Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: Spit V vs 109F...

  1. #1
    Public Relations ATAG_Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sheffield UK
    Posts
    7,253
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    506.15 MB

    Spit V vs 109F...

    I know that throughout the war there was a technology race between certain aircraft...The Spit vs 109 being a famous contest where one excelled past the other then vice versa...With patch 5.0 being the next patch and hopefully including Spit V and 109F what differences are we to expect with the Spit V verses the 109F...Which was better in terms of firepower, speed, manoeuvrability etc...
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.'' - Bertrand Russell
    1.618 - You know this number?
    My Turing machine :CPU: Intel Core i7 2700K 3.50GHz Sandybridge, Motherboard: Asus Maximus IV Extreme -Z Intel Z68 (Socket 1155) PCI-Express DDR3,
    RAM: 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 Dual Channel Kit, Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 4096MB GDDR5, OS:Windows 10
    Joystick: Microsoft Sidewinder II ForceFeedback Joystick, Throttle: CH Products Pro Throttle
    ATAG_Lewis Youtube Channel

  2. #2
    ATAG_Colander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bir Tawil
    Posts
    11,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    255.73 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Gliding distance will be 9:1 ratio between the two

  3. Likes ATAG_Lolsav, ATAG_Lewis, ATAG_Snapper liked this post
  4. #3
    ATAG Member ATAG_Lolsav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,684
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    16.32 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Situation:

    Lewis in Spitfire V and Lolsav in 109F.

    Lolsav says: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/pointy.wav


  5. #4
    Supporting Member Vadr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    in my humble experience, there isn't a lot of difference in the 109F vs Spit V fight from the 109E/Spit I...with one exception.

    Caveat: all this depends on the flight models of course, but I have a lot of faith in the Team Fusion crew.

    The 109F will still out-climb, out-dive and out-accelerate the Spit V, and should be faster at most altitudes. Spiral climbs, scissors, and vertical maneuvering will still be important tools in the 109 pilots bag, while the Spit driver can still rely on instantaneous and sustained turn performance, so not a lot changes there (the top speed comparisons will be interesting).

    The BIG change, and the one that should have the most important affect on the dogfight, is in firepower...and that cuts both ways. The Hispano-Suiza cannons on the Spit V are *fearsome*, and a lot of 109 drivers who have gotten away with dancing in front of Spit/Hurri .303s (I myself am guilty) are going to find themselves floating under silk in very short order. Those guns have greater muzzle velocity than the 109E cannons, greater range, and greater hitting power. I weep for the poor bomber pilots.

    OTOH, while the single nose-mounted F cannon is an overall reduction in firepower, the MG 151/20 is a superior weapon in all respects to the MG FF mounted on the E model, allowing the 109F driver to make snap, deflection and long range shots that the E driver could only dream about. It rewards a good shooting eye.

    Should be loads of fun.

    <S>
    Vadr
    Jagdgeschwader 2 "Richthofen"

    "Most pilots expect their airplanes to perform. The Me 109 expects its pilot to perform." -- A. Galland


  6. Likes ATAG_Marlow liked this post
  7. #5
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Depends on which model 109F, the SpitVb and the 109F was a pretty even matchup until the F4, then the 109 steps ahead on outright speed, but the Spit was always capable of out turning the 109, roll was similar and climb depended on speed and alt.

    Firepower definatly suffered in the earlier F the original had an MGFF in the nose (E has 2) and the first MG151 was a 15mm which was universally disliked, the 20mm MG151 improved matters but uses a smaller cartridge than the Hispano, so Muzzle energy wise the Hispano is always going to be more powerful.

    Don't forget there are many variations of Spit V as well.

    In Malta the Spit V was able to match the 109F and early G with experienced pilots, so it should be a good matchup.

    Only problem is it will leave other airframes behind and you can bet everyone will be flying the best models, our poor old Hurricanes and G50's are going to be a rare sight.

  8. Likes Vadr liked this post
  9. #6
    ATAG Member ATAG_Lolsav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,684
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1
    Total Downloaded
    16.32 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromit View Post

    Only problem is it will leave other airframes behind and you can bet everyone will be flying the best models, our poor old Hurricanes and G50's are going to be a rare sight.
    Depends on the map makers

    Well a "evolutive" pilot carrier mode (if that was achievable online) would be interesting, where the ones who die less would have better planes. A reward for virtual life preservation for instance.

