PDA

View Full Version : shell/bullet velocity and hitting power



deskpilot
03-24-2009, 09:42 AM
I've noticed that if I am lucky (or skillful!) and hit, say an He111 in a head on pass I often seem to do catastrophic damage in my yak 3p or lagg7 (3 cannon versions) with just he one pass. I also seem to do better in attacks from the rear if my speed is up to around 300 mph plus. Is this because in a head on attack the speed of the shells and therefore the impact is much greater because the target is flying towards me, and this increased impact speed does more damage, or does speed have nothing to do with it when you are firing explosive shells? If there is a difference relating to speed, is this , as I suspect it is, fully modelled in game?

Jaws2002
03-24-2009, 11:28 AM
This things are modeled in game but there are other reasons for that.
Usually at higher speed your plane is more stable so you'll get more concentrated fire in a small area. Also in a headon with something like a He111 your shells won't have to go throug the armor that usually protects the plane from rear attack, but will hit directly the exposed crew and vital systems.

Choctaw111
03-24-2009, 11:31 AM
I am not really sure, as the collision model in Il2 is very old, and only records if one thing touches another, not how fast they hit or with how much force.
Are the bullets calculated differently? I do know that the bullets slowing down after they are fired is modeled. So a bullet with a speed of 750M/sec at the muzzle is going to be less after traveling 500 meters.
Please someone answer this for certain. If the bullets are modeled to slow down after being fired, will the damage be less at an increased range?

Jaws2002
03-24-2009, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:

Please someone answer this for certain. If the bullets are modeled to slow down after being fired, will the damage be less at an increased range?


Yes, but this only works for the kinetic energy part of the damage. If you are shooting HE shells the damage done by explosive content will remain the same. That's why with MG armed planes you get better results shooting at close range.

general_kalle
03-24-2009, 12:07 PM
now i dont know if its only something you experience with Heinkel 111's but it would be logical if it was since the H6 model has a 20mm cannon in the nose rather than a light machine gun.

a 20mm round hitting you from the front is very very damaging.

M_Gunz
03-24-2009, 12:48 PM
Even from the start IL2 used relative velocity of shot and target, angle of impact and shot mass.
When you hit, what is inside the plane is modeled. A nose gear will absorb hits on it, en engine, tail structure, etc.
Also Russian guns did often have higher to much higher rate of fire than others, sometimes +50% and more higher.

FatCat_99
03-24-2009, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I am not really sure, as the collision model in Il2 is very old, and only records if one thing touches another, not how fast they hit or with how much force.
Are the bullets calculated differently? I do know that the bullets slowing down after they are fired is modeled. So a bullet with a speed of 750M/sec at the muzzle is going to be less after traveling 500 meters.
Please someone answer this for certain. If the bullets are modeled to slow down after being fired, will the damage be less at an increased range?

Il2 is much better than you think, everything work as it should.

You will achieve better results if you shoot from close range. Of course that's not too important if you are shooting 30mm HE rounds. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

FC

M_Gunz
03-24-2009, 03:07 PM
It works better than others but still some things to be done when better hardware is available.
1) even more 3D parts or ability of shots to pierce one part and go to the next without destroying the first first
2) internal deflection of hits not always in a straight line (may be years for that one!)
3) more detailed time-failure modes of parts, esp like engine radiators
4) more detailed structure-failure due to damage + stress
5) better graphic to modeled damage as we have been shown for SOW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif means already OTW
6) my wishlist item, some day, internal fires/explosion from electrical damage/fuel leaked inside the airframe like in the 1968 BoB movie

Still compare this to hit boxes and hit bubbles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif from before IL2.
It's amazing the DM they packed into this now-old engine, once improved (FB 3D models are a step better than IL2 original).

Waldo.Pepper
03-24-2009, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Yes, but this only works for the kinetic energy part of the damage. If you are shooting HE shells the damage done by explosive content will remain the same.

Sorry but I disagree with this. Even when firing a mine shell for example it is better to be going as fast as you can. They will do more damage. This is because they will travel further into the target aircraft before detonating. This was borne out also by the experience of the Luftwaffe also by the war. I believe this is modeled.

To go back and answer the topic originators question for a moment.


Originally posted by deskpilot:
Is this because in a head on attack the speed of the shells and therefore the impact is much greater because the target is flying towards me, and this increased impact speed does more damage ...

Yes definitely. It is even mentioned in the manual for the game. (manual.pdf in your installation directory).

From page 15.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/Manual.jpg

In my opinion (and experience)
You always do more damage -

When flying fast.
When firing at extremely close range, as your bullets are at higher velocity. (As close as you can get!!)
When your target and your plane are closing. (As this effectively doubles your speed).

M_Gunz
03-25-2009, 01:32 AM
I was in Newark, Delaware when a .22 bullet that missed a bird on a mailbox traveled over 1/2 mile and killed a tennis player
that had jumped for a shot. Went through skin and the side of his skull. I've fired many military cartridges and none of
those (no pistols) would be stopped by skin at any 500 meters. I dunno who wrote that doc but they need to get out and try
things a bit more.

Respect even the small arms and be careful where you point them! It is paramount to firearms safety.
Perhaps in Russia they don't let civilians have rifles?

AnaK774
03-25-2009, 01:48 AM
Depends much on angle of impact too, gunz, 45+ angle cuts penetration to 1/3rd compared to 0.

Also bird shot from 12 gauge at 100yds is like tossing handful of gravel on you but at 20yds it penetrates couple inches...

M_Gunz
03-25-2009, 02:27 AM
Shotguns ain't rifles!

People need to respect the power of even 'popguns' far more than they do.
I doubt that you'd want want to stand at 600m from people shooting rifles at you to test 'bounce off skin', would you?
Funny thing is how many people think nothing of shooting into the air or upwards because no one is "in range".

general_kalle
03-25-2009, 04:20 AM
oh come on people, it was just a silly example to explain how bullets losse their ability to penetrate, of course they dont bounce of human skin.

i believe the point was that what might penetrate armor at close ranger might not penetrate the same armor or even lighter at a good distance.

K_Freddie
03-25-2009, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by general_kalle:
oh come on people, it was just a silly example to explain how bullets losse their ability to penetrate, of course they dont bounce of human skin.
Actually it does..
We had a case where a rugby supporter was hit by a bullet during a game. The bullet bounced off him - Gave him a big bruise though.
The police found the gun and owner 2 days later - ~2km away, using bullet type and known trajectories.
The 'attempted murder' case then went to court, resulting in a minor sentence and confiscation of all guns and licenses to own any firearms.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
03-25-2009, 07:19 AM
Pistol?

WTE_Galway
03-25-2009, 03:55 PM
For sheer hitting power nothing upsets them more than a mk103 - in the face http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/ammunition.jpg

K_Freddie
03-26-2009, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Pistol?
A 45 if I can remember correctly. It certainly wasn't a small gun.

eindecker
03-26-2009, 05:30 AM
At the termination of a completed parabola a spent .45ACP
230 gr bullet
is dangerous but might not penetrate healthy human flesh.
I would not want to be the person testing the theory!
The terminal range of most military .30 cal ammo is about 3 miles.
Terminal range for a US .50 cal would be two to three times that. The larger calibers would be even greater.
Terminal range is the maximum range fired at the optimum angle.
I would say that any .30 cal round (or bigger) would be deadly at any point in it's trajectory.
At extreme range the contact fuses of the various cannon rounds would become unreliable.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Within any range you might see this game simulate the ammunition would be deadly and capable of destroying an aircraft.</span>


Eindecker

Choctaw111
03-26-2009, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
For sheer hitting power nothing upsets them more than a mk103 - in the face http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/ammunition.jpg

Are those yours? Very nice collection, and even some 151/15 and 13mm ammo. These things are increasingly rare and hard to find, even on Ebay. It's not like they are still being fired and used up. Where are they all going? A couple years ago there was a beautiful Bk3.7 Hartkern on Ebay. Sold for about 400$ US.

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by eindecker:
At the termination of a completed parabola a spent .45ACP
230 gr bullet
is dangerous but might not penetrate healthy human flesh.
I would not want to be the person testing the theory!
The terminal range of most military .30 cal ammo is about 3 miles.
Terminal range for a US .50 cal would be two to three times that. The larger calibers would be even greater.
Terminal range is the maximum range fired at the optimum angle.
I would say that any .30 cal round (or bigger) would be deadly at any point in it's trajectory.
At extreme range the contact fuses of the various cannon rounds would become unreliable.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Within any range you might see this game simulate the ammunition would be deadly and capable of destroying an aircraft.</span>


Eindecker

+1

45 ACP at muzzle is 800 ft/sec and a large diameter flat nose.
At long range like that when fired in a high arc it probably tumbles as well.
Still it would compare to a sling bullet even then, I wouldn't want to be in the way.

PanzerAce
03-27-2009, 02:18 AM
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 eindecker:
At the termination of a completed parabola a spent .45ACP
230 gr bullet
is dangerous but might not penetrate healthy human flesh.
I would not want to be the person testing the theory!
The terminal range of most military .30 cal ammo is about 3 miles.
Terminal range for a US .50 cal would be two to three times that. The larger calibers would be even greater.
Terminal range is the maximum range fired at the optimum angle.
I would say that any .30 cal round (or bigger) would be deadly at any point in it's trajectory.
At extreme range the contact fuses of the various cannon rounds would become unreliable.
<span class="ev_code_RED">Within any range you might see this game simulate the ammunition would be deadly and capable of destroying an aircraft.</span>


Eindecker

+1

45 ACP at muzzle is 800 ft/sec and a large diameter flat nose.
At long range like that when fired in a high arc it probably tumbles as well.
Still it would compare to a sling bullet even then, I wouldn't want to be in the way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a .45ACP isn't a flat nose round. Also, a .45ACP with a standard twist rate is going to be spinning at 600-800 revolutions PER SECOND. Something tells me it isn't going to start tumbling....

jamesblonde1979
03-27-2009, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by eindecker:

The terminal range of most military .30 cal ammo is about 3 miles.


Yeah and if you hit the deathstar with it in the right spot it explodes in a huge fireball no doubt.