Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: eskimo2 on September 20, 2001, 01:05:00 PM
-
In a parked M-16:
How easily could you kill a parked P-51 at 760 yards?
How easily could you kill a parked B-17 at 1320 yards?
What does this have to do with buff gun performance?
The 2 examples above illustrate the real-world energy difference between a B-17 exchanging fire with a P-51 at 1000 yards (6:00 chasing at 250 mph).
Why the difference? Get a A6M up to 300 mph, auto-pilot on and kill the engine. Watch the airspeed indicator needle drop like mad the instant you kill the engine. Now do the same thing at 200 mph. The needle still drops sharply, but not as fast (300 - 250 = 5 sec., 200 - 150 - 7 sec.). Faster moving objects have more air drag than slower moving ones, a lot more (drag is a function of the square of the speed, if I recall).
Imagine: A P-51 chasing a B-17 at 1000 yards, both planes are exchanging fire and are traveling at 250 mph.
The B-17 tail gun round:
When a 50 cal. bullet leaves the muzzle of the tail gun in a B-17, it actually has a slower airspeed than a 50 cal. bullet fired from a fixed ground fired gun (about 367 fps slower if the buff is flying at 250 mph). This means that it will lose speed and energy at a slower rate than the ground fired gun (even though it has less speed and energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle). It's target (the P-51), is actually moving toward the point in space from which the 50 cal. bullet was fired, so this round has less than 1000 yards to travel before colliding with the P-51. When it collides with the P-51, it instantly gains 367 fps to its speed and energy state (the speed of the P-51).
The Mustang round:
When a 50 cal. bullet leaves the muzzle of one of the P-51's guns, it is actually going faster than a 50 cal. bullet fired from a fixed ground fired gun (about 367 fps faster when the stang is flying at 250 mph). This means that it will lose speed and energy at a faster rate than the ground fired gun (because is has more speed and energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle). It's target (the B-17), is actually moving away from the point in space from which the 50 cal. bullet was fired, so this round has more than 1000 yards to travel before colliding with the B-17. When it collides with the B-17, it instantly loses 367 fps from its speed and energy state (the speed of the B-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual math:
250 mph is equal to 367 fps (the speed of the planes).
A 50 cal. round weighs 708 gr. and is moving 2845 fps, right out of the muzzle.
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.700
Drag Function: G1
I used the following link to crunch the numbers:
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html (http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj/traj.html)
The B-17 tail gun round:
Leaves the tail gun at 2478 fps (airspeed). 2845 fps (50 cal. muzzle velocity) - 367 fps (aircraft speed) = 2478 fps (true airspeed of the 50 cal. round)
The round travels 840 yards (before colliding with the P-51) in 1.284 sec and has a final velocity of 1558 fps.
1558 fps (the speed of the round just before impact) + 367 fps (the speed of the P-51) = 1925 fps (the true impact speed of the round). A 708 gr. round traveling at 1925 fps has 5800 foot pounds of energy.
The Mustang round:
Leaves the Mustang's gun at 3112 fps (airspeed). 2845 fps (50 cal. muzzle velocity) + 367 fps (aircraft speed) = 3212 fps (true airspeed of the 50 cal. round)
The round travels 1180 yards (before colliding with the B-17) in 1.497 sec and has a final velocity of 1750 fps.
1750 fps (the speed of the round just before impact) - 367 fps (the speed of the B-17) = 1383 fps (the true impact speed of the round). A 708 gr. round traveling at 1383 fps has 3010 foot pounds of energy.
So there you have it.
In the B-17 / P-51 chase example, the rounds hitting the B-17 have 3010 ft.# of E. and the rounds hitting the P-51 have 5800 ft.# of E.
By the way, a 50 cal. round fired from a fixed point (like a parked M-16) has 5800 ft# of E. at 760 yards. It drops down to 3010 ft.# of E. at 1320 yards.
That's why bombers' guns seem so powerful at longer ranges.
Back to my original statement:
In a parked M-16:
How easily could you kill a parked P-51 at 760 yards?
How easily could you kill a parked B-17 at 1320 yards?
The greater the distance between the buff and the fighter, the more exaggerated this effect becomes. At close ranges, however, the difference between the two practically go away.
