PDA

View Full Version : Ball VII ammo?



9./JG52 Mindle
Feb-16-2014, 06:25
Many RAF drivers seem not to use any ball VII ammo in their loadouts.

What is the general feeling on how useful this ammo type is, compared to the AP round?

Maybe not so good against armoured bombers but surely it can damage wings / control surfaces of fighters?

:salute:

Headshot
Feb-16-2014, 07:52
No expert here,but ball ammo will make a bigger hole and shred surfaces where AP makes a neat hole. A mix of the two is best. If you search the forum you will find plenty of info on loadouts.:salute:

Wulf
Feb-16-2014, 08:34
Many RAF drivers seem not to use any ball VII ammo in their loadouts.

What is the general feeling on how useful this ammo type is, compared to the AP round?

Maybe not so good against armoured bombers but surely it can damage wings / control surfaces of fighters?

:salute:

I don't know if the original properties of the Mk VII round are actually modeled in the game. Someone may know. If they are, the Mk VII should make quite a useful addition to a belt. The Mk VII was introduced following the Hague Convention which outlawed the use of expanding ammunition in infantry weapons (or so-called Dum Dum bullets). Because the Mk VII was a 'full patch' or 'full metal jacket' design it fell outside the restrictions (on hollow points) imposed by the Convention. However, the Mk VII was manufactured with a specially designed composite core with the forward section being aluminum (usually, although other light-weight materials were also used) and the base section lead. The light weight nose section made the projectile highly unstable which, more often than not, made it highly prone to tumbling after striking an object. This tumbling motion resulted in more sever wounding. AP rounds on the other hand are not designed to tumble, for obvious reasons.

Skoshi_Tiger
Feb-16-2014, 08:35
Here's what a .303 MkVII round will do to a steel plough disk at 50 or so metres.

7559

The thin aluminum on planes would be no problems at all and you see why they ended up having to put a 70lb steel plate as armor behind the spitfire seat.

The benefit of using the armor piercing rounds would be that the round remains fairly intact after penetrating. The MK.VII would tear itself apart causing less subsequent damage.

Cheers!

Hubert Bigglesworth
Feb-16-2014, 11:26
Here's what a .303 MkVII round will do to a steel plough disk at 50 or so metres.

7559

The thin aluminum on planes would be no problems at all and you see why they ended up having to put a 70lb steel plate as armor behind the spitfire seat.

The benefit of using the armor piercing rounds would be that the round remains fairly intact after penetrating. The MK.VII would tear itself apart causing less subsequent damage.

Cheers!



+1

S! Hub

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-16-2014, 11:58
+1

S! Hub

Just a side note: Hubert -- I'm still working my way through all those links you sent me on accurizing my Lee Enfield sporter rifle. I've finally developed the optimal .303 British load for it: 47.0 grains Hodgson BLC-2 pushing a Hornady Spire Point 150 gr at 2650 fps (muzzle). From the bench I'm grouping slightly under 3" at 100 meters; your tips shoot tighten it up a bit further. :thumbsup:

Zisi
Feb-20-2014, 13:43
Holes in wings don't down aircraft, they just slightly to moderately affect turning and things it's not a big deal imo. What downs aircraft are radiators, oil rads, engine damage, control surfaces, etc. It used to be that ball was basically worthless, thats not the case anymore, however I am fairly certain that AP is still slightly more reliable at causing that kind of damage.

Ball doesn't add any new "killing blow" damage types, dewilde does however. If you mix in ball, your ratio of dewilde to ap/ball is less, and that's really where you lose out. A fire on a 109 or ai bomber is a kill, and now dewilde can actually do some other types of damage besides fires, namely radiator and pilot kills. So dewilde is very much worth considering.

What ratio of the two is optimal, I'm not entirely sure. I've generally gone with AP/AP/Inc or AP/Inc however lately I've been wondering if mixing inc on the red side is actually worth it. The overall damage that MG's do is down a fair bit from the last patch, and I've started shooting just until the rads go, and then either leaving, or maneuvering until he loses power or runs. Even with AP/Inc, I just don't see fires that often vs fighters.

So yeah do your own experimentation with ratios of AP and Dewilde, even full dewilde, see what works for you.

Skoshi_Tiger
Feb-21-2014, 06:11
From the bench I'm grouping slightly under 3" at 100 meters; your tips shoot tighten it up a bit further. :thumbsup:

3 inches. Wow! That's a real tack driver! (for a Lee-Enfield).

My twelve inch groups (shown above) were fired from the shoulder and afterwards I found I had split off one of the recoil buffers on the lower forewood. Because I didn't notice it and kept on shooting I did more damage to the section where it touches the metal band at the wrist. :( Apparently it's fixable but I had a replacement for emergency purposes on hand. I haven't had a chance to run any round through it yet to see how she shoots. ( I only get a chance to shoot her one or twice a year - if that)

Very impressed! :thumbsup:

Gromit
Feb-21-2014, 11:00
3 inches. Wow! That's a real tack driver! (for a Lee-Enfield).

My twelve inch groups (shown above) were fired from the shoulder and afterwards I found I had split off one of the recoil buffers on the lower forewood. Because I didn't notice it and kept on shooting I did more damage to the section where it touches the metal band at the wrist. :( Apparently it's fixable but I had a replacement for emergency purposes on hand. I haven't had a chance to run any round through it yet to see how she shoots. ( I only get a chance to shoot her one or twice a year - if that)

Very impressed! :thumbsup:

3" with an Enfield is better than factory test if I recall? :thumbsup:

A guy I shoot with is messing about with harmonics to tighten up the groups on his No4 (185grain is his choice I believe) , He tried adjusting the barrel tension at the muzzle but is experimenting with an adjustable harmonic block now.

It might work as the Enfield barrel is quite slim and whippy for .303!

Catseye
Feb-21-2014, 11:17
I don't know if the original properties of the Mk VII round are actually modeled in the game.

Yes they are!

What is still being worked on and much more difficult to accomplish is the damage model of COD regardless of the rounds used.

Catseye
Feb-21-2014, 11:19
+1

S! Hub

Except for the .303 AP which during tests on aircraft skin did not have the energy or mass to continue to penetrate interior components (including seat armor plating) and therefore was deemed ineffective.

It is modeled this way in COD.

The best you can get out of it is PK's.

Ball will serve you much better and the best is the DeWilde round.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-21-2014, 11:19
3" with an Enfield is better than factory test if I recall? :thumbsup:

A guy I shoot with is messing about with harmonics to tighten up the groups on his No4 (185grain is his choice I believe) , He tried adjusting the barrel tension at the muzzle but is experimenting with an adjustable harmonic block now.

