PDA

View Full Version : footage, 50 cal punches wings off fw190s easily



Pages : [1] 2 3

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 07:27 AM
I saw some footage recently of what i thought was 50 cals punching the wings off a 190 with one quick burst, and then it was explained that the 50 cal actually has a catastrophic effect on cannon ammunition located in the wings. Apparently the use of an ammunition drum is to blame, if you could imagine having all the cannon rounds on your wing detonate at once.


actually. don't imagine it...here it is:

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

I just thought i'd make another point about the 50s and there intended use, and how they were still very detrimental to fighter planes despite not actually containing HE rounds.
So much for bigger wing spars

ROXunreal
11-07-2009, 07:37 AM
D:
Mah wing!

I highly doubt that all cannon rounds would detonate, perhaps a few at most IMO. Still more than enough, especially since it's an explosion from the inside out, even one round would do much more damage due to the pressure from every side as opposed to an outside 20mm hit.

AndyJWest
11-07-2009, 07:39 AM
Interesting. It certainly looks like it could be cannon ammo exploding being the cause of the wing failure - It is happening in the same part of the wing in each shot.

Is there much data available on the vunerability of MG and cannon rounds to gunfire? I can imagine it being more of a problem with large-calibre HE ammo.

yuuppers
11-07-2009, 07:41 AM
That spot happens to be where the inner wing spar is attached to the outer wing spar.

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 07:51 AM
Its argued that this is from hitting the cannon drum, and possibly using linear linkages would've minimized the catastrophic effects of igniting an entire cannon drum. On the otherhand, my thought is a cannon drum also makes for a smaller target than having live rounds sprawled out inside the wing. either way, it is very surprising footage, and tantimount to even the 190s vulnerability under such conditions.

I have to wonder if the 109s and Spits also had this vulnerability from carrying cannons in the wings, and if it was not also another consideration for the use of 50 cal on US birds.

RegRag1977
11-07-2009, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I saw some footage recently of what i thought was 50 cals punching the wings off a 190 with one quick burst, and then it was explained that the 50 cal actually has a catastrophic effect on cannon ammunition located in the wings. Apparently the use of an ammunition drum is to blame, if you could imagine having all the cannon rounds on your wing detonate at once.


actually. don't imagine it...here it is:

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

I just thought i'd make another point about the 50s and there intended use, and how they were still very detrimental to fighter planes despite not actually containing HE rounds.
So much for bigger wing spars



I'm not sure but the 190 in the video posted might have been armed with MK108 thus this spectacular explosion. But I think the "wing off" would happen with 20mm too.

AFAIK it is modelled in IL2, yet we don't have the terrific explosion effects.

IL2 FW190 pilots call it the "glass FW190A" syndrom. BTW this is the reason why many of them asked Oleg for a lighter FW190 as fighter equipped only with 2X20mm in the wingroots, and also why some consider the BF109 more useful in online wars, where some AI are able to hit the wing off box quite easily.

CUJO_1970
11-07-2009, 07:56 AM
20MM punches wings off P-47s easily:


Straight in front was a Thunderbolt, as I completed my turn I opened fire on him immediately...My fire was so heavy his left wing came off almost at once and I watched him go down.

Later in the same sortie:


There were 10 P-47s and four of us and we were all turning as hard as we could, as in a Lufbery. I was able to turn tighter and was gaining. I pulled within 80 yards of the P-47 ahead of me and opened fire. I hit him quickly and two of the othres got one each, so that in a minute and a half three of the P-47s went down..."

Georg-Peter Eder, 14 July 1943.

On this sortie, Eder destroyed a B-17 and two P-47s, each with only a quick burst from the 20MM cannons. No rare shots into explosive ammo bays required.

RegRag1977
11-07-2009, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by ROXunreal:
D:
Mah wing!

I highly doubt that all cannon rounds would detonate, perhaps a few at most IMO. Still more than enough, especially since it's an explosion from the inside out, even one round would do much more damage due to the pressure from every side as opposed to an outside 20mm hit.

One or two 30mm would be enough, remember in real life, only two or three of them were enough to down a viermot.

Brain32
11-07-2009, 08:10 AM
One of the kills on that footage is froma a Hawker Tempest guncam here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

Can't say for others although one looks quite familiar. The ammo exploding in the wings I've heard about before so it's not like I don't believe it or want to dispute it or anything like that but I don't think such things happened often at all...

RegRag1977
11-07-2009, 08:11 AM
BTW i cannot see where in this video only a "quick" 50.cal burst punches wings off FW190 "easily".

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
20MM punches wings off P-47s easily:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Straight in front was a Thunderbolt, as I completed my turn I opened fire on him immediately...My fire was so heavy his left wing came off almost at once and I watched him go down.

Later in the same sortie:


There were 10 P-47s and four of us and we were all turning as hard as we could, as in a Lufbery. I was able to turn tighter and was gaining. I pulled within 80 yards of the P-47 ahead of me and opened fire. I hit him quickly and two of the othres got one each, so that in a minute and a half three of the P-47s went down..."

Georg-Peter Eder, 14 July 1943.

On this sortie, Eder destroyed a B-17 and two P-47s, each with only a quick burst from the 20MM cannons. No rare shots into explosive ammo bays required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You couldn't resist mentioning this.

I find pilots accounts to be good story telling. I have yet to see anything close to what german pilots like this have described, although i'm sure it must've occured, but images are much more convincing, you agree?
It also seems to be fairly well modeled in game, as getting hit in the wings by a cannon shell seems to take it off pretty quickly no matter the plane.

I just wonder more about this wing off effect from machine gunfire considering the footage above, and that it also seems to have repeatedly occurred.

I can already sense the loading of the game, and nrtk records being made. This should be good.

Erkki_M
11-07-2009, 08:25 AM
Didnt just about every USAAF fighter from 43 onwards, at least in the 8th AF, have gun cams?

How many kills did they get over 190 and 109?

How many records do we have of 109s or 190s losing wings? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
One of the kills on that footage is froma a Hawker Tempest guncam here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

Can't say for others although one looks quite familiar. The ammo exploding in the wings I've heard about before so it's not like I don't believe it or want to dispute it or anything like that but I don't think such things happened often at all...


hmmm...that is interesting and i would only say that the source i have mentions the clips were taken from 78th fg P-47s in late 1943.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was some cross referencing where the same images are used in documentaries about separate aircraft.

I've seen Hellcat footage on P-51 programs for example. Sorry for any confusion if that's the case.

RegRag1977
11-07-2009, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

I find pilots accounts to be good story telling. I have yet to see anything close to what german pilots like this have described, although i'm sure it must've occured, but images are much more convincing, you agree?


I hear you about images being much more convincing, i agree to some extent but keep in mind that for some reason there are much more image from allies shooting down axis aircrafts.

Too bad there are not much images from what happened on june the 7th 1944 over western France, but in the other hand maybe it is better like that, for we could have drawn completely wrong conclusions:

1./JG5 officer Hauptm Weissenberger:

9:05, sector SE5, north-east from Montdidier, 1 P47 claimed

9:26, sector SE9, south-east from Montdidier, 1 P47 claimed

9:27, same sector, 1 P47 claimed

Later in the day...

17:15, sector TE5, near Beauvais, 1 P47 claimed

17:16, near Beauvais, 1 P47 claimed

So was it easy to shoot down P47? Answer: no, it is just that lucky aces are able to do things average guys rarely dare to dream about.

Was it easy to shoot down a FW190A wing off? I don't think so.
Were there lucky aces in the USAAF? No doubt about that.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/thunderbolt.html

Choctaw111
11-07-2009, 08:57 AM
This will be a few pages long.
I don't believe that the ammunition in the wing is part of the damage model, is it?
If not, I am sure this is addressed in Oleg's newest creation.

DKoor
11-07-2009, 09:24 AM
I imagine any hits and detonations in the ammunition belt were pretty much lethal to enemy aircraft. 12,7mm (.50cal) round detonation in the wing would be serious damage as well.
In the video I believe several rounds detonated considering the blasts.

Daiichidoku
11-07-2009, 09:48 AM
this proves the long standing myth:

Henschel Tigers were stored in 190 wings

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:

I find pilots accounts to be good story telling. I have yet to see anything close to what german pilots like this have described, although i'm sure it must've occured, but images are much more convincing, you agree?


I hear you about images being much more convincing, i agree to some extent but keep in mind that for some reason there are much more image from allies shooting down axis aircrafts.

Too bad there are not much images from what happened on june the 7th 1944 over western France, but in the other hand maybe it is better like that, for we could have drawn completely wrong conclusions:

1./JG5 officer Hauptm Weissenberger:

9:05, sector SE5, north-east from Montdidier, 1 P47 claimed

9:26, sector SE9, south-east from Montdidier, 1 P47 claimed

9:27, same sector, 1 P47 claimed

Later in the day...

17:15, sector TE5, near Beauvais, 1 P47 claimed

17:16, near Beauvais, 1 P47 claimed

So was it easy to shoot down P47? Answer: no, it is just that lucky aces are able to do things average guys rarely dare to dream about.

Was it easy to shoot down a FW190A wing off? I don't think so.
Were there lucky aces in the USAAF? No doubt about that.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/thunderbolt.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, i know planes were shot down on all sides, and I'm not going to nit pick pilot accounts or different battles, even numbers have a way of skewing things. I'm just amused that i bring up this vulnerability of the ammunition drums on FWs and then an immediate retort is how the P-47 wings are taken off by 20mm.


Actually looking into it, the 20mm/30mm ammunition canister/drum was resting on the 9th wing rib. It would be akin to having several sticks of dynamite packed into to that location of the wing, with no protection whatsoever and if it exploded that's where the wing separated.
These were typical armaments of Fw190A series planes. Armor must've been too much of a burden for at least maybe having more maneuverability than being shot in the first place.

I'm sure they had to fix this or at least offer some way to better protect the unspent rounds from gunfire.

I still question if this was a common problem using cannon drums on other planes?

Kettenhunde
11-07-2009, 10:07 AM
Henschel Tigers were stored in 190 wings

LMAO!

Yet another .50 caliber thread....it just never gets old does it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

stalkervision
11-07-2009, 10:19 AM
The 50 cal. is the 88 mm of the fighter aircraft world. Just accept it naysayers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Henschel Tigers were stored in 190 wings

LMAO!

Yet another .50 caliber thread....it just never gets old does it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yeah, i know....it had been a couple weeks since the mention of 50 cals, so i thought people could use another dose.

Actually my thinking in another thread, that i didn't want to make a 50 cal thread, was that 50 cals may not have been as structurally dangerous as cannons, however their AP abilities would've made the pilot particularly vulnerable as well as the engine blocks and other vitals.

This introduction to munitions vulnerability adds to this dynamic, given the fact that the 50s themselves are actually only capable of poking holes in aircraft skin. It is the fire from ignited fuels, a wounded or killed pilot, or even detonated HE ammunition that does a better job of bringing the plane down. I'm sure there is also a measurable amount of structural damage, but this doesn't compare to the use of a cannon or HE round. However, given the design and intent of a HE round it isn't likely to hit the pilot unless it is fired directly into the canopy. It explodes at first impact or fractions their after, where its likely to meet an armor plate or another obstruction.
Point being 50 cals could go through the entire plane and out the other side, depending on the angle and range, which could be very dangerous for the pilot and unspent cannon rounds.

I think its these errors in perception that misguide what people expect to get out of the guns in Il2.

I wasn't actually trying to make this another 50 cal thread, but just add attention to the fact that unspent HE rounds were a danger.

I don't see regular AP or machine gun rounds having the same vulnerability being that the contents for projection are ignited by a cap that a hammer in the gun slams against. It is possible to hit the cap and cause the bullet to fire, but no explosion that would equate to an HE round exploding inside your own wing, packed next to other HE rounds.



Bill

JtD
11-07-2009, 11:01 AM
Bill, the problem with the .50 vs. stored ammo is the likelihood of the hit. Compared to the size of the plane, from any angle, the wing ammo boxes are tiny. They make up maybe 1% of the Fw's to hit area. And not every hit will set them off.

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 11:14 AM
odds are increased based on the amount of firing time and number of guns, just as hitting the pilot or any other vital in the plane.
I must admit i was fooled when i first saw the footage thinking that the impacts alone lead to the wing busting off. Probably harder than hitting the pilot but it depends on spread and range too. I might add that various pilots accounts (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/) make mention of seeing similar explosions at the wing root. So it might've been more common than you think, and not always leading to wing separation but i'm sure it would be detrimental to the aircraft.


I really wasn't trying to make it an issue of DMs or inaccurate model. More to the aforementioned points i layed out in the post above.

M_Gunz
11-07-2009, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Henschel Tigers were stored in 190 wings

LMAO!

Yet another .50 caliber thread....it just never gets old does it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poetic Mode ON: why yes, like the hopes and dreams of small children it never gets old! always believe!
Poetic Mode OFF:

yuuppers
11-07-2009, 03:03 PM
The Fw190A8/R8 had a 20mm thick piece of armor placed in front and 4mm armour for the top and bottom of the ammo.

ps Bill. didn't think your initial post was the start of a .50 moaning thread. Some ppl do have reading comprehension difficulties.

Gibbage1
11-07-2009, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Bill, the problem with the .50 vs. stored ammo is the likelihood of the hit. Compared to the size of the plane, from any angle, the wing ammo boxes are tiny. They make up maybe 1% of the Fw's to hit area. And not every hit will set them off.

Using 8 guns firing at 700RPM greatly increases the likelihood of a strike in the ammo. Also, remember that the FW-190 also stores 20MM HE rounds in the belly right next to the fuel tanks, and I have seen a guncam video of that blowing up as well.

The only thing that this video shows, is ammo detonation is possible. In IL2, its not. Only disables the gun. But it don't take a genius to figure out that .50 + HE ammo = boom.

JtD
11-07-2009, 03:49 PM
You're geniuses. Personally, I would never have guessed that more hits improve the overall odds for a lucky hit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Another possibility would be to shoot 500kg bombs instead of 50g projectiles. These would also be more likely to set off the ammo. Just so I said it before you can come up with another brilliant idea.

Bearcat99
11-07-2009, 04:28 PM
Personally I think that the guys who brought us the new Ponies fron AAA dd a great job on them.. IMO they indeed "fixed" the Mustangs.. and if you arent careful you can still loose a wing in a dive.. or stall out in a unrecoverable flatspin.. and if you dont keep your speed up you can still wobble like crazy.. but the IMO improved 5os are great.

BillSwagger
11-07-2009, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
You're geniuses. Personally, I would never have guessed that more hits improve the overall odds for a lucky hit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Another possibility would be to shoot 500kg bombs instead of 50g projectiles. These would also be more likely to set off the ammo. Just so I said it before you can come up with another brilliant idea.


You're forgetting that bomb material itself requires more than an impact to set it off, and correct me if im wrong, but bombs are loaded so they don't actually arm until the pilot pulls the release clamp.
High explosive HE rounds are fused with a ball baring mechanism, i'm sure you already know about. There are three spring loaded bearings that move outward as the shell spins, rifling out of the barrel. This arms the fuse, and when the shell stops spinning the springs push them back to the center. If even one barring hits the center it explodes, so a bullet impact from a 50 caliber or other weapon could set the fuse as it hits or jolts the bearings, and the springs immediately push them back... and Boom!
I'm not sure the HE or flash powder alone is sensitive to impacts, but I'm not sure which is more likely, the ignition of HE from an impact, or the setting and release of the fuse from the impact. Its not a far out speculation because seeing footage and reading pilots reports is enough to know that it did happen and sometimes very catastrophically.

I'm not sure why people would have a problem excepting that the HE rounds were just another vital part of the aircraft, like the engine, fuel tanks, as well as the pilot and controls.


The Fw190A8/R8 had a 20mm thick piece of armor placed in front and 4mm armour for the top and bottom of the ammo.

This is testament to the fact that it was a recognized vulnerability.

Bremspropeller
11-07-2009, 04:41 PM
Also, remember that the FW-190 also stores 20MM HE rounds in the belly right next to the fuel tanks, and I have seen a guncam video of that blowing up as well.

You should work for the NTSB, as you can determine chains of action by just looking at them.


The Fw190A8/R8 had a 20mm thick piece of armor placed in front and 4mm armour for the top and bottom of the ammo.

So did the A-8/R2.
You should have noticed that this was only deemed neccessary for MK108-equipped "Sturmjäger" aircraft.

Bo_Nidle
11-07-2009, 07:02 PM
The clip at 6 secs to 8secs taken at low level is from the guncamera of a 56thFg P-47, so that is definitely .50 cal damage.

Sillius_Sodus
11-07-2009, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
this proves the long standing myth:

Henschel Tigers were stored in 190 wings
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

yuuppers
11-07-2009, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw190A8/R8 had a 20mm thick piece of armor placed in front and 4mm armour for the top and bottom of the ammo.

So did the A-8/R2.
You should have noticed that this was only deemed neccessary for MK108-equipped "Sturmjäger" aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I had only said A-8 you would have something to snipe about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bremspropeller
11-07-2009, 08:15 PM
I'm only taken care of an audience that thinks that 50s kill Tigers, sink battleships and put the "f" back in "freedom". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Rjel
11-07-2009, 08:52 PM
This feels like a thread from 2005 or 2004 or... well you get the idea. I guess the fact, 64 plus years after the event, that there are still those who don't think the .50 cals on U.S. fighters weren't effective aren't the experts they think themselves to be. Considering the air war fought in WWII by the various U.S. air arms was considerably different than almost every other air force in the conflict, it was the right weapon at the right time. Whether that was incredible foresight in planning or blind luck doesn't matter. The weapon was in being when needed, produced by the tens of thousands, and added the luxury of ease of supply by limiting the need of but a single cartridge type having to be produced and shipped all over the world.
Obviously, it was effective in fighter to fighter combat in Europe where U.S. pilots rarely had to fight German bombers because of the incredible ineptitude and short sightedness of German planning. As an added bonus, the Japanese aided the cause of the .50 cal by making A/C easily destroyed by it. When the air war switched over to ground attack it was by far and away the better weapon by virtue of being compact enough to allow every major U.S. fighter plane to carry it by the hundreds. A luxury, I'm sure, any pilot would appreciate. It doesn't matter a bit if the .50 cal destroyed a single Tiger tank as is the common joke here. What it did destroy was enough to help defeat the enemy.


Thx for the clip Bo_Nidle. Now I know where your avatar comes from. Always wondered who it was.

ibeagle
11-07-2009, 10:47 PM
Re the 2nd kill. I have seen still photos I believe are of this kill. The caption speculated that a lucky hit to the oxygen cylinder caused the explosion.

Romanator21
11-07-2009, 11:53 PM
It's obvious that the .50 cals are hitting something in the wing. Now it's a question of "how often" That part of the wing is full of explosives, but how easy was it to set off? Are these the only instances of this happening, or did it happen 50% of the time?

What I also find interesting is what the planes do after losing a wing: The don't instantly start corkscrewing, but initially roll slowly. This is especially true for a bomber which is much more massive/has more inertia. It seems in the game the C-47 are more or less correct: De-wing it and it slowly lurches over on it's side, and then falls. Do the same to the Fw-200 and it looks like a little leaf in the wind, fluttering back and forth at a rate that would rip it to bits. To me this kills the sense of scale a bit.

Treetop64
11-08-2009, 12:05 AM
I'm certain that any caliber round penetrating to whatever detonates inside the wing will dismember it, not just .50s.

Erkki_M
11-08-2009, 05:55 AM
In John Weal's Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front (Osprey 1995, ISBN 952-5186-21-0), there is mentioned a case where 2nd Liutenant Norbert Hannig fells victim to sabotage South of Leningrad in May 1943 flying an FW190A4.

Someone had done something to a HE ammo in the outer wing cannon, it had exploded inside the barrrel, and the following APIT round had partially stucked in the barrel, and a 3rd round, a Minengeschloss one, had exploded when it hit the APIT round, blowing up a huge hole in the wing and destroying the MG-FF cannon. He managed to crash-land, his wing, engine, fuselage and cockpit filled with shrapnel holes, luckily himself intact.

I will not quote the book for you because my example is in Finnish... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 06:10 AM
Its not a far out speculation because seeing footage and reading pilots reports is enough to know that it did happen and sometimes very catastrophically.

I'm not sure why people would have a problem excepting that the HE rounds were just another vital part of the aircraft, like the engine, fuel tanks, as well as the pilot and controls.

This is not to be a 50 porking thread. Just know that 50s themselves were intended to work on the vitals above.

Erkki_M
11-08-2009, 06:23 AM
OTOH, I dont get why all other kind of ammunition couldnt explode as well(cartridges)... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 06:39 AM
thats been discussed and explained.

Cannon shells have fuses that could be set and exploded from bullet impacts.
This might have been a problem or risk for any such plane carrying cannons with similar fusing.
How they explode is still not clear to me, only that's its clear they did.

Other rounds such as 50 cal or 303s aren't going to explode like that. The projection powder itself is not sensitive to impacts, rather it requires ignition from a blasting cap, that the hammer in a gun slams against. At most, i see a bullet exploding or even firing from this, but you're not gonna see the catastrophic damage that a HE round can produce exploding inside your own wing.

The footage seems to be un-reputable. Then you read through the pilot encounter reports and watch for the ones that report seeing an explosion at the wing root. Keep in mind it was still easier to hit the pilot or engine than hitting these ammunition drums, so i don't see it being that common.

Bremspropeller
11-08-2009, 06:46 AM
This game has a hard time simulating engine-damage correctly and people are calling for more complexities. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 07:12 AM
For me, it doesn't matter much, i get a fair number of kills as it is using the 50s. I've found little use in complaining about DMs or weapons models because it does little to change it, only that it incites a flame war or puts me at the center of unnecessary scrutiny. I just wouldn't base any of my historical views on what you can or can't do with a plane or weapon in a video game. For that reason, it is no more a discussion on a piece of history.

If anything, it should hush the mur murs about 50 cal effectiveness, or how tough the 190 wings were. Most people have come to these conclusions playing video games, with out reviewing relevant facts or history.
This is why when you show footage like this, there are some who immediately want to dismiss it because it goes against the reality they've created for themselves out of playing a video game. Not trying to alienate anyone, but that's just how i see it sometimes.
Enjoy the game for what it is.



Bill

RegRag1977
11-08-2009, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

the pilot and controls.


Not to forget coolant lines and radiators on other aircrafts (.50s were excellent at breaking them, we don't have that in game).

Once the tactical/strategical advantage is on your side, when you are in good position and hitting an aircraft, it soon becomes obvious that the concept of the aircraft itself is a vital part: i mean anything hit repeatedly will break (think about how many IL2 and fortresses were shot down)and cause the target to crash.

The FW in the movie were doomed anyway wing off or no.

That said, i too think that HE ammo is a dangerous vital part, it's all gambling. The pilots would prefer to have speed, firepower and agility over too much heavy armour: but in all scenarios they need advantage.

The video illustrate what happens to a pilot that lost his speed, when his agility no longer helps to use his firepower: HE Ammo in the wings or not, he goes down. [ <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">EDIT]Or to say it differently, when hit like that, we have wing off, HE or not.[EDIT]</span>

I don't think we can just say that the Fw190 with outer guns were more vulnerable than other aircaft without them. In fact, even with MK108 the FW was still more suited than the BF to destroy bombers and to resist damages.

And many aircraft designers re equiped their MG equiped design with canons through the war.

RegRag1977
11-08-2009, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
thats been discussed and explained.

Cannon shells have fuses that could be set and exploded from bullet impacts.
This might have been a problem or risk for any such plane carrying cannons with similar fusing.
How they explode is still not clear to me, only that's its clear they did.

Other rounds such as 50 cal or 303s aren't going to explode like that. The projection powder itself is not sensitive to impacts, rather it requires ignition from a blasting cap, that the hammer in a gun slams against. At most, i see a bullet exploding or even firing from this, but you're not gonna see the catastrophic damage that a HE round can produce exploding inside your own wing.


I agree. This seems logical to me. The problem is still to know how many times such explosions occured and under what circumstances.

Bremspropeller
11-08-2009, 08:23 AM
Bill, the problem of video-footage is - despite being impessive images - no one knows the circumstances of those pictures for certain.

What's the setup of the planes hit?
Had there been any damage before the guncam-film has been taken?
Which gun was in the wing? (most propably a MK108)

If determining "facts" out of bad-quality/ split-second/ single POV video-footage was so easy, crash-investigators would have easy jobs, relying on eyewitness-reports only.

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 08:39 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

i had to watch this again.

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

It looks pretty clear to me, although i can't say what ammo is mounted in the wings.
Raising those questions doesn't dismiss what happend. Read the pilot encounter reports. It may not have severed the wing everytime, but there are reports that claim seeing the violent explosion at the wing root.
I really don't think it was that common, but just to say it was a vital part, i think you'd have to agree, no?

Bill

RegRag1977
11-08-2009, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

i had to watch this again.

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

It looks pretty clear to me, although i can't say what ammo is mounted in the wings.
Raising those questions doesn't dismiss what happend. Read the pilot encounter reports. It may not have severed the wing everytime, but there are reports that claim seeing the violent explosion at the wing root.
I really don't think it was that common, but just to say it was a vital part, i think you'd have to agree, no?

Bill

Do you mean, had the Fw190 no outer wing canon, its wing would have absorbed such a powerful gun fire?

Its an important question if you answer yes, the the canon ammo is a vital part.

To me the wing would have break anyway... But it is just my opinion.

DKoor
11-08-2009, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
To me the wing would have break anyway... But it is just my opinion.
+1
People should watch those vids of a single .50cal chewing up a large rock and destroying things up.
It is a powerful machine gun.

mortoma
11-08-2009, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I saw some footage recently of what i thought was 50 cals punching the wings off a 190 with one quick burst, and then it was explained that the 50 cal actually has a catastrophic effect on cannon ammunition located in the wings. Apparently the use of an ammunition drum is to blame, if you could imagine having all the cannon rounds on your wing detonate at once.


actually. don't imagine it...here it is:

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

I just thought i'd make another point about the 50s and there intended use, and how they were still very detrimental to fighter planes despite not actually containing HE rounds.
So much for bigger wing spars



I'm not sure but the 190 in the video posted might have been armed with MK108 thus this spectacular explosion. But I think the "wing off" would happen with 20mm too.

AFAIK it is modelled in IL2, yet we don't have the terrific explosion effects.

IL2 FW190 pilots call it the "glass FW190A" syndrom. BTW this is the reason why many of them asked Oleg for a lighter FW190 as fighter equipped only with 2X20mm in the wingroots, and also why some consider the BF109 more useful in online wars, where some AI are able to hit the wing off box quite easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dude, I really don't think exploding ammo stores is modeled in this game. Igniting fuel tanks is modeled somewhat to a limited degree but not hitting ammo.

RegRag1977
11-08-2009, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I saw some footage recently of what i thought was 50 cals punching the wings off a 190 with one quick burst, and then it was explained that the 50 cal actually has a catastrophic effect on cannon ammunition located in the wings. Apparently the use of an ammunition drum is to blame, if you could imagine having all the cannon rounds on your wing detonate at once.


actually. don't imagine it...here it is:

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

I just thought i'd make another point about the 50s and there intended use, and how they were still very detrimental to fighter planes despite not actually containing HE rounds.
So much for bigger wing spars



I'm not sure but the 190 in the video posted might have been armed with MK108 thus this spectacular explosion. But I think the "wing off" would happen with 20mm too.

AFAIK it is modelled in IL2, yet we don't have the terrific explosion effects.

IL2 FW190 pilots call it the "glass FW190A" syndrom. BTW this is the reason why many of them asked Oleg for a lighter FW190 as fighter equipped only with 2X20mm in the wingroots, and also why some consider the BF109 more useful in online wars, where some AI are able to hit the wing off box quite easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dude, I really don't think exploding ammo stores is modeled in this game. Igniting fuel tanks is modeled somewhat to a limited degree but not hitting ammo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. Just had the impression that there was something like a "wing off box", that when hit even with few rounds causes the wing to break. I have seemed to notice that on Spitfires or N1K2 while flying 109 and P51/P38. I'm always surprised when it occurs.

I have no proofs, just impressions and opinions. I can be wrong.

deepo_HP
11-08-2009, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I'm not sure why people would have a problem excepting that the HE rounds were just another vital part of the aircraft, like the engine, fuel tanks, as well as the pilot and controls.
well, since you have said this twice, this is my view.

you have shown footage where wings fall off and explosions can be seen. you conclude, that is due to a hit to ammunition.

i think, the problem some have is why you came to that conclusion.
development of grenades had always taken concern of the problem of unintentional explosion. for explosion, the explosive needs the necessary reaction-energy, mostly given through a detonator. the minengeschoss had a high developed aufschlagzünder (which has nothing in common with fuse chords or such), which should ensure, that the geschoss already had penetrated inside. this was achieved by some kind of needle and a detonatorpack moving towards each other.

main point is, that the question of security of detonators has been considered basic and been treated early.
you mentioned a fusing mechanism before, which was activated by spin.
this is, imo, only part of detonator safety. smaller explosive calibres used a safety-mechanism, which prevented chain-reaction of the 4 parts detonator (movable compartment) -> amplifying -> initiation -> explosive. only by two different forces (spin and acceleration), the detonator was 'fuselined' and able to bring the amplifying fuse to recation after impact.

these concepts have been designed before and during war already. what i don't know is if DKW already used them developing the 20mm, but i think both 30mm had it by default.

this is what i remember from a similar discussion on ammo-safety long ago. i don't know, if i explained the detonator parts right... and i am by far not sure how the MG15/20 was equipped with it.

but it seems to be much worth to question the explosions to be seen in the videos.


edit:
found a detailed description of the fuses used in HE/M-shells, see post below.

orville07
11-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Sorry Bill but these are not.50 rounds. They are not even mostly US pilots, they are RAF Hawker Tempest pilots.... its taken from the DVD "Tempest at War". One Yank is in the same squadron I believe. The Focke Wulf wings are being blown off by Mr 20mm Hispano-Suiza. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

deepo_HP
11-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
thats been discussed and explained.
Cannon shells have fuses that could be set and exploded from bullet impacts. that is wrong.

ZZ 1589B 'Zerlegezünder' (30mm, MK-108):

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/1589.jpg

Due to the riffling of the barrel, the shell is given a high rotational speed during firing. This leads to centrifugal forces that push the six balls (7) outwards, forcing them in the collar ring and keeping the firing pin housing (4) which holds the firing pin (5) in upper position. Meanwhile the wrapped safety coil (6) rolls out, thereby opening the way for the firing pin housing to move downward forced by spring (8), however held back by the balls in the groove. At impact the firing pin housing with firing pin is simply hammered down in the duplex detonator (the balls are forced back into the firing pin housing), exploding the shell. If the rotational speed decreases too much (long time of flight, i.e. the shell missed target) the force of the spring will force the balls back into the firing pin housing after which it moves down due to the spring force. This forces the firing pin into the duplex detonator (10), exploding the shell. This description also applies to the ZZ 1589 A fuse.


AZ 1587 'Aufschlagzünder' (30mm, MK108):

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/1587.jpg

While at rest, the centrifugal safety pins (5) prevent the firing pin housing (3) holding the firing pin (4) from moving over the hole in the safety plate (9). They are held in this position by the the safety coil (6). During firing, the shell starts to rotate due to the riffling, making the centrifugal safety pins move outwards, overpowering the safety coil, allowing the firing pin housing (3) to move to its central position. Immediately after firing the shell starts to loose speed due to aerodynamic drag. This deceleration makes the ball (7) move forward inside the the adapter body (2). As soon as the ball has reached the top position, it will fall in a recess in the firing pin housing, thereby making the housing heavier on the side of the ball. Centrifugal force will now swing the ball outward , thereby pulling the firing pin housing in its central position, with the firing pin over the hole in the safety plate. At impact the firing pin is hammered into the Duplex detonator, thereby exploding the shell.


the fuses for 20mm are of the same principles, just found no such nice descriptions and pics for them.

both mechanisms ensured, that the explosive content could not be ignited in storage. not by impact, not by fire, not by jamming.
so, no other bullet or shell could initiate explosion of the ammo-drums - even if it perhaps happened by misfunction or unconsidered circumstances.

Kettenhunde
11-08-2009, 03:31 PM
The Tempest could be the source of the ".50 cal kills Tiger Tanks" controversy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...dfE0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaOlGXudfE0&feature=related)

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:

you have shown footage where wings fall off and explosions can be seen. you conclude, that is due to a hit to ammunition.



Actually, my conclusion was that the 50 cals hit the wing and tore it off. Then i was corrected and told that it was because of the bullets hitting the ammunition box or canister in the wing. The footage itself is taken from a documentary that explains this, so i'm told.

As for the fusing of the ammo, it seems like common sense that the shell/cartridges wouldn't be so frail that they couldn't be handled or carried safely in the wing. Planes might fly on a cushion of air, but they can be bumpy rides, especially for landing and take off.

I guess what i need to understand then is that the shell can't be armed and/or detonated unless the cartridge is discharged?
or is there even the slightest possibility that a bullet or fragment can cause a misfire or pre-detonation?


Bill

RegRag1977
11-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
thats been discussed and explained.
Cannon shells have fuses that could be set and exploded from bullet impacts. that is wrong.

ZZ 1589B 'Zerlegezünder' (30mm, MK-108):

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/1589.jpg

Due to the riffling of the barrel, the shell is given a high rotational speed during firing. This leads to centrifugal forces that push the six balls (7) outwards, forcing them in the collar ring and keeping the firing pin housing (4) which holds the firing pin (5) in upper position. Meanwhile the wrapped safety coil (6) rolls out, thereby opening the way for the firing pin housing to move downward forced by spring (8), however held back by the balls in the groove. At impact the firing pin housing with firing pin is simply hammered down in the duplex detonator (the balls are forced back into the firing pin housing), exploding the shell. If the rotational speed decreases too much (long time of flight, i.e. the shell missed target) the force of the spring will force the balls back into the firing pin housing after which it moves down due to the spring force. This forces the firing pin into the duplex detonator (10), exploding the shell. This description also applies to the ZZ 1589 A fuse.


AZ 1587 'Aufschlagzünder' (30mm, MK108):

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/1587.jpg

While at rest, the centrifugal safety pins (5) prevent the firing pin housing (3) holding the firing pin (4) from moving over the hole in the safety plate (9). They are held in this position by the the safety coil (6). During firing, the shell starts to rotate due to the riffling, making the centrifugal safety pins move outwards, overpowering the safety coil, allowing the firing pin housing (3) to move to its central position. Immediately after firing the shell starts to loose speed due to aerodynamic drag. This deceleration makes the ball (7) move forward inside the the adapter body (2). As soon as the ball has reached the top position, it will fall in a recess in the firing pin housing, thereby making the housing heavier on the side of the ball. Centrifugal force will now swing the ball outward , thereby pulling the firing pin housing in its central position, with the firing pin over the hole in the safety plate. At impact the firing pin is hammered into the Duplex detonator, thereby exploding the shell.


the fuses for 20mm are of the same principles, just found no such nice descriptions and pics for them.

both mechanisms ensured, that the explosive content could not be ignited in storage. not by impact, not by fire, not by jamming.
so, no other bullet or shell could initiate explosion of the ammo-drums - even if it perhaps happened by misfunction or unconsidered circumstances. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi DeepoHP,

I have always wondered how canon shells work, now thanks to your post, it is far clearer.

Thank you for this post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

deepo_HP
11-08-2009, 05:34 PM
hi regrag,

glad, you found it interesting.
but i was just lucky enough to find the information again fast. i had it bookmarked from another discussion, which i had only a foggy memory of.



hi billswagger,

sorry... yes, the video description tells about the ammo-hits. it wasn't your conclusion, my fault.


and yes, the high explosives in shells are chosen in a way, that it won't detonate without ignition by fuze.
commonly used in HE or Minengeschoss was Nitropenta or Hexogen (still in C4 plastic). depending on the use, these explosives can be phlegmatised, for example against shock by adding Paraffin. also fire is usually not causing explosion, but decomposition or just burning.
for explosive reaction of the charge the shock-wave of igniting explosives is needed. sometimes also the addition of chemicals, which only then create the high-explosive character of the charge (for example using Oktogen) - however not in the shells discussed here.
safety can therefor be achieved by certain mechanisms to prevent the fuze from igniting the charge - as shown in the diagrams they can be quite difficile.

the propellants are a different subject. they probably could detonate on hit (well, basically they should), but still don't ignite the main charge. without a surrounding barrel the effect shouldn't be dramatic, and chain reactions on the rest of the drum are not to be expected.

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:

the propellants are a different subject. they probably could detonate on hit (well, basically they should), but still don't ignite the main charge. without a surrounding barrel the effect shouldn't be dramatic, and chain reactions on the rest of the drum are not to be expected.

Maybe then what we are seeing is the case when the propellants are lit which does fire the projectile into a barrier in the wing or the canister itself, where it then detonates.

TS_Sancho
11-08-2009, 06:38 PM
RegRag1977's post above, which seems accurate to me, specifically states the rounds required centrifugal force imparted from the spin down the barrel to arm and detonate.

50 cal is a viscous round for ripping up all things airplane but is it possible that Kettenhunde and orville07 are correct? Perhaps we are being presented with video of 20mm hispano rounds exploding on impact which has been mislabeled over time as 50 cal guncam footage?

That would easily explain what appears to be an explosive detonation ripping the wings off the FW's in the video.

deepo_HP
11-08-2009, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Maybe then what we are seeing is the case when the propellants are lit which does fire the projectile into a barrier in the wing or the canister itself, where it then detonates. not very likely, imo...

the fuzes described before need the acceleration and spin of the shell leaving the barrel to be activated.
exploding propellants of unloaded ammunition won't give the shells much drive. i don't know how much damage such a shell can do to structure, but probably the fuze won't get actiavted and the charge won't detonate by hitting barriers.

Blutarski2004
11-08-2009, 08:24 PM
..... There may be alternate explanations here, not involving fuzes at all.

A unique feature of the minengeschoss round was that it was of drawn steel of thin gauge. That is what made possible its huge HE charge. It could easily be ruptured by a 50cal APIT, whose incendiary and tracer component might then ignite its HE content.

Another possibility is that the shock of bullet impact might activate the cartridge primer of one or more cannon rounds in the ammunition bay. I know that most German aircraft guns were electrically fired, but cartridge primer compositions are usually pretty sensitive to shock.

One other thought is that the severing of the wing may not necessarily be effected by explosive force alone. Perhaps the skin of the wing was simply blown out into the slipstream, whose force would then put huge eccentric loads on and into the wing structure and tear it off.

deepo_HP
11-08-2009, 09:02 PM
hi blutarski,

as already said before, in summary to your points:

the HE charge couldn't be ignited by incendiaries or tracers. not exactly sure about Nitropenta, but Hexogen just starts decompositing or burning slowly under greater heat. for explosion the shockwave of a detonator is required.
this has nothing to do with the compartment.

probably it was possible to ignite the propellant in the cartridge via a lucky hit on the bottom.
i would think, the result should have been a small backblast and that's it. i am not firm enough in pyrotechnics, but i wouldn't be surprised, if the cartridge wouldn't even leave the drum. i am also sure, it wouldn't cause any other's to burn their propellant.

i agree, that damage of surface might cause follow-up effects. but if these could lead to ripping whole wings away... well, i don't know.


anyway, the videos showed also some kind of explosion and the note to the video said, it was due to ammo-box.
imo, it is highly questionable the reason... i think, the link which orville provided seems to show in parts the same footage. so it was in fact the impact of hispano-shells to be seen, not surprisingly able to rip wings off and perhaps causing fuel- or oxygene-explosions in some captures.

JtD
11-08-2009, 10:40 PM
There's neither fuel nor oxygen in that part of the wing and the explosion is far bigger than that of a 20mm round.

Also, I find it highly doubtful that the "Tempest" guncam is all from 20mm cannons, some shot showed a lot of hits with .50 effects - just a few incendiaries.

For what it's worth, one of the wing off shots shows a primary explosion a split second before the wing gets ripped off, that looks like 20mm:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/20mmexplosion.jpg

Imho, something definitely exploded in that part of the wing.The only thing explosive there is the 20mm ammo box. I see no reason why a hit into live ammo contained in a small compartment cannot detonate it.

Daiichidoku
11-08-2009, 11:10 PM
any chance that its unignited fuel from wing tanks affected by hydrostatic shock blowing the skinning out, and the flash is actually fuel being atomized?

JtD
11-08-2009, 11:14 PM
Fw did not have wing fuel tanks.

BillSwagger
11-08-2009, 11:38 PM
This goes back to what i said before about cross referencing of video/film shots. It is common place for a show to use stock reels of war footage which may or may not be actual combat shots from the planes being talked about. I've seen Hellcat footage on P-51 programs for example. Even in watching the Tempest guncam there is only one duplicated from the shots i originally posted. There is also enough footage in the Hawker Tempest footage to indicate that its not all guncam footage from a Tempest. It is also my understanding that 20mm cannons had a large tracer round which doesn't appear in that shot, at least, until after the wing pops off. I still think there is an argument there, but i'd rather not question the authenticity of the footage, when i know that most of what i'm looking at is from 50 cal fire.

On that note, I think that a burst into the wing isn't likely to cause an ammunition box problems. It is more likely to cause a jam or misfire when the pilot needs to use the weapon, however it does look like there is more than a remote possibility that a cartridge could go off and cause big problems.

doraemil
11-09-2009, 01:22 AM
thanks deepo that explains alot about cannon fuses



BOB SOW will model ammo cook offs.



I was laughing because . . .

what if the footage was actually P-39 or Yak 9 45mm cannon shots . . .



Geramns = Male Giraffe

Explosians = rap term commonly used by Asian hip hop subculture, portmanteau of exploiting asians


"US fighters VS geramns planes, ww2 wing hits on the 20mm ammo in the wing guns, causes the explosians and blow the wings off"

Kettenhunde
11-09-2009, 06:22 AM
If your game models burst limits of the actual weapon limitations, the whining will be legendary.

RegRag1977
11-09-2009, 07:19 AM
OK. After watching it over and over again:

1st kill: i can see big flash and smoke of the first shells impacting on the wing, quickly followed by smaller smoke puffs from other impacts, then wing off. I do not see one big explosion causing wing off, but multiple impacts right after the first big "flash and smoke". The wing actually survives the first big "flash and smoke", as the following impact smoke puffs seem to show.

2nd kill: Fw is in a skidding movement (yaw) to the left. Huge explosion that could be the now exposed (yaw) fuel tank exploding (look at all the fire, this seems to be ignited fuel).
The shooting aircraft is not at exact convergence: one stream of shells hits the fuel tank causing it to explode while at the same time the second stream is hitting the wing all at point blank, causing the wing off.

3rd kill: wing off with something like a huge and dark smoke explosion (BUT the light source behind the subject (smoke puff) maybe causing the smoke to look dark, contre-jour?): the flash and smoke could easily come from the impacting shells.
As this is a very poor quality film, i prefer not to comment it.

4th kill, no explosion at all, only flash and smoke from impacting shell. "Normal wing off"

This is how i interpret the images. Nothing but normal wing offs...

RegRag1977
11-09-2009, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
RegRag1977's post above, which seems accurate to me, specifically states the rounds required centrifugal force imparted from the spin down the barrel to arm and detonate.

50 cal is a viscous round for ripping up all things airplane but is it possible that Kettenhunde and orville07 are correct? Perhaps we are being presented with video of 20mm hispano rounds exploding on impact which has been mislabeled over time as 50 cal guncam footage?

That would easily explain what appears to be an explosive detonation ripping the wings off the FW's in the video.

Hi Sancho,

This was not my post but Deepo_HP's interesting one.

I agree with you: Kettenhunde und Orville07 are correct. It may be Tempest or 50.cals equiped Spitfires (hispano+50.).

Xiolablu3
11-09-2009, 08:08 AM
One of the IS from a Tempest

RegRag1977
11-09-2009, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
One of the IS from a Tempest

Roger Xiolablu3, got it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Kettenhunde
11-09-2009, 09:28 AM
You guys are like a bad episode of CSI: IL2....

If an airplane is under an asymmetrical load as in skidding or slipping turn its failure point is much lower. Load factor limits apply to one axis only.

Damage the main spar and the supporting structure it becomes very possible for the wing to fail at very low load factors as well.

During WWII it was determined that the best way to inflict the most damage to a monocoque construction airframe was by overpressure. You set off an explosion inside the structure. While the explosion might cause large areas of visible damage, it can compromise the structure without it. A few loose rivets in a load bearing structure are cause for concern. The over pressure tends to loosen large areas of rivet lines and seams. The effect is that our airframe is much weaker and cannot handle the level of stress it did before it was damaged.

Rjel
11-09-2009, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You guys are like a bad episode of CSI: IL2....


So let me see if I have this straight. The FW wasn't shot down at all, it really committed suicide? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
11-09-2009, 10:03 AM
After being the subject of so many .50 cal threads.....yes.

Rjel
11-09-2009, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
After being the subject of so many .50 cal threads.....yes.

lol. That is for sure.

RegRag1977
11-09-2009, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
After being the subject of so many .50 cal threads.....yes.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TS_Sancho
11-09-2009, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
After being the subject of so many .50 cal threads.....yes.

You have to at least give us high marks for effort. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
11-09-2009, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:

both mechanisms ensured, that the explosive content could not be ignited in storage. not by impact, not by fire, not by jamming.
so, no other bullet or shell could initiate explosion of the ammo-drums - even if it perhaps happened by misfunction or unconsidered circumstances.

The way I see it, the mechanisms barely ensured that the firing pin could not enter the detonator. The detonator as such is not protected against impact, say from a penetrating .50 round or shell splinters going through.
I'd also be curious as to the temperature the chemicals could endure without reacting, I don't know them.
Also, merely fast burning i.e. not exploding explosives have ripped apart battleships of 40.000tons size, so they'd be having little trouble in destroying a fighters wing.

K_Freddie
11-09-2009, 01:29 PM
There is a pic somewhere of a FW190 (RHS) wingroot cannon jam which blows the whole wing root area away - an amazing pic, never mind the pilot surviving the incident.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I don't know if any of you remember some guys on the forum interviewing an FW190 vet, and showing him IL2, where the vet, on contact started firing off his cannons into open space.
When asked why he did this, his reply was 'You don't want a 'bomb in your wings' (or something similar).

Which essentially explains the wing 'failures/explosions' of the FW's in the allied gun guncams.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
11-09-2009, 01:44 PM
The fuse must rotate a certain time before the pin is released and the fuse is very small. Still if you smash the tip
hard enough it would drive fuse parts right into the fulminate cap and set the shell off. If they are contained then
the container becomes the bomb and a chain reaction can set up. Anything violent enough to set the cap off figuring
that initial firing of the shell from a gun is not enough of a shock to set it off.

Blutarski2004
11-09-2009, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I don't know if any of you remember some guys on the forum interviewing an FW190 vet, and showing him IL2, where the vet, on contact started firing off his cannons into open space.
When asked why he did this, his reply was 'You don't want a 'bomb in your wings' (or something similar).

Which essentially explains the wing 'failures/explosions' of the FW's in the allied gun guncams.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... Fascinating. Many such important details like this will be lost to mankind when these veterans finally pass.

Thanks for posting this.

Bremspropeller
11-09-2009, 02:04 PM
When asked why he did this, his reply was 'You don't want a 'bomb in your wings' (or something similar).

We certainly need a BS-flag smiley.

Gibbage1
11-09-2009, 02:14 PM
I dont think you need to hit the fuze to blow an HE shell up. Remember what the fuze is. A source of heat and ignition. The shell itself is a thin steel wall, and the AP or API is a copper covered steel slug. Steel on steel traveling at a high velocity also creates heat and ignition.

On the otherhand, a bomb is a very thick walled explosive. Most of the 500lb (about 80%) of a 500lb bomb is steel, not explosives. Getting a bullet through a bomb would be very difficult. I have never seen OR heard of a B-17 or B-24 just explode in mid-air from a bomb going off in its belly after getting shot.

As for why, even if its 20MM, is the explosion so catastrophic, I think its due to a chain reaction explosion. 1 HE round goes off, its very likley to set off another thats only 1" away from it, packed in a tight box, and then another, and another..

Also, inversly, if a .50 cal ammo box would be hit, you may get a few rounds to cook off, and jam the belting, but it would not be a catastrophic chain reaction as an HE shell, since only the gun powder would ignight, sending the round forward.

Also, after reviewing my scematics, and compairing them to the center point of the explosions on the film, its without a doubt in my mind the ammo box for the 20/30MM outer wing guns.

deepo_HP
11-09-2009, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
On the otherhand, a bomb is a very thick walled explosive. Most of the 500lb (about 80%) of a 500lb bomb is steel, not explosives. yes, and a 20mm-Minengeschoss with Zerlegezünder is not much different: 92 gramms of which 20 gramms are Nitropenta. most of the shell is jacket and fuze (78%).
why do you think, a bombs wall needs to be very thick?


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have never seen OR heard of a B-17 or B-24 just explode in mid-air from a bomb going off in its belly after getting shot. exactly, they use fuzes, the bomb charge is safe!
even if the whole bomber crashed with all load onborad, it was considered not to detaonate.
that is how charges and fuzes work...


Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I dont think you need to hit the fuze to blow an HE shell up. Remember what the fuze is. A source of heat and ignition. the high explosives used are flame and heat resistant - as i said before.
a fuze doesn't ignite by heat, as said before.
you seem to have a wrong concept of what a high explosive charge is and how it works, may it be in grenades or bombs.

deepo_HP
11-09-2009, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The way I see it, the mechanisms barely ensured that the firing pin could not enter the detonator. The detonator as such is not protected against impact, say from a penetrating .50 round or shell splinters going through. yes, i guess, that could happen.
i also guess, that can happen even better with 20mm hitting the detonator!


Originally posted by JtD:
Also, merely fast burning i.e. not exploding explosives have ripped apart battleships of 40.000tons size, so they'd be having little trouble in destroying a fighters wing. nice comparison... so .50s can destroy battleships?
ok, more serious: i don't know, how battleships store their ammo. what i know for example is how safe common 105/120mm grenades are - inside and outside a tank.

it has been said some times, that the explosions seen in the videos are too big for 20mm.
i am also not experienced in guncam watching to identify the flash of 20mm. however, watching this slow-motion guncam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJAlsJAbZw&feature=PlayList&p=F55391F26FC1D541&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11) of a 110 attacking a b17 and a 190 vs mustang, the impact-flash is impressively visible and not too different from the ones discussed here.


i would like to repeat, that all this doesn't mean, that i would bet even 2 cents ammo-detonation by hit hasn't happened. no clues here, maybe they had lots of replaced charge with cheaper explosives, maybe there was a statistical possibility, that a bullet could find it's way to the detonators. or by any other reason... happens today and happened surely that times.

what i think though is, that it happens quite often here, that a single unsourced video very likely leads to a discussion of the most unlikely interpretation.
the video perhaps shows .5 hits causing ammo-detonation. however, perhaps it doesn't, nothing but the bad spelled subtitle says so. that's it.
more likely the shells don't explode as they are designed not to explode in the drum. very likely the video is wrong labeled, as it has similarities with a tempest cam shown. quite likely the flashes show explosions of penetrated hispano shell. perhaps the video shows exploding ammo after been hit by a 20mm shell.

K_Freddie
11-09-2009, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
We certainly need a BS-flag smiley.
you've got me here ????
BS= Bull**** ?? - Then you should know better - or you missed the boat?

BillSwagger
11-09-2009, 03:46 PM
We can argue fine points until the forum shuts down, but the footage shows the explosion caused by damage inflicted from gunfire.

According to the fuzing diagrams posted, it looks like this can occur a different few ways, all from impact.

One way would be a bullet fragment slams into the front side of the shell with such force that it pushes the firing pin through the safety stops and into the detonator, causing an explosion almost instantly.

Another way, is from the side of the shell, with such similar force that it crushes and pushes the wall of the shell, impacting the detonator, in which case it would have a similar effect as the firing pin hitting it. boom!

Another possibility, although not as likely, is that the blasting cap gets hit and ignites the propellant, firing the projectile into an obstruction in the wing, in which case the projectile warps and crushes the detonator.


It seems the fusing was designed to meet safety standards so that the shells could be handled, loaded, and transported safely. You might even get away with dropping one on the ground. I doubt you would want to smash one with a hammer. The bullet would need to impact the detonator to cause explosion, not the casing. At 1000+ ft per second, i don't see that being less than sufficient to cause a boom.

Bremspropeller
11-09-2009, 03:46 PM
No, I'm on the guy who initially posted this; for two reasons:

1) Wasting your ammo is pretty unlike of fighter-pilots.
Maybe he was a greenhorn which would turn his statement into a highly dubious nature in the first place.

2) Where are the reports of Spitfires, Hurricanes, Zeros, Tempests, Typhoons, you name it - being devastated by those oh-so-dangerous HE-rounds?

Maybe it's just another elephant out of a mosquito.

deepo_HP
11-09-2009, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
We can argue fine points until the forum shuts down. yes, we could... but before the main facts need to be understood.

edit (not to sound rude):
'understood' of course includes me, and with 'facts' i mean 'no speculation'

Gibbage1
11-09-2009, 04:14 PM
So, for the people who DONT think its an ammo explosion, then what the heck is it? There is nothing in the wings besides the gun and ammo. The O2 bottles are stored behind the pilot. The explosion is much bigger then anything the US or its allies carries, other then a Mossy with a Pom Pom, and I dont see many claims of FW-190's due to 50MM strikes from Mossy's.

So WHAT IS IT!?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/images/Fw190_3.gif

Its rather conclusive that the only possible cause is an internal ammo explosion with secondary cookoff.

K_Freddie
11-09-2009, 04:15 PM
Maybe.. for certain opposing a/c it made sense to get rid of excess ammo - therefore the danger of exploding ammo cases in the wing when against escorting fighters.

This would make sense as it would make the FW lighter, as fully loaded (for bomber attack) it was like a tank to fly. And the FW had plenty ammo to spare.

I've spent a whole hour online without running out of ammo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

K_Freddie
11-09-2009, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So, for the people who DONT think its an ammo explosion, then what the heck is it? There is nothing in the wings besides the gun and ammo. The O2 bottles are stored behind the pilot. The explosion is much bigger then anything the US or its allies carries, other then a Mossy with a Pom Pom, and I dont see many claims of FW-190's due to 50MM strikes from Mossy's.

So WHAT IS IT!?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/images/Fw190_3.gif

Its rather conclusive that the only possible cause is an internal ammo explosion with secondary cookoff.
Do you have a diagram on the 'interrupter' gear
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Gibbage1
11-09-2009, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Do you have a diagram on the 'interrupter' gear
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

For the MG151/20 it was electronic.

ImMoreBetter
11-09-2009, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have never seen OR heard of a B-17 or B-24 just explode in mid-air from a bomb going off in its belly after getting shot.


I have heard of B-17s simply exploding when getting hit, the explosions usually credited to the bombs.
To be fair, however, I have never read a detailed report on it. It's usually said in passing by witnesses.

I have also heard stories of incidents involving bombs detonating while being loaded on to the airplane.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. Not only would the bombs have multiple safety systems, but the arming vane in the fuse has to rotate a certain number of times before the bomb is full armed, meaning it would have to fall (Or equivalently timed bounces) somewhere around 2000 feet.


Regarding the Fw-190s, it looks to me that the wings came off too closely to the fuselage than where the ammo is kept, it looks like a spar failure to me.
But, there certainly was a large explosion. Perhaps the hit ammo exploded and damaged/obliterated the spar, causing the wing to break there?


Edit: I totally butchered what I meant to say in my last sentence. I meant the 190's 20mms, not the attacking aircraft. Fixed.

Gibbage1
11-09-2009, 05:12 PM
Structure failures dont cause a fireball. Quite simply put, something exploded, and the only possible explination is the ammo.

horseback
11-09-2009, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by ImMoreBetter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I have never seen OR heard of a B-17 or B-24 just explode in mid-air from a bomb going off in its belly after getting shot.


I have heard of B-17s simply exploding when getting hit, the explosions usually credited to the bombs.
To be fair, however, I have never read a detailed report on it. It's usually said in passing by witnesses.

I have also heard stories of incidents involving bombs detonating while being loaded on to the airplane.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. Not only would the bombs have multiple safety systems, but the arming vane in the fuse has to rotate a certain number of times before the bomb is full armed, meaning it would have to fall (Or equivalently timed bounces) somewhere around 2000 feet.


Regarding the Fw-190s, it looks to me that the wings came off too closely to be the outer gun ammo. It looks like a spar failure to me. But, there certainly was a large explosion. Perhaps detonating 20mm rounds damaged the spar, which then snapped under G? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bombs did occasionally just ...'go off' spontaneously. There's a picture in The Mighty Eighth showing the hole where a bomber being loaded just 'went off', taking out three or four other aircraft and several groundcrew.

Needless to say, it was bad for morale.

As for the exploding wings at the place where the guns/ammo are, anything is possible given enough opportunities for a lucky hit. If the shooter is firing AP, incendiary and tracer, if something explodes it must be something that was hit that makes the kabooming part.

However, there were reports of US fighters losing a wing as a result of an ammo access cover improperly secured (all wing gunned types, although a P-38 losing it's ammo/gun covers would have to be pretty traumatic too). Sufficient hits around those 190's gun/ammo covers could also be a Very Bad Thing, structurally speaking.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
11-09-2009, 09:26 PM
We certainly need a BS-flag smiley.


= http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Dynamo_Hum
11-10-2009, 05:25 AM
Gibbage you have the numbers reversed on a 500lb
bomb it is 20% casing and fuse by gross weight.
I personally have picked up a empty un fused 500lb case
and I can attest to the fact that I can not lift 400lbs to my shoulder.
It felt like about 80 lbs and lacked fuses.

A hit in the ammo bay of anything equipped with .50 cal guns will not cause
a secondary explosion. The "gun powder" burns very slowly.
I doubt the pressure of the uncontained burning propellant will provide the
projectile to do more then burp out of the catdrige case harmlessly.
Discounting any structural damage caused by the hit at best you will cause a fire.

There are many times where a bomber was destroyed by it's bombs both by accident or by gunfire.
I doubt there is any gun camera footage of this event as any fighter close enough for a hit
would be destroyed by the explosion. It did happen more often than we can ever know.
I remember one example being a Me-262 that got to close to the targeted B-17 and his wingman watched
as his plane vanished in the fireball.

War is nasty and messy.


Dynamo_Hum

RegRag1977
11-10-2009, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:

it has been said some times, that the explosions seen in the videos are too big for 20mm.
i am also not experienced in guncam watching to identify the flash of 20mm. however, watching this slow-motion guncam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyJAlsJAbZw&feature=PlayList&p=F55391F26FC1D541&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11) of a 110 attacking a b17 and a 190 vs mustang, the impact-flash is impressively visible and not too different from the ones discussed here.




Very good point.

I agree totally. I cannot see the ultimate evidence of that so called big explosion + fireball. Most of the footage shows flashes and smoke. Not fireballs.
To me what we see is actually only flashes and smoke from the impacting shells. The fact that the wing breaks doesn't prove at all that it is due to an inner wing ammo bay explosion. It could simply be a normal wing off. Wing under g stress structurally weakened by heavy fire breaks off.

Some people seem to believe that a wing without ammo bay would never break under heavy canon fire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

4 streams of Tempest 20mm shells hitting the small 190 wing all at the same time causes what is seen like a "big" explosion. Your 110 video seems to show that.

Blutarski2004
11-10-2009, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Dynamo_Hum:
Gibbage you have the numbers reversed on a 500lb
bomb it is 20% casing and fuse by gross weight.
I personally have picked up a empty un fused 500lb case
and I can attest to the fact that I can not lift 400lbs to my shoulder.
It felt like about 80 lbs and lacked fuses.

A hit in the ammo bay of anything equipped with .50 cal guns will not cause
a secondary explosion. The "gun powder" burns very slowly.
I doubt the pressure of the uncontained burning propellant will provide the
projectile to do more then burp out of the catdrige case harmlessly.
Discounting any structural damage caused by the hit at best you will cause a fire.

There are many times where a bomber was destroyed by it's bombs both by accident or by gunfire.
I doubt there is any gun camera footage of this event as any fighter close enough for a hit
would be destroyed by the explosion. It did happen more often than we can ever know.
I remember one example being a Me-262 that got to close to the targeted B-17 and his wingman watched
as his plane vanished in the fireball.

War is nasty and messy.


Dynamo_Hum


A Frank Zappa afficionado is always welcome!

I suspect that what you picked up was the empty shell of a light case bomb. I have data on explosive charge versus overall weight on US bomb ordnance. Explosive charge weights as a percentage of overall bomb weight are broadly as follows -

Light Case - 80 pct

General Purpose - 50 pct

Semi-Armor Piercing - 35 pct

Armor-piercing - <15 pct

M_Gunz
11-10-2009, 10:23 AM
Shells have less % explosive just because they are fired from guns. Under such acceleration the explosive material
is squeezed, the more forward parts onto the lower parts. If the squeezing gets hard enough then the shell explodes.
A bomb you drop only accelerates hard on impact.

There was a whole town in Germany that ceased to exist when a hill they were making of ammonium nitrate got too high.
They thought they were just making fertilizer at the time, it is very good fertilizer.

Explosion near wing root could be as simple as fuel tank exploded and that was the route of least resistance out,
along the hole the shot went in to set it off. Even strong fumes within the airframe can make a wicked boom.
One cup of gasoline has the power of six sticks of dynamite, the hard part is getting it all to blow at once.

