AP vs HE ammo comparizon/calculations

[Stafroty 129]

Reason i do this is to point out the difference of damage cannon HE ammo does compared to AP style of ammo, like machineguns

have.
Exploding cannon ammo tears target area a hole, plus makes fragments flying around the hit zone as well making plane parts

themselfs as fragments too.
AP ammo does go though the areas it hits, making holes bit over its caliber while doing it.

 example. there is aluminium bar 200mm wide. to cut it completelly it takes 26,2 pieces of 7,62 ammo, 15,74 pieces of .50cal

ammo, IF they shoot in direct line next to other at shortest route thru the bar. to cut it with 20mm HE it would take under 2

hits, 1 might easily be enough, depending the HE ammo in question. if its just 20mm AP, it would take 10 hits, same way like

for machineguns.

what is not same for weapon damage is the penetration what AP rounds do, they dont stop(explode) at first thing they hit, but

they keep going, untill they hit something which stops it, or untill they fly through entire plane, which then means that the

rest of its kinetic energy is wasted totally. It means that it was not able to transfer it all to target in that case. If it

hits engine, it would give all it has, or some other parts, or going through many parts. it depends alot where that AP hits.

it might do very little of its potential kinetic energy.. or not. Right now, every AP round seems to do full amount of its

kinetic energy, no matter where and what angle you hit the target.

Cannon ammo with HE, it eplodes right when it hits, or after little delay,depending of the fuse it has on it. early fuses did

exlode in contact, which reduced their effect quite amount. If it was delayed, it most likely exploded inside the plane,

making much more damage. also when HE shell explodes, it sends fragments nearly at every direction from explosion at high

speed. Sizes of those fragments were different  for different ammo. thin shell minengeschoss ammo did make only small

fragments, which affected only short distance, but there was lots of them. normal HE rounds made different sizes of fragments,

some bigger some smaller etc, that means they had more kinetic energy and weight to keep it longer fly time. and were able to

penetrate deeper, but fragment is like AP round after all, depending of its size makes its "caliber".


right now wings and every other parts of planes have hitpoints, which is reduced based on damage weapon does in

kinetical/chemical way. i believe that its totally wrong to count only on that way of calculating damage.
you can also calculate, or add to energy calculations the damage they in real did, i did really simplified calculation about

that, which i think, would be more realistic, if those results and kinetic energy results would be somehow mixed to find

realistic balance between damage made by different ammunition(calibers)

at least, those numbers here tells some story, which energy based calculations are not able to tell. and everyone is able to

find evidence from WW2 time pictures, from hits machineguns to cannon hits of various calibers/ammo. From those these are

counted/estimated, comparing hole sizes to human head etc. thats what they in real did, not in calculation tables in paper.

So, should it affect flying behaviour how much, if plane takes 50 hits from machinegun on its wing, or 5 hits from cannon on

its wing? what would affect it more? just look the data below.



single shot area effect on sheet of aluminium:

          
gun/caliber         Amount of needed 7,62 ammo to tear as big hole to target

7,62               = 1      7,62
12,7(.50cal)       = 2,7    7,62
20mmAP             = 6,9    7,62
20mmHE (15cm hole) = 392    7,62
20mmHE (20cm hole) = 690    7,62
20mmHE (30cm hole) = 1552   7,62
20mmHE (40cm hole) = 2760   7,62
30mmHE (60cm hole) = 6214   7,62
30mmHE (80cm hole) = 11047  7,62
30mmHE (100cm hole)= 16712  7,62
30mmHE (120cm hole)= 24856  7,62



60 seconds burst area damages from single weapon measured as how many 7,62 bullets it needs to do same size of hole


