PDA

View Full Version : Does the speed of the aircraft increase the hitting power of the bullets?

FlatSpinMan
07-13-2009, 09:56 AM
If I'm in a plane travelling at km h and fire a (supersonic) bullet, is that bullet going to travel any faster than if it was fired from a stationary gun? If it does, how would that effect the hitting power of the round?

Equations to a minimum, if you please.

SILVERFISH1992
07-13-2009, 09:59 AM
I was going to ask that same question yesterday,
I think the bullet will travel faster as you go faster.

SILVERFISH1992
07-13-2009, 10:02 AM
If the bullets traveling too fast then it will go strait through the target and do less damage then a slower bullet. I'm 95% positive this is true.

JtD
07-13-2009, 10:06 AM
Speed increases and hitting power goes up.

Friendly_flyer
07-13-2009, 10:10 AM
Speed is cumulative: A gun firing a bullet at at (let's say) 300 mph while travelling forward at 200, will give a muzzle velocity of 500 mph. This is why space ships will leavthe atmosphaere at an angle, to add the rotational speed of the Earth herself to its speed. During WWII, it was well known that guns "hit harder" in a head on, when the targets speed is added to the effective bullet speed.

This will hold true under most conditions. When you start approaching the speed of light the rules changes though.

FlatSpinMan
07-13-2009, 10:18 AM
Thanks guys. Thought it would, but wanted to check. IL2 seemed to show it as I could sometimes just nail a bandit at certain angles.

DKoor
07-13-2009, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
If I'm in a plane travelling at km h and fire a (supersonic) bullet, is that bullet going to travel any faster than if it was fired from a stationary gun? If it does, how would that effect the hitting power of the round?

Equations to a minimum, if you please. I think this is exactly the same thing as when you take off from a carrier that is sailing.
It is easier to take off and land if the carrier is moving; our aircraft adds carrier speed to its own.

Or... when you run thru the moving train (going in the train's direction)... train is traveling 100kph, your max speed is 30kph... therefore, your exit speed (the moment when you jump in front of train http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) should be 130kph; however that will last few moments and you will be squashed after you decelerate to speed below train's speed (he'll catch up with you).

Without the need to do further field tests, the effect comes quick and in quite radical manner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

DrHerb
07-13-2009, 12:03 PM
I read somewhere a jet fired its 20mm cannons while subsonic but managed to go supersonic and ran into its fired shells, not sure if it was true.

SILVERFISH1992
07-13-2009, 12:06 PM
Well I think the bullet reaches its Terminal Velocity. Thats why it dosnt go any faster.

Freiwillige
07-13-2009, 12:25 PM
Well the bullet slows down due to drag as it only has initial thrust and not sustained thrust. The Jet had sustained thrust so eventually over ran the 20mm round.

VF-17_Jolly
07-13-2009, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
I read somewhere a jet fired its 20mm cannons while subsonic but managed to go supersonic and ran into its fired shells, not sure if it was true.
I think this is an urban Legend to do with the F-104 Starfighter

deepo_HP
07-13-2009, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Speed is cumulative: A gun firing a bullet at at (let's say) 300 mph while travelling forward at 200, will give a muzzle velocity of 500 mph. true, speed accumulates, but a browning-bullet has a muzzle velocity of 870m/s, which makes 3.060km/h or 1.900mph

RPMcMurphy
07-13-2009, 12:56 PM
Sorry guys.
But, I have to.
OT from bullets:
If you are traveling in space and your vehicle is going the speed of light and you shoot a beam of light forward from your vehicle is that beam of light then going twice the speed of light?
I think the answer is no. Not sure. Einsteinish stuff here.

VF-17_Jolly
07-13-2009, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Sorry guys.
But, I have to.
OT from bullets:
If you are traveling in space and your vehicle is going the speed of light and you shoot a beam of light forward from your vehicle is that beam of light then going twice the speed of light?
I think the answer is no. Not sure. Einsteinish stuff here.

