Mandoble for taking the time to put the films on his Homepage :)
[ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Wilbus ]
-
Thanks to you Wilbus for your patience. I agree, direct small cal (50') hits in engine stop it inmediately. Aside that, two "flashes" at the wing root of 190F8 (firing only with P38s 50', HO) broke the 190 wing entirely.
-
Thanks for the test guys. So you're stating that you could only knock out the engine but you'll never get an oil leak?
-
Neg Pyro, but oil leaks are really rare, most of the times engine stopped with no smoke at first ping (I dont know how many bullets represents a "ping"). The test was really hard to do due dispersion, and the objetive was to put the minimun amount of lead at or near engine, so we need to wait to the last sec to fire. We know this test is not statistically significative, but, at least, is representative of what I experience day after day, mostly in jabo.
I have no films, but a typical jabo mission in 190F8 is as follows.
I enter the ack zone fast and kill 3 or 4 acks, then a ping, engine stopped but still fast, flat turn and deack most of the rest. Usually the VH ack survives and once slowed it keeps hitting me, 1 to 3 pings more and tail out while trying to flee engineless.
-
<S> guys. It sure is nice to see people trying to provide this kind of proof for issues with the game.
Hooligan
-
Well, Oil leaks do acure, but I don't remeber last time it happened to me, it was a VERY long time ago. It allways seam to stop with just a ping and no engine leak or anything.
So oil leaks and radiator leaks are very VERY rare (atleast for me)and it seams allmost as if it never happens.
-
Aside that, two "flashes" at the wing root of 190F8 (firing only with P38s 50', HO) broke the 190 wing entirely.
and they say the 0.5 cal aint overpowered LMAO
-
A more usefull test may be to fly a 190 along side a buff and have the buff fire 1 gun at different ranges at different parts of the 190. This way it would be easier to tell how many rounds it took to do a certain amount of damage. A Ju-88 could be used to test single 30cals, B-26 or B-17 for single 50cals.
ra
-
Originally posted by Naudet:
and they say the 0.5 cal aint overpowered LMAO
It may be that the wing is underpowered. Do some testing with both .50 cal and 12.7 mm MGs and compare the results before making such an assertion, please. After all, people complain about the ballistics of the hispano round all the time, but those who do are generally incorrect when they assert that it's too good.
-
Yesterday, my cursed 190F8 stopped again. First flight and while RTB I saw a 190 hi at my 5, d4 and aproaching very fast. Leveled, WEP on and accelerated a bit, the other 190 was near d2 and closing fast. Then I started a gentle slow rolling scissors that the other 190 could not follow due the extra speed. But the enemy, before overpassing risk a snapshot. I heard a single ping, but could have been more. Looking at the pos of the other 190, the impact/s were only viable in the rear quarter or below my plane. The ping I heard was "light", small cal (probably 13mm). LOL Engine stopped!!! No other damage and I managed to ditch. The adversary was Hajo, and he was as surprised as my, or even more. He saw hits in the rear upper quarted of my plane, just between tail and cockpit.
Waiting for Hajo to confirm if he used MGs + Guns, Guns or only MGs.
Next flight, 190D9. After some combat I was enganged with a F6F fighting in the vertical. I saw him slow at d1.1 and was about to drop the nose for the kill, then, PING, engine stopped, PING, pilot dead.
Next flight was at my bed, dreaming with a "non-paper" 190 and totally pissedoff.
-
Do some testing with both .50 cal and 12.7 mm MGs and compare the results before making such an assertion, please.
Well, 0.50 cal and 12.7mm is the same caliber.
0.5 = Half an inch, half an inch = 12.7mm.
The german Heavy MG's are 13mm (0.51inch) and the difference isn't all that big so to compare wether it takes 3 50 cal hits or 2 13mm hits isn't so necessary.
The German 13mm IS better but not very much, it's the best MG in the game.
The wing went off after just a few 50 cal hits and that's what's important.
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Wilbus ]
-
Picture previously posted by Pyro.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/ammo.gif)
Visual Aid. Left to right: .30-06 US, .303 British, 12.7mm Russian, .50 Cal US, 13mm MG 131, 15mm MG 151, 20mm MG 151/20, 20mm Hispano, 23mm VYa, 30mm MK 108, 30mm MK 103, 37mm BK 37.
