PDA

View Full Version : incendiary .30 cals?



Ba5tard5word
05-18-2009, 01:12 AM
I think there was a topic here about this recently but I can't find it. Are they modeled in the game? What planes have them?

I recently have gotten into the P-40 for some reason, quite an enjoyable plane to fly for its time period I suppose. I was flying a Hawk 81-A2 in a Flying Tigers campaign I found, it has 4 x .30 cals and 2 x .50 cals. I usually loathe .30 cals with a vengeance because they're so weak, but I found this plane to pack a punch against stuff like Ki-43's and so on...admittedly Japanese fighters are weak but it seemed like they were setting on fire for me more easily than usual...

TinyTim
05-18-2009, 01:25 AM
By my experience (I've been testing this a lot) all light machineguns pack incendiary ammo (maybe not the SAFAT or some other not so common weapon).

ysydor201988
05-18-2009, 09:40 AM
they are not incendiary is the japonese plane armor that is very light so hits the fuel tank and takes fire try it..a p40 same amo vs a bf the bf will not cath fire...or if it will is for the amo....

ysydor201988
05-18-2009, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by ysydor201988:
they are not incendiary is the japonese plane armor that is very light so hits the fuel tank and takes fire try it..a p40 same amo vs a bf the bf will not cath fire...or if it will is not for the amo....

M_Gunz
05-18-2009, 12:24 PM
The Japanese plane does not have self-sealing fuel tanks.
And the 109 you refer to?

The fire at all suggests incendiary ammo.

ysydor201988
05-18-2009, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The Japanese plane does not have self-sealing fuel tanks.
And the 109 you refer to?

The fire at all suggests incendiary ammo.

there isn't such thing

VW-IceFire
05-18-2009, 12:39 PM
Most of the belting in the .30cal and .303cal are API (Armor Pericing Incendiary)

From Oleg's armament document:


Browning .303
// APIT - AP - AP - APIT - API - API


The skin on Japanese planes is thin (if you walked on the wing of a Zero you'd fall through) and the protection for the fuel tanks is consequently light. It doesn't take much for a couple of .30cal rounds to puncture the tank (which on early Japanese planes is not self sealing) and for the fumes to be ignited by an incendiary round.

ysydor201988
05-18-2009, 01:11 PM
ok i didn't knew that

M_Gunz
05-18-2009, 01:40 PM
Certain planes also had non-burning gases vented into the fuel tanks. Russians used exhaust vapors, they must
have been cooled but no fire will start inside the tank. Not sure what others may have used, CO2 possibly.

Everything I have ever heard says the Zero never got self-sealing tanks but I wouldn't bet much on that.

VW-IceFire
05-18-2009, 02:20 PM
Don't quote me on this but I believe the A6M7 variant had self sealing tanks. I don't think any of the others did...although the Zero became progressively better protected throughout its history. Performance as a result suffered as the engine power only increased slightly.

Xiolablu3
05-18-2009, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
I think there was a topic here about this recently but I can't find it. Are they modeled in the game? What planes have them?

I recently have gotten into the P-40 for some reason, quite an enjoyable plane to fly for its time period I suppose. I was flying a Hawk 81-A2 in a Flying Tigers campaign I found, it has 4 x .30 cals and 2 x .50 cals. I usually loathe .30 cals with a vengeance because they're so weak, but I found this plane to pack a punch against stuff like Ki-43's and so on...admittedly Japanese fighters are weak but it seemed like they were setting on fire for me more easily than usual...

Hurricane 8x.303's are lethal vs the Ki43. As has been said, its so lightly armoured.

Ba5tard5word
05-18-2009, 03:00 PM
So any American/British plane with .303's have incendiary rounds modeled in the game? Are the .50 cals supposed to have them? What about .30 cals in other nations' planes? The Italian ones on the MC 202, even when combined with 2 12.7mm's, are garbage but then I was using them on Spitfires when I decided to give up on the 202.

Romanator21
05-18-2009, 04:35 PM
The U.S. had incendiary .50 cals, but they are not in the game I think. I don't know about the bredas, but they do well at very close range.

VW-IceFire
05-18-2009, 04:59 PM
There is another 20 someodd page thread about .50cals. Best to read some of that. But in short the .50cal belting is...



Browning .50
// APIT - AP - HE - AP
In short the M2 Browning has less incendiary in the belt than the .30cal. There is also a mysterious HE round. Again...there's a huge thread dedicated to this very argument in this forum already so best to stay away from that.

The Italian machine guns are horrible...and in real life they were horrible too. But I'm not sure if they were quite this horrible.

TinyTim
05-18-2009, 05:03 PM
I tested several types of light machineguns, and they all light up fueltanks easily (while none of the HMG does it easily). These are: Mg-17, Mg-15, .303 browning, ShKAS. I didn't test SAFAT light machinegun however, since they are only wing and no nose mounted in game.

Agreed with Romanator here - heavy SAFAT (12,7mm) seems to do well at (very) close range.

Waldo.Pepper
05-18-2009, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Don't quote me on this but I believe the A6M7 variant had self sealing tanks.

Close (enough for me) ... here are some details.

"In addition to self-sealing tanks similar to those described above, the Russians fitted several of their fighters with a system whereby carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the engine exhaust gases were passed, via coolers and filters, into the fuel tanks. By thus substituting inert gases for the potentially explosive fuel-air mixture in partially emptied or empty tanks, the chances of fuel fires were greatly reduced. When they finally saw the light and began protecting their fighters, late in the war, the Japanese employed a similar system using carbon dioxide from bottles."

M_Gunz
05-18-2009, 07:58 PM
It's not like every hit of an incendiary is going to set the plane on fire.
If IL2 uses percent chances though, RNGs (random number generators) are known to be quirky.
If you don't think so then go tell hard-core D&D players, try the Thangodrim site.
Yes you can "roll snakeyes 20 times in a row" more often than should be with a computer.

VW-IceFire
05-18-2009, 09:06 PM
I never quite understood why but I remember in programming class back in highschool where the teacher explained how a random number generator in the programs that we were doing would never truly be random. Computers are apparently quite bad at it...

Kettenhunde
05-18-2009, 10:11 PM
IIRC, several countries developed and used Machinegun caliber incendiary and even HE rounds; England and Japan stand out.

M_Gunz
05-18-2009, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I never quite understood why but I remember in programming class back in highschool where the teacher explained how a random number generator in the programs that we were doing would never truly be random. Computers are apparently quite bad at it...

Back in the day some at least used a trail of digits produced by a continual division process of integers. Over time the
sequence repeats. I've seen others that would "time" events and use that as seeds or even as the randoms though.
It's like the difference between the series of digits in Pi and in 7/22. The faster it has to run and the smaller the code
space, the worse it will be.
Now with a separate module with some radioactive material (like in a smoke detector, not exactly ultra-dangerous) and a
Geiger-counter you could probably out-random hand-thrown dice. It would just have to be wrapped in lead to keep your bits
from being flipped once in a while.

Ba5tard5word
05-19-2009, 09:59 AM
Hmm well in another mission in my Hawk I went up against some Ki-27's which could withstand a huge beating from my guns...I chased one little jerk for like 20 minutes filling him with holes before he finally exploded...the Ki-43 seems a lot easier to shoot down.