It might work as the Enfield barrel is quite slim and whippy for .303!

Yeah, but this ain't no factory Enfield! LOL

It's sporterised with a Nikon scope mounted. It was used by its previous owner in club target shooting competitions back in the '60's. It has a #3 bolt head which tightens up the head spacing at the rim considerably. The ammo is handloaded from fire-formed brass (purchased new -- RP -- and annealed by me) and only neck re-sized. I did run a bunch of 174 gr roundnose through with various charges, but returned back to the 150 gr spire points because they grouped better with my rifle. The rifling shows its age but still does its job, and the muzzle crown is ding-free. :D. The barrel is not free floating because it is whippy; there's about 5 lbs of upward pressure exerted by the tip of the forestock -- about halfway up.

It's just a fun shooter. It wouldn't win any medals for whatever rifle class this puppy would be assigned!

I wonder how a belt of my ammo would shoot through a Spitfire's Browning? (Just to try to stay wretchedly on topic).

:)

Gromit
Feb-21-2014, 11:49
Yeah, but this ain't no factory Enfield! LOL

It's sporterised with a Nikon scope mounted. It was used by its previous owner in club target shooting competitions back in the '60's. It has a #3 bolt head which tightens up the head spacing at the rim considerably. The ammo is handloaded from fire-formed brass (purchased new -- RP -- and annealed by me) and only neck re-sized. I did run a bunch of 174 gr roundnose through with various charges, but returned back to the 150 gr spire points because they grouped better with my rifle. The rifling shows its age but still does its job, and the muzzle crown is ding-free. :D. The barrel is not free floating because it is whippy; there's about 5 lbs of upward pressure exerted by the tip of the forestock -- about halfway up.

It's just a fun shooter. It wouldn't win any medals for whatever rifle class this puppy would be assigned!

I wonder how a belt of my ammo would shoot through a Spitfire's Browning? (Just to try to stay wretchedly on topic).

:)

3" is pretty damn good for a "fun shooter" mate, My mate tried different muzzle tensions but has installed a sliding block into the forestock with an otherwise floating barrel, this contacts the barrel and adds a little preload, the idea being you move this block up and down the barrel until you hit the sweet spot where the barrel frequency (load relative) puts the muzzle dead centre at the time the bullet leaves the muzzle!

Don't know if this will work on an Enfield, not heard of one being tried, although a couple of comp shooters use them?

(to claw our way back to topic), as I understand it the .303 load for HMG/Browning/Vickers was magnum loaded, not recommended for the Enfield?

Wulf
Feb-21-2014, 17:34
Yeah, but this ain't no factory Enfield! LOL

It's sporterised with a Nikon scope mounted. It was used by its previous owner in club target shooting competitions back in the '60's. It has a #3 bolt head which tightens up the head spacing at the rim considerably. The ammo is handloaded from fire-formed brass (purchased new -- RP -- and annealed by me) and only neck re-sized. I did run a bunch of 174 gr roundnose through with various charges, but returned back to the 150 gr spire points because they grouped better with my rifle. The rifling shows its age but still does its job, and the muzzle crown is ding-free. :D. The barrel is not free floating because it is whippy; there's about 5 lbs of upward pressure exerted by the tip of the forestock -- about halfway up.

It's just a fun shooter. It wouldn't win any medals for whatever rifle class this puppy would be assigned!

I wonder how a belt of my ammo would shoot through a Spitfire's Browning? (Just to try to stay wretchedly on topic).

:)

Snapper

I've read that .303 projectiles (at least some of the more easly obtained jacketed factory stuff) come in two sizes. Speer and Sierra produce their projectiles in .311 (groove dia.) while Hornady make theirs in .312. I suspect you know this but if you haven't already tried the Hornady projectiles it might pay to give them a go.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-21-2014, 18:13
Snapper

I've read that .303 projectiles (at least some of the more easly obtained jacketed factory stuff) come in two sizes. Speer and Sierra produce their projectiles in .311 (groove dia.) while Hornady make theirs in .312. I suspect you know this but if you haven't already tried the Hornady projectiles it might pay to give them a go.

Yes, thanks Wulf. I've tried both Hornady and Sierra in 150 gr and they seem to shoot equally well with the same powder types and charges. I wondered about that as well, to be honest, but it didn't seem to make a difference. The Hornady projectile has a cannelure which, although I don't crimp my rounds, gives me an excellent visual reference to ensure the seating depth hasn't changed for whatever reason while I'm reloading. I check Over All Length with an micrometer to make sure, anyway, but it's still nice to have that visual cue.

:)

Hubert Bigglesworth
Feb-21-2014, 22:43
Except for the .303 AP which during tests on aircraft skin did not have the energy or mass to continue to penetrate interior components (including seat armor plating) and therefore was deemed ineffective.

It is modeled this way in COD.

The best you can get out of it is PK's.

Ball will serve you much better and the best is the DeWilde round.


Hi.

Sorry Catseye i wasn't disputing the effects of the ammunition types modeled in TF 4.00, mearly agreeing with Tigers post concerning the differences between MKVII Ball and MKVIIW or Wz (AP).

Yes all the reports i've seen on this subject state .30"cal (nominal) projectiles lacked the energy to effectively penertrate the protective armour, but thats not to say some wouldn't reach the armour, as the projectile passes through the aircraft skin it looses some of its velocity and therefore energy, also it will become some what destabalized again how much depends on the durability of the skin and the striking angle, range etc, the projectile may also be robbed of some of its mass (more energy lost) and also become deformed by penertrating the skin, but the projectile would continue to fly or tumble until it hits something substantial enough to stop it or totally fragment it, or the projectile penertrates the skin again and leaves the plane. But systems in this area can become damaged or shot away.
British Proof tests on AP ammo were concerened with ability of manufactured ammunition to penertrate 10mm of Armour plate at 100 Yards with a 90 degree striking angle, 70% penertration to pass proof. This was bare plate with no skin or structure between it and the projectile at only 100yards with 90 degree strike angle, a very big difference when compared to aerial use under combat/service conditions, i'm in total agreement.


A little bit of interesting info here, as i'm sure many of you have already read, but for the one's who haven't....


http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm


First Paragraph under the heading "The Ammunition" showing the effects of British AP tested against German AP on the light structure of a Blenhiem, only 4mm plate at 60 degree angle from 200 Yards.

A rather short description of a test with no official report numbers to reference, i know. But it does give people some idea of the planes skin/structures ability to stop or deflect bullets before even reaching the plate, again under test conditions rather than actual service conditions.

