Military Aviation Ammunition Visualized and Overall Effectiveness

The shells and bullets are more or less based on a 1:1 scale.

LMG Incendiary ammunition compared to HMG rounds

It’s clear how ineffective rifle caliber bullets are in comparison to even heavy machine gun bullets, since they can only carry little chemical contents.

.303, .50cal and 20mm comparison vs. Bf 109 engine from 200yd

12.7-15.2mm HMG Incendiary rounds

20mm Incendiary rounds compared to HMG

Japanese Navy 20mm Incendiary chance. Model 3 and 2 are identical other than using a different fuze.

20mm API ammunition. 15mm API for comparison

20mm Explosive and Explosive-Incendiary rounds. 15mm shell for comparison

15mm HEFI-T fragment dispersion. 40cm from target at 960m/s and 800m/s impact velocity


20mm Mineshell damage to Spitfire wing:

858425b1fced1935d5e6eb0532e8bb1f9113b5c8_2_1000x773
Spitfire_vs_20mm_Mineshell

20mm Mineshell damage against He 111 horizontal stabilizer

3DB85357-7979-4F45-A4A9-6B08235BD5CE.thumb.jpeg.2fe57dad010cc911b7d83004398f3679

23mm shells compared to 20mm shells.

Blast damage comparison against Bf 109 wing

30mm Explosive and Explosive-Incendiary shells

P-47, probably struck by 30mm Mineshell

P-47_damaged_likely_30mm_Mineshell
shot 2025.07.05 20.01.17

37mm shells and larger. 30mm Mineshell for comparison.

Blast Test container vs. Spitfire wing:
Location of container inside wing (7ft / 213cm from wing root, 3" / 7.62cm in front of main spar)

Spitfire_blast_test_wing_location

Damage of blast:

59g Torpex + 2g PETN booster


38g Tetryl + 24g Flash powder

58g RDX/TNT 55:45

High structural damage but the main spar isn’t compromised other than a large hole in the center of it, as the blast escapes through the thin duralumin skin.
A portion of the skin is blown aways while a large part “balloons”, deforming from the pressure.

30mm Mineshell damage to Spitfire wing (Type B)
HE-T with 72g HTA/Torpex + 3g PETN


HE with 85g HA 41 + 3g PETN


Damage of NS-37 and NS-45 shells against a Bf 109 and Ju 87 wing:

2025-02-17 11_40_42-e9a84fe08350142908dd0951605acea9357b9596.jpeg (JPEG-Grafik, 555 × 952 Pixel) – M

NS-37 hole diamater based on wing area destroyed.

  • Entry: 30cm (Bf 109), 32cm (Ju 87)
  • Exit: 76.5cm (Bf 109), 67cm (Ju 87)

NS-45 hole diamter:

  • Entry: μ=58cm (Bf 109), μ=66.8cm (Ju 87)
  • Exit: μ=87.8cm (Bf 109), μ=91.3cm (Ju 87)
Blast comparison to 30mm Mineshell:

War Thunder Screenshot 2025.02.22 - 12.57.47.75

Fragmentation of a N-37 HEFI-T shell:

2025-02-22 15_44_00-Soviet Cannon A Comprehensive Study of Soviet Guns and Ammunition in Calibres 12

Out of ~660g recovered fragments from of the ~690g body&fuze, 84.42% (~557.2g) are effective steel fragments with a weight of above 0.5g.

  • 9.4% (62g) with a weight between 0.5-1g
  • 15% (99g) with a weight between 1-2g
  • 11.4% (75g) with a weight between 2-4g

Larger fragments, like parts of the nose fuze and tracer tail assembly, can penetrate armor protecting fuel tanks or pilot and cause lethal damage to fuel tanks.

Comparison of fragment distribution of 30mm HEFI and HEI (Mineshell):

30mm_HEFI_vs_Mineshell_fragmentation

Mineshells, for the most part, only produce a large number of small fragments with a weight of only up to 0.5g, which quickly lose their velocity over a short distance.
Regular explosive rounds produce a much higher number of effective fragments.

