Military Aviation Ammunition Visualized and Overall Effectiveness

Indeed. Proportions of incendiary chance and damage are completely blown out of the water and Incendiary bullets or shells have no clear advantage over API in War Thunder.

There either needs to be a system that bases incendiary chance and damage on caliber and ammunition type or incendiary content needs to be modeled.

I would prefer the later, for more accurate depiction of ammunition.

Spoiler

image

.50cal API-T with 1.16g Incendiary filler only has a 0.6% chance to cause a kill within 5 minutes with damage to fuel tanks and structure.

20mm M96 with 10.8g Incendiary filler has a 5% chance in comparison. Thats more than 8 times the likeliness.

3 Likes

Changed MG 151/20 API penetration from 20mm to 24mm.
Compared to the softer APHE and the regular AP, the API was hardened to a greater degree.
Presumably to make the shell break appart more easily, to release the WP, which also increased the penetration performance.

3 Likes

Here is the IJA tests of HE rounds from Ho-103 and Ho-5 against 3.2mm steel that stands for a ship/boat hull, which is interesting.

The rounds were 12.7mm “Type 1 HE”(Ma-102?) of Ho-103, and 20mm “Type 2 HE” from Ho-5, fired at a distance of 50m:

image
image

Results:
20mm Ho-5 Entry:
image
20mm Ho-5 Exit:
image

12.7mm Ho-103 Entry:
image
12.7mm Ho-103 Exit:
image

20mm Ho-5 against a folding boat:
image
12.7mm Ho-103 against a folding boat:
image

1 Like

The median value is roughly 181.5cm², while the mean without the outliers is around 201cm².

This translates to a hole with 15-16cm diamter in size.
Very similiar to the performance of the ShVAK against a duralumin sheet aircraft wing (18cm hole)

Construction steel has roughly the same hardness as aircraft duralumin, so it should be pretty comparable, other the fact that the steel plate is thicker and should offer more resistance.

Here the median is 18cm² or 21cm average without outliers. So a 4.5-5cm wide hole. (2.65g filler)
Compared to the Berezin MDZ-3 bullet which leaves a 2cm entrance hole and a 11cm exit hole in a dural wing (3.2g filler).

2 Likes


How come the 15mm rounds are all so bad compared to Cal. .50.
And whats up with the Pzbrgr. being so godly bad in ballistics. Its still a 59g shell at 960m/s

It’s because .50cal bullets are very aerodynamic compared to cannon shells 🙂

And 15mm shells are awfully light cannon shells, so they are not great at keeping their speed.

Very noticeable with 15mm API which is lighter and doesn’t have a tracer compared to 15mm AP-T.

13mm API would have complete potato ballistics and 13mm AP-T is already barely effective past 200m.

1 Like

Yeah, but the Ap-T at 72g, boat tail, tracer, nearly same velocity, still so much worse than the lighter, no tracer .50.

It’s the shape. 15mm is pointy till around 1/3 and then has complete straight walls.
While a .50cal are basically pointy to 2/3 or more.

They are also bottom heavy, which keeps the tail more stable while 15mm shells are more nose heavy, which causes them to wiggle around, increasing drag.

Downside is that bullets will easily tumble once they impact a target, while front heavy shells keep their orientation.

2 Likes

Added firing time comparisons for taking down a 4-engined bomber.

1 Like

@KillaKiwi @Ghostmaxi I would actually put my money on real world vs Gaijin calculated ballistics.

I mean, nose heavy projectiles are naturally stable, hence all smoothbore slugs and bullets are nose heavy (f.e. Minie bullets).
Now, at least in shotguns, any wiggling there is is eliminated by spin stabilisation. In other words, nose heavy, spin stabilised bullet in theory should be the least prone to wiggling and should be the most stable overal.

Now, maybe 15mm simply has somehow way worse mass to frontal area ratio, which would also mean way lower length to diameter ratio.
But that’s assuming Gaijin uses real world data for US bullets.

Do they?

The nose shape is of course not without impact, but the difference seems just too big…

As far as I know, both 15mm and US .50cal ballistics are accurate.

I mean, maybe that 15mm bullet indeed lacks some length. Who knows. I have a hard time believing nose alone slams the ballistics so horribly. But I can’t do the maths ans measurements on my phone.

BTW, 53kg/mm^2 - wouldn’t that be way softer than any lower thickness armor has any right to be?

Oh and thanks for reminding me Gaijin completely ignores booster charge, because it magically doesn’t count.

Also thanks for reminding me Shvak and Vya pretty much use HVAP, but these work just like full caliber 20mm, while extremely effective real life 20mm - Pzgr 40 and post war DM43 can’t pen a Hellcat or Wiesel and generally suck major arse despite tons of real world tests indicating these shells were of very effective design,eith DM43 having way better penetration both vs vertical and angled armor compared what we have in game. But nah, onky Vya and Shvak can have effective sub caliber AP, MG151, 2cm Flak and Oerlikon can suck it up.

Time to drown the bad memories in vodka…

…just kidding, lol, best I can do is some coffee.

Yeah but that’s how it’s in the document.
They probably thought it was used against small ships and boats.

So hard to say how it would fare against real armor.

It’s probably not worse than ball, which could defeat around 15mm.

1 Like

Well, wonder what kind of steel was ball ammo made of? I guess it was a lot softer than AP, but wonder how much.
Was it tested vs 150kg/mm^2 too? Anyway, 15mm sounds about right, proper armor steel is a lot stronger (damn, 100 vs 150kg is already a big difference). Of course in WT it’s 22mm, because reasons.

BTW I like your logical reasoning behind the German APHE vs API penetration differences. Indeed for a shell with no penetrating cap, a bit softer steel would stop the shell from shattering, thus preserving the bursting charge, while for API back of the shell shattering is the desired side effect.

Well, against 20mm Ball the hardness probably doesn’t make all that much difference.

It’s blunt so soft armor works better while high hardness armor could easily shatter.

1 Like

Interestingly enough, thats rather soft steel but it’s right about the hardness of duralumin.

Als there’s a table comparing the penetration of a few Luftwaffe AP shells against armor ranging from 50-150kg/mm^2.

Against 50kg/mm^2 the rounds penetrated generally up to twice the armor as against 150kg/mm^2 hardness.

But dural is also more than two times lighter than steel.
So in that sense, dural armor would actually be very effective for stopping fragments and tumbling bullet, making it more weight efficient.

1 Like

Here it is:
grafik

So the sharp pointed, 20mm AP round, with bakelite cavity, penetrates only 17mm of 150kg/mm² armor at 100m but a whopping 42mm against the soft 50kg/mm² armor.

So it’s actually 2.47x times more against soft armor.

Meanwhile the 30mm APHE round penetrates roughly 27.5mm against 150kg/mm² but 65mm against 50kg/mm², 2.36x more.

So I actually remembered it wrong.

This of course makes the claim of Hispano SAPI penetrating only 26mm against 53kg/mm² (ship consctuction steel) very questionable.

The more reasonable number would be 36mm, so it could have been a typo.

If we go by 36mm and convert it to 150kg/mm² then it would be roughly 15mm, so similiar to 20mm Ball. Which could be possible, considering that the sharp nose doesn’t grant a big advantage against very hard armor and is enough to penetrate almost any armor inside a plane.

But it still seems odd, considering the rather high velocity of Hispano shells compared to MG 151/20 AP.

If we go by 46mm instead, we end up with roughly 19mm instead. Even though it very much looks like 26mm in the image.

Of course the SAPI shell is just the regular HEFI shell body with an armor piercing head screwed in.
So the thin walls will probably crack and break on impact with thick armor.

SAPI has 3mm thick walls, MG 151/20 AP 5mm.

Plain AP round suffer pretty heavily against 150kg/mm² armor, so the 30mm AP-HEI shell with aluminum cap has an advantage here.
Hence why 15mm AP-T only penetrates 25mm like a US .50cal AP, even though it has the potential to penetrate more, if the armor is softer.

MG 151/20 API is supposed to penetrate 24mm because the shell is much more hardened than AP and APHE. But this wouldn’t give it an advantage against 50kg/mm² armor.
So if we consider the same 42mm penetration like AP against soft armor, the ratio here is just 1.75x.
Almost the same as for the 30mm AP-HEI shell.

If we use DeMarre the 15mm AP-T would be able to penetrate 56mm soft armor compared to 20mm AP. Converted to hard armor, using the 1.75x modifier for non compromised shells, we end up with 32mm.

So 15mm AP-T penetrates 25mm but has the potential to penetrate 32mm, if it wasn’t shattering against 150kg/mm² armor.

Now I was going to do the same with Hispano SAPI but then I realized something.
Due to the construction of the shell with the screwed in AP nose using a regular shell body it’s likely that the shell will deform in some form, maybe even mushroom on impact.

Thus the low penetration against soft armor might just be a symptom of the shells construction.
Not to mention the incendiary filler, which will detonate the shell on impact, if the shell deforms and enough energy is transfered to start the reaction.

Early SAPI models were completely filled and carried around 12g or more flash powder.
Later models replaced the top most section of the shell with a detonator instead.

But this could actually make the shell less sensitive, thus delay detonation for a brief moment.
Since instead of immediatly compressing the mixture, the detonator would first be crushed, which in term then ignited the incendiary mixture.

Anyway. Comparing both AP and SAPI using DeMarre results in roughly 62mm of theoretical penetration against soft armor but Hispano AP would have the exact same value.
Using the value for compromised AP, this means roughly 26mm penetration against 150kg/mm² armor.

That would be the Hispano AP penetration and this perfectly matches with the value found in a German aircraft ammunition overview table from 1944.

So it’s actually hard to say how much SAPI would penetrate, but it most likely would brute force it’s way through at least 15mm of armor.

Notes: DeMarre between 20mm and 30mm AP indicates a big discrepancy.

2 Likes

Added

1 Like

Likelyhood of striking a 109 fuel tank and setting it on fire from behind at 400yd (366m)

Added.

Example: US .50cal AN/M2 firing M8 API
Example: US 20mm AN/M2 firing M96 Incendiary
Example: German MG 151/20 firing Incendiary-T shells

Number of shots for setting fire on average:
US .50cal → 43
Hispano → 10
MG 151/20 → 7-8

Because of the worse ballistics, adding additional aiming error for the pilot compared to the flatter Hispano trajectory, the MG 151/20 would probably still require the same amount of shots fired, despite the gun being inherently more accurate.