Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

 
next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Archives   » EAW Archive 1   » P-47 - the damage sponge!

   
Author Topic: P-47 - the damage sponge!
JG5_Jerry
Member
Member # 1076

posted 02-09-2000 01:56 AM     Profile for JG5_Jerry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Man, those things are a bit too tough IMHO. Whilst flying an Interception last night in a 110G, I got behind a P-47D and managed to close to about 100m. I opened up with the twin 30mms, and saw 8 (!) hits on the rear of the plane. And it just soaked it up! Is it me, or does anyone else think that that's not exactly what one could call 'realistic'?

Here's what should've happened!:

http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffs/30mm.jpg

------------------
C/O, Jagdgeschwader 5 'Eismeer'

http://www.madasafish.com/jerry/jg5


Posts: 702 | From: Kingston-Upon-Thames, UK | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tobiwan
Member
Member # 420

posted 02-09-2000 02:23 AM     Profile for Tobiwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Apperently they where.....

I mean it's so big and all..


Posts: 893 | From: Amanzimtoti, KWA-Zulu, South Africa | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Edwin Rommel
Member
Member # 357

posted 02-09-2000 02:39 AM     Profile for Edwin Rommel   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Tobi

How's ze weather down in SA?

I think, und I have said zhis before, that the whole game is "biased" towards an Allied victory- but then again, that is what happened in real life ja?

Just like some accuse the Me410 flight model to be "overdone", Ich dachte that the "jug" damage model is far fetched- to withstand 8 30 mm hits on the airframe and still fly???

IMHO

E.R.


Posts: 4399 | From: Dusty Oasis, Nord Afrika | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG5_Jerry
Member
Member # 1076

posted 02-09-2000 05:30 AM     Profile for JG5_Jerry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
But 8 30mm rounds??!! I don't think a little P-47 could take that in reality, when that sort of damage would probably shred a B-17...

------------------
C/O, Jagdgeschwader 5 'Eismeer'

http://www.madasafish.com/jerry/jg5


Posts: 702 | From: Kingston-Upon-Thames, UK | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Edwin Rommel
Member
Member # 357

posted 02-09-2000 05:44 AM     Profile for Edwin Rommel   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Flying in a polution control patrol south west of ze harbour town of Durban, having just spotted a huge patch of polution caused by industrial efluent from a nearby fertilizer factory

Ja Herr Jerry 5, I would like to see how zhis is possible, just ze extra weight of the 8 30 mm rounds vould cause problems , never mind the explosions, und deceleration impact from somevhot like 2000 km/h to 0 km/h under 1 second- Zhis has to tear ze airframe to bits- but zhen again, it ist ein American Plane, programmed by ein Ami into ein Ami programme ja?- (Only pulling your AMI legs in a major way!!!!!!!!! Please!)

Rommel aus!

A red very light rises from the modified Me 110 coastal patrol aircraft- Coast guards vessels patrolling on the surface see the very light and turns on course towards the reported polution, ticket books at the ready ( A little side action für mein freund Tobiwan!)

[This message has been edited by Edwin Rommel (edited 02-09-2000).]


Posts: 4399 | From: Dusty Oasis, Nord Afrika | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tobiwan
Member
Member # 420

posted 02-09-2000 06:04 AM     Profile for Tobiwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Ah, Rommel I think you've got it.

Except isnt Microprose an Enlgish company??

And yes, you're right, I dont think any thing short of an A-10 could actually withstand 10 30mm rounds from a MK-108.