——————————

Assessment of (aluminized) explosive content against an aircrafts wing:
Explosive amount Damage in m² Ratio m²/g Notes
5.6g A-IX-2 0.02m² 0.0036
15.6g A-IX-2 0.196m² 0.0125 Exit hole
18.6g HA 41 ~0.35m² 0.0188 Mineshell
37g A-IX-2 (+4g PETN) 0.46m² 0.0112 Exit hole
52g A-IX-2 (+4g PETN) 0.62m² 0.0111 Exit hole
59g Torpex (+2g PETN) ~0.73m² 0.0120 Test Container
72g Torpex ~1.29m² 0.0179 Mineshell
85g HA 41 1.75m² 0.0205 Mineshell

It’s noticable that Mineshells achive a higher destruction ratio than thick walled explosive rounds, presumably because less energy is used to break the shell casing appart.
The actual damage is even larger, as bulging or balloning of the structure isn’t considered, only structure that is actually torn appart.
Another explanation would be the detonation inside the wing, even though the 35mm test container, which was detonated inside a wing, didn’t cause as much damage as Mineshells.

With the exception of the 20mm ShVAK shell, all other shells seem to follow a similiar destruction ratio.
The small explosive content of the ShVAK cannon is probably unable to cause enough pressure built-up inside a duralumin wing.

——————————

Required number of hits for the destruction of a four engined bomber (B-17), based on German assessment:
Mineshells vs. 4 engined bombers

Caliber Shell weight Required hits Explosive content Total content Blast damage ratio Blast damage Fragmentation weight Notes
15mm 57g 75 ~3.0g PETN ~225g PETN 0.0036 0.81m² ~3975g Explosive shell
20mm 92g 20 18.6g HA 41 372g HA 41 0.0188 6.99m² ~1450g Mineshell
30mm 330g 5 72g HTA 360g HTA 0.0188* 6.77m² ~1250g Mineshell
30mm 330g 4 85g HA 41 340g HA 41 0.0206 7.00m² ~960g Mineshell

The 15mm explosive shells bring roughly 4kg of fragments into the target. Mineshell less than 1.5kg, while producing much smaller and less effective fragments.

The killing power of explosives shells comes mostly from fragments that can damage fuel tanks, causing fuel leaks or fuel fires.
Structural damage is minimal in comparison.
Mineshells on the other hand, deal very high structural damage for minimal fragmentation.

The 20mm ShVAK would require 45 hits to bring roughly 4kg of fragments into the target, while the structural damage would be 0.91m².
Since the shell uses A-IX-2, it would have increased incendiary performance.
Additionally, effective fragments would also be larger, reducing the required number of hits.

For a Hispano it would be 34 hits, with at least 1.35m², potentially more, structural damage.
That is equal to a 22.5cm diameter hole, per hit.
But due to the incendiary effect and larger fragments, the realistic number is going to be lower.

An overview:

Cannon Caliber Shell weight Required hits for 4kg fragments Explosive content Total content Blast damage ratio Blast damage
ShVAK 20mm 96g ~45 5.6g A-IX-2 252g A-IX-2 0.0036 0.91m²
Hispano 20mm ~131.5g ~34 ~11g Tetryl&Flash powder 343g T&FP 0.0036 ~1.35m²
NS-23 23mm 201g ~22 15.6g A-IX-2 343.2g A-IX-2 0.0125 4.29m²
Type 5 30mm 350g ~13 39g Pentolite 507 Pentolite 0.008* 4.06m²
M4 37mm 608g ~7 ~49g Tetryl ~343g Tetryl 0.008* 2.74m²

It becomes apparent that 4kg of fragments for 20-37mm shells compared to a 15mm shell doesn’t make sense, since a light 15mm shell only produces few effective fragments.
→ Wall thickness of 2.5mm compared to 4-7mm.
At the same time the explosive content delivered is close to or even exceeds that of Mineshells.