Just as Tiger's picture shows the damage plain Ball rounds are capable of inflicting on a piece of tough steel, and should be of interest to all CLOD-ers i'm sure.

I'm also in agreement that there's very little on the aircraft we fly in Cliffs (TF4.00) that specifically needs .303"AP rounds to penertrate or that AP offers any major advantage over Ball Ammunition in this area. And this is just one of the many nice details of the weapons modeling in TF4.00.

Finally a big thanks to Everyone TF for the fantastic work so far and the attention to detail in all areas. Big S!!


Best Regards Hub S!

Broodwich
Feb-24-2014, 22:28
Holes in wings don't down aircraft, they just slightly to moderately affect turning and things it's not a big deal imo. What downs aircraft are radiators, oil rads, engine damage, control surfaces, etc. It used to be that ball was basically worthless, thats not the case anymore, however I am fairly certain that AP is still slightly more reliable at causing that kind of damage.

Ball doesn't add any new "killing blow" damage types, dewilde does however. If you mix in ball, your ratio of dewilde to ap/ball is less, and that's really where you lose out. A fire on a 109 or ai bomber is a kill, and now dewilde can actually do some other types of damage besides fires, namely radiator and pilot kills. So dewilde is very much worth considering.

What ratio of the two is optimal, I'm not entirely sure. I've generally gone with AP/AP/Inc or AP/Inc however lately I've been wondering if mixing inc on the red side is actually worth it. The overall damage that MG's do is down a fair bit from the last patch, and I've started shooting just until the rads go, and then either leaving, or maneuvering until he loses power or runs. Even with AP/Inc, I just don't see fires that often vs fighters.

So yeah do your own experimentation with ratios of AP and Dewilde, even full dewilde, see what works for you.

Ive actually been trying only dewilde lately and I have gotten quite a lot of fires, unfortunately almost none of them are fatal and my target will still keep on truckin until they go out, even when his leaking coolant and fuel are streaming through the flames. Its an improvement, though. AI peaces out the second you light a candle on its tail so it makes for great bomber killing, and the dewilde rounds still puncture rads when you hit them so not a big deal on skipping everything else

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-25-2014, 02:12
Ive actually been trying only dewilde lately and I have gotten quite a lot of fires, unfortunately almost none of them are fatal and my target will still keep on truckin until they go out, even when his leaking coolant and fuel are streaming through the flames. Its an improvement, though. AI peaces out the second you light a candle on its tail so it makes for great bomber killing, and the dewilde rounds still puncture rads when you hit them so not a big deal on skipping everything else

One of the things the fires are good for is making the target more visible.
However, you're right that the fires do not seem to result in panic for the pilot. Flying on for quite a while whilst on fire is common place.

Roblex
Feb-25-2014, 02:35
OK. During the course of this thread we seem to have progressed from 'Don't waste your time with ball when you could be using AP' to 'AP can't penetrate pilot armour so just use ball' Did I understand that right?

Personally the reason I started using AP was not to penetrate the pilot armour from dead 6, I kind of assumed that was not going to happen, it was on the assumption that AP would do more damage to a bomber engine than ball. Perhaps that is a wrong assumption. Of course I know that AP wont go through an engine block but I just visualised more damage to the rest of the engine with AP. Maybe in real life that would be true but we don't have detailed enough damage model of small engine components to make it true in CLOD?

Wulf
Feb-25-2014, 03:43
OK. During the course of this thread we seem to have progressed from 'Don't waste your time with ball when you could be using AP' to 'AP can't penetrate pilot armour so just use ball' Did I understand that right?

Personally the reason I started using AP was not to penetrate the pilot armour from dead 6, I kind of assumed that was not going to happen, it was on the assumption that AP would do more damage to a bomber engine than ball. Perhaps that is a wrong assumption. Of course I know that AP wont go through an engine block but I just visualised more damage to the rest of the engine with AP. Maybe in real life that would be true but we don't have detailed enough damage model of small engine components to make it true in CLOD?


Why do you think AP rounds wouldn't go through an engine block? I strongly suspect they would. I've put hunting projectiles (that are supposed to mushroom on impact) clean through 5mm steel plate so, that being the case, I'd have thought AP should really bugger up an engine block.

Gromit
Feb-25-2014, 15:29
Why do you think AP rounds wouldn't go through an engine block? I strongly suspect they would. I've put hunting projectiles (that are supposed to mushroom on impact) clean through 5mm steel plate so, that being the case, I'd have thought AP should really bugger up an engine block.

Engine blocks and heads tend to be cast alloy, even ball rounds will have little difficulty cracking that!

The AP is bordering on useless so I dropped it from my load out, only way you get a PK on a 109 now is with a deflection shot!

Roblex
Feb-25-2014, 15:37
Why do you think AP rounds wouldn't go through an engine block? I strongly suspect they would. I've put hunting projectiles (that are supposed to mushroom on impact) clean through 5mm steel plate so, that being the case, I'd have thought AP should really bugger up an engine block.

Because an engine block is at least 15mm thick at the thinnest sections and at least 25mm at the thickest. Obviously there are a lot of external bits that would be destroyed on a real engine eg pumps and pipes and cables etc. and I am assuming that these are what the oil leaks and fires are simulating.

Gromit
Feb-25-2014, 15:52
Because an engine block is at least 15mm thick at the thinnest sections and at least 25mm at the thickest. Obviously there are a lot of external bits that would be destroyed on a real engine eg pumps and pipes and cables etc. and I am assuming that these are what the oil leaks and fires are simulating.

Cast Alloy is brittle compared to steel or forged alloy, you can expect it to fracture when hit by high energy bullets!



A bit OT, but have a look at this video , high speed camera capturing bullets impacting on several different thicknesses and materials!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg

Catseye
Feb-25-2014, 16:09
Hi.

Sorry Catseye i wasn't disputing the effects of the ammunition types modeled in TF 4.00, mearly agreeing with Tigers post concerning the differences between MKVII Ball and MKVIIW or Wz (AP).

Yes all the reports i've seen on this subject state .30"cal (nominal) projectiles lacked the energy to effectively penertrate the protective armour, but thats not to say some wouldn't reach the armour, as the projectile passes through the aircraft skin it looses some of its velocity and therefore energy, also it will become some what destabalized again how much depends on the durability of the skin and the striking angle, range etc, the projectile may also be robbed of some of its mass (more energy lost) and also become deformed by penertrating the skin, but the projectile would continue to fly or tumble until it hits something substantial enough to stop it or totally fragment it, or the projectile penertrates the skin again and leaves the plane. But systems in this area can become damaged or shot away.
British Proof tests on AP ammo were concerened with ability of manufactured ammunition to penertrate 10mm of Armour plate at 100 Yards with a 90 degree striking angle, 70% penertration to pass proof. This was bare plate with no skin or structure between it and the projectile at only 100yards with 90 degree strike angle, a very big difference when compared to aerial use under combat/service conditions, i'm in total agreement.


A little bit of interesting info here, as i'm sure many of you have already read, but for the one's who haven't....


http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm


First Paragraph under the heading "The Ammunition" showing the effects of British AP tested against German AP on the light structure of a Blenhiem, only 4mm plate at 60 degree angle from 200 Yards.

A rather short description of a test with no official report numbers to reference, i know. But it does give people some idea of the planes skin/structures ability to stop or deflect bullets before even reaching the plate, again under test conditions rather than actual service conditions.

Just as Tiger's picture shows the damage plain Ball rounds are capable of inflicting on a piece of tough steel, and should be of interest to all CLOD-ers i'm sure.

I'm also in agreement that there's very little on the aircraft we fly in Cliffs (TF4.00) that specifically needs .303"AP rounds to penertrate or that AP offers any major advantage over Ball Ammunition in this area. And this is just one of the many nice details of the weapons modeling in TF4.00.

Finally a big thanks to Everyone TF for the fantastic work so far and the attention to detail in all areas. Big S!!


Best Regards Hub S!

Hi Hubert,
Good post.

Just speaking from the Cliffs perspective I can clearly state that the RAF loadouts with the most success are in order - DeWilde, White Tracer, Ball . . . . . . . . . . AP way down the line. A mix of DeWilde/Ball with some White tracer for aiming purposes has the most affect under my testing. AP is good for PK's it seems so throwing some AP into the mix if you want to increase the probability of PK's would work.

Cats . . .
ps. Thanks for your input during the last TF phase. Very useful indeed - particularly in the areas of British incendiary (weep holes and such).

Hubert Bigglesworth
Feb-25-2014, 23:03
Hi. Cats.

A pleasure Sir.

S!! Hub.

Wulf
Feb-26-2014, 04:04
Because an engine block is at least 15mm thick at the thinnest sections and at least 25mm at the thickest. Obviously there are a lot of external bits that would be destroyed on a real engine eg pumps and pipes and cables etc. and I am assuming that these are what the oil leaks and fires are simulating.



Pretty much what Gromit said.

If hit cleanly, an AP round would go right through cast iron or cast alloy like a hot knife through butter. However, and as others have mentioned, this capacity for penetration could be significantly reduced if the AP round firstly strikes a part of the aircraft superstructure before going on to strike the engine (or armour plating). AP rounds incorporate a hardened steel or tungsten penetrator inside a lead core which is then enclosed in a mild steel or copper alloy jacket. An aircraft skin would have little if any affect on the integrity of one of these bullets but a hit on a bit of superstructure would likely result in significant deflection and or stripping of the lead core from the penetrator. If the penetrator separates from the core (in part or fully) and then strikes the engine or armour plating at a less than optimal (perpendicular) angle (sideways for example), then penetration is likely to be greatly reduced. That said, AP rounds (if modeled correctly) should be at least as destructive as ball when coming into contact with aircraft components. Furthermore, ball ammo is at least as likely to deflect or suffer core separation as AP.

The critical difference between the two ammo types is that whereas the hardened penetrator in an AP round will, in some circumstances, defeat 10+ mm of armour, ball rounds won't, not even a little bit.

Archie
Feb-26-2014, 04:16
Interesting thread.I'm running a mix of AP and De Wilde, but reading this, it, looks like I need to stick some ball back in to the mix

9./JG52 Mindle
Feb-26-2014, 05:23
Gonna try a 3.2.1.mix

DW
DW
DW
AP
AP
VII

Skoshi_Tiger
Feb-26-2014, 07:23
Pretty much what Gromit said.

If hit cleanly, an AP round would go right through cast iron or cast alloy like a hot knife through butter. However, and as others have mentioned, this capacity for penetration could be significantly reduced if the AP round firstly strikes a part of the aircraft superstructure before going on to strike the engine (or armour plating). AP rounds incorporate a hardened steel or tungsten penetrator inside a lead core which is then enclosed in a mild steel or copper alloy jacket. An aircraft skin would have little if any affect on the integrity of one of these bullets but a hit on a bit of superstructure would likely result in significant deflection and or stripping of the lead core from the penetrator. If the penetrator separates from the core (in part or fully) and then strikes the engine or armour plating at a less than optimal (perpendicular) angle (sideways for example), then penetration is likely to be greatly reduced.

+1



That said, AP rounds (if modeled correctly) should be at least as destructive as ball when coming into contact with aircraft components. Furthermore, ball ammo is at least as likely to deflect or suffer core separation as AP.



+1 In the case of the .303 MkVII rounds where the round is specifically designed to tumble after impact ( it is designed with the center of gravity at towards the rear of the round) . This tumbling is so violent, that even hitting soft objects (like a person), the round often tears itself apart. (see below)



The critical difference between the two ammo types is that whereas the hardened penetrator in an AP round will, in some circumstances, defeat 10+ mm of armour, ball rounds won't, not even a little bit.

+1, (well maybe dent it a bit.)

I suppose a question is what would a mark VII round do to the water jacket of cast iron engine block in one of these warbirds?


Quote taken from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/32360/20100306-0022/www.diggerhistory.info/pages-weapons/303.html


This design firstly ensured that the bullet was long for its weight, which is not a bad thing at all for enhanced long range performance. Mainly, however, the bullet’s centre of gravity was now further to the rear, which caused it to be unstable on impact and prone to tumbling. This of course greatly increased its wounding potential, but never mind - it had a full metal jacket to keep the politicians happy! Hypocritical, isn’t it? Here was a bullet far more devastating than the original "dum dum", but which was now acceptable because it didn’t actually expand - it just tumbled through like a buzz-saw! That’s politics for you. Are you surprised? No, I didn’t think you would be.

I can certainly attest to the effectiveness of this design, having seen first-hand the effects of .303 rifles during post mortems. Typically it breaks into bits, and the sight of the aluminium tip on an X-ray is always a sure sign that you are dealing with a .303. Interestingly enough, the tip is not always of aluminium.

Wulf
Feb-26-2014, 08:15
I'd think that almost any 'solid hit' by almost any type of .303/7.92mm round, on a liquid cooled aircraft engine would, in most instances, do enough damage to put it out of action.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Feb-26-2014, 09:28
Gonna try a 3.2.1.mix

DW
DW
DW
AP
AP
VII

I would stagger the order by one round for each gun. That way, you've got a mix of types leaving the barrels with each shot.

9./JG52 Mindle
Feb-26-2014, 09:59
Absolutely. That is just the ratio. :thumbsup:

DW-AP-DW-VII-DW-AP
AP-DW-VII-DW-AP-DW
DW-VII-DW-AP-DW-AP
VII-DW-AP-DW-AP-DW(orTR) res:7 RED

VII-DW-AP-DW-AP-DW(orTR) res:7 RED
DW-VII-DW-AP-DW-AP
AP-DW-VII-DW-AP-DW
DW-AP-DW-VII-DW-AP


183m / 400m

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-01-2014, 10:42
Well these threads on ball v. AP have me even more confused. AP should absolutely be superior to ball ammo for our purposes...whether causing structural damage, system damage, or PKs. If it's not so in the sim then something is amiss. The test reports of AP's poor penetration after striking a/c skin or structural members should be considered in comparison to that of ball....basically if AP performed poorly, ball would have been worse, probably much worse. Same with DeWilde, while it may be effective for starting fires, it's terminal ballistics should be similar to that of plain old ball ammo.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-01-2014, 14:46
The comment that AP ammo is useless is incorrect.

AP will penetrate better and do that at longer ranges than Ball.

You are more likely to get pilot kills with AP than with Ball.

A good combination of AP, DeWildle and Ball is your best bet.

That being said, there are some changes to the damage modeling in TF 4.2 which will see more fires and PK's with all ammo types.

Broodwich
Mar-02-2014, 10:45
Ah excellent, does that mean you no longer have to get a head shot to get a pk?

Gromit
Mar-02-2014, 11:39
Well these threads on ball v. AP have me even more confused. AP should absolutely be superior to ball ammo for our purposes...whether causing structural damage, system damage, or PKs. If it's not so in the sim then something is amiss. The test reports of AP's poor penetration after striking a/c skin or structural members should be considered in comparison to that of ball....basically if AP performed poorly, ball would have been worse, probably much worse. Same with DeWilde, while it may be effective for starting fires, it's terminal ballistics should be similar to that of plain old ball ammo.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Ball is heavier, fragments and deforms, consider a flattened or buckled round ricocheting through wiring, longerons piping etc, ball is quite good as ripping unarmoured things to bits, AP carries less residual energy as it's lighter and will not deform or fragment , end result is less area damage, but it should penetrate better in theory, unfortunately first you have to penetrate the skin and this can cause the round to deflect and tumble reducing it's ability to penetrate!

If you shoot a single 6mm armour plate at 90deg with AP it will probably punch through dependant on range, but if you now add in an angled alloy plate or a few alloy structural members the chance is the rounds going to deflect and prevent the round penetrating, it doesn't take much to deflect a bullet from a straight path!

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-02-2014, 13:37
"Ball is heavier, fragments and deforms, consider a flattened or buckled round ricocheting through wiring, longerons piping etc, ball is quite good as ripping unarmoured things to bits, AP carries less residual energy as it's lighter and will not deform or fragment , end result is less area damage, but it should penetrate better in theory, unfortunately first you have to penetrate the skin and this can cause the round to deflect and tumble reducing it's ability to penetrate!"

~S~ Grommit,

I'm not sure ball is heavier than AP...not a .303 expert, but weren't both bullets ~174gr? I guess I also have doubts that the fragments from a deflected/ricochet .30 cal ball round would be likely to cause significant damage to an a/c (barring the "golden BB" fragment). Kinetic shock and bullet fragments inside an animal or human cause bad things, not so sure same fragments would cut tough control wires, metal pipes, etc. Seems an intact tumbling AP round would still pose more of a damage threat than a fragmented or flattened or ricoched (actions which also suck energy from the projectile) ball round. Even the original .30 cal round "as fired" is marginal at penetrating and causing damage, a fragment of same after losing energy has got to be almost benign.

V/R

AKA Knutsac

Hubert Bigglesworth
Mar-02-2014, 13:47
Hi.

For .303" info or other British small arm ammunition info look at this site. The information is accurate and reliable.

https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/-303-inch/-303-inch-armour-piercing

S! Hub.

Wulf
Mar-02-2014, 17:26
"Ball is heavier, fragments and deforms, consider a flattened or buckled round ricocheting through wiring, longerons piping etc, ball is quite good as ripping unarmoured things to bits, AP carries less residual energy as it's lighter and will not deform or fragment , end result is less area damage, but it should penetrate better in theory, unfortunately first you have to penetrate the skin and this can cause the round to deflect and tumble reducing it's ability to penetrate!"

~S~ Grommit,

I'm not sure ball is heavier than AP...not a .303 expert, but weren't both bullets ~174gr? I guess I also have doubts that the fragments from a deflected/ricochet .30 cal ball round would be likely to cause significant damage to an a/c (barring the "golden BB" fragment). Kinetic shock and bullet fragments inside an animal or human cause bad things, not so sure same fragments would cut tough control wires, metal pipes, etc. Seems an intact tumbling AP round would still pose more of a damage threat than a fragmented or flattened or ricoched (actions which also suck energy from the projectile) ball round. Even the original .30 cal round "as fired" is marginal at penetrating and causing damage, a fragment of same after losing energy has got to be almost benign.

V/R

AKA Knutsac




Yeah, I tend to agree that small bullet fragments probably wouldn't, in most instances, do a huge amount of damage although obviously, in some cases, they could and would - but not typically I'd have thought. And AP would be just as likely as ball to suffer core separation however, I strongly doubt whether a strike on an aircraft skin (as opposed to a bit of super structure) would have any impact at all on the flight of an AP round. And as far as I'm aware, ball and AP weigh the same (174 gr as Knutsac mentioned). This is important because as soon as you incorporate projectiles of differing weights in the same loadout you will get inaccuracy due to differing muzzle velocities and ballistic coefficients. In other words, it's much harder to get them all to shoot to the same point of aim. This is most clearly demonstrated by the use of Mine shells in the MGFF/M cannon and indeed, when trying to harmonize cannons with MGs in the same aircraft.

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-02-2014, 18:34
Regardless of our armchair conjecture, I guess the fact that the RAF seems to have removed .303 ball from fixed gun loadouts and shifted completely to incendiary and AP rounds speaks to their relative effectiveness.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Roblex
Mar-13-2014, 05:06
Hi Hubert,
Good post.

Just speaking from the Cliffs perspective I can clearly state that the RAF loadouts with the most success are in order - DeWilde, White Tracer, Ball . . . . . . . . . . AP way down the line. A mix of DeWilde/Ball with some White tracer for aiming purposes has the most affect under my testing. AP is good for PK's it seems so throwing some AP into the mix if you want to increase the probability of PK's would work.

Cats . . .
ps. Thanks for your input during the last TF phase. Very useful indeed - particularly in the areas of British incendiary (weep holes and such).

Catseye,
Kling has been talking about the new engine fire effects and seems to feel that fires are really pretty much 'cosmetic' so when an engine streams flames then it has already suffered fatal kinetic damage and the flames are just eye-candy that don't cause any extra damage. How does that fit in with your feeling that DW does more damage? If all fires are cosmetic then we may as well replace all DW with ball. Perhaps the extra effectiveness is because AI pilots will bail when on fire even if there is no extra damage being caused? If that is true then maybe TF could consider making fire spread and cause a catastrophic failure in the affected part, eg wing collapse or fuel tank explosion, after a certain time has passed so that human pilots do not continue to dogfight while on fire.

I am assuming that De-Wilde does at least mean the difference between slow death from a fuel tank leak and rapid death from a fire but is even that true? Are the engine fires we see from DW hits not so much 'leaking fuel igniting and making the damage worse' so much as 'Fatal engine damage causing a purely cosmetic fire'? Kling does say that TF does not fully understand the DM yet so maybe you disagree with his assumption. It does seem fairly certain that setting fire to elevators and wings does no damage at all. Even if the pilots dives to put them out, you would expect there to be extra skin missing and a corresponding reduction in control response.

****Addendum*** It seems I was wrong and small fires *do* cause damage to control surfaces if not put out.

Mattias
Mar-13-2014, 05:36
Catseye,
Kling has been talking about the new engine fire effects and seems to feel that fires are really pretty much 'cosmetic' so when an engine streams flames then it has already suffered fatal kinetic damage and the flames are just eye-candy that don't cause any extra damage. How does that fit in with your feeling that DW does more damage? If all fires are cosmetic then we may as well replace all DW with ball. Perhaps the extra effectiveness is because AI pilots will bail when on fire even if there is no extra damage being caused? If that is true then maybe TF could consider making fire spread and cause a catastrophic failure in the affected part, eg wing collapse or fuel tank explosion, after a certain time has passed so that human pilots do not continue to dogfight while on fire.

I am assuming that De-Wilde does at least mean the difference between slow death from a fuel tank leak and rapid death from a fire but is even that true? Are the engine fires we see from DW hits not so much 'leaking fuel igniting and making the damage worse' so much as 'Fatal engine damage causing a purely cosmetic fire'? Kling does say that TF does not fully understand the DM yet so maybe you disagree with his assumption. It does seem fairly certain that setting fire to elevators and wings does no damage at all. Even if the pilots dives to put them out, you would expect there to be extra skin missing and a corresponding reduction in control response.

:salute: Roblex,

most fires do spread and cause damage, but the speed of the aircraft can suppress this. Where there is a fire there is a fire, but the damage-causing intensity of it is not necessarily linked to the visual intensity of it. IE if we tweak the fabric fire visual effect, beefing it up to look like a forest fire, this tweak alone wont make the fire any more lethal. The original developers left a few instances of this problem behind, where what you see don't correspond to what the damage model "feels". We hope to correct these oddities for TF5 :thumbsup:

Cheers/m

Catseye
Mar-13-2014, 11:33
Catseye,
Kling has been talking about the new engine fire effects and seems to feel that fires are really pretty much 'cosmetic' so when an engine streams flames then it has already suffered fatal kinetic damage and the flames are just eye-candy that don't cause any extra damage. How does that fit in with your feeling that DW does more damage? If all fires are cosmetic then we may as well replace all DW with ball. Perhaps the extra effectiveness is because AI pilots will bail when on fire even if there is no extra damage being caused? If that is true then maybe TF could consider making fire spread and cause a catastrophic failure in the affected part, eg wing collapse or fuel tank explosion, after a certain time has passed so that human pilots do not continue to dogfight while on fire.

I am assuming that De-Wilde does at least mean the difference between slow death from a fuel tank leak and rapid death from a fire but is even that true? Are the engine fires we see from DW hits not so much 'leaking fuel igniting and making the damage worse' so much as 'Fatal engine damage causing a purely cosmetic fire'? Kling does say that TF does not fully understand the DM yet so maybe you disagree with his assumption. It does seem fairly certain that setting fire to elevators and wings does no damage at all. Even if the pilots dives to put them out, you would expect there to be extra skin missing and a corresponding reduction in control response.

****Addendum*** It seems I was wrong and small fires *do* cause damage to control surfaces if not put out.

Hi Roblex,
As I am not a current member of TF and not a party to further changes made in the cosmetic or damage model, I can't make any comments on your question.

I will say though that the damage model is a complex beast that is slowly being unraveled and the cosmetic visuals are being much improved by the graphics team as well.

Take my recommendation - Use the DeWilde in a mix with Ball and some AP. After the next update, this all may change. :)

Cheers,
Cats . . .

Little_D
Mar-13-2014, 13:25
Hi gents,

as Kling and me where testing all different bullets in the beta test, i can only say load your guns as Catseye says, the so called Catmix:

BALL, BALL, AP,DW,DW,AP,BALL,BALL. this was the best bellting we find out for 4.0, when you hit right and in convergence.

regards

Little_D

Catseye
Mar-13-2014, 14:02
Hi gents,

as Kling and me where testing all different bullets in the beta test, i can only say load your guns as Catseye says, the so called Catmix:

BALL, BALL, AP,DW,DW,AP,BALL,BALL. this was the best bellting we find out for 4.0, when you hit right and in convergence.

regards

Little_D


:thumbsup:


Thanks Little_D,
Sometimes offering advice from experience, (like totally re-designing a specific piece of ammunition from historical records and testing it against the damage model), is like spitting into the wind. Experience counts for nothing in some cases and others are willing to give it a try and examine it from their perspective.

Glad to see the improvement in the thermal contact visual.
Cats . . . .

Little_D
Mar-14-2014, 21:38
Hi Catseye,

i still would use the catmix in 4.3 ;)

regards

Little_D

Zisi
Mar-15-2014, 00:27
Out of curiosity, what is your definition of "best"? Like specifically what kinds of results were you looking for? I'll test again once the new patch comes out.

Little_D
Mar-15-2014, 00:53
Out of curiosity, what is your definition of "best"? Like specifically what kinds of results were you looking for?

Hi Zisi,

results like:

maindamaged: fueltankfire, enginfire, different controls gone or all controls gone, pilot kill, engin damaged, light parts as elevator, ailerons, rudder, wingtip or flaps shot off.

secondary damage: all the little enginparts, undercarry and hydrauliks ( so gear goes down ), electric, proppitch, throttle, guns, and the all known rads :), etc / damaged or failure.

all this and more can happen if you hit right and at convergence with about 2,5 sec. burst with the catmix.

you can still use other belts, but to get the most out of the main and secondary damage the catmix was the most efective one. and it is close to history as far i understand catseye.

hope this helps

regards

Little_D

Roblex
Mar-15-2014, 04:09
Here is a follow up question regarding 'Catmix'. Why do you fill one gun with nothing but ball and the next with nothing but DW? What is the advantage over filling one gun with Ball,DW and the next with DW,Ball?

My brain would say that as you are talking about damage done 'at convergence' then you are saying the best result is for a ball and a DW to hit the same point at the same time and both methods would do that exactly but as soon as you are 'off convergence' then the catmix would then deliver Ball to one spot and DW to a second spot while the alternative method continues to deliver 'Ball followed by DW' to both spots which is almost exactly the same as your optimum Ball/DW combo.

What am I missing?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Mar-15-2014, 05:32
My brain would say that as you are talking about damage done 'at convergence' then you are saying the best result is for a ball and a DW to hit the same point at the same time and both methods would do that exactly but as soon as you are 'off convergence' then the catmix would then deliver Ball to one spot and DW to a second spot while the alternative method continues to deliver 'Ball followed by DW' to both spots which is almost exactly the same as your optimum Ball/DW combo.


My thoughts too Roblex. Hence why I also stagger the mix within each gun.

Little_D
Mar-15-2014, 08:52
Hi Gents,

do what ever you think, it is all about hitting in convergence ( most bullets go into or are close to a 50 cm cirlcle as example ), doesent matter what belting you use. i dont know why, but this catmix dit in convergence the most shown damaged in the dm-window, and in 4.3 it is the same.

you can use all DW, this would give you the most DM-output but is not historical same as 109 with only miningshell. so we where looking for a belt that is closer to a historical loadout with a god punch. and this is the catmix. because there is in the moment no way that TF or Missionbuilder can prevent that a pilot will only take DW or miningshells. if you whant to mix it like this: gun1 = BALL, BALL, AP, DW, and then for each gun the same do it and try out. i dont know how the game calculate the DM but as i wrote before, the catmix dit the most dm in both sections ( main and secondary dm ) at the same time.

it is in the 109 the same, the most dm is only miningshell, the second dm-belt is the historican loadout ( default loadout ) for 109. id dit the most dm, even when i try other beltmixup with different AP, HE, mine-settings. in the end the default loadout show the most DM in the info screen.

but this was only kling and my testing and the results we posted in the beta test forum, there you can see the difference, so make your own test and take the belt you like.


regards

Little_D

JG5_Emil
Mar-15-2014, 08:54
An interesting quote I found a while back for anyone who's interested

The "de Wilde" ammunition
Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber. Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it. In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.
The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.

The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)

Wulf
Mar-15-2014, 09:43
Hi Gents,

do what ever you think, it is all about hitting in convergence ( most bullets go into or are close to a 50 cm cirlcle as example ), doesent matter what belting you use. i dont know why, but this catmix dit in convergence the most shown damaged in the dm-window, and in 4.3 it is the same.

you can use all DW, this would give you the most DM-output but is not historical same as 109 with only miningshell. so we where looking for a belt that is closer to a historical loadout with a god punch. and this is the catmix. because there is in the moment no way that TF or Missionbuilder can prevent that a pilot will only take DW or miningshells. if you whant to mix it like this: gun1 = BALL, BALL, AP, DW, and then for each gun the same do it and try out. i dont know how the game calculate the DM but as i wrote before, the catmix dit the most dm in both sections ( main and secondary dm ) at the same time.

it is in the 109 the same, the most dm is only miningshell, the second dm-belt is the historican loadout ( default loadout ) for 109. id dit the most dm, even when i try other beltmixup with different AP, HE, mine-settings. in the end the default loadout show the most DM in the info screen.

but this was only kling and my testing and the results we posted in the beta test forum, there you can see the difference, so make your own test and take the belt you like.


regards

Little_D



I appreciate you're using "50 cm" as an example but frankly, you'd be doing very well to get a single Browning to consistently group inside 50cm at 150 yards, on a gun range, let alone eight of them. Realistically, I think, with a lot of buggering around and some really enthusiastic armourers, you may get them all to shoot inside about 2-3 meters at 200 yards - maybe.

Roblex
Mar-15-2014, 10:00
Seems odd that the tests show ball as more effective than AP yet they opted for an AP/DW mix. I wonder if that was because ball ammo was effectively dum-dum ammo that passed the restriction by a technicality.

Wulf
Mar-15-2014, 10:36
Seems odd that the tests show ball as more effective than AP yet they opted for an AP/DW mix. I wonder if that was because ball ammo was effectively dum-dum ammo that passed the restriction by a technicality.


Well frankly it just sounds like nonsense. More effective at what exactly? Certainly not at penetrating armour. I suspect that in general use ball would be about as effective as AP when it came to things like aluminum components and flesh and bone but more effective; I doubt it. Certainly 'cheaper', so bang for buck wise it may have worked out a bit better from a bean counters point of view but ultimately not as versatile as AP.

Little_D
Mar-15-2014, 11:37
Hi Roblex,

i think the dum-dum is why Ball is more efective in destroying controls, rads, little engin parts, make bigger holes or kill the pilot. AP is also good for pilot killing but less efective to destroy controls or the smal parts of the engin, but better to penetrate the engin-block and kill the cylinder. ball mabey makse also bigger holes in the fueltank as AP. and DW is to make the blue pilots fire under the ass :)

Hi Wulf,

i dont have this pics on my harddrive but there are pics in the internet for a 109 and a p51 that shows that the different convergence-settings result in hit circles from 30cm up to 1m at different distances it depents on the pilot, how good he can shoot, aim, etc. and what he likes. on Warbirds of Prey or UltraPack Forum there was a mathematic that caluclatet for both sides the bullets that will hit in and close to convergence from a 2 second burst in a 50cm cirle. different convergence from 125m up to 200m. for the 109 and FW 190 he took this pics: 8249, 8250, for red i dont know exept for the p51 there he used the pic i saw. and i found a other one for the P47 maby this shows it better: 8262.

From death six position i have a average hit % from 35% in turn and burn fights with high deflection i have a average hit% from 9% in a 2 sec. burst. in Hurrie it is 31% and 6% and Spit 28% and 4% and this is my standart fireing time most of the time too.

if you have problems to aim for special parts and this is no offence!!! maby set your sensetivity settings higher, i fly with elevator 1.0, ailerons 0.50 and rudder 0.70. and think about your most use convergence. in my test in beta-test i set the conv. for red to 150m and 180m. better hits ( more dm ) and higher hit% at 150m!! and than i dit the same test with my conv. for red planes 125m and i get more hit% and higher dm-output as with all others. with this conv 125m. i start fire at about 140m. to go into my convergence, to get more bullet in this 50cm circle.

this sensetivity settings maby dont feel fast are not as direct as other settings, but it helps me to get my hit% higher and more important i can aim and correct very smoothly and soft ( you aim for a special part and you hit this special part ) watch some videos from Hans Gruber how soft he flys and aim. and as Gruber says in one of his post too, most red fires way out of convergence and than you get you 3m all ober the plane cirle. when i watch videos from CoD, even with TF 4.0 i can see in most of them, that they have lots of nose bouncing on both sides and wild paddleing on the stick.

and as for me in the 109 hitting at convergens with max dm is for the main dm and when the bullets spreed out of this 50cm it is for secondary dm.

i hope i dont missunderstood both of you and make a complet senseless post.

regards

Little_D

Roblex
Mar-15-2014, 12:54
Well frankly it just sounds like nonsense. More effective at what exactly? Certainly not at penetrating armour. I suspect that in general use ball would be about as effective as AP when it came to things like aluminum components and flesh and bone but more effective; I doubt it.


Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber. Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it. In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated.

So what the RAF found was that 33% of the Ball ammo reached the the armour and 6% of that penetrated the armour (so that is about 2% of all Ball fired reached & penetrated the armour) while only 23% of AP reached the armour and 1% of that penetrated it (so that is about 0.23% of AP fired reached & penetrated the armour.

To put that another way, they found that, on average, if you fired 400 rounds of Ball ammo at a Blenheims tail then 8 bullets would penetrate the gunners armour and if you fired 400 rounds of AP then you have 92% chance that one AP will penetrate the armour.

Add to that the fact that when a ball MkVII hits a body it spreads out like a dum-dum shredding your insides and leaving a huge exit wound while the AP goes straight through then I have to ask what the basis is for your statement?

*********************

Apologies Wulf. It seems I misunderstood that both rounds being tested were AP.

Little_D
Mar-15-2014, 15:08
Hi gents,

found a pic from P47 and added it to my previous post

regards

Little_D

Hubert Bigglesworth
Mar-15-2014, 17:09
So what the RAF found was that 33% of the Ball ammo reached the the armour and 6% of that penetrated the armour (so that is about 2% of all Ball fired reached & penetrated the armour) while only 23% of AP reached the armour and 1% of that penetrated it (so that is about 0.23% of AP fired reached & penetrated the armour.

To put that another way, they found that, on average, if you fired 400 rounds of Ball ammo at a Blenheims tail then 8 bullets would penetrate the gunners armour and if you fired 400 rounds of AP then you have 92% chance that one AP will penetrate the armour.

Add to that the fact that when a ball MkVII hits a body it spreads out like a dum-dum shredding your insides and leaving a huge exit wound while the AP goes straight through then I have to ask what the basis is for your statement?



Hi.

The RAF Test quoted was for AP Ammunition, comparing .303" AP with German 7.92 AP.

33% of the .303" AP reached the armour and 6% penertrated it.
23% of the 7.92 AP reached the armour and just 1% penertrated it.

No Ball was used.

In reality Ball and AP would do very similar damage to light, thin structures and components, skins etc, but as mentioned above Ball can not penertrate the armour, AP can penertrate IF the conditions are correct.

.303"MKVII Ball only tumbles during penertration in flesh (or water) due to the rapid deceleration and the heavier rear portion of the core, and the inability of the surrounding flesh to support the bullet .303" Ball fired in to more solid targets such as brickwork, thick wooden planking, metal plates etc does have good penertration as the material around the bullet is strong enough to support the bullet and keep it driving forwards point first, so preventing it from tumbling. What happens to the bullet after penertration of these more solid targets depends on whats left of it, how much its deformed, remaining velocity, remaining mass, energy etc.


8263


The top half of the P51 Harmonization chart, showing 4mils dispersion (for 0.50 AP M-2) same as P47 chart posted.

Roblex
Mar-15-2014, 17:13
Hi.

The RAF Test quoted was for AP Ammunition, comparing .303" AP with German 7.92 AP.
.

Ah! That explains it. Thanks.

AKA_Knutsac
Mar-15-2014, 18:21
And as I mentioned earlier, IRL it seems both AP and DW were superior to ball as the RAF removed ball completely once enough AP and DW was available. I believe there was just tons of ball around following the Great War, and it had to be used, even if substandard for modern air-to-air combat. So if ball performs better in Clod, then something is wrong with the model.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

Wulf
Mar-15-2014, 19:02
So what the RAF found was that 33% of the Ball ammo reached the the armour and 6% of that penetrated the armour (so that is about 2% of all Ball fired reached & penetrated the armour) while only 23% of AP reached the armour and 1% of that penetrated it (so that is about 0.23% of AP fired reached & penetrated the armour.

To put that another way, they found that, on average, if you fired 400 rounds of Ball ammo at a Blenheims tail then 8 bullets would penetrate the gunners armour and if you fired 400 rounds of AP then you have 92% chance that one AP will penetrate the armour.

Add to that the fact that when a ball MkVII hits a body it spreads out like a dum-dum shredding your insides and leaving a huge exit wound while the AP goes straight through then I have to ask what the basis is for your statement?

*********************

Apologies Wulf. It seems I misunderstood that both rounds being tested were AP.


No apologies necessary. The whole business is quite confusing.

You may be interested to know that there were trials done in the mid 1930s by something called the 'Air Fighting Committee', presumably established by the Air Ministry, that looked at the whole question of armour protection for RAF aircraft.

During trials conducted by the Committee in 1938 it was found that Mk VII ball ammo would not (in any instance) penetrate 4 mm of armour plate at ranges from 100 - 400 meters. AP on the other hand went straight through - in all instances.

It's worth noting that 'armour' isn't just heavy steel plate. Armour of this period is typically made of 'rolled homogeneous' steel. This type of plating incorporates 3 specific properties that make it highly resistant to penetration. Firstly it is 'thick', secondly it is 'rolled' (to compress the surface of the steel and to align its internal structure to better absorb the 'shock') and finally it is hardened.