We actually have data on this. A singular M97 20mm shell has a 3% chance of taking down a P 47. Half of that is though the death of the pilot. To claim that a single HEI shell will take the Wing off a B-29, regardless of whether or not it hit the wingspar, is absurd
3 Likes
there are several places without bullet holes meaning any hit it those areas killed the plane
if you look at the provided picture
I never brought up the images as proof. I’m talking about real, statistical data that was found through testing
Yeah, about that…
You think that plane would keep flying?
1 Like
First off, what is it. Second off, what hit it. Third off, you are making the same fallacy as the other guy who posted pictures of planes all shot up that did come home. So unless you have actual meaningful data that can be used to contribute to this conversation, why are you posting
2 Likes
But if B-29s were as fragile in real life as WT suggests, none of these aircraft would have survived at all.
4 Likes
Planes are built to survive the stresses of flight. not a 2cm lump of metal with some explosives wacking into a vital support spar
Again, as talked about previously, these are all direct or nearly direct hits by flak. A single 20mm is in no way going to do this much damage
2 Likes
If it hits a primary structure then maybe. Secondary or tertiary sure, but a 20mm to a primary structure will cause major damage
Spitfires were able to shoot down the Luftwaffe with only .303 inch bullets. a 20mm absolutely shreds airframes, all planes with conventional guns have calibres of 20-30mm because of this punch
1 Like
It is the effects of a 30mm Mk. 108 on a Blenheim I believe.
You are the one who brought up “real, statistical data that was found through testing”. After it was pointed out that your initial logic was shot thru with survivorship and confirmation bias.
There is a reason why interceptors designed to destroy bombers quickly went to 20mm+ that could carry explosive fragmentation shells.
1 Like
I’m not denying that it won’t. But taking images of bombers clearly directly by flak and trying to pass it off as being done by a 20mm cannon is incredibly disingenuous.
2 Likes
So A, the image is completely moot to the point I was making, as I was talking about 20mm cannons, and B, the first comment in this thread posted by me is in direct reference to data. So where was I using survivorship and conformation bias?
1 Like
Fair
I’m not in disagreement with you on this. What I am in disagreement on is the fact that a singular 20mm will sever a wingspar
1 Like
I think that phenomenon has been adequately explained by other posters. If you need further detail you can google for it.
If you think that, then there is no reason to continue discussing this with you because you either don’t understand the physics involved, or you have a irrational bias you want to push.
Wing spars are not very big at all, any notable damage to one takes all of its ability to bare load, a wing can absolutely rip off from a single bullet
I think that phenomenon has been adequately explained by other posters. If you need further detail you can google for it.
I am perfectly aware of what conformation and survivorship bias are. Nowhere in my initial argument did I rely on them
If you think that, then there is no reason to continue discussing this with you because you either don’t understand the physics involved, or you have a irrational bias you want to push.
I am well aware of the basics of stress on an object. What I am arguing is that the stress made by a singular
20mm high explosive shell is insufficient to shear a B 29s wing off. There are already dozens of threads about how cannon damage works on aircraft components in minute detail, and turning this into one of those is a meaningless exercise.
Sigh…
What I am arguing is that a singular 20mm HEI shell will fail to do enough damage to a wingspar to cause it to collapse. Not that a wingspar cannot be collapsed though gunfire