New .50cal rounds

Question about the new API, and APIT .50cal rounds from the latest update.

Is it just listing the hits as such, or has the ammo actually been changed from simple slugs? And... has its effectiveness on damage models been changed as well?

V

Our old ammo was M2 AP and M20 APIT. We still have AP and APIT just with aero added to it. I don't see anything new besides the name:

M2_50_aero_AP

M20_50_aero_APIT

It just seems as if the name of the item is displayed instead of the mask that was without the "aero" in the name.

So we do NOT have API ammo, which was M8.

I have made a topic a while ago about the ammo types that are missing:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143224

Check it out for more info.

Having to use straight AP ammo really kills the .50 cals, especially since their enemy counterparts have HE cannon rounds. APIT is too important to not have. I know that's only part of the problem and the other side of it is that for example, the 109 doesn't lose fluids like coolant or oil and will fly forever when damaged like that.

Incendiary components aren't even modelled for the APIT. You can in the code add a little bit of an explosive compound, even tough it's unrealistic. You can also change so that every 5th round is a tracer.

Open with Notepad++

In here you'll find data on all the shells in the game. The M2 AP bullets start at line 645, and M20 APIT starts at line 672

DCS World 2.0\Scripts\Database\Weapons\shell_table.lua

OR

DCS World\Config\Weapons\shell_table.lua

Here you can change the amount of tracers in the belts for each of the guns in the P-51. It's all the way down the bottom.

DCS World 2.0\Scripts\Database\Weapons\aircraft_gun_mounts.lua

OR

DCS World\Config\Weapons\aircraft_gun_mounts.lua

I'm not sure what difference you think the API would add over standard AP, or even ball ammo when it comes to lightly constructed, almost entirely aluminum aircraft.

Care to elaborate? The API doesn't instantly ignite things into exploding balls of flame.

I'm not sure what difference you think the API would add over standard AP, or even ball ammo when it comes to lightly constructed, almost entirely aluminum aircraft.

Care to elaborate? The API doesn't instantly ignite things into exploding balls of flame.

The potential to ignite the enemy's fuel (or potentially even structure, aluminium burns pretty nicely if you get it hot enough).

I'm not sure what difference you think thandwould add over standard AP, or even ball ammo when it comes to lightly constructed, almost entirely aluminum aircraft.

Care to elaborate? The API doesn't instantly ignite things into exploding balls of flame.

Being overly sceptical without any founded reasons doesn't bring us anywhere. Just read about the effects of incendiary ammo and everything will be clear. I don't understand people that question history.

API is highly effective against aircraft because fumes of aero fuells are highly flammable. And it is not as if only one bullet hits the target at any given time.

I also recommend watching WW2 USAAF gun camera footage.

Also realism reasons. What we want is good representation of WW2 air combat, not what we currently have.

Well, I gues the Allies just manufactured API and APIT, and even M23 just because it felt good.

The ammo had an effect. So did the fuel. As long as the Beta 109 zooms around with impossible damage modelling, you'll see a desire for historically more powerful ammo.

Well, I gues the Allies just manufactured API and APIT, and even M23 just because it felt good.

 

The ammo had an effect. So did the fuel. As long as the Beta 109 zooms around with impossible damage modelling, you'll see a desire for historically more powerful ammo.

So the damage modeling on the 109 is different than the 51 and 190?

Being overly sceptical without any founded reasons doesn't bring us anywhere. Just read about the effects of incendiary ammo and everything will be clear. I don't understand people that question history.

 

API is highly effective against aircraft because fumes of aero fuells are highly flammable. And it is not as if only one bullet hits the target at any given time.

 

I also recommend watching WW2 USAAF gun camera footage.

Also realism reasons. What we want is good representation of WW2 air combat, not what we currently have.

Now now, hold on, I ask because I actually have some experience with the Ma Deuce.

I've shot up more bongo trucks, Opels and Toyota Hilux than I can count with the old girl and that using primarily AP ammo types.

I understand that these are obviously not 109's but they do use 87 octane, as I believe our 109 does and are lightly built un-armored tin cans as the 109 was.

Never, not once, did I or any of those in my platoon who also used the .50 ever set anything on fire with API or APIT. I've simply never seen it ignite anything.

Does that mean it's impossible? Hardly, but I don't think it's the cure all that so many seem to think it would be.

It's great ammo for shooting up brdm or bmp type vehicles, and it'll even punch through a tank all the way to the turret ring if you shoot it in the ass, but its destructive power is simply not even in the realm of what a 20mm can do. It just punches .510 inch holes in anything it hits.

So don't jump to conclusions, let's all play nice and realize that the APIT isn't magical or explosive. It's just an armor piercing bullet.

Compare the cross-section and location of fuel tanks between automobiles and WWII fighters. You almost can't miss the fuel tank on a 109 or Mustang from the rear quarter. An automobile's tank, on the other hand, is typically of much lower cross-section and placement, making it unlikely to receive a significant percentage of hits from a burst from a single machine gun.

Another factor--perhaps even more important--is the slipstream. A leaking automobile tank will leak primarily liquid fuel. A leaking fighter tank will leak fuel in a vaporized form, because of the slipstream. This fuel vapor is much more flammable than liquid petrol, which is why API is far more effective versus aircraft than against stationary or slow-moving automobiles.

API wasn't instant-ignite, no; British static tests showed that it took multiple hits to ignite stationary fuel tanks. The first shot would pretty much never do it, because the fuel is still mostly liquid at that point. But once the tank had one leak, chance to ignite went up. The more leaks, the more chance to ignite. Slipstream vaporization multiplies that chance. This is why self-sealing fuel tanks were so important in minimizing the chances of fuel fires.

Exactly what Echo said and additionally, you have to remember that you are not shooting one Ma Duce M2 HB HMG with 500rpm. You are shooting 6x AN/M2 800rpm each, that equals roughly 4800rpm. Nine shells out of ten are API and one is APIT.

Exactly what Echo said and additionally, you have to remember that you are not shooting one Ma Duce M2 HB HMG with 500rpm. You are shooting 6x AN/M2 800rpm each, that equals roughly 4800rpm. Nine shells out of ten are API and one is APIT.

Is that 80 rounds per second and 240 rounds for a 3 second burst, or have I worked that out wrong?

Any way, that is a heck of a punch.

Happy landings,

Talisman

So the damage modeling on the 109 is different than the 51 and 190?

Hiya Dark,

They *should* be different, since the planes IRL did handle damage differently. The issue is the length of departure from reality amongst the several aircraft.

From what I understand coming from flyers with more experience than I, the 109's DM is significantly less refined, and allows for quite a bit more survivability vs the real deal than either the Dora or Stang.. The guys point out that leaks in coolant and oil take much longer to cripple the plane in general. I've put solid bursts into wing roots and engines without much effect (except for one little single rounds in particular - you know the one). That's not to say that 109s aren't killed quickly. As with any sim, better pilots get better results, and t4trouble can attest to that. (NetMan, too, but he don't do vids....)

One of the gripes against 109s is that the beta release isn't really a complete job. The last several months have seen numerous updates and patches... breaking wing tips fixed, WM, trim, speed, etc... But no DM work worth mentioning.

I'm sure they will get around to it eventually. Maybe about the time the Stang gets some love in the form of ammo, fuel and IFF delete.

In the meantime, we learn how to fight harder against that devil of a plane and the good pilots that ride them.

Now now, hold on, I ask because I actually have some experience with the Ma Deuce.

I've shot up more bongo trucks, Opels and Toyota Hilux than I can count with the old girl and that using primarily AP ammo types.

I understand that these are obviously not 109's but they do use 87 octane, as I believe our 109 does and are lightly built un-armored tin cans as the 109 was.

Never, not once, did I or any of those in my platoon who also used the .50 ever set anything on fire with API or APIT. I've simply never seen it ignite anything.

Does that mean it's impossible? Hardly, but I don't think it's the cure all that so many seem to think it would be.

It's great ammo for shooting up brdm or bmp type vehicles, and it'll even punch through a tank all the way to the turret ring if you shoot it in the ass, but its destructive power is simply not even in the realm of what a 20mm can do. It just punches .510 inch holes in anything it hits.

So don't jump to conclusions, let's all play nice and realize that the APIT isn't magical or explosive. It's just an armor piercing bullet.

As the others have said, target type is important. I've not played with the BMG like my family has, but I'll relay that THEIR experience with it was rather positive. You'll not se a FUEL bomb, but you'll see FUEL AIR. Atomization leads to some big big booms.

A car as a target is generally, not explosive because fuel is drained from targets. Tanks are aired out on purpose or over the course of time, from open caps and spigots.

I have played with API .30cal. I got mixed results, and almost all of it can be traced to the flammability of the targets, and in particular, fuel to air ratios.

Our family and friends' experience goes all the way back to WWII, in 3 branches right on down the line. If incendiary ammo was just to make the guys feel good, it sure did the job. Seeing the enemy cook lifted quite a few spirits.

Not trying to beat up on anyone here. This community is filled with great guys. But API exists for very good reasons. I'd like to see it modeled.

Now now, hold on, I ask because I actually have some experience with the Ma Deuce.

I've shot up more bongo trucks, Opels and Toyota Hilux than I can count with the old girl and that using primarily AP ammo types.

I understand that these are obviously not 109's but they do use 87 octane, as I believe our 109 does and are lightly built un-armored tin cans as the 109 was.

Never, not once, did I or any of those in my platoon who also used the .50 ever set anything on fire with API or APIT. I've simply never seen it ignite anything.

Does that mean it's impossible? Hardly, but I don't think it's the cure all that so many seem to think it would be.

It's great ammo for shooting up brdm or bmp type vehicles, and it'll even punch through a tank all the way to the turret ring if you shoot it in the ass, but its destructive power is simply not even in the realm of what a 20mm can do. It just punches .510 inch holes in anything it hits.

So don't jump to conclusions, let's all play nice and realize that the APIT isn't magical or explosive. It's just an armor piercing bullet.

So have I during my 22 years in and multiple deployments but i'm not sure why you're comparing anything a .50 is doing to a POS truck on the ground to what happens in the air.

I see someone beat me to it just above. Read that.

Seems like API was just what the doctor ordered vs. Zero's and Betty's early in the war--sawed off wings and caught them on fire at the same time. My experience with the H2 and .50 API was shooting up land vehicles. The round hits , you get a nice sparkle that lets you know where the hell the round ended up, and allows you to correct your aim very efficiently.

How exactly does programming an "explosive element" in the rounds affect the damage? Does the damage model take into account this coding and take on more devastation?

API wasn't instant-ignite, no; British static tests showed that it took multiple hits to ignite stationary fuel tanks. The first shot would pretty much never do it, because the fuel is still mostly liquid at that point. But once the tank had one leak, chance to ignite went up. The more leaks, the more chance to ignite. Slipstream vaporization multiplies that chance. This is why self-sealing fuel tanks were so important in minimizing the chances of fuel fires.

You also need a leak and we are dealing with self sealing tanks, and at least Russian testing with their own 12.7mm gun (the US M2 API was actually copied from this Soviet round, as it was better at staying effective) showed the tank on the 109G could seal up to about 3-5 hits IIRC. The older 109s btw laminated alumium armor behind the fuel tank, that pretty much rendered early US API ammo (before they copied the Russian one) ineffective in starting fires. The late ones, like the K did not have this, but they did have a rather large aluminium tank in the same place and in the bullets typical way, filled with water/methanol. The bullet had to pass through this. I wonder how passing through that liquid effected API rounds, esp. compared to the older layered alumium armor. Can an API round pass a barrel of water, AND remain effective for causing fires I wonder.