To kill buffs with a fighter, you must get in close, WITHOUT GIVING THE BUFF GUNNER A GOOD SHOT AT YOU, before you have the firepower advantage.
There are many effective ways of doing this, but that is a whole new topic. :)
eskimo
-
U gotta be a mathematician to do all that calculating. LOL!
I got the point of what you are saying without thinking of a single number :D
But thanks anyway :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by eskimo2:
To kill buffs with a fighter, you must get in close, WITHOUT GIVING THE BUFF GUNNER A GOOD SHOT AT YOU, before you have the firepower advantage.
There are many effective ways of doing this, but that is a whole new topic. :)
eskimo
Awfully, hard to do when said buff is is at an altitude in excess of 28k. Actually damn near impossible.
But pretty easy to do under 25k :D
-
Nice work eskimo2.
-
:p
all what i can say, shoting with real heavy machine gun and what AH have is just ............................. to a\way what i can hit
and buff guns are shaking in real life !!!
even electric turets get vibrated like hell
about kinetic E states Eskimo2 your teory can work when bulets hit inaf hard component to transform kine E othervise all E are useles on aluminium parts :p
or ar they explode with aluminium contact ? :eek:
sory but realy dont like this kinda arguments,
-
are you claiming all of this is modeled in AH and therefore what we see is as such correct??
even though we know the effectiveness has been adjusted by HTC in order to help with netlag effects etc?
if you claim HTC has this 'all down' correctly and their math is spot on and this explains what we see then why did HTC have to change/adjust it to what they 'think' is more in the interest of the 'game'?
Im begining to suspect that no matter how good you programme a game and try to use data from old documents as templates things dont always work right, eventually it has to be adjusted to behave in a manner deemed fair by all or that the games behaviour matches the charts etc.I would put money on the p51 chasing the b17 winning in real life but in AH it favours the bomber just a bit too much.AH as a 'game' needs to promote bomber use but not at the expense of fighter pilots sense of immersion or fun.
I would prefer personally to HAVE to be carefull in bombers and need escorts.
Its how it was for gods sake :)
No bomber went into germany alone climbing at 140mph at 10-20k and expected to live.It seems those that fly in AH and are argueing against any adjustment are simply ignoring this fact.
I fly ju88s,I generally fly at 10k,I pick my targets, i try to organise a few others to come with me and ask for escorts.If no escorts? hell i'll go anyway and complain about the lack of help :p. If i end up going alone i sneak in or try alternative approach to target and hope.I DO NOT demand my poor bomber be fitted with extra gun effectiveness because the real weapons arent good enough.I as a bomber fan want to learn their strenghs and weaknesses and have to fly the same way they did in order to be effective(eg in formations).
seems to me any compromise for any of the 'UNITS' we have (gvs,fighters,buffs) that dont go down well with the majority should be looked into again.dont cry 'attack on all bomber pilots', i agree its wrong(bomber guns bit too good) and i fly bombers!.
P.s. just in case you start saying i have been demanding better guns on the ju88 this is true in that ive asked to see what is written in the books added(eg.1x13mm on ju88s) but i want the same ballistics as a fighters 13mm not extra range etc.If the ju88 didnt have them then fair enough i dont want them.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]
-
I don't know exactly how HTC has it modeled. But I know that they are pretty bright guys and I bet they probably haven't overlooked much. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it might be pretty close.
At 1000 yards and 250 mph, I would bet on the B-17. The real world ballistics also show the B-17 has the advantage. 6 x 3010 ft# of E VS. 4 x 5800 ft# of E.
That is my point.
My impression of how things would stack up before I did the math, was pretty much the same as to how the math actually came out.
As far as how AH models this, all that I or anyone (other than Hitech or Pyro) have are impressions based on our virtual experiences. My impression is: The buff guns in AH seem OK compared to RL ballistics.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by hazed-:
eventually it has to be adjusted to behave in a manner deemed fair by all
Ah, so now we adjust the game by vote? I want to speak out then for the C-202. It's a sexy looking airplane and I love the way the guns sound. I think it's a shame and very unfair that it's not real competitive in the arena. I'd like to have a vote on giving it about 500 more horsepower and another 2000 rounds of ammo without weight penalty. Thanks for your support!
