PDA

View Full Version : Hispano 20MM vs MG151/20



JG7_Rall
03-18-2004, 08:20 PM
S!

First off, lower the flamethrowers. This isn't a whine!!

Ok, now for my real question. The spitfire with two Hispano cannons is devistatingly effective. But I'm convinced that two MG151/20's in the same arrangement would not be nearly as effective, which leads to my question. What made the Hispano so much better in real life than the MG151/20?

Thanks in advance, and honest question, not a whine!

S!

Hutch

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/Typhoon_Target_resized_copy.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
When in doubt, climb!

JG7_Rall
03-18-2004, 08:20 PM
S!

First off, lower the flamethrowers. This isn't a whine!!

Ok, now for my real question. The spitfire with two Hispano cannons is devistatingly effective. But I'm convinced that two MG151/20's in the same arrangement would not be nearly as effective, which leads to my question. What made the Hispano so much better in real life than the MG151/20?

Thanks in advance, and honest question, not a whine!

S!

Hutch

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/Typhoon_Target_resized_copy.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
When in doubt, climb!

kweassa
03-18-2004, 08:47 PM
Accuracy, muzzle velocity, and destructive power.

biggs222
03-18-2004, 09:02 PM
yep muzzle velocity is better

VW-IceFire
03-18-2004, 09:59 PM
Muzzle velocity and sheer kinetic punch. I think the German explosives were quite a bit better but the Hispano was also a bit heavier too. So a heavier gun firing at higher velocities with less rapid fire rate. The two are somewhat evenly matched...the Hispano for sheer destructive power and the MG151/20 for its more rapid fire rate.

I'd go here to really find some neat stuff out about cannons: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

Now the Mark V Hispano (equipped on Tempest V Series 2 - the most common version) is probably the most destructive WWII 20mm cannon.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

ElfunkoI
03-18-2004, 10:10 PM
Really I think the Mg151/20 should be more destructive when in comes to HE and Mine rounds. IIRC they have much more explosive. The Hispano has better mV though.

"A6?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Will be A6!"

WWMaxGunz
03-18-2004, 10:23 PM
Don't know actual rates of fire.
Spitfire 20's are not synchronized,
so they can run at full ROF.


MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG

APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 07:03 AM
A handy link on WW2 weapons, gents.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-19-2004, 07:09 AM
Any idea why the weapons table (up there) lists it as Hispano-Suiza MK.1. Which aircraft carried a Mark 1?

All Spitfires, Typhoons, and other Hispano equipped fighters used the Mark 2. The US M3 20mm is essentially a Mark 2 as well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

LEXX_Luthor
03-19-2004, 07:14 AM
Fb109G hub cannon not prop sync either I would guess.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Abbuzze
03-19-2004, 08:12 AM
the german MG Minengeschoss/ HE Ammo dont take it destructive power from the muzzle velocity!
When it hit the target the explosion produces a airpressure/gas which blow away the surface of a wing or the fuselage.
Later versions of this ammo had a kind of delayfuse, make them explode inside the structure of the plane...

this is a 20mm hit from a HE fired by an old MGFF:


Without delay
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/MGFFwoDelay.jpg

With delay http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/MGFFwDelay.jpg

Hmm, sometimes I think the MG151 is a bit undermodelld in FB.. :/

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 08:14 AM
As you can see in Table 1, the 20x110 round (Hispano) has a larger cartridge.

The weight of the Hispano round is 257, compared to 205/183 for the MG-151/20, which is 20x82.

Muzzle velocity is quite a big higher, 860 m/sec for the MK II compared to 720/720/800 for the different rounds of the MG-151/20.

The projectile weight is slightly heavier for the Hispano (in grams)

Now the big kicker here is the HE content. The MG-151/20 listed here fired 3 different rounds, API, HET, and HE(M). That would be Armor Piercing, high explosive tracer, and high explosive minengeschoss.

Note the % of HE content in the minengeschoss round compared to the API and HET. 22%! Compared to 3.1 and 3.2 % of the other rounds.

Meanwhile, the HE content of the standard Hispano round is 8%, over twice as much as the API/HET of the MG-151/20, but almost 3 times less than the HE Minengeschoss rounds.

The next factor is rate of fire, with the Hispano II timing in at 10 rounds a second and the MG-151/20 coming in at 12 rounds a second.

The improved Hispano MKV catches up and slightly exceedes the MG-151/20 in rate of fire at 12.5 rounds a second.

Looking at all this data proves the point. The Hispano was a larger cannon, firing a larger/heavier round, at higher speeds. The average HE content of the rounds was over twice as much as 3/5th's of the rounds coming out of the MG-151/20, where the german Minengeschoss packs nearly 3x the HE content of the Hispano's round.

This explains people having a better overall experience with the Hispano when it comes to firepower. The round HE content is static as only one type is used, and it has excellent speed.

This also explains why sometimes people think the MG-151/20 is underperforming. The minengeschoss round is the haymaker punch, but it is my understanding that they were only 2 of every 5 rounds. If someone could confirm this for sure, I'd appreciate it.

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

p1ngu666
03-19-2004, 08:23 AM
ud need api for those pesky il2s i guess http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Abbuzze
03-19-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:

The minengeschoss round is the haymaker punch, but it is my understanding that they were only 2 of every 5 rounds. If someone could confirm this for sure, I'd appreciate it.

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the HE was only used 2/5 of the ammo, cause even the other kinds of ammos are usefull in real live too, in FB a AP shell just pearce the fuselage, in a real plane there is a radio, electicity... lot of important things which can be damadged. Thats the point... What will a AP bullet do in FB fired from straight 6? Quite often not much, but in real life... it will nearly go through the whole fuselage and will be stopped (if the pilot has some luck) at the reararmour of the seat, if not- the AP shell will... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif no need for another HE...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Flamin_Squirrel
03-19-2004, 08:36 AM
All true Gunner, cept when you hit with the minengeschoss round it does sfa anyway. After all, its German http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 08:39 AM
Roger that Abbuzze. It is the limitation of the game, as complex and cool as it is, doesn't have everything modeled in when it comes to a damaged plane in real life (Probably would be very taxing on home PC if so)

Wait till Battle of Britain. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Did you see the complexity of some of the models they make? It will be awesome. Probably by then a good time to upgrade the PC though, hehehe http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Kurfurst__
03-19-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:

Looking at all this data proves the point. The Hispano was a larger cannon, firing a larger/heavier round, at higher speeds. The average HE content of the rounds was over twice as much as 3/5th's of the rounds coming out of the MG-151/20, where the german Minengeschoss packs nearly 3x the HE content of the Hispano's round.

This explains people having a better overall experience with the Hispano when it comes to firepower. The round HE content is static as only one type is used, and it has excellent speed.

This also explains why sometimes people think the MG-151/20 is underperforming. The minengeschoss round is the haymaker punch, but it is my understanding that they were only 2 of every 5 rounds. If someone could confirm this for sure, I'd appreciate it.

~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You have good points, but it`s actually a bit more complex.

First, the correction. The Hispano HEI shells are listed here as containing 12 gram of explosives. That`s only half correct, and may be the cause for the Hispano`s experienced performance in Il-2.

Real life HEI shells did contain 12 gram of load indeed - but only some 7 gram of that was actually explosives, the rest - incendiary material. They were mixed purpose shells. It may be that Oleg modelled the whole as an explosive fill..

Next, quality of explosives. The Hispano`s 7 gram was Tetryl, a powerful explosive type, but still falling behind of the MinengeschoB`s "HA-41", basically made up by the much more powerful Nitropenta. Trauzl etc. test give it as about 25% more powerful as Tetryl, creating more gas volume upon explosion, burning at many hundreds higher Celsius temperature as tetryl, freeing up more energy per mass.. But tetryl is safer to be used.

The MG 151/20`s MG rounds contained 18.6 gram of it. That`s about 2.5x times more mass than in the Hispano HEI shell, adding the quality factor in - about 3.25 times the equivalent explosive power.

The MG 151/20`s "normal" HEI-T rounds were similiar to the Hispano`s, being mixed shell types, containing both explosives and inc. material : 2.3gram Nitropenta + 2.1 gram Elekrto-Thermit (inc. material). They were really more like inc. shells, with thick walls, adding fiery fragments between the blasts from Mine shells, also filled with tracer material. Explosive load was not significant - really they were supplementary type to add useful things like fragments, tracers, incendiaries to the hits.

Hispano and Mauser APIs will be dealt as equals here for simplicity. But IRL there was no big difference between them, neither carried explosive filling, just some inc. material.

Next thing, belt composition. Pretty simple for the Hispano 50-50% API and HEI.

MG 151 is more complex. Here in Il-2 the 1xAPI, 2xHEI, and 2xMG mix is used. However, according to D.(Luft) 5001, this composition was to be used vs heavy bombers (with the increased incendinary effect giving better results), but against ALL other targets, the proportion of MG rounds was to be increased as :

API - HEI - MG - MG - MG, or 60% being made up by Mine shells instead of 40%.


This brings up the question for rate of fire. Values for the Hispano Mk II are solid - 600 rounds per min or 10 rounds per second.

The Mauser is another matter. So far the only breakdown for shells ROF I found in US description - 750/min for MG shells, and 800/min for API and HEI. Muzzle velocities show the opposite trend, 710-750-800m/sec.
It is not to be confused with the MG 151/15 with higher MV but lower ROF.

That would give the a weighted avarage of 770-780/min. Say 775/min, or 12.91/sec

Thus, a 1 second volley would give from the Hispano 5 HEI shells = 35 gram tetryl explosives.
From MG 151 ingame/antiviermot belt would give, on avarage, 5.2 MG rounds = 96 grams of nitropentra, plus 5.2 HEI rounds = another 12 gram of Nitropenta, for a total of 108 gram per second delivered.
I case of the belt combination to be used vs. all targets except 4 engined bombers, which in fact was most likely more common used on the EF, this changes to 7.75 MG shells = 144 gram NP, plus 2.6 HEI-T shells = further 6 grams, total 150 grams of Nitropenta.

Add the 1.25 quality modifier for the more powerful explosive type used - and you see that in comparable numbers,

the Hispano Mk II delivers 35 gram,
the Mauser 135 gram or more frequently, 188 gram of tetryl equivalent weight explosives.
That`s 3.9 to 5.35 times more explosive power delivered by the Mauser on the whole. A huge difference.

The question of relevant Kinetic-E and Chemcial-E damage potential remains. The answer is quite simple, and supported by literally dozens of tests, CE is a lot more important factor. German studies of this question showed that German explosive mixtures deliver as much as 350-400 000 mkg/kg (avarage 375 000) of explosives into the target. Mkg is often used in such ballistic calculations, 1 mkg = 9.81 Joule.

Translated into the case of the 20mm Minegeschoss round, with basic data as in Il-2 :

m = 92 gram
Expl. weight = 18.6 gram
MV = 775 m/sec

Thus KE = 0.5 x m x MV^2 = 0.5 x 0.092 x 775 x 775 = 27 630 Joule (German doc giving it at MV= 790m/sec as 2927 mkg kinetic energy
And Chemical energy is : 0.0186 x 375 000 mkg x 9.81(conversion into Joule) = 68 425 Joule.

Compare 68 500 vs. 27 500... Further this refers to KE at 0m distance. Velocity decreases with distance, and so does KE... explosive power is constant at all distances. At a typical 300m distance, the KE is thus decreases by about 1/3. So at 300m we have about 68.5 KJ delivered by the explosives, and 18.2 KJ by kinetic energy.. or about 80% of the destruction is caused by explosive damage in this case.

Applying it to the example of a 1-sec Hispano/Mauser burst, using game data, and ignoring the difference between explosive types, using game`s belt composition, we get:

Hispano
AP, KE = 45 855 Joule
HEI, KE = 47 705 Joule
HEI, CE = 25 751 Joule
HEI, Total = 73 456 Joule

Mauser

AP, KE = 28 985 Joule
HE, KE = 28 580 Joule
HE, CE = 8461 Joule
Total HE = 37 041 Joule
MG, KE = 27 630 Joule
MG, CE = 68 425 Joule
MG, Total = 96 055 Joule

1 burst makeup:

Hispano, 5 AP= 229 KJ, 5 HEI= 367 KJ, TOTAL = 596 KJoule
Mauser, 2.6 AP= 75 KJ, 5.2 HEI= 192 KJ, 5.2 MG = 500 KJ. TOTAL = 767 KJoule
Alternatively, with AP-HE-MG-MG-MG belt, it would be TOTAL = 75+96+750 = 921 KJoule



Think about it...

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Fri March 19 2004 at 08:47 AM.]

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 09:32 AM
You make good points as well, they probably did use different material for high explosive, with different power/stability.

Are there any internet or book sources you can post though to see where you got your information, Kurfurst? Would appreciate it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Aaron_GT
03-19-2004, 09:37 AM
"Looking at all this data proves the point. The Hispano was a larger cannon, firing a larger/heavier round, at higher speeds. The average HE content of the rounds was over twice as much as 3/5th's of the rounds coming out of the MG-151/20, where the german Minengeschoss packs nearly 3x the HE content of the Hispano's round."

If this is correct, then spread over the
average ammo belt the explosive power of the
MG151/20 load is 75% of that of the Hispano.

In terms of kinetic energy at the muzzle,
the Hispano has about 65% more per round.

Taking into account the firing rates
means that for a burst the average explosive
power of the Hispano is knocked down by 10/12
giving the MG151/20 burst 90% of the same
explosive power (very close) and about
75% of the muzzle energy. How you balance the
KE and explosive energy to come up with a
single figure is another matter... to that
nildram site I suppose.

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 09:43 AM
A quote from comments on Table 1 of the link...

"If we compare the values with the few data known from ballistic tests, we have some indications that the factors assumed in the calculations are realistic. The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores."

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Pretty much proves that these weapons due to several varying factors between them were indeed close in their destructive abilities. Would like to see a link from Kurfurst though on his info. ~S~ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

clint-ruin
03-19-2004, 09:45 AM
Out of interest,

Is the correct apples/apples comparison for our testing purposes

109F4/G2/G6 style 20mm in spinner,
Vs
P-38 central 20mm?

And

FW190-A8 outer wing unsynched 20mm
Vs
Spitfire Vb unsynched 20mm?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 09:51 AM
Clint, to answer your question, We are simply talking about the guns and ammo in them in question, but the arrangement they were put on fighters.

This excludes synchornization as there were different sync systems used by different countries and guns also suffered different penalities of rate of fire as well.

Does this answer your question? If not, I misunderstood.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 09:53 AM
"Clint, to answer your question, We are simply talking about the guns and ammo in them in question, but the arrangement they were put on fighters. "

Sorry, that is a typo, I meant to say we are NOT talking about the way the guns were arranged on fighters.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 09:56 AM
"109F4/G2/G6 style 20mm in spinner,
Vs
P-38 central 20mm?

And

FW190-A8 outer wing unsynched 20mm
Vs
Spitfire Vb unsynched 20mm?" - Clint

Yes, the Me109 F4 through G6 had MG-151/20 cannon standard firing through spinner. I do not know for sure if the 20mm cannon in the P38 is identical to the Hispano MKII though.

The Spit VB 2x 20mm cannon are yes Hispano MKII, as for Fw190-A8 outer wing guns, they are either MG-FF or MG-151/20, I am not sure.

Thing is, we are basically just talking about the guns in question, which are MG-151/20 and Hispano, namely MK II.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Kurfurst__
03-19-2004, 09:58 AM
Gunner, the trouble with Tony William`s comparision table is that for some odd reason it hypothesizes some connection between kinetic energy, and chemical energy. His method is getting the KE calculated from mass and velocity, and then mulitplying it with the percentage of HE content...

I don`t see where`s the connection. Why would the same round from the MK 108 do LESS _explosive_ damage than fired from the higher velocity MK 103... ? It works this way in those tables, and it`s just flawed in the method.

As for my sources, I won`t list all, but basically the most important ones :

-Tons of German ammo cutaways from E-Stelle Rechlin
-US Army Handbook on German Armed forces, 1945 edition
-MG 151/20 manual, and ammo listings
-US. Standard Ordnance catalog
-British Hispano firing trials
-"Stellungsnahme zum Brief des Reichsministers für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion vom 5.1.1945/Nr.M.T. 99 12320/45" evaluating te optimal fighter weapon combinations
-Plus an the handbook for today`s demolition experts for explosive data

Gryphonne
03-19-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Gunner, the trouble with Tony William`s comparision table is that for some odd reason it hypothesizes some connection between kinetic energy, and chemical energy. His method is getting the KE calculated from mass and velocity, and then mulitplying it with the percentage of HE content...

I don`t see where`s the connection. Why would the same round from the MK 108 do LESS _explosive_ damage than fired from the higher velocity MK 103... ? It works this way in those tables, and it`s just flawed in the method.

As for my sources, I won`t list all, but basically the most important ones :

-Tons of German ammo cutaways from E-Stelle Rechlin
-US Army Handbook on German Armed forces, 1945 edition
-MG 151/20 manual, and ammo listings
-US. Standard Ordnance catalog
-British Hispano firing trials
-"Stellungsnahme zum Brief des Reichsministers für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion vom 5.1.1945/Nr.M.T. 99 12320/45" evaluating te optimal fighter weapon combinations
-Plus an the handbook for today`s demolition experts for explosive data<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurfurst, did you send this info to Oleg? it would be nice to finally receive the proper MG151/20 belt composition. I started a thread about this some weeks ago but there was too much flaming going around and it got closed.

I'd really like Oleg to know about the points you posted.

Regards,

Gryphon

Zen--
03-19-2004, 10:08 AM
This is a very interesting discussion gentlemen, I find this kind of topic fascinating.

Thanks to all involved for keeping it civil and on target and for putting up some great information.

&lt;S!&gt;

-Zen-
Tracks (http://209.163.146.67/tracks)

Kurfurst__
03-19-2004, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gryphonne:
Kurfurst, did you send this info to Oleg? it would be nice to finally receive the proper MG151/20 belt composition. I started a thread about this some weeks ago but there was too much flaming going around and it got closed.

I'd really like Oleg to know about the points you posted.

Regards,

Gryphon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The belt composition not, I cant find the ShuBfiber where it is presented. But its somewhere on the net... however in txt file I have its details.

As according to D.(Luft) 5001 the following mixes were suggested:

13mm MG 131

Against 4-engine aircraft:
1 Brandgranate + 1 Panzergranate
All other aircraft:
same

20mm MG 151/20 / MG-FF

Against 4-engine aircraft:
2 Mine + 2 Brandgranate + 1 Panzerbrandgranate
All other aircraft:
3 Minen + 1 Brandgranate + 1 Panzerbrandgranate

30mm MK 103 and MK 108

Against 4-engine aircraft:
1 Mine + 1 Brandgranate
All other aircraft:
same

Amount of L´spur (Tracer) - to pilot preference.

Mine= High Explosive
Brandgranate = Incendiary
Panzergranate = Armor Piercing

Sometimes combined rounds, ie. Panzerbrandgranate = Armor Piercing Incendiary.

As for the other details, I dont know what method Oleg choosed to model things. Looking on the damage pictures with arrows its more complex.. but the MG 151/20 belt indeed carried a larger percentage of MG rounds in the fighter vs. fighter engagements we have here, and also I beleive the gun itself is weaker now.. in v1,21, it was really an alternative to the MK 108, against most fighters it was very effective with short bursts, as was the Shvak, wings were ripped off etc.. now it feels a lot less potent, for whatever reason, change in DM, change in gun data, I dont know. But this IS common perception among players.

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Fri March 19 2004 at 09:25 AM.]

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Fri March 19 2004 at 09:26 AM.]

p1ngu666
03-19-2004, 10:14 AM
just wondering, wouldnt the explosive side be weaker on a fast moving target like a aircraft?
in air combat, u doing 200mph+ so the explosion would get swept away quickly, if u get me.

also KE seems important in fb i think, most effective fireing is when u get HIGH speed rounds on target, eg vulching, head ons, bnz attacks

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Kurfurst__
03-19-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
just wondering, wouldnt the explosive side be weaker on a fast moving target like a aircraft?
in air combat, u doing 200mph+ so the explosion would get swept away quickly, if u get me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Explosive force travels at 3-5000 meter / secundum... or roughly at 9000 mph.... I dont think it effects it much. But good point about KE, velocity of firing aircraft is added to the shell`s velocity, and the attacked aircraft speed also modifies in, depending on the relative airspeeds... this is a very complex subject.

Flamin_Squirrel
03-19-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
just wondering, wouldnt the explosive side be weaker on a fast moving target like a aircraft?
in air combat, u doing 200mph+ so the explosion would get swept away quickly, if u get me.

also KE seems important in fb i think, most effective fireing is when u get HIGH speed rounds on target, eg vulching, head ons, bnz attacks

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While what you say is undoubtedly true, the success of head on and vulching attacks is in part due to you hitting the front of the plane which is altogether more vunerable. Having said that, pumping 20 MG151 shells into the tail of a plane shouldnt leave much left either.

p1ngu666
03-19-2004, 10:45 AM
true i know that for head on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
but how often have u swept past at bonkers speed, got the kill, and how many times uve hammered away at 6
and vulchin isnt always head on, but u really tear up plane, even in a http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif gladiator

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 11:53 AM
It seems you have a wealth of information Kurfurst! I would certainly consider sending it to Oleg + Team if you can and are willing, and see how they interpret it.

As for his methods, I am not sure what you mean? The MK108 and MK103 do seem to fire the same projectile, considering its weight and HE content is the same, except MK103 uses a much larger round, thus having a much greater muzzle velocity and increasing kinetic energy.

I will look over the way he calculated more though, I can't at the moment as I am busy with other things, thanks to all for keeping this thread civil and to the point. ~S~

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

hop2002
03-19-2004, 01:08 PM
The problem with Isegrim/Kurfurst's analysis is that it ignores everything but explosive power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Real life HEI shells did contain 12 gram of load indeed - but only some 7 gram of that was actually explosives, the rest - incendiary material. They were mixed purpose shells.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim seems to 5 grams of incendiary compound altogether. But the shells could easily be filled with 12 grams of explosive, presumably the incendiary effect was worth sacrificing some of the explosive effect for.

Anecdotal evidence suggests fire was the biggest killer of aircraft.

From Tony Williams:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Chemical energy is generated by the high explosive or incendiary material carried by most WW2 air-fighting projectiles. First, there is the difference between HE and incendiary material, which were often mixed (in very varying proportions) in the same shell. HE delivers instant destruction by blast effect (plus possibly setting light to inflammable material within its blast radius), incendiaries burn on their passage through the target, setting light to anything inflammable they meet on the way. The relationship between the effectiveness of HE and incendiary material is difficult to assess. Bearing in mind that fire was the big plane-killer, there appears to be no reason to rate HE as more important, so they have been treated as equal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, Isegrim focuses only on blast effect, not shrapnel.

The mine round was thin walled, and relied on the blast wave to cause damage. The Hispano round had less explosive, but being a heavier shell, with thicker walls, produced more shrapnel.

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 01:24 PM
The shell info I printed is extracted whole sections from the Guns and Ammo Table Oleg put out I guess about 2 years ago. !Please! correct if I'm wrong, it is better to be right.

The word Power in those lines is Equivalent Power to TNT. Those are not kg weights. They cannot be used to determine explosive content, only force amounts used as raw data by the game itself. What the algorithms do with the data seems to have changed if I include the DM's in that interaction. There is no need to re-evaluate the data in any way, those are end values of explosive effect. Very probably the shell thicknesses and maybe even the fusing was part of the calculations -- I had sent in alot of data through Luthier and got back that they had that and more that they were using. And my data had parts to do with shockwave and mach-stem damage.

Explosive gas pressure -- yeah that's there but when you're talking high explosives the main concern is the speed of propagation of the explosion and the behaviour of the shockwave those gasses make. And the incredibly fast dropoff of the shock power with distance, but that's more to do with how much explosive you use.

If you're hitting a structural member then kinetic energy can be a very large portion of the destructive power, more than the explosive raw power.