Posts: 893 | From: Amanzimtoti, KWA-Zulu, South Africa | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
WOLF257
Member
Member # 410

posted 02-09-2000 08:59 AM     Profile for WOLF257   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Agreed that the 47 probably wouldn't have survived 8 30mm hits but there are cases where they have taken 20 20mm hits plus several hundred 13mm and made it back to base.Don Blakslee was the pilot in question and his plane had 5 20mm holes through the tail which brings up another point.I'd like to get your opinion on something.This is directed mainly at the guys that fly online.The way the game models a tail kill is that the tail is shot off the plane,there is a seperate section in the damage model that deals with damage to the rudder and elevators.The question is,does it seem like the tail is just a little too weak.In ladder matches I've shot down P-47's with as few as 2 .303 rounds,this seems to be a little odd too.
WOLF

Posts: 281 | From: Alabama,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
The Quiet Man
Member
Member # 2180

posted 02-09-2000 09:12 AM     Profile for The Quiet Man   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Wolf,

Don't remember the Blaklee story, but I did remember "Thunderbolt" and Johnson,s story about absorbing everything a FW could throw at him, and still return home. Just looking at the photos of what is left of the tail afterwards gives me the shakes.

TQM

------------------
En boca cerrada, no entran moscas.


Posts: 2165 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
WOLF257
Member
Member # 410

posted 02-09-2000 09:34 AM     Profile for WOLF257   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Pick up the book.
Tumult In the Clouds by Jim Goodson.
It's got pics of the 47.It's a pretty good book as well.I probably mis-spelled the title but it should be close enough.
WOLF

Posts: 281 | From: Alabama,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Slickster
Member
Member # 384

posted 02-09-2000 10:06 AM     Profile for Slickster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
But 8 hits from a big cannon? Supposedly 3 could down a B-17, as opposed to 20 from a 20 mm. I hit from a 37 mm round from a Mig-15 in Korea downed the F-86 most of the time.

------------------
Rick "Slick" Land


Posts: 551 | From: Fayetteville, AR, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Twitch
Member
Member # 75

posted 02-09-2000 10:09 AM     Profile for Twitch   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
The whole point of excellent utilities like Aircraft Edit is so that each individual can adjust the peremeters to his liking or to each person's version of "reality." Adjust the armor on the P-47s.
When EAW gets too easy adjust all your enemy's settings to "heavy armor."

Posts: 638 | From: L.A. CA U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG5_Jerry
Member
Member # 1076

posted 02-09-2000 10:25 AM     Profile for JG5_Jerry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
But my point was that the game itself and mods like ECAO, etc. don't model a realistic level of damage absorbtion for aircraft. I would've thought that one or two 30mm rounds hitting the tail of any fighter would pretty much destroy it. I found that the combined fire of the 110G (with 20mm and 30mm cannons) on a P-47 that wasn't avoiding me was not enough to knock it out with a quick burst. Only a lucky rear aspect tail hit would knock it down.

And as for Wolf's point about the strange way the tails can get shot out - I agree wholeheartedly. I once shot down a P-47C on-line with fire from a 109E's MG-17s using this 'trick'. I for one cannot understand why EAW models this extra hit area in the aircraft model. Does it also control the tail-fail that sometimes happens with Spitfires and Typhoons? If so, why do other planes have it? It is an odd feature.

------------------
C/O, Jagdgeschwader 5 'Eismeer'

http://www.madasafish.com/jerry/jg5


Posts: 702 | From: Kingston-Upon-Thames, UK | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
WOLF257
Member
Member # 410

posted 02-09-2000 10:32 AM     Profile for WOLF257   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hi Slick,
One has to accept that the 20 20mm hits included AP rounds which would not have done anything other than punch big gaping holes if they didn't hit anything vital.Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't all the 30mm rounds explosive.That would make a big difference.Another thing i've seen that's kinda cool is sometimes the 30mm rounds seem to hit each other and blow up,I've seen this several times will attacking B-17's.The rounds went off well below the bombers and once or twice while attacking Mossies I've seen the round blow up behind the target when I wasn't pulling enough lead.The 30mm does not have a proximity fuse does it?
WOLF

Posts: 281 | From: Alabama,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Gavin
Member
Member # 1127

posted 02-09-2000 10:50 AM     Profile for Gavin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I believe they did, yes. There was a variety of ammo choices, even in the 20mil. BoB pilots talk about cannon shells exploding around them, though this is probably due to the shell hitting the fabric skin of their hurc and flying out the other side before starting to explode.

The 30mils definitely had proximity fuses, though, as well as armour-piercing rounds and incedary, I believe. It makes a lot of sense given the extremely short range of the shell. Once it has travelled out beyond a klick, it' not much use to you, better to have it explode at or near what your aiming at, so so me rounds will penetrate right into the crew areas before going off and do more damage. Even stuff popping off on the outside of a B17 has a chance of bending a prop blade or wounding/killing a waist gunner, ect...

(sorry for the morbid topic, ce le guerre)

------------------
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly
developed it may be." - Adolf Galland.


Posts: 370 | From: Victoria, BC, Canada. | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
WOLF257
Member
Member # 410

posted 02-09-2000 10:50 AM     Profile for WOLF257   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hi Jerry,
The tail can fail on any plane due to high speed maneuvers or damage.It seems like the balance is off though,I don't ever recall during a ladder match having the rudder or elevator damaged subtitle come up.It's always an explosion and a quick trip to the ground.I talked to Paulo about this and he told me that they reduced the damage hit points by 50% in the 1.2 patch.Adjusting the damage models for online would open up a big can of worms though.It's a very subjective thing,because there is no rhyme or reason to why some planes survive and some don't,I'm talking real planes here,there was a P-38 that hit a phone pole in North Africa,tore the horizontal stab loose from one tail boom and it made back to base while one 7.9 through an Allison will usually cause it to lock up or the P-47 that made it back from deep in France with 2 cylinders completely shot off the engine.And the damage model would have to figured for each plane due to the fact that some are not tolerant of a lot of damage.Another pet gripe of mine is that you seldom if ever see a plane explode,something that happened with grim regularity during the war.It will happen if you have simple gunnery turned on but not if you are using realistic gunnery.
Jim

Posts: 281 | From: Alabama,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Twitch
Member
Member # 75

posted 02-09-2000 11:20 AM     Profile for Twitch   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
The 30mms did have proximity fuses. I talked to an American ace last September that did captured ordnance testing on the East coast after the war. They fired a 30mm out over the water and they popped off about 15 feet above the surface.
As far as damage models, flight models, gun models etc., I reiterate, that's why we have cool things like AircraftEdit. As someone said its all subjective. Same can of worms if we talk about FMs. Heck, we can change about everything on the planes including armor and hit bubble sizes. What more can we want?

Posts: 638 | From: L.A. CA U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Swervin Irvin
Member
Member # 888

posted 02-09-2000 02:00 PM     Profile for Swervin Irvin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Did the Jug have more armor plating than the lighter, more fragile liquid-cooled aircraft?

Maybe better armor behind the pilot also cast a "shadow" of coverage forward to the engine, which was pretty tough already? That, with self-sealing fuel tanks might make for such a seemingly invincible craft.

------------------
Take it vertical.. dive.. ram your talons deep.


Posts: 497 | From: Redmond, Wa. | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tinku
Member
Member # 1214

posted 02-09-2000 02:51 PM     Profile for Tinku   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I beg to differ on that proximity fuze issue...

As far as I know the only proximity fuzes existing in 1945 were experimental fuzes for US Navy heavy AA guns. The rounds were never used operationally though.

Back then it took a lot of room to install a millimetric radar (optical sensors were not too developed) in a round. This stuff would have never fit a 30 mm round.

I am certain that German 30 mm rounds for AA use had only either impact- or delayed fuzes.

Tinku


Posts: 76 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Karnak
Member
Member # 139

posted 02-09-2000 03:20 PM     Profile for Karnak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
One of the features added to the Spit Mk XIV was another layer of armor plate behind the pilot. The second plate being about 5 inches behind the first. This was done to counter the German use of 30mm cannon, which the single plate on earlier Spits couldn't stop. The idea was that the cannon round would hit the first plate and explode, then the second plate would stop the shrapnel from getting the pilot.

Sisu


Posts: 461 | From: San Rafael, California, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG5_Jerry
Member
Member # 1076

posted 02-10-2000 01:35 AM     Profile for JG5_Jerry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I agree, the 30mm rounds were not proximity-fused.
Again, I've brought this issue up because it is relevant to on-line gaming (where everyone needs to have the same data). I still find it hard to believe the amount of damage the P-47 can take in EAW!

------------------
C/O, Jagdgeschwader 5 'Eismeer'

http://www.madasafish.com/jerry/jg5


Posts: 702 | From: Kingston-Upon-Thames, UK | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Paulo Morais
Member
Member # 2104

posted 02-10-2000 05:30 AM     Profile for Paulo Morais   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I have seen several issues raised in this thread related with armour and I will try to give an explanation for each one and possible ways to solve them.

1) Low damage from cannon fire.
After EAW 1.2 patch the damage done by bullets was very much increased. To much in my point of view. To get things more or less to the previous level it was required to increase all aircraft hit points by 50%. Anyway, now the damage difference from cannons and bullets is much more reduced and rate of fire is the ruler.
Solutions: a) Convince EAW Team to bring back the old damage model keeping the corrections to bullet flight path. b) Distort gun data values.
2) Armoured aircraft
The introduction of armour flags in EAW 1.1 solved the apparent problem of too weak bombers and some other types well known for their resistance to damage. But as far as I know from many offline tests it is modelled as a simple probability of each incurred hit not doing damage at all. This way you get the odd occasion of seeing several hits that don't produce any damage. This is not so bad because that can happen in life. Maybe not to the current extent, so the probability should be lower. Again the higher rate of fire of machine guns combined with increased damage gives an unfair advantage in comparison with heavy cannons.
Solution: a) Reduce hit points of aircraft with armour flags. b) Remove one level of armour flags.
3) Cannon shells airbursting
If one take a good look at the hit bubble definitions using Jeroen's Aircraft Editor you can notice that some of the hit bubbles can go true outside aircraft limits. That is the reason why you can make bomber engines smoke by shooting into the air near the tip of the wings.
Solution: Redefine hit bubbles locations and sizes.
4) Aircrafts not exploding
Due to the way hit bubbles are defined is difficult to get hits on the main structure. Almost all the damage is absorved by the wings and tails hit areas. On the other hand the hit points of engines and other vital aircrafts parts are much lower than the main airframe. That is the reason to get almost all the other types of aircraft kill first.
Solution: a) Reduce main airframe hit points. b) Increase central hit bubble size.
5) Vulnerability of tail section
In my opinion the situation modelled by EAW is the destruction/complete jamming of the movable parts as can be seen in many photographs of crashed aircraft, not the complete failure of the entire tail structure. This was a common cause of failure to return from a mission. Maybe too much common in EAW.
Solution: a) Reduce size of tail hit bubble b) Increase tail section hit points.

Reducing the tail hit bubble has an additional side effect of increasing the chances of hitting the main aircraft structure.

All of the above solutions are easy to implement using AircraftEdit. Its up to offline users to do this to their own taste and feeling for historical accuracy. For online is a much more difficult subject that will require a wide agreement between users.


Posts: 57 | From: Lisbon,Portugal | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Twitch
Member
Member # 75

posted 02-10-2000 11:32 AM     Profile for Twitch   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Tinku-
All I can say about proximity fuses is that this was a personal, face to face conversation with the person the actually fired a Mk 108 from dismounted from a 262. This was not some passage in a book or 2nd hand story. Is it possible that the 30mm rounds did not come from the evaluation aircraft? Yes, I suppose. It was a surprise to me too but plausable. The pilot was an ace and had personal experience watching rounds hitting targets so I know it was not mis-interpreted. It is a stange, unheard of thing but I have found that by talking to the pilots, German and American that the real details come out. Much of the stuff written in the past about aerial combat is embellished or supposed because the author didn't have all the sources he should have.
Where did the rest of you guys hears about 30mm proximity rounds?

Posts: 638 | From: L.A. CA U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
DanielH
Member
Member # 262

posted 02-10-2000 03:23 PM     Profile for DanielH   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hi

To the "special" armor of the "jug", no there was no special armor. Armorprotection was against standardrifle ammunition (7.5 mm).

On average 4 (FOUR) 30mm cannon-shell hits were needed to down a B-17 or 20 - 25 20mm's ! So you can imagine yourself how many are necessary for a P-47 !

To the Johnson story, it's one of pure luck ! There are equal stories for the FW190, where allied pilots spend all of their ammunition, but where unable to shoot them down, they were always rare exceptions.

I have the Luftwaffe shooting video, which was used for training (30 Min), when you saw that video you will know, why 20-25 20mm's downed a B-17 !

I've configured "MyEAW" accordingly, when i hit the motorsection of a fighter with a 20mm, then he will go down most often (The same of course for the other side). (I now have had some (rare) occasions, where ONE placed shot resulted in a kill)

Greets
Daniel


Posts: 29 | From: Zuerich | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nashwan
Member
Member # 91

posted 02-10-2000 03:55 PM     Profile for Nashwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
No idea about the 30mm cannon shells, but in the summer of 44 supplies of American made proximimty fuses arrived at British anti-aircraft batteries in time to fight V1s. AFAIK, they were used on all heavy AAA and 40mm Bofors guns.

Posts: 514 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
WOLF257
Member
Member # 410

posted 02-11-2000 12:30 AM     Profile for WOLF257   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I tried both of Paulo's suggestions,reduced the tail hit bubble size for all the planes by 50% and doubled the hit points for the tail.Flew a P-51D against Bf109G's fighter sweep.Only got one clear tail kill but I was so close he took almost the full burst.It looked like there was one that took some damage to the control surfaces,he started to get very sluggish...used this poor sap as a test subject.Fired several short bursts and got a stream of fuel,then knocked out his engine,I would assume it was the engine fire combined with the leaking fuel that caused him to exploded.I agree completely with Paulo that reducing the hit bubble size allowed for more realistic fusalage system damage.On the down side,usually a lot of the kills I get on fighter sweeps are tail kills but on the up side it sure did produce a more believable squadron kill total.Shot down 6 lost 2,I only got 3 because it took more ammo to shoot each plane down but i feel better about it because it forced me to make my shots count.Give it a try and let's get some feedback going.I don't jump to a different plane when I run out of ammo,I just try to get my wingie to keep them off my back long enough to get clear of the area.
WOLF

[This message has been edited by WOLF257 (edited 02-11-2000).]


Posts: 281 | From: Alabama,USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JG5_Jerry
Member
Member # 1076

posted 02-11-2000 02:03 AM     Profile for JG5_Jerry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I hope that if the EAW Workgroup project gets going that this is one of the areas that will be adressed.

------------------
C/O, Jagdgeschwader 5 'Eismeer'

http://www.madasafish.com/jerry/jg5


Posts: 702 | From: Kingston-Upon-Thames, UK | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Gen Savage
Member
Member # 585

posted 02-11-2000 08:28 AM     Profile for Gen Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I'm gonna have to do some aircraft editing, too. I ran a single mission over the (new!) desert last night in Jamie's new desert scheme BF 109F, and was able to down 2 B17's, but had an incredibly hard time downing one P-47C! I was right behind him and so close to him I could hear the strange buzzing sound of his engine. It was finally the nose cannon that brought him down, but bullets were quite useless. BTW, what's the deal with the buzzing sound of the P-47C engine? I've never heard it before, but it sure is a way to tell when one is near!
Posts: 1642 | From: Houston, Tx USA | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tinku
Member
Member # 1214

posted 02-11-2000 03:59 PM     Profile for Tinku   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Hi Twich,

you are right, hearing it from the horse’s mouth is probably more accurate than reading it somewhere.

But I’d be very surprised if as much research at has been done on WW2 aircraft armament would have failed to uncover that there actually were proximity fuzes for MK 108 / MK 103 cannons.

I can not imagine that with 40’s technology (before microcircuits) you could have packed all what is needed for a fuze to “sense” a neraby target and then explode.

Is there an expert out there that could settle this little issu? :-)


Tinku


Posts: 76 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Old Guy
Member
Member # 1606

posted 02-11-2000 04:53 PM     Profile for Old Guy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I'm certainly no expert, but in reading military history for the last 40+ years, I have come across two possible explanations. I stress "possible", becuase I have no idea if either were used in German 30mm ammo.
One is a simple fuse, generally ignited by the propellant charge and timed to allow the shell to travel a certain distance before exploding. This technology has been around since the smoothbore days and has been used in anti-aircraft guns down to at least 40mm and maybe smaller.
The other is an "influence" exploder. It has components which generate an ignition spark as the shell flies through an electro-magnetic field. This is also simple technology. But, again, I don't know if a WW2 aircraft would have had enough of an EM field to make it work.
I'm sure EAW is using a fairly simple model for hits, as set forth in an earlier post.
As tinku points out, a true proximity fuse required a much larger shell just to have enough room for the sensing equipment. If time fuses were used in 30mm German shells, that would explain the results observed by the WW2 veteran pilot.

Posts: 1769 | From: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nashwan
Member
Member # 91

posted 02-11-2000 06:57 PM     Profile for Nashwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
There were several types of proximity fuse.
In the late thirties both british and swedish engineers developed a light sensing proximity fuse, which went into service on British antiaircraft rockets in 1940.
British engineers developed a radar fuse in 1940, which was produced in
America. They were first used in combat in 1943, when USS helena shot down a Japanese aircraft. By the end of the war they were being used by artillery to provide airbursts. Bu the desdription of the circuitry involved, I think my earlier post about 40mm was wrong. It seems they were used only in larger shells.

Posts: 514 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JWC
Member
Member # 116

posted 02-11-2000 07:43 PM     Profile for JWC     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I haven't been able to track down the book where I read it (but I'm still looking...), nonetheless I remember reading about proximity fuses used in World War II somewhere. The book was making the point that the Germans never developed effective proximity fuses or at least never until very late in the war while the Allies DID come up with them much earlier. Apparently one of the big problems was developing a reliable antenna. Allied (or at least, British) scientists solved the problem in a unique and very simple manner: they simply employed the outer casing of the shell as an antenna! As far as putting a radar in the nose of the shell, that was actually pretty simple. All you needed was a small radio transmitter that would produce a wave just strong enough to reflect back to the shell when it hit something only a few feet away. That really didn't require much power or a transmitter of much size. The fusing detonated the warhead when the strength of the reflected radio pulse reached a certain intensity. The only question that I can't answer (at least not until I find that darn book!) is whether or not this technology was applied to small shells like 30mm or only used in larger ones.

[This message has been edited by JWC (edited 02-11-2000).]


Posts: 1633 | From: College Station, Texas, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Nashwan
Member
Member # 91

posted 02-11-2000 10:41 PM     Profile for Nashwan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
I've got a cut awy diagram of a proximity fuse here, and I'm pretty sure they couldn't get one into a 30mm shell. The diagram shows a 3.7inch AA shell and the fuse extends down into the body for half the length of the shell. The text says the fuses reduced the avaiable capacity for exsplosives, so the shell power was reduced. I don't see that a fuse for a 30mm would be much smaller than the fuse for a big shell, so I'd say they almost certainly didn't appear that small during the war. German airborne radar was not as advanced as the allied systems, either. Just look at the huge antennas on 110s and Ju88s, and compare them with the neat radomes Mosquitos used.

Posts: 514 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Der Fremd Fokker
Member
Member # 806

posted 02-12-2000 01:36 PM     Profile for Der Fremd Fokker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post
Paulo Morais,

This topic is currently under discussion at the ECA Online message board and the general consensus is that something along the lines of what you've described would be widely accepted.

You've obviously given this aspect of EAW a lot of thought. Perhaps you've already implemented these modifications on your own copy of the game? If so, would you be interested in submitting your data for beta testing in ECA Online v1.3b?



Posts: 107 | From: Perth, Western Australia | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved