Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: FLOOB on April 16, 2013, 08:46:17 PM
-
I wish that when a player opts to turn off tracers that it would also decrease the incendiary affects of his mg ammo.
-
I wish that when a player opts to turn off tracers that it would also decrease the incendiary affects of his mg ammo.
Does different ammo in AH have different incendiary capibilities?
-
Actually makes sense, since less of the gross rds fired will be hissing willy pete..
-
The American AP rounds are more incendiary than tracers, especially against Japanese aircraft.
-
Who likes taters!
-
I thought Brits used deWilde rounds, why would you choose to reduce their burniness?
-
The American AP rounds are more incendiary than tracers, especially against Japanese aircraft.
I've always wondered about this, are the American .50cal rounds modeled as ball or API rounds?
-
API rounds are the tracers. The white smoke trail you see is white phosphorus burning. As far as I'm aware all mg tracer ammo of that period used phosphorus. Even today, small arms tracer ammo is incendiary. I remember reading a quote from Charlie Beckwith lamenting that if he had brought any tracer ammo with him he would've shot the fuel tanks on the downed helicopters of the aborted iranian rescue mission with his rifle so that they would've started on fire.
-
Tracers and API rounds are two entirely different things, Floob.
Tracers have a hollow base filled with a pyrotechnic material (usually phosphorous or magnesium) ignited on firing. API rounds have a small explosive charge at the tip that detonates after penetration.
You CAN have an API round that's also a tracer, but not all tracers are API.
-
That's true. What I really mean is that tracers are incendiary ammo, even though in nomenclature incendiary ammo and tracer are two distinct types. Really any tracer is incendiary, be it an antique wp round or a modern magnesium round. If you shoot a can of gas with ball ammo you're just going to put a hole in it, if you shoot a can of gas with a tracer you're going to make a fire.
-
That's true. What I really mean is that tracers are incendiary ammo, even though in nomenclature incendiary ammo and tracer are two distinct types. Really any tracer is incendiary, be it an antique wp round or a modern magnesium round. If you shoot a can of gas with ball ammo you're just going to put a hole in it, if you shoot a can of gas with a tracer you're going to make a fire.
I don't think the tracer ammo will ignite a gas can any better than a ball round. I saw an actual experiment on the History Channel a while back. I believe the gas caught on fire for both types of ammo. It was the vapor which catch fire and burns and not the liquid fuel itself. This would be the largest advantage of having self-sealing tanks. Self-sealing tanks may not self-seal as one may think, but they do prevent air pockets of vapor to easily ignite upon bullet strikes.
However, an incendiary round may only work if it gets lodged in a plane and stays there. It would continue to burn and melt other parts of the plane. If an incendiary round goes clean through a object it may not have anymore effect than a ball round. Many, many years ago I remember reading how Spit and Hurricane pilots would use different types of ammo in the same belt in hopes of downing a German fighter over Briton. The ammo could be a mixture of ball, tracers, armor piercing, incendiary, etc. An incendiary round may not take down a plan immediately, but it could stop a German plane from making it back across the Channel after catching fire.
I am just guessing and relaying a little from what I have seen and heard, but don't take my word as 100% true.
-
I don't think the tracer ammo will ignite a gas can any better than a ball round.
It will, especially if it's WP.
-
tracers....I never use em, I dont like the person im shooting at to see my bullets :rock
-
tracers....I never use em, I dont like the person im shooting at to see my bullets :rock
:rofl :rofl funny stuff right there
-
if you shoot a can of gas with a tracer you're going to make a fire.
you not watch mythbusters?
I seem to remember them not being able to get any such result with tracers.
-
you not watch mythbusters?
I seem to remember them not being able to get any such result with tracers.
Don't believe anything you see on mythbusters. They couldn't get a mobile phone to cause petroleum to ignite, yet it's a well known ignition source in the real world.
-
Don't believe anything you see on mythbusters. They couldn't get a mobile phone to cause petroleum to ignite, yet it's a well known ignition source in the real world.
you can only ignite the fumes. here's another for you. you cannot ignite petroleum with a cigarette.
semp
-
The fumes are still petroleum wise ass
-
That's right. Gasoline needs fire, combustion, to ignite. Tracers are bullets that are on fire. Willy Pete burns spontaneously when exposed to air, magnesium must be ignited but will burn even when submerged in water.
-
Don't believe anything you see on mythbusters. They couldn't get a mobile phone to cause petroleum to ignite, yet it's a well known ignition source in the real world.
They also couldn't get a propane tank to explode by shooting it, yet they could get a scuba air tank to explode by shooting it. They also couldn't cut down a tree with a machine gun. Of course what they were calling a tree was 9 foot x 1 foot, dead, non weight bearing log. Maybe the most laughable episode was when they tried to fool a drug sniffing dog, or was it a bomb sniffing dog, I forget. The point is, they're not going to show viewers how to defeat law enforcement or how to be better terrorists, or how to start gas stations on fire with cell phones.
-
That's right. Gasoline needs fire, combustion, to ignite. Tracers are bullets that are on fire. Willy Pete burns spontaneously when exposed to air, magnesium must be ignited but will burn even when submerged in water.
and you're still wrong. it is the vapors that are combustible, not the liquid. wp requires oxygen to burn, guess what doesn't exist in liquid gasoline...now fire that tracer into the empty space of a gasoline can where the vapors collect and it may ignite.
-
Am I correct in understanding that you just said liquid gasoline isn't combustible? A match won't burn without oxygen either, light one and throw it in a bucket of gasoline and watch what happens. Think about what you just wrote.
-
Am I correct in understanding that you just said liquid gasoline isn't combustible? A match won't burn without oxygen either, light one and throw it in a bucket of gasoline and watch what happens. Think about what you just wrote.
Floob, you're wrong, liquid gasoline does not burn, only the hydrocarbons that have evaporated. You can throw a match in a bucket of gasoline and the match will go out. The gasoline vapors burn off the top and the match is sitting in the liquid, and it's out.
Don't try it, but that is the way it works.
Edit: BTW I've known Gyrene for a long long time, he generally is on the point, does not embellish and is correct. Great guy too as I'm sure you are also sir <S>.
Floob is my friend :)
-
I know, that's why flame throwers make such good fire extinguishers.
-
I know, that's why flame throwers make such good fire extinguishers.
they dont use liquid gasoline.
semp
-
I know, that's why flame throwers make such good fire extinguishers.
I'm sure you are joking but that is an excellent example of the principle. If the Liquid could burn the fire would race inside the nozzle through the hose and then blow up the tank holding the liquid.
-
they dont use liquid gasoline.
semp
Yes they do fool, you thought the long arcing trajectory was fumes? Anyway it's good to know gasoline will put out fires, I can take the fire extinguisher out of my car since there's a gas jug in the trunk anyway.
-
Yes they do fool, you thought the long arcing trajectory was fumes? Anyway it's good to know gasoline will put out fires, I can take the fire extinguisher out of my car since there's a gas jug in the trunk anyway.
look it up. it's combined with something else.
as for throwing a match into gasoline or petroleum. I learned that when I was a kid. you cant throw a match into gasoline and expect it to catch fire. you can hold a match over it and the fumes will catch on fire which will cause it to burn, but if you throw the match in it will just go out. same as trying to use a cigarette to light gasoline. I always get a kick when in the movies the fire will start because gasoline reached a cigarette. in real life the cigarette will just go out.
semp
-
Semp, you can ignite gasoline with fire, trust me. You're right, you can't do it with a cigarette ember, you need combustion. We went over that.
Look, you guys have pretty good grip on how oxidation works, which is what fire is. But your application of that is hilarious. Technically, wood doesn't burn, it's a solid, cant oxidize fast enough, therefore a log cabin is fireproof right?
If shooting gas tanks with incendiary ammo doesn't start fires then the history books have it all wrong and AH has some serious issues with it's damage model.
-
look it up. it's combined with something else.
semp
Yes LIQUID GASOLINE is combined with something else to make it more viscous. To make it stickier and more projectable, not to make it more flammable.
-
Semp, you can ignite gasoline with fire, trust me. You're right, you can't do it with a cigarette ember, you need combustion. We went over that.
Sir, you have either misunderstood what you have been taught, you have been taught incorrectly, or you are guessing. Once again, the vapors from the gasoline are what is burning not the liquid. No, you cannot expect to spray a burning fire with gasoline to put it out because as you spray the liquid it is changing state from a liquid to a gas and the gas will burn. Gas is not a liquid, gasoline is a liquid.
A carburetor on a gasoline engine pulls the atmosphere across a venturi with liquid gasoline behind it. As that occurs, the gasoline changes state to a gas and is then ignited with a spark. A fuel injected engine must use a high pressure pump which forces the liquid gasoline through a small nozzle under the high pressure the pump has created, only then will the liquid gasoline change state as it travels to the low pressure area and becomes a gas which can then be ignited.
Please, I may have oversimplified the above statements. I did however attempt the explanation without calling you names. Kindly have the civility to answer in a like manner.
Thank you.
-
Semp, you can ignite gasoline with fire, trust me. You're right, you can't do it with a cigarette ember, you need combustion. We went over that.
Look, you guys have pretty good grip on how oxidation works, which is what fire is. But your application of that is hilarious. Technically, wood doesn't burn, it's a solid, cant oxidize fast enough, therefore a log cabin is fireproof right?
If shooting gas tanks with incendiary ammo doesn't start fires then the history books have it all wrong and AH has some serious issues with it's damage model.
wood is mostly carbon and carbon resists oxydation better than metals. but it needs a lot of heat before it can ignite. that is one reason most people have a hard time lighting the barbq. you will have a hard time igniting wood with a lighter but that doesnt mean the wood is fireproof.
as for you op, incendiary rounds need to stay in the fuel tanks for it ignite the fuel. but I am not sure why you ask that they lower the chances of a fuel tank catching on fire if they dont use tracers. I think most american planes were using api,specially in the pacific, as they japanese didnt use self-sealing fuel tanks.
semp
-
Yes LIQUID GASOLINE is combined with something else to make it more viscous. To make it stickier and more projectable, not to make it more flammable.
This part of your statement is correct. The liquid fuel is a combination of many chemicals. Some of the chemicals are there to hold the liquid in the liquid state so it may be projected farther. But then it is the edges of this liquid where a change of state has occurred from a liquid to a gas that is burning.
-
Jesus Christ. Yes I know that rapid oxidization takes place only in gases. Technically solids and liquids do not burn, everybody knows this except semp, as you can see my comment about wood went over his head.
The problem is using this 7th grade science factoid to rationalize why incendiary/tracer ammo wont set planes on fire. And before someone tries to impress us with their fund of technical knowledge, yes, I know that planes are solid objects and therefore don't technically burn.
-
Sorry Floob, but although you claim to understand the concept, your statements aren't supporting that. I have to ask if you have ever shot a tracer round into a full can of gasoline. I have, multiple calibers. A completely full 5gal can of regular gasoline won't ignite, but a 1/2 full can will blow if the vapors in the empty space get ignited. It's pretty energetic too.
Also, gasoline doesn't require combustion to ignite. Just like every other flammable substance it requires a heat source and oxygen. Once again, it is not the liquid that ignites, it is the vapor layer that is created as the liquid evaporates. When you see a gasoline fire, it's not the liquid that is burning, it's the vapor layer on top of the liquid that is burning. That effect is very visible if you pour gasoline on a flat surface then light it. A lit cigarette can ignite gasoline vapors, not as easily as a lit match but it can be done.
-
The American AP rounds are more incendiary than tracers, especially against Japanese aircraft.
John Bolt of VMF-214 conducted experiments on F4F and Japanese wrecks and after discussions with the Black Sheep C.O. (Boyington) forwarded combat reports through their information officer (Walsh) which led in Marine and Navy forces of the Pacific to modify their ammunition belts. The ammunition load that the Black Sheep used (and by extension all Navy and Marine aircraft after the VMF-214 combat report) was six incendiaries (APIT) followed by one AP and one tracer. What is interesting is that his experiments indicated that at low AOT (angle off target) the incendiaries (APIT) had very little chance of penetration.
-
Once again, it is not the liquid that ignites, it is the vapor layer that is created as the liquid evaporates. When you see a gasoline fire, it's not the liquid that is burning, it's the vapor layer on top of the liquid that is burning.
Just like any other flammable liquid.
Yes I know, and I just wrote as much in my most recent reply. But saying that gasoline doesn't burn is equivalent to saying wood doesn't burn. Both statements are as technically true as they are ridiculously pedantic.
-
Just like any other flammable liquid.
Yes I know, and I just wrote as much in my most recent reply. But saying that gasoline doesn't burn is equivalent to saying wood doesn't burn. Both statements are as technically true as they are ridiculously pedantic.
:rofl you start off really good then end with a fizzle...
-
And you end with ad hominem.
:furious :rolleyes: :banana:
-
Gas+foam=crappy napalm. :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
Isn't willy Pete phospherous? :headscratch:
-
Gas+foam=crappy napalm. :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
Isn't willy Pete phospherous? :headscratch:
Willy Pete = white phosphorous
~S~
-
Tracers WILL light brush on fire... my unit in the USMC was responsible for setting numerous fires on Hawaii because of it :devil
I have a pic around here somewhere of one of them... let's see...
-
Tracers WILL light brush on fire... my unit in the USMC was responsible for setting numerous fires on Hawaii because of it :devil
I have a pic around here somewhere of one of them... let's see...
:airplane: Now I understand why gas prices are 4.50 to 5.00 a gallon! Its to darn hard to make it burn! LOL