There's also considerations depending on what type of HE shell is doing the damage. Fragmentation shells are different from blast effect shells. Here's a nice page on warheads:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm)

Somewhere on that site in those general pages I had read an interesting bit about HE blast effect shells. If you hit a hardened surface with one and it deforms/weakens the shell itself (like, dents) then the blast will be much less. hardened surface are concrete and metal for two. I don't know how that might affect 108 MG shells but I can guess that sometimes it will, mostly it won't. MG was mostly to penetrate thinner stuff then blast inside? AC skin won't deform the shell but I'm not so sure about some other places. The shell wall itself is a very important part of making the effect. Want to find the info then be my guest, I lost the bookmark but had posted it up here long ago and the site is still there by OMG there's a lot of material to wade through, I just looked again and it's enough. It's part of the main site from above. Lots of good reading for those who want to know why or how some things in the sim are possible.


Neal

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 01:31 PM
You are right Hop, this is even mentioned in the article. The thin-walled Minengeschoss relied on the blast wave to do damage rather than the shrapnel, because comparatively, it is much smaller wall. Thing is, if the explosion does not occur inside the airplane, a large portion of it could be wasted. It reminds me why they developed bombs to go off before they hit the ground, because a good portion of the blast would be wasted making a crater.

I also heard that the British initially had a problem with the Hispano's rounds going off before they penetrated the aircraft.

How penetration of rounds is determined in FB, I don't know... I do know that gun jams and freezes under certain firing/environmental conditions is not modeled in, so... Any clues, gents?

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

p1ngu666
03-19-2004, 01:35 PM
hm, i guess a explosion like the german shells would rip off panels theres pics of b17s and its ripped off skin, but a hispano round would tear plane.
and the incedury would stay hot after the enitial hit.. so perhaps more likely to make fire

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 01:46 PM
Incendiary material is hot enough to damage aluminum, even melt through thin sheet. Cut or burned structure loses a lot of strength. Even deeply scratched structure loses strength as when it is stressed the lines of stress focus on any sharp places.


Neal

faustnik
03-19-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Incendiary material is hot enough to damage aluminum, even melt through thin sheet. Cut or burned structure loses a lot of strength. Even deeply scratched structure loses strength as when it is stressed the lines of stress focus on any sharp places.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And under the force of 300+ mph winds I don't think it would last long.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Flamin_Squirrel
03-19-2004, 03:05 PM
I guess an HEIT shell going though your fuel tank wouldnt do you any favours. Its a shame fires are only modeled for engines. Something to look forward to in BoB perhaps?

p1ngu666
03-19-2004, 04:11 PM
true, but if u get alu hot enuff, itll burn before it oxidies or whatever, and thats NASTY. happened on a ship in faulklands i finks.
and scratch thing is true aswell, race helmets are checked for scratches alot

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Incendiary material is hot enough to damage aluminum, even melt through thin sheet. Cut or burned structure loses a lot of strength. Even deeply scratched structure loses strength as when it is stressed the lines of stress focus on any sharp places.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And under the force of 300+ mph winds I don't think it would last long.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not outside it wouldn't. But then it doesn't burn long either. Thermite goes quick and somewhere like 3000F... it will melt steel and is used to make heavy welds in remote locations.

It's inside the plane I was thinking of. My fault really, I should have been more clear. Structural members inside the plane.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
true, but if u get alu hot enuff, itll burn before it oxidies or whatever, and thats NASTY. happened on a ship in faulklands i finks.
and scratch thing is true aswell, race helmets are checked for scratches alot

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get thick enough aluminum hot enough and it will burn hotter than magnesium. Thing is aluminum strips and ribbons won't stay hot hot enough for regular use. 2/3's of the firebombs dropped on Dresden were 250lb aluminum clyinders with thermite cores and ingniters, the other 1/3 were magnesium. The whole thing was terrible in the extreme and worse in ways than an atom bomb.

It's very hard to get aluminum to light. mostly that is because it has an hard oxide layer bonded strongly to it that must be broken down first. Aluminum atoms like oxygen atoms very much x 5.


Neal

p1ngu666
03-19-2004, 06:48 PM
alu is pretty volitile but it oxydies pretty much instantly, thats why we can use ithttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

NegativeGee
03-19-2004, 07:04 PM
Yeah, the Aluminium burning thing was why the Exocets were so effective in the Falklands. They could set fire to Aluminium structure of the ships they hit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

WWMaxGunz
03-19-2004, 09:24 PM
There's a lot of conflicting reports on the Sheffield. Some say it had aluminum armor and others say it was steel. Many articles point out that the anti-fire system of the Sheffield was disabled from the start and that the rocket fuel caused and kept the fire going. I remember hearing that the bulkheads burned but that was WOM from a notoriously unreliable source (nicknamed Slinger by many).

One site I see says it was the armor and points out to tests on the early Bradleys that RPG's would ignite the armor and that Israeli M113's ambushed by PLO using RPG's had done the same. The fumes are deadly poison, it says and in articles on the Sheffield there was a lot made of poison fumes.

I wonder what the reality was?

The firebombs being aluminum I had gotten from a reference deep in the Drexel U library back in 1975. I also know that cast aluminum at least is very vulnerable to open flame.


Neal

Gunner_361st
03-19-2004, 09:40 PM
"I guess an HEIT shell going though your fuel tank wouldnt do you any favours. Its a shame fires are only modeled for engines. Something to look forward to in BoB perhaps?" -Flaming Squirrel.

How did you miss that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Fires are modeled for fuel tanks. How else do you think I managed to shoot down 3x TB3 in a J8A Gladiator? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Or even better example... Just plug away at a FW190's belly. You'll get a good fuel tank fire going. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Abbuzze
03-20-2004, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
hm, i guess a explosion like the german shells would rip off panels theres pics of b17s and its ripped off skin, but a hispano round would tear plane.
and the incedury would stay hot after the enitial hit.. so perhaps more likely to make fire

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How would a hispano tear a plane??? I think for a fighter this theoretical calculations are realy useless?, can you get more than 100% destruction? The higher muzzlevelocity of the hispano need somthing with can absorb the power! a AP bullet of a Hisp will go through a wing like a Mg151/20 bullet will do, maybe the whole will be a littel big bigger if both just hit the surfaces without damadging the substructure, if they hit the substructrue both will destroy it completly!! If a HE will hit the plane the cinetical energy is not that important take a look at the pictures I post, If you loose maybe 10% of your lift at one wing or even more surface you are in real trouble, and keep in mind, the surface of the planes in WW2 was part of the mainstructure! loosing surface lowering the stability of the whole structure!

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

Ugly_Kid
03-20-2004, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Yeah, the Aluminium burning thing was why the Exocets were so effective in the Falklands. They could set fire to Aluminium structure of the ships they hit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At university it was lectured so that the flammable aluminum from Falkland was due to high magnesium content on the more corrosion resistant alloy used particularly on ships. I don't remember whether it was 7XXX series

Kurfurst__
03-20-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Incendiary material is hot enough to damage aluminum, even melt through thin sheet. Cut or burned structure loses a lot of strength. Even deeply scratched structure loses strength as when it is stressed the lines of stress focus on any sharp places.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are dealing here with TINY amounts of incendiary material, Neal. A few grams, not shoveling a ton over the plane, and watch it burn down. The incindinary material is ignited by the fuse upon impact, and burns for a few seconds, spraying fiery sparks around as it passes through the aeroplane. But only for a few seconds, the objective is to ignite inflammatory material inside the plane.

Apply your thoughts to the Brandgranate (inc. shell) of the MK 108, a single one of it alone possesses more (about 80 grams) concentrated incdinary material as full 1sec burst from either of these guns... yet it does almost no damage unless it hits the fuel tank.

Kurfurst__
03-20-2004, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The problem with Isegrim/Kurfurst's analysis is that it ignores everything but explosive power.

Isegrim seems to 5 grams of incendiary compound altogether. But the shells could easily be filled with 12 grams of explosive, presumably the incendiary effect was worth sacrificing some of the explosive effect for.

Anecdotal evidence suggests fire was the biggest killer of aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no. Fuel/oil tanks, on most interceptor like fighters were small targets on fighters. Unless hit by incendiries, which was a hard task, the incendiaries were next to useless in damaging other than their KE.