Quote

First of all, you need to realize that when you say you are traveling at the speed of light, that has to be with respect to, or relative to, something else. It is an underlying fundamental assumption of Einstein’s special theory of relativity that uniform, non-accelerated motion has no meaning of and by itself. That is, there is, by assumption, no meaning to the idea of moving uniformly at the speed of light in an empty universe. That state is completely equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe..

I preface my answer with this comment because it leads immediately to the answer to the question. Imagine that you are in your car ‘traveling at the speed of light’ and that you turn on your headlights. That state of motion is utterly equivalent to being at rest in an empty universe. Since, when at rest, the light from your headlights would be launched forward from your car at the speed of light, relative to you, with a certain color spectrum, that is exactly what would happen if somehow you could be moving instead at the speed of light.

In other words, the presence or absence of other objects or matter in the universe relative to which, if present, you could make a determination that you were moving at the speed of light makes absolutely no difference to your own experiences and experiments. The light that you launch behaves in exactly the same way whether the other referential matter exists or not.

This leads into another interesting question, however. And that is whether the rest of the matter (mass) in the universe in some way affects your own local observations. So far this question has come up in relation to theories of gravity. If effect, the question is how does the universal gravitational constant, G, which determines how strongly gravitating masses attract each other, know what value to assume if there is no other mass in the universe. Mach proposed, essentially on philosophical grounds, that G must be determined by the sum total of all of the mass in the universe. Einstein assumed in his General Theory of Relativity that G is simply a universal constant, independent of the specific mass distribution of the universe. On the other hand, Brans and ****e later proposed a so-called scalar-tensor theory of gravity in which the local value of G depends upon the rest of the mass in the universe through an additional scalar field that does not appear in Einstein’s theory.

Unquote

VF-17_Jolly
07-13-2009, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
I read somewhere a jet fired its 20mm cannons while subsonic but managed to go supersonic and ran into its fired shells, not sure if it was true.

I stand corrected http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/grumman_tiger-s.gif

A Tiger Bites Its Tail

On Sep 21, 1956 Grumman test pilot Tom Attridge shot himself down in a graphic demonstration of two objects occupying the wrong place at the same time—one being a Grumman F11F-1 Tiger [138260], the other a gaggle of its own bullets..

It happened on the second run of test-firing four 20mm cannon at Mach 1.0 speeds. At 20,000' Attridge entered a shallow dive of 20°, accelerating in afterburner, and at 13,000' pulled the trigger for a four-second burst, then another to empty the belts. During the firing run the F11F continued its descent, and upon arriving at 7,000', the armor-glass windshield was struck, but not penetrated, by an object..

Attridge throttled back to slow down and prevent cave-in of the windshield, flying back to Grumman's Long Island field at 230 mph. He radioed that a gash in the outboard side of the right engine's intake lip was the only apparent sign of damage other than for the glass, but that 78 percent was maximum available power without engine roughness occurring..

Two miles from base, at 1,200' with flaps and wheels down, it became evident from the sink rate that the runway could not be gained on 78 percent power. Attridge applied power and said "the engine sounded like it was tearing up." It then lost power completely. He pulled up the gear and settled into trees less than a mile short of the runway, traveling 300 feet and losing a right wing and stabilizer in the process. Fire broke out, but, despite injuries, Attridge managed to exit the plane and get away safely, to be picked up by Grumman's rescue helicopter.

Examination of the F11F established there were three hits—in the windshield, the right engine intake, and the nose cone. The engine's inlet guide vanes were struck, and a battered 20mm projectile was found in the first compressor stage..

How did this happen? The combination of conditions reponsible for the event was (1) the decay in projectile velocity and trajectory drop; (2) the approximate 0.5-G descent of the F11F, due in part to its nose pitching down from firing low-mounted guns; (3) alignment of the boresight line of 0° to the line of flight. With that 0.5-G dive, Attridge had flown below the trajectory of his bullets and, 11 seconds later, flew through them as their flight paths met..