From: http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002456 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002456)
******************************************
With apologies to Crocidile Dundee's writers:
Sue: "Mick, give him your wing spar."
Mick: "What for?"
Sue: "He's got a .50 cal."
Mick (brandishing his own .50): "That's not a .50 cal. (See 13mm MG131 above) This is a .50 cal. (See .50cal US above)".
There's more to ballistics than bullet diameter alone.
I'm certainly not saying that there isn't something amiss in damage modeling.
I'm just saying all .50 cal rounds are not created equal.
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Yup, although lenght of the round doesn't make that much difference unless it's packed with explosives, gives some extra weight a maybe a slighly heavier punch. Think the MG131 is better in AH, maybe no noticble difference.
Just wanted to say that 50 cal = 12.7mm :)
Btw Toad, nice picture, don't know where ya got it from but very nice :)
-
Pyro posted that in the old thread that is listed below picture.
Trajectory and energy are essentially determined by velocity and ballistic coefficient of the projectile.
The longer case usually allows more powder, increasing velocity.
The bullet design determines the coefficient, so it is a predetermined factor set by the manufacturer.
This is an oversimplification but the heart of a good round is high velocity and an excellent BC. I think you'll find the .50 BMG is indeed a "good round".
-
Here is another way to test, and is perhaps more accurate to hitting specific sections of the plane.
Launch a 190 and a M3, LVT or Tank.
Don't fly, just start the engine and leave it idle.
Have the GV fire at the prop from various angles off - at about 50 to 100 yards.
This can also be used to see if the engine dies when shooting at the tail, or if the wing falls off with just a few rounds.
If any one wants to test this - I'd be happy to assist in the TA.
Nexus
-
Another good idea Nexus, will do it if it's necissary or Pyro needs some more evidens or help to narrow down the problem with the engine.
The 50 cal, both US, Brittish and German, were indeed very good guns, the US 6 gunned and 8 gunned fighters such as P51's and P47's could rip wings of planes with a 1 or 2 second burts into it. However, I seriously doubt, that a plane flying straigth forward in 200Mph, and gets 2 hits in the wing, will go down cause it loses the wing, nomather what 50 cal it is (unless it hits a VERY Vital part).
This thread though, was mostly about the engine wich, I and alot of others, need to find out wether it is a bug or not and if HTC can find the problem (if any) and fix it.
:) :) :)
-
Again, not arguing the damage model. By nature, that's a pretty subjective thing for the programmers to decide upon.
However, I see two major differences in the .50 BMG and the 13mm MG 131 rounds; projectile weights. 48.5g vs 34.6 and 870 vs 730 fps.
I think you'd get a larger difference in downrange energy & trajectory, especially since the .50 MG has an exceptional BC.
That's why it's still popular in heavy sniper rifles.
I wish we had the BC for the 131; it would be interesting.
Name Ammunition (Bullet Weight) ROF Fire Muzzle Vel
Browning .50 M2 12.7 x 99 (48.5 g) 750 rpm 870 m/s
MG 131 13 x 64B (34.6 g) 900 rpm 730 m/s
-
IMO, this thread has nothing to do with projectile characteristic. Anyway, IMO, a single slow 13mm round loaded with HE is way more destructive than a fast 50'. Faster means for me cleaner hole, slower and HE means really serious damage.
-
Mandobile:
An AP-type round has the ability to penetrate into the "vitals" of the target aircraft and kill something really valuable (like the Pilot). Whether of not an HE projectile is more or less destructive depends a lot on the nature of the target and where the round hits. The information I have seen indicates that for this caliber, AP/I rounds were probably the best ammunition against fighters.
Hooligan
-
Toad:
Using trajectory data from military documents I have calculated G1-Ballistic Coefficients for a variety of rounds.
G1-BCs for .50 BMG are in the range of .65 (AP/I) to .72 (Ball)
G1-BCs for Mg131 are in the range of .20 (HE) to .36 (AP-tracer)
Hooligan
-
Hooligan, agree with you only partially. HE projectiles will be much more destructive against wing or tail surfaces, while AP could be more effective against "hard" points (engine or LIGHT armoured cockpits). IMO, "breaking" a wing with AP will require significant more hits than with HE, while less ammo to kill a engine.
-
Friggin wrong thread
[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: DmdNexus ]
-
Hooligan, thanks! I had never seen BC data for the German rounds.
Folks, if you've studied ballistics, that big a difference in BC makes a MAJOR difference in downrange trajectory and energy.
Mandoble, energy has to be a key part of the damage model. It's in there somewhere. With a this difference in downrange energy don't you think it would be interesting to see if you get the exact same results with the .50 BMG and the MG 131 round? Might be a clue Pyro could use.
Mostly, though, I was commenting on the idea that all .50 cal are equal in damage. This is not the case.
-
Never said they were equal in dammage, quite similair though, and they are. Doesn't mather wich one is best though, 2 of them won't rip a Heavily armored 190 F8 or A8 wing off.
Not exactly the rigth thread no, this one was about the enigne, can do another one with the rest of the plane :)
-
Busy weekend, but I'll try to run a few ballistic comparisons on them now that I have a BC for both. Should be able to output a comparative trajectory and energy for different ranges. There's already some proven tables for the .50BMG so I'll be able to compare with those results and see if it all seems in line.
-
MANDOBLE and I were engaged in a 1 vs 1 a few days ago, I managed to hit his engine, but I don't know how, I saw the hit sprites from my guns hit his craft from the canopy and walk down to the tail. Was a good fight, I was in d9, but I don't know how I managed to get his engine from the position I was firing from??? Splain Dat?
MANDOBLE I was using cannon and mg at same time. sorry for the late post!
[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Hajo ]
-
You cant really compare the .50cal and MG131 in AH. Whatever the various advantages of the .50 or the MG131 might be they are overwhelmed by the fact any of the US fighters carry at least twice as many .50cals than does any LW carry MG131.
-
I haven't found the right online ballistic program yet. I wanted one that did trajectory and energy in 100 yard out to 1000 yards.
I know it's out there, I'll keep looking.
In the meantime, this one gives an interesting and insightful comparison:
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/maxdist/maxdist.html (http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/maxdist/maxdist.html)
Using the ballistic coefficients that Hooligan supplied and taking the WORST BC for the .50BMG (.65 AP/I) and the BEST BC for the 13mm MG131 (.36 AP/I) I used it to figure maximum range at an altitude of 15,000 feet and the energy at max range.
.50 BMG
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Bullet Weight: 712.0 grains
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Data
Maximum Distance
Firing Elevation: 36.0 degrees
Terminal Range: 8468.0 yards
Maximum Height: 7421.7 feet
Terminal Angle: 60.3 degrees
Terminal Velocity: 661.9 ft/sec
Terminal Energy: 692.7 ft-lbs
Time of Flight: 40.8 secs
Absolute Maximum Height
Maximum Height: 17322.0 feet
Time of Flight: 27.4 secs
13mm MG131
Max Distance Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2460.0 ft/sec
Bullet Weight: 534.0 grains
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.360
Drag Function: G1
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Data
Maximum Distance
Firing Elevation: 35.0 degrees
Terminal Range: 5520.0 yards
Maximum Height: 4729.5 feet
Terminal Angle: 61.5 degrees
Terminal Velocity: 508.0 ft/sec
Terminal Energy: 306.0 ft-lbs
Time of Flight: 32.9 secs
Absolute Maximum Height
Maximum Height: 11400.0 feet
Time of Flight: 21.5 secs
****************************
Check the comparison of Maximum Range and Terminal Energy.
.50 BMG Terminal Range: 8468.0 yards
13MM MG 131 Terminal Range: 5520.0 yards
Note that the firing elevation is essentially the same for both.
.50 BMG Terminal Energy: 692.7 ft-lbs
13MM MG 131 Terminal Energy: 306.0 ft-lbs
Perhaps you can relate better to this tidbit of data.
44 Remington Magnum/246 gr @ 50 yd = 623 ft-lbs
9mm Luger/115 gr @ 50 Yd = 306 ft-lbs.
So the .50 BMG hits with double the energy at its terminal range which is also greater by ~60% at 15k.
This is also on a Worst .50/ Best 13mm Ballistic Coefficient comparison as well.
So, indeed, all .50's are not created equal. In this case they are not even close.
-
Yesterday and today same effects.
Yesterday a P51B scored a single ping somewhere my 190A8, engine stopped, no smoke, no other damage. Today same history. And one of my squad mates was hit also, engine stopped, and no more damage.
Sincerelly, THIS IS INCREDIBLE!
As it is the effect of single ping, vertical stab gone against acks, over'n over. That or engine stopped.
Ok, 190s were "historically" paper/crystal planes, but 190s HAVE MORE PARTS TO LOOSE! What about horizontal stabs, ailerons, pilot, guns, flaps... Engine or rudder have, for some unexplanable reason, 90% chances of being damaged over any other part of these dammed planes.
-
wasn't the bmw801 engine an aircooled radial? did it also have a radiator?
-
Great mrfish! I want the radiator damaged! oil leaks! smoke! whatever but no engine stopped with no other effecf.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
[QB]
Ok, 190s were "historically" paper/crystal planes, but 190s HAVE MORE PARTS TO LOOSE!
[QB]
what u mean with paper/crsytal planes?ß tha 190 couldnt substain battle dmg very well??
If yes Mandoble, check ur sources, the ME 109er was a tiny little bird that fell aprat after a couple of hits, but the FW190 was in every version a durable plane. It was known among LW for its good ability to take battle dmg and still fly on.
-
LOL Naudet, it was a joke, I know very well 190s were sturdy planes, cause that I doublequoted "historically". In AH we have paper/crystal ones and I only ask for more diversification in the damage.
-
Found it. I checked the program against a published 1000 yard zero for M2 surplus ball ammo and it's pretty close. (http://www.gunnery.net/warwagon/50bmg.htm)
Calculator: http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html (http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html)
Again, using Hooligan's numbers for the WORST .50 BMG bullet and the BEST MG131 bullet.
This is at 15000 feet altitude, gunsite 3 feet above gun (a guess)on say a -51. Used 6" above gun for the MG 131.
.50 BMG
Trajectory (Basic) Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2845.0 ft/sec
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 712 grains
Sight Height: 36.00 inches
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Zero Range: 350 yards
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Table
Elevation: 17.594 moa
Azimuth: 0.000 moa
Range/ Velocity/ Energy/ Drop
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (inches)
0 2845.0 12795.7 -36.0
100 2754.8 11996.9 -19.8
200 2666.5 11240.1 -8.2
300 2580.0 10523.2 -1.4
400 2495.4 9844.3 0.1
500 2412.6 9201.6 -4.0
600 2331.5 8593.6 -14.0
700 2252.2 8018.8 -30.5
800 2174.6 7475.6 -53.8
900 2098.5 6962.1 -84.4
1000 2023.7 6474.0 -123.0
1100 1950.2 6012.8 -170.0
1200 1878.4 5577.9 -226.2
1300 1808.2 5169.1 -292.2
1400 1739.9 4785.5 -368.9
1500 1673.3 4426.6 -457.1
1600 1608.7 4091.3 -557.7
1700 1546.0 3778.7 -671.7
1800 1485.3 3487.7 -800.3
1900 1427.1 3219.5 -944.7
2000 1371.2 2972.3 -1106.2
13MM Mg131
Trajectory (Basic) Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trajectory (Basic) Output
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Input Data
Muzzle Velocity: 2640.0 ft/sec
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.650
Drag Function: G1
Bullet Weight: 534 grains
Sight Height: 6.00 inches
Wind Cross Speed: 10 mph
LOS Angle: 0 degrees
Target Speed: 0 mph
Zero Range: 350 yards
Temperature: 5.5 °F
Barometric Pressure: 16.89 in Hg
Relative Humidity: 0.0 %
Altitude: 15000 feet
Air Density: 63 % of Sea Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated Table
Elevation: 10.680 moa
Azimuth: 0.000 moa
Range/ Velocity/ Energy/ Drop
(yards) (ft/sec) (ft-lbs) (inches)
0 2640.0 8263.6 -6.0
100 2554.1 7734.7 2.6
200 2470.0 7233.9 5.9
300 2387.8 6759.9 3.5
400 2307.2 6311.6 -5.1
500 2228.4 5887.7 -20.1
600 2151.3 5487.3 -42.2
700 2075.6 5108.1 -71.7
800 2001.2 4748.2 -109.4
900 1928.2 4408.2 -155.7
1000 1856.9 4088.1 -211.3
1100 1787.2 3787.2 -277.1
1200 1719.4 3505.3 -353.7
1300 1653.5 3241.5 -442.2
1400 1589.4 2995.3 -543.3
1500 1527.3 2765.8 -658.2
1600 1467.3 2552.8 -788.1
1700 1409.8 2356.4 -934.1
1800 1354.7 2175.9 -1097.6
1900 1302.4 2011.2 -1280.2
2000 1253.2 1862.2 -1483.2
***************
With both guns zeroed at 350 yards compare:
Range/Velocity/Energy/Drop
.50 BMG: 700 2252.2 8018.8 -30.5
13MM: 700 2075.6 5108.1 -71.7
This is why it's harder to hit with the 13mm at the longer ranges; over twice the drop and about 60% of the energy when you do hit.
[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
gentlemen:
As far as suffering battle damage, the 190 was on par with the P-47. Alfred Prices' book Focke Wulf, Fw190 in combat is the definitve source for info on the FW190. Mr Price interviewed pilots, that fought as well as flew the 190, and Kurt Tank also.
First off, there were no hydraulics involved with the 190, everything was electrical, the first all electric fighter I believe. There were no hydraulic pumps, or hydraulic lines to sever. It was a very stable gun platform, possibly the best during the war, but that is up for discussion. Also it did not use cable or wire for the rudders, elevators etc. It used steel rods, thus no snapping of cables or pulleys when aircraft was shot by the enemy. The early a models 0 thru 8 had a BMW radial, no water cooling, there was a fan inside the cowling behind the prop hub to facilitate engine cooling.
In Mr. Prices book are copies of the tests performed on an a-3 that was captured when a pilot mistakenly landed in enemy territory.
Also literature sent to the air Ministry pleading for a fighter to combat the then a-3 model. The RAF Pilots were very concerened, as they should have been because the A-3 out climbed, was faster in level speed, and outgunned the then SpitV. and, the 14 cylinder radial provided protection for the pilot, and suffered battle damage on par with the P-47.
Get the book, it's a very good read, and a nice addition to any Library.
Oh...forgot, I believe a combat trim "auto" system might have been used also....similar to the Nik2-Js.
[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: Hajo ]
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Hajo ]
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Hajo ]
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Hajo ]
-
Yes the book is a good read.
But the FW definitivly not used auto operated combat flaps, the unique feature of the FW 190 was the "Kommandogeraet" which controlled propeller pitch, fuel mixture etc. so that the pilot only had to push or pull the throttle and the rest was down by the "Kommandogeraet".
Also the FW190D9 want so prone to radiator dmg as the P51.
The radiator of the D9 sat infront of the eng, surrounded by and amored cooling ring. So it was very hard to score hits on it from 7-5 oclock, which was the most often used firing position.
Now on the P51 the radiator sat on the stangd belly, much further aft than on the FW190 and so more vulnerable to dmg from behind especially from low 5-7 oclock.
But in AH the D9 suffers from dead radiator even when fired upon from behind, while the P51 rarely does.
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
-
Have that book too, love it, read it over and over again.
Explains about everything you wanna know about the 190.
-
2 other books i find very good are "JG26 - Top Guns of the Lufwaffe" And "Green Hearts - 1st in Combat with the Dora 9".
The latter is a pure describtion of the time from JG54 in which it was equitment wiht the D9. It is writen day bye day sortie bye sortie.
Btw Wilbus, havent seen u for longtime in MA did u change ur name tag??
-
If you look at the energy of a .50 bullet to determine the hit power, you always assume that the bullet stops in the aircraft, and all energy is transferred into damage.
If you consider that the bullets passes through the airframe and exits on the other side, the damage to the aircraft is much less - and this is what often happened with AP ammunition.
mg 131 HE ammo will enter the aircraft and explode, doing maximum damage - always!
niklas
-
Yes, most likely the .50 cal will go clean through the engine block or any other non-armored part of the aircraft it hits.
Depending on range, it may well go through most of the armored parts as well.
<EDIT> Anyone know the composition and weight of the explosive mixture used in the Brandsprenggranatpatronen?
[ 06-25-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Just for those who prefer looking at a trajectory as an image....
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/guns/50cal.gif)
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/guns/mg131.gif)
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"For yay did the sky darken, and split open and spew forth fire, and
through the smoke rode the Four Wurgers of the Apocalypse.
And on their canopies was tattooed the number of the Beast, and the
number was 190." Jedi, Verse Five, Capter Two, The Book of Dweeb
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
-
Hey Naudet :)
Read JG26 book, very very good and great source of information, not much about jsut the 190 though.
I canceld my Wilbuz account, left and then decided I couldn't live without AH, a brake was what I needed so I am back. My new callsign is "Acinonyx" but I am trying to get my old Wilbuz callsign back :)
Cya up there! :)
-
Niklas, your asumption is obvious, cant understand how someone may still have doubts about the advantage of 13mm HE round over 50' AP, unless the AP hits and pass through an "armoured/hard" part of the plane (engine, pilot seat). HE rounds should be deadlier when hitting "soft" parts like control surfaces, fuel tanks, radiators, etc.
-
Guys, just because some of the 13mm had a HE content, don't confuse it with the explosive power of a 20mm HE round.
I will have to check my sources when I get home, but the HE content of a 13mm round is very, very small.
-
Yup but makes more dammage to soft parts (most of the plane) then a none HE 50 cal.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
You cant really compare the .50cal and MG131 in AH. Whatever the various advantages of the .50 or the MG131 might be they are overwhelmed by the fact any of the US fighters carry at least twice as many .50cals than does any LW carry MG131.
Sure you can, if you want to do it for testing purposes. Just fire the secondary MGs on the D-Pony, D-Hog, or Hellcat. You're using just 2 .50 cals at that point, which is comparable to using 2 12.7mm's.
I see your point though, you'll never be hit with as many 12.7's per burst as you will with .50 cals in actual AH combat.
-
Hey Nifty, good way to compare like that, harder to hit the same spot with the wing mounted 50 cals on the US planes though, german planes have nose mounted 13mm, makes the hits come closer and thus make more dammage.
However, a thing that seam to be a common mistake, 50 cal is half an Inch. 1 inch equals 25,4 mm (2,54 cm). Half of 25,4 mm = 12,7mm wich is US 50 cal.
German counter part, Heavy MG, is 13mm wich equals 51 cal. (.51 cal).
Just to clear some things ;)
<S> Sir!
-
Vermillion:
.50 AP/I has about 1 gram of incendiary. Mg131 HE has about 1 gram of explosive.
Hooligan
-
Thanks, Hooligan.
1 gram of explosive = 15.43 grains or 0.035 ounces.
The 131 round weighs 534 grains so roughly 3% of the overall weight is explosive in nature.
Is this a TNT mixture? .03 ounces of TNT?
-
PETN was specified for the explosive content. However this was subject to availability and alternate explosives (such as TNT) were often used.
Hooligan
-
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part12.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part12.htm)
Chapter 12 Military Explosives
If I understand this page correctly (and I may not ;) ) PETN has a little over twice the relative strength of TNT.
"RS = Pot (PETN = 6.01 x 106 = 2.21" (Relative to TNT)
Also, the page makes a point of the fact that an unconfined explosion liberates a lot of its energy simply as heat. So a small charge.. say 1 gram ;) going off in a large area (aft fuselag?) or an area open to the atmosphere (previously torn open wing panel?) will be more heat than damaging force.
-
Toad:
The explosive power of TNT is 4.1 to 4.6 KJoules/gram. For PETN it is 5.9 to 6.0. So PETN has about 35% more power than TNT.
Hooligan
-
Hooligan,
You know way to much about this stuff!
It's great!
Do you have a home page with more good stuff like this?
Thanks!
Looks like what Verm said... not much explosive power in those.
-
I have a fair amount of data (too much idle time spent exchanging data with the likes of Vermillion, Hoof and Gerzzz) but little of it is posted on the web. Basically you have seen pretty much everything I have on the web with the possible exception of:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm)
Hooligan
-
Jeez! ROFLMA at MYSELF!
You have all my potential arguments already carefully crafted, reasonably stated and perfectly summed up!
In the future I'll just say... "see Holligan's pages!"
Great job!
-
Dammit! It should EXPLODE after 1 ping!