From „Aircaft vulnerability and overall effectiveness“ we know that 37mm M54 HEF-T is practically as effective as 30mm Mineshells (85g HA-41), or even slightly superior, when it comes to destroying a B-25 with structural damage and damage to fuel tanks.

If we consider it takes on average four 37mm hits instead, that would be roughly 2200g of fragments and blast damage of roughly 1.6m².
So the blast damage is considerable lower than Mineshells, but the fragments can deal lethal damage to fuel tanks, wing spars and control cables, while the slow burning tracer composition can ignite fuel. Additionally, engines might fail after a while from damage to oil systems or direct hits.

If we adjust the table for 2200g of fragment weight, with the assumption that 20mm and larger shells produce more effective fragments than a small 15mm explosive-tracer shell, we get the following results instead:

Cannon Caliber Shell weight Required hits for 2.2kg fragments Explosive content Total content Blast damage ratio Blast damage
ShVAK 20mm 96g 25 5.6g A-IX-2 140g A-IX-2 0.0036 0.56m²
Hispano 20mm ~131.5g 19 ~11g Tetryl&Flash powder ~209g 0.0036 0.75m²
NS-23 23mm 201g 12 15.6g A-IX-2 187.2g A-IX-2 0.0125 2.34m²
Type 5 30mm 350g 7 39g Pentolite 273g Pentolite 0.008* 2.18m²
M4 37mm 608g 4 ~49g Tetryl 196g Tetryl 0.008* 1.57m²

The single shot effectiveness of a 37mm is roughly 3-4 times higher than a 20mm Hispano HEFI or Incendiary shell.
Mineshells and 37mm HEF-T have a more immediate effect, compared to smaller shells, that might only destroy the aircraft due to not making it back to base from the damage sustained. Crashing vs. crash landing.

If we go by this table, 20mm Mineshells aren’t optimal for destroying large, four engined bombers, as setting them on fire with incendiary or explosive-incendiary rounds yield similar results without the drawbacks of Mineshells.

20mm Mineshells should be more effective against fighters, that will go down more quickly from the structural damage sustained.
While 30mm Mineshells have a clear advantage over smaller and larger shells in killing bombers, due to their low weight but high destructive power.

The Type 5 30mm HEF shell effectiveness is probably lower, since it’s missing a tracer or any other incendiary material.
But this might be offset by the use of HEFI ammunition with large incendiary filler.

*

For large shells with Tetryl and Pentolite I chose a blast ratio of 0.008 compared to 0.011-0.0125 of aluminized explosives. Based on the result of the incendiary blast test container, comparing Torpex to RDX/TNT.

For 30mm Mineshells with HTA the same blast damage ratio as 20mm Mineshellls was chosen.
Both were calculated from area damage of Spitfire wings.

3 Likes

Overall nice, tho id rename Various HMG incendary rounds to 15-12,7mm incendary rounds, to be more in line with the 20mm tap as well as technically the 15mm MG 151 is also a Cannon and not a HMG.
Also why no 3,7 cm Brsprgr.18 Vk. L’Spur and 3,7 cm M-Gr.18 L’Spur?

1 Like

I was actually thinking of adding it next. Would fit nicely between US and SU 37mm shells.

So would be the MG 131 but it’s basially a technicality.
The French 25mm AT cannon would be an AT rifle based on the fact that it’s firing giant jacketed bullets, while 20mm AT rifles would technically be cannons since they fire cannon shells.
So I would simply considered 10-15mm caliber projectiles to be HMG rounds.

What about 5 cm too, cince you also habe the 45mm

Not sure. Maybe a new category with +50mm shells, like the Japanese 57mm.
But there’s not really much interesting to see there.
The 50mm was just to target 4-engined bombers while the 57mm was to target ground targets.
The 45mm shell is technically not much different than the 37mm. It has thicker walls but uses a longer cavity for more explosive.
It’s really only there for some comparison in destructive power.

