PDA

View Full Version : After watching @4 hours of guncam footage....



Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 10:30 AM
On the military channel at my dad's house I realizethat 1C may have gotten some things wrong.. but they got more things right IMO than wrong by far.

faustnik
07-05-2007, 10:36 AM
Kind of a cryptic post.

???????

What are you trying to say BC? What's correct in your opinion, and what is not?

GH_Klingstroem
07-05-2007, 10:36 AM
Feel like giving an example?!

crucislancer
07-05-2007, 10:46 AM
I'm curious what program on the Military Channel you were watching.

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 10:53 AM
Looking at the way the gun strikes light up the plane.... the way that the bullets fly as far as trajectory.... the way that the bombs look when you miss a ship...... the concusion wave that goes out from the blast.... the dimensions of the planes ... This is in comparison to other sims too mind you.... There were some shots where I could have been watching an out of pit view in 46. I think the show is called Guncamera.

BrotherVoodoo
07-05-2007, 10:56 AM
Interesting Bear, I will look for that show when I get home. I suppose no simulation could get it 100% accurate. But IL2 is as close as we can get right now anyways. I am sure BoB will raise the bar quite a bit for realism. Heres hoping anyways.

faustnik
07-05-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
way that the bombs look when you miss a ship...... the concusion wave that goes out from the blast

I would like to know how much damage is done to ships IRL by a bomb near miss????

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Aparently not much..

Zoom2136
07-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Not much as the water absorbs a lot of the energy...

Remember the Dambuster raids... they had to put that thing directly against the dam to bring it down... a few meter before and the water would aborb most of the blast

faustnik
07-05-2007, 11:20 AM
SO, PF is correct in this respect (ship damage)?

Hopefully in SoW ship DM will become much more complex. .50M2/20mm might not blow up a destroyer outright, but, could sure cause enough damage to force a ship out of a fight.

SeaFireLIV
07-05-2007, 11:31 AM
IL2 was the first sim which enabled me to look at real-life guncam and `understand` and `feel` what was going on in the shot. For example, instantly recognising the enemy aircraft and understanding some of the difficulty of the target in attempting to evade being hit... also understanding the difficulty of the pursuer in trying to hit his target.

The whole thing just felt like IL2. Of course, it`s IL2 feeling like the real thing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think the only thing that used to bug me was watching fighters online (especially 190s) spin like a spining top, which never happens in guncam footage unless the wing`s been explosively shot off.

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 11:43 AM
One interesting thing I have yet to try to sink a barge with 50 cals... but apparently it was done... especially in P-47s. They would fire at or just below the water line.....

leitmotiv
07-05-2007, 11:57 AM
Holy cow! Near misses often did more damage to ships than direct hits if the bombs were HE or SAP and they had short fuses: mining effect---the blast of the near miss crumpled the hull in the vicinity of the explosion. An example would be YORKTOWN at Coral Sea. The damage could not be repaired in time at Pearl before she sailed for Midway and contributed to her loss. Never assume anything from watching film footage. What looks like nothing happening at all can be extremely destructive.

Waldo.Pepper
07-05-2007, 11:58 AM
Aparently not much..

With respect I disagree. Near misses do cause unseen damage that more often than not can cripple a ship. In some cases if the ship is not designed with redundant systems (I.E. a ship designed in peacetime for civilian use - that does not have a crew trained for damage control) the ship will take on water and sink.

Guncam/bomb hit films will not show this kind of damage. Certainly not in the time frame that the camera was rolling.

It does sound like an interesting program. I too shall look out for it.

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 12:21 PM
I guess that would all depend on how nearthe miss was... the o=nes I saw had no effect.

Ernst_Rohr
07-05-2007, 12:49 PM
Actually, I would still like to seem them model the compression "halo" that you get with water detonation.

My ROTC instructor was a F-105 jock in Nam, the routinely sank VC sampans by bombing near them, as opposed to on them. The compression wave generated by the blast in the water would smash the hulls of the sampans and sink them neatly.

Proximity bombing works exactly like a torpedo detonated under the ships keel, it relies on compression and pressure to inflict damage. A torpedo keel shot is MORE effective than a contact hit precisely for that reason.

BigC208
07-05-2007, 01:41 PM
After reading you post Bear I realize you have way to much time on your hands.

ploughman
07-05-2007, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Holy cow! Near misses often did more damage to ships than direct hits if the bombs were HE or SAP and they had short fuses: mining effect---the blast of the near miss crumpled the hull in the vicinity of the explosion. An example would be YORKTOWN at Coral Sea. The damage could not be repaired in time at Pearl before she sailed for Midway and contributed to her loss. Never assume anything from watching film footage. What looks like nothing happening at all can be extremely destructive.

Yes! Operation Pedestal, the SS Ohio was set about by dockyard types preparing her for her run to Malta after the loss of the Kentucky by a near miss in a previous attempt to resupply the island. The Ohio's machinery was reset on shock dampeners, her essential systems re-inforced and protected and her crew beefed up with hand picked men well versed in damage control.

They did well, she survived having her back broken by bombs, being torpedoed, near misses, set on fire (she was a tanker), strafed and being called rude names.

crucislancer
07-05-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Looking at the way the gun strikes light up the plane.... the way that the bullets fly as far as trajectory.... the way that the bombs look when you miss a ship...... the concusion wave that goes out from the blast.... the dimensions of the planes ... This is in comparison to other sims too mind you.... There were some shots where I could have been watching an out of pit view in 46. I think the show is called Guncamera.

I watched a part of a Guncamera episode on Comcast On Demand yesterday, but I need to watch again since we had to leave. I'll be sure to check it out later. I think there was 5 of them.

Doolittle81
07-05-2007, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Zoom2136:
Not much as the water absorbs a lot of the energy...

Remember the Dambuster raids... they had to put that thing directly against the dam to bring it down... a few meter before and the water would aborb most of the blast

Actually, quite the opposite:
In air the gas & air surrounding the explosion are compressed & absorb energy from the explosion. In water, being incompressible, there is little absorption & the pressure wave is transmitted with greater intensity over a longer range.

Billy Mitchell sank the stationary battleship Ostfriesland in 1921 in a demonstration of airpower. At first, when all his several bombers' bombs hit the water alongside the battleship, some observors scoffed at the inaccuracy. The ship went down almost immediately as a result of the expected effect of the intentional underwater explosions.

Xiolablu3
07-05-2007, 02:06 PM
The problem with guncamera shows is that they are chosen for dramatic effect.

Naturally there is much more interest in watching a planes ammo box being hit and the wing being blown off, than someone pumping rounds into a plane and not seeing any effect.

Also you may only get a snippet of the action, more hits could have been sustained on the enemy plane before th final blow.


Much better to get the few color guncams which have surviced and study them all as they have been saved for the colour quality rather than the thousands of black and white guncams of which only the most dramatic will be picked and shown.

FritzGryphon
07-05-2007, 02:14 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
On the military channel at my dad's house I realizethat 1C may have gotten some things wrong.. but they got more things right IMO than wrong by far.


Bit your tongue! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hay Bearcat when we going to see you back on the shockwave forums again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The guys have made a special keyboard translation set up just for you Il-2 fliers..

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8331

MB_Avro_UK
07-05-2007, 02:40 PM
Good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And where are all the guncams that were filmed in WW2? I keep seeing the same clips over and over again..e.g. the 190 that drops his wheels and throws his canopy.

Is there a secret collection somewhere???

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MEGILE
07-05-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The problem with guncamera shows is that they are chosen for dramatic effect.

Naturally there is much more interest in watching a planes ammo box being hit and the wing being blown off, than someone pumping rounds into a plane and not seeing any effect.

Also you may only get a snippet of the action, more hits could have been sustained on the enemy plane before th final blow.


Much better to get the few color guncams which have surviced and study them all as they have been saved for the colour quality rather than the thousands of black and white guncams of which only the most dramatic will be picked and shown.

I like the cut of your gib

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 02:57 PM
here's some nice gun camera footage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcIWquE6MGw&mode=user&search=

joeap
07-05-2007, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
On the military channel at my dad's house I realizethat 1C may have gotten some things wrong.. but they got more things right IMO than wrong by far.


Bit your tongue! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hay Bearcat when we going to see you back on the shockwave forums again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The guys have made a special keyboard translation set up just for you Il-2 fliers..

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8331 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez you seem incapable of accepting anything nice about Il-2 bud. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-05-2007, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
here's some nice gun camera footage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcIWquE6MGw&mode=user&search=

NIce post, but I still think .303 has the power of a 20mm cannon in BOB2 WOV.

VW-IceFire
07-05-2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
One interesting thing I have yet to try to sink a barge with 50 cals... but apparently it was done... especially in P-47s. They would fire at or just below the water line.....
Firing at the water line might work...but beneath the water line apparently not. Myth busters did a comparative test with a variety of weapons...one of them was a .50cal (sniper rifle) and water does a real number on a .50cal bullet...breaking the surface tension completely destroys the bullet.

