Jump to content

Searching INFO about aircraft VULNERABILITY in WW2


SandMartin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guys, Im searching any info about kill probability with gun hits at any aircrafts.

 

I already find this info:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2382483&postcount=8

 

 

But I cant understang this diagrams.

 

How many hits of 30mm MK108 and 20mm MG151 need to average "A" kill P-47 ?

 

13 average hits of 20HE (8% effectivenes in single shot) ?

 

But P-47 was very armored aircraft. What about P-51 or BF-109 or spitfire ? And offcouse intresting quantity 30mm (mk108) and 20mm (MG151) hit to kill a B-17..


Edited by SandMartin

 Мой youtube канал Группа в VK 

 

IBM x3200 Tower, i7 9700k, Asus Z390-P, HyperX Fury DDR4 2x16Gb 3466 Mhz, HyperX Savage 480Gb SSD, Asus RTX3070 Dual OC 8G, 32" Asus PG329Q, Creative Sound Blaster AE-5, HyperX Cloud Alpha + Pulsefire FPS Pro + Alloy FPS brown, Track IR 4 PRO + Clip Pro, Warhog HOTAS + CH Pro Pedal + есть руль Logitech G25

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you can download the whole report. Its a quite interesting read.

 

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA800394

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P-47 was very armored?

 

 

I think he mean P-47 is tough Aircraft to shot down, depends on what you hit can be gone also after one Hit

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you will find that rather than armored, most American warplanes were just structurally heavier; by comparison to European, and especially Japanese designs they seemed over-engineered in many respects, but correspondingly heavier and more bullet resistant from most angles.

 

Also, because of the greater weight to overall size ratio, they tended to accelerate into a dive much faster than most of the competition (a source of great disappointment to many Axis fighter pilots).

 

However, they (well, most of them) were designed to be flown in the wide variety of conditions found in the US; dusty western deserts, southern swamps and near-jungles, the cold northern states (both humid and dry) and everything in between. Also, the War Department of that era had an expectation that they would get "their" money's worth out of the aircraft in terms of hours flown and at various levels of pilot skill. As a result, by mid-war, American units tended to have a (often much) higher availability rate than most if not all other air forces.

 

It wasn't because they were heavily armored so much as they were designed & built to go a bit further and with greater structural redundancies than was the European standard. Most standard European designs would not have lasted in the continental United States if operated the way the USAAF or NavAir normally operated and moved units & aircraft from place to place.

 

This is not a condemnation of European or Japanese designs; it is a reflection of the shorter distances, lesser variety of operating conditions and more--shall we say 'elite' nature of most of their pilot selection processes, coupled with a general scarcity of some materials needed to build the numbers of a/c needed.

 

cheers

 

horseback

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Here's your new Mustangs boys--you can learn to fly 'em on the way to the target!" LTCOL Don Blakeslee, late February 1944

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he mean P-47 is tough Aircraft to shot down, depends on what you hit can be gone also after one Hit

It's also well known that the P-47 pilot could undo his harness and run around the cockpit to evade incoming fire. :music_whistling:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, please help me understang this diagrams:

 

 

52f2773b1a5f.jpg

 

d434a5f1b0bd.jpg

 

 

In first diagram, we see what 1 random hit of 20mm HEI produse kill in 8%.

 

In second diagram we see, what 10 random hits of 20mm HEI produce kill in 52 %.

 

I dont understand this =( Becouse 8% * 10 hits is not 52%.


Edited by SandMartin

 Мой youtube канал Группа в VK 

 

IBM x3200 Tower, i7 9700k, Asus Z390-P, HyperX Fury DDR4 2x16Gb 3466 Mhz, HyperX Savage 480Gb SSD, Asus RTX3070 Dual OC 8G, 32" Asus PG329Q, Creative Sound Blaster AE-5, HyperX Cloud Alpha + Pulsefire FPS Pro + Alloy FPS brown, Track IR 4 PRO + Clip Pro, Warhog HOTAS + CH Pro Pedal + есть руль Logitech G25

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found allways this Diagramms questionable, there is Video around where Spit wing is burst in to Pieces after hit from 30 mm MK-108 Round. Possible the Spit would survive this heavily Damged when the Round hit Wing Tip or on Aileron.

Possible the Diagram give different Probability about DMG each hit does summary but hardley belive it can survive 10 Hit from MK-108 on critical Parts.

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah these graphs are kinda meh at times. Mk 108 is devastating.

 

Have a look here:

 

http://thunder-games.livejournal.com/232906.html

http://thunder-games.livejournal.com/232610.html

 

(This was posted over at ATAG)

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graphs like these are always meh since they don't take many factors into account. For example the strike angle of a 20 or 30mm HEI has a lot of influence on the outcome. The video referred to above was a 30mm hitting a wing from behind, edge on pointing into the structure (

) . That hit is devastating and in all likelihood resulted in the loss of the wing on a flying plane. Hits on the topside of the wing, top down aren't as lethal because the blast from the HE exits the wing rather than pointing into the structural components of the wing (they're still hefty but not as bad as the edge-on hit). The Luftwaffe did run tests on this at some point and pretty much drew this as a conclusion (if I can find the link again, I'll post it).

 

It depends on what actually gets hit and what lies behind the blast. That's quite a lot of factors that don't get considered in these graphs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah these graphs are kinda meh at times. Mk 108 is devastating.

 

Have a look here:

 

http://thunder-games.livejournal.com/232906.html

http://thunder-games.livejournal.com/232610.html

 

(This was posted over at ATAG)

 

 

its probably optimistic to expect such outcomes eveytime you hit with 30mm...yet in dcs i never achieve such results with a single hit.not even close, regardless of angle and whether im 100m or 10m away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a mine shell hits from the top or bottom of a wing are actually by far the most lethal. Its in the nature of the shell really. In the trials they were using seemingly only AZ, with ZZ effects are gonna be even worse.

 

German trials paint a similar picture. There is just not much a aircraft structure can put up against this amount auf high explosives (75 to 90 g HA 41).

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Diverses/Flugwerkschutzes.pdf

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graphs like these are always meh since they don't take many factors into account. For example the strike angle of a 20 or 30mm HEI has a lot of influence on the outcome. The video referred to above was a 30mm hitting a wing from behind, edge on pointing into the structure (
) . That hit is devastating and in all likelihood resulted in the loss of the wing on a flying plane. Hits on the topside of the wing, top down aren't as lethal because the blast from the HE exits the wing rather than pointing into the structural components of the wing (they're still hefty but not as bad as the edge-on hit). The Luftwaffe did run tests on this at some point and pretty much drew this as a conclusion (if I can find the link again, I'll post it).

 

It depends on what actually gets hit and what lies behind the blast. That's quite a lot of factors that don't get considered in these graphs.

 

+1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a mine shell hits from the top or bottom of a wing are actually by far the most lethal. Its in the nature of the shell really. In the trials they were using seemingly only AZ, with ZZ effects are gonna be even worse.

 

German trials paint a similar picture. There is just not much a aircraft structure can put up against this amount auf high explosives (75 to 90 g HA 41).

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Diverses/Flugwerkschutzes.pdf

 

You might be misinterpreting the report a bit.

 

First off: All M-Geschoss hits are quite devastating btw, no discussion. But the degree of fatality varies widely depending on what is hit and from what angle.

 

If you look at Abb.1 in the report you linked (thx btw, that's the one I was looking for), you see a damage picture of actual projectiles. See that hole marked 3cm? That's a 30mm Mgeschoss hit from an actual 30mm straight down at the wing. It made a big hole and ripped open quite some area but it's nowhere near the ealier linked video of the 30mm Mgeschoss going into the wing from the edge on. Only Abb. 1 to 3 are from actual projectiles btw. The rest of the images and graphs are from detonation charges placed within the wings to test the behaviour of different structures to the explosions.

 

The result is (as I understood it): The HE lethality is greatly dependent on a certain factor: The structure of the hit compartment and its ability to contain the pressure from the blast. It's how high the pressure can build up that determines the overall structural damage on the area (Gasschlagwirkung). If you have a fuselage build as a shell (e.g. 109 or the Hs. 124 from the report), the pressure effect is the strongest. A plane that uses planking bolted to a skeleton has less susceptibility as the pressure can't build up as high thanks to the planks flying off earlier (see the writing below Abb.9). That reduces the stress on the carrying structure (Abb.3 and description). The least susceptible seems to be fabric covered hulls where the fabric can rip easily and create a venting opportunity for the blastwave.


Edited by arglmauf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look the Test description, all hits are descripted as lethal for the Spitfire.

And at the Picture 8 you Probably take in account they use Incendiary Round compare to all other HE. We didn't see what internal caused Damaged in the Wing.

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look the Test description, all hits are descripted as lethal for the Spitfire.

And at the Picture 8 you Probably take in account they use Incendiary Round compare to all other HE. We didn't see what internal caused Damaged in the Wing.

 

Remember the Spit is built in shells, the construction method most susceptible to the Mgeschoss. So I would agree the majority of these hits would have been lethal. Notice the difference in overall structure warping and ripping on rounds 5 and 6 compared to the other hits. That's what I meant. The explosion effect is much bigger when it enters deeply into a compartment. In effect though, even if the wing held after hits 5 or 6, a plane with such damage would be in no condition to fight and easy prey if attacked again.

 

Going by these pictures and what's written in the german report, I would say that 30mm Mgeschoss hits on the fuselage between cockpit and tail would have a bigger chance of just ripping the plane apart than hits on the wings. Also hits on parts like the control surfaces should show entirely different behaviour again as they wouldn't transfer the blastpower properly to the rest of the wing for example.


Edited by arglmauf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the Spit is built in shells, the most susceptible construction method to the Mgeschoss. So I would agree the majority of these hits would have been lethal. Notice the difference in overall structure warping and ripping on rounds 5 and 6 compared to the other hits. That's what I meant. The explosion effect is much bigger when it enters deeply into a compartment. In effect though, even if the wing held after hits 5 or 6, a plane with such damage would be in no condition to fight and easy prey if attacked again.

 

Going by these pictures and what's written in the german report, I would say that hits on the fuselage between cockpit and tail would have a bigger chance of just ripping the plane apart than hits on the wings. Also hits on parts like the control surfaces should show entirely different behaviour again as they wouldn't transfer the blastpower properly to the rest of the wing for example.

 

They where developed for this purpose to destroy monocoque closed alloy airframes with the blast. They were plenty of the old Wellington bomber was ripped down to the Metal airframe because of the fabric skin was still flying no really impact from the Mine shells. On the other side HE fragment have less impact on the alloy Fighters. Every one have this plus and Minus..

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that you will find that rather than armored, most American warplanes were just structurally heavier; by comparison to European, and especially Japanese designs they seemed over-engineered in many respects, but correspondingly heavier and more bullet resistant from most angles.

Yes and no. Most a2a kills were caused by severing the fuel and coolant systems. Having self-sealing tanks and radial helps... but when you add heavy cannons to the equation, structural integrity damage is also playing the role and P47 was no wonder bird in this regard.

 

I was lucky to be able to speak with Julius Meimberg (ie. he got 3xP47 in one mission) and he said that mk108 was very effective and 3 hits were enough to bring any fighter down.

 

American units tended to have a (often much) higher availability rate than most if not all other air forces.

Could you provide where this info comes from? Are you sure you are not mixing the logistical support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...