ImpStarDuece
11-10-2009, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Dynamo_Hum:
Gibbage you have the numbers reversed on a 500lb
bomb it is 20% casing and fuse by gross weight.
I personally have picked up a empty un fused 500lb case
and I can attest to the fact that I can not lift 400lbs to my shoulder.
It felt like about 80 lbs and lacked fuses.

Dynamo_Hum

Neither of you are really correct:

Common charge to weight ratios for WW2 bombs were 30-55%.

That is, 30-55% of the bomb, by weight, was HE. The rest was case, fuse, fins, shackles, attachments ect.

The USAAF and Luftwaffe had GP bombs with an unusually high amount of HE filler, due to their use of better steels in bomb casings, allowing for thinner walls.

The RAF typically had lower C-t-W ratios of 25-35%. The RAF switched its GP bomb design in 1941, as well as moving from cast to forged steel, increasing typical C-t-W from 27-28% to 29-32%, depending on bomb.

The RAF then developed the MC (Medium Capacity) bomb from 1942, with typical C-t-W ratios of 45-50%, making them more destructive. The RAF also pioneered the development of the HC (High Capacity) thin case 'blockbuster' bombs with C-t-W ratios of 75-85%. Generally the large 4,000, 8,000 and 12,000 bombs were HC.

HE weights and C-t-W of USAAF bombs:

100 lb GP: 54 lbs HE (54% C-t-W)
250 lb GP: 123 lbs (49%)
500 lb GP: 262 lbs (52%)
1,000 lb GP: 530 lbs (53%)
2,000 lb GP: 1060 lbs (53%)

4,000 lb LC (light case): 3,245 lbs (81%)

500 lb SAP: 145 lbs (29%)
1,000 lb SAP: 303 lbs (30%)

1,000 lbs AP: 144 lbs (14%)
1,600 lbs AP: 215 lbs (13.5%)

yuuppers
11-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Has anyone come across any videos of late war 109s loosing a wing like in the 190 videos?

Gibbage1
11-10-2009, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:

Very good point.

I agree totally. I cannot see the ultimate evidence of that so called big explosion + fireball. Most of the footage shows flashes and smoke. Not fireballs.

You must be watching some other video. Lets check out some of the frames, to make sure we both see the same thing.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Rather big explosion. Maybe he got hit by a friendly Flak 88 that was shooting at the guy behind him?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom02.jpg

Thats a rather bright fireball for a structural failure caused by .50 cal.....

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom03.jpg

This explosion is so big, you cant even see the FW-190 in the next frame. Now you see him...

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom04.jpg

Now you dont. Thats a big boom.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom05.jpg

If this is NOT an ammo explosion, but getting shot, whatever gun that is, im REALLY REALLY glad its on OUR side!

The proof is in the pics. All 4 kills had fireballs and explosions vastly greater then any gun in the US or allied inventory.

Whats your excuse now?

deepo_HP
11-11-2009, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You must be watching some other video. yes, may well have been another video, but probably i have seen the right one - as explained below.



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Lets check out some of the frames, to make sure we both see the same thing. yep, let's do so.
(i will leave your pictures out to avoid overlength of the reply. hope, that's ok)



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
[pic_1]

Rather big explosion. yes, but that is how these 20mm look like sometimes, when they explode.
it is hard to find hits in wings from allied 20mm except those, which you are using here (see comment below), so here is a hit of the 'new' hurricane's 20mm into a ship-drone for demonstration (taken from a RAF-presentation video):

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/ship.jpg



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
[pic_2]

Thats a rather bright fireball for a structural failure caused by .50 cal..... it surely were, but it is not a .50 cal. if you had read the thread more intensely, you wouldn't have missed the posted note, that the footage is by far not what it says under the video. parts are taken from tempest guncams, as orville has linked on page 3. i would assume, it is rather a 20mm hit.



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
[pic_3]

This explosion is so big, you cant even see the FW-190 in the next frame. Now you see him...

[pic_4]

Now you dont. Thats a big boom. you have a funny side, gibbage. indeed, that must have been a veeery big boom. considering, that it even overbrightens the hole in the clouds (upper right), it must have been this big:

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/boom.jpg

my guess would be, that it is an artifact by film-exposure, wouldn't you agree? i think, i have seen it pretty often, and as i said, i rarely watch guncams.



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
[pic_5]

If this is NOT an ammo explosion, but getting shot, whatever gun that is, im REALLY REALLY glad its on OUR side! it is the same tempest guncam which you have used in the second photo.



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The proof is in the pics.
...
Whats your excuse now? there is nothing i have to excuse for. neither has anyone else.
i just wonder what you are defending here?
the thread is about .50 cal causing ammo explosion. imo, ammo explosion is possible, but most probably not by .50 cal. about 20mm explosives i have no opinion, but that kind of shell is highly devastating itself and it is not been discussed anyway.
there is no 'proof' to be seen for any of it in the screens for the reason of quality and only speculative origin and circumstances.


i have made my points several times now and won't repeat it further - mainly not to bother anyone with more boring replies.
so thx for the discussion, but since it is about 'excuses' now, i prefer to stay out.


(edit:
thx btw for the schematic drawing of the gun and ammo-storage in the 190, gibbage. much better than the usual ones which show all parts in detail)

Romanator21
11-11-2009, 01:54 AM
Mythbusters submission?

Let's just hope they don't leave it to the interns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
[pic_1]

yes, but that is how these 20mm look like sometimes, when they explode.
it is hard to find hits in wings from allied 20mm except those, which you are using here (see comment below), so here is a hit of the 'new' hurricane's 20mm into a ship-drone for demonstration (taken from a RAF-presentation video):



That pic shows nothing I can distinguish. Nothing at all. Its just a blurr. Thats your "proof"? That could be splashes for all I can tell. Even a .50 cal will send a waterspout 5 stories high.




i would assume, it is rather a 20mm hit.


Your assumptions are false. No 20MM blast is that big. Find me one.





you have a funny side, gibbage. indeed, that must have been a veeery big boom. considering, that it even overbrightens the hole in the clouds (upper right), it must have been this big:

http://www.dadatainment.info/wb/boom.jpg

my guess would be, that it is an artifact by film-exposure, wouldn't you agree? i think, i have seen it pretty often, and as i said, i rarely watch guncams.



Film artifacts dont last 5-10 frames. If you play it frame by frame, once the initial flash is gone, you see the smoke/debris cloud thats bigger then the aircraft.



i have made my points several times now and won't repeat it further - mainly not to bother anyone with more boring replies.
so thx for the discussion, but since it is about 'excuses' now, i prefer to stay out.


No, you HAVENT made any points. In fact, in your own words, your doing nothing but assuming and guessing, and you have yet to provide one shred of proof. Your making the excuses, and claiming its all Tempest work, but havent shown anything at all to prove it. You also havent shown how big a 20MM HE explosion is.

Also, here are some more "wing off" video's. Note that a few did get there tips blown off, but had no fireball. Those im sure are from 20MM's, but the big firballs? Thats ammo cookoff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbDAdNQahbc

RegRag1977
11-11-2009, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:

Very good point.

I agree totally. I cannot see the ultimate evidence of that so called big explosion + fireball. Most of the footage shows flashes and smoke. Not fireballs.

You must be watching some other video. Lets check out some of the frames, to make sure we both see the same thing.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Rather big explosion. Maybe he got hit by a friendly Flak 88 that was shooting at the guy behind him?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom02.jpg

Thats a rather bright fireball for a structural failure caused by .50 cal.....

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom03.jpg

This explosion is so big, you cant even see the FW-190 in the next frame. Now you see him...

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom04.jpg

Now you dont. Thats a big boom.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom05.jpg

If this is NOT an ammo explosion, but getting shot, whatever gun that is, im REALLY REALLY glad its on OUR side!

The proof is in the pics. All 4 kills had fireballs and explosions vastly greater then any gun in the US or allied inventory.

Whats your excuse now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't any excuse, don't need any, i still see the same. Needless to say, I respect your opinion, here is mine (i posted it before BTW).


"OK. After watching it over and over again:

1st kill: i can see big flash and smoke of the first shells impacting on the wing, quickly followed by smaller smoke puffs from other impacts, then wing off. I do not see one big explosion causing wing off, but multiple impacts right after the first big "flash and smoke". The wing actually survives the first big "flash and smoke", as the following impact smoke puffs seem to show.

2nd kill: Fw is in a skidding movement (yaw) to the left. Huge explosion that could be the now exposed (yaw) fuel tank exploding (look at all the fire, this seems to be ignited fuel).
The shooting aircraft is not at exact convergence: one stream of shells hits the fuel tank causing it to explode while at the same time the second stream is hitting the wing all at point blank, causing the wing off.

3rd kill: wing off with something like a huge and dark smoke explosion (BUT the light source behind the subject (smoke puff) maybe causing the smoke to look dark, contre-jour?): the flash and smoke could easily come from the impacting shells.
As this is a very poor quality film, i prefer not to comment it.

4th kill, no explosion at all, only flash and smoke from impacting shell. "Normal wing off"

This is how i interpret the images. Nothing but normal wing offs..."

RegRag1977
11-11-2009, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:

Very good point.

I agree totally. I cannot see the ultimate evidence of that so called big explosion + fireball. Most of the footage shows flashes and smoke. Not fireballs.



http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree this is a big explosion: it is the only one in the video posted. And it is not the wing exploding nor the ammo bay, it's the rear (fuselage) fuel tank (look carefully, this is ignited fuel, not explosives set off).

peterdwb
11-11-2009, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

No, you HAVENT made any points. In fact, in your own words, your doing nothing but assuming and guessing, and you have yet to provide one shred of proof. Your making the excuses, and claiming its all Tempest work, but havent shown anything at all to prove it. You also havent shown how big a 20MM HE explosion is.

You too are doing nothing but assuming and guessing. For instance in page 1 Brain32 pointed out that one of the shots is from a Tempest's guncam, and it could be true. There is NOTHING in the video that mentions .50cal ammo being used (not even the video title) and since Brain32's link has one of the shots and it's (supposedly) from a Tempest, you cannot know which of the videos is right just by looking at the videos.

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 05:43 AM
Strikes by incendiary bullets and shells do make big, bright flashes. That's just the material flashing out.

Bremspropeller
11-11-2009, 09:00 AM
In fact, in your own words, your doing nothing but assuming and guessing, and you have yet to provide one shred of proof.

So do you.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 10:56 AM
I hold my own opinion and i think its the ammo exploding. I'm seeing where the wing separates, and diagrams where the ammo is held.
There is one shot that looks more like the belly tank exploding.
I've also watched enough gun cam footage to know that most of what you are seeing is shot from a P-47 or other USAAF fighter.

The possibility of it being from a Tempest is marred by the fact that programs use stock reels of entirely different aircraft.
Its not really something i'm trying to push or persuade. My comparison and experience with these films tells me its not Tempest footage. I don't think they even had Tempest footage beyond training exercises which also shows up in that Tempest program posted earlier.
I could be mistaken, but i'm not sure if the RAF was using such cameras in the first place.
If you happen to come across actual Tempest footage i would be really enthused to see it, but what you are looking at here is not Tempest footage.

After looking at and reviewing the fusing of HE ammo, it is entirely possible for bullet impacts to cause detonation.
There are also plenty of other parts in an airplane that are capable of exploding in such a way, however given the location it seems to be more than coincidence that its where the ammo stores are located.



Bill

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by peterdwb:
You too are doing nothing but assuming and guessing. For instance in page 1 Brain32 pointed out that one of the shots is from a Tempest's guncam, and it could be true. There is NOTHING in the video that mentions .50cal ammo being used (not even the video title) and since Brain32's link has one of the shots and it's (supposedly) from a Tempest, you cannot know which of the videos is right just by looking at the videos.

First off, your assuming incorrectly that I attribute all the video's to .50 cal hits. I never stated that ever. Quote me. I did say that a .50 cal CAN set off HE shells due to heat, spark, incendary content, and compression of the shell when it.

Second, I provided screenshots showing explosions MUCH bigger then a 20MM shell is capable of. Remember that a 20MM shell is about the size of your thumb. Having an explosion thats the size of a FW-190 from something the size of your thumb is just stupid. It was also covered in Mythbusters with the James Bond exploding pen. They filled a large pin bigger then a 20MM shell with C4 and it didnt create an explosion that big.

Here is what a 20MM does.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture26.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture13.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture14.jpg

The last shot shows 3 20MM strikes on the tail of a P-38. That tail is a LOT smaller then the wing of a FW-190, and it still didnt compleatly blow it off like you see in the video. Also, video of 20MM strikes dont have fireballs. Flashes yes, that last for 1-2 frames, but not fireballs. Fireballs are from burning fuel or gun powder. Since there is no fuel in the FW-190 wing, it can only be gun powder.

Blutarski2004
11-11-2009, 12:39 PM
.... Gib, you come up with some interesting photos, man.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 12:40 PM
Another great source for photos and info on just about anything ww2 related:

http://anonymous-generaltopics...flying-fortress.html (http://anonymous-generaltopics.blogspot.com/2008/06/b-17-flying-fortress.html)

Shows flak damage on B-17s, and if you click the Me-109 link there are lots of rare photos.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SGEYL8DGnTI/AAAAAAAARQg/ANBSH0o4QC0/s400/105.gif



http://bp3.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/SGij_3BOcrI/AAAAAAAARhs/VHh0_Yq0XdM/s400/Me109-E3-265.jpg



Bill

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
.... Gib, you come up with some interesting photos, man.

I have a collection of about 30 photo's showing differant levels of P-38 damage. Many of them flying home after colliding with other aircraft and even telephone poles. This one is the best.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture23.jpg

It survived a mid air collision with a HALIFAX! Thats a rudder of the bomber stick in the wing.

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 12:47 PM
This photo shows you what a 20MM is capable of.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture42.jpg

Good size comparison with the pilot sitting by it.

AndyJWest
11-11-2009, 12:54 PM
... The first inclination is to suspect it was a ground collision, but there is no sign of debris or parts on the ground, and the F-5B's landing skid marks are very clearly visible...

My 'first inclination' is to say that the collision more likely occured on during takeoff or landing, when it was already on the ground. I find it very hard to believe this plane would be controllable in the air.

Bremspropeller
11-11-2009, 12:59 PM
And everybody knows that a vertical tail is simmilaryly loaded as a wing is, pulling Gs

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OH, BTW:
That collision-survivor looks more like a take-off gone wrong.

DKoor
11-11-2009, 01:03 PM
Hey you sorry gang... what's all this has to do with .50cals vs FW-190 wings? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 01:04 PM
those are horrific photos Gib.

I would be careful though, when comparing flashes and explosions only because the cameras, particularly older films like these, can really distort how the light is actually seen.

I still think its ammo exploding in the wing though, and most of what i've seen 20mm do is comparable to the photos you've posted.

Bremspropeller
11-11-2009, 01:07 PM
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture14.jpg

Two rounds striking the rudder and one barely hitting the stab at all.

3 uncrittical hits, as none strikes the spar.
Same goes for the pic above and the ones following.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Hey you sorry gang... what's all this has to do with .50cals vs FW-190 wings? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

people have disputed that the footage is actually of 20mm gun impacts, and not from a 50 cal.

I know otherwise, and i've been around and round on this enough. I still hold my original opinion about 50 cals causing the ammo canisters to explode in the wing.
Others are welcome to disagree, but i see little point to arguing about it any further.

Daiichidoku
11-11-2009, 01:13 PM
109 collision

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/aero/109coll1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/aero/109collision.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-11-2009, 02:07 PM
737-collision

http://www.planebuzz.com/legacy2_fab.jpg

Mind you, the winglet is made out of CFC and de-winged the 737 at half-span.

So much for fancy images and "proof" for anything.

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I would be careful though, when comparing flashes and explosions only because the cameras, particularly older films like these, can really distort how the light is actually seen.


I agree fully that the quality of the film leads to the size of the explosion being questionable, but that does not explain away the fireball afterwards. A 20MM, as we all know, explodes in a flash. Most of the time, these flashes happen so fast that most are not captured on film. If the frame just happened to be exposed at the lucky moment, the flash never last's for more then 2 frames, since it happens so fast. On the otherhand, these explosions are happening over 5-15+ frames, indicating a slow burn or added fuel besides the HE content of the 20MM. Since the FW-190 has no gas in the wings, the only other fuel possible is the 20MM ammo. Thats why, beyond a shadow of a doubt, its an ammo explosion.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 02:34 PM
wrong....crump
I saw this photo on a documentary about leopards.
Thats not a giraffe, its a leopard.



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Bill


and just to screw with people i keep all my white paint in jugs on my doorstep.

http://www.lifegoggles.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/milk.jpg

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 02:47 PM
There are 3 things supporting ammo explosion.

#1, Explosion size. Its much bigger then a standard 20MM. Even if film quality was poor, it would explain away 1, maybe two, but not all 4.

#2, explosion duration. HE ammo explodes with a quick flash, lasting 1 frame, maybe two. These explosions are lasting much much longer.

#3, Location. All 4 kills had the wing explode in the exact same location, that just happens to house the ammo.

What supports that it was just normal 20MM damage? I would also be sceptical if maybe the wing departed in other locations, or the fireballs were not so big, but all 3 facts are hard to dispute, even with a dead giraffe.

TS_Sancho
11-11-2009, 02:59 PM
all 3 facts are hard to dispute, even with a dead giraffe.

I dunno Gibbage, the giraffe looks pretty dead.

Brain32
11-11-2009, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">all 3 facts are hard to dispute, even with a dead giraffe.

I dunno Gibbage, the giraffe looks pretty dead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't call it pretty although one would expect a bigger mess, but I think "dead" describes the situation quite sufficiently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

About the same amount of real evidence......

and a dead giraffe.

Post it.

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

I think you have posted all the "evidence" this episode of CSI:IL2 can stand.

I will leave the detective work to your expert hands.

Its not up to me to do your work. You say you have proof, yet you just walk away. Goes against your credability.

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 05:13 PM
Again you still havent addressed any of my 3 points.

#1, explosion size

#2, explosion duration

#3, explosion location

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Do you know, every kill claimed was required to present and log the films if available. There are literally hundreds upon thousands of GC films available.

Wonder why we only have a couple that show wings being blown off from any aircraft?


Because it usually took a lot less?

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Maybe I should just ignore you Gibbage1?

Again, you havent disputed my 3 points.

Maybe youll just post another pic of a dead animal?

Also, isent this rather childish in a debate? Posting pics of dead animals as "proof" then when backed into a corner, ignoring people who ask valid questions and request this proof you claim to have? Remember, these video's most likley show the death's of pilots. Its not something I would take lightly or make fun of in ANY WAY, especially today of all days. Quite frankly, you should be ashamed.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 06:58 PM
encore presentation:

begins at 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5sqo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZfoI85sqo&feature=related)




Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Wonder why we only have a couple that show wings being blown off from any aircraft?


Honestly, there is probably a lot more footage, but if you were a TV producer, are you going to show this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is6RYRoS-Rw&NR=1

Some footage despite being a historic record of an event, is actually very unfit for viewing.

Its the clearer and more exciting images that make it onto these shows. For me, what i'm seeing is apparent. Others can disagree, or try and decipher it as something its not, but that still won't change what i'm looking at.



Bill

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
encore presentation:

begins at 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5sqo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZfoI85sqo&feature=related)


Good stuff. Nice big boom, and the 353 didnt fly anything armed with 20MM. Ill add that to my scoreboard. So far the tally stands.

Ammo explosion 4
20mm hit 0

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 07:24 PM
Bill it's clearer on the originals and even the better-quality AVI captures than the flvs on YouTube.
The content don't change but it's clearer.

Eow_TK
11-11-2009, 07:29 PM
honestly argueing isnt going to do solve anything. There is no proof either way, so whats the point.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 08:02 PM
It doesn't need to be a tit for tat discussion, although i found the score board to be kinda funny.

I wasn't looking to prove anything, only sharing what seemed like an obvious discovery or observation. There is no need for me to argue, and i'd rather not get wrapped up in over explaining something that is really quite simple to understand, and easily seen and viewable in these films. Its obvious, to me, that the ammo is exploding. If thats not apparent to you, then please go beyond making a snide remark and at least back it up with more footage or something tangible. If you can't do that, then just move on to another thread.
I don't get much out of a trivial discussion.


Bill

Gibbage1
11-11-2009, 08:36 PM
You still have YET to dispute the 3 main points on the fils. Probability is one thing, but the fact remains we have MORE then 4 guncam kills of exploding FW-190 wings.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 09:12 PM
.....since you are one of the instigators of the thread, Bill

I started this thread to show that 50 cal was indented to go to work on the vitals of the aircraft. Ammo canisters being one of those vitals.


We would need to review over 1000 films to have a 93% probability of error....

Crump, i know your a smart guy, but i think you might be thinking too hard about this one.

If a car runs into a brick wall, i don't need a statistician to tell me, "my calculations show a car has hit a brick wall". He might need to answer how likely a car is to hit a brick wall, but maybe i'm missing the point you trying to make.

I don't see the need to make it more complicated than it is.
A bullet hits the ammo canister and impacts the detonator = boom.

I think we need to agree that this is what's occurring. If you still think its a 20mm hitting the wing or something else, then it would be impossible to continue.

If we are on the same page, then read further:

i actually think hitting the ammo canister could be calculated the same way you might determine hitting other vitals such as the engine.
First, you get the total area of the plane from different angles, top/bottom, side, and front/back.
This could be more finite too. You could find the area of impact on the shell needed to create an explosion 100 percent of the time, no matter the angle. This would be a vary pin pointed area, but at least it would give you worst case figures.
Then take that area and work it into the total area of the plane based on the angle the bullet is traveling from.
You then add more guns for spread, and increase firing time as well as rate of fire, and then your likelihood of exploding a round goes way up.

The likelihood of that explosion taking a wing off is much more complicated than i care to discuss but i think you get the point.

Ammo detonation from impacts might've been more common than we think even if it didn't always result in a wing off.
To me, its not really a question of how often it occurs, only that it did.
I don't need to come to any other conclusions beyond that, otherwise you are right, crump, it does get kind of silly to try and make statistical sense of something that is impossible to have the proper data to support.
That doesn't mean the car didn't crash into the brick wall.



Bill

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I wasn't looking to prove anything, only sharing what seemed like an obvious discovery or observation.

I was sure that you'd been here long enough to know that if you titled a thread "The Sky is Blue" that you'd easily
get 20+ pages on why it's not, and half of them might be right and even a little thought provoking.

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To me, its not really a question of how often it occurs, only that it did.

Wings come off airplanes without anyone shooting at them....you do know this, right?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes. of course the same way i know hitting an HE cannon round can detonate it. Doesn't always mean the wing comes off, only that the HE round is detonating.


like in this clip


encore presentation:

begins at 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5sqo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZfoI85sqo&feature=related)

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think we need to agree that this is what's occurring. If you still think its a 20mm hitting the wing or something else, then it would be impossible to continue.

No Bill,

I don't think that is what is occurring at all. I know a little about explosives and what I do know has been confirmed in this thread already.

What I know I about airplanes leads me to think it is much more likely the ever present fuel fumes in the bilge would ignite much more readily than any ammunition.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


fair enough...


you disagree.

I think its the HE rounds exploding. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think its the HE rounds exploding.


It could be the wing fairy letting loose....

It makes no difference to the relevance of the films. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i disagree, the footage gives a pretty clear indication of what is happening. i see the explosion which appears to be blowing out from the inside of the wing where the ammo canister is. You really haven't convinced me otherwise, and i'd like to take you more seriously but you haven't really backed up anything you've rebutted with beyond a wise crack or well intended joke.

I don't see the need to carry on like this. I take no interest in defending or having to over explain what i think is obvious. i surely don't agree with your view of it, so i will leave it at that.


Bill

BillSwagger
11-11-2009, 11:18 PM
user 1: hey look its two bottles of milk on the front door step.

http://www.lifegoggles.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/milk.jpg


user 2: no, that pic doesn't prove anything. It could be paint.

user1: yeah but who puts paint in bottles on their doorstep?

user 2: You need a bigger sample of milk bottles, otherwise discussing if thats milk in the bottle is just silly.

user 1: ?? its a milk bottle, with milk in it, on a doorstep where people have their milk delivered.

user 2: no matter, this proves nothing, it could be glue, or paint.

user 1: but paint doesn't come in bottles, it comes in buckets like these.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4417659/2/istockphoto_4417659-buckets-with-paint.jpg

and i found more milk bottles like these.

http://www.treehugger.com/MilkBottles.jpg


user 2: I told you before these pics are of no relevance. It could be paint, and it could be glue, but its not milk. I'm sure of that.

user 1: i think this discussion is over

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Freiwillige
11-12-2009, 12:25 AM
Classic! Best post of the year!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
What I know I about airplanes leads me to think it is much more likely the ever present fuel fumes in the bilge would ignite much more readily than any ammunition.


With proper air circulation there would never be enough catch unless you had a good steady leak or recent splash,
and that would be temporary.

You ever do the beer-can mortar? Couple drops of lighter fluid and we counted over nine-one-thousand before the ball
hit the street again. That was with 2 drops in a 2 can volume of air with only 1 can for a barrel and a tennis ball.

1968 BoB movie with all the were-there technical experts, planes would get hit and blow up on fire soon to oh guess he
got away later. Lot of burning explosions and planes that just caught fire without decently exploding as well. The
big lesson seemed to be if you get hit then bail out while you can!

RegRag1977
11-12-2009, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Bill says, i disagree, the footage gives a pretty clear indication of what is happening. i see the explosion which appears to be blowing out from the inside of the wing where the ammo canister is.

Well then either you missed this post showing an obvious flaw in your detective work or did not understand it. This is from shortly after Gibbage1 CSI:IL2 in-depth analysis...


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Just pointing out that there is no ammo in the wing at the break point. You can see the remaining wing clearly at :12 on this film.

The break is in the vicinity of the holes in the main spar for the gear oleo and motor.

This is the same footage your looking at right Gibbage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np3TZqvxbJM&NR=1

I don't think there is really any conclusion that can be drawn based on camera footage alone. I place more credibility in the controlled vulnerability testing.

That fact would be obvious to you if you access to an FW-190 wing. Come on down as we are about to top skin ours.

Lastly my CSI investigators, if you set off the magazine in an FW-190, you are looking at ~35lbs of TNT in the smallest one not including propellant. Have you ever set off 35lbs of TNT? It is a very big bang. IIRC, there was only ONE demo range on all of Ft Bragg that allowed that much at once. Even then, you had to co-ordinate airspace with range control on a shot by shot basis.

The safe distance is over 300 meters on 35lbs. There would be nothing left of the airplane and the attacker would be probably be damaged as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

35lbs of TNT!

No it's impossible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , there is always just enough explosive to break the wing (unlike in the fourth "evidence" where the wing do actually not break at all)for the German ammo canister was designed specifically to keep the pilot and rest of the plane intact, and to keep the enemy safe just in case he would hit with the 50 cal APIFWO (read armour piercing incendiary focke wing off). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif Following this same logic, only 50 cal ammo can set off a german 20 or 30 mm. And the few shells set off, though even closer and more powerful than the 50 rounds, and though being directly in the canister, would not cause the canister to explode http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif This is why there is just enough amount of explosive to make a great wing off guncam footage! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

There's always a good reason.

4 guncams part with only 2 showing something "like" an explosion and wing off (one being a Tempest guncam BTW) and yet we can see some claiming:

50 cal punches wing off Fw190s easily!

Well I'm ready to hear different opinions on anything and to respectfully disagree but IMHO the thread title is inapropriated.

RegRag1977
11-12-2009, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
user 1: hey look its two bottles of milk on the front door step.

http://www.lifegoggles.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/milk.jpg


user 2: no, that pic doesn't prove anything. It could be paint.

user1: yeah but who puts paint in bottles on their doorstep?

user 2: You need a bigger sample of milk bottles, otherwise discussing if thats milk in the bottle is just silly.

user 1: ?? its a milk bottle, with milk in it, on a doorstep where people have their milk delivered.

user 2: no matter, this proves nothing, it could be glue, or paint.

user 1: but paint doesn't come in bottles, it comes in buckets like these.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4417659/2/istockphoto_4417659-buckets-with-paint.jpg

and i found more milk bottles like these.

http://www.treehugger.com/MilkBottles.jpg


user 2: I told you before these pics are of no relevance. It could be paint, and it could be glue, but its not milk. I'm sure of that.

user 1: i think this discussion is over

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Of course there is absolutely no distortion, bias or exaggeration, when after 4 guncam footages (including one from a Tempest) one comes to the conclusion that:

"50 CAL" punches wings off Fw190s "EASILY"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

JtD
11-12-2009, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

I wasn't looking to prove anything, only sharing what seemed like an obvious discovery or observation. There is no need for me to argue, and i'd rather not get wrapped up in over explaining something that is really quite simple to understand, and easily seen and viewable in these films. Its obvious, to me, that the ammo is exploding. If thats not apparent to you, then please go beyond making a snide remark and at least back it up with more footage or something tangible. If you can't do that, then just move on to another thread.
I don't get much out of a trivial discussion.

You're absolutely right with that, don't let the fools fool you. Your points are understandable and understood and I'd write the same summary.

Interestingly, in you last youtube ammo explosion video the wing stays in place. So this one does not only disprove the 20mm theory, but the failure under stress theory as well.

Really no need to argue, the footage is self explaining. The ammo went off under .50 fire.

Blutarski2004
11-12-2009, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Lastly my CSI investigators, if you set off the magazine in an FW-190, you are looking at ~35lbs of TNT in the smallest one not including propellant. Have you ever set off 35lbs of TNT? It is a very big bang. IIRC, there was only ONE demo range on all of Ft Bragg that allowed that much at once. Even then, you had to co-ordinate airspace with range control on a shot by shot basis.

The safe distance is over 300 meters on 35lbs. There would be nothing left of the airplane and the attacker would be probably be damaged as well.



..... K, I don't recall anyone arguing that every projectile in the magazine would detonate. Supposing that only two or three 20mm minengeschoss projectiles happened to detonate inside an FW190 wing ammunition bay, what would you anticipate the result to be?

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
when after 4 guncam footages (including one from a Tempest) one comes to

I'll say it again, that's not tempest footage. That's a tempest documentary, that mixes Hawker Tempest training footage with USAAF combat footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...MDDY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89b3vVwMDDY&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejnxLN0MAlU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5sqo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZfoI85sqo&feature=related)

We're at the end of this discussion, because beyond cracking corny jokes, or repeating whats already been stated and rebutted, no new info has been shown to show that it isn't the ammo exploding.

Its okay to disagree, but I just don't see the point in carrying on with this : "no its not..." ...... "yes it is"........"no its not" ........."yes it is"......

I don't get much out of it, and it doesn't change what i'm seeing in this footage.


Bill

RegRag1977
11-12-2009, 12:27 PM
I don't get much out of it, and it doesn't change what i'm seeing in this footage.

Same here...

Anyway, thank you for the links and for the discussion Bill.

Blutarski2004
11-12-2009, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">K, I don't recall anyone arguing that every projectile in the magazine would detonate. Supposing that only two or three 20mm minengeschoss projectiles happened to detonate inside an FW190 wing ammunition bay, what would you anticipate the result to be?

Blutarski,

Stacked and secured in a magazine riveted inside the structure of a wing far exceeds even EOD standards for ensuring sympathetic detonation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Do these EOD standards to which you refer argue that the detonation of one projectile would assure the detonation of all in the ammnition bay?

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">K, I don't recall anyone arguing that every projectile in the magazine would detonate. Supposing that only two or three 20mm minengeschoss projectiles happened to detonate inside an FW190 wing ammunition bay, what would you anticipate the result to be?

Blutarski,

Stacked and secured in a magazine riveted inside the structure of a wing far exceeds even EOD standards for ensuring sympathetic detonation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Do these EOD standards to which you refer argue that the detonation of one projectile would assure the detonation of all in the ammnition bay? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We discussed the fusing earlier in the thread, when this question of a chain reaction blast came up.

The detonator inside the shell is what causes the explosion. Its not quite the same as having 35 lbs of packed TnT in the wing, because it is fragmented and separated by the metal shells, casing, and what ever other linkage holds them together. The potential for a similar blast radius is there, but getting a chain reaction blast is not likely. That blast would need to impact neighboring shells with shrapnel or an obstruction to crush the detonator inside the neighboring shell in such a way to cause another explosion. The ammunition would be damaged or destroyed, but getting the detonator inside the shell to cause the shell to explode is not a 100 percent occurrence.

Blutarski2004
11-12-2009, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do these EOD standards to which you refer argue that the detonation of one projectile would assure the detonation of all in the ammnition bay?


Yep....

When destroying ammunition you stack them all side by side/on top with warhead to warhead facing the same direction just like they are in a magazine. This ensures the warhead has the maximum surface area exposed to the energy wave. The more surface area, the more energy the projectile we want to destroy can absorb. Remember, our explosive ignites at a given energy level, so the faster we can load it, the faster it will go off. We want the speed as it builds the energy wave ensuring destruction of the target.

You want to tamp the explosion so that energy is contained that our ammunition cannot dissipate the shock wave by moving with it but rather must absorb the energy. A metal magazine box riveted inside a wing is about as good a tamp job as you can get. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I contacted a friend of mine who is a senior explosives and ordnance specialist for the US Army. He concurs that the ignition of one such Minengeschoss projectile in a confined volume of space such as the sealed ammunition bay in question would produce an extremely rapid daisy chain reaction of the other projectiles such that it would appear to be an individual event.

For what it's worth, he also indicates that a 50cal AP strike on a thin-walled Minengeschoss-type projectile would almost certainly set off the RDX explosive content through shock effect. Interestingly enough, he mentioned that the 50cal AP round is used as the standard initiator in the tests that his group runs for evaluating ammunition risk of the sort under discussion.

The question is whether the much more insensitive propellant would explode as well. If only the RDX projectile filler was involved in the explosion, as I believe would be the case, then the explosive actually participating in the event would be more on the order of a couple of pounds.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I contacted a friend of mine who is a senior explosives and ordnance specialist for the US Army. He concurs that the ignition of one such Minengeschoss projectile in a confined volume of space such as the sealed ammunition bay in question would produce an extremely rapid daisy chain reaction of the other projectiles such that it would appear to be an individual event.

For what it's worth, he also indicates that a 50cal AP strike on a thin-walled Minengeschoss-type projectile would almost certainly set off the RDX explosive content through shock effect. Interestingly enough, he mentioned that the 50cal AP round is used as the standard initiator in the tests that his group runs for evaluating ammunition risk of the sort under discussion.

The question is whether the much more insensitive propellant would explode as well. If only the RDX projectile filler was involved in the explosion, as I believe would be the case, then the explosive actually participating in the event would be more on the order of a couple of pounds.

Good stuff guys. Sadly, I doubt even professional openions from EOD members will fall on deth ears in this forum. Kettle simply does not want to be wrong, even if it means making himself look bad. Im sure he will descredit you post with another tacky pic of a dead animal. Maybe a bird strike this time?

TS_Sancho
11-12-2009, 02:01 PM
Im sure he will descredit you post with another tacky pic of a dead animal. Maybe a bird strike this time?

At least he's kept the clown pictures out so far.

JtD
11-12-2009, 02:20 PM
I think it's possible that the container explodes before all shells are set off.

Typical wing cannon belts in the later Fw models (140 rounds, one third each MG, HE, AP) contain about 3 lbs of TNT in terms of shells content. Even if it were all MG, we'd only get up to about 8 lbs TNT equivalent.
A safe zone of 300 meters does not mean the fireball is actually that big.

So you guys know and don't get messed with.

JtD
11-12-2009, 02:39 PM
No, it means that things MAY happen inside that radius. If people were to follow your interpretation, even the smallest artillery shells would be lethal within a 300 meters radius.

How far exactly does debris fly in the videos shown other than just out of the screen? You know? Please share.

At any rate, your magazine with "35lbs of TNT in the smallest one not including propellant" is a fairy tale. So no need to go on expanding on that.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 03:03 PM
You mean like this?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Thats to assume that ALL shells detonate. Remember when EOD does it, they put the explosives on top, forcing it into the ground. In the case of an aircraft wing, the shells are free to go in every direction barring a thin layer of aluminum. I would like to ask the EOD experts that IF they put the explosives UNDER the rounds, would it blast them up, only having a few detonate? Thats my asumption of what happened. Only a few chain reacted before the rest were ejected out of the confines of the ammo case.

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 03:03 PM
How many rounds in those ammo drums again?

Blutarski2004
11-12-2009, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
And the propellant is more volatile than the warhead explosive.

It is a certainty the propellant will ignite in any situation the explosive will go off.




..... Are you absolutely certain of this? Propellant is normally considered a "Low Explosive" as compared to "High Explosive" which fills projectiles, bombs, etc. Low explosives, by my understanding, are insensitive and tend to burn or deflagrate rather than explode with violence.

I am fairly familiar with this issue, having studied it as part of a long interest in naval history. German single base naval gun propellant had a reputation for extreme stability and insensitivity. For example, SMS SEYDLITZ suffered a severe barbette hit at Dogger Bank in 1915 which ignited the propellant charges in the hoists which in turn burned over 16,000 lbs of propellant (approx 90 full charges) in the magazines over a period of 20 minutes with no explosion.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How many rounds in those ammo drums again?

Good point. Kettle is assuming that the ammo drums are full and the pilot never fired a shot. Quite a big assumption! The level of ammo is a total unknown.

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 03:28 PM
So every shell that goes off in the drum is equal to another 20mm hit taken by the plane with the drum.
How many freaking 20mm HE hits can a 190 wing root sustain? My guess is not very many at all.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

And the thread gets stranger and stranger....


And I thought you went and ignored me. That still does not discredit the other facts. Like

#1, size of explosion (larger then a single 20MM)

#2, duration of the explosion (using more fuel then a single 20MM)

#3, location of the explosion (always at the same place)

Bremspropeller
11-12-2009, 03:40 PM
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

JtD
11-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
There are a number of folks in this thread who are not paying a bit of attention to anything I have posted.

I did. You posted a lot of rubbish and when pointed to it, switched over to personal attacks.

If fuel vapour was the cause for these wing explosions as you claim, shouldn't there have been an insane amount of Fw losses due to these explosions being triggered when some of the electric equipment inside the wing was being activated? Or just the guns being fired?

Eventually you've come up with a lot of theories and not one of your proposed events is even remotely as likely as an wing ammo box explosion.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
1:32 on this film seems to be what I would expect from a magazine going off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...leOmDDGk&feature=fvw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O9leOmDDGk&feature=fvw)

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8369/anotherdumbdiscussion.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/i/anotherdumbdiscussion.jpg/)


http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9929/anotherdumbdiscussionii.jpg (http://img27.imageshack.us/i/anotherdumbdiscussionii.jpg/)


http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9929/anotherdumbdiscussionii.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/i/anotherdumbdiscussionii.jpg/)


All the best,

Crumpp

According to you this footage is irrelevant, but it does sound like you are finally taking a step forward in admitting that 50 cal does explode HE rounds.

Actually the likelihood of a chain reaction, exploding all of the shells including the casing, works off a 100 percent occurrence probability, which earlier you seemed to dispute the likelihood of a shell exploding in the first place. This seems like a rapid reversal of opinion from one extreme to the other.

What we are looking at obviously falls in the middle. Under such probabilities, its easier to recognize trends rather than extremes.
I don't see how you can compare exploding wings to destroying ammunition, unless the army also destroys ammo by firing machine guns at it.
these are weak arguments, and part of me wonders if you are being serious, or if you are just doing this to get a rise out of people.

We already know that the shells don't explode unless the detonator is impacted. You need an impact that mimics the force of the firing pin hitting the detonator. An explosion adjacent to a cannon shell needs to send it into an obstruction, or hit it with shrapnel, in order to impact the detonator in such a way.

Projection powder doesn't go off unless the blasting cap is hit,


am i repeating myself again?

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

From the left wing? There is no fuel tank in the left wing.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:


am i repeating myself again?

Two guys from EOD said a shell CAN explode from impact, and is likley a .50 cal will detonate it. So move on please.

Bremspropeller
11-12-2009, 04:01 PM
From the left wing? There is no fuel tank in the left wing.

The flash ain't coming from the left wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The flash ain't coming from the left wing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Watch the video frame by frame. It is, and you can see the body and right wing during the explosion. Once I get home in a few hours, I can post screenshots, or you can take a look yourself.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 04:07 PM
i'm gonna shift gears, and say that 109s were just as susceptible.


There are pilots reports that state seeing a bright flash and explosion inside the cockpit.

What could explode inside the cockpit?

I raise the question, because i know the nose cannon and ammo housing is just in front of the pilot seat on the floor.

This is much less definitive, and rather than argue whether HE rounds can explode under machine gun fire (that's already been determined), i would like to know what else such an explosion in the cockpit could be?

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
What could explode inside the cockpit?


Dont bother. Thell just argue that no pilot would of survived an ammo explosion between the legs. Lets stick with the points we have, the ones Kettle ignores compleatly and wont answer.

#1, explosion size

#2, duration

#3, location

Blutarski2004
11-12-2009, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i'm gonna shift gears, and say that 109s were just as susceptible.


There are pilots reports that state seeing a bright flash and explosion inside the cockpit.

What could explode inside the cockpit?

I raise the question, because i know the nose cannon and ammo housing is just in front of the pilot seat on the floor.

This is much less definitive, and rather than argue whether HE rounds can explode under machine gun fire (that's already been determined), i would like to know what else such an explosion in the cockpit could be?


.... The pilot's ego?

;-]

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Projection powder doesn't go off unless the blasting cap is hit,

Pour the powder out of a pistol cartridge and put a match to it.

You get it hot enough, it burns really fast. Modern smokeless powder is more controlled than black powder but it is made
to produce very high pressures very quickly in the pursuit of interior ballistics. I'm partial to flash powder myself,
loved that stuff.

You wouldn't want the kinds of things I've made with even small amounts of low explosive to go off in your hand because
you'd lose more than just the hand. It's not so much the powder as what you put it in.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 04:28 PM
It is less definitive, i just thought it would be good to talk about something else.

I've been reading the pilot encounter reports being mindful of the explosions in the footage we've debated. However, its difficult to conclude any cause because just about every other report mentions the target exploding or bursting into flames.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Projection powder doesn't go off unless the blasting cap is hit,

Pour the powder out of a pistol cartridge and put a match to it.

You get it hot enough, it burns really fast. Modern smokeless powder is more controlled than black powder but it is made
to produce very high pressures very quickly in the pursuit of interior ballistics. I'm partial to flash powder myself,
loved that stuff.

You wouldn't want the kinds of things I've made with even small amounts of low explosive to go off in your hand because
you'd lose more than just the hand. It's not so much the powder as what you put it in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


one of my first jobs as a kid was to pick up trash at a local railroad. They use to do these civil war reenactments, and you'd be surprised how much black powder is left over. I've had my share of play with such stuff, consider that i usually stocked up on the half spent paper cartridges they used for their muskets. Really kinda surprised i didn't burn my folks home down, and all my fingers are in tact. Actually, i know of a place where there are chunks of glass embedded in the walls. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It took me some time to understand how it worked, because just lighting a pile of it made some smoke and a phizzing sound. It wasn't until i put it into a jar with a hole in the lid, thinking that it would phizzz away like a rocket, that it instead went Booooom!!

TS_Sancho
11-12-2009, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i'm gonna shift gears, and say that 109s were just as susceptible.


There are pilots reports that state seeing a bright flash and explosion inside the cockpit.

What could explode inside the cockpit?

I raise the question, because i know the nose cannon and ammo housing is just in front of the pilot seat on the floor.

This is much less definitive, and rather than argue whether HE rounds can explode under machine gun fire (that's already been determined), i would like to know what else such an explosion in the cockpit could be?

I think fuel vapors are without a doubt the explanation in the case above.

You do realise that fuel leaks were/are commonplace even without being damaged from gunfire?

Every small aircraft cabin I have been in stunk of petrol fumes.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

There are lots of things that burn and explode on airplanes that have nothing to do with ammunition, Bill.

Then what in a FW-190's wing burns and explodes besides the ammo?

If you say fuel vapor from the fuel tank, thats total bs.

#1, fuel vapor flashes, not burns. Lasting only 1-2 frames.

#2, the vapor would be more dense by the source, causing the explosion inboard of the wing, yet it only explodes outboard of the landing gear in every single case.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">because just about every other report mentions the target exploding or bursting into flames.

There are lots of things that burn and explode on airplanes that have nothing to do with ammunition, Bill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Precisely, my point Ketel one.

Actually my thinking in another thread, that i didn't want to make a 50 cal thread, was that 50 cals may not have been as structurally dangerous as cannons, however their AP abilities would've made the pilot particularly vulnerable as well as the engine blocks and other vitals.

This introduction to ammunitions vulnerability adds to this dynamic, given the fact that the 50s themselves are actually only capable of poking holes in aircraft skin. It is the fire from ignited fuels, a wounded or killed pilot, or even detonated HE ammunition that does a better job of bringing the plane down. I'm sure there is also a measurable amount of structural damage, but this doesn't compare to the use of a cannon or HE round. However, given the design and intent of a HE round it isn't likely to hit the pilot unless it is fired directly into the canopy. It explodes at first impact or fractions their after, where its likely to meet an armor plate or another obstruction.
Point being 50 cals could go through the entire plane and out the other side, depending on the angle and range, which could be very dangerous for the pilot, fuel tanks and other fluids, and unspent cannon rounds.



Bill

doraemil
11-12-2009, 05:23 PM
BLUTARSKI

LOL @ ego

Mgunz & Bill, gunpowder stories are interesting . . .



Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:


am i repeating myself again?

Two guys from EOD said a shell CAN explode from impact, and is likley a .50 cal will detonate it. So move on please. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hahah EOD, oh man that made me crack up!!!



LOL



Wow, I didn't know they had CSI back then in WW 2, and that planes have bilge pumps, thought that was ship thing.

I was confused about fluid dynamics used to explaining ammo belting but I'm wondering if this is like sales

Size of impact of product to the market (ie how much a ? becomes of a cash cow or star)

duration of impact , how long is the lifecycle of the product in star or cash cow

and location location! Get your target audience on the mark, and physical location is key to selling your product. Sometimes is is virtual as the recording industry found out the very hard way.

http://www.netmba.com/images/strategy/matrix/bcg/growthshare.gif

muwahahaha

TS_Sancho
11-12-2009, 05:25 PM
Gibbage, I'm not trying to pick at you but are you saying that cartridge propellant and high explosives are going to burn some magnitude slower than fuel vapor? All three are going to happen in a very short time span, certainly not something that can be measured by film frames.

As well, the point of failure by no means has to be the ignition source just the weakest point in the skin of the structure which in this case I believe would be the wheel well, the ammo drum for the outboard cannon is on the wingtip side of the gun installation further out.

My last point would be to review the clip Bill posted on page 1, I think the first aircraft shown is a Dora hence no outboard ammunition to explode.

Did ammunition magazines explode from enemy fire and rip wings off, sure but I don't believe the majority of the gun cam footage is showing that as commonly as it is showing wing off's from cannon shell hits and fuel vapor explosions.

The world may never know...

RegRag1977
11-12-2009, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

+1

exactly what i said.

This example is useless for this thread.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 05:41 PM
A single 20MM explodes in a flash. Multiple 20MM, with gun powder, exploding one after another, cause an extended fireball that last's much longer then a single 20MM explosion. Its that simple. The bigger the explosion, the longer its around.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

+1

exactly what i said.

This example is useless for this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all the shots this looks more like a fuel explosion, as its in the center line of the plane, and doesn't appear to be at the source of the explosion seen in the rest of the shots in the footage. It completely annihilates the plane.

I still think its worthy of the thread because it does provide an example of a possible fuel explosion, and it still exhibits the catastrophic effects of the AP machine gun fire. Planes don't typically explode on their own like that, do they?


Bill

M_Gunz
11-12-2009, 06:03 PM
The blasts are still small and very short-lived, they won't all go up inside 10 ms or likely even 100 ms.
One radius is less than 10mm after all.

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sympathetic detonation involves the propagation of detonation between individual explosive-containing devices. When many such devices are stored together, the possibility of mass propagation exists. With mass propagation, the entire stored mass detonates nearly simultaneously. Such propagation is the most feared hazard of such explosive items in transportation and storage environments because of its potential for sudden extreme damage and loss of life.

http://www3.interscience.wiley...ct?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109668071/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

when stuff that blows up next to other stuff that blows up, then all of that stuff could blow up.

Doesn't mean that all of it blows up every time, merely that the potential is there.

BTW, your link doesn't work, it takes me to a login page.

Bill

RegRag1977
11-12-2009, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

+1

exactly what i said.

This example is useless for this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of all the shots this looks more like a fuel explosion, as its in the center line of the plane, and doesn't appear to be at the source of the explosion seen in the rest of the shots in the footage. It completely annihilates the plane.

I still think its worthy of the thread because it does provide an example of a possible fuel explosion, and it still exhibits the catastrophic effects of the AP machine gun fire. Planes don't typically explode on their own like that, do they?


Bill </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger that..

Yes it is a very impressive footage about how 6X50cal can be destructive. I DO know that 50cal are powerful air to air weapons, who would doubt it, not me! "It completely annihilates the plane", as it should i might add.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

+1

exactly what i said.

This example is useless for this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, BOTH of you, I want you to reply to this after looking at it carefully. If your man enough, then you will admit you were wrong.

Like I said, I examined each explosion FRAME BY FRAME after downloading the source. Luckly, being a graphic artist, I have some good resources to utilize that most dont. So I made this framing for those who didnt take the time to look at it frame by frame before jumping too conclusions.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/fwframes.gif

Sorry for the margin buster, but I think its worth it. I took it into Adobe After Effects and applied 2 filters. #1, sharpen to get the image a little more clear, and #2, brightness/contrast to bring out the aircraft a little from the background. I also blew up the image a little. Lets go frame by frame.

Frame 1, the first frame before the explosion (possible the very initial hit). Note that I outlined the aircraft wings and body. Also note, no bombs or drop tank so they are not a factor.

Frame 2, Exactly 1 frame after frame 1NOTICE!!!! the left wing is MISSING! You can tell the explosion is starting from the light area over the ground in the bottom left. The object in the upper left corner is possible debris from earlier hits.

Frame 3, The outline is in the aircraft is emposed over the explosion in the same position as frame 1 and 2. The explosion is clearly on the LEFT SIDE of the aircraft. If it was a fuel tank explosion, it would be comming out the BELLY. There is no fuel in the wings of a FW-190. The only fuel source in the wings is the ammo.

Frame 4, you can see the body and right wing. Note the right wing is now up, because the left wing is now missing. Now that all the lift is on one side, it rotates the aircraft. Also note the shape of the blast. Going both up and down, and still on the left side of the aircraft. If it was a fuel explosion, it would be going down, since the fuel is located in the belly.

This was a very vigerous and violent explosion of the left wing, very close to the ground. Sadly, the pilot has about 0 chance of survival.

Do you still think its a fuel tank explosion?

As for Kettle, who will say "Well maybe it is, buy why arnt the OTHER explosions that big?". Thats easy. This aircraft could be armed with Mk-108's, and the others Mg151/20's. Also, the others may have less ammo in the boxes from combat before they were struck, leading to smaller explosions. Also, the belting could be heavy in AP, or API rounds, again, leading to a smaller explosion. All very likley, and a lot more likley then just fuel vaper in the wings.

Gibbage

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/boom01.jpg

Fuel tank rupture and subsequent flash-combustion.

+1

exactly what i said.

This example is useless for this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, BOTH of you, I want you to reply to this after looking at it carefully. If your man enough, then you will admit you were wrong.

Like I said, I examined each explosion FRAME BY FRAME after downloading the source. Luckly, being a graphic artist, I have some good resources to utilize that most dont. So I made this framing for those who didnt take the time to look at it frame by frame before jumping too conclusions.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/fwframes.gif

Sorry for the margin buster, but I think its worth it. I took it into Adobe After Effects and applied 2 filters. #1, sharpen to get the image a little more clear, and #2, brightness/contrast to bring out the aircraft a little from the background. I also blew up the image a little. Lets go frame by frame.

Frame 1, the first frame before the explosion (possible the very initial hit). Note that I outlined the aircraft wings and body. Also note, no bombs or drop tank so they are not a factor.

Frame 2, Exactly 1 frame after frame 1NOTICE!!!! the left wing is MISSING! You can tell the explosion is starting from the light area over the ground in the bottom left. The object in the upper left corner is possible debris from earlier hits.

Frame 3, The outline is in the aircraft is emposed over the explosion in the same position as frame 1 and 2. The explosion is clearly on the LEFT SIDE of the aircraft. If it was a fuel tank explosion, it would be comming out the BELLY. There is no fuel in the wings of a FW-190. The only fuel source in the wings is the ammo.

Frame 4, you can see the body and right wing. Note the right wing is now up, because the left wing is now missing. Now that all the lift is on one side, it rotates the aircraft. Also note the shape of the blast. Going both up and down, and still on the left side of the aircraft. If it was a fuel explosion, it would be going down, since the fuel is located in the belly.

This was a very vigerous and violent explosion of the left wing, very close to the ground. Sadly, the pilot has about 0 chance of survival.

Do you still think its a fuel tank explosion?

As for Kettle, who will say "Well maybe it is, buy why arnt the OTHER explosions that big?". Thats easy. This aircraft could be armed with Mk-108's, and the others Mg151/20's. Also, the others may have less ammo in the boxes from combat before they were struck, leading to smaller explosions. Also, the belting could be heavy in AP, or API rounds, again, leading to a smaller explosion. All very likley, and a lot more likley then just fuel vaper in the wings.

Gibbage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


great work Gibbage. I wasn't able to get pin pointed frame by frame like that, so this provides me with a bit more detail on this explosion.
Could you add the following frames, that would be 5-8?

Since you are able to do this, it might provide a closer and more detailed look on what actually explodes. I guess what i'm saying is, if the wing exploded, then why is the fuselage hollowed out and on fire after such a blast? It seems like at some point the fuel did ignite and cause a bigger and brighter fireball. The initial cause might have been from ammunition detonation in the wing.

It would be interesting to see.



Bill

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Your proof requires photo shop skills??

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

You have the source, prove that I edited anything. I take great personal offense to that accusation.

It would be easy to prove me wrong and a complete lier and fraud since everyone has access to the source. Put up or shut up.

In fact, I WILL PROVIDE EVERYONE THE TOOLS to prove it.

Download this player. Media Player Classic. Its Media Player, open source, without all the bloat. You can download the video and play it FRAME BY FRAME, and save out frames.

http://download.cnet.com/Media...18778.html?tag=mncol (http://download.cnet.com/Media-Player-Classic/3000-2139_4-10518778.html?tag=mncol)

Also, to make sure im not hosting a tampered file, download the original video from Google.

http://video.google.com/videop...8324640976189633970# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8324640976189633970#)

In the bottom right, it says "Download video = iPod/PSP". Click on that and download the MP4.

Media Player Classic can play MP4's. Watch the video frame by frame, and take snap shots, and post ANY PROOF YOU HAVE that I tried to defraud this community. If you can not, I DEMAND an appology. If you dont, ill take it up with the mods as a personal attack.

JtD
11-12-2009, 10:46 PM
Can't get it to play mp4s on my system, it needs codecs.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Can't get it to play mp4s on my system, it needs codecs.

Sorry about that. I have a lot of codec's for my job, so I forget that not everyone has them.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffdshow/

FFDshow has a lot of codec's in it for like Xvid and DIVX. Its also open source.

There is also one on Download.com if you want a more trusted page.

http://download.cnet.com/Media...49065.html?tag=mncol (http://download.cnet.com/Media-Player-Codec-Pack/3000-13632_4-10749065.html?tag=mncol)

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 11:02 PM
i looked at this again Gibbage, and it seems there are film anomalies that create the missing wing effect.

Prior to the frames you posted you can only see half a wing in some frames, while proceeding frames contain the full wing. The anomaly is seen again just before it explodes. Unfortunately, this is the cause of a grainy film source.

thanks for providing the tools to look at this more thoroughly.

Bill

TS_Sancho
11-12-2009, 11:04 PM
Nice presentation Gibbage although It still looks like the explosion happened after the wing came off.

It also looks to me like the fireball is generated from the wing root, exactly where the fuel tank is located.

On a side note I don't believe anybody is accusing you of fabricating anything in the still captures you posted. Its the internet, you have to keep a good sense of humor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
It also looks to me like the fireball is generated from the wing root, exactly where the fuel tank is located.


The fuel tank is located in the belly, under the pilot, not the wing. If you look at frame 4, the fire is on the left side of the body with the orentation in the middle of the wing. If it was from the fuel tank, you would see fire under the aircraft, not the left side. Also, the fact that the fire is on top of the wing also proves that its from the wing, since if it came from the belly, it would need to go around the wing to go up.



On a side note I don't believe anybody is accusing you of fabricating anything in the still captures you posted. Its the internet, you have to keep a good sense of humor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I never mentioned Photoshop. He's accusing me of Photoshopping the image (doctoring it up) when I stated I used After Effects. I also listed the filters I used, and they in no way alter the image.

Gibbage1
11-12-2009, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Prior to the frames you posted you can only see half a wing in some frames, while proceeding frames contain the full wing. The anomaly is seen again just before it explodes. Unfortunately, this is the cause of a grainy film source.

thanks for providing the tools to look at this more thoroughly.

Bill

Once I applied the sharpen filter, and the gama correction, there was a dark area of the wing in frame 1. Its possible that the initial explosion is covering it up a bit, but its too hard to tell. But, in frame 2, you can clearly see both the explosion, and lack of wing. Also, in both 3 and 4, the center of the explosion is clearly in the middle of the wing, not the hull of the aircraft.

Also, play the video a few frames more, once the aircraft starts tumbling. You can see when it flips, only 1/4 of the left wing is left just before the cut to the next scene. Its hard to see without increasing the sharpness.

Also, IF the wing didnt explode, why would it start violently rotating? Thats clear as day.

JtD
11-12-2009, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

There is also one on Download.com if you want a more trusted page.

http://download.cnet.com/Media...49065.html?tag=mncol (http://download.cnet.com/Media-Player-Codec-Pack/3000-13632_4-10749065.html?tag=mncol)

This one did the trick for me. Thank you. Neat thing.

Even without filtering I agree with your findings, the explosion starts in your "frame 2" and initiates in the left middle to outside wing.

----

To give a scope, 5 20mm MG shells going off simultaneously are roughly equal to 1 MK 108 going off and 50 are roughly equal to 1 88mm AAA going off.

----

I'd also like to add that just because something smells like gasoline, it doesn't mean it is an explosive mixture. I have yet to see a petrol station that doesn't smell, but I've never seen one blow up in spite of a huge number of ignition sources I have witnessed. You need a certain mixture to make fuel fumes explosive.

If an explosive mixture was frequently forming in aircraft wings that have no fuel tank installed, it is more likely to form in the fuselage and on the ground, for duration, temperature and venting reasons and could go off as soon as the engine fires up or the electric flaps are being extended.

peterdwb
11-12-2009, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Nice presentation Gibbage although It still looks like the explosion happened after the wing came off.

It also looks to me like the fireball is generated from the wing root, exactly where the fuel tank is located.

On a side note I don't believe anybody is accusing you of fabricating anything in the still captures you posted. Its the internet, you have to keep a good sense of humor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Agreed. The supposedly blown up upper wing is appearing and dissapearing in several frames plus it cannot travel faster than light (wing vanishing completely before any light generated by the explosion reaches the camera is simply impossible). The "possible debris from earlier hits" is in the same exact spot 2 consecutive frames, looks more like dirt in the film than anything else.

Gibbage1
11-13-2009, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
To give a scope, 5 20mm MG shells going off simultaneously are roughly equal to 1 MK 108 going off and 50 are roughly equal to 1 88mm AAA going off.

----

I'd also like to add that just because something smells like gasoline, it doesn't mean it is an explosive mixture. I have yet to see a petrol station that doesn't smell, but I've never seen one blow up in spite of a huge number of ignition sources I have witnessed. You need a certain mixture to make fuel fumes explosive.


Im glad it was able to work for you. Also, about the shells, did you factor in the propellant? The Mk-108 has quite a bit more gun powder then a standard MG151/20 shell. Like I said, high explosives burn very quickly, but we are seeing a longer burn. Im guessing it more gun powder then the HE shells just due to the duration.

You also make a good point about gas. It takes a lot to get a good explosive mixture, just ask the Mythbusters. They tried to do the fuel pump explosion, and testing fuel/air mixture removed Adam's eyebrows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5-xS9sDuLg

Gibbage1
11-13-2009, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by peterdwb:
Agreed. The supposedly blown up upper wing is appearing and dissapearing in several frames plus it cannot travel faster than light (wing vanishing completely before any light generated by the explosion reaches the camera is simply impossible). The "possible debris from earlier hits" is in the same exact spot 2 consecutive frames, looks more like dirt in the film than anything else.

In frame 2, you can see light is already being generated by the flash, by the highlight in the lower left corner. So the blast starts in that frame, and you can see its covering the wing. In frame 4, the blast center, is the wing, not the body, and same goes for frame 4. At no point does flame ever come from the body.

peterdwb
11-13-2009, 01:28 AM
To me it looks like it's coming from the wing root

Bremspropeller
11-13-2009, 03:48 AM
Do you still think its a fuel tank explosion?

Yes.

BTW: there's not more "wing" visible in frame 1 than there is in frame 2.
http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/fwframes.gif

Take off the red outlines and you'll see it right away.

M_Gunz
11-13-2009, 04:07 AM
When you're in a plane moving 100+ meters/second following another going about as fast then that smoke and debris made
from one hit will be behind the target in nothing flat, closer to the camera than the target and appearing to be much
bigger in comparison with the target. To compare the apparent sizes as if they were together, frame to frame traveling
together... yeah you can tell SO much from film! You can tell even more from the conclusions people draw from film.

Closer objects will appear larger in scale than distant objects.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2009, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Planes don't typically explode on their own like that, do they?


Usually, they don't, but at times they do:
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060708/060708_TWA10th_hmed_7p.hlarge.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-13-2009, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Nice presentation Gibbage although It still looks like the explosion happened after the wing came off.

It also looks to me like the fireball is generated from the wing root, exactly where the fuel tank is located.

On a side note I don't believe anybody is accusing you of fabricating anything in the still captures you posted. Its the internet, you have to keep a good sense of humor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


..... I'm not claiming to know the exact source of the explosion, but keep in mind that there was also a 20mm magazine in the wing root for the inboard 151/20.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2009, 05:56 AM
The inboard 151s are fed from the fuselage's ammo-bay, directly in front of the tanks.

CUJO_1970
11-13-2009, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
but this doesn't compare to the use of a cannon or HE round.


Correct, .50 cal does not compare to 20MM cannon rounds.



Originally posted by BillSwagger:

However, given the design and intent of a HE round it isn't likely to hit the pilot unless it is fired directly into the canopy. It explodes at first impact or fractions their after, where its likely to meet an armor plate or another obstruction.


Unless fired directly into the canopy?

That is simply not true Bill.

HE Cannon rounds had an alarming tendency to do exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say they did.

Go read up on some 8th AF bomber crew after action reports Bill. The ones that survived with damage and dead crew on board. Many reports prove that 20MM rounds entered the aircraft, exploded INSIDE the aircraft and beheaded, eviscerated, disemboweled, blew arms off or otherwise maimed the unfortunate crews on the inside of the plane:

"I knew Jung was hurt worse than I was. I looked up and saw part of his arm hanging above the window, looked around and saw his side intact. The 20MM blast had ripped Jung's arm from his body and shrapnel had hit us both."

-Lou Szabo, 93rd BG.

Reports like this are quite common. These do not include damage from FLAK or AAA, but from fighter attacks.


Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Point being 50 cals could go through the entire plane and out the other side, depending on the angle and range, which could be very dangerous for the pilot, fuel tanks and other fluids, and unspent cannon rounds.



The fact is, ANY round fired from one aircraft at another aircraft could potentially do this, ("depending on the angle and range")including cannon rounds depending on belting, even 7.92 rounds may do it.

British tests with the FW190 showed that this was not always the case though, didn't they? Are you familiar with these tests, Bill?

BaronUnderpants
11-13-2009, 10:13 AM
Iv been waiting for 13 pages now, for the threadh title to be changed.

Its irrelevant to all the guesses being made.

Exept facts, there are no way in he** anyone gonna prove anything looking at those clips.


We can guess, but thats it.


Personally iv seen lots and lots of clips with the same effects as orginal clips in this thread, and in those its quite obviouse its NOT ammo going of from a .50 cal hit. A wing tip shot off showing almost the exact same effects for ex. Or the one with the headon against a B-24 where it looks like the fighter is lobbying 88`s at it.

A 20 mm hit to a wing under high g ripping of metal wich in turn rips of more, of course its gonna look spectacular, especially on a grainy black and whit film where its difficoult to say whats what to begin with.

P.S. Please, please, please, leave the .50 cal part out of the deabate. It makes a futile debate stupid. (Not aimed at u Bill)

orville07
11-13-2009, 10:30 AM
LMAO, is this still going on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hi Bill. Again, with respect mate you are completely wrong that the Focke Wulf left "Wing off" is done by .50 brownings. I owned the "Tempest at war" DVD which I mentioned and linked to "Tempest gun cam" footage on page 3 of this thread. The maker of the YT vid has "mashed up" the footage and heavily edited the DVD due to time constraints. The narrator of the DVD is one Kev Darling, published author of at least five RAF WWII aviation books that I can think of offhand, and I distinctly remember him saying that at least the afore mentioned focke wulf "left wing off" was Tempest gun cam footage.

Whilst I accept your point that WWII footage can often peddled together, the way they YT user has put it together is misleading and gives the wrong impression. In this case of the focke first Focke Wulf wing off it is most certainly Tempest footage. It is highly unlikely that Mr Kev Darling would have said so otherwise and put his name to the narration otherwise, and you'll forgive me if I take his testament over that of gaming fans like myself, however well intentioned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lets put this one to bed. Heres a little exercise for the ears.....the sound of 3x 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannons firing full auto. Its very short footage, so hover your mouse over "Pause" in the left corner, and PAUSE at roughly 2 second intervals, emulating the length of the Tempest Pilots bursts.

3X Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon full auto burst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8_ZuESQ

Now, listen to the sound of the gunfire between 1.16 to 1.24 on this Hawker Tempest gun cam footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

Wow. They sound so similar! In fact, I would venture to say EXACTLY THE SAME. Why might this be? I've got a crazy theory of my own, I posit that they sound exactly the same because they in fact ARE one and the same. You are hearing a Hawker Tempest armed with 4x 20mm Hispano cannon fire ripping that Focke Wulf wing off, it is NOT USAAF browing MG fire. 4x20mm cannon fire at convergence point on a Focke Wulf wing would be catastrophic, and indeed is as the video shows.

Whether or not the magazine is partially or completely going off is another story, though I am very much inclined to agree with Kettenhunde that you would be seeing "aluminium rain" if that were the case. I don't know enough on the subject myself to argue this point, and to be honest care even less lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Correct me if I'm wrong here but I believe Kettenhunde has worked with explosives in Military service so I'd think it would probably be sensible to listen to his opinion.


Case closed, thanks for playing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

orville07
11-13-2009, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by orville07:
LMAO, is this still going on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hi Bill. Again, with respect mate you are completely wrong that the Focke Wulf left "Wing off" is done by .50 brownings. I owned the "Tempest at war" DVD which I mentioned and linked to "Tempest gun cam" footage on page 3 of this thread. The maker of the YT vid has "mashed up" the footage and heavily edited the DVD due to time constraints. The narrator of the DVD is one Kev Darling, published author of at least five RAF WWII aviation books that I can think of offhand, and I distinctly remember him saying that at least the afore mentioned focke wulf "left wing off" was Tempest gun cam footage.

Whilst I accept your point that WWII footage can often peddled together, the way they YT user has put it together is misleading and gives the wrong impression. In this case of the focke first Focke Wulf wing off it is most certainly Tempest footage. It is highly unlikely that Mr Kev Darling would have said so otherwise and put his name to the narration, and you'll forgive me if I take his testament over that of gaming fans like myself, however well intentioned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lets put this one to bed. Heres a little exercise for the ears.....the sound of 3x 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannons firing full auto. Its very short footage, so hover your mouse over "Pause" in the left corner, and PAUSE at roughly 2 second intervals, emulating the length of the Tempest Pilots bursts.

3X Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon full auto burst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8_ZuESQ

Now, listen to the sound of the gunfire between 1.16 to 1.24 on this Hawker Tempest gun cam footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

Wow. They sound so similar! In fact, I would venture to say EXACTLY THE SAME. Why might this be? I've got a crazy theory of my own, I posit that they sound exactly the same because they in fact ARE one and the same. You are hearing a Hawker Tempest armed with 4x 20mm Hispano cannon fire ripping that Focke Wulf wing off, it is NOT USAAF browing MG fire. 4x20mm cannon fire at convergence point on a Focke Wulf wing would be catastrophic, and indeed is as the video shows.

Whether or not the magazine is partially or completely going off is another story, though I am very much inclined to agree with Kettenhunde that you would be seeing "aluminium rain" if that were the case. I don't know enough on the subject myself to argue this point, and to be honest care even less lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Correct me if I'm wrong here but I believe Kettenhunde has worked with explosives in Military service so I'd think it would probably be sensible to listen to his opinion.


Case closed, thanks for playing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

BaronUnderpants
11-13-2009, 10:49 AM
Look from 1.09 (minibusses). I know, 40mm, but u get the idea. (no fuels or ammo inside, just empty space).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Z5-8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3hC0vsZ5-8&feature=related)


Now emagine the minivan doing 300-400 km/h.

DrHerb
11-13-2009, 10:53 AM
Lets put this one to bed. Heres a little exercise for the ears.....the sound of 3x 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannons firing full auto. Its very short footage, so hover your mouse over "Pause" in the left corner, and PAUSE at roughly 2 second intervals, emulating the length of the Tempest Pilots bursts.

3X Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon full auto burst.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8_ZuESQ

Now, listen to the sound of the gunfire between 1.16 to 1.24 on this Hawker Tempest gun cam footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A

Wow. They sound so similar! In fact, I would venture to say EXACTLY THE SAME. Why might this be? I've got a crazy theory of my own, I posit that they sound exactly the same because they in fact ARE one and the same. You are hearing a Hawker Tempest armed with 4x 20mm Hispano cannon fire ripping that Focke Wulf wing off, it is NOT USAAF browing MG fire. 4x20mm cannon fire at convergence point on a Focke Wulf wing would be catastrophic, and indeed is as the video shows.

AFAIK they didnt use microphones in guncams so therefore, the sound you hear is a soundbyte added into the footage in the 2nd video.

TS_Sancho
11-13-2009, 11:03 AM
You are hearing a Hawker Tempest armed with 4x 20mm Hispano cannon fire ripping that Focke Wulf wing off

Nice try but...while I am leaning towards the 20mm hispano camp in this discussion as well gun camera footage in WW2 was just that. Film with no audio. The sound effects in the link you posted would have been added by whomever produced the show the video clip was lifted from.

Gibbage, yes I understand the fuel tank in the FW190 was located in the belly under the pilot. The wing root joins the fuselage in the same place hence my earlier statement...


It also looks to me like the fireball is generated from the wing root, exactly where the fuel tank is located.

Edit...Sorry DrHerb, I had not seen your post yet.

Jaws2002
11-13-2009, 11:24 AM
The .50 cal is way too powerful in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

orville07
11-13-2009, 12:25 PM
Hi DrHerb and Sancho. Yes, of course the sound is edited in as it has to be for obvious reasons.

The "show" you are referring to is not a "History Channel show" or otherwise and to my knowledge has not been shown on any cable channel. It is a purpose made for DVD market documentary on the Tempest. Google "Tempest at war". It is thus safe to assume that the Hispano cannon fire sounds you are hearing have been added to that clip for a reason. Namely because the aircraft gun cam footage it appears with is indeed that of a Hispano equipped Hawker Tempest.

It sounds very desperate to suggest that Hispano-Suiza cannon sound has been deliberately added over a P-51/Jug or otherwise cam footage lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . One would assume that since the Technical advisor and narrator on the production has contributed to Technical books on Griffon engined Spitfires amongst many other RAF birds, when he says it is Tempest footage with Hispano cannon I tend to say "OK" I believe you!

Here is the blurb on the production.

"Description

On its introduction into RAF service in April 1944, the Hawker Tempest proved to be a truly outstanding fighter aircraft. It was fast, manoeuvrable and packed a real punch. Originally equipped with 4 20mm cannon, it also proved capable of carrying bombs and rocket projectiles, which made it as fierce a ground attack aircraft as a fighter. THE TEMPEST AT WAR provides a superb and totally unique film portrait of this now largely-overlooked RAF warhorse, featuring rarely seen newsreel footage, original RAF films and never-before-released archive material from the Imperial War Museum film vaults. It includes air-to-air shots, gun camera film, weapons testing and formation flying, as well as a unique wartime RAF Tempest recognition film and ground crew training film material. Surviving Tempest pilots and ground crew provide a fascinating insight into what it was like to fly and fight in the Tempest, recalling dogfights with Fw190s and Me262s, shooting down and wing-tipping V-1 Flying Bombs and stalking the skies of Nazi Germany looking for targets of opportunity on the ground below. Expert commentary is provided by Kev Darling, author of many respected books on fighter aircraft.

DVD EXTRAS

"Tempest Hydraulics-Fair Wear & Tear." An official RAF instructional film."

Again, the credits show that the footage is from Imperial War Museum Film archives. Case again rests, believe what you want Bill and co....But I am sorry you are mistaken!

Over and out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
11-13-2009, 12:51 PM
And yet not one word about the source of the sound files...

If they don't say so specifically, then it is most likely a 'stock' sound effect. Period.

Sorry mate, I'm sure that it's a lovely DVD, BUT I have to question whether there was a recent audio recording of the Tempest's guns being fired, and if there isn't, any recording made in the 1940s for training, documentary or newsreels is going to be suspect. It's just too hard to authenticate.

cheers

horseback

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 01:27 PM
The sound files were dubbed in. Its a production, a show, they need to make it interesting. They do this for just about every war bird documentary, which also means they include footage from other aircraft.

Its funny because most of that reel on the Tempest show isn't from a tempest at all. I'm not sure why you still think the wing off is from a tempest.


Here is more of your tempest footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...MDDY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89b3vVwMDDY&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejnxLN0MAlU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5sqo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifZfoI85sqo&feature=related)

Bill

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillSwagger:
but this doesn't compare to the use of a cannon or HE round.


Correct, .50 cal does not compare to 20MM cannon rounds.



Originally posted by BillSwagger:
However, given the design and intent of a HE round it isn't likely to hit the pilot unless it is fired directly into the canopy. It explodes at first impact or fractions their after, where its likely to meet an armor plate or another obstruction.

Try not to take what i said about fighter planes, and put into the context of describing bomber crews and their aircraft.

I would also hope you pay attention to the use of the word "likely". It should imply that what i'm saying is a generalization and not to be accepted as an absolute occurrence.

I was basing my statements on the fact that HE rounds can only penetrate a 4mm plate of armor at best, where a 50 cal round goes through 22mm plates at best, from the exact same distance and angle.
This is because the HE round explodes on impact. The likely hood of it going through the plane and hitting other vitals is not the same as an AP round that is capable of going through the entire aircraft. They do have 20mm AP rounds which are much more effective at going through aircraft than their HE versions.
Obviously, the HE round is more visually apparent because there is an explosion and a larger hole created by the blast.
Point being that 50 cal will go through the plane with no apparent explosion or effect, until it impacts a fuel tank, engine, or other vital.
This is why they included incendiary rounds, which also serves as an indicator flash of where the bullets are hitting.

You add bomber crews to the equation it gets more complex. I guess what i'm saying is that an HE round fired from the rear of the plane is more likely to explode in the tail section than travel the length of the fuselage and into the pilots armor. AP rounds however, are more likely to do this.

Most of what i've read on bombers seems to suggest that flak was their biggest enemy, although getting hit by 20mm, or 30mm was not pretty.
I've just seen what flak does to planes by comparison, and its much more horrific, although if i were on board a bomber i wouldn't want to be hit by anything German.



Bill

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The .50 cal and the cannon represent two different philosophies for destroying aircraft.


Precisely.



The theory behind the .50 cal is we can punch a tiny hole in the armor to kill the pilot or damage something vital.

Yes, but to expand, its more like poking many tiny holes in the plane where the odds of hitting something vital is eminent, as firing time increases.




The theory behind the cannon HE round is the armor does not make a difference if the plate is intact as it flutters to the ground because the surrounding duralumin structure has failed.

Exactly.

The pilot might not even be wounded when cannon fire punches holes in his rudder.
His rudder on the other hand, may be useless to him.



Bill

M_Gunz
11-13-2009, 03:11 PM
Given that there are many different HE shells, is it perhaps the 151/20 Mine Grenade rounds that can only penetrate
4mm of armor or is that a Hispano 20mm HE, or is it some other? The difference between 151/20 MG and Hisso HE is
quite a bit as far as armor penetration, can you lump them all together like that? Is the BEST 20mm fighter gun HE
really only capable of penetrating 4mm armor plate?

When you write such expressions as "their after" I have to wonder at how well you are at checking complete facts.

JtD
11-13-2009, 03:13 PM
The larger splinters of HE shells have some fairly decent AP capabilities themselves. Since these are created at the point of impact, the larger the firing distance, the smaller the advantage of a dedicated AP round in terms of maximum penetration capability. In particular true when looking at HE shells with a thick casing and smaller HE content.

deepo_HP
11-13-2009, 03:15 PM
hi all,

after my last reply to the topic, i thought i had made myself look silly by repeating the same. but since this has come to video-processing now, i couldn't resist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


on the 'youtube'-videos, linked by billswagger is the counter of a telecine-recorder to be seen. telecine, or '2:3 pulldown', would be used for speeding 24fps up to 29.97 fps (ntsc). telecine is usually the last process on production, since it includes interlacing and adding frames. the only time one would see the counter is at the end of preproduction, ie the cutter has it as an overlay on the final cut. it may be that he has just telecined a whole reel, it may be that he put the parts together - no matter if they have ever been linked or not. leaving the overlay visible is only done for workprints (to show the final cut for ok).
the overlay can nevertheless been added just at any other time later - doesn't need more than the usual semi-pro or even free tools. just for fun, for the looks... or for other reason, like giving the impression of a continuous footage with headers. it is beyond me, why someone would do so, but it is not much work.
i don't know, why the overlay is to be seen, but it is a YOUTUBE video. folks can add whatever they want. how is it, that these guncams on youtube seem to be so much worth as documents for some here?


to get the youtube-footage straight for the less grafical or video-experienced:

american guncam-footage is usually taken with 'kodak', 'bell & howell' or 'fairchild' 16mm, british used 'williamson' 16mm, germans 'robot' 35mm-halfframe cams, at framerates of usually 24fps (sometimes less, but it was a risk of catching fire when projected at slow speed. some had 25fps). the lenses were very good, but the exposure was fixed, and mechanics highly stressed. the material was also quite ok, but low resolution and not very resistant against rotting.
the original film-magazines usually got photocopied frame by frame for archiving, perhaps microfiched after the war. the original magazines will then be stored and don't need to be touched furtheron - maybe only for forensics.
for distribution the photocopies get digitised already by the archiving institute
that is however how the wochenschau was archived and how the nasa still does it.

for tv-shows or dvd-production the distributions will be edited by dv-standards. means, a colourspace has to be introduced (mostly yuv), the video gets interlaced, the framerate is changed to 29.97 and the resolution lowered to 720x486 (720x243 per half-frame). for dvd-production it will be compressed to mpeg2 of various quality.
next, a mostly unknown person records the show or rips the dvd. the captured video needs to be de-interlaced, colourspace to be changed to rgb and framerate to be changed to 24 or 25fps by deleting frames. the video can be edited if wanted, then it is resized and compressed for upload on the internet.
google will always recompress the video the video again and change the frame-rate once more to 12fps (even the 'high quality' feature still includes these steps!).
it might happen, that other unknown persons take the google-video for further editing and decreased quality.
this is what happens to guncam-footage. most of the videos we are discussing here, are of 320x240px size, compressed in blocks of 4x4px. many frames are missing, and all have been merged, up- and downsized, graduation and contrast been changed. all the lost information can never, by any circumstances, be digitally restored.
it is a youtube-video, nice for presenting home-mades or watching entertainment. sometimes good for raising questions, but absolutely unusable for looking for hard grafical evidence.
even if it is a dvd of better quality, noone here knows what is edited in it.


the topic's videos are interesting and leave some questions. to whatever degree one want to consider the reason to be ammo ignited by bullets, or ammo ignited by shells, or shells hitting structure, or anything flashing something is certainly up for an argument.
the word is 'consider' here, because the whole topic ended to be a discussion, when proof is insisted to be found in unsourced lowest quality copies of guncam-footage. this is nearly the same level as debating over ufo-footage!


the thread has revealed many never seen interesting footage to me, as well as good information on aircraft details. nothing to say against different opinions, of some i wouldn't have thought otherwise.
i would just hope that effects on pity videos weren't considered as reality and that an assumed reason for them would be differed from a fact.

RegRag1977
11-13-2009, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
That is what it looks like and it fits inside a bay in front of the tanks.

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/mg151mag3.jpg

The tanks sit in their own compartment.

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/fueltank1.jpg

Here is the cover and the tanks are accessed through the belly pan.

http://www.white1foundation.or...halterraumklappe.jpg (http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/behalterraumklappe.jpg)

Hi Kettenhunde,

is it true the Fw190 tanks were fixed to the fuselage by the means of fabric straps so that they could be replaced quicker if damaged? Somebody told me that once and i always wondered if it was true...

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Given that there are many different HE shells, is it perhaps the 151/20 Mine Grenade rounds that can only penetrate
4mm of armor or is that a Hispano 20mm HE, or is it some other? The difference between 151/20 MG and Hisso HE is
quite a bit as far as armor penetration, can you lump them all together like that? Is the BEST 20mm fighter gun HE
really only capable of penetrating 4mm armor plate?

When you write such expressions as "their after" I have to wonder at how well you are at checking complete facts.

I was forced to look closer at what i was basing my statement on, and i was wrong. It wasn't 4mm, it was 8mm. You might also notice that it was not able to penetrate any measurable amount at the angles they measured.

This test shows the penetration of M1 50 cal, Hispano M3 20mm (including HE), as well as the Browning .303. The test was done at various ranges and angles.

I know some folks may want specifics, but i'd rather not quibble over exact numbers, and hopefully you aren't missing the point of what i was saying earlier.

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/919/ap19az.jpg



Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8731/m250calmanual2.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/m250calmanual2.jpg/)


Crumpp

This is interesting information.

I often wonder how in some gun cam footage you see the 50 cal firing into ground targets for much longer intervals than what they recommend.

75 rounds from one gun, could equate to as much as 5-6 seconds of trigger time, considering 800 rounds per minute.
I guess that make sense, sort of.

Then again, i don't always operate my car by exactly what the manual says, and it runs just fine too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Bill

M_Gunz
11-13-2009, 06:43 PM
Too much trigger time without cooling off gets you far more barrel wear and jamming, some destructive to the gun.
In ground combat the gunners have often fired till the barrel glowed red, even with quick-change barrel guns like
the M-60 when to stop might mean to die soon.

In the B-25 strafing videos we have seen the text about all guns firing at the start and maybe one or two by the end.
That's out of 12 M2s? They should have had something to sequence the guns in groups, 3 or 4 triggers even.

How many miles do you expect to get out of a beat car as opposed to one never beat and always cared for? I've seen
cars ready for scrap inside 100,000 and the same model running well with over 200,000. At 70,000 miles they both
ran fine though IMO the gas mileage probably differed, worse for the beaten car.

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Too much trigger time without cooling off gets you far more barrel wear and jamming, some destructive to the gun.
In ground combat the gunners have often fired till the barrel glowed red, even with quick-change barrel guns like
the M-60 when to stop might mean to die soon.

In the B-25 strafing videos we have seen the text about all guns firing at the start and maybe one or two by the end.
That's out of 12 M2s? They should have had something to sequence the guns in groups, 3 or 4 triggers even.

How many miles do you expect to get out of a beat car as opposed to one never beat and always cared for? I've seen
cars ready for scrap inside 100,000 and the same model running well with over 200,000. At 70,000 miles they both
ran fine though IMO the gas mileage probably differed, worse for the beaten car.


I completely agree about cooking a gun barrel, i often mock what manuals say only because they tend to give you conservative operational tendencies.

Something well cared for is obviously gonna last longer, but i think in the case of machine gun fire there is some leeway just like my car manual might suggest i need an oil change every three thousand miles. If i go 4000 miles is it really going to hurt it? 10,000miles? Thats rhetorical. I wouldn't think i could get away with double or triple the recommended firing times.

I still wouldn't fire my guns with reckless abandon. Its better for ammo supply as well as gun life. I see little need for firing beyond 3 or 4 seconds anyway. I think they make these precautions because you know some rookie pilot or gunner gets anxious and squeezes away at the first sign of a target or enemy. I never knew guns jammed up like that until i handled some weapons myself. I could imagine most of these kids in the army at the time were probably naive to much of what then was considered new technology.

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 07:41 PM
I still dont under stand the footage i've seen of M2 in use. They are fireing for much longer intervals than 10 rounds,

Could it be they are using a lighter barrel, designed for aircraft, hence better cooling. The planes are also traveling through the air which provides some level of cooling, rather than a stationary platform.

This seems accurate i just question if its the light barrel or heavy barrel, in which there would be a significant difference in these intervals.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5404/1095830975bauc.jpg

Gibbage1
11-13-2009, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
I still dont under stand the footage i've seen of M2 in use. They are fireing for much longer intervals than 10 rounds,


Is that chart for ground mounted .50 cal? If so, then I have no doubt about the limit. You dont see that many marines laying on the trigger. The berral is shorter, lighter, and also has a lot less air moving over it. Aircraft .50 cal's had a longer berral (M2HB) and has anywhere between 200-400MPH wind blowing over it that could be below zero at altitude. So they had a lot better cooling. Also the aircraft .50 cal's had chrome plated berrals that helped trigger time.

M_Gunz
11-13-2009, 10:23 PM
I'm pretty sure that guncam film was run at high speed, that's what was 'known' 10 years ago.

Gibbage1
11-13-2009, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I'm pretty sure that guncam film was run at high speed, that's what was 'known' 10 years ago.

I remember reading that German guncam's recorded at something like 45FPS, so when played back at 30FPS, it was slow motion, but when I was messing with the US Guncam, it was recorded at 15 FPS. The FW video has 2 same frames at 30 FPS. I dont know if the guncams recorded at 15 or 30, but what we are watching is 15FPS.

BillSwagger
11-14-2009, 12:55 AM
What we watch on youtube has more to do with the conversion rate of user who posted the footage than the actual recording.

Deepo mentioned earlier in the thread about frame rates, and to summarize some frames are cut out because of the way the orignal film gets converted into video, and then from a video to an unploaded mpeg or dvix format. There's going to be some distortion in image quality, lost frames, as well as changes in timing because of this.


what deepo wrote:


Originally posted by deepo_HP:
hi all,

after my last reply to the topic, i thought i had made myself look silly by repeating the same. but since this has come to video-processing now, i couldn't resist... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


on the 'youtube'-videos, linked by billswagger is the counter of a telecine-recorder to be seen. telecine, or '2:3 pulldown', would be used for speeding 24fps up to 29.97 fps (ntsc). telecine is usually the last process on production, since it includes interlacing and adding frames. the only time one would see the counter is at the end of preproduction, ie the cutter has it as an overlay on the final cut. it may be that he has just telecined a whole reel, it may be that he put the parts together - no matter if they have ever been linked or not. leaving the overlay visible is only done for workprints (to show the final cut for ok).
the overlay can nevertheless been added just at any other time later - doesn't need more than the usual semi-pro or even free tools. just for fun, for the looks... or for other reason, like giving the impression of a continuous footage with headers. it is beyond me, why someone would do so, but it is not much work.
i don't know, why the overlay is to be seen, but it is a YOUTUBE video. folks can add whatever they want. how is it, that these guncams on youtube seem to be so much worth as documents for some here?


to get the youtube-footage straight for the less grafical or video-experienced:

american guncam-footage is usually taken with 'kodak', 'bell & howell' or 'fairchild' 16mm, british used 'williamson' 16mm, germans 'robot' 35mm-halfframe cams, at framerates of usually 24fps (sometimes less, but it was a risk of catching fire when projected at slow speed. some had 25fps). the lenses were very good, but the exposure was fixed, and mechanics highly stressed. the material was also quite ok, but low resolution and not very resistant against rotting.
the original film-magazines usually got photocopied frame by frame for archiving, perhaps microfiched after the war. the original magazines will then be stored and don't need to be touched furtheron - maybe only for forensics.
for distribution the photocopies get digitised already by the archiving institute
that is however how the wochenschau was archived and how the nasa still does it.

for tv-shows or dvd-production the distributions will be edited by dv-standards. means, a colourspace has to be introduced (mostly yuv), the video gets interlaced, the framerate is changed to 29.97 and the resolution lowered to 720x486 (720x243 per half-frame). for dvd-production it will be compressed to mpeg2 of various quality.
next, a mostly unknown person records the show or rips the dvd. the captured video needs to be de-interlaced, colourspace to be changed to rgb and framerate to be changed to 24 or 25fps by deleting frames. the video can be edited if wanted, then it is resized and compressed for upload on the internet.
google will always recompress the video the video again and change the frame-rate once more to 12fps (even the 'high quality' feature still includes these steps!).
it might happen, that other unknown persons take the google-video for further editing and decreased quality.
this is what happens to guncam-footage. most of the videos we are discussing here, are of 320x240px size, compressed in blocks of 4x4px. many frames are missing, and all have been merged, up- and downsized, graduation and contrast been changed. all the lost information can never, by any circumstances, be digitally restored.
it is a youtube-video, nice for presenting home-mades or watching entertainment. sometimes good for raising questions, but absolutely unusable for looking for hard grafical evidence.
even if it is a dvd of better quality, noone here knows what is edited in it.


the topic's videos are interesting and leave some questions. to whatever degree one want to consider the reason to be ammo ignited by bullets, or ammo ignited by shells, or shells hitting structure, or anything flashing something is certainly up for an argument.
the word is 'consider' here, because the whole topic ended to be a discussion, when proof is insisted to be found in unsourced lowest quality copies of guncam-footage. this is nearly the same level as debating over ufo-footage!


the thread has revealed many never seen interesting footage to me, as well as good information on aircraft details. nothing to say against different opinions, of some i wouldn't have thought otherwise.
i would just hope that effects on pity videos weren't considered as reality and that an assumed reason for them would be differed from a fact.


Bill

orville07
11-14-2009, 01:19 AM
Hi again Bill. Ok, you say "Here is more of your tempest footage", no Bill...It is not. In fact 99% of the rubbish you just posted was just the same. Please point out the relevance of the Junkers 88 attacks you posted, if anything it buries your spurious argument further when seeing the obvious incendiary "splash" of concentrated .50 fire.

If you had bothered to read my previous post carefully, you would find that I was at pains to point out that it was not entirely Tempest footage. My advice to you would be buy the DVD. Then you and Horseback can hunt down those pesky sound engineers as well as those troublesome Imperial War Museum archivists who dared to play Hispano Cannon music over your beloved and fantastical 88mm Narnia brownings, and destroyed your "Captain America saves the day" BS fantasy world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Exeunt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blottogg
11-14-2009, 03:13 AM
I can't believe I've waded through another 15 pager in the UbiZoo, but having done so, a couple of points:

1) If .50 cal. machine guns couldn't detonate wing mounted cannon ammo catastrophically, why did they armor the ammo containers of the Rammsjaegers? To boost morale? They weren't being shot at by 20mm, they were being shot at by defensive .50 cal., usually at the front of the Fw 190, and the armor distribution around the ammo reflected this. The Rammsjaegers were already overweight, so I doubt they'd be adding 20+ kg of armor unless it had a practical benefit.

2) I don't doubt Kettenhunde's conversion of propellant/explosive into the equivalent of a 35 lb. TNT charge. I do doubt that the ammo would sympathetically detonate in that manner. Explosives detonate either high-order or low-order.

3) High-order means it goes off as designed or intended: the trigger event (impact, proximity, etc.) triggers the fuze, which sets off the booster, and then the main charge, which goes off inside a high tensile-strength casing to minimize rise time and maximize the strength of the pressure wave. The shrapnel the pressure wave converts the casing into is icing on the cake, so to speak.

4) Low-order means that part of this sequence is compromised, but the explosive is still consumed. Maybe the booster charge is contaminated, or the casing ruptures. As an example, bombing runways with Mk84's used to worry us because we'd have to set a functional delay to allow the bomb to bury itself before detonating, but that allowed the relatively thin casing to crack on initial impact with the concrete runway. Note that even when filled with relatively stable Tritonal or H-6 explosives, low-order detonation from impact was still possible, as well. The bomb may still detonate, but without an intact casing to maximize the blast (or in the case of impact detonation, without the fuze/booster optimizing the blast), it would tend to go "fizzz" instead of "BOOM". As this relates to the current discussion, there is a big difference between a cannon round's propellant going off high-order in a gun barrel obstructed by a projectile, and the same propellant being detonated by the impact of a supersonic .50 cal. round passing through its brass casing. The low-order pressure wave is going to peak at a lower pressure and last longer (though still a fraction of a second). That will still probably detonate adjacent propellant (and maybe HE rounds as well), but the additive effect of the sympathetic detonations will be a fraction of their potential maximum.

5) Statistics are a useful tool, but with limitations that need to be recognized. They'll tell you how likely something is to occur (given enough data) but not necessarily whether or not it's possible. By Kettenhunde's logic, John Hinkley didn't shoot President Reagan because with only one data point, the event was statistically insignificant. A rigorous statistical analysis of all extant gun camera footage, categorizing all hits as either "wing ammo blew up", "wing ammo didn't blow up" or "wing ammo may have blown up", would probably show the likelihood of a catastrophic wing ammo hit to be low, but far from zero. I'll leave that analysis to someone with more time on their hands. In any event, this is beside the point of the OP as far as I can tell, since the gist of his post was not how often this occurred, but that it occurred in the first place. "Easily" doesn't mean "often", though "easily" should be qualified with the addition: "if there's ammo in the wing, and you hit it".

6) Kettenhunde, you know a lot about the 190 (restoring one will have that effect). You are right that the wing break seems to occur around the gear pivot-point. You neglect to mention that this point is about a foot from the outer cannon gun barrel. Also, an ammunition explosion won't separate the wing like a shaped-charge. There will be a certain amount of wing structure vaporized/shredded in the event. Given that the gear pivot is the first solid structure inboard of the gun, that's exactly where I'd expect the wing to remain intact.

Barring the chance to actually detonate Fw 190 ammo containers filled with various amounts of 20mm/30mm HE rounds using an M2, I'm comfortable looking at the submitted gun camera footage and equating several of the shots to the low-order detonation of wing ammo by .50 cal. fire. Occam's razor: that is the simplest explanation. That doesn't mean the M2 won the war, or that the 190 was Pwned. I suspect there were similar instances of low-order detonations with ammo in other fighters, too (Allied as well as Axis). The statistical problem is that less Axis gun camera footage has survived. The physics and chemistry are the same though.

BillSwagger
11-14-2009, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by orville07:
Hi again Bill. Ok, you say "Here is more of your tempest footage", no Bill...It is not. In fact 99% of the rubbish you just posted was just the same. Please point out the relevance of the Junkers 88 attacks you posted, if anything it buries your spurious argument further when seeing the obvious incendiary "splash" of concentrated .50 fire.

If you had bothered to read my previous post carefully, you would find that I was at pains to point out that it was not entirely Tempest footage. My advice to you would be buy the DVD. Then you and Horseback can hunt down those pesky sound engineers as well as those troublesome Imperial War Museum archivists who dared to play Hispano Cannon music over your beloved and fantastical 88mm Narnia brownings, and destroyed your "Captain America saves the day" BS fantasy world http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Exeunt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe you didn't get my sarcasm before but i find this mildly offensive. I have know idea who you are, or who you think your talking to but you must be much younger than myself so i'll let it fall off my back.

I'd rather not waste anymore time discussing this with you, given the caliber of information being shared, there are much better contributions being made than quibbling over a few seconds of footage. Its obvious, to me, that its not Tempest footage, and your mind is made up about what you are seeing in that TV show/DVD. So i'll save you from having to read again what i've already posted several times through out this thread. If you don't see why its not tempest footage, thats fine, i can respect your opinion.



Bill

BillSwagger
11-14-2009, 03:40 AM
5) Statistics are a useful tool, but with limitations that need to be recognized. They'll tell you how likely something is to occur (given enough data) but not necessarily whether or not it's possible. By Kettenhunde's logic, John Hinkley didn't shoot President Reagan because with only one data point, the event was statistically insignificant. A rigorous statistical analysis of all extant gun camera footage, categorizing all hits as either "wing ammo blew up", "wing ammo didn't blow up" or "wing ammo may have blown up", would probably show the likelihood of a catastrophic wing ammo hit to be low, but far from zero. I'll leave that analysis to someone with more time on their hands. In any event, this is beside the point of the OP as far as I can tell, since the gist of his post was not how often this occurred, but that it occurred in the first place. "Easily" doesn't mean "often", though "easily" should be qualified with the addition: "if there's ammo in the wing, and you hit it".

I said easily to imply that what i had seen in the footage was easily achieved, so long as the 50 cal damages the ammo causing it to explode.

The next question became the likelihood of it occuring. I can see the value of looking at old combat reports or footage to get a statistical sample, but couldn't you also determine a pin pointed shot from any angle that would cause an HE round to explode everytime,
then take that area and factor it into the total area of the warbird based on the direction of fire.

For example: from the rear of the plane, the HE rounds (specifically that pin pointed area) makes up 1.2 percent of the total visible area of the plane.

From the top of the plane, the area changes, so the new percentage would be 0.9 percent, for example.

You could then determine the worst case odds of causing the HE round to detonate, based on area and percentage. Am i wrong?


Several tangents ago, i also questioned if this was a vulnerability of all HE rounds, allied or axis. Surely it must have been, since the design and function were nearly the same. I also wonder if that was another consideration for using non-HE rounds like the 50 caliber or other AP rounds depending on country.

Bill

ROXunreal
11-14-2009, 03:56 AM
In the game, had a wing off shooting an FW190 with a Jug yesterday after a VERY short burst, under 1 second.
From dead 6, slightly above. Must have been with convergence. I was like "wow that was quick"

Bremspropeller
11-14-2009, 04:12 AM
1) If .50 cal. machine guns couldn't detonate wing mounted cannon ammo catastrophically, why did they armor the ammo containers of the Rammsjaegers? To boost morale? They weren't being shot at by 20mm, they were being shot at by defensive .50 cal., usually at the front of the Fw 190, and the armor distribution around the ammo reflected this. The Rammsjaegers were already overweight, so I doubt they'd be adding 20+ kg of armor unless it had a practical benefit.

Hey Blotto, long time no see.

The point is, those armor-insets were only applied to Sturmbock-versions carrying the MK108 (/R2 and /R8).

The lack of armor on any 20mm-armed 190-version and all of it's 20mm-armed brethren (axis or allied), tells me that this problem was only deemed an issue with MK108 armament.

20mm explosions may as well have happened, but it very propably was (statistically) not found to be a threat for the airplane as those occurances would have been to un-frequent.
If exploding 20mm-ammo had been found to be a serious threat (in combat), I'm sure we'd see more or less all 20mm-armed fighters to carry ammo-protection.

BillSwagger
11-14-2009, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by ROXunreal:
In the game, had a wing off shooting an FW190 with a Jug yesterday after a VERY short burst, under 1 second.
From dead 6, slightly above. Must have been with convergence. I was like "wow that was quick"

i had a similar experience playing on a modded server, in a P-40, armed with 6 .50 guns. Normally when i fire, i tap the trigger to send out tracers just to get a feel where my burst will be heading. Well, the trigger tap landed square, which lead to both wings, and the tail coming off the 109. I thought maybe there was some prior damage, but it didn't seem likely because of the altitude and performance of the plane. It seemed weird, like it was made of legos or something.

Then i get on an unmodded server, and i hose down my opponent observing strikes up and down the fuselage for 2-3 seconds as he climbs and stalls out in my gunsite. When we recover i expect to see him tumbling below me, but instead he's limping away with only a fuel leak.

I think the game accounts for a certain amount of randomness. A wing-off from hitting ammo in the wings would not be difficult to factor in. Actually, I better watch what i write. i don't want to be accused of lobbying for this is in game, when really that wouldn't matter much to me. I think its important for people to understand how destructive this caliber was, beyond the perceptions they might have in a game.

***********

Also, i've looked at this, and given it more thought.
And not to say its inaccurate, but the information on this specific chart seems incomplete to me.
I was wondering if there might be more of the article or written info that was included with this.

I ask because after thumbing through a manual on the M2, it seems that temperature and climate were particular influential on the interval and bursts available.
The higher the plane gets the cooler the guns will be at the start, and the faster they cool after use.

So i wonder if this chart is for a specified altitude.
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5404/1095830975bauc.jpg

I was surprised to find that there is no such table in the manual.
It does mention cook-off and immediate action procedures.
It mentions the gun needs to be kept in the shade. Under certain climates, laying in the sun prior to use can cause cook-off in under 50 rounds, but thats about all it mentions in terms of intervals and rounds spent. Its a manual for the flex, and heavy barrel versions.


Bill

M_Gunz
11-14-2009, 08:15 AM
And we still don't know if IL2 models ammo-container explosions but some things in the models do explode.

Blutarski2004
11-14-2009, 08:49 AM
..... For what it's worth, the burst duration versus cooling period versus cook off data presented by Bill S or K is the same as that given in USAF Manual 335-25 "Fighter Gunnery" dated 1950.

Insuber
11-14-2009, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Blottogg:
I can't believe I've waded through another 15 pager in the UbiZoo, but having done so, a couple of points:

(...)

Wow Blotto, very good post mate ! In other words, the common sense explanation is the right one.

Bye,
Ins