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
here's some nice gun camera footage... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcIWquE6MGw&mode=user&search=

NIce post, but I still think .303 has the power of a 20mm cannon in BOB2 WOV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You and your .303"s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

raaaid
07-05-2007, 03:31 PM
the dimensions of the planes

the dimensions of planes can never look right unless my idea to have the same fov in the game that the screen takes from your eyes is implemented

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
On the military channel at my dad's house I realizethat 1C may have gotten some things wrong.. but they got more things right IMO than wrong by far.


Bit your tongue! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hay Bearcat when we going to see you back on the shockwave forums again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The guys have made a special keyboard translation set up just for you Il-2 fliers..

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8331 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez you seem incapable of accepting anything nice about Il-2 bud. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say that? No, actually I love the amount of different planes Il-2 allows me to fly and they all have excellent fm's IMO.

I never have quite gotten why one can't enjoy both or even other combat flight sims? They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Buy a copy and see for yourself but I bet you will be all.. " no thanks Il-2 is all that I need..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif


I actually own the whole Il-2 collection. Must be I like it just a bit.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
07-05-2007, 03:51 PM
My ideal combat flight sim would be maddox aircraft/rowan's clouds/maddox land/sea graphics/and Rowan's AI and large amount of aircraft

That's what I am hoping BOBSOW will be.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

If all of that will play on this computer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

faustnik
07-05-2007, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
If all of that will play on this computer! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Well, I sort of doubt that will happen, but, hopefully we can put together machines that will run SoW well for a reasonable price.

******************

I hope a company like Shockwave obtains the rights to PF and comes out with new and improved upgrades like new a/c, revised pits that are 6 DPF capable, new views (externals when dead for example), expanded loadouts, new maps, etc.

fabianfred
07-05-2007, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
One interesting thing I have yet to try to sink a barge with 50 cals... but apparently it was done... especially in P-47s. They would fire at or just below the water line.....

sometimes I think that using "unrealistic ammo" in the difficulty setting is more realistic... it does enable you to straffe and destroy small ships with .50 or cannon fire.... and also half-tracks

LStarosta
07-05-2007, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by fabianfred:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
One interesting thing I have yet to try to sink a barge with 50 cals... but apparently it was done... especially in P-47s. They would fire at or just below the water line.....

sometimes I think that using "unrealistic ammo" in the difficulty setting is more realistic... it does enable you to straffe and destroy small ships with .50 or cannon fire.... and also half-tracks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tigers 2???

Scorpion.233
07-05-2007, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Doolittle81:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoom2136:
Not much as the water absorbs a lot of the energy...

Remember the Dambuster raids... they had to put that thing directly against the dam to bring it down... a few meter before and the water would aborb most of the blast

Actually, quite the opposite:
In air the gas & air surrounding the explosion are compressed & absorb energy from the explosion. In water, being incompressible, there is little absorption & the pressure wave is transmitted with greater intensity over a longer range.

Billy Mitchell sank the stationary battleship Ostfriesland in 1921 in a demonstration of airpower. At first, when all his several bombers' bombs hit the water alongside the battleship, some observors scoffed at the inaccuracy. The ship went down almost immediately as a result of the expected effect of the intentional underwater explosions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A dam is a lot stronger than a boats hull. But that probably wasn't your point.

Rjel
07-05-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Is there a secret collection somewhere???

Check out this web site and this DVD in particular. Lots of clips I hadn't seen before. Image quality is excellent. The owner of the site has told me that the producer of Victory Films supplies a lot of the same clips you see on the Discovery/History/Military Channels. Lots of interesting titles there.
http://misc.kitreview.com/bookreviews/guncamerafilmdvdreviewfw_1.htm

leitmotiv
07-05-2007, 06:40 PM
The United States Navy loaded its fighters for AA suppression missions against ships with .50 cal. armor-piercing rounds to penetrate the light shields on the low-angle directors and high-angle (AA) directors which were the prime targets along with the guns and their crews. The Achilles heel of even the biggest battleship was its directors. It was impossible to armor them. All that could be done was to give them light splinter protection. Heavy machine guns could shatter the lens on the sights and hit the crews through the viewing ports. The execution among Japanese AA gun crews was fearful. AA suppression was a standard mission for USN fighters for which they had trained since the '30's.

Bearcat, the biggest mistake anybody can make to to try to analyze weapons effects on something as big as a ship from a several second snippet of film. A ship's hull can be smashed beyond repair and the sinking may take hours. All navies learned in WWII to take fliers' damage reports with a grain of salt because, in most cases, they grossly overestimated damage (a classic error was to mistake gouts of black smoke coming from a ship's funnel as it put on speed abruptly for evidence of an out-of-control fire), or, in other cases, underestimated damage. Intuition is never reliable in evaluating historical evidence. In fact, it lies.

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The problem with guncamera shows is that they are chosen for dramatic effect.

Naturally there is much more interest in watching a planes ammo box being hit and the wing being blown off, than someone pumping rounds into a plane and not seeing any effect.

Also you may only get a snippet of the action, more hits could have been sustained on the enemy plane before th final blow.


Much better to get the few color guncams which have surviced and study them all as they have been saved for the colour quality rather than the thousands of black and white guncams of which only the most dramatic will be picked and shown.

Some of this guncam footage was not very dramatic actually.....

leitmotiv
07-05-2007, 06:56 PM
You can't judge weapons effects on something as big as a ship from several seconds of film. Ships with shattered hulls sometimes took hours to sink. The instant gratification of something as toylike as the IL-2 ship DM can't be used to evaluate what happened to ships in the war.

MrMojok
07-05-2007, 07:51 PM
I am pretty sure the shows he is talking about are actually broken down into a couple of one-hour episodes.

"Fixed Targets"
and
"Moving Targets"

Its WWII, Vietnam, and Gulf War footage mixed up together, often with the actual pilot there in the studio to talk about it. History Channel usually runs these back-to-back, and does so often.

The Thunderbolt Pilot he's talking about, I don't remember the guy's name, but he did in fact say they used to shoot at barges right below the waterline and sink them.

There is also a very interesting sequence shot from a B17 that shows a near-collision when a FW190 nearly hit both the filming B17 and a 109.

*edit* - I meant a couple of two-hour episodes.

Jaws2002
07-05-2007, 08:10 PM
The Thunderbolt Pilot he's talking about, I don't remember the guy's name, but he did in fact say they used to shoot at barges right below the waterline and sink them.


I saw what happens to a fifty cal bullet if it hits the water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There's an episode in "Mith busters" about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The bullet just desintegrated when it hit the water. </span>

J_Anonymous
07-05-2007, 08:28 PM
Japanese literature often counts "near miss" bomb explosions ("shi-kin-dan"), in addition to "dreict hits" ("cho-ku-ge-ki"), when they explain how U.S. Navy airplanes sunk Japanese warships. The reason is, as leitmov explained, it can cause a major damage on the side of a ship (which could flood the hull of a ship). I am no expert in this but my long held impression was that near miss can be as good as direct hit and I wish il2 had that programmed (obviously because I am good at "near miss" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif )

MrMojok
07-05-2007, 08:36 PM
Hmmm. Well, maybe he said they would shoot right AT the waterline, then. I've got the thing on tape, maybe i will drag it out tonight and find that part.

Bearcat99
07-05-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Thunderbolt Pilot he's talking about, I don't remember the guy's name, but he did in fact say they used to shoot at barges right below the waterline and sink them.


I saw what happens to a fifty cal bullet if it hits the water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There's an episode in "Mith busters" about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The bullet just desintegrated when it hit the water. </span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pilot's name was John Oliphant I believe, and how many 50s will hit at one spot from a P-47s guns in 3 seconds? Thats a heckuva punch.

joeap
07-06-2007, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:

Buy a copy and see for yourself but I bet you will be all.. " no thanks Il-2 is all that I need..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif




Naw not at all, I got MSFS and like it a lot, would like to get BoB by Shockwave but I am really low on HD space and am planning an upgrade sometime anyway. Was just teasing a bit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ImMoreBetter
07-06-2007, 11:44 AM
The Thunderbolt Pilot he's talking about, I don't remember the guy's name, but he did in fact say they used to shoot at barges right below the waterline and sink them.

They start by shooting the water, then walk the bullets up to the ship. A sure-fire way to hit the water line.

StellarRat
07-06-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:

I saw what happens to a fifty cal bullet if it hits the water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There's an episode in "Mith busters" about that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The bullet just desintegrated when it hit the water. </span> I don't think they fired AP ammo during that test. If I remember correctly it was standard ball ammo. I'd be willing to bet that they'd have put a hole in the bottom of the pool with AP.

Jaws2002
07-07-2007, 01:56 AM
You underestimate the power the of water. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Hydra454
07-07-2007, 02:46 AM
I have the show Guncamera on DVD.I think it needs to be said that they make a lot of mistakes when they're analyzing those gun cam films http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif But its still great to watch.

grifter2u
07-07-2007, 03:26 AM
Hydra454

what is that dvd called exactly ? seems worth ordering http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

i googled some info about it, but cant locate the dvd/movie bearcat is referring to.

thx

Hydra454
07-07-2007, 01:29 PM
Its just called "Guncamera".I bought it at Wal-Mart for about 15 bucks.Be prepared for alot of laughs cause some of the stuff they say about the planes is so far off base.Like the F-86 being equipped with only 3 guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

stalkervision
07-07-2007, 02:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joeap:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stalkervision:

Buy a copy and see for yourself but I bet you will be all.. " no thanks Il-2 is all that I need..." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif





Naw not at all, I got MSFS and like it a lot, would like to get BoB by Shockwave but I am really low on HD space and am planning an upgrade sometime anyway. Was just teasing a bit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Stinker! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Better to stay from all shockwave products anyway. They are way too damn addicting.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

StellarRat
07-07-2007, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
You underestimate the power the of water. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Maybe, but a lead bullet isn't very sturdy. I have doubts that a hardened steel bullet would disintegrate six inches into the water like their test round did. Do you have a pool? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Jaws2002
07-07-2007, 04:58 PM
Water is a liquid and liquids are incompressible.
Shooting at a steel plate you can disregard the energy the bullet loses through air. All you have to worry about is the thickness of the steel plate. Water is different. Anything shot at the water will lose HUGE amount of energy. Specially at high speed. In that instance the water is a tough homogenous mass that is not easy to penetrate or move out of it's place by the bullet.

Ever fell while water skiing? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I tell you it freaking hurts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


After few inches if the bulled somehow is still in one piece will have no energy left to penetrate the hull of the ship.

A barge is something with open top. you get better chances to penetrate it by shooting under the water level from above, from inside out, then shooting through water. You are trying to penetrate the hull of the boat. Why would you waste the energy of your bullets (or completely mess them up) by shooting through water?

Fifty cals and most sharp tip bullets for that matter are really bad in penetrating armor after they passed through another object.
Tony Whilliams had some test results that showed just that. They were shooting at armor plate of different thickness, placed behind thin aluminum sheet metal (simulating aircraft skin).

They noticed that the tip of the bullets will deform while penetrating the skin and will do a lot less damage to the armor. In this tests they realized that bullets with blunt nose, like the MG131 lost a lot less penetration power after passing through aircraft skin. Not that this are better in general, just better against armor behind plane skin.

Anyway. The last thing you want when you are trying to penetrate armor is to have something else between the bullet and the armor plate.

Why do you think they make multilayer armor this days?

StellarRat
07-08-2007, 01:15 AM
I wasn't advocating for shooting below the water to penetrate a ship. I'm just saying an AP bullet would be able to penetrate further into the water than a soft lead bullet. I know water is "hard" when something hits it at high speed, but it's not as hard as armor plate. If that were true I'm sure tanks would look like rolling aquariums.

Roblex
07-08-2007, 02:57 AM
During the battle of The Coral Sea wildcats straffed the destroyer Yuzuki killing ten crew including the captain forcing it to retire for repairs. They also shot up the minesweeper Tama Maru and damaged it so badly it was forced to beach before it sunk. So it is not a total waste of time using 50s on a ship.

As for bullets penetrating water yes Mythbusters did use armour piercing 50s and yes they did disintegrate on entry. The lower calibre bullets actually got as far as 2 meters before being too slow to penetrate a body, That is distance not depth. They were hitting at about 30 degrees. The US Bureau of Ordinance tested all this out after WW2 and said that a .50 armour piercing bullet fired from an aircraft at a steep angle would penetrate a little more than 30 centimetres and a .303 full-jacketed sharp nose military bullet managed 5 centimetres

As far as 'Near misses' go, when heavy cruisers HMS Cornwall & HMS Devonshire were discovered by 53 Vals off Ceylon the Cornwall was sunk by 8 direct hits but survivors of the Devonshire say a quick succession of near misses literaly lifted their ship out of the water and destroyed the hull integrity before it sank.

M_Gunz
07-08-2007, 03:21 AM
Magnetic mines float chained to the bottom and only go off for big enough hull passing deep
enough to be close. The mine is still below the ship and the result wrecks the ship.

Why else do they use depth charges on submarines? Those bounced submarines at 200 yards and
would cause leaks.