Author Topic: Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality  (Read 5496 times)

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #75 on: March 31, 2000, 05:08:00 PM »
 
Quote
Also... The F-16 uses depleted uranium core shells in those 20mm's!

Are you sure about this?  I'll have to do some checking.  The only plane I know that was carrying this was the A-10 in its 30mm cannon.

I suppose that since the F-16 was supposed to take over its tank busting role, they may have looked at depleted uranium bullets for the 16... but I doubt it was ever considered for A2A armament.

AKDejaVu

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #76 on: March 31, 2000, 05:16:00 PM »
Just did some checking.  Found a rather nice source on this:

F-16 M61A1

Doesn't seem that Depleted uranium was used.  It would, however, seem that the millitary would have looked at it at some point.  I just can't imagine they'd not experiment with increasing the F-16's role and possibly eliminating the need for the A-10 (something the AF has been trying to do for some time).  I think that after Iraq, the A-10 may have proven itself to be just too exceptional at what it does to be replaced by a multi-role fighter.

AKDejaVu

funked

  • Guest
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #77 on: March 31, 2000, 07:53:00 PM »
Tern,

Most of the fighters carry 1000 or 1200 rounds I think.

Also isn't the rate of fire 6000 rpm for aircraft installations?  Or do they have selectable fire.

My father commanded a US Army AAA platoon around 1970 and they used an M-113 chassis with a Vulcan and radar.  He says their weapons were 3000 rpm but the airplanes were 6000 rpm.  Dunno if he's right, but he's fired the gun extensively and field stripped it, etc.  We still have the manuals and some ammo around the house somewhere...  

funked

  • Guest
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #78 on: March 31, 2000, 08:12:00 PM »
Pongo, the Hispano fired a heavier round at a higher velocity than the MG 151/20.  Both the muzzle velocity and the mass difference are significant enough to explain the differences we see here in the sim.  

Muzzle kinetic energy is about 75% greater for the Hispano.  Furthermore the higher ratio of mass to cross-sectional area (and thus drag because the projectile shapes are similar) gives the Hispano round better downrange performance.  The Hispano round starts with nearly twice the kinetic energy of a MG 151/20 round and it will retain this energy at longer ranges than the MG 151.

Pyro's picture is a good visual aid - the case and projectile of the Hispano round are significantly larger.  Also if you have ever seen the two guns next to eachother on a rack, the Hispano is a monster with a much longer barrel.

In comparing both the guns and the ammo, it's like comparing an M-1 Garand to an M-1 Carbine.  I'm suprised somebody with as much firearms experience as yourself doesn't see this.

The only things going for the MG 151/20 in this comparison are the compact size, and the reliability imparted by the electric firing system.  Also I have read good things about the ammo feed systems used in MG 151/20 installations.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-31-2000).]

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #79 on: April 01, 2000, 01:10:00 AM »
You needent be suprised, I am not burdend by an extensive education so I get to pretty much go by gut feel.
Like I said before. If I was hunting tanks I or straffing lighters I would definatly want the hisp. In ACM the penetration advatage that that kinetic energy gives you is wasted. Much of the long range trajectory advantage it gives you is wasted as well. The system is only as accurate as its weakest system, and given weather, lighting, recoil, manufacturing imperfections gunnery at the ranges that would take advantage of that extra velocity would be imposible with ww2 systems against fighter sized targets.

------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew

[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 04-01-2000).]

funked

  • Guest
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2000, 04:34:00 AM »
Pongo I probably shouldn't have put your name at the front of my last post.  

Your last statement makes sense.  I agree on all points.

I forgot rate of fire in my post - only the later Hispano models (Mark V?) could match the ROF of an unsynchronized MG 151/20.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-01-2000).]

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #81 on: April 01, 2000, 11:22:00 AM »
I guess I think that HTC has the numbers for the M2 and the 151 exactly right. But is there a chance that their algorithm for resolving gunfire unrealisticaly inflates the effect of those numbers..
Only they can decide.

------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew

CANNON

  • Guest
Machine Guns versus Cannons, Relative Lethality
« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2000, 12:42:00 PM »
 last night I shot up a spit at the merge. He just smoked. OK. Im use to the rubber bullits at this point. I put the 1c into a dive figuring if I cant kill him the ack will. He follows. at 2k i start turning in the ack. he follows. Im watching him get pinged the whole time. When im two slow to keep the plane up. I level, and start flyingback and fort through the ack 2 more times. Spit is following me the whole time. Than in frustration i ditch to see what happens. The spit ditch,s. BTW he sprayed me at least 5 times. I have no damage.

 These real world ballistic,s mean next to nothing, in a world where connection seems to be everything.