So you will need plenty of hits on a fuel tank, since the first couple of holes will be likely to be self-sealed enough times, and API rounds have varying chance at igniting things, in the order of 30-50% for starting a fire. 80 rounds fired per second sounds good, but even very good shooters hit with about about 5% of the time, and poor shooters even less... that's 4 rounds hitting from a one second bursts, randomly across the plane because of the dispersion of the gun. Point is, its not easy to get enough hits on the fuel tank that is also a very tiny target from behind, so do not expect fireworks every time you hit the other guy for good.

Of course, you might just get lucky from time to time and get if fired up in the first shot, but, assuming that every 4th hit randomly lands on the fuel tank, and statistically you need about 5 hits to rupture the tank for good and about 3 hits for a chance of fire with high probability, you would need to achieve about 4x(5+3)=32 hits on the target, and since that even with good shooting every 20th round will actually hit, statistically about 640 rounds need to be fired with good accuracy in about 8 seconds to achieve a statistical fuel fire.

Now, the numbers can vary greatly and you might get lucky, but to bottomline - you need lots of bullets in the air to make a fuel tank fire with good probability.

Perhaps another thing to consider would be how empty, or full, the fuel tank is and whether the ammunition round penetrates the tank at a point were there is no fuel but a lot of vapour that will immediately ignite. I would imagine that a half empty or almost empty fuel tank would have a greater chance of igniting than a full or almost full one.

Being half way through a mission or almost at the end of a mission would probably make a fuel tank more vulnerable; as would a short-filled tank at the beginning of a mission.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Indeed. A spark inside liquid itself has a harder time to ignite a flammable material, because burning will need oxygen, vapours OTOH are not only highly flammable, they are good mix for a violent reaction, i.e. explosion. Filling the fuel tank with neutral gases was thus a good practice, but AFAIK, only the Soviet La 5 series did this by directing exhaust gases into to fuel tank.

I know most of the yank aircraft at Midway had fuel bladders inside their tanks, hence no burning Wildcats. The jap aircraft on the other hand... :) :)

- That's a bit off topic, but to correct the above. US fuel tanks did not have any rubber covers or layers inside of metal tank.

US fuel tanks were almost entirely formed from non-metallic materials. Fuel cell consisted of layers of materials typically cemented together, including three basic elements, an absorbent interior lining and inner and outer layers. Those tanks, that proved effective even against .50 caliber rounds (though first versions offered only partial protection again those) were rather complicated and heavy, normally had half a dozen or more layers of material. Typical thickness of the tank could reach 19 mm or more. And they required very careful handling.[1]

But Goodyear design was not flawless, first versions created major issues. For example VF-3 Wildcats received their first all-rubber fuel cells in February-March period (1942) and soon started encountering problems. Self-sealing tanks on numerous fighters began to leak. In April 1942 VF-42 F4Fs encountered similar issues, which at certain point disabled eight out of nineteen fighters and led to complete replacement of the fuel tanks. Other Wildcat units as well as Brewster Buffalo units experienced similar issues during first half of 1942 as well.[1]

The reason for this was the fact that gasoline with high aromatic content which happened to be used by U.S. Fleet attacked the tanks in a variety of ways, the interior linings being exposed to the fuel all the time tended to blister and began to slough off particles which would block fuel lines and could damage the engines. Poor seals at the filler neck allowed fuel to contact the outer skin of the tanks causing deterioration. Swelling and bloating of the various layers caused by gasoline penetration and deteriorating cement threatened the whole integrity of fuel cell. Soon however Goodyear produced fuel cells made of different materials, not reacting with U.S. gasoline. Eventually U.S. reached the point at which it had the best fuel tank protection from all the other fighting countries, of course it wasnt immune to damage, it would provide satisfactory results for multiple operations.[1]

About not burning Wildcats and burning Zeros, as a matter of fact there were multiple examples of Zeros returning to the aircraft carriers safely despite battle damage (including hits to the fuel lines or fuel tanks, like A6M2 of Petty Officer Tetsuo Kikuchi of Akagi carrier, which took thirty hits including numerous into wing fuel tank) while some Wildcats were observed burning which would indicate that fuel tanks were not sufficient against 20 mm. Though generally Wildcats would return even with extensive battle damage, including cockpit area and fuel lines.[1]

- But I assume most important thing for this topic is complete absence of U.S. M8 API rounds. The M8 API was put into service in 1943 to replace the M1 Incendiary, and is still in service today. The M8 is built nearly identical to the M2 Armor Piercing except the M8 has 12 grains of incendiary mixture in the nose instead of a lead filler, and a lead caulking disc in the base acting as a seal. Having the same hardened steel core as the M2, the M8 matches the armor piercing capability of the M2 with the added advantage of incendiary effect. While it has considerably less incendiary mix than the M1, the performance of the M8 was greatly superior to the M1 because of it's ability to penetrate the target and ignite the material inside rather than just flash on the surface like the M1 often did, making for a greater first shot effect. Bullet weight is about 649 grains, and identified by silver tip paint.

Pyrotechnic performance of these projectiles is only slightly less than the M1 Incendiary. The flash varies exponentially with the amount of fuel, so while the M1 contains 3 times the incendiary mix of the M8, the flash is only about 30% larger. This rounds were routinely found in U.S. ammunition belts since mid-late 1943, at some point becoming the most common type of round encountered.[2] I have added a link to the Aberdeen Proving Ground report on M8 and M20 ballistics and aerodynamic characteristics, hopefully Sithspawn or someone else from the team can carry it to the developers and take advantage of it, to add the M8 rounds to US belts.[3]

Couple combat reports indicating ammunition used, from 1944:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-jones-12april44.jpg

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/jacobson.shtml

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-kolbe-2nov44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-mckennon-8april44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-mckennon-29march44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/4-riley-8april44.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-planchak-2dec44.jpg

As you can see its almost always API and Tracer rounds. The other source though, indicates a slightly different setup:

"In December 1944 the Ordnance Section of the 12th Air Force. using 57th Fighter Group fighter-bombers, conducted a study of attacks on a static Italian steam locomotive. Strafing damage was found to stall a locomotive and cause repairs ranging from one to 35 days, and that strafing was much more likely to achieve hits than bombing or rockets. It was suggested that strafing using a .50 belting of four armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds to one tracer was ideal (as opposed to the previous API-lncendiary-APl-Incendiary-Tracer belting). Strafing from 90-degree beam was suggested over an attack from a shallower angle, as these perpendicular strikes were more likely to perforate the locomotive's boiler and less likely to ricochet."

References:

1) R.L. Dunn, "Exploding Fuel Tanks - Saga of Technology That Changed the Course of the Pacific Air War", U.S. 2011, pages: 25-27, 55-56, 67-75, 101.

2) http://browningmgs.com/AirGunnery/09_ammo.htm

3) AD-A219 106/2 Aerodynamic Characteristics of .50 Ball, M33, API, M8, and APIT, M20 Ammunition by Ballistics Research Lab, Aberdeen Proving Ground - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Iwvrpz0e6CVEZjMmhhUHBoWFk/view?usp=sharing

4) W. Wolf, "American Fighter-Bombers in World War II: USAAF Jabos in the MTO and ETO", Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 2003.

Cheers,

Hiro

Edit: Returning to that;

The older 109s btw laminated alumium armor behind the fuel tank, that pretty much rendered early US API ammo (before they copied the Russian one) ineffective in starting fires. The late ones, like the K did not have this, but they did have a rather large aluminium tank in the same place and in the bullets typical way, filled with water/methanol. The bullet had to pass through this. I wonder how passing through that liquid effected API rounds, esp. compared to the older layered alumium armor. Can an API round pass a barrel of water, AND remain effective for causing fires I wonder.

Yes it can. M8 API had 15 grains of incendiary mixture, made of :

50% Barium Nitrate

50% Magnesium Aluminum Alloy

Magnesium is burning even completely submerged in water :

Thx Hiromachi, so apparantly a water tank in the way doesn't do much at all the incendinary properties, expect for perhaps slowing down the projectile somewhat.