    Rough example: A pilot is novice fly hurricanes/g50/Spit I -->flys 5 sorties without dieing, gets promoted and be able to fly the "next level" planes, so on... If dies its demoted.

    Now a problem with this: It gets more "gamey", insted of a simulation. Or maybe not, because you have to strive to stay alive, resulting in more cautious pilots.

    Anyway its just dependent on map makers and their skills to create the balance.

  10. Likes 7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER liked this post
  11. #7
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    How about we reverse that, the more kills you get the worse the plane you can fly?

    That would separate the men from the boys, and give the new guys a bit more chance!



    On the subject of plane availability, I see your point, I am however not optimistic considering the number of Spit iia and 109E4N/B we see in play regularly.

  12. Likes AKA_Blasto liked this post
  13. #8
    Supporting Member Vadr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    As lolsav said: "it depends on the map makers"

    In the old Warbirds sim main arena, they had the concept of a 'rolling plane set'. They had planes from the 109E/Spit I to the Me 262/Spit 14, so it was a little more involved. Over a period of about 28 days; the first day or two would have only 1940 aircraft available, then for the next day or two, the 1941 aircraft would be added to those available, then in the next couple of days 1942 etc., all the way to the very last day of the RPS, which was the only day the 262 was available. The last 2 days had the Dora/Spit 14.

    We could to do something similar here (maybe with the ATAG Bomber arena?).

    Just a suggestion. Restricting available aircraft based on pilot skill/lack thereof always seems to lead to resentment. If we could implement something like an RPS at least the playing field would be even.

    Note: Gromit is completely correct about the different 109s and their armament. I was talking about a Spit-Vb/109-F4 matchup in my earlier post. Didn't realize this was in the 'War History' section. I got here from 'New Posts'. My bad.
    Last edited by Vadr; Apr-21-2016 at 12:37.
    Vadr
    Jagdgeschwader 2 "Richthofen"

    "Most pilots expect their airplanes to perform. The Me 109 expects its pilot to perform." -- A. Galland


  14. #9
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    320.64 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    There are a large number of variants... you can't make a sweeping generalization about which might be better, you need to examine each version in detail and decide which version is being compared to which version.

    For the 109F's, for example, you have the following:

    109F-1: DB601N engine, (same as the engine in the E-4N), one MG/FFM cannon with 60 rounds firing through the prop, plus the two LMG's.
    109F-2: DB601N engine, one MG/151/15mm cannon, (very high velocity, very accurate, but no high explosive rounds) firing through prop, plus two LMG's. Slightly reduced performance, higher stall speed, due to increased weight of larger cannon and ammunition
    109F-2 (Late): DB601N engine, one MG/151/20mm cannon, firing through prop, plus two LMG's. (increased weight)
    109F-2-Trop: Same as above, but with enlarged air intake filter (increased weight)
    109F-4: DB601E engine, rated at 1.30ata boost at 2500 rpm, one MG151/20mm cannon firing through prop, plus two LMG's. (increased weight over F-2, thus higher stall speed)
    109F-4-Trop: Same as above, but with enlarged air intake filter
    109F-4 (Late): DB601E engine, rated at 1.42ata boost at 2700 rpm, one MG151/20mm cannon firing through prop, plus two LMG's.
    109F-4 (Late)-Trop: Same as above, but with larger filter

    All the 109's had the fuselage/wing/tail design changes... these were primarily incorporated to provide a more aerodynamic frame, and higher speed, to allow better maneuver at the higher speeds which combat was now occurring, and which the 109F's were now capable of achieving. As part of this, there was a sacrifice in low speed maneuver... the F model had inferior low speed lateral maneuver than the E model. The F's Stall speed, with the higher weight, was also slightly higher than the E.

    For the Spitfires, you have the following:

    Spit IIB: Same as the IIA, but with reduced performance, higher stall speed due to 20mm gun and ammunition extra weight... Two 20mm Hispano cannon, 4 LMGs.
    Spit IIB (Late): Same as above, but with improved lateral maneuverability due to retro-fitted metal ailerons
    Spit VA: Merlin 45 rated at +12 boost/3000 rpm, eight LMGs, fabric ailerons (increased weight and higher stall speed over IIB)
    Spit VB: Merlin 45 rated at +12 boost/3000 rpm, two 20mm Hispano cannon, 4 LMGs, metal ailerons (increased weight and stall speed over VA)
    Spit VB (Late): Merlin 45 rated at +16 boost/3000 rpm, two 20mm Hispano cannon, 4 LMGs, metal ailerons
    Spit VB - Trop: Same as above with extra weight and reduced performance due to larger filter.

    Spitfires initially were equipped with fabric ailerons, but as the RAF noted in 1941 the 109F was more maneuverable at higher speeds, the metal ailerons were introduced to counter this advantage.

    So the fact is, when you look at all the models, comparisons are very much dependent on which version is compared to which.

    You'll need to wait till TF 5.0 is out to really find out.

    I will also say that you can see from the above list how much work is required... so I hope everyone is patient... TF 5.0 will be done as soon as our resources will allow.
    Last edited by RAF74_Buzzsaw; Apr-23-2016 at 02:05.

  15. #10
    Supporting Member Vadr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Well, there's a post on the TF Facebook page that says there will be an F-4, so I remain very hopeful
    Vadr
    Jagdgeschwader 2 "Richthofen"

    "Most pilots expect their airplanes to perform. The Me 109 expects its pilot to perform." -- A. Galland


  16. #11
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    No takers for the F1 then?

    Everyone's going to be in F4 lates

  17. #12
    Supporting Member Karaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    155.92 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw View Post
    109F-2: DB601N engine, one MG/151/15mm cannon, (very high velocity, very accurate, but no high explosive rounds) firing through prop, plus two LMG's. Slightly reduced performance, higher stall speed, due to increased weight of larger cannon and ammunition
    Just a minor comment: The MG151/15 did have high explosive rounds (HEI), even the 13mm MG131 had them. However in both cases the HE filler was quite small (~2g & 1g respectively).

    http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/arch...n1936-1945.pdf

    I've also made a rudimentary performance graph comparing the upcoming fighters. Continuous lines are for WEP (+12lbs for the RAF, Start/Not for the LW), dashed for the next best power setting that isnt WEP (+9lbs boost for the RAF, Steig/Kampf for the LW).

    Bf109E_Bau_speed_2.png

    Hurricane & Spitfire performance figures are taken from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
    The Bf109 figures are taken from official manuals (F-1/2 Kennblatt) http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...1F2_DB601N.PDF
    and Rechlin flight tests (F-4). http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...alculated.html
    The Bf109E figure is backed up by a french test flight of a captured aircraft. http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...formanceT.html
    Last edited by Karaya; Apr-25-2016 at 11:13.

  18. Likes LARRY69 liked this post
  19. #13
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    According to your graph Karaya the 109E is faster on the deck and up to 1000m than a MkV?

    Looks a bit off, where did the 109 figures come from?

  20. #14
    Supporting Member Karaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    155.92 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    I did not add the 109E myself, this entire graph is based on the Messerschmitt AG data sheet for the Bf109E with DB601A under guaranteed engine power. And yes, the Mk.V was slower on deck than the Mk.Ia for example. At +12lbs boost the Merlin 45 generates a little less than the Merlin III (~1270hp vs 1310hp). The Merlin 45 however has the advantage of a much more powerful supercharger giving it superior performance at altitude where most of the fighting at the western front took place. Fighter development in the UK & Germany went towards improving high altitude performance, sometimes at the expense of low alt performance as can be seen from the graph. The most dramatic changes in topspeed happen at higher alts not on deck.

    Merlin graph.jpg

    Merlin Power Resize.jpg

    Sources are quoted just under the graph btw.
    Last edited by Karaya; Apr-25-2016 at 11:09.

  21. Likes LARRY69 liked this post
  22. #15
    Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromit View Post
    According to your graph Karaya the 109E is faster on the deck and up to 1000m than a MkV?

    Looks a bit off, where did the 109 figures come from?
    Depends on the boost on the Merlin 4x series, IIRC the first versions were limited to +9, then gradually raised that to +12 and finally +16 in mid 1942. But even the +16 variants barely crept over 500 km/h, the ones at +9 did around 460 only. Keep in mind the 45 was basically the single-speed version of Merlin XX and it was tuned for better altitude performance at the expense of low altitude performance, the cannons and radiators also chipped down quite a bit of speed.

    The 109E figures are from the official type specification sheet for the Bf 109E w. DB 601Aa engine, and the figures closely resemble the 5 min 1.35ata rating achieved on the V15a flight test. So its a bit more fiery at low alt (1045 PS).

    Finally, a bit of nitpicking, "accurate" for the MG 151/15 might not be the best choice of words, it was not bad, and had terrific ballistics and high velocity (~hit probability); however as far as dispersion goes the MG FF was the most accurate and reliable of all cannons in the LW arsenal, and perhaps the world, too, with only 1 mil(!!) bullet dispersion, and practically never jamming. High velocity and ballistic power usually acts against dispersion with automatic weapons, for the simple reason the powerful rounds flex the associated long barrel quite a bit and subsequently fired rounds will suffer for it.

  23. Likes TURK_Enlem, AH-DG liked this post
  24. #16
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    320.64 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by VO101_Kurfurst View Post
    Depends on the boost on the Merlin 4x series, IIRC the first versions were limited to +9, then gradually raised that to +12 and finally +16 in mid 1942. But even the +16 variants barely crept over 500 km/h, the ones at +9 did around 460 only. Keep in mind the 45 was basically the single-speed version of Merlin XX and it was tuned for better altitude performance at the expense of low altitude performance, the cannons and radiators also chipped down quite a bit of speed.

    The 109E figures are from the official type specification sheet for the Bf 109E w. DB 601Aa engine, and the figures closely resemble the 5 min 1.35ata rating achieved on the V15a flight test. So its a bit more fiery at low alt (1045 PS).

    Finally, a bit of nitpicking, "accurate" for the MG 151/15 might not be the best choice of words, it was not bad, and had terrific ballistics and high velocity (~hit probability); however as far as dispersion goes the MG FF was the most accurate and reliable of all cannons in the LW arsenal, and perhaps the world, too, with only 1 mil(!!) bullet dispersion, and practically never jamming. High velocity and ballistic power usually acts against dispersion with automatic weapons, for the simple reason the powerful rounds flex the associated long barrel quite a bit and subsequently fired rounds will suffer for it.
    Spit V's and the Merlin 45 were only limited to +9 in the prototypes... +12 boost was already being used by the earlier versions of the Merlin, (III/XII) in the field and for that reason, there will be no Spit V model limited to +9 in TF 5.0.

    As has been mentioned, Spitfire development focused on achieving higher speeds at high altitude, rather than down low. The decision not to continue with the Merlin RM 2SM two speed supercharger in the Spitfire III, (engine later developed as the Merlin XX in the Hurricane) due to technical difficulties, but instead to quickly release the MkV with the single speed version of the supercharger which equipped the Merlin XX meant low speed performance was sacrificed to a certain extent.

    Regarding the definition of accuracy in a airborne weapon, any description has to include most critically, muzzle velocity, as that element of a weapon's performance is the surest way to increase accuracy and avoid the omnipresent fact of gravitational drop. An airborne weapon fires from all positions, inverted, in a climb, in a dive, etc. etc.... fire from the flat and level almost never happens, and whatever the accuracy an MG/FF might achieve on a bench in a testing lab where convergence can be plotted exactly, knowing the weapon is exactly level, is far less relevant to real world conditions. Higher muzzle velocity means less time for gravity to take effect. This is why the Luftwaffe replaced the MG/FFM with the MG151/20mm. (which had higher dispersion than the MG/FFM but higher muzzle velocity)

  25. #17
    ATAG Member ATAG_Flare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Interior BC --> Kingston ON
    Posts
    2,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    383.91 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    What are the main differences between the HS404 and the MG151/20?

  26. #18
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    320.64 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Flare View Post
    What are the main differences between the HS404 and the MG151/20?
    Recommend you look at this page for a general evaluation.

    http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

    MG151/20mm is 20X82

    Hispano 20mm is 20X110

  27. Likes ATAG_Snapper liked this post
  28. #19
    Supporting Member Karaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    155.92 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    This site is also a useful resource:

    http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gus...n/fgun-in.html

    Mind you however that the values listed in the gun performance table are averaged in regards to muzzle velocity & projectile weight which is less of an issue with the Hispano than with the MG151/20. All 20x82 projectiles for the MG151/20 but the Minengeschoss (92g) were in the 115-117g region. Muzzle velocity of the rounds also varied greatly between 705m/s to 805m/s.