DrHerb
07-13-2009, 01:08 PM

RPMcMurphy
07-13-2009, 01:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif What have I done??
Oh No. I'm okay. I'll just read it again, and then again. I should be abel to start grasping it.

JtD
07-13-2009, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Sorry guys.
But, I have to.
OT from bullets:
If you are traveling in space and your vehicle is going the speed of light and you shoot a beam of light forward from your vehicle is that beam of light then going twice the speed of light?
I think the answer is no. Not sure. Einsteinish stuff here.

If you're going the speed of light there is infinite time for you and no distance. So you can't see what becomes of whatever you shoot because v=s/t and that's 0.

That's simplified I guess but should be correct.

Friendly_flyer
07-14-2009, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Oh No. I'm okay. I'll just read it again, and then again. I should be abel to start grasping it.

Don't worry mate, there's a reason they offer university courses on relativity.

BillSwagger
07-14-2009, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Sorry guys.
But, I have to.
OT from bullets:
If you are traveling in space and your vehicle is going the speed of light and you shoot a beam of light forward from your vehicle is that beam of light then going twice the speed of light?
I think the answer is no. Not sure. Einsteinish stuff here.

If you're going the speed of light there is infinite time for you and no distance. So you can't see what becomes of whatever you shoot because v=s/t and that's 0.

That's simplified I guess but should be correct. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wouldn't you also shrink....i mean thats pretty fast, and there's all kinds of space/time stuff going on.

Einstein was one variable off from being called insane or genius...

mortoma
07-14-2009, 03:30 PM
But is this extra hitting power modeled in the game?

SILVERFISH1992
07-14-2009, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
But is this extra hitting power modeled in the game?

I think it is.

WTE_Galway
07-14-2009, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by SILVERFISH1992:
Well I think the bullet reaches its Terminal Velocity. Thats why it dosnt go any faster.

Terminal velocity occurs when the force/thrust from gravity is exactly counter by the drag on the object meaning a stable falling velocity is achieved.

In terms of the horizontal velocity of ballistic projectiles like bullets and shells terminal velocity is not relevant.

Remember velocity is a vector and terminal velocity only applies to the vertical component.

The maximum horizontal velocity achieved occurs if the projectile is fired horizontally and is roughly the muzzle velocity plus the horizontal velocity of the firing weapon which occurs very shortly after firing and the horizontal component of the projectiles velocity will gradually drop with time after that (as opposed to the vertical component which converges on the terminal velocity of the projectile).

Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif What have I done??
Oh No. I'm okay. I'll just read it again, and then again. I should be abel to start grasping it.

haha .. and then try and integrate relativity with quantum theory .. if you can achieve that you will have won a Nobel prize in physics ..

On the original topic ... yes they do add but as pointed out above forward speed of the aircraft is minimal compared to muzzle velocity so the difference rarely matters in practice.

jarink
07-14-2009, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
But is this extra hitting power modeled in the game?

I doubt it would be noticeable, especially for cannon rounds that rely more on their explosive content than inertia for doing damage.

You might think that it would make a great deal of difference for solid MG rounds, but I would think the additional velocity might actually make some of them more susceptible to breaking up when they hit something solid more than making them "harder hitting".

I guess the only way to be sure is to call the Mythbusters!

DKoor
07-14-2009, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Sorry guys.
But, I have to.
OT from bullets:
If you are traveling in space and your vehicle is going the speed of light and you shoot a beam of light forward from your vehicle is that beam of light then going twice the speed of light?
I think the answer is no. Not sure. Einsteinish stuff here.

If you're going the speed of light there is infinite time for you and no distance. So you can't see what becomes of whatever you shoot because v=s/t and that's 0.

That's simplified I guess but should be correct.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the issue isn't clear...

I've just read this, it seems quite interesting...

Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light.Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is supposed to be completely impossible.
But two German physicists now claim to have forced light to overcome its own speed limit using the strange phenomenon known as quantum tunnelling.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object through the light barrier.

Travelling faster than light also turns back time with bizarre consequences.

An astronaut moving beyond light speed would theoretically arrive at his destination before leaving.

The research, published in the new Scientist magazine, involved an experiment in which microwave photons, energetic packets of light, appeared to travel "instantaneously" between two prisms forming the halves of a cube placed a metre apart.

When the prisms were placed together, photons fired at one edge passed straight through them, as expected.

After they were moved apart, most of the photons reflected off the first prism they encountered and were picked up by a detector.

But a few photons appeared to "tunnel" through the gap separating them as if the prisms were still held together.

Although these photons had travelled a longer distance, they arrived at their detector at exactly the same time as the reflected photons.

In effect, they seemed to have travelled faster than light.

Quantum tunnelling is a well known phenomenon that occurs as a direct result of the strange uncertainty which pervades nature at very small scales.

It allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable barriers.

Tunnelling is also involved in radioactivity and nuclear fusion.

Without it, the Sun could not shine, and some scientists believe the universe itself only came into existence because of tunnelling.

If true, we will have one dogma less in this world.

And BTW yes... I am a believer that there are things faster than 299 792 458 m/s out there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Skoshi Tiger
07-14-2009, 07:37 PM
Wow! This explains why I do alot better when vulching! The damage of my rounds must be at least 22% more, as I scream down from the stratosphere at 700km/h and unleash my rain of firey death on my opponents as they try to start their engines!

In future I think I will use this mode of attack exclusively! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Choctaw111
07-14-2009, 11:05 PM
There was a thread similar to this asking if the bullets slowed down after being fired due to the wind resistance.
There definitely is after I pointed out how this could be checked in game.
I don't know if the bullet speed increases with the speed of the aircraft. It should, as well as reduce speed when gunner positions are firing backwards.

Waldo.Pepper
07-15-2009, 01:26 AM
You guye really need to learn to do a proper search. It would save you all a lot of trouble and keep the board from getting cluttered up with the same things over and over again.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...=200108045#200108045 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/614104045?r=200108045#200108045)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...641012447#4641012447 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6791060447?r=4641012447#4641012447)

Or you could RTFM page 15

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/Manual.jpg

Zeus-cat
07-15-2009, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by RPMcMurphy:
Sorry guys.
But, I have to.
OT from bullets:
If you are traveling in space and your vehicle is going the speed of light and you shoot a beam of light forward from your vehicle is that beam of light then going twice the speed of light?
I think the answer is no. Not sure. Einsteinish stuff here.

No. According to Einstein's theories nothing travels faster than the speed of light. This includes light itself. Einstein says you can't travel faster than light, or even at the same speed as light. So let's say you are travelling just slower than the speed of light (.99c) and shine a beam of light straight ahead. The light would appear to you to travel away from you at the speed of light. The light would appear to travel away from your ship at the speed of light by an outside observer too.

jayhall0315
07-15-2009, 08:14 PM
Ohh my goodness is this thread littered with kooky incorrect physics of every vein. The only thing missing is a detailed reasoning for how this ties into the latest perpetual motion machine blueprints from Raaaid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Choctaw111
07-15-2009, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Ohh my goodness is this thread littered with kooky incorrect physics of every vein. The only thing missing is a detailed reasoning for how this ties into the latest perpetual motion machine blueprints from Raaaid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hey, wait a minute. Doesn't that thing really work? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

M_Gunz
07-15-2009, 10:27 PM
IL2 bullets have mass and speed. The speed of the firing plane does add to the muzzle velocity. Each impact has the
relative speed between the bullet and target as well as the angle and location of the hit. 360kph = 100m/sec.
In a head-on battle it's going to make the biggest difference.

As to speed of light and headlights your speed must be relative to something else and if you don't understand the
changes in relative time and space then you won't understand that you'll never see yourself at the speed of light
relative to anything else... well you won't observe it happening because you can't.

In the late 80's there was a supernova that was detected 2 days before the light of the event got here through
massive surges of tachyons, particles that actually do travel faster than light. 99% or more of the supernova
blast went into those, the higher the energy of a tachyon, the slower it goes but always faster than light.
OTOH you can say they travel backwards in time.

No matter how fast you are moving, if your motion is unaccelerated the light will appear to move at light speed
to your own instruments. Clocks will appear to tick at the regular speed and a meter will measure a meter long.

As to acceleration, measured with the best atomic clocks time is actually slower at the equator than at the poles.
It's slower at the bottom of a skyscraper than at the top due to gravitational differences. Time inside glass or
water or stone, due to being inside dense material... just guess, I don't have numbers but glass does refract light.

jayhall0315
07-16-2009, 12:35 AM
99% of more of the supernova blast went into Tachyons ? .................... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

It was detected two days before the light got here ? ............................... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

WTF are you talking about. You have either joined Raaaid in limbo land or your Nobel prize is being mailed to you for just overturning everything that is know about high energy physics. This is so made up as to be worse than Inquirer magazine. Please dont confuse younger people who may be reading this and think there is some truth here.

jamesblonde1979
07-16-2009, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Speed is cumulative: A gun firing a bullet at at (let's say) 300 mph while travelling forward at 200, will give a muzzle velocity of 500 mph.

It will give an INITIAL mv that is higher, you need to understand that the air pressure acting on this projectile is higher and thus it decellerates quicker. In practical terms the difference is negligeble, what matters is the vector of your target.

stiboo2
07-16-2009, 03:49 AM
Some great info coming out guys, as most of these are off topic, I might as well join in -

as one of the posts said, speed is judged against a fixed point here on earth, but in space that doesn't exist, so a bit like Burt Rutan's space ship combo, if we had lots of space ships joined together and once the first one reaches full speed then launches the next one and so on and so on would each stage go faster? and how fast could you go?

Back on topic - how many WW2 pilots also got blown up by their own bombs after they had dropped them!

Did and pilot drop a bomb in a dive and then catch it up or get hit by it going down?

----------------------------------------------
"I cannot say that I do not disagree with you”
- Groucho Marx

M_Gunz
07-16-2009, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
99% of more of the supernova blast went into Tachyons ? .................... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

It was detected two days before the light got here ? ............................... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Sorry there, more like 2 hours.

I could ask you the same, LOOOOOL Bozo, and I'd put a question mark at the end.
OTOH you could present information that says different.

You have either joined Raaaid in limbo land or your Nobel prize is being mailed to you for just overturning everything that is know about high energy physics. This is so made up as to be worse than Inquirer magazine. Please dont confuse younger people who may be reading this and think there is some truth here.

While you're at it, learn how CSP props work.

jayhall0315
07-16-2009, 08:52 AM
I believe you are talking about neutrinos Gunz (there is no way to detect Tachyons and their existence is highly debated) and these always travel slower than light (they have miniscule but non-zero mass). If you do a careful reading of Supernova 1987a, you will see that no where are faster than light Tachyons mentioned. Neutrinos on the other hand were part of my research before, so I have a bit of familiarity with them.

Constant speed props were not important to the overall article and so they were omitted on purpose.

M_Gunz
07-16-2009, 09:30 AM
There being no tachyon neutrinos has not been proven and is not the overwhelming stance in physics.
168,000 light years distant from an object moving away from us at great speed, the neutrinos got here first.
Some say that the neutrinos had a head start on the photons of some 2-3 hours, which they didn't lose much
of or gain much on depending on your view during a 168,000 LY journey.

LOL yourself, it's going to be longer yet before the book on neutrinos is closed, unlike many Theories.

As to differences in prop controls in IL2 and how to use them not being important, try to work one as if it
is another and see what results you get. Most of the IL2 props by far are CSP. Matching revs to power and
speed is what you need to do but how you do it varies with the prop system. What works for CSP in manual
will break the engine in a 109 in manual as well as IIRC 3 other planes that use the same system.

If your point was that players should realize that prop control is important then fine but your directions
for the use of that in IL2 leaves out more than it contains. Your condescending remark about well-meaning
people who don't know what they're about applies to yourself as much as anyone.

Ya want an LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL? Yeah, go for it.

jayhall0315
07-16-2009, 03:44 PM
"There being no tachyon neutrinos has not been proven and is not the overwhelming stance in physics ........."

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Same as saying "there being no pink flying elephants has not been proven and is the overwhelming stance in physics. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Tachyon neutrinos..... come on man. No respected physicist or engineer would ever speak those two words side by side. With Raaaid, who might really suffer from developmental problems, I can turn a blind eye... but this is just crap popping out of your a\$\$ now. And your comments on CSP, ...nothing wrong with them.... just ancillary to the main points.

M_Gunz
07-16-2009, 04:49 PM
Like how to use them properly.

Lurch1962
08-01-2009, 09:45 PM
Regarding the earlier arrival of neutrinos during the supernova event of 1987... The neutrinos generated in the core of the exploding star could escape faster because their vanishingly small mass allowed them to pass through the star at light speed immediately. The visible photons we saw a little later were emitted from the *outer* layers of the star *after* the expanding, sub-light-speed shock had traveled outward from the core.

And now, back on topic...

Whether IL2 accounts for differential velocities of bullets when computing damage, I sure would like to know myself! If not, it should.

Momentum scales as the square of the velocity. Double the speed and the hitting power is four times greater (assuming the full projectile is stopped within the target and does not pass through). So it's easy to see that two planes going head to head at high speed will have a not inconsiderable closing speed that adds to muzzle velocity. And the converse applies when a rear gunner fires at a rapidly retreating plane that just completed a head-on pass.

Moreover, the effective fate of fire scales with the change in apparent velocity resulting from closure rates. Head to head shots will result in an increase in the rate of rounds striking home.

M_Gunz
08-01-2009, 11:43 PM
Momentum is mass times velocity while kinetic energy is half the mass times velocity squared.

My understanding of neutrinos comes from 1989 which has since obviously changed while my understanding of the
laws of motion and more ordinary forms of energy comes from since any major changes have been made.

Really, twice the speed equals twice the momentum not four times.

julian265
08-02-2009, 01:54 AM
Twice speed is four times ENERGY, twice speed is two times momentum.

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Lurch1962:
Moreover, the effective fate of fire scales with the change in apparent velocity resulting from closure rates. Head to head shots will result in an increase in the rate of rounds striking home.

Doppler!

BillSwagger
08-02-2009, 03:23 AM
i saw an old popular mechanics magazine and they were describing the effectiveness of certain calibers.

The magazine was dated Jan 1944.
Anyway, they were describing the effectiveness of the 50 cal, and how at 2700ft per second the round would only dent an armor plate, but at 3000 ft/s it would puncture it.

Definitely, a sign of the times.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r201/spre77/books_002.jpg

i thought this was funny. Not sure you would see this in our era.

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 05:55 AM
How thick was the plate and what angle did the bullet hit? Hint: they won't go through the roof of a Tiger tank
or even bounce off road and go through the floor no matter what read.

BillSwagger
08-02-2009, 08:45 AM
yeah. it didnt say so i was thinking it was a standard 6mm plate from 0 degrees.

it was just point of fact that a plane's speed can make a difference on the impact of the bullet.

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 11:47 AM
360 kph is 100 m/s. A bullet will lose that from muzzle velocity in a small fraction of a second.
Still, the bullet that starts faster stays faster at all ranges (not stopped) given all the same
type bullets fired. It just won't maintain that at-muzzle difference all the way down range.
I know this from ballistics tables where some loads had more powder and essentially the same bullet,
love the old Gun Digests!

BTW: Bullet velocities at any range have been knowable to high accuracy for over 200 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_pendulum)
And they didn't need any fancy cameras or electronics!