Author Topic: Analysis of Aircraft Guns  (Read 441 times)

Offline scJazz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« on: September 25, 2003, 01:31:07 PM »
I've been curious for some time about the object damaging qualities of the different guns in AH. While I have heard things mentioned from time to time on this subject I have never seen an actual study. How much damage does a 20mm round cause? How much for a .50 round? How many bullets equal a 1000lb bomb? This sort of thing. Today I conducted a test. What follows is the test setup. Results and analysis of the weapons onboard the F4U-1C, N1K2-J, and P47-D30. Results of the total effective payload (guns plus maximum ordnance) of the respective aircraft. Possible errors in the test caused by range, poor gunnery, more rounds being fired than necessary, etc.

The test was conducted Offline on the Baltic map. Damage multiplier was set to 1.0, the default. Fighter Hanger and Bomber Hanger objects were set to values of .500, 500lbs of damage resistance. Each of the 3 test aircraft was launched from A43 and flew to A42 to conduct the tests. All AAA at A42 was destroyed using the destroy command prior to the planes arrival. This was done to prevent the AAA from interfering. Each of the Fighter and Bomber Hanger objects on A42 were restored prior to the test sequence for the aircraft. The guns of all aircraft were fired in controlled bursts of roughly .15 seconds to .75 seconds (quick tap or sustained burst). All passes were made at approximately 600 yards maximum closing to near point blank range. A different number of samples were gathered for each aircraft depending on available ammo supply. Before firing on a hanger the current ammo level was noted. After each hanger was destroyed the current ammo level was again noted. Each hanger was fired on individually; at no time was there more than 1 damaged hanger on the field. Each hanger was destroyed well before the 15-minute damage timer could expire.

F4U-1C
Gun Type: 20mm M2
Ammo Load: 924 rounds

                Rnds Req     Avg Dam in lbs
Hanger 1 163      3.07
Hanger 2 125      4              
Hanger 3 125      4
Hanger 4 132      3.79
Hanger 5 128      3.91

N1K2-J
Gun Type: 20mm Type 99 Model 2
Ammo Load: 900 rounds

                Rnds Req     Avg Dam in lbs
Hanger 1 133      3.76
Hanger 2 135      3.70            
Hanger 3 141      3.55
Hanger 4 137      3.65
Hanger 5 143      3.50
Hanger 6 139      3.60

P47-D30
Gun Type: .50 M2
Ammo Load: 3400 rounds

                Rnds Req     Avg Dam in lbs
Hanger 1 474      1.05
Hanger 2 475      1.05
Hanger 3 435      1.15
Hanger 4 507      0.99
Hanger 5 439      1.14
Hanger 6 469      1.07
Hanger 7 429      1.17

From the above tables the following conclusions and comments can be made regarding effective damage in pounds of each of the aircraft mounted guns.

1) I was surprised by how few rounds were required on the first sample with the F4U-1C. Since this was also the very first sample in the entire test sequence and since the results are so at odds with the other samples in the F4U-1C sequence it can be discounted.

2) Hanger kills 2 and 3 in the F4U-1C both required the same exact number of rounds, 125. This can be considered a near perfect result and validates the overall testing method. Please note that in these two tests the actual range to the target as each round was fired varied and hence the following comment is validated.

3) In previous posts to the BB at large it has been stated that cannon rounds have a fixed or near fixed damage level. This was stated to be an effect related to cannon rounds inflicting their damage based on the explosive quality of the shell rather than kinetic energy. Conversely, it has been stated that machine gun rounds inflict damage based solely on kinetic energy and therefore inflicts a variable amount of damage based on the range to the target. My apologies for not being able to refer to a specific post(s).

4) In several test sequences more rounds were fired than was necessary to destroy a hanger. The root cause of this was the firing of a short burst at a hanger that was already very close to the 500lb damage limit. This, along with the fact that a single round could not be fired individually causes the variation in the results shown in the tables.

5) Slight mistakes in gunnery did occur during the test. In some runs on the hangers a very small number of rounds actually missed the target. I was as meticulous as possible in my gunnery yet people can and do make mistakes. Of the 4629 rounds fired during this test I can safely state that not more than 2% or 90 rounds actually missed. I can further state that I believe that the level of error is much smaller probably on the order of 0.75% or perhaps 30 rounds. (only saw misses on 3 passes, 1 for each aircraft)

6) Based on the tables, observation, and comments the following values have been generated for each of the aircraft mounted guns on the aircraft.

20mm M2 damage per round is 4 lbs.
.50 M2 damage per round is 1 lb @ approximately 500 yards.
20mm Type 99 Model 2 damage per round is 3.75 lbs.

Conclusion: Effective Gun and Maximum Ordnance Payload

F4U-1C
Gun Payload: 3696 lbs
Ord Payload: 2624 lbs*
Total Effective Payload: 6320 lbs

N1K2-J
Gun Payload: 3375 lbs
Ord Payload: 1100 lbs
Total Effective Payload: 4475 lbs

P47-D30
Gun Payload: 3400 lbs @ 500 yards
Ord Payload: 4060 lbs*
Total Effective Payload: 7460 lbs

* rockets considered to be 156 lbs each based on previous posts to this board.

I invite any and all constructive criticism of this test, its' methods, and conclusions and hope to continue testing all other weaponry available in AH.

Thank you,
« Last Edit: September 25, 2003, 01:40:07 PM by scJazz »

Offline scJazz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2003, 01:46:47 PM »
This post is a copy of a post in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum. Obviously it relates to the conversation regarding the availability of the F4U-1C in the Okinawa setup. Please keep comments constructive.

As can be seen from the above post the F4U-1C is actually less effective in the JABO/Field Pork role as the P47-D30. I therefore propose its' inclusion.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2003, 02:10:45 PM »
The best way to do tests for ammo effectiveness against objects is to land and drive up to a hanger after destroying the ack. Then you can easily count rounds with no error..

Ofcourse the d30 carries more ord but it has other factors that make it less "desireable" then the hog. Like accelleration, compressability etc......

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2003, 10:42:01 AM »
It deserves more to be said, but for a start,
Nice Job!

eskimo

Offline scJazz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2003, 02:47:03 PM »
Eskimo, more on this subject can be found in the Aircraft and Vehicles forum. Comments from Brady, Soda, Batz, others and even the man himself HiTech are all in there.

I'm currently following up on Batz's comment that Whels and Fork already did such a study. If I can run the information down I will summarize and repost it with credit. If I can't I will continue the process already begun. As for why I even started it at all...

Some will say it is just because I want to see the F4U-1C in Okinawa. Such persons would not be correct since I think the Hog in any of its' variants is an incredibly worthless airframe (see comments made previously). Mainly I've been thinking about this subject for several months. The plan for executing the test was something I laid out back in June. The whole F4U-1C arguement caused me to have another reason for actually doing it aside from idle curiosity.

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2003, 03:17:13 PM »
I didnt say whels and fork did lethality studies, I said they did deck speeds and accelleration.

Lethality studies are for the most part they are useless except for the dedicated jabo guy so he knows how much each plane in his mission can kill.

Theres no "damage model" for the ground objects. Each round = x lbs of damage. Once you get enough lbs on target  the object "dies".

All these studies will tell you is the approximate value in lbs per round type. In the ct object hardness gets adjusted regularly. So I dont think many guys will bother to calculate in their head how many 50s it will take to kill a hanger set at 4k lbs.

In the main hardness is constant, ht mentioned a while back he was going to require around 3k per hanger but its still at 2500 last I checked.

But you need to acount for things like "rate of fire". So if a hanger at 4k take 400 50s or 300 type 99s they 50s may get more rounds on the hanger faster and kill it in one pass where the type 99 plane needs to fly round again.

I said the guys who did the lethality studies no longer play ah and I dont have info on every round. I did but I deleted it a while back and only kept the lw stuff. I will never fly us crap so I didnt bother keeping it.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2003, 03:19:33 PM by Batz »

Offline scJazz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 339
Analysis of Aircraft Guns
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2003, 05:58:28 PM »
Ahhh sorry misunderstood the lethality information from Whels thing. My bad.

Rate of Fire is another incredibly important item on the list I agree. I'll cover that one too as time allows. Last on this list is range. For instance...

The range of the GV mounted .50 M2 is 1.7k/1700 yards/5100 feet.

The range of the 37mm gun on the Ostwind is 2.7K/2700 yards/8100 feet.

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Well, I for one...
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2003, 12:01:47 PM »
Thank you for this information.  I will use it, since I am one of those "dedicated jabo guys" batz is talking about.