  29. #20
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    It's extremely difficult to model cannon shells effectiveness with any creditable accuracy as there are a considerable number of factors to calculate.

    The emphasis is nearly always placed on blast, but no matter what 20mm shell it carries only a pitiful amount of explosive, the pressure wave radius is extremely small and affected considerably by any voids or hard structures that can channel or reflect the wave, it's extremely complicated.

    The real damage causer in a shell is the fragmentation, whilst the effective pressure wave may be measured in inches, the fragmentation pattern is in feet causing damage much further from the detonation point, post war ammunition development has focused entirely on the fragmentation field, it's density and velocity, modern rounds use less explosive but a far more advanced material for the casing, no modern weapon retains the M-Geschoss principle as this was found to be flawed and less effective than a fragmentation round. even your average terrorist worked out lacing bombs with ball bearings and nails did far more damage than just HE.

  30. #21
    Supporting Member Karaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    155.92 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Gromit, the Luftwaffe came to the exact opposite conclusion, namely that fragmentation as the primary cause of damage is too unreliable as it relies on the statistic probability of a shrapnel hitting something vital. That is why the Minengeschoss round was introduced with the MG FF/M cannon which relies on overpressure blast effects rather than fragmentation. It certainly did not carry a "pitiful" amount of explosive, its 18.6g of HE filler being about 3 times as much as that of other comparable rounds. The Minengeschoss btw lives on in present day ammunition such as the 30mm HE rounds found on the British ADEN & French DEFA cannons (which were heavily influenced by the German MG213 & MK213 revolver cannons).

  31. #22
    Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw View Post
    Spit V's and the Merlin 45 were only limited to +9 in the prototypes... +12 boost was already being used by the earlier versions of the Merlin, (III/XII) in the field and for that reason, there will be no Spit V model limited to +9 in TF 5.0.
    That is a clearly a wrong result of a flawed research for the 1941 period no doubt accepted to give balancing boost for RAF fighters to give them a fighting chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromit View Post
    no modern weapon retains the M-Geschoss principle as this was found to be flawed and less effective than a fragmentation round. even your average terrorist worked out lacing bombs with ball bearings and nails did far more damage than just HE.
    Except of course all the post-war ADEN and DEFA derivatives of the wartime Mauser MG 213 revolver cannon and the Minengeschoss that was de facto standard in all post-war jet fighter designs.

    Fragmentation, especially with tiny fragmentation effect of a small shell is only useful as long as you can damage sensitive critical components in an aircraft, but since in the 1930s all modern designs went to all metal monocoque building, where all the structural loads were taken by the skin itself, rather than by fasteners and braces, it did make sense to destroy the structure itself. This could be better achieved by blast in small enclosed places, as the fragments would be otherwise be stopped by even by structural elements in which they could only cause tiny holes.

    Regardless of whether we speak of the physical work (in case of shells: destruction) done by fragments or gas pressure, they both originate and cannot be greater than the source of their kinetic energy: expanding gas pressure generated by the explosion of the charge, i.e. the total potential energy of the explosives in the shell minus the force needed to break up the shell in the first place. Since traditional fragmentation shells have thicker walls and less explosives (explosive energy - 1/2 - 1/3 in comparison to mine shells in fact) in them than high capacity shells aka "Mine shells",, i.e. both the available energy is less and the energy loss (breaking up the shell) is less in the old type of shell and thus the potential net or "useful" energy (destructive effect) shall be also considerably less.

    The relation of kinetic energy of the projectile vs its chemical energy is also simple to understand: the shell gains all its KE by the propellant that fires it from the barrel (and the propellant that fires the shells is always a magnitudes less powerful and violent than the explosive charge inside the fired shell - otherwise the barrel would simply blow up), and then looses a great deal (cca. 50%) of it due to slowing down by air resistance by the time it actually hits the target. It usually also cannot transfer all that KE into the target (=destruction), but only the amount necessary to penetrate the material(s) that it hits. Of course if it hits and destroys something vital like a main spar connection its already enough, but that's a rare occasion. In contrast, most of the explosion within the shell will be directly used for destruction in the confined structure of an aircraft.
    Last edited by VO101_Kurfurst; Apr-26-2016 at 10:24.

  32. Likes TURK_Enlem, AH-DG liked this post
    Dislikes N/A disliked this post
  33. #23
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by VO101_Kurfurst View Post


    Except of course all the post-war ADEN and DEFA derivatives of the wartime Mauser MG 213 revolver cannon and the Minengeschoss that was de facto standard in all post-war jet fighter designs.

    Fragmentation, especially with tiny fragmentation effect of a small shell is only useful as long as you can damage sensitive critical components in an aircraft, but since in the 1930s all modern designs went to all metal monocoque building, where all the structural loads were taken by the skin itself, rather than by fasteners and braces, it did make sense to destroy the structure itself. This could be better achieved by blast in small enclosed places, as the fragments would be otherwise be stopped by even by structural elements in which they could only cause tiny holes.
    Aden and Defa used the mauser rounds initially but after testing were re designed with less explosive , a heavier case (more fragments) and greater velocity, the originals , and we are talking 30mm here not 20mm, in a much larger 30mm round you would think the concept has merit, but the rounds were were found to be prone to deflection and had very poor penetrating effects, so the M-Geschoss was dropped in the late 50's and no weapon has used the principle since.

    Your second statement is utterly incorrect, and history proves it by charting modern weapons development, even small fragments at the extremely high velocities created by the bursting charge (over 5000ft/sec) create considerable damage to structures over a wider area, which is why modern ammunition uses the principle. High explosive, especially as little as 18g has poor capability to damage structural members even in the close proximity the small blast radius requites, to cut or hole structures shaped charges are used!

    70 years have passed and a lot more scientific testing has proven fragmentation is the king when it comes to creating damage.
    Last edited by Gromit; Apr-26-2016 at 10:22.

  34. Likes vranac liked this post
  35. #24
    Combat pilot
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gromit View Post
    70 years have passed and a lot more scientific testing has proven fragmentation is the king when it comes to creating damage.
    Teller Ede would strongly disagree. Do you see any fragments?



    Now, nobody says that HE shells are a general, end of it all solution (hence why the Germans also retained old type HEIFRAG in the belts) but as far as WW2 goes, that was quite simply the best solution for the given targets, just as full caliber APHE was the best anti tank solution against WW2 targets. I think you are a bit lead astray by the fact that post WW2 the aircraft targets have also greatly changed, jet engines are for example far more vulnerable fragments than pressure, and the aircraft are bigger and tougher as well, and nowadays a fighter could weight as much as a WW2 heavy bomber, and have so much power (thrust) some of them, at least theoretically, can almost fly without even wings. Well actually helicopters do just exactly that. So you have better chances with fragments hitting some of the more numerous and more vulnerable criticals than trying generally smashing down the structure. Not so much in WW2.
    Last edited by VO101_Kurfurst; Apr-26-2016 at 10:42.

  36. #25
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Your grasping at straws bringing up atom bombs in a discussion about autocannon ammunition

    your not really going to argue decades of weapons development has made things less effective, are you?

    Fragments hit pilots, wiring, pneumatics, hydraulics, tyres, joints and control mechanisms as well as structural members, they do that now just as they did back then irrespective of what engines are fitted, 18g of explosives are not enough to create as much damage as fragments do over a much larger radius, and that's the real issue, the blast radius of that small an amount of explosive is literally inches, weapons developments have proven the concept, and discarded the M-Geschoss!

    Did you know the effective radius of a Mills bomb grenade is over 30ft, yet the lethal blast radius ( the distance the shock can kill a human ) is less than 6 ft, an example of the differences between relying on blast and relying on fragmentation!

    Do some research on the work of Gerry Bull if you want enlightening on how much intricate detail is put into the science of fragmentation dispersion and creation,

  37. Likes vranac liked this post
  38. #26
    Supporting Member Vadr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    249
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    "Back in my day, we had to walk to school. 10 miles. Through the snow. Barefoot. Uphill both ways".

