Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

HELP, Jap aircraft

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> HELP, Jap aircraft Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 6:39:55 AM   
herbieh

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		OK, Ive been fiddling around with the UV editor trying to sort out how japanese planes perform.
Now we all know what a zero is, can do, cant do
same with betties, nells, and maybe sallies

But come 1943 and later and there is a bewildering selection of planes, tonies,georges?, Ki43,Ki 44 ect, ect, ect
Let alone all the bombers.

Now the question for yuo gonards
Ive got to decide production piorities.
Could some one care to list in a very simple order Japanese planes that are "best" for 43, 44, or 45, and maybe ones that are a total waste of time.

Ive been trying various fighters against B17s, and one sort seems to go OK, but then try it against hellcats and Yikes!
(This is a test with very experienced pilots)
Did all that make sense?
I want to get rid of oscars asap, what should I build after the zeke?

Personally after 43 I wont be concentrating on carrier air, just the heaviest land fighter the japanese has, which is?
Thanks in advance.
Post #: 1
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 8:57:53 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herbieh
Ive been trying various fighters against B17s, and one sort seems to go OK, but then try it against hellcats and Yikes!



Won't comment on the overall question..., but the answer to the above is easy. To shoot
down heavy bombers, you need maximum firepower and a stable gun platform. To deal
with the Hellcats you need speed and manueverability (and hopefully a hight advantage).
One set of qualities is rarely compatible with the other. A twin-engined "heavy" fighter
might be ideal for dealing with B-17's, but is dog meat when dogfighting a Hellcat.

(in reply to herbieh)
Post #: 2
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 4:40:33 PM   
609IAP_Thumper

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 3/18/2003
From: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		Briefly, the Oscar (Ki-43) first model only had two 7.7mm MGs. Very good dogfighter, but very light and too slow overall. The Ki-43 IIIb upgunned to two 20mm cannon.

It was replaced with Ki-44 and Ki-61. The Ki-44 was originally planned as an interceptor, although it couldn't keep up with the Ki-45 in practice. I think the Ki-61 might be a better choice in game terms. While it suffered many engine and production difficulties, it was both fast and maneuverable. Used a lot in home defence.

The Ki-45 is a twin-engine heavy fighter/bomber/nightfighter suitable for attacking unescorted bombers.

Another good bet would be to build the Ki-84 as soon as practicable. It is a very good land-based A/C. After service trials . these showed up in Apr '44 to the end of war.

But you can't replace Zekes with any of these, because they can't operate from your carriers. I don't think there is a historical replacement for the A6M.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 3
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 5:12:56 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		The Ki-84 "Frank" was generally regarded as the best Japanese fighter of the war. It was deployed operationally in the Summer of '44.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to 609IAP_Thumper)
Post #: 4
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 5:25:43 PM   
Reichenberg

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herbieh
......Now the question for yuo gonards......


This one gives brady a run for his money

Uwe

(in reply to herbieh)
Post #: 5
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 6:32:18 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		The following is a very general aproach to explaing these planes, this is not a flight sim so I will not expound, and UV and WiTP handel these planes in a very abstract maner, and many of the plane types are generic in the game, also in UV they have the Ki-84C which never realy produced in any number (it has the 30mm Cannons).

Tony (Ki-61), Early models went into action in New Gunie, whear it proved a very formadable aponet for the Allies, superiour to al but the P38 in most respects, early Models had the MG 151, but later ones switched to the better Japanese Ho-5 20mm Cannon, no mater the time of war the Ki-61 is a good machine, though Early models were the best preforming generaly, specificaly in terms of climb rate. They even I beleave out climbed the Ki-44 at least the early models did.

Ki-44, Another good Army fighter, though not as well rounded as the Tony, the Tony handeled better, it's 40 mm cannon was useless (the modles that had it). Generaly speaking a good climber, but by the time the Ki-84 was coming in to service the Frank was defenatly the better machine.

Ki-84, Superlative aircraft, as noted above likely the Best of the Japanese Army Machines, it was a good designe, post war tests under ideal condations with US fuel produced some stagering results, it out preformed a P51D, and a P47N ( prety shure it was a N).

Ki-45, Ground atack and Bomber intercept, good PT Boat killer as well.

.....................


Jack/George - Navy land based interceptor, offered good climb rates and Good forepower, two 20 Type 99MK I and two 20 MM Type 99 MK II cannon, production delays slowed it introduction to the front and by the time they were largely iroedout the George was intering service, the N1K1 (George) was the Better machine by far, initialy Georges suffered a number of Mechanical bugs, and the Mid wing N1K1 was part of the problem that and it's long landing gear, these probles and others were ironed out and the result was the N1K2 preformance wise almost identical to the N1K1, it was an excelent fighter, the best the Navy had during the late war, it had the same engine as the Ki-84 though it was a bit slower. The George also incourperated a noval automated flap system which gave it superlative handeling qualitys.

(in reply to Reichenberg)
Post #: 6
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 7:58:04 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Another point to remember is that Japanese Designers proved capable of designing
better aircraft than Japanese Industry was able to produce in any numbers. The Tony
sufferred a lot of trouble because of failings with it's liquid-cooled engine (unique among
Japanese aircraft); and all of the later high performance types suffered from industry's
inability to meet high-end specs in production runs. This was a basic failing of Japanese
Industry which was only made worse by bombing and shortage of skilled workers.

Under perfect conditions, and with perfect maintainence and construction, and the availability of high-octane AvGas, some of the last Japanese aircraft were as good as anything flying in theory..., but rarely in practice. But if a "good" one happened to get
into the hands of a superb "veteran" flyer, then some US pilots got a rude shock for a
while until the maintainence caught up to it.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 7
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 8:07:03 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		The Ki-84 proving "superior to" the P51-D and P47-D (not N) in post-war tests is an oft-repeated but incorrect rumour. Using US 100 Octane fuel the Ki-84 proved capable of a maximum speed of 427 mph at 20,000 feet, using war emergency power. This speed exceeded that of the P-51D Mustand and the P-47D at that altitude by 2 mph and 22 mph respectively. The P-51D and P-47D retained the edge in roll rate, and at speeds in excess of 300 mph, the P-51 and P-47 could out-turn it. Both aircraft could outdive the Ki-84. Both aircraft had superior armor to the Ki-84 and were more generally survivable in the face of damage. The Ki-84 was a superior climber, but only up to 20,000 feet (as it should have been, it only weight 7900 pounds). In addition, the Ki-84 had several operational problems -- an unreliable engine and structurally weak landing gear. It also had poor taxi and ground handling qualities, and pressure had to be maintained on the starboard rudder pedal to counteract a tendency to swing to port caused by the high engine torque.

In operational use by the Japanese, a Ki-84 in mint condition could obtain maximum speeds of 390 mph, making it superior overall (when operating properly) to the USN F6-F, but not to the F-4U or the P-51 or P-47.

Note, at higher elevations the Ki-84s performance dropped off radically, giving both the P-51 and the P-47 a speed edge, even assuming an "American rebuilt Ki-84 fueld by American avgas."

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/7/2004 6:19:23 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 8
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 10:14:21 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		The guys above gave good points (performances of the japanese aircrafts) but if you looking further more in deep here is link which, i belive, will not dissapoint you:

http://users.belgacom.net/aircraftweapon/avion/firmes/1903.html

(most of the japanese aircraft types (with subordinates) are listed here)....

< Message edited by pauk -- 6/7/2004 8:29:58 PM >

(in reply to herbieh)
Post #: 9
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 10:23:43 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Ki-44, Another good Army fighter, though not as well rounded as the Tony, the Tony handeled better, it's 40 mm cannon was useless (the modles that had it). N).



Greetings

Brady, Ki-44 with 40 mm cannon could be used against B-29?

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 10
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/7/2004 11:58:30 PM   
Jonny_B


Posts: 299
Joined: 5/20/2004
From: Dunnellon, Florida
Status: offline

Mr. Pauk:

Thanks for the info on the web page, real nice.

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 11
RE: HELP, Jap aircraft - 6/8/2004 1:51:51 AM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		no problem at all...and, since we know each other from now, there is no need for Mr.


btw, pauk means spider, but who cares?

(in reply to Jonny_B)
Post #: 12
Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 6:20:50 AM   
herbieh

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Man that was helpful, the linked sight was amazing

Ok, replace oscars with tonys, tonys with franks, and zekes with the george, and build nicks galore
replace all bombers with P1y Frances

Got it

(in reply to herbieh)
Post #: 13
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 6:47:58 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		The Frances is defenatly a good Bomber but so is the Peggy, These would be the best choices for Late war Navy and Army Bombers respectively, the later has a much better defensive aramement as well. The Navy did BTW use the Peggy as well (Not shure if UV or WiTP represents this).

................

pauk: The 40MM Cannon the Ki-44 mounted was a very odd weapon, it was more like an mortar with an auto fead, the practicle range was sucidealy short, and the weapn was extreamly slopy in operation and in terms of it's balistics, I recal mention of 100 yards or closer to inshure some chance of a hit. Ho-301 Japan 40mm caseless 475 rpm 245 m/s , very low MV.

Note the 40mm Projectile drawing, the amoo is caseless, the propelent is contained in the base of the projectile:









..............................................

Historicaly as noted above prety much all the Allied late war fighters were faster and preformed better at alt than their Japanese counter parts, notable exceptions would be the Hellcat and the FM-2 . Many Allied late war fighters also possed superiour exceleration which depending on altitude could alow them to excape if they got into trouble. Allied fighters also tended later in the war to almost always fly to thier strengths, rarely mixing it up, prety much all planes like the F4U's and P47's could do with the Japanese is Go fast hit and run, they were total dogs in most other respects, but this was enough, this and the huge numerical advantage the allies had, and the handicaps the Japanese had in reliabality issues with some of their machines later in the war as mentioned above.

Interestinly as noted above Well maintained and well flow Georges could do a good job, Air Groupe 343, CAPT. Minoru Genda, formed this unit and brought in hand picked experanced units from all over the navy to fill it. of the 170 some odd piolets in the unit 35 were Class "A" piolets (figure given for just before operations over Okinawa). During operations over Okinawa the groupe managed the los of 29 aircraft for 106 kills, and 165 aircraft sortied.
During a 2nd of June battle over Kagoshima bay a groupe of F4U were caught in a bad position and 21 N1K2's atacked 23 F4U's and 18 of them were shot down.

Above from Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in WW2 Hata & Izawa, Naval Institute Press.

< Message edited by Brady -- 6/8/2004 5:51:36 AM >

(in reply to herbieh)
Post #: 14
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 4:16:31 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		Brady, thanks for reply and info!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 15
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 7:13:01 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

prety much all planes like the F4U's and P47's could do with the Japanese is Go fast hit and run, they were total dogs in most other respects


You mean that they were "total dogs in all other respects except for armament, armor, and maneuverability at speeds in excess of 300 mph, in which categories they were consistently superior to the late war Japanese a/c."

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 16
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 7:14:49 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

You mean that they were "total dogs in all other respects except for armament, armor, and maneuverability at speeds in excess of 300 mph, in which categories they were consistently superior to the late war Japanese a/c."


LMAO!!!!

Yep, in all *other* respects they just sucked!

The coffee maker never worked, the magazine rack had old issues, you name it!

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 17
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 7:32:14 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"You mean that they were "total dogs in all other respects except for armament, armor, and maneuverability at speeds in excess of 300 mph, in which categories they were consistently superior to the late war Japanese a/c."

Aramement, they could of course cary considerably haever Bombloads, but their gun packages were not any better, if anything the weapons on the Japanese planes were more efficient in many respects and at least as efficient in others, I am refering to late war gun packages hear.

Armor, Some late war Japanese aircraft did cary armor suficient to be effective aganst the 50cal. Allied Aircraft Armor was effective to a point, Japanese aircraft weapons did not relay on penatraion effects like US ordance did to acheave a kill, their reliance on HEI ordance primarly which focused on defeating the Airframe, not killing the engine or piolet, ect rendered the armor aspect a mute point to a degree.

High Spead Manuaverabality: This is in keeping with the above mentioned premise that the Allies prety much had one trick, go fast and stay fast, dont mix it up. I call the F4U and the P47 dogs based on what I have read about them, and to an extent my own personal experance flying them in sim's, they are largely extreamly unpleanst beasts with little redeaming qualitys, certainly the F4U is, the P47 is not quiet as bad. It is interesting that in Sims these planes suffer horably aganst Japanese planes like the N1K2, but in these aritifical areanas the Allied planes are seldom ever used as they should be, that being to their strengths, hince their one trick, go fast stay fast and dont fight, but Boom and Zoom, this is what they did in real life and it helped them win the war, once you get out of this limited aspect of the preformance window they are indead dog's.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 18
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 7:42:08 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

This is in keeping with the above mentioned premise that the Allies prety much had one trick, go fast and stay fast

You have to admit, it's a pretty good trick.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 19
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 7:50:24 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

High Spead Manuaverabality: This is in keeping with the above mentioned premise that the Allies prety much had one trick, go fast and stay fast, dont mix it up.


I think there is no possibility that we will ever agree. The "don't mix it up" premise is a false statement. Typically pilots were admonished not to allow their airspeed to drop below a certain level. If, for example, a P-51 "mixed it up" with a Ki-84 but kept IAS above 350 mph, he could count on flying a more maneuevrable ship.

Your comment basically amounts to the assertion that US planes would be lousy at low speed dogfighting. So what? They'd be lousy at jousting too. Ju-jitsu would likely be difficult from a cockpit. Swordfighting is right out. No one now dogfights at low speed. The whole evolution of fighter/interceptor design has been towards greater speed because speed usually wins. The Allied designs were built for the qualities that win, not the qualities that do not matter. Like Frag said, who cares about the coffee maker?

As to the 20-30mm armament; US a/c routinely survived detonating hits from 30mm. Even the lowly wildcat. The airframe was too tough to take down with a single hit unless you hit a critical component. Given the low velocity and poor trajectories of Japanese aircraft cannons, the he-armed guns were a bad choice (unless you want to bring down a bomber). Against Allied fighters they'd have been much better off with 12.7mm. In contrast, the US 12.5 had the energy to rip the wing off most Japanese fighters if the gas tanks were full (12,000 foot pounds will do that), even if the bullet did not penetrate the target. So you are mistaken in assuming that the .50cal's effects were primarily from "penetration." Their effects were primarily from energy transfer. Japanese aircraft, with very few exceptions, did not have the durability to sustain hits from .50cal. I'll grant that some, like the Emily and Mavis were tough nuts.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/8/2004 5:57:04 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 20
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 8:02:01 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Your right we will never agree, we have been through all this before and to re hash it is pointless, patricaly your assesment of the gun packages, thier is a long discushion in the punted thread, Aircraft and the intercept.

< Message edited by Brady -- 6/8/2004 6:07:30 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 21
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 8:11:40 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Just so that you understand, Brady, the energy of a single .50cal bullet striking the wing of a Japanese aircraft from a range of 300 yards was approximately the same as the energy you would impart to that wing by dropping a Studebaker 6x6 (M135) truck and all its cargo on it from a height of about 1 foot.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/8/2004 6:13:57 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 22
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 8:17:18 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Prety much all a 50 cal round would do to a wing is put a nice clean whole in it, read the other thread, if you have time, and the gas tank anoligy is full of wholes as well, some pun intended

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 23
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 8:27:29 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		You are incorrect. The .50 cal, like all bullets, will have a hydrostatic pressure effect. When a bullet strikes a surface it does not just bore a neat hole like an inchworm through an apple. It imparts energy to any fluid or gas in the area that radiates outward from the impact in a wide arc at sonic to supersonic speeds. If you hit a fuel tank with any fuel, that means a shock-wave hammer blow that is likely to burst a hole in the fuel tank unless said tank is heavily reinforced or has a tank liner designed to give a little (stretch) before contacting the fuel-tank's metal wall. If you hit a solid, the energy is imparted in a conic section and basically removes a conic chunk of metal expanding outward away from the point of impact. Ironically, the bigger the hunk of metal in the target, the worse the damage. So, for example, if you strike an engine, you end out driving a rod of the engine's own metal through the rest of the engine.

So the only instance in which a .50 will merely "punch a hole" through the target is if it only strikes a thin piece of aluminum or fabric. This is pretty much the same result that you'd get on a thin piece of aluminum or fabric from any 20-40mm cannon. If the cannon round fails to detonate the energy that it imparts will be substantially less than the comparable energy imparted by a .50cal. The .50-cal will also have penetration effects.

For a guy who claims to know about firearms, your comment is bizarre. Do you ever hunt? If you do, you must be aware that it is not blood loss or penetration effects that kills most large game when they're hit by a bullet. Even a lowly .30cal will put around 1500 foot pounds into a target and has the same fluid-hydrostatic pressure effect. What kills most game animals is shock from having a bread-loaf-sized chunk of flesh gelatinized by the impact, not the stupid hole.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 6/8/2004 6:33:38 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 24
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 9:43:20 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		When a Bullet like a 50cal, strikes a plane it loses potential engery as soon as it hits the outer surface of the plane, chances are it will not strike the plane at the optimial impact angle, so the degradation of engery will likely be signafagant, now once in the aircraft, it will likely encounter armor before hiting anything important, since late war fighters were designed to offer armor protection aganst 50cal rounds (axis planes I mean) this would prove the end of the bullets trip. This of course is the worst case scenario, best case 50cal goes through the cockpit glass and puts one in the guys head.

The hydrostatic effect you sight in the wing tank, is sbubject to many variables that would degrade it to mute at best. It is almost a certanity that the tank would not be full if hit in combat, likely empty, wing tanks were often burned first since they effected manuaverability. So if the bullet hit the tank their would be ample space for expanshion, that expanshion would follow the path of least resistance and the last place the primary force would be exiterd aganst would be the spar, which was arguable the strongest part of the plane. The lekely effect of wing tank, or any thank hits was fire.

A plane is not an animal, the effects of the bullets withen it can not be readly likened to the shock efects of bullets pasing through animals. Yes I have done a lot of hunting, and I know animals are not planes.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 25
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 9:52:51 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Brady, you are talking like Japan's aircraft could survive a single hit. They couldn't. It really throws off your discussion points.

Had the USA outfitted their planes with even smaller weapons, they still would have had enough residual energy to take down one of the paper thin boys. One of the reasons that Japan's aircraft were so limited in what they could drop bomb'wise was the super weak wing spar that held the plane together. Almost any damage at all would take it out.

This is why so much of the war footage shows Japanese aircraft literally falling apart when hit unlike other countries which went down in flames but still intact.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 26
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 9:59:21 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

When a Bullet like a 50cal, strikes a plane it loses potential engery as soon as it hits the outer surface of the plane, chances are it will not strike the plane at the optimial impact angle, so the degradation of engery will likely be signafagant


That is pure speculation. More importantly, it it does not hit anything particularly solid it's just not going to lose much energy. Might be deflected to a new path, but energy loss will not be a problem. A few mm of aluminum alloy skin is not going to do diddly to impart energy loss/

quote:

now once in the aircraft, it will likely encounter armor before hiting anything important


You don't get it yet. Hitting armor is JUST FINE. You're not talking about hitting a tank. If you hit the armor you get excellent energy transfer from the bullet to the target. That means that you get the "full Studebaker" slamming into the armor and stressing out whatever holds the armor in place, assuming that the armor stops the bullet cold. If the armor does not stop the bullet you get a cone shaped chunk of armor that flies off in the direction that the bullet is going, and that cone-shaped chunk of armor does damage to whatever is in its path. The bullet, largely spent but still capable of damageing delicate things, follows the cone-shaped chunk or armor, and adds to the destruction. Some of the energy from the bullet is retained in whatever held the armor in place. On a weakly-armored Japanese aircraft, it may even detach the armor plate, causing a trash-can sized hunk of armor to come loose and now wobble around inside the aircraft the instance it attempts ANY sort of maneuver.

At night, the ice weasels come.

.50cal carries a f@cking huge wallop.


quote:

since late war fighters were designed to offer armor protection aganst 50cal rounds (axis planes I mean) this would prove the end of the bullets trip. This of course is the worst case scenario, best case 50cal goes through the cockpit glass and puts one in the guys head.


Few Axis planes carried armor enough to stop a .50cal and as illustrated above that does not necessarily save the plane. It probably gives the pilot time enough to react and prevent another .50cal slug from completing the job attempted by the first .50cal slug. More importantly, if the .50 really trashes your plane, the armor gives you time to bail out.

quote:

The hydrostatic effect you sight in the wing tank, is sbubject to many variables that would degrade it to mute at best.


Pure unbridled speculation. Indeed, transparently and demonstratably wrong.

When you see those gun camera shots from US aircraft that has the wing root separating from an Axis fighter, just wtf do you think causes that kind of damage? That's not from a .50cal hole bored through the wing and compounded by the stress of flight, that's almost wholly a result of energy transfer. Look closely at the footage or pictures if you can get ahold of some. When you watch strikes on the wing, even on an armored axis fighter, you will often see a huge burst of spray. That's the wing tank popping under the impact of the .50 cal and all the fuel bursting through the aluminum skin of the wing. Usually a few camera frames after that you'll see the wing starting to fly apart or you'll see the mess catching on fire.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 27
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 10:05:07 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Had the USA outfitted their planes with even smaller weapons, they still would have had enough residual energy to take down one of the paper thin boys.


I do not entirely agree with that Frag. The rifle cailber MG was not a 1-hit 1-kill weapon, even against cr@p like the Oscar. The problem here is that people think "MG" when they hear the phrase ".50 cal" just like they think "MG" when they hear the phrase ".30cal."

There's a sevenfold difference between the energy of a .303 and a .50.

Interesting factoid. The .50cal was not orginally designed as an antipersonnel weapon. It was intended, originally, to be an automatic anti-tank rifle.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 28
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 10:18:05 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		"Brady, you are talking like Japan's aircraft could survive a single hit. They couldn't. It really throws off your discussion points. "

Shure they could and did, many did and went home to get patched up.

"This is why so much of the war footage shows Japanese aircraft literally falling apart when hit unlike other countries which went down in flames but still intact. "

Probably because you never see the fotage showing the ones that got away.

"That is pure speculation. More importantly, it it does not hit anything particularly solid it's just not going to lose much energy. Might be deflected to a new path, but energy loss will not be a problem. A few mm of aluminum alloy skin is not going to do diddly to impart energy loss/ "

lol, the pot calling the kettle black.

mdiehl, I realy beleave your grosticaly overestimating the effect of single 50cal hits and over stating your point hear to the point of absuridity. 50cals did kill planes and in general worked well for us. Late war Japanese planes were not the papper tigers the early war planes were howeaver, and they had effective gun packages on them.

......................

I have a cool clip of a 202, schreading a P40 somewear and a 202 had an awfull gun package.

http://www.lordpanzer.com/downloads/MACCHI-P40.wmv

< Message edited by Brady -- 6/8/2004 8:20:15 PM >

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 29
RE: Thanks guys - 6/8/2004 10:24:26 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

I do not entirely agree with that Frag. The rifle cailber MG was not a 1-hit 1-kill weapon, even against cr@p like the Oscar.


Thats the part Brady seems to miss. It was *never* a one hit kill because of the sheer number of bullets flying. If one found you, a couple more generally found you too and the combined shock effect broke things in major ways.

This compared to the cannon debate. I only need 1 shot to kill you, bu it has to be the perfect shot because I only have 1 round to fire.

I think you'd find that the .303 would have done just fine against Japan's paper planes. The .50 was just plain overkill for what was being shot at.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> HELP, Jap aircraft Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719