Bombers were another matter, iirc some 40% of a B-17`s wing target surface was filled with fuel tanks - hence the increase of HEIT shellspercentage in MG 151/20 belt composition specified in German orders. Fire was more easily obtained here.

The amount of delivered inc. material can be calculated, but I dont have the axact data for all rounds, especially for the APIs. Moreover, explosive rounds also do fire...

A British firing trials could be used to get some idea of it, though. These showed fairly comparable numbers, when Mauser HE and HEI, Hispano HEI rounds were fired vs. Blenheim/Heinkel replica wings, 30-40% of hits causing some kind of fire. This suggest the incdendiary performance was roughly comparable, as long as it`s equal number of rounds hitting the target.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, Isegrim focuses only on blast effect, not shrapnel.

Yep, fragmentation is also not considered, the primary reason for that is that we deal here with structural damage, and fragments make basically nothing worth of mentioning. Look at a 20mm shell, it`s tiny. The fragments are no bigger than 3-5mm, weighting a few grams. Even a .303/7.92mm bullet is bigger and heavier by a factor of 2-3, and yet it was considered a pea shooter by all even at the beginning of WW2, simply ineffective vs. modern aircraft. I have seen picture of Bf 109 that took almost 300 hits from those rifle caliber rounds, and eventually went down because of loss of control, not fatal structural damage. Consider the fact that fragments are not even THAT powerful.. Or just look at a picture that shows "damage" from fragments: tiny holes and schratesches on fusalge or wing. Unless they hit the pilot, tear up some pipes, or hit something vital, they are next to useless. In a discussion about the ability to do structural damage, they could be simply left out.

[QUOTE]
The mine round was thin walled, and relied on the blast wave to cause damage. The Hispano round had less explosive, but being a heavier shell, with thicker walls, produced more shrapnel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The individual rounds bear little importance when the whole picture : belt composition, rate of fire is considered. This picture favour the Mauser again, even in fragmentation.

The amount of fragmentation material in a shell can be judged from the weigth of shell minus explosives/incd. material.

AP shots don`t make fragments, they have no explosive content.

In case of Hispano`s HEI: 129 gram - 12 gram = 117 gram of fragment/shell.

In a 1 sec burst : 5 x 117 = 585 gram.

In case of Mauser`s HEI: 115 gram - 2.3 - 2.1 gram = 110 gram of fragment/shell.
In case of Mauser`s Mineshell: 92 gram - 18.6 gram = 73 gram of fragment/shell.

In 1 sec burst, it`s either :
a, (vs. Viermots) : 377 + 568 = 945 gram
b, (all other) : 565 + 284 = 849 gram

This up to 60% more fragments than in case of the Hispano. The main reasons for that are :

a, The Mauser`s belt is composed 80% of shells making fragments, the Hispano could produce framents once in every two shell only.
b, The Mauser pumpos out some 25% more shells at a time.

It can be observed why the Brandsprengranaten were used for the Mauser : adding fragmentation and a lot of incendiary effect, while the MinegeschoB weakened the structure in a general sense.

To summerize, the Mauser was highly superior in blast effect by a factor of about three, roughly comparable in incendiary effect, and put about 50% more fragments into it`s target than the Hispano. The major reasons for that lay in higher ROF, specially designed high-capacity HE shells, more powerful explosive type, and a high percantage of HE/Incendinary explosive rounds making up the belt composition.

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Incendiary material is hot enough to damage aluminum, even melt through thin sheet. Cut or burned structure loses a lot of strength. Even deeply scratched structure loses strength as when it is stressed the lines of stress focus on any sharp places.
Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are dealing here with TINY amounts of incendiary material, Neal. A few grams, not shoveling a ton over the plane, and watch it burn down. The incindinary material is ignited by the fuse upon impact, and burns for a few seconds, spraying fiery sparks around as it passes through the aeroplane. But only for a few seconds, the objective is to ignite inflammatory material inside the plane.

Apply your thoughts to the Brandgranate (inc. shell) of the MK 108, a single one of it alone possesses more (about 80 grams) concentrated incdinary material as full 1sec burst from either of these guns... yet it does almost no damage unless it hits the fuel tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I wasn't talking about igniting the frame members of the plane so don't get carried away. The heat from the incendiary material is very, very hot and will in circumstances damage aluminum on contact. How deep depends on how much. Thin sheet it may go through, ribs weakened and a thick stress bearing member may end up with surface weakened. The incendiary material isn't just matches, also doesn't go out in a flash. It can set regular wood on fire, which requires real heat content not just temperature.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2004, 07:23 AM
"The amount of fragmentation material in a shell can be judged from the weigth of shell minus explosives/incd. material."

You missed that in Olegs Ammo Table that "power" is not grams of explosive material but rather equivalent explosive power to that much TNT. When the material in the shell is more powerful there is less weight of material in the shell and more grams of metal. Metal being very dense, it takes little to make a gram. Some other weight is also the fuse, which I don't see in your calculations. Fuse means less metal.

"AP shots don`t make fragments, they have no explosive content."

There is shock of the AP round if it hits something solid like a wing spar, wing rib (some are thicker), fuselage main member, engine mount, engine, gun mount, gun, seat back, etc. If the part hit is strong enough to stop the projectile then all the force is transmitted, if not then enough to make a hole or knock the part out is.

You shoot? Make anything besides holes?

"In case of Hispano`s HEI: 129 gram - 12 gram = 117 gram of fragment/shell.

In a 1 sec burst : 5 x 117 = 585 gram.

In case of Mauser`s HEI: 115 gram - 2.3 - 2.1 gram = 110 gram of fragment/shell.
In case of Mauser`s Mineshell: 92 gram - 18.6 gram = 73 gram of fragment/shell. "

All incorrect. Explosives weight less unless TNT. You have no allowance for fuses. There are sites with actual weights I think.

Go here: www.fas.org/man/index.html (http://www.fas.org/man/index.html)

Look in the Land Warfare and around other sections on details of chemicals, fragmentation, incendiary, blast and other things. It is all interesting material that applies. for historic data on WWII you will need to look elsewhere.


Neal

p1ngu666
03-20-2004, 10:50 AM
i said tear up more cos of more shrapnel effect http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
ap might shatter things too, depending what u hit..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Kurfurst__
03-20-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You missed that in Olegs Ammo Table that "power" is not grams of explosive material but rather equivalent explosive power to that much TNT. When the material in the shell is more powerful there is less weight of material in the shell and more grams of metal.
[QUOTE]

No, the table refers to the weight of explosive in shell, regardless of type; its not TNT equivalent. I asked Oleg specifically, he replied different explosive qualities ARE modelled. Weight of "power" in table matches the ones listed in the primary sources I use.

For example, the game`s table uses 18.6 gram of "power" for the Mg151/20`s MG shell.
Primary german document for 2cm Minegeschoss for MG 151/20 lists the explosive load as 18.6 gram of Nitropenta. It took shell weights from those primary sources as well etc. etc.

[QUOTE]Metal being very dense, it takes little to make a gram. Some other weight is also the fuse, which I don't see in your calculations. Fuse means less metal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuses are made of metal, and adds to fragmentation just as well... everything that isn`t explosive does. Small chunks of metal pieces etc. Besides, I can substract the fuse if you want from the Mauser, but then I have to do the same with the Hispano rounds, and most likely there`s no real difference in weight of the two.

The calculation show the MAXIMUM amount of fragments that can be generated;a rule of thumb is that for every kg of metal, there are about 50-100 fragments. In real life there is great loss of effiency for all these maximum energies. Not all blast E is used for damage, some is wasted to cover distances; solid shot`s remaining KE is wasted when they exit the fusalge; many hundred fragments just miss the aircraft structure etc.


"AP shots don`t make fragments, they have no explosive content."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is shock of the AP round if it hits something solid like a wing spar, wing rib (some are thicker), fuselage main member, engine mount, engine, gun mount, gun, seat back, etc. If the part hit is strong enough to stop the projectile then all the force is transmitted, if not then enough to make a hole or knock the part out is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My statement was AP shots dont make fragments... do you agree in that ?