Originally posted by hazed-:
No bomber went into germany alone climbing at 140mph at 10-20k and expected to live.
I don't know about going "in". However, I think I can point you to some mission reports where damaged bombers made it OUT all alone at these altitudes and speeds... with one or several enemy fighters harassing them all the way.
How did they do that, anyway?
"Dick was flying as Co-pilot with the "Eightball" crew. Bill Cabral was the Pilot. Just after dropping its bombs, the "Eightball" was hit by an aerial rocket from a Messerschmitt 110 on a frontal attack. The right wing was almost sheared off about 12 feet from the tip. The "Eightball" was forced to leave the formation. The aircraft appeared destined to go down. The right wing had lost its lift capability. The plane dove radically to the right. By using the trim tabs, excess left rudder and help from the Bombardier who with the pilots pulled on the control column, they were able to get the bomber headed home. The Luftwaffe continued their attack on the lone crippled Flying Fortress. It was not possible to do much evasive action. The pilots had to concentrate on keeping the plane on a reasonable keel and at a respectable altitude. In addition, they had to worry about fuel consumption. They still had about an hour and a half of flying to do before they would hit the coast of England. The drag of the right wing required additional power to be expended. This meant the use of more fuel than contemplated.
The German pilots immediately noted that the "Eightball" was out of formation. They made endless attacks. The American gunners kept their 50 calibers busy until the Germans left to apparently obtain more fuel. During this attack several of the Fort's guns ran dry. The gunners kept pointing their guns or moving their turrets to fool the attackers anyway. "
..and there's more like that one, if you do a little web searching.
-
the exception, toad, not the rule--thats like taking half a dozen phrases out of the bible and basing your entire doctrine on those phrases; because they suite your thinking.
i know i've logged many times because i was knifing a buff and a stray 50 clipped a wing.
-
Whirl, I'm not the one writing in absolutes here.
-
I put 10 rounds into a pursuing C.205 with the twin .50s on the Lanc.
By your guy's description he should have exploded.
You know what happened?
Nothing.
He pulled off and proceeded to do it cautiously. He got me in the end.
-
"I put 10 rounds into a pursuing C.205 with the twin .50s on the Lanc."
Your ammo counter shows you fired 10 rounds. How many do you KNOW hit? You don't.
Westy
-
Westy,
My ammo counter showed that I had fired more than 200 rounds.
I saw 8+ hit sprites.
-
In that case he should have at least suffered damage, imo.
Westy
-
Bump.
-
I was 205 (...I suppose!)!
First attack: I heard
two, three ping! No damage on my 205!
Second attack (with big help of another knight and displeasure of Karnak <S> ;)): I got the Lanc (Karnak) and Lanc got me!!!!
sorry for my english!
Zioo
p.s.: I didnt see tracers or mg lamps from Lanc during my second attack (lag!?)
-
Very interesting math eskimo, <S>!
About the buff's gun thing...
Just for a moment, imagine to be a gunner in a single position in your bomber.
You have to scan sky for approaching little dots (the frontal view of a me109 or fw190 is very little up there), listening the screams in the intercom...
"8 oc high!!"
you turn your turret using your "rudder" or turn the mg (if in hand position), and start the search for the little dot... It's there!!
OK, now elaborate the relative speed of target, the amount of "lag" and start shooting (WHERE IS THE F... ICON????)....
WROOOOM the con is out of your sight...
"3 oc high!!!"
start again :)
It's not the gun power that give better defense to AH gunners.
It's the range finder, the "one brain, one body" effect, and the external view.
Only this...
IMHO.
-
"and Lanc got me!!!!"
Odd. That part had been conveniently left out of Hazed's post.
Westy
-
A timely thread. Recently I've found fighters taking the following approach to shooting down my B-17.
He approaches at about 8 o'clock high and dives towards the tail of the 17. The tail guns can't bear on him except for a fraction and then he is below the 17. I then jump into the ball, but by the time I'm fiddling about trying to acquire him he's climbing again, now only about 400 yards away. By the time I've jumped back into the tail and acquired him, he's either crippled or killed my 17.
Any ideas as to how to counter this?
cheers
Ravs
-
IMO, the only way to avoid that kind of attack (and it is the way I like to tackle a buff as it works most times) is to fly with friendly escort or at least one other bomber.
Hey!
That's kind of realistic too huh? :)
Westy
-
I only like realism when it's on my side!
;)
Ravs
-
Ehm.. I was talking about the REAL gunner point of view.
They have'nt the God sight (ext view).
Nor the telepatic perfect coordination.
Nor the laser rangefinder.
With these differences we can defend a lot better our buff than them, with the same weapons.
Some solution I can suggest are:
- Reduce the turn ability while in turret, the higher you go the lesser you turn with rudders.
- External View only in pilot position
At 30k the buff must be a fat, heavy plane, with almost no turning ability without losing alt.
-
Bump
-
Eskimo,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you made numbers at sea level. Things would be different at altitude, since air is much thinner and drag less important. At 15000ft., air density is 63% of that at SL.
I tried to do the numbers myself, but can't manage to calculate the distance traveled by each round, as I don't have the acceleration (deceleration in this case) coefficient of the bullet.
Could you confirm this, pls?
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Pepe:
Very true.
The difference between the 2 projectiles energy states would be less significant at higher altitudes.
This is the info that I used (got it from Pyro):
A 50 cal. round weighs 708 gr. and is moving 2845 fps, right out of the muzzle.
Ballistic Coefficient: 0.700
Drag Function: G1
eskimo
-
Assuming the travel calculations are right (which, in any case, would favour the fastest bullet: i.ethe mustang's one, and I assume they are right because for a uniform movement anat given speeds the buff bullet would travel 871 yds.), and adjusting the calculations to respective alts. here are the numbers I got from that page:
5.000 ft.
Buff Round
- Muzzle Speed: 2478 ft/s
- Yards Travelled: 840
- Final Speed with regards to Mustang: (1670 + 367)=2037 ft/sec.
- Kinetic Energy: Aprox. 6500 ft/lb (interpolation between 2031.5 and 2041.1 ft/s)
Mustang Round
- Muzzle Speed: 3212 ft/s
- Yards Travelled: 1180
- Final Speed with regards to Buff: (1924 - 367)=1557 ft/sec.
- Kinetic Energy: Aprox. 3800 ft/lb
10.000 ft.
Buff Round
- Muzzle Speed: 2478 ft/s
- Yards Travelled: 840
- Final Speed with regards to Mustang: (1778 + 367)= 2175 ft/sec.
- Kinetic Energy: Aprox. 7450 ft/lb (interpolation between 2031.5 and 2041.1 ft/s)
Mustang Round
- Muzzle Speed: 3212 ft/s
- Yards Travelled: 1180
- Final Speed with regards to Buff: (2091 - 367)=1724 ft/sec.
- Kinetic Energy: Aprox. 4675 ft/lb
15.000 ft.
Buff Round
- Muzzle Speed: 2478 ft/s
- Yards Travelled: 840
- Final Speed with regards to Mustang: (1877 + 367)= 2244 ft/sec.
- Kinetic Energy: Aprox. 7925 ft/lb (interpolation between 2031.5 and 2041.1 ft/s)
Mustang Round
- Muzzle Speed: 3212 ft/s
- Yards Travelled: 1180
- Final Speed with regards to Buff: (2244 - 367)=1877 ft/sec.
- Kinetic Energy: Aprox. 5538 ft/lb
Resuming:
Relative E 5k 10k 15k
Mustang/Buff: 58.46% 62.75% 69.88%
These numbers do not take into consideration that the Mustang bullet would have a tighter trajectory (easier for lead aiming purposes)
This means that even assuming the worst scenario (dead 6, no transverse speed, AOT 0deg.) there is not such a huge advantage when alt is over 20k. I would venture that at 20k alt kinetic E of Mustang round is about 80% of Buff round, and 25k I would say over 90%, as the relative energy curve is convexe, asinthotic in 100%
When firing from the hi front hemisphere, the advantage (in terms of range and Kinetic Energy) is always on the side of the Mustang.
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Good work Pepe!
<S>
eskimo
-
ok if I am passing a bomber from nose to tail and as I pass the tail I am flying at 400mph away from the bomber do the same numbers apply? :)
S!