light mg 7,62 rof 1200             = 1200     7,62
 
12,7(.50cal) rof 800               = 2160     7,62

MG151/20mm AP rof 700              = 4830     7,62

MG151/20mm HE rof 700(15cm hole)   = 274400   7,62

MG151/20mm HE rof 700(20cm hole)   = 483000   7,62

hissz/20mm HE rof 800(15cm hole)   = 313600   7,62

hissz/20mm HE rof 800(20cm hole)   = 552000   7,62

hissz/20mm HE rof 800(30cm hole)   = 1241600  7,62

MG151/20mm HE rof 700(30cm hole)   = 1086400  7,62

MG151/20mm HE rof 700(40cm hole)   = 1932000  7,62  

MK108/30mm HE rof 650(60cm hole)   = 4039100  7,62

Mk108/30mm HE rof 650(80cm hole)   = 7180550  7,62

MK108/30mm HE rof 650(100cm hole)  = 10862800 7,62

MK108/30mm HE rof 650(120cm hole)  = 16156400 7,62

20mm HE, german     6-10 g of HE
20mm Minengeschoss  18 g  of HE
20mm hispano HE     10 g of He (early?) didnt find other info about wartime ammo
US 37mm M4          45-48 g of HE  this might do hole around 40-60cm range.
MK108 Minengeschoss 72-85 g of HE

i assume, that 20mm cannon holes above 15-20cm  are made with minengeschoss ammo, which had much more HE in them compared to

normal HE ammo. i put many different sizes of holes because i dont have exact figures of hole sized made by different HE ammo.
Mk108 hole sizes arent estimated from any picture, but i believe strongly, that its effect with HE and minengeschoss ammo was

much bigger than with 20mm ammo, as it had 5-14 times more HE in its ammo compared to 20mm HE ammo.
also i havent taken in account the effects of fragments and lets say they are included in calculations.
 

Edited June 24, 2014 by Stafroty

[Areis_ 880]

I have no idea what i just read

Something about holes

[Coldhammer 328]

Well many patches ago people complaine the cannons did to much damage and it was reduced.  A few patches after people said .50s did to little and they were increased.  That being  said who knows in game what either should really be doing vs the view of the developers.

[Stafroty 129]

is odd isnt it? :)

 

values are wrong for , divide them with 60 to get one second burst amount. now its minute.

 

proportions still are the same tho..

Edited June 23, 2014 by Stafroty

[PepeLeMunze 768]

When WT hitbox gets hit - it dices if bullet makes damage or will bounce off (based on hit angle). If it's damage - game dices how much damage. Damage is connected to ammo size and velocity. Game adds some damage if ammo is HE. If there's a lot damage - critical hit is scored.
 
If game adds more damage for HE effect, Minengeschoss would make more damage. That would make many Allied pilots sad. Some could even leave this awesome game. Historical accuracy is nice thing, but it can't buy new servers, pay all the game creators, taxes, maintenance...

[Artruis 5,271]

Lol, airplane is more than a cockpit wrapped in a thin sheet of aluminum. Thus compare damage on a metal sheet doesn't mean anything, hell you can shoot at a piece if paper with bullet and broad head arrow and call arrows more powerful than bullets even when it's not.

[Stafroty 129]

Lol, airplane is more than a cockpit wrapped in a thin sheet of aluminum. Thus compare damage on a metal sheet doesn't mean anything, hell you can shoot at a piece if paper with bullet and broad head arrow and call arrows more powerful than bullets even when it's not.

 

you can make ur own chart to make things different. how bout adding more layers to that which have 2 m distance to each others?  HE round would only affect the first one, and perhaps second with few fragments, but AP round would go thru.

 

you can add more layers to "simulate depth" of stuctrure. you need to penetrate with AP ammo quite many of them to get at same area damage level as cannon do ;)

 

of course things in reality are not that simple. you can make chart which takes everything in account.. i bet that it would take "some" time.

[Stafroty 129]

heres picture of BF109 wing, shot up with russian 20mm shvak  cannon. biggest amount of HE in its different ammo was 6,8 g and with that amout it was able to do that big holes. does anyone know how big those holes are? it could be calculated from the wing size. its just that i dont know measurements of it. :)

 

anyway, russians 20mm had 6,8g of HE,

german 20mm had 6-10g with He ammo, and 18 g with minegeshoss ammo

with quick look, i wasnt able to find how much hispano had during war.

also i dont know what kind of fuzes russians had in their rounds.

at least, they did penetrate both sides of the wing, and i can only ASSUME that the measures in the picture are 10cm between txt. If that is true, then holes are bout 10-25cm hard to tell, cos hard to tell how many shots landed there as well and where.

 

 

 

[_Klix_ 1,276]

When WT hitbox gets hit - it dices if bullet makes damage or will bounce off (based on hit angle). If it's damage - game dices how much damage. Damage is connected to ammo size and velocity. Game adds some damage if ammo is HE. If there's a lot damage - critical hit is scored.
 
If game adds more damage for HE effect, Minengeschoss would make more damage. That would make many Allied pilots sad. Some could even leave this awesome game. Historical accuracy is nice thing, but it can't buy new servers, pay all the game creators, taxes, maintenance...

 

 

So you are justifying the fact 50cals over perform, and cannons under perform on the basis that allies will quit?

 

I've heard that before and exactly about this topic, when German cannons got nerf'd multiple times.

 

Sadly, I can't argue his point.   Allies will quit if German cannons did the real damage they should be doing.

 

Awell,   good thing I don't play anymore... I don't have to live with it.

[_Klix_ 1,276]

heres picture of BF109 wing, shot up with russian 20mm shvak  cannon. biggest amount of HE in its different ammo was 6,8 g and with that amout it was able to do that big holes. does anyone know how big those holes are? it could be calculated from the wing size. its just that i dont know measurements of it. :)

 

anyway, russians 20mm had 6,8g of HE,

german 20mm had 6-10g with He ammo, and 18 g with minegeshoss ammo  - False, they had almost 25g of HE content... ~ 4 times that of the 20mm Shvaks, and 2 times that of Hispanos.

with quick look, i wasnt able to find how much hispano had during war.

also i dont know what kind of fuzes russians had in their rounds.

at least, they did penetrate both sides of the wing, and i can only ASSUME that the measures in the picture are 10cm between txt. If that is true, then holes are bout 10-25cm hard to tell, cos hard to tell how many shots landed there as well and where.

 

 

 

 

You need to research WW2 weapons more.

 

Your values are off.

 

I would reference a site, but it'll just be ignored like usual considering I've posted it about 15 times in the last year for people who were wrong about HE content calculations relative to German Cannons.

 

Instead of providing that evidence, I challenge you to research it.

 

Be different, be a rebel,  actually "research" something instead of assuming most people on these forums know wth they are talking about.

[PepeLeMunze 768]

It's not about the research and proving historical stats and ammo effects. It was proven already, it didn't make certain number of players happy, so it got rebalanced. I'm not saying that everybody's happy now, but game is alive. That's most important.

 

However, there is a research that could make some changes: how DM exactly works in WT? How really it dices hits and crits?

[bomaye 191]

:facepalm:

[Stafroty 129]

So you are justifying the fact 50cals over perform, and cannons under perform on the basis that allies will quit?

 

I've heard that before and exactly about this topic, when German cannons got nerf'd multiple times.

 

Sadly, I can't argue his point.   Allies will quit if German cannons did the real damage they should be doing.

 

Awell,   good thing I don't play anymore... I don't have to live with it.

 

yea it takes axis players off, so US, UK and Russia can fight against themselfs

Edited June 24, 2014 by Stafroty

[bomaye 191]

 

30mmHE (120cm hole)= 24 856 7,62

I'm laughing so much that I almost cry here  :crazy:  :lol:

[BuccaneerBill 529]

The ability of a shell to cause fire is just as important as its ability to cause physical damage.  Just concentrating on how big a hole something makes isn't everything.

Edited June 24, 2014 by BuccaneerBill

[Stafroty 129]

I'm laughing so much that I almost cry here  :crazy:  :lol:

yea, like i admitted later, is that i forgot to divide the results by 60, to get one second burst value. though, proportions between results still stay the same

[Stafroty 129]

The ability of a shell to cause fire is just as important as its ability to cause physical damage.  Just concentrating on how big a hole something makes isn't everything.

and i havent claimed anywhere that is, have i?

 

you can do that kind of chart which calculated that factor takin in account self sealing tanks, calibers, different amounts of Incendiary, effect of HE, effect of AP, how full fuel tank is, distance from skin to fuel tank hits and more. id like you to calculate just that incendiary effect part, and see how easy it is.

[DrZaiusDrZaius 7]

I think what a lot of people are taking issue with is your methodology. I am going to try to explain simply, because I get the sense english isn't your first language.

 

Measuring the size of holes in photographs is not a sound method for determining damage. There are a thousand things that could (and probably did) cause the damage on those planes, and it's difficult (if not impossible) for you to know 70 years after the fact what their origins were. Were they 20 mm rounds? 50 cal? Flak damage? Bird strike? I'm being a bit flippant, but only because it seems like you're barreling forward with your analysis without a sound base.