KE energy of AP shots was already calculated based on MV0 and the shot weight, and was used in the calculation as 100%. You could have noticed that.. even if it`s not true in most cases, for most time it just passes through in light structure, utilising only a small percentage of total KE for destruction, unless of course hits something dense as you noted. And since the energy of the AP rounds just transfers to the new punched out piece (with E loss), it is the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You shoot? Make anything besides holes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sry? Yes I shoot BTW.


"In case of Hispano`s HEI: 129 gram - 12 gram = 117 gram of fragment/shell.
In a 1 sec burst : 5 x 117 = 585 gram.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All incorrect. Explosives weight less unless TNT. You have no allowance for fuses. There are sites with actual weights I think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, you are incorrect in all.
All weights for given explosive types, not TNT equivalents, and weights exaclty the same as my numbers.
Fuses are made of metal, and are included in total shell weight. I don`t get your trouble with "allowance for fuses". Fuses will turn into bits of metal fragments just as well when the shell goes off.
I have exact primary documents for 95% of these ammunitions. These list all the information required.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Go here: http://www.fas.org/man/index.html
Look in the Land Warfare and around other sections on details of chemicals, fragmentation, incendiary, blast and other things. It is all interesting material that applies. for historic data on WWII you will need to look elsewhere.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I will check it out.

Gunner_361st
03-20-2004, 11:08 AM
Kurfurst quotes...

"a, The Mauser`s belt is composed 80% of shells making fragments, the Hispano could produce framents once in every two shell only."

This is assuming the German belt composition of HET/AP/HE/HE/HE. Meanwhile, the Hispano belt composition was apparently 50/50 of HE/HET/HE/HET. So, German high explosive/incedinary mix rounds can make fragments but British ones cannot?

"b, The Mauser pumpos out some 25% more shells at a time."

Some simple math for you. ROF of Hispano MKII = 10 rounds a second. ROF of MG-151/20 = 12 rounds a second.

10/12 = 0.83333. 1 - .83333 = .16666. x 100 = 16.66%. The MG-151/20's rate of fire is 16.66% faster than the Hispano MKII, not 25%. Even then, the Hispano MKV was a little faster, at 12.5 rounds/second compared to MG-151/20's 12 rounds/second.

"It can be observed why the Brandsprengranaten were used for the Mauser : adding fragmentation and a lot of incendiary effect, while the MinegeschoB weakened the structure in a general sense."

Again, British HET somehow do not have fragmentation while German ones do. Of course. And the Minengeschoss didn't just "weaken" the structure... It blew it apart if it penetrated the airplane.

"To summerize, the Mauser was highly superior in blast effect by a factor of about three, "

The Minengeschoss rounds packed three times the HE content of the Hispano rounds. The other german rounds did not. Check Table 1 of the link.

"roughly comparable in incendiary effect, and put about 50% more fragments into it`s target than the Hispano."

So you said only 50% of British HE/HET mix would make fragmentation... But 80% of the german rounds could... 50% + 50% more fragments = 80%? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

"The major reasons for that lay in higher ROF,"

16.66% higher, not 25%. That extra 8.3% slip in there unnoticed somehow?

What do you think an AP round as large as 20mm does when it hits something hard, something that offers actual resistance?

I'm doing my honest best to be patient and understanding. Faulty math and information that reads like propoganda doesn't help.

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Kurfurst__
03-20-2004, 11:27 AM
As for Mauser MG 151/20 rate of fire, it was 750/min for the MG rounds, 800/min for the rest. 700/min is for MG 151/15, hence the ~25% higher ROF vs. Hispano.

Half of British belt compostion was made by AP shots that doesnt have fragmentation effect... every second British round thus doesnt make fragments. AP in Mauser belt was only every 5th round etc. etc. etc. Simple..I dont really want to show all these.. you should go back, read again instead.
Your post looks like as if you have read only a few words out of whole sentences. Basically, you did not seem to understand it. Thats not my fault or "propaganda"... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-20-2004, 12:10 PM
10 * 1.2 = 12 12 is 20% more than 10.

750/600 is 1.25 however is 600 rpm the start ROF of the Hispano or is it the cyclic rate?

Olegs' Gun and Ammo table, game data, states specifically that power is equivalent power to TNT. Oleg had posted it is not weight of explosives but power equivalent to that weight of TNT. Argue with Oleg if the numebrs are not to your liking, whoever don't like it.

Hispano power TNT equivalent = 0.012
151/20 MG power TNT equivalent = 0.0186

What system of math has 0.186 = 3 x 0.012?
Unless game data is wrong then MG round does not have 3x explosion of Hispano HE round. Game data is not weight of explosives so don't talk about incendiary mix of HEI when the game does not model Hispano as using HEI. Don't bother turning apples into oranges, or pulling rabbits from hats, or any other sleight of logic tricks.

50 to 100 fragments per kilo of metal and less than 1/10th kg metal. The arrows seen in arcade=1 are like that.

AP does not fragment. It is one big hardened fragment. None of them are good unless they hit something of importance and have enough impact to break it or at least weaken it. There is use in all the shells, the right place for each. AP I am sure will do more against seat back armor, for example, than fragments will. Also on engine blocks.


Neal

hop2002
03-20-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Half of British belt compostion was made by AP shots that doesnt have fragmentation effect... every second British round thus doesnt make fragments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

Why would the British, and the Americans, use a 50:50 mix of HE/SAP/I if the ap shells were of little effectiveness?

In all your calculations, you ignore the incendiary compound added to the Hispano shells, when it was added to increase the effect. You ignore AP shells, where the Hispano is clearly superior, firing a heavier shell at higher muzzle velcoities.

From Tony Williams:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tony is, after all, an expert in this field, and thus I would rather take his judgement than yours. He's also refering to British tests of both types, which concluded the Hispano HE was as effective as the mine round. Presumably the British tests were also done by people with some knowledge in the field.

Now, according to your analysis, the Germans would have fired only mine shells, the RAF only he shells, and they would replace the incendiary compound in the HE shells with more HE. Yet none of these things were done.

There's no earthly reasons these things couldn't have been done, they don't require any different production capacity, extensive redesign or new tooling. They were not done because the RAF thought sacrificing some HE for incendiary compound was worth it, and that ap shells were as effective as HE shells, just for different reasons.

Likewise for the Germans. They obviously though the normal HE shells had advantages over mine shells, as well as disadvantages.

Gunner_361st
03-20-2004, 12:42 PM
"As for Mauser MG 151/20 rate of fire, it was 750/min for the MG rounds, 800/min for the rest. 700/min is for MG 151/15, hence the ~25% higher ROF vs. Hispano."

We aren't talking about the MG-151/15. Look at the title of the thread.

"Half of British belt compostion was made by AP shots that doesnt have fragmentation effect...every second British round thus doesnt make fragments. "

Check the link. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

The British didn't use any AP shells in the Hispano MK II or MKV cannon. It was an HE/HET mix. In the tables, as noted in the 6th paragraph about Chemical energy, Inced/HE mix shells are treated the same as HE.

"AP in Mauser belt was only every 5th round etc. etc. etc. Simple..I dont really want to show all these.. you should go back, read again instead."

That was ONE german belt composition. Another major one was HET/AP/AP/HE/HE.

"Your post looks like as if you have read only a few words out of whole sentences. Basically, you did not seem to understand it. Thats not my fault or "propaganda"... "

I understand what you are saying perfectly well. I also understand your rather blatant agenda, and am growing tired of reading redundant posts filled with false information and mathamatical errors. I gave it an honest go though, didn't I, Isegrim?

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Enofinu
03-30-2004, 05:01 PM
and yet remember that He content in german mine rounds was something else than TNT. was called H41A or something which had MUCH better burning speed than TNT, means had lots of more explosive power than TNT. there is tables in internet which tells burning speed of different explosives (meters per second)
http://roguesci.org/megalomania/explosives.html
thats one site.

Enofinu
03-30-2004, 05:09 PM
the stuff what germans used:
http://roguesci.org/megalomania/explo/RDX.html

this is TNT:
http://roguesci.org/megalomania/explo/trinitrotoluene.html

did US 37mm cannon use this stuff?:
http://roguesci.org/megalomania/explo/tetryl.html

Ring-
03-30-2004, 06:27 PM
actualy the germans used PETN and HTA41

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/ww2ol-weapons.htm

Ring-
03-30-2004, 06:37 PM
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/20mmandbombs.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-31-2004, 02:27 AM
What use is naming explosives when the explosive power listed in the ammo chart is EQUIVALENT weight of TNT?

You guys need it again?? The facts of explosive type differences have already been factored in.

It appears that the DM isn't much affected by explosions outside the skin of the planes and maybe inside but a big part of that is people expecting an 80 calibre shell to have all the bang of a freaking handgrenade. 20mm is just a hair under 80 calibre. That is 8/10's of an inch around. The average adult male thumb is 1 inch in width. WTH do people expect? It would seriously mess you or me up to have one go off a hand width away or so from our head even not counting fragments just due to nerve and blood vessel damage from the shockwave (read: incapacitate for a while minimum like a baseball bat to the head). On metal it's a different matter. It would tear a hole only so much wider than the shell from the outside at contact. From inside it could do a lot more but that depends on getting to a certain distance from the skin inside and having room for hypersonic shockwaves to echo and reinforce each other and then still the riveted or glued panels are only so wide.

The damage graphics do not show actual damage. When you see a half dozen holes in one section of wing it's equivalent to a half dozen solid MG hits. I've watched track playbacks in slo-motion and paused action for HE bursts (arcade=1 on playback of a full track, that's .trk no .ntrk, file you can see the fragment arrows so don't sit and count firey bursts those are often incendiary only) and counted graphic holes, the 151/20 HE does make quite a few at times in a RANDOM way. Yes, I'd rather see a hole per such hit but it wouldn't be the size of my palm but then I've got pretty big hands.

Maybe somebody wants to compare 151/20 HE and MG rounds to Hispano HE they should make tracks with only those guns firing on some sitting duck targets (get a fresh one every so many hits) from both 6 and deflection on different parts then set arcade=1 and playback to check damage by noting the PROGRESSIVE DAMAGE STATES as shown by the graphics as a measure because that is how the game works and not by "common sense real life what you would see". IE, it's hours of work generating evidence as opposed to moaning about subjective impressions after yet another long DF session and then trying find justification for them or %%possible%% (some percent of whiners) paranoid refuge. (Another percent just see a need to tip the odds without actually checking, it seems is always enough for them.)

From all my checking it does seem as if AP rounds do get an AVERAGE higher amount of damage. It's probably because they have the chance to hit something important on penetration. The more kinetic power they have the more they do. Watch tracks though and see many AP rounds do nothing except once in a while the damage graphic may go to the next holes pattern but not every time. So it's not as if AP rounds are always good. From dead 6 though, there's more 20mm AP will do because there's more plane to pass through but that's still a probability and they do get deflected more than not.

You're dealing with randoms. It's going to take 100's of hits to make a statistic especially given the way the dagae graphics work. OTOH you can write about IRL trivia till the moon falls down and maybe there will be a patch that meets your approval at which point you can get upset because just one shot makes your plane fly slow.


Neal

Kurfurst__
03-31-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What use is naming explosives when the explosive power listed in the ammo chart is EQUIVALENT weight of TNT?

You guys need it again?? The facts of explosive type differences have already been factored in.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only guy needs to get over it is you, Neal. But I dont think it will ever fit into your thick skull that these are NOT tnt equivalents.
So far only you claim that, and present yourself as a witness...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

Kurfurst__
03-31-2004, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Olegs' Gun and Ammo table, game data, states specifically that power is equivalent power to TNT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Neal, it`s ONLY you who repeat that..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg had posted it is not weight of explosives but power equivalent to that weight of TNT. Argue with Oleg if the numebrs are not to your liking, whoever don't like it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess what, I have did that a good YEAR AGO. Hear m8? I HAVE ASKED OLEG because I wanted to know if these are just TNT equivalents, because then the table is wrong.

And Oleg said it`s NOT TNT equivalent, just weight.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hispano power TNT equivalent = 0.012
151/20 MG power TNT equivalent = 0.0186
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Neal alone, not according to Oleg Maddox who says the opposite.
By a coincidence, the Hispano has 12 grams of inc-h.e. mixture, the MG151`s M-Gescoss has just exactly 18.6 gram of explosives in real life...

What coincidence, facts must have this massive conspiracy against Neal !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What system of math has 0.186 = 3 x 0.012?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one that takes explosive types, and shell load composition into account. = not yours.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Unless game data is wrong then MG round does not have 3x explosion of Hispano HE round.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say its only you is wrong here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Game data is not weight of explosives so don't talk about incendiary mix of HEI when the game does not model Hispano as using HEI. Don't bother turning apples into oranges, or pulling rabbits from hats, or any other sleight of logic tricks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tricks ar your tables Neal. Accusations and other BS alike. Nazi name calling too...
I only use facts; look up the word in the dictionary if you are unfamiliar with it`s meaning, which seems to be the case.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Wed March 31 2004 at 11:39 AM.]

Kurfurst__
03-31-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Half of British belt compostion was made by AP shots that doesnt have fragmentation effect... every second British round thus doesnt make fragments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

Why would the British, and the Americans, use a 50:50 mix of HE/SAP/I if the ap shells were of little effectiveness?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said AP shells had little effectiveness? I cant remember saying that, only that British SAP/I made up half the British belt, SAP/I doesnt make fragments, and so thus half the British belt load did not make fragments either.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In all your calculations, you ignore the incendiary compound added to the Hispano shells, when it was added to _increase_ the effect.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What "effect"? Blast...? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Hop, in your mind, incendinary shells may actually have blast effect, too, so are to be considered in largely blast related calculations ? Incendiaries do no structural damage, Hop. They just ignite fuel tanks and co..
In any case, incendinary effect of German HEI, M-Geschoss was found similair to British HEI in BRITISH tests. Period.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You ignore AP shells, where the Hispano is clearly superior, firing a heavier shell at higher muzzle velcoities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ignore the British cannon fired SAP/I from 41-42 on, ie. for most of the ar. Thats not a full rated AP, and had inferior performace to normal AP rounds.

Now, tell me what actual, practical advantages a British SEMI-armor piercing munitions had to offer over a Mauser AP or API round. Please tell me examples.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From Tony Williams:

The 20x80RB M-Geschoss and the 20x110 (Hispano) HE were rated as about equal; the greater blast effect of the M-Geschoss was countered by the greater penetration and kinetic damage inflicted by the Hispano. They do indeed emerge with similar scores.

Tony is, after all, an expert in this field, and thus I would rather take his judgement than yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to right for that. Personally I respect Tony`s knowladge a lot, still I am not blinded not to see that the ammo comparision table is fundamentally flawed in it`s working method, ie. using KE as a basis for blast effect... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

But I wonder, if British HEI with all the loads of problems with it was as good as the M-Geschoss, why the British choosed to copy the M-Geschoss after the war and replace their own ammo`s production with it...?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He's also refering to British tests of both types, which concluded the Hispano HE was as effective as the mine round. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where does he ? I can only see YOU claiming this.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now, according to your analysis, the Germans would have fired only mine shells, the RAF only he shells, and they would replace the incendiary compound in the HE shells with more HE. Yet none of these things were done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to you, my analysis shows that... to me, it appears you just twist my words and/or replace them with your own story. It happens often.

To stay on the basis of facts, the German indeed increased to proportion of M-Gescoss in their belts gradually. In fact, most German belts were made up largely with M-Geschoss. Of course the Germans well understood that while the M-Geschoss was the most useful shell, it could use the effect of HEI and API, to supplement it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There's no earthly reasons these things _couldn't_ have been done, they don't require any different production capacity, extensive redesign or new tooling. They were not done because the RAF thought sacrificing some HE for incendiary compound was worth it, and that ap shells were as effective as HE shells, just for different reasons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe the RAF was wrong...?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Likewise for the Germans. They obviously though the normal HE shells had advantages over mine shells, as well as disadvantages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The Germans went to opposite way, using large amount of special M-Geshoss shells with little, sometimes no conventional HE shells or AP ammo in the mix.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

Kurfurst__
03-31-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
"As for Mauser MG 151/20 rate of fire, it was 750/min for the MG rounds, 800/min for the rest. 700/min is for MG 151/15, hence the ~25% higher ROF vs. Hispano."

