20 g is more than what any 20 mm shell contained. As I mentioned, the M-Geschoss contained 18.6 g, while the Hispano HEFI contained only 5.9 g.
Neither fragments - which lack sufficient size and mass- nor isolated perforations from kinetic projectiles have a significant effect on the airframe. The article itself points this out: “Even in aircraft with more than a hundred hits, a reduction in strength in the load-bearing structural elements was rarely found to be severe enough to cause a static failure” (that is, the collapse of the wing)
Hispano fragments absolutely would have effects on Do-217 airframe. MG152/20 - not so much, due to thin walls and big explosive charge that guaranteed almost all.fragments were small. Also as mentioned, these are not 20 shells, and the belt is not 100% HE anyway.
What article mentions 100 20mm hits, what weapon and vs what target?
I’m asking whether you think that a front aspect AIM-7M hitting the wing root directly would take out the wing spar that is right behind the leading edge and tear open the fuel tank
No, the difference is that the SAPHE version deals an extraordinary amount of direct damage.
The Falcon missile that oneshot a B-17 has a regular HE fragmentation warhead.
currently there are zero planes suited to go bomber hunting
here’s your dedicated night interceptor bomber hunter with six cannons, four of them being 30mm, the caliber that would take “4-5 hits in a relatively small area” to guarantee the crash of a 4-engine bomber
And yet when faced with hundreds of 4-engine bombers to shoot down, the germans found that ~450g of HE packed in a small area was guaranteed to bring said 4-engine bombers down
Nothing like the instant destruction you see in the video. And yet again zero fuel fires.
still cannot replicate a B-17 being oneshot by a Falcon btw
noticeable lack of a wing
the entire front end is gone
“historical” like tanking 3x the damage they should be? Fuel tank fires which were specifically singled out as one of the easiest ways to bring them down quickly being all but impossible?
Cool so when are we getting the huge catastrophic fuel fires that are clearly caught on camera
Post video proof
name a WW2 plane that can catch up to these bombers and has 50+ modern rockets that we are using
Meanwhile this is the kind of rocket that was used IRL to break up formations. Not to bring down an individual plane.
bomber players still act like you threw acid on them when you ask them to play the game instead of relying on chatgpt to shoot for them
I’ll take that as a “no”.
Titanium usage only became a thing in anything but the most exotic prototypes and experimentals in the Cold War period
Currently the only actually vulnerable parts are the crew inside. You can just forget about trying to set deadly fires (they just go out in the case of engines, or never even start in the case of fuel tanks) or splitting wings unless you are willing to dumb a few THOUSANDS of shells into them.
That also leaves them fully able to just glide back to the airfield.
Which due to the explosive type, has a TNTe of ~29g…
According to german information, effectiveness of 20mm compared to 30mm was about 1:4; 4-5 hits of 30mm in a small area would guarantee the crash of a 4-engine bomber. From this we can extrapolate that ~20x 20mm hits in the same area would cause some catastrophic failure.
considering this shouldn’t they also increase the reward for killing a bomber so that there is an actual incentive to kill them besides the 3 tickets lost on the enemy team?
it is now considering we don’t risk getting nuked or losing all our bullets, but with the changes to their survivability it’s a whole nother matter and in my opinion the rewards should be doubled if not quadrupled
The risk/reward will be non existent now, maybe a month of premium would get players to attempt to kill bombers.
Jokes aside, people will probably stop approaching them at all. It’s easier to wait for them to attempt to land and crash.
honestly a quadruple reward increase with be on the lower side, you need to use like 8 times your bullets and considering that some planes already get a low amount and cannons are as it seems completely innefficient…
Not really. A pure blast wave (without fragments) from an M-Geschoss impacts uniformly across the entire affected surface, tearing, deforming, or ripping it completely away from its joints through overpressure - plus, if the shockwave gets confined, its destructive effect is basically doubled. In contrast, a small fragment applies a point force over a tiny, localized area, producing only a puncture. Even a dozen of these small punctures aren’t remotely comparable in terms of damage or percentage of surface area removed. In fact, frames often feature factory-made lightening holes without compromising their strength, so a few isolated punctures would act in a similar way.
Even though these punctures may serve as stress risers and eventually propagate cracks under continuous stress, this is a rather slow process. Generally, a damaged aircraft will land immediately instead of continuing to stress it
The primary focus of kinetic projectiles was to inflict lethal damage on the crew or vulnerable components, not the airframe. There’s a reason why German APHE fuzes were calibrated for steel plates thicker than 3mm (for instance, to explode inside the crew’s armored compartment). They were useless against the light plates of the airframe.
Microsoft Flight Simulator. It’s a great game where you can fly to waypoints and airports while enjoying the view and empty skies for hours at a time. This is starting to sound familiar.
Because I refuse to believe human being could have ignored the part where I clearly mentioned I’m talking about fragmentation.
Damn, You even cited that part, but still acted like you did not read this.
It’s not a slow process with well over 100 hits, probably at least 25% of those being AP, unless that was stealth belt?
They were plenty useful in doing what 20mm AP is doing best - punching 20mm holes in stuff.
Also, there were a few types of fuses with varying sensitivity, but indeed, APHE was more for attacking trains, ships, lightly armored vehicles and to deal with f.e. IL-2 armor, and not for destroying airframe.
The Hopkinson-Cranz cube-root scaling combined with plate thickness parameters is a standard explosive engineering framework. It is you who has a complete misunderstanding and it pains me to see 8 likes on your reply, representing 8 people who dont know better now CONVINCED the work is invalid (despite them still lacking the tools to disprove it). The formula used was perfectly appropriate for pur application…
That being said, if you do have a forumla that you believe would be better for this calculation, by all means, show your work!
You read through 800 messages and missed the tutorial getting spammed on how to single pass bombers where its a video of just flat out single passing bombers in various single engined fighters?
You must also remember, these carefully cut holes were decided by engineers, people smarter than us, who were tasked with making a warplane made to resist damage, these holes and the remaining material are cut in a way where they have reserve strength for damage