 

Additionally, you mentioned using "the size of heads" as a basis for measuring the size of the holes produced. People's head's vary widely in their length, and it's unlikely that would be a great method for determining how wide a hole is, except as a "back of the envelope" calculation. 

 

Further, when drawing conclusions you should try to triangulate your findings. You admit you are making a number of assumptions, but it's unclear which ones are more important than others; and it's clear that's causing issues in your calculations. The fact that your answer seems to be several orders of magnitude off from the conclusions of similar analyses post war reflects that. 

 

Finally; what is the point of your calculations (WITH REGARD TO WAR THUNDER)? Are you trying to prove that 20 mm is underpowered given how they are being reflected in game? That 50 cal are underpowered?

 

This is what I'll end with. The main flaw in your analysis is that you are examining planes THAT MADE IT BACK TO BASE. There is a famous historical analysis of when the British (I believe) did a study examining where bullet holes were in the planes that returned to base, they armored the REST of their planes. Why? Because the conclusion they drew was that if the plane was shot in an area that didn't have bullet holes, it probably was shot down. The areas that had bullet holes and came back to base weren't as critical components, and as such didn't require armoring.

 

EDIT: Here's a blog post regarding the British scientist who determined where to armor their planes.  It has links to his wikipedia page, which then has the actual published papers. 

EDIT 2: I am attaching a screenshot from one of Wald's papers, specifically "A Method of Estimating Plane Vulnerability Based on Damage of Survivors.", the 5th reference on his wikipedia page. It shows (given an area of an airplane hit) whether a 20 mm or 7.9 mm machine gun has a probability of downing an aircraft. 

 

Edited June 24, 2014 by DrZaiusDrZaius

[Stafroty 129]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUJSaeE3EKY&feature=player_detailpage#t=78

 

here is example of pressure effect inside confined space. imo its not totally accute when comparing to aircraft structure*, but gives some kind of idea how it goes. (the pressure continues to spread to second room before anything happens, might be true with heavier and sturdier structures)  but at least when lookin damage made by HE shells on aircraft, that is not happening egually in every direction of skin/structured, but affects the nearest sufrace the most.

[Stafroty 129]

I think what a lot of people are taking issue with is your methodology. I am going to try to explain simply, because I get the sense english isn't your first language.

true, its my second from 3.

 

Measuring the size of holes in photographs is not a sound method for determining damage. There are a thousand things that could (and probably did) cause the damage on those planes, and it's difficult (if not impossible) for you to know 70 years after the fact what their origins were. Were they 20 mm rounds? 50 cal? Flak damage? Bird strike? I'm being a bit flippant, but only because it seems like you're barreling forward with your analysis without a sound base.

 

if that is the problem you can use these days ammunition of same caliber with same amount of HE in it in TNT equilevant amount, to get comparable  and quite accurate effects. all you need to know is what explosives and what amounts is used in every HE shell in question when comparing. Well fuze also matters, if its impact or delayed.  And sure, i dont have exact effect area for those, and that also is the reason why there is alternatives for those. and in exampe in that chart, target is not a plane, but sheet of aluminum, which is bit like comparing it to just a skin of the plane.

 

Additionally, you mentioned using "the size of heads" as a basis for measuring the size of the holes produced. People's head's vary widely in their length, and it's unlikely that would be a great method for determining how wide a hole is, except as a "back of the envelope" calculation. 

 

true, but i believe there is no big differences on that as well, there no ripleys aliens in pictures. Some average and rought calculation, not exact like i said, many times, just estimation. Problem for people seems to understand that word.

 

Further, when drawing conclusions you should try to triangulate your findings. You admit you are making a number of assumptions, but it's unclear which ones are more important than others; and it's clear that's causing issues in your calculations. The fact that your answer seems to be several orders of magnitude off from the conclusions of similar analyses post war reflects that. 

 

id like to see some pics with effect/ammo in question for u to provide. there is vids where people use 20mm He shooting barrels/(steel skin), steel skin doors, car doors. etc with such n ammo. just make urself those TNT equilevant calculations and u get quite more exact figures if you want them. Just bring those calculations here, with pictures from targets and ammo in question, otherwise u jsut base your words on nothing but ur opinion.

 

Finally; what is the point of your calculations (WITH REGARD TO WAR THUNDER)? Are you trying to prove that 20 mm is underpowered given how they are being reflected in game? That 50 cal are underpowered?

 

what i did say earlier about this?  (REASON IS TO MAKE DIFFERENCE IN DAMAGE MODELLING BETWEEN AP AMMO AND HE AMMO WITH THEIR EFFECT),  AS HE AMMO HOLE ON SKIN REDUCES SPEED MUCH MORE; MANY TIMES MORE THAN 5 same cal AP HITS. IT AFFECTS MANEUVERABILITY MORE ETC. this is the point., to get different DM for these. Its not to put down AP ammo (including .50cal) but give them way different way they worked, like in real they did. HE ammo didnt travel forwards inside the plane after it detonated. It caused quite a local damage, while AP ammo was capable of going through entire plane if it didnt  hit something which stopped it entirely. 

i agree that it might be late for this game, though this game has not been published yet, as it is still beta. Not even flight models of planes are ready. or cockpits. so there is change for recheck/rethink this issue for HE ammo/Damage modelling.

 

i see you are worried alot for .50cals, as i believe they are ur favorites or something. i might be wrong about that bias.

 

If it is not possible to get that different kind of damage modeling in this game, this idea might carry seeds to future games of this type via other peoples minds/memory.

 

 

This is what I'll end with. The main flaw in your analysis is that you are examining planes THAT MADE IT BACK TO BASE.

 

not entirely true. there is that 109 wing which was on ground, which russians then shot at with shvak HE rounds. size of its holes vary from 10-40 cm, hard to say, cos there is possibility that more than one rounds landed at same area, making hole bigger. but SMALLEST i obseved from it was ABOUT 10cm wide. your claim is wrong. You can yourself look for different pictures with explanations in them. you can do your own measurements from them or from modern era ammo, just do those calculations urself and bring them here.

 

 

There is a famous historical analysis of when the British (I believe) did a study examining where bullet holes were in the planes that returned to base, they armored the REST of their planes. Why? Because the conclusion they drew was that if the plane was shot in an area that didn't have bullet holes, it probably was shot down. The areas that had bullet holes and came back to base weren't as critical components, and as such didn't require armoring.

 

well i doub that much, that they armored every part or even half of those, as it would have increased the weight of the plane much.  (this is about fighters)

 

For bombers, it might hold true, but doing that reduced the amounts bombs can be carried or other gear/fuel, or demanded bigger wings and better engines as well.

sure their conclusions makes sense, but you cannot armor whole plane.  plane which was mostly armored during ww2 was IL-2 i believe. and it had armor over the engine and cockpit. rear gunner/fuselage werent armored, or wings. and armor thicknes varied from 4-12mm if i remember correctly.  rear plate behind pilot was thickest.

 

even with its insane armor they were brought down quite alot. 1 hit was enought to do it. under fuselage radiator for example.

 

[DrZaiusDrZaius 7]

 

I think what a lot of people are taking issue with is your methodology. I am going to try to explain simply, because I get the sense english isn't your first language.

true, its my second from 3.

 

Measuring the size of holes in photographs is not a sound method for determining damage. There are a thousand things that could (and probably did) cause the damage on those planes, and it's difficult (if not impossible) for you to know 70 years after the fact what their origins were. Were they 20 mm rounds? 50 cal? Flak damage? Bird strike? I'm being a bit flippant, but only because it seems like you're barreling forward with your analysis without a sound base.

 

if that is the problem you can use these days ammunition of same caliber with same amount of HE in it in TNT equilevant amount, to get comparable  and quite accurate effects. all you need to know is what explosives and what amounts is used in every HE shell in question when comparing. Well fuze also matters, if its impact or delayed.  And sure, i dont have exact effect area for those, and that also is the reason why there is alternatives for those. and in exampe in that chart, target is not a plane, but sheet of aluminum, which is bit like comparing it to just a skin of the plane.

 

Additionally, you mentioned using "the size of heads" as a basis for measuring the size of the holes produced. People's head's vary widely in their length, and it's unlikely that would be a great method for determining how wide a hole is, except as a "back of the envelope" calculation. 

 

true, but i believe there is no big differences on that as well, there no ripleys aliens in pictures. Some average and rought calculation, not exact like i said, many times, just estimation. Problem for people seems to understand that word.

 

Further, when drawing conclusions you should try to triangulate your findings. You admit you are making a number of assumptions, but it's unclear which ones are more important than others; and it's clear that's causing issues in your calculations. The fact that your answer seems to be several orders of magnitude off from the conclusions of similar analyses post war reflects that. 

 

id like to see some pics with effect/ammo in question for u to provide. there is vids where people use 20mm He shooting barrels/(steel skin), steel skin doors, car doors. etc with such n ammo. just make urself those TNT equilevant calculations and u get quite more exact figures if you want them. Just bring those calculations here, with pictures from targets and ammo in question, otherwise u jsut base your words on nothing but ur opinion.

 

Finally; what is the point of your calculations (WITH REGARD TO WAR THUNDER)? Are you trying to prove that 20 mm is underpowered given how they are being reflected in game? That 50 cal are underpowered?

 

what i did say earlier about this?  (REASON IS TO MAKE DIFFERENCE IN DAMAGE MODELLING BETWEEN AP AMMO AND HE AMMO WITH THEIR EFFECT),  AS HE AMMO HOLE ON SKIN REDUCES SPEED MUCH MORE; MANY TIMES MORE THAN 5 same cal AP HITS. IT AFFECTS MANEUVERABILITY MORE ETC. this is the point., to get different DM for these. Its not to put down AP ammo (including .50cal) but give them way different way they worked, like in real they did. HE ammo didnt travel forwards inside the plane after it detonated. It caused quite a local damage, while AP ammo was capable of going through entire plane if it didnt  hit something which stopped it entirely. 

i agree that it might be late for this game, though this game has not been published yet, as it is still beta. Not even flight models of planes are ready. or cockpits. so there is change for recheck/rethink this issue for HE ammo/Damage modelling.

 

i see you are worried alot for .50cals, as i believe they are ur favorites or something. i might be wrong about that bias.

 

If it is not possible to get that different kind of damage modeling in this game, this idea might carry seeds to future games of this type via other peoples minds/memory.

 

 

This is what I'll end with. The main flaw in your analysis is that you are examining planes THAT MADE IT BACK TO BASE.

 

not entirely true. there is that 109 wing which was on ground, which russians then shot at with shvak HE rounds. size of its holes vary from 10-40 cm, hard to say, cos there is possibility that more than one rounds landed at same area, making hole bigger. but SMALLEST i obseved from it was ABOUT 10cm wide. your claim is wrong. You can yourself look for different pictures with explanations in them. you can do your own measurements from them or from modern era ammo, just do those calculations urself and bring them here.

 

 

There is a famous historical analysis of when the British (I believe) did a study examining where bullet holes were in the planes that returned to base, they armored the REST of their planes. Why? Because the conclusion they drew was that if the plane was shot in an area that didn't have bullet holes, it probably was shot down. The areas that had bullet holes and came back to base weren't as critical components, and as such didn't require armoring.

 

well i doub that much, that they armored every part or even half of those, as it would have increased the weight of the plane much.  (this is about fighters)

 

For bombers, it might hold true, but doing that reduced the amounts bombs can be carried or other gear/fuel, or demanded bigger wings and better engines as well.

sure their conclusions makes sense, but you cannot armor whole plane.  plane which was mostly armored during ww2 was IL-2 i believe. and it had armor over the engine and cockpit. rear gunner/fuselage werent armored, or wings. and armor thicknes varied from 4-12mm if i remember correctly.  rear plate behind pilot was thickest.

 

even with its insane armor they were brought down quite alot. 1 hit was enought to do it. under fuselage radiator for example.

 

 

I'm not going to respond again after this, since you seem to be answering questions I'm not asking. I don't have any particular "love" for the 50 cal; only for sound analysis. Measuring how bullets affect a sheet of metal using modern armament is not really a good comparison to how those weapons affected planes flying 70 years ago. The only thing that matters is if the planes got shot down; and Wald's study (which, I assure you, was real), showed that the difference was more like a factor of 5 to 1, in favor of the 20 mm to certain portions of the aircraft. 

 

Here's what I'll say: you seem to be enthusiastic and interested in this topic. If I were you, I would try to find sources from the 50s that are trying to produce the same results you are. You are unlikely to improve upon the analyses that were done post-war about different ammunition types and their effectiveness. Wald's studies (they are available on his wikipedia page) are good examples. HOW a round shoots down a plane is important; is it the blunt damage done, the explosion; lighting fuel on fire, etc? Just shooting at pieces of metal and seeing how big of a hole they produce is less than effective for determining their overall result. 

 

Look at the image I linked; it will show you a general ratio in which each particular ammo was effective against different parts of the aircraft. Good luck in your research!

 

EDIT: The problem with examining holes in planes after they return to base (or are shot down, and the parts are found on the ground) is that it's unclear what actually caused the hole to form in that fashion. It's similar to looking at a submarine at the bottom of the ocean, and saying, "Look- this torpedo caused the whole thing to implode!" There are a thousand different factors that take place between when the round hits and when the plane returns to base that are impossible to model. Just examine what people have already done, and see how they drew their conclusions. 

 

-DrZ

Edited June 24, 2014 by DrZaiusDrZaius

[Stafroty 129]

I'm not going to respond again after this, since you seem to be answering questions I'm not asking.

 

but you ask me to do those calculations. you are one who needs something here to know/understand, then u are the one to do it.

 

 

I don't have any particular "love" for the 50 cal; only for sound analysis. Measuring how bullets affect a sheet of metal using modern armament is not really a good comparison to how those weapons affected planes flying 70 years ago.

 

based on what?  what changed during that time?

you still can calculate explosive effectiveness and bring that to TNT amount. simply as that. Im not talking about fragmentation effect here, which is different thing. Just explosion force. so modern explosives are still explosives, which are in quite solid form before detonation, and detonation means that they turn to gas, which means that volyme of solid stuff expands alot at high speed when it turns to gas. speed of that expand is given in metres, also you need amount of gas produced per explosive, as well, it matters also, how hot that gas is after explosion, as it expand the gases even more. Aluminium powder addd in explosives increased the temperature of gases, thus its expand force. it also means really minor incendiary effect, as it doesnt last long.

 

you can compare it easily if you just want to do it, but you dont so like you said, that was ur last post in this issue, which works me fine.

 

 

 

The only thing that matters is if the planes got shot down; and Wald's study (which, I assure you, was real), showed that the difference was more like a factor of 5 to 1, in favor of the 20 mm to certain portions of the aircraft. 

 

well it isnt the only thing that matters. It also matters how much and what kind of damage plane got from hit/hits.  It can easily fly after wing hit, while you fly it quite gently, but if you have to do hard maneuver with it, wing which normally would do it ok, snaps cause of structural damage.

So same plane could survive, or not, depending what you do with it after the hits. So same plane is shot down, or not, totally depending what it does. In ur logic, that cant happen. Also, maneuverability problems, speed reduction etc also affect the after hit results, as, if you cannot maneuver/speed up to safety, but are forced to fight again, u totally lose. its again all about situation. if you just simulate the hit in ground and make conclusions from that, you go to forest.  So what i say, is that simple the hit EVERYTIME doesnt mean the whole thing, but things what happens after it. not every time, but some of them.

 

what you again fail to understand, AP ammo and HE ammo works differently. i dont know why it is hard for you to understand that. sure if you place that 5 rounds of .50cal in critical area, sure. if you place those 5 hits thru nothing, just skin holes, its totally different thing. You have seen guncam, where different planes are peppered with .50 cals, and still they keep flying, cos nothing really critical was hit.  Its still as "needle" hole thing with AP ammo, compared to HE damage.  nothing more. im not denying, that AP ammo could not do critical hits, weaken main bar of wing so it snaps, etc. i dont understand why you think about that all the time.  My calculations are JUST area of effect calculations, and if you oppose them brough up ur own evidence.

 

Here's what I'll say: you seem to be enthusiastic and interested in this topic. If I were you, I would try to find sources from the 50s that are trying to produce the same results you are.

 

i do it easy for you, one video for vehicle from 1947. 20mm cannon HEI ammo. ye, no target show after hits.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bd3_1297181592

 

 Here you can compare them bit better for  aluminium made "wing"

 

I believe you are able urself to determine which hit is from which caliber when he shows the targets after hits.  i think that video can serve as somekind of help for you to understand the different effects of ammunition quite well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q4VuoX0Mqs

 

 

 

You are unlikely to improve upon the analyses that were done post-war about different ammunition types and their effectiveness. Wald's studies (they are available on his wikipedia page) are good examples. HOW a round shoots down a plane is important; is it the blunt damage done, the explosion; lighting fuel on fire, etc? Just shooting at pieces of metal and seeing how big of a hole they produce is less than effective for determining their overall result. 

 

i havent simulated airplane hits with those.

 

Look at the image I linked; it will show you a general ratio in which each particular ammo was effective against different parts of the aircraft. Good luck in your research!

 

check the vid i posted

 

EDIT: The problem with examining holes in planes after they return to base (or are shot down, and the parts are found on the ground) is that it's unclear what actually caused the hole to form in that fashion. It's similar to looking at a submarine at the bottom of the ocean, and saying, "Look- this torpedo caused the whole thing to implode!" There are a thousand different factors that take place between when the round hits and when the plane returns to base that are impossible to model. Just examine what people have already done, and see how they drew their conclusions. 

 

-DrZ

 

those plane would also been able to go down if they would have forced to some maneuvers = shot down 

 

yes there is endles amount of different factors, and not you or i am willing to start calculating it, yet you ask me to do it, and i want you to do it cos ur the one wants it.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Stafroty

[Stafroty 129]

here is spit from battle of britain, those times germans had 109  E models with MGFF 20mm cannons.

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/thefew1940/posts/256365791161992

 

3 hits from MG-FF left side of fuselage

odd thing in this picture is complete lack of fragment holes on this side..

also, holes size can be exactly measured from the hatch height which is on the left side of picture.

 

i got the measures, hatch is 30cm high and 38 cm wide.

 

holes are bout 12-13cm high and 25cm-30 cm wide when measured against the hatch.

 

 

 

 

 

same spit from other side, note the fragments  effects on this side, which other side lacks totally..

 

that also show, that upper sheet of fuselage sufferent some  pressure from hits  as its partially detached. with that you also can bit measure/calculate how far pressure can affect, plus, in fuselage there is big space inside it, which isnt divived by plates which is the case with wing structure, which has smaller spaces in it, with walls between. that allows pressure to affect much more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

here is 109 which took HE damage from something, pictures which are harder to find.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Stafroty

[Stafroty 129]

heres also spit which took hit, most propably 20mm cannon cos of size, fragment holes size/amount indicate of HE shell. mine ammo makes smaller.

pic also indicates that shell had impact fuze, as edge of the area is bent inside the plane telling that it explode outside the skin.

 

you can compare the holes to human head here. or with the size of that hatch it hit.

 

 

 

here is same spit from other side. again note the fragments and their size.

 

[Jaakariliike 1,842]

here is spit from battle of britain, those times germans had 109  E models with MGFF 20mm cannons.

 

 

 

same spit from other side, note the fragments  effects on this side, which other side lacks totally..

 

 

That's Dunlop Urie's plane. More on the story of it can be found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/7851042/Battle-of-Britain-August-18-1940-a-day-that-saw-some-of-the-heaviest-fighting.html. He was hit by 3 MGFF shells which were clearly fragmentation shells (he suffered quite serious damage to his legs from the fragments). These frag shells had a relatively small HE filler, with even the high explosive rounds only having a maximum of 4.2 gram of PETN filler (for reference, the ShVAK had around 6.7 grams at most, the hispano had 8 to 10 grams and the minengeschoss 20mms had 18.7 grams). So really, Dunlop's plane was hit by, at most, 3 4.2 gram PETN-filled rounds (though it likely was one of the 3 gram or less frag rounds).

 

heres also spit which took hit, most propably 20mm cannon cos of size, fragment holes size/amount indicate of HE shell. mine ammo makes smaller.

pic also indicates that shell had impact fuze, as edge of the area is bent inside the plane telling that it explode outside the skin.

 

you can compare the holes to human head here. or with the size of that hatch it hit.

 

 

 

here is same spit from other side. again note the fragments and their size.

 

 

This is Art Sager and his Spit. You can read more about it here: http://spitfiresite.com/2007/11/art-sager-416-squadron-rcaf.html. He was hit by AA fire. By the looks of it, you're right that it's 20mm, probably from a Flak 30 or 38. The shell he was hit with looks like a HEI shell (2.4 grams PETN, 4 grams incendiary) or possibly a HE-T shell (6 grams PETN), though it seems like it would be the former, judging by its size.

 

I have a great document which was posted by someone on here, which shows the damage from 20mm minengeschoss (and 30mm) against various German bombers (it's a German test report). The holes are significantly bigger with the minengeschoss rounds than with the frag rounds. I'll try to find it.