We aren't talking about the MG-151/15. Look at the title of the thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The British didn't use any AP shells in the Hispano MK II or MKV cannon. It was an HE/HET mix. In the tables, as noted in the 6th paragraph about Chemical energy, Inced/HE mix shells are treated the same as HE..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please argue about that with Mr. Hop. Or Mr. Oleg.
For your information, the British used from to mid-war a belt composed by a hybrid AP/Incendianry shot with a hybrid HE/Incendinary shell - 50%/50%.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"AP in Mauser belt was only every 5th round etc. etc. etc. Simple..I dont really want to show all these.. you should go back, read again instead."

That was ONE german belt composition. Another major one was HET/AP/AP/HE/HE..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Can you share the source ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I understand what you are saying perfectly well. I also understand your rather blatant agenda, and am growing tired of reading redundant posts filled with false information and mathamatical errors. I gave it an honest go though, didn't I, Isegrim?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now please decide which derogratory comment is the one you like the most: false information, rather blatant agenda, proh-pah-ghandah!!, math errors, redundat post. etc...

Basically, the way I see the situation, is the case of Gunner 361st cant stand any statement that would show anything else than his own conception on the subject, and so he feels offended, and fights it. And since he has not so good chance to do that on the factual part, he tries to make it personal, or argue about a 0.5% difference in ROF... etc.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg
I miss that mushroom shaped cloud, though. Shouldn`t that be present when an A-bomb goes off? Oh, it`s only a 30mm cannon...

WWMaxGunz
03-31-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Olegs' Gun and Ammo table, game data, states specifically that power is equivalent power to TNT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Neal, it`s ONLY you who repeat that..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg had posted it is not weight of explosives but power equivalent to that weight of TNT. Argue with Oleg if the numebrs are not to your liking, whoever don't like it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guess what, I have did that a good YEAR AGO. Hear m8? I HAVE ASKED OLEG because I wanted to know if these are just TNT equivalents, because then the table is wrong.

And Oleg said it`s NOT TNT equivalent, just weight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember different. But then you seem to only read what you want AS I SHOW BELOW ISEGRIM.

From the table, Olegs' words:
power - here is the TNT, that is also modelled (as well as pices of shells).

Shame the archives don't go back that far but Oleg will be back and can be asked then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
[QUOTE]
Hispano power TNT equivalent = 0.012
151/20 MG power TNT equivalent = 0.0186
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Neal alone, not according to Oleg Maddox who says the opposite.
By a coincidence, the Hispano has 12 grams of inc-h.e. mixture, the MG151`s M-Gescoss has just exactly 18.6 gram of explosives in real life...

What coincidence, facts must have this massive conspiracy against Neal !
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

What kind of screwed-up world do you live in?
Why should this mean a conspiracy to me?
Well, I guess if it was you then it would but please don't think I'm like that!

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
What system of math has 0.186 = 3 x 0.012?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one that takes explosive types, and shell load composition into account. = not yours.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Unless game data is wrong then MG round does not have 3x explosion of Hispano HE round.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say its only you is wrong here.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Game data is not weight of explosives so don't talk about incendiary mix of HEI when the game does not model Hispano as using HEI. Don't bother turning apples into oranges, or pulling rabbits from hats, or any other sleight of logic tricks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tricks ar your tables Neal. Accusations and other BS alike. Nazi name calling too...
I only use facts; look up the word in the dictionary if you are unfamiliar with it`s meaning, which seems to be the case.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here is where you just can't resist adding an extra touch of your own special BS.
Just like last time you tried the same lie, I say again; SHOW ME WHERE I WROTE THAT.
Is that you get your facts Ise? Take something, stretch it out, bend it to your own ends and then repeat it till that is what some idiots will believe? Exaggerations and distortions when you haven't enough that is real? SHOW WHERE I WROTE THAT. Better yet, LEARN TO READ ONLY WHAT IS WRITTEN AND LEAVE YOUR PARANOID (this time) FANTASIES OUT!

Simple to show me wrong joker. Go ahead. You have no fact there. **You** look up the meaning of fact. Maybe you have a special dictionary where fact is whatever you decide it means. You have demonstrated that many times over before.

I would say stick to numbers as meanings of words in sentences seems to be beyond you.

We will see what Oleg says about the explosives unless you can find his original post, or like above you can keep claiming what you can't show. I don't have it so I'll wait. Somehow I don't think you can. Keep making noise if you really need to.


Neal

clint-ruin
03-31-2004, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

We will see what Oleg says about the explosives unless you can find his original post, or like above you can keep claiming what you can't show. I don't have it so I'll wait. Somehow I don't think you can. Keep making noise if you really need to.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am pretty sure any comment from Oleg on it on this board is going to be very difficult to find, to say the least. I had a hell of a time even finding that gun table to repost the first time, and that was back in sept 2003 or so. We lost everything older than 6 months activity when the forums moved.

From memory someone with a J-- nick [jippo? junriko?] has mentioned in the past that Oleg said it is some kind of exponential scale for "TNT" power.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it combines with the Mass figure, but I don't know for sure.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

p1ngu666
04-01-2004, 09:56 AM
doing it for a tnt eqivilent would make sense. how many explosives in game? tons.
iirec oleg said it was tnt equivilent http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Enofinu
04-03-2004, 06:05 AM
so u gyus want that one gram of RDX is same as one gram of TNT?
that doesnt make any sense.

German ammo was was based on HE effect. and if damage is calculated as so simple way, we lose out gun power in BIG time.

Kurfurst__
04-03-2004, 12:54 PM
Game data :

MG 151/20

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

Real data :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/151minegr.jpg


Neal, what is your conclusion ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Game data :

MG 151/20

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

Real data :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/151minegr.jpg


Neal, what is your conclusion ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see the same digits as the guns and ammo table.
You got another document saying the 151/20 HE shells had 4.4gm explosive?


Neal

Kurfurst__
04-04-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I see the same digits as the guns and ammo table.
You got another document saying the 151/20 HE shells had 4.4gm explosive?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.munavia-21.org/o151HEI.JPG

2.3 gram Nitropenta + 2.1 gram Elektrotermite = 4.4 gram

Note : it appears the game gun table adds incendiary and explosive together, ie. referring as 4.4gram for the German HEI, and 12 gram for British HEI as explosives, whereas in reality they were ~50-50% explosives/incendinary mix.

Oleg`s gun tables show absolute weight numbers, not relative power. Most likely it`s strange use of English, "TNT" being a synonim/popular name for explosive in Olenglish. Just see Object viewer with words like "battle unit"... instead of warhead.. but it`s mirror translation of Soviet/Russian term. In post long ago, to my very straight question, Oleg confirmed different explosive types are taken into consideration in final damage.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

Enofinu
04-04-2004, 05:10 PM
Played today in Offline which i dont often do. well, was flying 109G2 against 4 ace P51.s, had arcade on. noticed that .50 cals are extremely effective, got 9 hits from those in right wing, in mid wing and at tip, got huge holes on my wing, from only 9 bullets, enemy shot those hits about 40 degree angle from behind. that really cant be right. it really should do only holes mainly, if not hitting anything more important. i know graphics on DM aint perfect but still DM graphics still show how much ive taken damage, so i think its way overrated to got my wing in that bad conditition with so less ammo. .50 cals are only ap ammo, with tracers and maybe with small amount of I or He.
20 mm cannon aint much more effective. tested a bit.
gonna do some more test tomorrow wit better time.
version i used is beta03.

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2004, 05:25 PM
Okay Isegrim, please see the other thread on 151/20's lack of damage making (is it 35 hits to down the plane?) where I say I think I might have misinterpreted Oleg, not that it's all that hard. With this data I think you have shown that it is indeed the weight or at least reasonably so unless there's some perverse coincidence from Oleg.

Of course if I had read Oleg correctly then it would mean that the use of PTN and RDX are or were not being taken into consideration -- the use of the word power as well as TNT leaves too much open that I thought had been answered well and might have anyway if the real explosions are modelled as not being all TNT.

I hope now that changes that Crazy_Ivan hints at will correct these matters and also that we get again answers but with example(s) to make things that much more definite.


Neal