I rather add some more missing WW2 era ammunition as well as post-war shells, like US 20mm ammo and 30mm ADEN/DEFA shells.

1 Like

I’ve added the German 37mm Mineshell.

What’s also curious is, that I checked the Ho-203/204 37mm shells and based on the internal volume of the cutaway drawing from US documents, the filler values, that these document give, don’t add up.

Spoiler

JP_37mm_Ho_203_HEFI_Type_100_Fuze

From the volume the inner section of the explosive filler would fit around 35g RDX, not considering the explosive around the detonator, and the part that is supposed to be flash powder (Al, Mg, Ba(NO3)²) could fit around 15g.

There’s one Japanese source listing various Army ammunition, including aircrafts hells, stating an explosive filler of 45g.

I only have the edited document from my Ho-401 bug report, so ignore the markings

I thought this might be due to the later shells switching the explosive and incendiary volumes, increasing the weight, due to higher density, but it seems like the filler amount from US documents is simply incorrect.

For a Tracerless 37mm shell to only to contain 30g RDX and 8g Incendiary composition, with a body lenght of ~90mm, doesn’t add up, when the sizes are compard to the Russian NS-37 HEFI-T shell (37g A-IX-2) or the British ~35mm Incendiary-blast-test container, which carried up to 60g Torpex.

There’s another drawing from US documents where the cavity has a diamter of 25mm but shrinks to 22mm at the bottom of the shell. But even then I think it would hold more filler.

Spoiler

JP_37mm_Ho_204_HEFI_Type_4_Fuze_2

Edit: I changed the description for the Ho-203/204 shell:
30g RDX → 45g RDX
8g Flash powder → 12-16g Flash powder
440g weight → 475g

2 Likes

I just noticed you wrote 500 or 860 m/s, however it should be 500 or 860/900m/s for the 3 cm M-Gr.

And are the Drawings to Size? Are the 3,7 cm M-Gr.18 and US 37mm shell walls about the same thickness?

They are more or less true to size.
The 37mm Mineshells walls are thinner at all times and of course the cavity is much longer due to the different tracer design.

I’m pretty sure that 30mm Mineshell without tracer wasn’t fired at 900m/s by the MK 103.

If it was, it probably caused problems that resulted in the velocity be lowered to 860m/s.

There is still the Mk 101. But overall 860 is the reduces charge for extended parts life. 900 is normal charge.

But the MK 101 wasn’t really used anymore by the time the high capacity tracerless 30mm Mineshells were around.

Well i did see a ammo drawing for “30mm M-Shell for Mk 101”. Also the He 177 also had Mk 101 and would also have used the M-Gr. Not to mention the Do 217 series.

After some investigation, it turns out that the original values for the Ho-203 HEFI round were correct.
The reference model most likely did not have the right dimensions.

Updated the model and the values:
45g RDX → 30g RDX
12-16g Flash powder → 8g Flash powder

1 Like

Oh wow. What a nice read. Appreciate the effort ))))

1 Like

I added some more information on damage effects.

Mostly for +30mm guns.

2 Likes

I added a bunch of 30mm explosive shells.

1 Like

Nice tho from the M-Gr the designation Ausf.C is missing.

Well, the shell existed before the Ausführung A/B/C designation.
It’s already easy to distinguish from the other variants, due to the tracer.

Well, the A is the old, B is training and C is the new. Anyway, not that important.

I’ve corrected the filling for the 20mm M96 Incendiary.
→ 9g to 10.8g Flash powder

Based on the Source:
Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectivness

It always seemed strange how it would only carry 9g when the German fuzed round could carrry between 8-10g, depending on the model.

1 Like

Corrected Ho-103 fuzeless HEI (Ma-102) based on this report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XzTk8GgmCXNQ

~1.75g PETN + RDX → 1.65g PETN + RDX
~1.46g Flash powder → 1.0g Flash powder

1 Like