    Sorry, this conversation is just funny to me, given how much effort I had to put in to getting the Warbirds devs to model explosive ammunition at *all*. We were basically firing 20 and 30mm slugs at each other for the longest time. I had the head dev come watch a squad practice session one time. Head-on passes in 262s against B-17s. All he wanted to do was marvel at how the shells were going all the way through the bomber and lodging in the tail. Moron.

    Amazing how times have changed in the flightsim world.

    I have nothing constructive to add other than to urge some civility. Carry on smartly gentlemen.

    <S>
    Vadr
    Jagdgeschwader 2 "Richthofen"

    "Most pilots expect their airplanes to perform. The Me 109 expects its pilot to perform." -- A. Galland


  39. Likes Gromit liked this post
  40. #27
    Supporting Member Vlerkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    2,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    4.45 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    20 or 30mm HE canon rounds impacting on a fighter aircraft of the time will have a devastating effect if we are all honest with ourselves here.
    The debates around these rounds of all types is more aimed at bigger planes like heavy bombers and their effectiveness to get them out of the air fast and efficiently with the least amount of ammo expended.

    As I was told while burning in a few seconds flat from .303's, just don't get hit.
    http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=4036&dateline=1382347  940

    If it's brown, shoot it down!

  41. Likes Gromit liked this post
  42. #28
    Supporting Member Gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,350
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    3
    Total Downloaded
    138.5 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    The conversation is about the differences between the Hispano and MG151 as asked above, so you have to look at the whole picture to gauge the effectiveness.

    There is a tendency in gaming circles to bestow the MGS round with magical properties, now no one is saying they didn't go bang and cause damage they obviously did, but the concept was proven later to be flawed in small calibre ammunition.

    what you give with one hand you take away with the other, by making the casing much thinner and using greater filler you remove the mass to create fragments, the down side to this, despite creating a bigger bang was a 20mm shell could not carry enough explosive to make the concept a front runner, 18g is the equivalent of a 1 inch cube of cheese, the other problem lay in the lighter shell often failed to penetrate even deflecting off the aircrafts skin if the angle was insufficient, this also affected the 30mm shell which is why that was re designed as a heavier shell with greater velocity and therefore more striking energy for the ADEN.

    The Hispano round used the explosive as a bursting charge, not so much to create blast but to shatter the shell and create high energy fragments, hence as little as 6g of filler, post war developments showed this was the more effective concept and that is what we see in todays explosive cannon ammunition.

    So when you look at a weapons effect, muzzle velocity and striking power you have to factor in a lot more than just the bang a certain weight of explosive makes!

  43. Likes vranac liked this post
  44. #29
    TF Leadership RAF74_Buzzsaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    11,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    320.64 MB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Kinetic, blast and fragmentation effects are modeled in quite a bit of detail in CoD.

    The weapons systems in the game are a result of further development of the work which went into 1946, and are probably the most complex seen in a Flight Sim.

    In combination with an extremely detailed damage system, there is really no other game which reachs CoD's standards.

    The above arguments are really in fact, irrelevant, all the concerns have already been met.

  45. Likes vranac liked this post
  46. #30
    Supporting Member III./ZG76_Saipan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    orange county, california
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like
    Total Downloaded
    3.0 KB

    Re: Spit V vs 109F...

    Quote Originally Posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw View Post
    Kinetic, blast and fragmentation effects are modeled in quite a bit of detail in CoD.

    The weapons systems in the game are a result of further development of the work which went into 1946, and are probably the most complex seen in a Flight Sim.

    In combination with an extremely detailed damage system, there is really no other game which reachs CoD's standards.

    The above arguments are really in fact, irrelevant, all the concerns have already been met.
    on a side note, getting too close to a burning fuel storage facility on fire will cause your plane to ignite. not sure if you high alt fliers knew that.
    ASUS Z370-A, i5 8600k, CM haf-x, EVGA gtx 1660 Ti SC ACX, Antec HC 850, Samsung 120GB SSD , WD Black 1TB, Corsair GSkill 16GB, Creative SB Recon, Creative G500 5.1, ASUS VS248h-P
    Me-110 Black 17 with Hptmn. Hans "AWAC" Warsteiner
    :
    Trust me , I fly a Bf 110 (C2-->C7)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •