Beating dead Horse - Hispanos x MGFF-20mm

that's what i afraided of
badger came and broken a beautiful picture built by shuffling digits... with one word.
Minengeshoß really does not have a frag effect.

 

Hi Badger,

>Looking at the numbers i would say that Hispano would be a hell more effective against real WWII plane, because of its 3x incendary content and kinetic power to deliver it to the flamable spots on planes.

>MG-FF/M would do VERY nice local damage, but that's all, you need to hit it in the "soft" spot to shot down the plane, cause due to very thin walls of the round it doesn't produce much fragments to carry the damage futher inside the plane.

Generally correct, but the point is: Most of an aircraft is a "soft" target, and only very little is a "hard" target.

The Hispano round is effective against critically vulnerable parts of the aircraft, such as the pilot, the fuel tank and the engine.

The mine shell is not very effective against these parts, but it's highly effective against the aircraft structure itself. The mine shells are designed to penetrate a bit beneath the skin, then explode in a confined space and blow out the load-bearing skin primarily with the blast wave.

(There is a bit of fragmentation, too, but it's of secondary importance. It additionally weakens the skin it impacts into, and at least for 30 mm shells it was demonstrated that it can destroy control cables, but it will not damage any hard components inthe way Hispano steel fragments might do.)

Just to illustrate the idea behind the mine shells: In the top view, a Spitfire has about 26 m^2 total area. About 2.5 m^2 or 10% of these are engine, fuel tank and pilot where the Hispano API have better effect. 90% of these are "soft" areas where the mine shells have better effect.

(Of course, this percentage changes dramatically when the target aspect changes. In the straight six view, engine/pilot/fuel are all in the centre of the target and make a much larger percentage of the total target. I'm just trying to illustrate the Luftwaffe reasoning with the above example.)

I think we already agree that the Hispano has a much better armour penetration than the MG FF and even than the MG 151/20, especially as the Hispano has 50% API belted while the German weapons have only 20%.

Would you agree that in turn, the German weapons' explosive potential is much greater than the Hispanos'?

The questions of target aspect and exact hit position are determined by the simulation, after all, so we don't actually need to talk about the target area percentages I mentioned above. As the Warbirds damage model represents the vulnerable volumens fairly accurately (as far as I know), it seems to me that we should get an accurate representation of the weapons' capabilities by assigning the German weapons a high explosive score, but a low armour piercing score, and the Hispano the opposite.

(I don't know if there are any pitfalls in the details of damage modelling, of course, but that explosive and armour piercing effect are separated seems to be a good basis at least

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Exec,

>that's what i afraided of

Don't worry, be happy I think we're actually in agreement about most facts, it's just that our conclusion (=opinion) that differs.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

30 mm had enough energy to kill plane with violent air displacment in 1 hit. To kill plane with 20 mm in such way you need to place few 20-mm Minegeschoss very close, which is not very easy task to perform.

Thinking of chemical energy isolated i think of american 0,50 M2, which had virtually zero explosive effect and still managed to bring planes down quite efficiently.

 

If it were this way 7.62-7.92 mm would be weapon of WWII fighter. And it was not.

I guess you just named reasons why 90% planes were lost during WWII.

Fire was most common reason for aircraft destruction during WWII, that's why hydrostatic fuse were developed for Minengeschoß to ensure they explode only in fuel tank.

After the WWII planes become much less flamable, that's why world adopted Minengeschoß ammo and USAF had to say goodbye to their beloved 0.50.

 

Hi Badger,

Well, that's all opinion stuff. I disagree, but that doesn't matter for the game.

The question is, do you agree that the explosive score of the MG FF/M rounds should be much higher than that of the Hispano rounds?

At 1:1:3 resp. 1:1 belting, we get the following amount of explosives:

10 rounds MG FF/M: 121.44 g explosives

10 rounds Hispano: 52 g explosives

The armour-piercing effect of the Hispanos quite undoubtly is much greater than the MG FF's.

On the other hand, the explosive effect of the MG FF (and the MG 151/20) shells should be much greater than the Hispano's.

As I see it, we can just set up Warbirds that way and see what happens. The damage model seems to be good, so we should get good results from realistic data.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Correct. Due that germans start using 30mm shells to kill buffs, as said before.
Less hits but much more effectiveness, no doubt. But we are talking about 20mm.

The .50 was an amazing gun, but with poor accuracity. Due that they usually install them in banks of 4 or 6 guns. Of course with this amount of leads fired, when it hit should be very effective to shot down any plane.

Just think about energy potencial + chemical working together, don´t try to separate them, the effect will be far diffent well explained above.

 

yes, badger said that 30mm woul be enough, and 20 not enough.

say it to strafe, not badger

 

After that fortunate discussion, the weapons mentioned will be changed?

 

You must misunderstood me guys. I'm defending the combination chemical + potential energy. I just put above a chemical influence in evidence, since that potential energy once was mentioned.

 

they taken tabahost database access from me.

 

??? Who taken? Is the MG/FF will reviewed or not?

Its clear to me, no doubt.

 

tabahost hosters. they reinstalled mysql or something like that. i had access to DM, now i have not.
i still can make it with wb interface via dot commands, but:
1)there are almost no people
2)lazy to hasten (with inconvenient wb-interface) because of 1)
therefore i'm waiting for mysql interface.

 

Oh, its no good.
But, what about MA (FHL)?

 

looks like you ignore me.

 

So sorry -exec-, I didn't ignore you. But due to lines above you just say "tabahost hosters" "there re almost no people". That's apply to Tabahost not to Freehost isn't it?

 

yes

 

After this all explanation no changes will occour in FHL ... : (

 

http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showpost.php?p=378229&postcount=1