Rocket
-
Sure Rocket,
Remember for every:
100 mph = 146.66 FPS = 49 YPS
eskimo
-
A stable platform (tail gunner) vs. a non-stable platform (P51 chasing) helps too.
A nice test would be someone flying a B17 and someone flying a P51. The P51 settles in on the 17s direct 6 at d1. Both planes go alt-x and fly level. Same speed, or maybe even P51 closing in. Both planes open fire. Then test at d500. Will the multiple .50s from the P51 cause more damage than the tail gunner? Who would win?
[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Fury ]
-
Bumped for the "Buff's- THEY SUCK" thread.
eskimo
-
Correct me if I am wrong:
Guns on buffs have a greater effective rnage than guns on fighters. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 yrds.
Most (if not all?) Projectiles in AH are not modeled from initial firing to eventual impact? In other words: In reality, if you pointed a gun straight up and fired a projectile, that projectile would eventually fall back to terra firma. In AH rounds travel a given distance then cease to exist.
Guns on buffs (and mannable field ack among others) do not have dispertion. I havent seen dispertion when firing from a buff gunners position and when I am manning a field gun all rounds travel perfectly along any given path to impact (or ceasation). Grab on osti and fire at a GV 1000 yrds away and notice how the rounds hit in a random manner upon the impact area then go to a manned field gun position and fire at same target. Every round will impact at exactly the same point if the aim is not disturbed.
In buffs the lethality is increased in this manner.
I guess my point is that because the lethality in AH is so high, giving buffs and fighters equall ballistics doesnt work well at all. Thats why buff guns are superior, to offset the total easy with which buffs can be taken, if you survive the ingress to firing range that is. I seem to remember when this took effect back in beta.
I think it was B26s (not sure) that were just getting creamed so HTC extended the lethal range in buffs guns to offest.
Again, if AH had a reduced lethality, imo a more realistic lethality, folks could tangle it up alot better, ACM would be far more interesting and important. Damage would play a far more powerful role and skill at engaging and firing at guns solution would be more important. As it is, get in there, get a few hits and kaboom! Dead. I know this is a gameplay issue, alot of folks would get frustrated and not pay to play if lethality was more plausible. Thusly, get in there, do halfway decent and kill kill kill hehe ;)
Just my observations.
Y
-
From the "Buff's- THEY SUCK" thread. (In Gameplay):
Originally posted by hitech
Buff 50's or any other rounds do NOT have longer range or lethality than there fighter counter parts.
HiTech
-
Just so my statement is not miss understood, the effect eskimo describes happens in AH.
-
Test
-
My recollection is corrected!
But my recollection remains...........
Anyhoo...its not a vibrant issue to me personally. I like the challenge of buffing when the mood strikes me.
Y
-
Originally posted by ravells
I only like realism when it's on my side!
;)
Ravs
AMEN BROTHER!:D
-
Whethter your plane is hit by a round with 2000ft/sec or 1000ft/sec is not so important imo, especially with an AP round. In both cases it will pass through the structure, if no armor is present. In both cases the AP round will leave a little hole, and kinetic energy is not completly - maybe only to a minor part - transfered into damage.
niklas
-
Interesting Eskimo, if not a bit confusing to casual players without any math skills. I fit the latter unfortunatley well.
However, I still can make a viable opinion on the subject from what I have seem to have a "feel" for online, regarding the buff guns, namely the B26 and most definate, the B17. They just seem as out of wack as much as the osti does not having a killable gunner. Whatever the gameplay reason, I'm going with the technical explanation that it IS actually modelled realistic. Or is it? That what your saying here, right?
Although i don't understand the lot of it, it's better than just whining i guess. I'm still in the camp that the buff guns aren't a result of ballistics compared to other .50 equiped planes in the same sense. I just don't see that, I see gameplay adjusted models, but have vented, and it actually made a enlightning discussion.
Now if we could only get HiTech to explain it in detail and put it to rest. Or just agree with your post explaination, that would suffice.
-
Well the fact remains still that if buff guns would have been as leathal as they are in this game, no 190 or 109 pilot would have lived to tell from the encounter of 100 B-17 formations.
Stories of 190's approaching from the 6, taking fire from buffs, moving to kill the gunners to get peace to work with the engines..
That kind of approach would get the 190 killed instantly. Buff gunners are extremely hard to kill in the game, I can't remember when I would have killed the tailgunner with a shot to the tail.
First hit ping from a B17 usually means some part missing from the plane..
So maybe the armoured planes here are not as strong as they should be compared to the hitting power of the accurately modelled .50's.
-
Good point, and can gunners actually be disabled? That would counter the "Realistic" (add super math code methodolagy formula's here) buff guns.
I don't think so. Back to wondering about gameplay priority code that makes it all so loving confusing.
-
Buff gun positions can be killed.
-
Yes they can be killed, but they very rarely do even if you smash the tail of a buff with 20mm.
IRL gunners were pretty vulnerable and they were targeted first when attacking a buff. After the gunners were dead, the fighter could start taking off engines one by one from 100 yards or less distance.
One interesting point was in the story I read - propwash..
AH does not model propwash of any kind. It seems that the fighters aim could be severely affected by the buffs propwash if he flew through it..
-
well... to answer the original question... If the question is a question of energy rather than accuracy or toughness... It would be easy to kill a Muatang with an API fifty round at either range.. parked on the runway or in the air. When you are talking about the neighborhood of 5,000 lbs of remaining energy it is a lot of energy. The thin skin on a fluff won't notice nor will anyone hit by a .50 700 grain projectile with 3-5000 lbs of energy. To compare.... My .44 magnum revolver round has about 1000 lbs of energy... point blank at the muzzle, with hot loads. Of course, an attack from the side or front or down should still give the advantage to the Mustang.
The problem is that all the fluff guns are slaved to one guy so there is no "dispertion". Every one of em is psychically linked and they are firing through their plane at times. I also don't see the crew dieing... even a dozen or so bullets through the fuselage should take out the crew who are completely helpless with nothing but thin alum. to "protect" them. The fluff pilots of course have armour but so does the 51 pilot.
From ded six at 1000 yards at low alt there is a significant difference but there is a lot more wrong with fluff gunnery than a little energy from one position.
lazs
-
Both the Germans and the Japanese used head-on attacks against the B-17 and B-24 whenever possible. In addition, some German pilots favored an overhead pass from the high 12 o'clock position with the cockpit and wing tanks as the main target.
The added velocity of the .50 caliber guns of the buffs being discussed in the above posts, even if it made any real difference, would only be realized by the tail guns. The nose guns on the buffs would suffer the same effects of the six .50s of the P-51D firing from the 6 0'clock position. German fighters, whether one is discussing the 109 or 190, were armed with MG-151/20mm cannon whose muzzle velocity was equal to that of the .50 caliber machine gun but which had much greater destructive power. In a one-on-one encounter the fighter held most of the high cards.
-
Originally posted by eskimo2
The B-17 tail gun round:
When a 50 cal. bullet leaves the muzzle of the tail gun in a B-17, it actually has a slower airspeed than a 50 cal. bullet fired from a fixed ground fired gun (about 367 fps slower if the buff is flying at 250 mph). This means that it will lose speed and energy at a slower rate than the ground fired gun (even though it has less speed and energy as soon as it leaves the muzzle). It's target (the P-51), is actually moving toward the point in space from which the 50 cal. bullet was fired, so this round has less than 1000 yards to travel before colliding with the P-51. When it collides with the P-51, it instantly gains 367 fps to its speed and energy state (the speed of the P-51).
Er, your entire premise is flawed. There is no change in muzzle velocity whatsoever due to the movement of aircraft. Muzzle velocity is a function of the weapon only. Moreover, if both aircraft are flying at the same speed, their relative velocity is the same. I believe that you have misunderstood the physics of the issue. If the P-51 was flying at a speed 200 mph faster than the B-17, you can add that velocity difference into the total energy equation. But, at the same relative velocity, there is no difference. Everything is relative.
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing
-
Widewing think about the speed of the bullet realitive to both the air and the gun.
HiTech
-
Widewing, imagine two pickup trucks traveling 65 mph on a highway, one about 100 feet ahead of the other. In the back of each truck is a man throwing baseballs at the other truck. I think you can see how the man in the front truck has an easier throw.
-
Originally posted by Dux
Widewing, imagine two pickup trucks traveling 65 mph on a highway, one about 100 feet ahead of the other. In the back of each truck is a man throwing baseballs at the other truck. I think you can see how the man in the front truck has an easier throw.
Exactly.
Assume they each could pitch at 65 mph.
The ball pitched from the guy in the front truck (pitching backwards) would have an airspeed of 0.
The ball pitched from the guy in the back truck (pitching forwards) would have an airspeed of 130.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by hitech
Widewing think about the speed of the bullet realitive to both the air and the gun.
HiTech
Well, it certainly helped reading the entire post, rather than stopping after the first paragraph.
Of course, since both aircraft are moving in a fluid, aerodynamic effects relate directly to the speed relative to that fluid. So, yes, I agree with the conclusions. Nonetheless, what got my attention was the misuse of terms. "Muzzle velocity" is still uneffected by speed within the fluid. Bullets still emerge from the muzzle at the same velocity, regardless of speed within the fluid. However, relative velocity, relative to the second aircraft, is effectively reduced.
Again, I apologize for not reading further into the post where the intent of meaning becomes clear.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You're missing it, Eskimo... how much air-induced drag would that theoretical 0-mph ball have? Almost none. The truck in back is driving into the rearwards-thrown ball at a speed of 65... that's a closing speed of 65 mph.
Now the ball being thrown forward... sure, it's initial airspeed is higher, but with that comes a much higher level of drag, and with drag comes a level of ballistic "wandering" (for lack of a better term at the moment). All the while the truck in front is moving away from the ball coming in from behind.
So when it comes to plane in front vs. plane in back... the bullets from the rear plane lose alot more energy in its travels.
front plane = same muzzle velocity + minimal decrease in energy
back plane = same muzzle velocity + greater decrease in energy
lol, it would be so easy if I could draw a picture :)
-
Widewing,
No problem. I can see how it could be read that way.
Dux,
We're really talking about the same thing.
eskimo
-
lol, Eskimo, I think I just confused myself. I'm sure we are talking about the same thing.
Never mind!
:)
-
I think I just confused myself
My normal mode ot thinking.
-
Wait...?
What were we talking about?
I'm surly confused, but I can't figure out who confused me...
LOL :)
eskimo
-
nice post eskimo2!
how do you manage anything with this measurment system i don't know... there is the MKS or CGS system you know :)
writen by niklas:
Whethter your plane is hit by a round with 2000ft/sec or 1000ft/sec is not so important imo, especially with an AP round. In both cases it will pass through the structure, if no armor is present. In both cases the AP round will leave a little hole, and kinetic energy is not completly - maybe only to a minor part - transfered into damage.
the damage done by a bullet is not the size of a hole it leaves. those bullets that hit nothing but aluminium do no significant damage. to do the damage they need to hit critical systems or the structure beams for causing structural failure. then the energy matters a lot. also the weight of the bullet is significat factor since a heavy bullet will transfer more energy to a hard target (do to better momentum for the same energy) than a lighter bullet wich will just bounce of it. this is why 0.5 bullets break planes and 0.3 bullets turnes them into a fishing net.
Bozon
-
BTW what was the convergency settings on the 'buff' and the 'P-51' ?
With convergency set at 650 (so the longest possible in AH) the 'buff' will hit the 'P-51' almost at convergency (also the buff's gun barrels are much closer to one another than on the wing mounts of the P-51) so the hits will be more tightly packed in closer area. At the other hand the P-51 burst will cross-over at the 650 mark but it has to travel longer distance but the hits will be much more separated... ? I don't know... I always hated mathematics and stuff... But shouldnt this be considered as a factor in this discussion as well? :confused:
Just my $0.02 ;)
-
Bumped for the "Shooting" thread.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Westy,
My ammo counter showed that I had fired more than 200 rounds.
I saw 8+ hit sprites.
Gotta remember you can put 1000 rounds into something and still not destroy it. If you dont hit anything vital dont expect it to pop.
Its not so much IF you hit it but WHERE you hit it.
And just cause it didnt pop or smoke doesnt mean you didnt damage it.
Drediock